I am grateful for the opportunity afforded me by the Ceann Comhairle's office to raise this matter. Sadly, since I first raised the matter in the Dáil, Carolyn Swift has passed on. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to her, to acknowledge her contribution to Irish theatre and to offer my sympathy to her family and wide circle of friends.
It is no reflection on the Minister of State if I say I am disappointed that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not find it possible to be here. The papers made available in January 2000 were a partial file of the matter dealt with in the case of "The Rose Tattoo". I ask the Minister of State to undertake that the remaining papers be made available, including those dealing with the Secretary of the Department of Justice, as will enable us to arrive at a final conclusion in this sorry matter.
Carolyn Swift co-authored with Gerard Whelan a book published by New Ireland Press. She ends the book by saying:
Our plea, obviously, would be for a fuller release of the remaining Rose Tattoo papers. If our scenario is even partly correct then the gaff in any case is blown. If it is incorrect, then the remaining documents will discredit with little difficulty.
The book continues:
This is all that Swift wishes for. Not apologies, restitution, explanations, honours or anything else. Simply an opportunity, if her own explanation of its roots is so wide of the mark, to lay the ghost of "The Rose Tattoo" case once and for all.
I remember, as a very young person, reading about this case. My interest was in the Pike Theatre. Through my own associations I was involved with some people who founded small theatres in Dublin. The 1950s was an absolute barren place where all the shutters were down. I do not say we have fallen into any happy circumstance since then. The position of actors in this country is still a disgrace. When they go to social welfare offices they cannot have their occupation listed as one from which they are unemployed. They are regularly asked why they have not taken up such and such a job. The way we treat actors is a scandal and a disgrace.
However, in comparison with that, what happened in 1957 was appalling. In the preface to the book to which I have made reference, Carolyn Swift wrote:
Ever since the first policeman darkened the doorway of the Pike Theatre in May 1957 I have been asking myself the same question. "Why were my husband and I being threatened? Why were the full forces of the State ranged against our tiny theatre? Why were our lives being destroyed? Why "The Rose Tattoo" and why us?
It is a matter of the utmost importance that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, even now, give the undertaking I have sought in relation to meeting the full requirement of the Archives Act and make all the papers available. It is also important that he reflect on the actions of the police, three of whom arrived in the theatre and gave evidence which later proved to be totally unsustainable, but not until Alan Simpson had been dragged through the courts. He found himself standing in the dock accused of indecency. In the history of theatre in Ireland and Britain this was one of maybe two or three occasions on which this had happened.
Why had it happened? I have my own views, as a person writing about this period and lecturing on it. It was, after all, within six years of the debacle of the mother and child scheme. Many things were going on. A very interesting hypothesis is advanced in the book to which I have referred. People can read the book and develop it themselves. It might be less a case of the most obvious abuse of the church's position than the use of the church by a Government seeking to outflank right wing censorship forces which were being, perhaps, replaced in the censorship board.
On 24 May 1957, Alan Simpson found himself in the dock. All the forces of the State were ranged against him. Think of the circumstance, for example, that because of a preliminary and not a full hearing, costs could not be got. He and his wife, who were already under terrible financial pressure, had to take the risk and discuss how they were going to afford to move from the High Court to the Supreme Court. It was too late to save their theatre or many aspects of their lives. It was an appalling abuse of State power and it is appropriate that, even now, it be acknowledged that the State's forces were abused.
At that time there was not a theatre company in the world which would not have glowed from a positive review from Harold Hobson. He wrote of Anna Manahan's and Kate Binchy's magnificent performances. He spoke of the tiny theatre where people pushed together. A hypocrisy of the whole affair is that both before and after they were internationally recognised they had been feted by politicians who sought to meet them and shake their hands, and were part of the social life of Dublin. They were regarded as stars shining in a total bog, which was theatre in Dublin. This was a disgraceful episode. It ruined the lives of people and ruined a small theatre company.
Will all the papers now be revealed, as Carolyn Swift has sought? Will, even now, an apology be made on behalf of the State for what happened in that appalling period in May 1957.
