: I have no difficulty in welcoming this proposal. In the context in which we are discussing it, it is appropriate to look back to the genesis of the Arts Council. It owes its origins to the imaginative vision of the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy John A. Costello, who in the debate at that time revealed something of his own long-standing interest and perhaps his sense of frustration when he said that he had been something like 21 years hoping to see this Bill come into the Irish Parliament. He took the opportunity when he became Taoiseach to see that it did come into the Irish Parliament and in his speech he referred indeed to the lack of interest in the arts and the near obstruction of anything to do with the arts. He said that it was indeed difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that there was something in the nature of a deliberate policy to obstruct anybody who evinced any desire or inclination to do anything for the furtherance of art in Ireland or for the furtherance of the application of art industry in Ireland. One senses there the frustration of a man deeply concerned about these matters.
It is also relevant, looking back, to see his determination that the Arts Council in their activities should have the freedom to act and should not be constrained by bureaucratic procedures. He said that it was a body which should be entitled to work on its own, free from the trammels of civil service procedure. He said it was envisaged in the Bill that it should be subject merely to Government and that it was not intended that it should be under the authority of any particular Minister except in the sense that it reports through the Taoiseach to the Government. I think he showed great farsightedness in that at the time.
It is also noteworthy that in the discussion on the Bill, it was the Opposition's Deputy de Valera who pressed for the taking out of the Bill both the limit in the original draft on the amount of money involved and the provision that the Minister in anything done in the way of providing funds should be in consultation with the Minister for Finance, asserting that the Taoiseach should be able to run these affairs himself without having to get the approval of the Minister for Finance. Eventually the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Costello, accepted this suggestion from somebody who had long experience of being Taoiseach. So much for the past in terms of the foundation of the Arts Council by way of background.
So far as this order is concerned, it amends an order of 1966 brought in when Deputy Seán Lemass was Taoiseach. On the order providing for the establishment of a fund it was expressed as being one to help creative artists advanced in years or who by reason of ill health are able no longer to fend properly for themselves. But it did not at the time make any provision for the State assisting this fund. Indeed, the order provided that the council should not utilise for the purpose of the fund any part of the grant paid to the council annually out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The fund has been correspondingly limited. The exact nature of its activities are somewhat obscure because although that order provided that the council should keep accounts of expenditure and made provision that the abstract of the accounts and the fund for each year be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, all that we actually get is an appendix to the Arts Council report with the figure of the sum brought forward; under "revenue" there is no clear indication of its source; under "expenditure" there is no indication of how it is expended, what is left, and how the residue is invested.
The Taoiseach has an accountant who will no doubt be able to assert that these five figures that are given do represent an abstract of the accounts but they are certainly a very minimal abstract. We know very little about the operations of this fund though we do know that in the last year for which we have figures, out of £15,000 available only £1,400 was spent, which indicates either that there are very few creative artists who by virtue of their age or incapacity are in need, which seems inherently improbable, or a certain frugality in the way in which the fund is administered. This order makes a number of changes. One to which the Taoiseach did not refer and the significance of which is not quite clear to me, though I am not demurring at it, appears to be the deletion of the word "creative" from the phrase "these annuities or grants be paid in recognition of outstanding creative services in one or more of these arts in Ireland." I suppose there is some reason why it was thought desirable to delete this word, in some way the existence of this word impeded possible generosity — perhaps the Taoiseach would enlighten us as to the rationale of that deletion—I am not quarrelling with it but, obviously, there is some reason for it and one would be interested to know it.
An important feature—perhaps the most important feature—is that it extends the fund to the dependants of artists, the creative workers in various arts, providing not merely that the fund can be used to help them, if they can no longer provide for themselves or for their dependants, but also providing for the fund to be used to help surviving relatives and dependants of a creative artist. There is obviously a good reason for this. Given the nature of their work and the way in which it is very unevenly remunerated, there must be many occasions when creative artists, or their dependants find themselves in considerable financial difficulty both before and after the death of the creative artist. The loosening of the rather tight constrictions within which this fund operates is welcome, as we must welcome the fact that the ban on utilisation for the purposes of the fund of the Arts Council grant has been removed, subject only to the approval of the Taoiseach. As to the proportion of the Arts Council grant which can be used for this purpose, the public funds will now be available where hitherto they had not been and where Ciste Cholmcille has depended, as far as I can judge from the material in front of me, on private donations of one kind or another.
We welcome the changes to the order, subject to clarification of the reason for the omission of the word "creative" in paragraph 1. No doubt there is a good reason which the House is entitled to hear.
