Vol. 62 No. 3
I move:
(Arts Act, 1951 (Additional Function) Order, 1966),
That, pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section 3 of the Arts Act, 1951, Seanad Éireann confirm.
An tOrdú um an Acht Ealaíon, 1951 (Feidhm Bhreise), 1966
the Arts Act, 1951 (Additional
made by the Government on the 5th July, 1966.
I should like to raise one small matter on the Schedule to the Act; it may be quite unimportant. We are providing in section (3) that the Council may accept gifts of money, land and other property for the purpose of the fund. It does not seem to provide that the Comhairle can dispose of the land. They may accept these gifts for the purpose of the fund but if, for example, they get a gift of land, presumably they would have to sell the land in order to be able to utilise it for the purpose of the fund. It may not be necessary, but we do not seem to be giving them the power to be able to sell the land in order to utilise the money they would be able to get from it. Maybe it is covered by something else.
Section 3 (4) (a) of the Arts Act, 1951, reads:
The Government may from time to time by order confer or impose on the Council such additional functions as the Government think proper and specify in the order, and any order made under this paragraph may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Government think necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the order.
On the 5th July, 1966, the Government made an Order—the Arts Act, 1951 (Additional Function) Order, 1966—authorising An Chomhairle Ealaíon to establish and administer a fund to help creative workers in the fine and applied arts who are advanced in years or who, because of ill-health, are unable to provide for themselves. The Council hope that the fund will be financed by voluntary subscriptions and gifts of property.
The Arts Act, 1951 provides that the Order will not come into operation unless it is confirmed by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
Therefore, the Senator can take it that this power does reside in An Chomhairle Ealaíon.
To accept the land?
And power to disburse.
Before the motion is passed, I should like to welcome this addition to the operations of the Arts Council. It is inevitable, in the days in which we live, that the main patron of the arts must be the State. It is good to see the State is now recognising, through the instrument of the Arts Council, it should take some action in regard to these creative artists who, however difficult they may find it to make a living in their full vigour and strength, find it utterly impossible to do so once their health wanes. I should hope that this would be only the first move in the enlargement of this patronage function of the Arts Council which it exercises on behalf of the whole community. I should hope that there would be further moves in this direction. I should hope, too, that the Arts Council would be vigorous in their attempt to canvass support so that they might, through the operation of this order, become the channel through which individuals, who are unable themselves to make any worthwhile contribution to this upkeep of creative artists in their old age, would—through this particular fund—be able to do it as a common enterprise. It is, indeed, a welcome departure and we hope it will be followed by others.
I should like to support what Senator Dooge has said and to add to it a question as to what is the reason for the exclusion in the order of certain types of artists, actors, musicians and so on. I imagine there is some basic reason for that but I did not hear any reference to it.
Certainly I should imagine that the broad definition of drama and literature is sufficient to include people such as the Senator has in mind.
I am speaking just from memory, because I read the order at home and I am afraid I did not bring it with me, but I think they are, in fact, excluded.
Artists, instrumentalists and conductors are excluded.
Section 1 of the Arts Act, 1951, states:
In this Act—
the expression "the arts" means painting, sculpture, architecture, music, the drama, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied arts generally;
Under the Act the functions of An Chomhairle Ealaíon are confined to this, so that any grants or annuities that may be paid under this new innovation must be confined, under the section, to people under these various cultural headings.
I understand that; but how can we have drama without actors?
This is only my interpretation of it. I can certainly think of one or two names which come to my mind of very fine actors who would come within the heading of drama and literature.
Surely the Minister is being naïve about this. There is an express exclusion in the third paragraph of the Schedule.
The exclusion refers only to actors, theatrical producers, instrumentalists or conductors in respect of their interpretative work, so that in so far as they are concerned purely with the interpretative aspects of the work, they are excluded, but where such actors, theatrical producers, musicians or conductors are concerned with creative work, then that would come within the definition envisaged in the section. An Chomhairle Ealaíon were designed to deal with creative artists, as set out in the section, and the extension is to provide for such creative actors.
Where will this be decided—in the Supreme Court or in Actors' Equity—as to what is the creative and what is the interpretative element?
That is common-sense.
I fail to see the Minister's point.
Will the Minister consider the question as to whether some injustice is not being done by this exclusion, which may be necessary under the Act, but nevertheless will not cover many people one would like to see assisted and, even though their art is an ephemeral or transient one is, nonetheless, highly creative? I am just asking if the Minister would give some consideration to some ways and means for including people whose art, like that of the actor or conductor, was a transient one but is, nonetheless, creative in the full sense.
(Longford): Is there not an organisation having some responsibility—I do not know whether it is a voluntary one—and catering for actors, musicians, conductors and such people, rather than for creative art? It is my understanding that there is some organisation or some fund which caters for such people who find themselves in a condition of hardship in their old age.
We can do nothing about the 1951 Act on this particular motion. This particular motion is designed to do something, in so far as it can be done legally under the 1951 Act, which deals with specific creative categories. Interpretative categories are excluded from the 1951 Act.
Does the Minister then think that paragraph 3 really adds nothing new but is merely interpretative of paragraph 1?
We are concerned in this order to make it completely within the terms of the Act. That is our point.
I was hoping the Minister might recognise the fact that under the Act it is necessary now to permit an injustice and that he would, therefore, consider introducing fresh legislation to avoid this.
That is a matter which can be considered, certainly.
I think we would be satisfied if the Minister would consider the particular categories we have been talking about.
