Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1966

Vol. 61 No. 17

Funds of Suitors Bill, 1966: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. B. Lenihan)

The purpose of this Bill is to enable a sum not exceeding £450,000 to be withdrawn from the funds of suitors and applied towards the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House.

The funds of suitors are the cash and securities belonging to suitors and other persons which have been transferred to or paid into or deposited in the High Court. In the ordinary way, they may be used only for the benefit of those entitled. The funds are under the control of the High Court, and, subject to that control, are managed by, and stand in the name of, the Accountant of the Courts of Justice.

The total liability of the accountant in respect of funds of suitors on the 30th April, 1966, was £17,640,000. Assets held by the accountant—mainly securities—amounted to £16,812,000. The difference between the amount of the liabilities and the amount of the assets on hands—£828,000—represents the aggregate of the moneys which have been withdrawn from the funds of suitors over the past 200 years under the authority of various Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Oireachtas. All these Acts indemnified suitors for any loss which they might sustain by reason of the withdrawals, and these indemnities are backed by the Central Fund. Thus, a portion of the funds of suitors amounting to £828,000 is represented not by cash or securities held by the Accountant but simply by the liability of the Central Fund to indemnify the suitors against loss.

The money to be withdrawn under the present Bill will be taken from the sizeable cash balance which is maintained by the accountant in a current account in the Bank of Ireland. This cash balance amounts at the present time to £860,000 and is constantly growing. Apart altogether from the fact that, as under previous Acts, suitors will enjoy a complete indemnity against loss, I am fully satisfied that the sum of £450,000 may safely be withdrawn from this cash balance.

Part of the funds of suitors has already been applied to meeting the cost of rebuilding the Abbey Theatre and the Cork Opera House. Under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, £250,000 was allocated for the Abbey, and under the last Act, passed in 1963, £50,000 was advanced for the Opera House. Estimates of cost for the two projects, furnished when these Acts were being prepared, indicated that the amounts in question would be sufficient to enable the projects to be completed. However, events proved otherwise, making necessary the further payments provided for in this Bill.

In the case of the Abbey, the estimated cost of rebuilding was put at £235,000 in 1959, with a further £20,000 for professional fees and an unspecified sum for furniture other than seating. It was accordingly considered that an allocation of £250,000 from the funds of suitors would suffice for the purpose. However, rising costs since 1959 have rendered that estimate obsolete. The successful tender, accepted in June, 1962, was for £310,000 for the Abbey and the "shell" of the Peacock Theatre, with an additional £34,000 for fees. The cost of the work is now put at £555,200, to which must be added £95,000 for the Peacock. These sums include professional fees; and the figure for the Peacock covers the full equipment of this theatre. This gives a total cost of £650,000, leaving a gap of £400,000 over and above what has already been made available. Allowing a small margin for contingencies, section 2 (3) of the Bill provides for further withdrawal from the funds of suitors of not more than £415,000 for this purpose.

The increases in the cost of the Abbey and Peacock Theatres, though substantial, are inescapable. They are due to increases in the cost of wages and materials, the effects of the building strike of 1964, changes in plans involving the installation of additional stage equipment, extra dressingroom accommodation and an increase in the height of the stage tower, special reinforcement work on the basement and additional work on adjoining property.

The Abbey authorities have no funds which might be used to meet the increased costs. The sum of £30,000 received in insurance following the fire which destroyed the old Abbey has long since been eaten up by current deficits. The directors of the Abbey are, however, prepared to arrange a public appeal for funds to help meet the cost of the Peacock Theatre. Section 2 (4) of the Bill provides that any sums raised in this way by the Abbey authorities will be paid into the Capital Fund, while section 2 (5) provides that the Minister for Finance shall repay to the funds of suitors any sums paid to the Capital Fund which are not required for the purposes of the section.

The £250,000 made available under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, had been spent by July, 1965, and as any further withdrawal from the funds would involve fresh legislation, it was decided that a Supplementary Estimate should be taken on the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses to ensure that the work in progress might continue. On the 21st July, 1965, the Dáil agreed to a Supplementary Estimate on this Vote in which a sum of £255,010 was included for this purpose. Approximately £185,000 has been issued to the Abbey from this provision. The Bill provides in section 2 (3) that this money will be refunded to the Exchequer. The rest of the money allocated under the Bill will be available to meet the balance of the cost of the project.

In the case of the Cork Opera House, the estimated cost of rebuilding was put at £200,000 in 1963, and it was on the basis of this estimate that the Funds of Suitors Act, 1963, provided for the allocation of a sum of £50,000 to supplement the moneys which had been raised from other sources for the project. As in the case of the Abbey, increases in costs occurred and the final cost of completion amounted to approximately £235,000. This left the Opera House Company to find a sum of £35,000. The directors were compelled to approach the Government for further aid. They felt there was little hope that a further appeal to the public would raise any significant sum, as £82,000 had already been subscribed from private sources. Again, as in the case of the Abbey, a further withdrawal from the funds of suitors would involve fresh legislation. Consequently, as the project was then nearing completion— the new Opera House was, in fact, opened on 31st October, 1965—and final bills were expected shortly, it was decided to take a Supplementary Estimate on the Vote for Miscellaneous Expenses. This was approved by the Dáil on 28th October, 1965, on the understanding that legislation to authorise a further withdrawal from the funds of suitors would be introduced and that any payment from the Vote would be recouped. In fact, a total of £11,514 was issued under this provision and this amount will be refunded to the Exchequer.

The rebuilding of the Abbey Theatre and the rebuilding of the Opera House are enterprises of national concern. It has been recognised that projects of this nature cannot in modern conditions be undertaken successfully without the patronage of the wealthy or of the State or local authorities. There is no doubt that this is a most desirable form of public investment since it will provide suitable entertainment and culture for our own people, provide employment for native artists and, at the same time, constitute an attraction for tourists. The material needs of our citizens have been provided for increasingly in recent years and it is only right that the State should also help in the provision of these centres of entertainment in our two main cities.

Before I conclude I want to mention that, since the text of the Bill was circulated, I have received an application from the Society of King's Inns to have provision made in the Bill for the payment out of the funds of suitors of a sum of £50,000 to cover expenditure which has been incurred on renovation of the Society's buildings. Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Andrews spoke in support of the Society's application when the Bill was before the Dáil. The position is that, under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1959, the Society was given £45,000 for building renovation, but the Benchers—that is to say, the controlling body of the Society—now claim that, because of a further outbreak of dry rot in the main building and increased building costs, the £45,000 has not proved sufficient. They say that actual expenditure amounted to £94,000 and that the Society has had to sell a large portion of its capital endowments to complete the financing of the work. It is to recoup these capital funds that the sum of £50,000 is now required from the funds of suitors. The Benchers say that, if their capital funds are not made good, they will be unable to carry out the educational and other functions of the Society and to maintain the Society's buildings.

I have not had anything like sufficient time to consider the Benchers' application in the detail required. A request to allocate a sum of £50,000 to the King's Inns is not one that can lightly be agreed. A number of aspects must be considered. For one thing, the future educational activities of the Society may be affected very considerably by the forthcoming recommendations of the Commission on Higher Education. Then again, if we are to provide more assistance from the funds of suitors for the preservation of the King's Inns buildings, we will have to look into the question of the future of the King's Inns Library, which is not frequented to any appreciable extent by the public or by practitioners. Moreover, there are in the Library many valuable works which could more appropriately be housed in the National Library. All these are matters which will have to be examined in some depth before it will be possible for the Government to make any decision in regard to the Society's application. The application is, therefore, not one that can be dealt with in the present Bill.

Professor Stanford

In general principle, I heartily support the Bill because it provides support from public funds for two of our greatest national artistic gifts, our talent for music and our talent for drama. I imagine, most, possibly all, will support the Bill in general principle. But as public representatives we have a duty to ensure that as far as possible such money is well invested. I quote from the Minister's opening remarks—I only wish the Abbey productions were as brisk as his delivery was—

There is no doubt that this is a most deserving form of public investment since it will provide suitable entertainment for our own people, provide employment for native artists and at the same time constitute an attraction for tourists.

Admirable sentiments. But I have recently consulted some of our citizens who are experts in theatrical affairs and others in the country who support the drama intelligently, and I have found that there is a general conviction that the present policy of the Abbey Theatre is unworthy of the Abbey's own high traditions and unworthy of its title as our National Theatre.

Visitors from abroad—the Minister referred specifically to them—I find are frequently disappointed at the general level of production there. Let me emphasise that this is not the fault of the actors. By common consent they are good and some of them are excellent. Nor is it the fault of the producers. Some recent productions have been remarkably good considering the very difficult conditions in the Queen's Theatre. What is at fault, and very gravely so, is the general policy of the Theatre—the choice of plays, the allocation of funds. These are very widely criticised, justly so in my opinion.

Drastic changes are needed if the State is to show a satisfactory return for this very large sum. Am I right in thinking that something like £1 million will have gone into the Abbey if we include the annual grants and if this Bill passes? The Minister has said how carefully he must consider the allocation of £50,000. What about the allocation of three-quarters of a million or half a million? Last year the Government very rightly made an effort to improve matters. New shareholders were appointed. Most of them, if not all of them, were generally eager to revive the former glories of the Abbey. Many of them were experts in drama. Now this effort seems to have failed. Recently an artistic director whose appointment offered a great hope of improvement resigned. Why?

Some of the new shareholders have told me personally that they see little hope of real improvement until the present system of management has been changed. It also seems to be a general belief, which I personally share, that such reforms must include the retirement of the present managing director, now more than 77 years of age.

Mr. Rooney

That is not old.

Professor Stanford

He has controlled the destinies of the Abbey Theatre with declining success for many years. The simple fact of the matter is, I regret to have to say, that this beautiful new theatre which we are providing will not perform its function, will not repay our investment, until there is a drastic change in this way. It is a matter of public policy. We cannot, and neither should the Minister, condone a state of affairs in which so large a sum from public funds will be prevented from being fully productive perhaps for several more years.

In my opinion, then, the House should not consent to the allocation of this money until we have had a clear assurance from the responsible Minister that the necessary reforms will be quickly made. We ought to be told just how the finances of the theatre are administered and controlled at the moment—to what extent is it still a private concern as it was until recently, and to what extent is it a public body. The Minister would help greatly to clarify matters if he would answer a few questions, if not at this stage at a later stage, on similar topics to these. I should like to ask him four questions.

First, how exactly are the present finances of the Abbey Theatre controlled and administered? Secondly, what are the terms of appointment of the present managing director and, in particular, is there a retiring age? Thirdly, is the Minister satisfied personally with the present direction of the theatre, both in its personnel and in its work? My impression is that the present compromise is unwieldy and ineffective. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on that. Fourthly, does the Minister not think some such system of management as holds in the National Gallery and National Library would be much preferable to the present system?

My hope is that when the Minister has reconsidered these questions and others which may incidentally arise he will amend the Bill to make sure that this money to be granted to the Abbey will be well invested. At any rate, I hope he will promise firmly that he will take early action to ensure the necessary reforms. I cannot emphasise too strongly—the Minister does not seem to have the slightest interest in what I am saying, but I shall continue for the benefit of the House—that the theatrical world both in this country and outside it deplore the lack of vision and the lack of enterprise in the direction of the Abbey during recent years.

A beautiful theatre and great national asset, risks being wasted. Let me say once again that the dissatisfaction is not with the actors or with the producers. They have been doing good work in very difficult conditions. The new theatre will relieve some of those difficulties. But even the finest theatre in Ireland, which I believe the new Abbey will be, will not enable enthusiastic artists to do their best work unless those who decide major policies are progressive and imaginative. I urge the Minister with all the force I can command to lead the way to the necessary administrative reform by persuasion or by legislation. I urge him to do this not next year or next month but here and now before the Bill passes. May I add the personal conviction that he has the integrity and public spirit, if he is convinced it is the right thing to do, to do it immediately?

Mr. E. Ryan

I had intended asking the Minister on this Bill if it would be possible for him to provide some funds for the King's Inns Library but he has dealt with that in his opening speech in a way which makes it quite clear it is not possible on this occasion because he has not had sufficient time or been given sufficient notice of the requirement. However, it is a worthy object which deserves further consideration and I hope the Minister will find it possible, if not under this Bill under some similar measure in the future, to provide some funds for that purpose.

I welcome the Bill. I think it is an unusual type of Bill in the sense that, unlike most legislative proposals where one section of the community is going to benefit but another section is going to have to find the money to pay for it, this is rather a happy arrangement in so far as it seems that two very worthy objects are going to benefit and nobody seems to be going to pay for it, because these funds are lying there unused and the owners cannot be traced, and to that extent at any rate nobody is providing the money and nobody is going to be at the loss of it.

I am very glad, indeed, to see that the Abbey Theatre and Cork Opera House are going to continue, and I hope that these funds that they are now receiving will in fact be the final amounts that they require to bring the premises to completion. That is certainly so in regard to Cork Opera House and I hope it will also be so in regard to the Abbey.

The Abbey Theatre with these new premises will have an opportunity of becoming again a theatre with an international reputation. They have no excuse now, as they certainly bad in the past, particularly in recent years, in regard to the premises in which they were operating. I do not think that the board of directors of the Abbey should try to recreate the past glories, try to get back to anything they did in the past, because this, of course, would be a complete mistake. It must be remembered that the original Abbey became famous because they were putting on a new type of play and because at that time in the Abbey there was a new kind of acting. This was something different. It was a welcome change from the rather artificial and over-sophisticated acting and theatre generally of that time. It was because there was something new about it, and different, that they made their name. It will be necessary for them to do the same again if they are to bring the Abbey back to the reputation it had before.

Of course, it must be recognised that apart from the fact that they did something different and new they did have in the early days both directors and players who had a sense of dedication and an inspiration which enabled them to overcome the rather mundane considerations which tend to bring down drama and theatrical productions to a low standard. This is a tendency which exists everywhere, and it always needs somebody with dedication and imagination to overcome this. I hope that the Abbey will succeed in doing this.

I hope that in making what they must realise is a new start they will begin by recognising that their performance during the past 15 or 20 years leaves much to be desired. I agree to a very considerable extent with what Senator Stanford has said, that the Abbey has been far from satisfactory in recent years. While saying that, it must be recognised also that, like Punch, the Abbey is not what it was but it never can be what it was. No matter how it does in the future I am sure you will have people saying that it has fallen from the glories of the past, that it is not the same as it was before, and that it is just falling away and losing its standards. However, I think that the board at present, or whatever board of directors it may have in the immediate future, will have to start by recognising that there has been widespread dissatisfaction with the productions, and that from the international point of view it now does not have the name it had in the past. This is something which is slowly evaporating. The position can be rectified, but it is certain that something will have to be done very soon. There will have to be a new approach, and there will have to be great courage shown, and imagination, and the Abbey will have to introduce a positive policy for the future.

Policy is a matter for the directors to decide on—exactly what kind of plays they are going to put on, exactly what kind of production and what exactly from the artistic point of view they are going to concentrate on. But there must be a definite policy, and one of the weaknesses, one of the causes of the unsatisfactory position that has existed there in recent years, was the fact that there appeared to be no policy. It was just a matter of haphazard picking of a play out of the hat this week and putting on another play the following week, with no real defined policy or long-term plan. It is essential that this should be changed.

The Government has powers, naturally, when it is providing a great deal of money for the Abbey, to ensure that the best possible use is made of this money, but whereas the Government should be extremely slow and reluctant to interfere in a body of this kind, to appear to interfere in any way with artistic decisions, nevertheless I think that the Government will have to avail of its powers in the near future if there is not a clear indication that the board recognises its responsibilities and if it appears that the board is not rising to the occasion which is now presented to it.

Having said that, I take this opportunity of wishing every success to the Abbey on the return to Abbey Street, and I hope that in the future visitors from abroad who come to the Abbey, having heard of its reputation, will feel that that reputation is justified.

Before finishing I should like to suggest to the Minister that this principle of using neglected money or unused money, unused goods, is one which might usefully be extended. I visited a distillery recently and found one entire huge floor upon which there were hundreds and hundreds of hogsheads or whatever you call them full of whiskey, the owners of which were unknown, and the owners of the distillery said that they could not do anything with them since they did not know the owners and were unable to dispose of them, and the contents were gradually turning back into water again.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Shame.

Mr. E. Ryan

I might suggest to the Minister that he would consider the introduction of a Bill to authorise the distribution of this to suitable and deserving people, and if he is prepared to do so I would be very glad to draw up a list for him.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Put me first.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I cannot hope to offer such an original and popular idea to the House as that which Senator Ryan has just offered to it. I should like to say that we have been listening to the excellent contributions of Senator Stanford and Senator Ryan on the Abbey and that I do not feel competent to follow upon what they said or to support or reject their diagnosis, although, like everybody else, I share in the concern that the Abbey is not the centre of dramatic activity in Dublin which one has a right to expect that it should be. It does not seem to attract or be the place that young directors and producers would wish to come to produce plays. It does not seem to draw on the fund of increasing talent that is available. It does not seem to use the fund to the full. It is likely that there is something unsatisfactory here which should be tackled. The reasons for it are beyond me to diagnose.

I was perturbed to note the escalation—that is the only word one can use —in the cost of the building of the Cork Opera House and the Abbey Theatre. The increase in the case of the Cork Opera House seems reasonable enough due to rising costs. The increase here is about 2½ per cent and seems reasonable enough. Frankly, the increase in the case of the Abbey Theatre is a little difficult to follow. It seems that the estimate of the cost originally turned out to be so far below the actual cost quoted in the tender that it involved an increase of 35 per cent on the estimate. It seems a very bad estimate if the tender was 35 per cent below the actual cost, to begin with, when on top of that the cost if virtually doubled. This becomes very difficult to swallow.

There are references to the increased cost of materials and the building strike in 1964. That would hardly account for more than 10 per cent or 15 per cent. That is the very height of it but for the rest of it it seems there was a failure in planning. The changes in the plans involved the installation of additional stage equipment, extra dressingroom accommodation, an increase in the height of the stage tower, special reinforcement work on the basement and additional work on adjoining property. That does not say very much for those who were responsible for planning this building. It is something we should all be concerned about when initial plans turn out to be so wide of the mark and expenditure cannot be controlled within reasonable limits as was done in the case of the Cork Opera House. We must express some concern when the final cost of the Abbey Theatre is increased over two and a half times the original estimate. This is something we cannot be happy about.

The other point I want to make on the Bill relates to what the Minister said with regard to the application from the Society of King's Inns. It seems that this application was received too late to do anything about it in this Bill. The only thing we can reasonably ask the Minister at this stage is to see if he can make some provision for it in the future. I am really concerned with some remarks by the Minister. He said :

A number of aspects must be considered. For one thing, the future educational activities of the Society may be affected very considerably by the forthcoming recommendations of the Commission on Higher Education.

This is no doubt true but no matter what the outcome of the report of the commission is and no matter what our educational activities are I hope that no change will be made at the risk of not preserving a building which is very worthy of preservation. It does not matter what is done inside the building. Whatever the activities may be the building must be preserved. The cost of the preservation of such a building must be provided from some source. I am a little perturbed about the suggestion that there might be a change in the future educational activities of the Society and that because of that the building might not be preserved. There is no question but that the building must be preserved. We must draw a line at the demolition of valuable buildings in this city.

The preservation of the library is what really concerns me here. The Minister said in his statement that the library is not frequented to any appreciable extent by the public or by practitioners. I consider that the library facilities should be readily available and if the public were not allowed in I am sure that a request from the Government would ensure that anybody who wished could obtain the facilities of the library. We are told here in the Minister's statement:

Moreover, there are in the Library many valuable works which could more appropriately be housed in the National Library.

One sees here the covetous eyes of the Government being cast over the work in that library. It is no good reason to say that because the number of visitors to that library is not great that we should rationalise it.

I have often wondered why something has not been done to rationalise our existing libraries. We have the Trinity Library and the National Library very close together but instead of integrating them we are contemplating moving the National Library out of the centre of town. The rationalisation of libraries is something we should consider seriously but in this case it can be carried too far. We have in this city several very ancient libraries. They are very unique and should be maintained. The additional cost of maintaining them is not very great. We certainly should not rationalise them in this way.

When I speak of those ancient libraries I refer particularly to the King's Inns Library and March's Library. The collection in March's Library is not very much use. The books there are not in continuous demand. Nevertheless, it is a library which has existed for three centuries. There is a valuable collection there. It is a unique building. Even if it is only a library which is used on occasions by some students it should be preserved. I do not believe if you took away all the books in Marsh's Library it would affect the issue very much. The books there are used only by a few scholars. The effect of rationalisation here would be to get rid of this ancient institution as a place of interest in the city and as part of our past heritage.

The same applies to the King's Inns Library. This is a unique library. There is an ancient part of our tradition here. It would be a pity if those ancient libraries were done away with and the books transferred to the National Library. The National Library is not in a position to house extra books until it gets more suitable premises. I hope the Minister will not think of transferring the books from the King's Inns Library. Perhaps he will give us some assurance, when replying, that he will give further consideration to this. I should not like to see that library close down.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

As usual, from the last Senator we have had an actuarial inquiry and a discussion which was outside the subject matter of the Bill before us.

Mr. Rooney

It is in the Minister's statement.

Acting Chairman

It is in order.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I spoke of nothing that was not in the Minister's statement.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The Senator spoke not on the Abbey Theatre but on other things and he made an actuarial inquiry into the amount of money spent. I wish to speak from a different angle. As a youngster, I frequented the Abbey Theatre. I considered it the only theatre in Dublin worth frequenting. I sat in the back seat in the parterre at a cost of sixpence. I shall carry to the grave recollections of that period and the plays which were performed.

The burning of the original Abbey and its transfer to the Queen's Theatre is the main difficulty as far as the public, artists and producers are concerned until the day on which we move to the new Abbey Theatre. The whole set-up of the Queen's, and the pollution of the atmosphere there when there is a crowd, is unsatisfactory and the accommodation for refreshments anything but adequate; but what I wish especially to refer to is the seating accommodation. There is no accommodation for Americans, Japanese or anyone else.

Mr. Rooney

Or an Irishman.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The popularity of the Abbey declined during its transition period in the Queen's Theatre. I saw most of the old Abbey Theatre actors. I saw there the plays of Senator Yeats, the present Senator Yeats's father, who was a Member of this House in the early days of this State; I saw Shaw's plays and others, and I thought the actors of those times were magnificent. I want to emphasise that the Abbey players of the present day are equal to any of the Abbey players of older days The bilingualism, especially in the Christmas pantomimes, and their adaptability to Irish language productions is possibly due to the person to whom Senator Stanford seems to object. I do not know who the person to whom he objects is. He is possibly the person to whom I referred as a competent Irish speaker and I believe maintenance of the Irish-speaking atmosphere of the Abbey Theatre is due to him no matter what other criticism there may be of him.

I am glad that the money comes from a source other than the poor, unfortunate taxpayers or ratepayers, and that it is being utilised to reorganise the national theatre.

There was, of course, a great difference between the Abbey Theatre at that time and the music halls. I did not often frequent the music halls. I frequented the Abbey when I had my tanner to go there. Something similar to what was in the general theatres then is to be heard on Radio Éireann now. "The Old Town Hall Tonight" radio programme reminds me of what I used to hear in the old theatres. It reminds me of what was done in some theatres when the Abbey Theatre was in its glory.

During the past week we have been discussing State and semi-State bodies and I wonder what the Abbey Theatre will be classified as. It will not, I hope, be classified as a State or semi-State institution but I hope it will have some autonomy of its own and that it will restore some of the popularity of the old Abbey Theatre.

Criticism in recent years of the Abbey Theatre had to do mainly with the site of the theatre and the problems which actors, producers and, possibly, playwrights had to put up with and the conditions under which the plays had to be produced. In the new Abbey Theatre I hope that the facilities will be such as to make the production of plays and general presentation easier.

The Abbey players of today are as good by national or international standards as were the old players about whom we used to speak in glowing terms.

Let me finish on this note. One of the plays in the old days was called. I think, "The Prodigal Son" which would have impressed any young fellow of the time and which would impress anybody today when we see what criticism there is of the language and things national and local. The play finished with the Prodigal Son saying to people, members of the household and others: "You are all a pack of hypocrites, the whole damn lot of you and so is everybody." I think we are inclined to be hypocritical in public and private matters. I hope the same will not be said of us in the future as was said in the epilogue to the play. I hope we will not be too hypocritical in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Rooney

The first sentence in the Minister's statement says that the purpose of the Bill is to enable a sum not exceeding £450,000 to be withdrawn from the funds of suitors. In fact, the purpose of the Bill is to legalise a raid on the funds of suitors. It is intended to take £450,000 out of these funds for the purposes of meeting the cost of building these two theatres. The estimate is much greater than the original one.

What are the funds of suitors? There are funds lying in court which can be claimed by those entitled to them. They also include statutory deposits from insurance companies and banks, trade unions, auctioneering establishments, house agencies, wards of court and other contributions. Those are the contributions which make up this fund and the purpose of the Bill is to take £450,000 out of these funds and put the Exchequer into debt to that extent.

When the Minister was giving figures he told us, first of all, that the total amount concerned was £17,640,000 and that the assets held by the accountant, mainly securities, amounted to only £16,812,000. In other words these funds are short to the extent of £828,000. The proposal is to increase that liability by a further £450,000. In other words, when this Bill is passed we will then owe these funds of suitors approximately £1,278,000 instead of £828,000 as at the present time. It was mentioned that these are dormant funds but what annoys me is the suggestion that, in fact, there is a deficit. There is a liability there which has not been repaid and apparently it is proposed now to increase the liability of that fund. The question arises as to how far will this liability be increased. Is there another project at a future date which the Government will use for the purpose of increasing the liability still further? Of course, the reason this money is being taken out at this stage is that the Government have not got other liquid assets which they can conveniently make available for the purpose of meeting the extra costs here.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Senator could deal with Senator E. Ryan's liquid assets.

Mr. Rooney

They were very interesting assets all right but apparently they are losing their value, too. That is what will happen in this case if this procedure is to continue beyond a reasonable limit.

This Bill demonstrates a fantastic incompetence on the part of those responsible for estimating, designing, planning, surveying and providing all the other services which go into the construction of a building of this type. They fell very short of their estimates. First of all, they fell short of their original estimate but they also fell short in regard to the accommodation and facilities which ought to be expected in a building of this type. It was, therefore, necessary to bring in new designs and new plans for the purpose of meeting those shortcomings.

In addition to those failures, we had a situation—brought about, of course, by the Government themselves—which caused the building strike of 1964. After the strike of 1964, building never got under way again: it is still struggling and, in fact, it is on the wane. But the 1964 building strike is being used now as an excuse for increasing the cost ; it amounts to double the original estimate and is now approximately £555,000. I am sure that there have been many red faces amongst those associated with this building project. Certainly, no private individual could stand up to that kind of bungling and incompetence.

Here is the question. In the course of his statement the Minister did not indicate when it is proposed to repay this money. He merely mentioned that the Central Fund is liable to indemnify the suitors against any loss resulting from this withdrawal but I think some specific suggestion should be made regarding the repayment of the money. Another question arises also. Does this Fund continue to earn interest?

My friend, Senator Ó Donnabháin, mentioned that the managing director was a very competent Irish speaker. Nobody disputes that but is that sufficient at the present time for a progressive managing board?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Not for Fine Gael, all right.

Mr. Browne

They are attacking their own.

Mr. Rooney

I was very impressed by Senator Stanford's contribution in this respect. We must take another look at the situation which exists in regard to the management of the Abbey. Considering the taxpayers' money or, if you like, the money which is to be guaranteed by the taxpayers, anyway, is being used to such an extent in this case, it is only right that the Government should ensure that a competent progressive managing board is appointed so that the maximum advantage will be obtained from the new Abbey Theatre.

It is necessary for people with a more modern outlook these days to have final responsibility in relation to management, facing—as we do at the moment—the space age, the atomic age, the automated age, all of which affect our lives. When we pay tribute to our young artistes at the present time and when we observe that they are inclined to shy away from the Abbey, we must ask ourselves: "What is the reason for it"? Do they feel that there is some stultification there so far as acting, artistry and enterprise are concerned? There is probably a very good reason why the young artistes did shy away from it and those are the people who should be consulted when the question of modern management comes up for discussion and decision. It is only right to say, in fairness, that the fame of the old artistes will live for a very long time. The names of such players are still on the lips of the people, particularly those who had the privilege of seeing them and enjoying the roles they played during those years. We have many talented artistes. With all the facilities and a progressive enterprising management, they will make a name for themselves, too, and will be given the opportunity to do so.

All of us are in favour of the Bill in so far as it enables the cost of these projects to be paid. That is essential. I consider it regrettable that the Minister has had recourse to this method of financing the payment in relation to the cost of building these two theatres.

Mr. B. Lenihan

You do not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Mr. Rooney

Anyway, that is the situation. I do not think it is a gift horse. I do not think the Minister will say it is a gift; he is merely taking it but he is creating a liability in another Department as far as the payment of this is concerned. I hope we will all meet at the opening of this new Abbey Theatre next week and that invitations will not be withdrawn from those who had not very complimentary remarks to make.

Mr. McDonald

In page 4 of the Minister's opening address he said:

There is no doubt but that this is a most desirable form of public investment since it will provide suitable entertainment for our own people and provide employment for native artistes.

Being from that part of the country which is outside Dublin, I feel that the public, in general, get very little value for the public funds spent on this establishment. Of course, being not only outside Dublin but outside the Government Party I suffer a double handicap: I do not even qualify for a ticket to the opening night.

Apart from that, the general public would really enjoy the work of this renowned establishment if we had a few more of their productions on Telefís Éireann, instead of a number of the ancient films which are fed to the public. The people in the country are in a different position from the citizens of Dublin who have a definite choice and can go to the live theatre to enjoy the fruits of these players' work. I have a crib, too, about the professional theatre, and the Abbey in particular, because they do not go out of their way to encourage native writers or actors, so far as I know. I am particularly interested in amateur dramatics, and I find many professional people frowning on that activity. There are vast numbers of amateur productions throughout the country.

It is quite evident that the general public appreciate live theatrical performances, and it is regrettable that a company like the Abbey, a subsidised body, do so little to meet this demand. In practically every second parish there are amateur groups who put on shows of one sort or another for various purposes, mostly charitable. We also have a number of drama festivals, and when the adjudicators, who are all from the professional theatre, come down the country they very often slate these unfortunate people who are doing their best. These people who go on and expose themselves to criticism do so out of a sense of loyalty to their parish or to their colleagues. This is an indication that the public in Ireland are very receptive to the theatre and the stage.

The Abbey have been resting on their past glories during the past few years. Perhaps much of that can be attributed to insufficient funds, but it is reasonable to expect an improvement in their productions now that they are being provided with what should be one of the most modern theatres in the world. The theatre in Dublin has slipped somewhat. We all know of the tremendous work of a few well-known people in Dublin such as Lord Longford, and people like him, who have devoted so much time, energy and finance to the theatre. Without them we might not have even as many theatres as we have in the country.

Telefís Éireann could do much more for our native artistes. Looking at the hoardings in Dublin, and looking at the number of excellent artistes we have, it is very regrettable to realise how few of them ever get a look in on Telefís Éireann. There are some people on Telefís Éireann and we could certainly do with seeing less of them— some of the people who are constantly on our television screens. When we enjoy one of the live shows in the Olympia, or the Gate, or whatever theatre it is, we realise how seldom we see these excellent artistes on Telefís Éireann, and for that reason I feel the national network is not giving fair value for the money of the public generally, and especially the people outside Dublin who have no opportunity to enjoy the work of these artistes in live productions.

I welcome the Bill, but I agree with Senator FitzGerald when he questioned the contract price and the estimate. It is extraordinary that the old Abbey was insured for a sum as low as £30,000 only since it is taking over £½ million to replace it Surely that is bad business, and something that should not occur again. I should like to conclude by wishing the Abbey Theatre every success in the years ahead, and I hope they will live up to their reputation.

Mr. Murphy

I shall be very brief, and I promise in this debate not to introduce any Northern Ireland lorries or trawlers. The point raised by Senator Stanford is very serious. We are now debating the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think it would be desirable that, having heard the Minister's reply, we should consider this matter between now and Committee Stage. It should certainly not be taken today.

I do not think we are involved in the issue of the estimate of the price of the Abbey. In fact, £¼ million has been given and the fact that that estimate might have been out is not a responsibility of the Minister's. We are concerned with the second demand for the Abbey and judging by what Senator Stanford has said, we have no control over the spending of the money, or of the theatre as such.

I am also interested in the grant of money to the Cork Opera House. Being the only Corkman in the House at the moment, which does seem very strange—except for the Chair and one Senator behind me—I must say I welcome this grant. There is no question but that it is one of the most desirable provisions that could be in this Bill. We are not opposing the Second Reading, but we should like to hear the Minister's explanation before taking Committee Stage.

Mr. B. Lenihan

This Bill is largely a machinery measure to enable these funds to be allocated in respect of works which are now practically completed and in regard to which these debts have been incurred. Senator Rooney is about the only person in the Dáil or the Seanad who is not delighted that these funds are available which can be used from time to time by the State to further cultural projects of this kind which are of national benefit. It is appropriate that these funds should be used for this purpose provided the basic interests of the suitors concerned are preserved, as they are in this Bill in the indemnifying clause.

Senator Stanford and Senator Murphy raised important matters of policy concerning the administration of the Abbey Theatre. Indeed, the Government are very conscious of the importance of the Abbey Theatre, from the point of view of their reputation, from the material tourist point of view, and from the point of view of their standing as the cultural centre of Ireland in regard to dramatic art.

Conscious of that fact, the articles of association of the National Theatre Limited were amended 18 months ago. They provide for shareholding by people of prominence in the cultural life of the country. Twenty-five shareholders were issued with 30 shares each and there are in that very representative body such names as Micéal MacLiammoir, Ria Mooney, Sheila Richards, and Lady Longford, people who cover a wide spread of the various aspects of dramatic art. The Government increased their representation on the board to two who are men with cultural interests also. The combined effect of this has been to make for a wider policy attitude.

With that objective in view, an artistic director of the calibre of Mr. Walter Macken was appointed. I understand he resigned for purely personal reasons which had nothing to do with policy matters. I also understand that at the present time the board and shareholders are actively pursuing the problem of obtaining an artistic director of the same stature as Mr. Macken. This, of course, will be a very important appointment as far as the future of the Abbey Theatre is concerned. I mention this to illustrate that the Government and the Minister for Finance—the Minister with responsibility in the matter—are conscious of the need to ensure that, now that we have got this magnificent building, the finest theatre of its kind in the world, the management can be equated to the stature of the building itself. It is with that endeavour in view that these active efforts are being made to appoint an artistic director of outstanding merit who will gather under him the best talent that can be found in the way of producers and theatre cast.

Far be it from me to anticipate any policy decisions taken by the board, but I have much sympathy with Senator McDonald's suggestion that it would be good for the Abbey Theatre to go into the country, to the bigger country towns, to bring to them the outstanding dramatic art of which they are capable and at which we as a people are so good. That suggestion will, I am sure, engage the attention of the board. I should also like to see a greater breadth of selection in regard to the theatre's top plays. This can be achieved under the articles of association.

Having got all these things, I am certain that the theatre will prove itself in the future as outstanding a medium of dramatic art as it did in the past. We are rightly proud of the Abbey Theatre and its traditions. It introduced a new style of acting known throughout the world as Method Acting, far removed from the histrionic dramatic art form of the last century. I am confident that the Abbey in its new surroundings will continue to contribute much dynamic effort to dramatic art in the future.

Amateur drama flourishes throughout Ireland. Hundreds of amateur dramatic groups perform at festivals and have their own national festival each year. The country has a tremendous reservoir of talent which can be tapped by the Abbey in the future. More can be done in this matter than has been done in the past. I have attended several amateur drama festivals and I can assure the House that the standard of acting at these festivals has been incomparable. It behoves the Abbey management in the future to tap this talent.

These are all largely policy matters which will be the problem of the Abbey management in the future. The important matter now is that we agree to make these moneys available from the Funds of Suitors. This will be the start of what we hope will be an enhanced Abbey of the future such as Senator Stanford envisaged.

Professor Stanford

Would the Minister be good enough to provide, at a later stage, in more detail, information about the terms of employment of the managing director and the regulations which govern the powers of the new shareholders? It is important we should know these things. Is it not a fact that the present managing director recently totally rebuffed amateur drama in the country?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I have a note of the Senator's requests and I shall have this information for him and the House next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th July, 1966.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th July, 1966.