I think this is the appropriate section on which to ask two questions. I understand from the Minister's speech that there is a very large sum of money constituting the funds of suitors. Funds of suitors can means a variety of things and what I am concerned with is the amount of dormant money in relation to actions six or seven years old that are not current in the way administrative actions are which go on for long periods and can be current for ten, 20 or 30 years. What is the total amount of really dormant funds as distinct from deposits by auctioneers, trade unions and such bodies? Secondly, what effort is made by the court authorities to trace from year to year, in relation to moneys due to them, people who would be very happy and who are entitled to get those moneys if they knew they were there. What steps are taken to bring this to their notice?
Funds of Suitors Bill, 1966: Committee and Final Stages.
The balance of dormant funds remaining is £75,000. The rest is composed of current balances.
That is a different story. What steps are taken to trace people?
Every five years a notice is issued in Iris Oifigiúil informing the public in general of the amount of moneys in the fund and anybody who has a claim may come forward.
Possibly the most informative and best circulated medium is Iris Oifigiúil. People in West Cork and in Belmullet all read copies of it and Old Moore's Almanac. I did not think the Minister would make that reply. I thought he would tell me there was an advertisement inserted in the daily newspapers once in five years.
I am not responsible for this. It is the Deputy's friends, the Rule-Making Committee of the Superior Courts.
The Minister is coming in here to tamper with the funds of suitors and I am quite sure he is not tampering with funds over which he has no control.
I have to get the permission of the Chief Justice before I can do anything with funds of suitors.
I do not think we will bring the Chief Justice into politics. The Minister, under the Court Officers Acts, appoints the Accountant of the High Court. I am sure he appoints the person in consultation with the President of the High Court or the Chief Justice. The Minister has control over and can give directions to, among other officers, the Accountant to the High Court. I am thinking of funds lying in court which may be lodged there under the Trustee Act where a person is a minor. Some notice may have been served upon the minor's guardian; the guardian may have died or the guardian may have been somebody who felt that business of this kind should not be disclosed to a young person, that the young person would get notions if he knew he had so much money coming to him on reaching 21.
It is not too much to ask that the Accountant of the High Court and his staff, perhaps during the Long Vacation when they are not too occupied with other work, should go through their ledgers and notify the solicitors of persons who are entitled to these funds that they are there. Once in five years —I think it should be more often but even once in five years—a letter should issue to the solicitors on record and, if possible, at the same time, to the parties who would appear to be entitled to the moneys telling them they are there and that they should in due course make a claim for them. That is a mere matter of justice.
By the unparliamentary means of interjection when Senator O'Quigley was speaking, I tried to point out that the State has nothing to do with this. These funds are administered by the courts, and in a very formal and detailed fashion. I have to prepare the case for the Chief Justice, and the Chief Justice has to make a detailed investigation into the reasons for my request before he consents to these funds being dealt with in such a manner. Claims against the funds are the subject of rules of the Superior Courts and are matters for the rules-making committee of these courts. These committees are very jealously guarded by both sides of the legal profession and by the Judiciary, and I found, in relation to other aspects in regard to which I made enquiries, that any intrusion by the Executive into its rules-making committees or the rules they make is jealously guarded against. As I say, this is not a matter for the State at all but for the courts. These are funds in the custody of the courts which are only released to the State on the agreement of the Chief Justice, when he is satisfied that the purpose is legitimate and that the funds can stand the withdrawal.
One would imagine from what the Minister has just said that he had no shadow of responsibility in respect of this matter. If the Minister for Justice were convinced, as I think he ought to be, of what I suggest ought to be done, then it is within his power to initiate the appropriate legislation to deal with a matter of this kind. It is a matter of justice to citizens of this country who are entitled to funds lodged in court that they should be told those funds are there. This business of a notice appearing in Iris Oifigiúil cuts no ice. The Minister talks of the Rule-Making Committees of the Superior Courts as if he had nothing to do with these. I would advise the Minister to look at the rules made by the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court and he will see at the end of the document: “ I agree with the making of this rule. Signed:” So-and-So. “Aire Dli agus Cirt.” The Minister has to concur in the making of these rules that relate, among other things, to funds in court, and there is no point in saying he has no responsibility. I have always thought it was most unjust that people who are entitled to funds know nothing about and will know nothing about them because the funds were lodged perhaps under a will before they were born. The Minister spoke as someone who regarded himself as profanis when it came to rules-making committees making rules and who respected meticulously the authority of rules-making committees, but I cannot believe the Minister does not take an active part in rule making and that, indeed, the Minister does not exercise considerable influence over rule making and use, I might say, a delaying veto or what amounts to a delaying veto on some rules which we should like to see issuing from the Department one of these days.
I shall bring the Senator's views to the notice of the Chief Justice. However, let me bring some reality into this discussion. Most of these dormant funds are funds that are there for over 100 years.
Some for only ten or 20 years.
Practically all of them were there before the foundation of the State. There is no question of minors being deprived of their rights in regard to funds available. There is a distinction between what I would call current balances and the dormant funds. The dormant funds are lying there for hundreds of years, and there is no reality in the Senator's point. However, I shall bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice.
On the Second Stage, we were discussing the cost of the building of the Abbey Theatre and the fact that the cost turned out to be a good deal more than had been anticipated. We were relying on the statement made by the Minister in this respect which, I think, on reflection, he may agree was a little incomplete. As a result of what he had to say about the increasing cost, the account he gave of it, the limited information he gave, I was prompted to say that it seemed there was a lack of planning in the arrangements made, in that the cost of the building turned out to be two-and-a-half times what was originally estimated.
It has come to my attention that that comment of mine could be read as a reflection on the architect. Indeed, I think a subsequent comment of Senator Rooney's might also be read in that way. I should like to say that that was not my intention. I did not know who was responsible for the changes to which the Minister rather briefly referred. At the time I spoke, I was unaware of who was responsible, but certainly I had no intention of attacking the architect in this matter because from such knowledge as I have of these matters, it is right to say that it is not usually the architect's fault when plans are changed. Because what I said was taken, or could be taken, as such a reflection, I should like to make it clear that it was not my intention.
I should like to ask the Minister if he would clarify the position a little as his statement was, I am quite sure not intentionally, rather misleading. The Minister said that the estimated cost of rebuilding was put at £235,000. I rather assumed that that estimate was, in fact, a professional estimate. I think I am right in saying that it was not and that it was an estimate not made by the professional people concerned but, perhaps, an estimate given to the Minister in some Government Department or privately by the Abbey Theatre. The Minister's statement goes on to say that the successful tender was for £310,000 for the Abbey and the shell of the Peacock Theatre, with an additional £34,000 for fees; that the cost of the work is now put at £555,200, to which must be added £95,000 for the Peacock.
The difference between the £344,000, including the Peacock Theatre, which was the successful tender, and the £555,200 was really the item that struck me as being a very large gap and the Minister seemed to attempt an explanation of that further on when he said that the increases in the cost were due to the increase 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, and a long list of additional items.
My understanding of what happened—if I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will put me right—was that the original estimate of £235,000 plus £20,000 for fees, was not a professional estimate, that the tender was one of a number of tenders for different work to be done; that the other tenders were not accepted, for example, the completion of the Peacock, and a number of items of equipment, and the project went ahead on that basis and subsequently the decision was taken to go ahead with the things omitted. A change in plan subsequent to the tender being accepted was not the problem. The difficulty was that the original proposed building was not accepted and put to tender in the way in which the plans were drawn up but part of the plan was omitted to bring down the cost and subsequently brought in again so that the appearance of a very sharp increase in cost because somebody had forgotten to put in lifts is completely misleading. The various items which added to the cost because they were additional were ones originally contemplated but excluded at the time in order to bring down the price to an unrealistic level, for a building which would not have included anything more than the shell of the Peacock and would not have included lifts which had to be put in subsequently.
When I talked of planning, it was that kind of thing I was contemplating. I did not realise that the situation was quite as it appears now to be and that, in fact, there had been this exclusion of items which were tendered at the beginning and then there was a change of mind again subsequently. I want to put that on the record. If I have it incorrectly, the Minister will put me right. If I have it correctly, it is not a question of things omitted and not thought of but things that were excluded in an attempt at some kind of economy which could not succeed as the things were required and put in afterwards, which is really bad planning, if I may say so. I do not think the Minister is responsible. He is only here to provide the cash but, in any event, there was bad planning but certainly not on the part of the professional advisers to the project and in fairness that should be said, as the Minister's statement certainly did not make that clear and could be taken as misleading and did, in fact, mislead some people in some respects and the remarks I passed on it could be misread to involve a reflection on the professional people concerned. That was certainly not my intention, although I was not clear where the responsibility did lie for the various changes that took place.
On the Second Stage, the Minister very kindly said that he would give us further information on the implications of this grant and I think the House to a fair extent agreed that it was our duty to see that these funds would be properly administered and that our fine new theatre would be properly run. The questions I directed to the Minister were, first of all, about the conditions of tenure of the present managing director, whether there was a retiring age, what his remuneration was, and was there any promise of retirement on his part. Then there was a second question about the present organisation of the Abbey Theatre, or in its full title, the National Theatre Society Ltd. I submitted that the present organisation is very cumbersome and hardly workable in many ways. The Minister, I think, agreed that he would give us more information on that. I am not too clear about it.
The third question was about the resignation of the artistic adviser and whether there were any possibilities emerging along those lines.
Another question—and it is perhaps the principal one which should concern us tonight—was, how are the finances of the Abbey Theatre regulated and managed at present? We are giving the equivalent of £¾ million capital sum, taking into account the previous grant, and it is extremely important that we should know exactly how this will be administered.
So, I personally would be very grateful to the Minister if he could enlighten us further on these questions.
When I read the Minister's statement on Second Reading, I was shocked at the discrepancies that appeared in the original figures and the figures presented to us in the House last week, and I feel that I was misled to a certain extent by the extraordinary differences there were and, of course, I was very critical of them. In what I said I did not intend any reflection on the professional advisers. My remarks were directed mainly at the fact that so many adjustments and changes compared with the original plans were made, which resulted in the altered figures, apart from the building strike which, of course, caused considerable expense.
I just wanted to make this statement in case what I might have said would be regarded as a criticism of the professional people concerned in this project. What I had to say related to the extraordinary difference in the figures. It seems now, at this stage, that the figures presented to us originally and mentioned to us in passing by the Minister were only a rough estimate. It was not an estimate made out on a specified concrete plan—if I may use that expression. It was not a firm estimate. It was an imaginary, rough estimate and it was from that imaginary rough estimate that the case has been built up for the purpose of putting forward these comparisons and these figures which help to make the case now for securing this money which is necessary, of course, to meet the total cost of this new project.
This project has been welcomed by all people associated with culture and drama in this country. It will give greater opportunities to the very many talented persons we have who will be enabled now to display their talents with the more modern facilities and a very fine building of the type that we know has been brought to completion in Dublin city, to be run in the name of the Abbey Theatre.
May I just ask Senator Rooney would he agree that perhaps as well as a new building it would be well to have new direction?
On that point I have made a remark already.
First of all, on Senator FitzGerald's point, I thought I explained the position fully on the Second Stage concerning the increase in costs. The main item in the increase in costs concerns the Peacock Theatre which, apart from the shell of the building, was not envisaged originally. What happened, in effect, was that the first plan was discarded and a new plan was decided upon providing for much more up-to-date equipment, ventilation, light control and consequential structural changes to give the theatre, from the interior point of view, the most up-to-date equipment available. If the House so desires it, I can go through the various constituents of the increases.
I understand that most of these things were incorporated in the original plan and that, in fact, in a number of cases, they were put to tender and tenders were received. The tenders were then not accepted and only the tender for £310,000 was accepted and subsequently they were brought in again. I quite concede that they were brought in again but not as if somebody had an afterthought to improve the theatre. Essential elements were excluded so as not to accept the original tender, with a view to saving money. If I am correct in that, it should be brought out. It should not be suggested that the position was otherwise. They were excluded only for reasons of false economy and only temporarily, until the tender was got through.
There was a complete change of approach to it, after the first tender was accepted——
There were no changes.
——for a limited project. There was a complete rethinking on the whole matter. These further additions were decided upon——
They were put back in again.
I am not fully with the Senator there, either. My information is that the Peacock was a completely new conception——
How is it a new conception if the shell was originally in it?
The new conception arose of doing the whole job as one job. The advice of the architects, in effect, was that if you left over the Peacock until subsequently, then you would incur additional expense, and why not have the whole job done as one? It was then agreed to go for the increased allocation from the funds of suitors. At first, we were concerned to do a limited job on the funds available. Then, on the architects' advice on the Peacock Theatre, it was decided that it would be better to have the job done in conjunction with the main project.
As originally proposed.
I do not think so. That is not quite true.
Would the Minister be good enough to answer some of the questions which I put?
The Senator raised a number of matters on the Second Stage. He asked about the control of the finances of the theatre. The Abbey Theatre is controlled and managed by The National Theatre Society Limited, which is a limited liability company registered under the Companies Acts. The object of the company, as expressed in the Memorandum of Association, is "to establish and create a Theatre for the purpose of acting and producing plays in Irish or English, written by Irish authors or on Irish subjects and such dramatic works of foreign authors as would tend to educate and interest the Irish public in the higher aspects of dramatic Art ..." and to do all things necessary towards that end. The company is a non-profit making one. All the property and income of the company may be applied to its objects and no portion of the property, income or profits may be transferred in any way to the members of the company. Article 11 of the Articles of Association of the Company provides that the management of the business and control of the Company shall be vested in the directors. The number of Ordinary Directors may not exceed three without the consent of the Minister for Finance who may also appoint two Directors. The Articles of Association also provide for the annual audit of the accounts of the Company in accordance with the Companies Acts.
Senator Stanford also inquired about the terms and conditions of appointment of the General Manager of the Theatre. Under Article 12 the Directors may appoint a member of the Company as General Manager of the business of the Company and may delegate to him or her such of their powers, not being powers to borrow money or issue shares, as they may deem expedient. The Directors may remove and discharge any such Manager and appoint another in his or her place. There is no stipulation as to a retirement age. That means that the Manager or Managing Director, the chief executive of the Company, acts at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. They may fire or hire as they see fit. There is nothing else embodied in his or her terms of appointment.
The House is aware that certain changes were made in the Company last year. As the work of the Abbey Theatre was about to enter on a new phase and in view of the substantially increased public investment in the Theatre, it was arranged that there should be two Government-appointed Directors instead of one. The issue of company shares, which would continue to have no financial value, was extended to a group of 25 persons of standing who were interested in the theatre and in the cultural life in this city, to people of standing in theatre. I mentioned some of their names on the Second Stage last week—Micheal MacLiammóir, Ria Mooney, Sheelagh Richards. They include the Chief Justice. The purpose of these changes was that, while the Company would remain essentially independent, there would be a somewhat closer liaison with the Government and also, through the new group of shareholders, there would be permanent formal contact between the directors and a representative circle of supporters of the Theatre whose advice and criticism would help the company to carry on its affairs more successfully. The Minister for Finance had also allotted to him a block of shares to enable him by proxy to speak and vote at the annual general meetings of the company.
The general result of these new arrangements is that the directors will act as trustees of a national institution; they will have as shareholders a body of well-informed friends of the theatre and of Irish cultural life generally whose counsel and criticism will be backed by a collective voting power equal to three-quarters of the membership of the board of directors. The Government will have two directors on the board and the Minister for Finance, can, through his own shareholding, play a balancing role in the case of acute disagreement between the members of the company, should that arise.
The Minister for Finance, through his own shareholding and through the two members of the board nominated by him, can, in effect, exercise a measure of control over the board in the event of their not carrying on a policy consistent with the objects set out in the Memorandum of Association.
In regard to the question of the present Abbey management. I understand that very active thought has been given in recent months to where the Abbey is going in the future. With that objective in mind, an artistic director was appointed. There was nothing whatever of a sinister nature in the retirement of the artistic director who was appointed. My information is—I know this personally as well as officially— that his resignation was due entirely to domestic reasons. The Abbey Theatre—and the shareholders, I understand, are at present in agreement with this—are actively seeking an artistic director of the same outstanding calibre as the man who has retired—a director who will be able to achieve a high level of cultural activity and dramatic art production. Certainly, I have every confidence that the new board are getting down to the job in hand. They have given evidence of their faith in this direction by appointing an artistic director, who had to retire for domestic reasons, and they are actively pursuing the appointment of a new artistic director. It is hoped that all these efforts will result in the attainment of standards worthy of the traditions of the Abbey and, at the same time, produce theatre appropriate to the present and future ages. I have every confidence in the capacity and ability of the board to do that.
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has told us but the fact remains that, under a managing director of 77 years of age, this new theatre cannot progress and cannot flourish. We have a wonderful new building and we have a wonderful old board of directors——
May I ask——
Is it on a point of order?
It is a question.
Unless the Senator wishes to give way.
I am asking myself and the Minister, have we power to make changes. The Minister says that the Minister for Finance can ultimately control policy, and the implication of the Minister's remarks is that the Government do not like to interfere at present, that the Government are satisfied with the new organisation, that the 25 shareholders and two Government directors are adequate to cope with the present situation. If I shared the Minister's confidence, I should say no more. But I have been most earnestly assured that that, in fact, is not so. Ancient authorities referred to the famous Socrates as having the effect of a curious kind of fish which, if you touched it, paralysed you. It seems to me that there is an analogy to this paralysing effect in a very eminent citizen of Dublin at the moment. Even in this House a kind of paralysis has crept over the House. As far as I can see, there is no one else who is prepared to say that, in the interests of this country, our 77 year old managing director should honourably retire.
May I amplify that? It is very greatly to the credit of the present managing director that he has collected this money and that he has had a magnificent new building built. The reason is that he has had very great experience in managing finance and in extorting money one way or another. But surely this is the great moment in his life. Surely he should now say: "I have given you a fine new theatre, largely through my efforts; now go ahead and run it"? But, if he stays on even for a year, this paralysis, like the dry rot that gets into the very walls of buildings, will get into the Abbey Theatre, and it will take many decades to get it out again. I am quite certain of this. I have no personal interest in this. I admire Dr. Ernest Blythe; he could be an honorary graduate of TCD. But I feel much more strongly about, and admire much more deeply, the dramatic traditions of this country. I urge on the Minister that this is a very critical moment. Unless he takes steps now to put this right, his building will be frustrated for many years. He has told us that the present system can deal with this by itself. It cannot.
Give it a chance.
Technically, it has a power, I agree, but morally and psychologically, it cannot and will not deal with the situation. The present managing director, if he wants to, will go on for a year, three years or ten years—Dr. Adenaeur kept going for even longer—and then what will happen to our three-quarters of a million capital grant? It will be wasted as far as the higher ideals of drama are concerned. The theatre will keep ticking over. It will appoint another artistic adviser, if they can get one to work in the present set-up. May I say there are several very eminent people who will not go into the theatre under the present managing director for the reasons I have given? There will be stalemate.
I think part of the reason for this paralysis is that we have very good reasons for accepting that Dr. Ernest Blythe, both in relation to the Irish language and other things, has done excellent work. But he ceased long ago to do a good task in the Abbey Theatre and he should recognise that now. If he does not recognise it, he should be told it. In an interview in the Irish Press last Saturday, he said he did not listen to criticism. What sort of head of a dynamic new theatre does not listen to criticism? I appeal to the Minister and, if he does not take the necessary steps now, I will blame him personally in three or five years time. Is he personally satisfied that the direction of the Abbey Theatre in the past ten years was all that it should have been? Does he really think there is any chance of a new departure in that magnificent building? I warn him that, if he does not make this change, he is wasting three-quarters of a million of public funds.
I think the Seanad should thank the Minister for the explanatory statement. I rise to deprecate the attack Senator Stanford has made on an individual who has not the right to reply. I do not agree with his Greek mythology and his lecture as to what our responsibilities are as Members of this House. We have now satisfactorily arranged for the government of the new Abbey Theatre and the future is not a matter for us. We have no power to regulate it, as Senator Stanford suggests.
We are putting up the money.
We have a change of position now. The position is different from what it was last year. There is a board of directors who will appoint their managing director. I did not know to whom the Senator was referring on the last occasion. The fact is we have done, I think, a satisfactory job in producing an Abbey Theatre and we have established the machinery for the provision of a suitable board of directors who will appoint the officials under them. We have, I think, done a good day's work. The Minister said that the Abbey was to produce plays in Irish or English, not in Greek.
The Abbey has produced, with great success, several translations, I am happy to say, of Greek tragedies.
Translations, but the Minister says the Abbey is to produce plays in Irish and English. It is not empowered to produce anything in Greek. I am quite satisfied with that policy. The Christmas pantomime, which is produced in Irish, is outstanding. It is appreciated by everybody, even by those who do not understand it completely. Plays produced in Irish are appreciated. I am glad this reputation will be maintained. The location and lay-out of the Queen's Theatre was unsatisfactory and, no matter what play was produced, satisfaction could not be guaranteed. We should be satisfied with what the Minister has suggested and we should not be criticising a public appointment which is not directly under our control.
I would not at all agree with Senator Ó Donnabháin. If we have criticism to make, we ought make it. Senator Stanford is quite within his rights in making the criticism he did make. I do not think we ought accept everything the Minister may tell us just because he is Minister. The Minister for Justice, as Minister for Justice, has no particular qualifications relating to the theatre and I do not think he would claim that he has, by virtue of his office.
By virtue of other aspects of character, yes.
I do not deny that the Minister may be a great dramatic critic: certainly he is a great play-actor, we all know that. I was somewhat surprised at Senator Stanford's lashing attack upon Dr. Ernest Blythe. My great regret was that the attack did not come about six weeks earlier.
On a point of fact, there was no opportunity. This is nonsense.
It might have changed the political fortunes of this country if it had. Obviously he is not a great admirer of putting people in high and important offices when they are advanced in years, unlike his colleague, Senator Jessop, who actively takes on the pushing of people into high office at an even later age.
To his credit he did.
They do not agree with each other on this matter and it is not often that you see this disagreement. It is not the fashion in this country for people to retire at the age of 77. It is quite a young age by modern standards, and if Dr. Blythe is to take notice of what goes on and follow the precedent established for him by people in very high offices. I do not think he should be blamed for following the precedent.
To turn now to a different matter, I must confess that for many years I have not had the time to go to the Abbey Theatre because of pressing engagements, domestic, political and otherwise, and therefore I am not in a position to make any comment on their productions. I do say, however, that I would have thought that Senator Stanford's attack would have been much more proper and much more in accordance with the practice and procedure of this House if it had been directed not at a particular individual but at the people who have the control and authority over him.
The Minister read out this evening that the control and management of the Company is vested in the directors. I do not know who the directors are but the directors are responsible for keeping in office the managing director. If the responsibility is anybody's, it is that of the board of directors of the Abbey Theatre. If there is any fault to be found with the way the Abbey Theatre is being run, or may be run in future, then the proper authority at which to direct the fire is the board of directors. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the appointment of two of the directors. The board of directors have the final say and if they have delegated, as they are entitled to do, an undue discretion to the manager, then they are at fault in doing that.
Somebody may say: "You cannot run a theatre without delegating a great deal of authority". If that be so, and if the present general manager is not up to standard, it is hardly for him to get on with the kind of confession or self-condemnation that people indulge in the Supreme Soviet Praesidium where they say that they have erred, that they have done this wrong and that they have done that wrong, and then retire. As the people charged with responsibility for running the Abbey Theatre, the board of directors are in a much better position to assess the competence or incompetence of those to whom they have delegated responsibility and who may be doing their best. I do not quite understand why Senator Stanford has directed his fire against the managing director. I must say I was somewhat surprised that he did so. Dr. Blythe in his time has given great service to this country. He has made his mistakes, his political mistakes, for which we still suffer to this day, although, mark you, I always say that if Fianna Fáil had been in Parliament, it might not have happened, so they can share part of the blame, too. Dr. Blythe has perhaps an undue leaning towards Irish. I do not know whether that is a cause of complaint with Senator Stanford.
That is quite unfair and Senator O'Quigley knows that perfectly well.
I am saying that I do not know whether it is a cause of complaint or not. Dr. Blythe has a very headstrong attitude towards a variety of things. Indeed, the criticism or appraisal of his merits or demerits will never come to his notice because he is the robur et aes triplex, it will never penetrate him. Be that as it may, it is a mistake as we had here last week with the Minister for Health, Deputy Flanagan, to bring into the House the faults or failings of individuals who are not in public authority and not directly amenable to the House. We ought not get away from the value of the advice that the Minister must take responsibility for his officials. It is a very bad thing for us in this House to embark on the criticism of people who are, in any event, going to ignore our criticism. It is a bad principle, and I hope that having said all we have to say about this gentleman, who I suppose in his time criticised other people in this Chamber and in the other Chamber, we will not commit ourselves to the criticism of an individual in this House again. It is a very bad principle.
Senator O'Quigley has asked a direct question: why have I directed this attack? The answer is what I said on the Second Stage and what I said again now. We are about to give approximately £750,000 to this institution and there is grave public dissatisfaction with the man who is in control and who will control the building which is being built from these funds. It is widespread, and I am quite sure if the Minister would consult any eminent——
I know a fair bit about it in my personal capacity.
I have consulted a great many people and I have received quite a few letters and there is complete unanimity that this three-quarters of a million pounds may be wasted. Senator O'Quigley very rightly asks why do we not leave it to the directors. The answer is, if we leave it to the directors nothing will be done because there are three directors, headed by Dr. Ernest Blythe, who are unanimous about keeping Dr. Blythe there as long as he wants to stay. The other two cannot outvote them. The shareholders, if they were united and worked together in a body, might do something——
Where is the unanimity among the shareholders?
They are united in theory. No, I cannot say that. My impression is they are united in theory but to get people in this country to be united in practice as well as in theory is a difficult thing. So, the situation is simply this in practical politics, that unless the Minister for Justice, or the Minister for Finance, takes steps to alter the present situation, it will go on. As I see it, and as a great many people in this country see it, this is virtually a misappropriation of public funds.
That is an extraordinary statement.
That is too strong.
First of all, I am not here to make a detailed defence of Dr. Ernest Blythe, but I would certainly deplore what I might call the garbled remarks emanating from Senator Stanford.
Would the Minister be good enough to quote them so that we may know exactly what ones he means?
I am referring particularly to the last remark where the Senator referred to misappropriation of public funds or something of that nature. I am certainly satisfied that there is no such thing.
I am stating this is the general impression I got after obtaining the views of a number of people.
The Senator made an attack on the present managing director of the Abbey Theatre who, despite some failings—and we all have our failings—has brought the Abbey Theatre to its present state where we now have, together with the help of a present incumbent of the Seanad, Dr. Ryan, a theatre which can rank as one of the greatest in the world. In case Senator Stanford thinks that it is only he who knows what should be done as regards the artistic future of the Abbey I will refer to what I said already. Last year, at the instigation of the then Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, it was decided to have 25 shareholders with 30 shares each, that is, 750 shares and that those people would be selected from the best, by way of cultural and artistic talents, in the country. Those people have been appointed. The Minister for Finance then appointed two directors.
This leads me to the question asked by Senator Stanford and Senator O'Quigley: what is the present board and what are the shareholders doing in a practical way as regards an artistic director? One of the first things those directors sought to do was to find a man suitable as an artistic director in the new Abbey. Such a person would select plays and artists. He would put on plays not only by Irish and English authors but authors from other countries. A very excellent choice was made in the selection of Mr. Walter Macken, an outstanding man in the sphere of Irish letters, who resigned for what he said were domestic reasons. I want to reiterate that here. This man retired from his post a month ago, although he was being given a completely free hand. I personally understand, apart from anything I may say as Minister for Justice, that he was very happy in his work. He was doing a very excellent job and was on very good terms with the managing director.
I understand that at the present point of time, the board and shareholders are actively concerning themselves with re-organisation of the management and the artistic direction of the Abbey. They are actively engaged in selecting a new artistic director. I believe that they can succeed in having the Abbey rank as one of the greatest theatres in the world so that it can recapture the position it had before. The directors are working on the filling of the post of artistic director at the present time. I know they are seeking a person with the cultural and artistic calibre suitable to fill this post. When they find such a man, and go through whatever re-organisation is necessary, I am certain we will be proud of the Abbey Theatre in the 1960s and 1970s.
I want to say that I deplore what has been said about the man who, down through the years, has done so much for the Abbey and who with the aid of the State and, as I said, Senator Dr. Ryan, has brought it to the situation where we have the present board and shareholders. The present managing director is not there forever. The board and shareholders are now thinking about the future. They are much more concerned with the future than has been suggested by Senator Stanford. It is quite apparent, from the point of view of the artistic direction of the theatre, that quite a lot of thought has already been given to what direction it is to go in the future. A new artistic director will be appointed as soon as they have made their choice.
The present situation is that we are back where we were a year ago. We have no artistic director. The excellent choice which was made, for one reason or another, failed. My information is that as long as we have the present managing director, several people eminently suitable for this position would not take it. I can understand their motive. I feel no reassurance whatever when the Minister says that Dr. Blythe will not go on forever. I drew that inference already from certain a priori principles. It will not do that he will go some time. We want some assurance that he will go this year. May I say that it would be a magnificent thing if he said now: “You have a fine theatre. I did my share for it. I am now handing it over to you younger men with more progressive ideas.” If he did that, he would become a national saint in the theatre. If he stays on, he is going to waste money and detract from our reputation.
May I seek some clarification from the Minister? He seemed to say that the artistic director would have control over the selection and production of plays. Is this in fact the case? Did Mr. Walter Macken, as artistic director, have this control? Is this something which the Board have delegated to him and would they not concern themselves with the production of plays? This is very important. If this in fact is the case, then it would get over some of the difficulties which Senator Stanford sees as regards certain people applying for the post and some of the difficulties he sees as regards the present incumbent of the post of managing director, a matter on which I am not competent to speak. It is important that the Minister should make it clear that what he seemed to say is what I have said now.
This is really a matter for the Abbey board. I am sure the board will have the last say as regard the particular plays selected for production. This is a matter for working out between the artistic director and the board. As I understand it, Mr. Walter Macken had such freedom in regard to this matter. He was certainly quite happy with the arrangements made and relations were excellent between himself and the board. He was on the board himself as artistic director and the matters were going very well. He retired, as he said himself, for purely personal reasons. I know from recent experience that people are always looking for reasons behind the reason given by a person who retires from such a post. I am certain whoever is selected as artistic director in the future will also work well with the board.
I am really concerned with what the Minister said earlier that the artistic director would have control over the plays produced. When I pressed the Minister with regard to this, he seemed to hedge behind a smokescreen if I may use the metaphor. It is important that we should be clear on this. Either it is or it is not the case. If it is, some of the points Senator Stanford made are valid and can be partly met.
I am not on the board of directors but I happen to know what is involved in this particular case. I have friends in the theatre and I am personally involved to a greater degree than some Senators in this matter. I am aware of the views that have been expressed. Apart from that, I am aware that the outgoing artistic director had, and I am sure the future artistic director will have, fairly full control over production, over what is produced and what plays are selected. But, the ultimate control in regard to what play is put on, or is not put on, must, of course, rest with the board of directors. The board is there to carry out a policy in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Association. The ultimate vetting of every play put on now is, and certainly will be in the future, if there is a board at all, a matter for the board of directors.
I am glad I clarified the point.
The Minister may be aware that on the Second Reading I simply asked a question. He has satisfied me that the answer given me is a true and correct one. I accept that but I do not accept that it is a sign of wise direction and wise policy that the man chosen is a man who will resign within two or three months. There is a lack of judgment there and it is part of the whole shaky edifice into which we are putting this large sum of money. I presume the ultimate judgment about Mr. Macken was made by Dr. Blythe and now after all this parturition of the mountain, not even a mouse arrives. There is nobody to act as artistic director of the Abbey at the moment. That is part of the general malaise I am complaining about and I say the only cure is what I suggest.
I want to assure the Senator that the matter will be settled quickly.
We have been mentioning a lot of names during the course of this debate and Senator Dr. Ryan's name has been very properly mentioned for his encouragement and support of the Abbey when he was Minister for Finance. I think when we are mentioning names, we might also couple with Senator Dr. Ryan the name of Deputy Sweetman who as Minister for Finance at the relevant time and a director of the Abbey controlled all the Government's and the State's commitments to provide in due time the necessary funds, or find the necessary funds, for the completion of the new Abbey Theatre.
Having said that, it seems to me that I should now conclude from what Senator Stanford has been saying that we have got from him very good reason why he wishes to see this particular change come about, that there are certain people who would apply for the position of artistic director but who will not do so.
That is misrepresentation; it is not what I said at all.
I took Senator Stanford as saying that.
That is the impression we got.
Perhaps I should clarify what I said. I am concerned with the removal of the managing director because I feel his direction is inadequate for this new theatre. That is the criticism. On the specific point, the Minister suggested that we will get a good artistic director and therefore the Abbey will be all right. I say that we will be unlikely to do that under the present management. What Senator O'Quigley has deduced from my remarks is not true and I want to make it clear that I have no particular choice in mind for this post. Certain people have written to me.
Anois, sin scéal eile.
But the general point is that, by and large, and totally, the present direction by a man of 77 years or age is inadequate for this fine new theatre.
I want to clarify the relationship between the Minister for Finance and the new board. I understood the Minister to say that the Minister for Finance through nominating two directors on to the board will thereby exercise a measure of control over the board. Now, I understand that the director nominated by the Government would not be reporting back to the Minister for Finance on this or any other company, that he would function there as an independent member of that board and that the only means the Government would have to express dissatisfaction with his work would be when his terms of renewal came up and the Government might not re-appoint him if they were not satisfied that he did the job properly. But it is fundamental in the whole concept of Government-nominated boards that the directors nominated by the Government should exercise as much independence as possible and there should be no suggestion of their being there as mouthpieces for the Minister and the Government.
Hear, hear.
The question has arisen as to whether Dr. Blythe will remain there forever or not. I think Senator Stanford gave the impression that he is very anxious to remain and that the board are not likely to get rid of him. When I was negotiating with the Abbey Theatre and when we fixed up the giving to them of this money, they suggested that the Minister for Finance should have two nominees on the board instead of one. It was a board of four at that time and the Minister for Finance nominated one. It was agreed that the Minister for Finance should nominate two and they then said to me that they would like me to keep in mind that they wanted a director who would succeed Dr. Blythe. At that stage I asked whether they had anybody in mind but they said they had not but that they might be able to suggest somebody to me. After that a general election took place and I was removed instead of Dr. Blythe.
Dramatic consequences.
I just want to mention that the directors, including Dr. Blythe, were very anxious that a person should be got to succeed him and I am sure that is their present attitude.
With regard to the question raised by Senator Quinlan, the Minister for Finance does not exercise control in the sense of saying to his nominees they should do so and so.
And there is no reporting back.
He puts them in for three years, and thereafter if he does not like them, he puts somebody else in. He has control over them as the Minister responsible holding a certain amount of shares. The shares are roughly in three parts. The directors hold one block of shares; the shareholders another block between them; and the Minister bolds a block. The Minister has this control, that if ever there is a contest between the shareholders and the board, he can decide. But, otherwise, he cannot. If the shareholders agree with the board, then the Minister is powerless, which I think is a fair arrangement.
My principal object, however, in rising is to say that the board themselves are very anxious to get a good artistic director to succeed Dr. Blythe, and I must say I have no knowledge of anybody refusing the position.
I should like to raise a point, now that we are talking about the direction of this board. What remuneration will the directors receive? I presume the Minister's nominee will receive the same amount as the other directors and I should like to know whether the amount has been decided.
It is something nominal, something like £10 a year. Actually neither Dr. Blythe nor any of the directors receives a salary other than a nominal one.
What does the Minister mean by nominal?
Dr. Blythe gets £1,200 a year.
That is not so very nominal.
As compared with a Senator's allowance.
If I may just say this—that what I have said during the course of this debate has been entirely directed towards the benefit, as I hope, of the dramatic talent of this country. I have no other motives in the matter. I regret that I have had to name a specific person. But my belief simply is that it is on that person that the welfare of our national theatre hinges. That is all that has prompted me to take this action on this Bill.