I hope the Minister will let us know later if it is envisaged that a similar Bill will be necessary with regard to the other two Colleges. Is it possible that, in the next six months, it may become desirable or necessary for another board of eminent judges to be appointed to examine the conditions of appointment in Cork and Galway? It is quite possible, and, in my opinion, exactly the same position has obtained in the past 10 years in Galway University as has been disclosed in this report in respect of University College, Dublin. Unfortunately, there has been no public-minded, courageous lecturer so far, in either of the two Universities I have referred to, to come forward with a petition to the Government to have exactly the same operation carried out in respect of these two Colleges as has been carried out by the board of judges with reference to University College, Dublin.
The Minister, seeing what happened in University College, Dublin, should not have to wait for a further Petition from these other Colleges. He should take his courage in his hands at this stage and say to the Governing Bodies of these universities: "I have not the slightest doubt, gentlemen, that the same operation, the same action, the same intrigue is going on in your establishments as in University College, Dublin, and consequently I intend to have an investigation into your operations." Otherwise, this question which we are discussing here to-day may have to be rehashed in the very near future.
On page 2 of the report, we have the record of the first decision, dated 14th June, 1949, to appoint what were known as 21 Assistant Lecturers. That was the first occasion in the history of the University that this new classification of the teaching staff, under the description of "Assistant Lecturer," was mooted. The Board's report carries copies of the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body.
The first occasion on which such appointments were being made was June, 1949, and 21 Assistant Lecturers were then appointed. So far as the minutes of that meeting are concerned, in spite of the fact that it was an innovation and an important one—I am quoting now from the report of the Board of Visitors—there was no discussion on the change involved in the reclassification of the teaching staff. No reason is recorded for the change and, more important still, there is no record of a decision to make a change.
Therefore, in so far as the minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body of 14th June, 1949, are concerned, it appears that 21 Assistant Lecturers were appointed by the Governing Body for the Session 1949-50; but there is no record of any decision to make that change. In each of the three following years, Assistant Lecturers were appointed by the Governing Body. I do not know how many were appointed in each of the following years. We have no such knowledge, according to this report, and the Minister has not given us any information about it in his opening statement. I suppose that if more time were given, we would have the numbers who were appointed Assistant Lecturers in the following years.
Many Deputies are members of various organisations ranging from the G.A.A. to the Irish Country-women's Association and from Lansdowne Rugby Club to Bohemians Soccer club. I shall not go any further into that. Most Deputies are familiar with the conduct and procedures of meetings. Most Deputies, I also presume, are members of past pupil associations and unions up and down the country. I am sure the Minister is an honourable past pupil of St. Flannan's College, Ennis. The point is that Deputies are members of past pupils associations in Dublin and elsewhere.
Most of the members of these unions and of various social committees have a training in the simple formula adopted in the conduct of special committee meetings. Minute books are kept. The chairman and the secretary have a copy of the agenda. Proposals and decisions are recorded as well as the voting on matters to be decided upon. There are proposers and seconders. The affair is carried out in a simple, straightforward and, at the same time, legal, professional manner by, in most cases, amateurs.
What do we find in the University with a Governing Body? These are the people who teach the poor unfortunates who are past pupils of the various colleges. These are the people who teach our future legal geniuses and experts. These are the Professors of Law, Theology, Physics, the Professors and leading lights of Romance Languages. All these brilliant gentlemen who are on the Governing Body, in addition to members from the county council—I understand the Lord Mayor of Dublin is a member of the Governing Body —are unable, it would appear from the report, to keep a competent record of their decisions.
The Board of Visitors reported on them. It was not an ordinary casual or routine meeting of the Body but a very serious meeting of the Governing Body on 14th June, 1949, at which 21 Assistant Lecturers were appointed. In spite of that decision and all these appointments being made, there is no record of a decision to make the change and there is no reason recorded for the change. Is there any need for me to comment further on the people concerned who in such a haphazard fashion keep minutes or to make a comparison between them and a class of rookies in a school who would be kept in after hours for two hours by a teacher if they carried out a lesson in that fashion?
I think it is important that we should know in this House what lay behind the decision to make these new appointments. Who was responsible for thinking up this unknown classification in 1949? Why, in 1949, was it decided to start on this business of making what have turned out to be illegal appointments? Why have we not some knowledge of what lay in the mind of the individual who laid those 21 names before the Governing Body? Why have we not at least an explanation as to what impelled him to create these new posts?
Unless we are given a sound and solid reason—and there is none available from the minutes—then we are at liberty to put two and two together and to suggest that there is more than a coincidence in the fact that the individual who it has been disclosed here is the Governing Body of that University disclosed months ago that he had already made up his mind in 1949 to move to Belfield. We find that in the same year as he admitted he intended to remove to Belfield, the ground work was being prepared so far as the professorial staff and lecturers are concerned for a nice, quiet, trained group to vote "yes" unanimously for the change when he decided to inform the Government and the House. That is a supposition. I must confess that I have no knowledge of the gentleman's mind but I am at liberty, until I hear otherwise, to assume that that is what he had in mind.
On page 2, there is another significant point which Deputies should note. Apart from the appointments I refer to in that year of 1949, similar appointments were made by the Governing Body in each of the following three years. After that, a further change in classification took place, according to the minutes of 30th June, 1953. The first change in classification took place in June, 1949. No reasons were recorded in the minutes for the change in classification or the decision to make a change. We are at a loss to know what happened.
Again in June, 1953, a further change in classification took place. The report of the Board of Visitors sets out:
Here again there is no record that there was any discussion, and no reason appears in the Minutes for the further change. For the session 1953-54 in addition to 24 Assistant Lecturers, two College Lecturers were appointed by the Governing Body. Of the 24 Assistant Lecturers, 22 had been recommended by the Academic Council.
And this is significant:
The remaining two were added to the list so recommended by the Governing Body.
Up to this, we understood that the Academic Council made the recommendations; that the names came before the Academic Council and that they in turn recommended them to the Governing Body. Now we find this change takes place: that a number are recommended by the Academic Council and a separate number, which do not go before the Academic Council at all for screening, confirmation or recommendation, go direct for sanction by the Governing Body. I refer to the period from 1949 to 1954. Here is the comment made by the board on that period:
The agendas for the foregoing meetings were not forthcoming as it was stated that it was not the custom to keep such documents longer than five years.
I shall pass on from that, with the comment that from the period when the classification was changed and absolutely new types of appointments were being made, it would not be unreasonable for me to suggest that in respect of these meetings at which such vital decisions were taken, the records of the agenda, plus the minutes and the decisions should have been kept, in view of the danger of a legal action being always there. In spite of the fact that these learned gentlemen felt in their bones that the possibility existed that some courageous man would at some stage not knuckle down, they still destroyed the records, got rid of the records, of the very meetings in respect of which it was vital to have records kept. That is a shocking state of affairs. If that happened in a country shop, if a man destroyed the records of his accounts because of the danger that the income tax people were likely to catch up with him over a period of years, then God help him. The immediate reaction of the authorities would be one of suspicion and naturally he would be punished for what would be an evasive step.
Again, on the same page, we have another significant departure. Several revolutionary ideas seem to have struck a number of these people around the period from 1939 to 1954. The report of the Board of Visitors reads:—
The Minutes of the 23rd February 1954 record that on the recommendation of the Finance Committee two Assistant Lecturers were "raised to the status of College Lecturers". From that date until 24th June, 1959, the word "status" was used to describe the position of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. On the latter date the Governing Body decided that the word "status" in this context should be replaced by the words "title or titles".
Now, again, the Board on this occasion have made no reference in the minutes to the agenda or the context in which both decisions were made, namely, the decision with regard to getting rid of the word "status" and introduction titles.
Possibly it will be suggested that it is an impertinence on the part of anybody in this House to probe so deeply into what is the internal business of the College authorities. I must confess I am not impressed by any such criticism from anybody at this stage in view of the fact that the general public have to pay for the tune. The general public are paying for higher educational facilities. The general public pay for these facilities for the limited few in the community who are lucky enough to get them. As Deputy Ryan said, the poor man is paying his share for higher education, although he himself and his family, in present circumstances, will never be able to avail of these facilities. But in view of the fact that he is paying, then the least he might have is the knowledge that the money he is providing is being properly expended.
We all have a duty in this House even though these all-wise and powerful men who live on the heights with their legal intellects feel it is a terrible impertinence for people of our standing to dare criticise them. I have read this report of the judges and I have tried to add up and subtract and to find out how many appointments of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers were made between this significant date in June, 1949 up to June, 1959. We find that there were 23 one year and that there are no records available for the next three or four years. We find, for instance, according to page 3, for the session 1959-60, that 45 College Lecturers and 30 Assistant Lecturers were appointed at the meeting of the Governing Body no later than 24th June, 1959.
Other Deputies have referred to the fact that the Governing Body in 1956 was aware that the legal opinion by a senior and junior counsel, which had been circulated to all members of the Governing Body, had suggested that these types of appointment were irregular. In spite of that, the Governing Body and the President were still persisting in doing something which they knew was contrary to the Charter.
It is important that the house should understand that the likely reaction of the body of students and of lecturers would be to the appointing, in increasing numbers, of Lecturers and Assistants in a temporary capacity. The appointments to which I refer, of Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, each year from 1959, were on a yearly basis. I do not know what the remuneration of these individuals was. I have no doubt it was satisfactory. There was no question or criticism of the remuneration but there was undoubted criticism of the fact that the appoinments were for only a 12 months period and that—I now quote from Page 3 of the report:
In no instance of the appointment of a College Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer has more than one name being before the Academic Council or the Governing Body. In the majority of instances the post was not advertised, and in some instances the appointment was made by the Governing Body without any recommendation by the Academic Council.
That little paragraph by three learned judges is a sober summing up of the position.
Judges, as I have already pointed out, do not go in for foolish or flamboyant statements. A judge weighs his sentences, weighs his words, the words which he intends to use to describe a certain situation. These two sentences which I quoted from this report should be studied and re-read by Deputies and plastered on posters outside to enable the general public to realise what has been happening since 1949 with regard to the appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in University College, Dublin, in numbers that range, in 1959-60, from 45 College Lecturers to 30 Assistant Lecturers in that year, that is, 75 Lecturers appointed on a 12-months' basis. At the end of the 12 months, it was quite possible that it was essential for some of them to have their coats hanging on the back of the door for quick removal elsewhere. That paragraph is sufficient in my opinion, to condemn the President and the Governing Body.
If Deputy Mulcahy comes in here and starts telling me or anybody else that because the Lord Mayor of Dublin and a number of county councillors and a number of other public citizens were members of the Governing Body, and that consequently it was all right and that nothing could happen, I shall not accept it. I believe that these men, sincere and all as they were, on that public body were misled, confused or bewildered by the skilful men who manipulated them, namely, the President of the College and a group of his own cronies.
Is it not a fact that if a lecturer— and that is an important and prominent post where a man is charged with the responsibility of training the future graduate, the future doctors and professional men of all sorts—is appointed on a 12-months' basis, it is questionable if he will be independent enough to give the fruits of his experience to the students if his views happen to clash with those of his old professor or, in this instance, with those of the President of the College? Is it not a fact that if he does not toe the line and be a yes-man in all matters relating to the teaching of the lectures, he may pack his bag? Is there any suggestion there of the independence of which we have heard so much and the desirability of having it in the University?
I am sick of listening to people inside and outside the House saying how dangerous it is to have any interference with the University. Deputy Mulcahy spoke of how splendid it was to have the University free and independent in every way and that he could think of no more free, democratic or independent University than U.C.D. In so far as the control exercised by this House is concerned, I am with him—that is the position— but when it comes to being free in the sense that within the University there is freedom from diverging— strongly diverging—points of view, which is the real criterion of education. I doubt if the freedom the Deputy so fondly believes in, obtains. I base that statement on the fact that this system of appointment since 1949 has been of such a nature as to eliminate men who differ in their views from the controlling authorities.
If Galway or Sligo or Mayo or Clare County Councils decided, in their wisdom, that they wanted to appoint Dr. John Murphy as dispensary doctor permanently and said: "This is a very decent doctor; we all know him very well," and if they took the county manager into consultation and appointed the doctor—this can be done, as the House knows, under the managerial system rather than proceed to the Local Appointments Commission; it is one of the two ways of appointing dispensary doctors—what would be the reaction of the Government and of public representatives and of the general public if there were no advertisement about that post, no competition and if there were not at least the decency of a formal interview to put a face on the appointment?
Is it not a fact that even in the case of the worst appointments made by local authorities, they go through the formality of advertising the post, having an interview and examining the candidates' qualifications. If that is necessary with local authorities, with the Civil Service, and with the Local Appointments Commission, why is it not necessary in the field of higher education and training? Why is it not necessary to advertise these posts of Lecturer and Assistant Lecturers so that the very best brains of the Irish race in the four quarters of the world will have an opportunity to apply and give their services in Ireland?
I know a number of lecturers in Dublin and elsewhere: I have a great admiration for them; but I find they are very frequently afraid of their lives to express the views they hold because human nature is such that they must consider their posts. That should not be. The figures have been disclosed showing that in the various faculties 40 to 50 per cent. of the graduates must find a living outside the country. Is it not tragic that they have, or had, no hope under the system that exists for the past ten years, of offering or applying for some of the jobs in Ireland. But that decision is made by somebody behind the scenes at the University because he likes the colour of somebody's hair or the shape of his nose or the nice, disciplined way he trots around and obeys the orders given to him and that gentleman is appointed without competition, without advertising and without giving an opportunity to the best brains to apply.
I do not suggest that men without ability are being appointed—I want to make that clear. I want my remarks to be as balanced as possible, but even the most prejudiced Deputy —prejudiced in favour of the existing situation—will not deny that it would be a far more desirable approach to advertise these posts so that the best brains would get them. Unless you give an opportunity by advertising, I suggest you are possibly excluding the most efficient, the most brilliant candidates. That is one argument. The other is that, in my opinion, this is a high-class form of patronage exercised in the highest field of education. It is a form of high-class skulduggery. It is deplorable, and if any Deputy thinks I am exaggerating, I would refer him to the report of the Board of Visitors on page 9. This is what the three judges have to say:
The practice of appointing College Lecturers, and Assistant Lecturers in the College could, and in the opinion of the Board would, lead to the situation that a large majority of the teaching staff would be appointed by the College from within the College without the posts being advertised.
They go on to say what I have already said in different words—I did not put it as well as the judges put it —that they do not for a moment suggest that incompetent or incapable men are filling the posts, but they do say this:
To date it is not suggested that the standard of the teaching staff in the College has suffered by the method of appointment that has been adopted.
Later, they say that the existing system could lend itself to patronage.
That is the report, then, of three Judges as to what they found. Could we expect the Judges to come out any stronger? Is that report not a condemnation of the methods of appointment? If the most humble of our citizens adopted the same line of procedure, they would very quickly be suspended, if they were under the Minister's control, and, if they were not under his control, they would be prosecuted for misappropriation of funds in the ordinary courts. Instead of taking punitive action against the people who have carried on this system since 1949, the Minister calmly comes in here with a Bill to legalise the position for the next four years.
The Board of Visitors clearly found that the practice was illegal and contrary to the Charter. The question arose of moneys being paid to Lecturers and others illegally. The Government have decided evidently that the report by the three Judges is all right but they will back the University authorities; they will let the practice continue for another four years. Is that not contempt for the three eminent Judges who gave their time and bent their energies to the preparation of such an excellent review of the whole situation?
Is there much purpose in having the situation investigated and a report made by such prominent men if the abuses are not remedied but are, rather —to paraphrase the Bill—allowed to continue and validity given to the practices which exist. Earlier I used the word "vindication" and one member of the House nearly had a fit.
In spite of the warning given in 1956 by prominent senior and junior counsel that these activities, which have been persisted in since 1949, were contrary to the Charter, right up to 1959, those in authority went their jolly way making the appointments, brushing aside with contempt the advice given by these experts, brushing aside with contempt the queries raised by the man who, at a later stage, became the Petitioner, brushing aside all criticism, not on the basis that the criticism was wrong but on the basis, as stated in the Report of the Board of Visitors at page 8, in the words of the Registrar of the College: "I defend them (College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers) on the ground of our chartered freedom to do what is necessary." In effect, what he says is: "We know that we are flouting the Charter; we know that what we are doing is illegal, but we shall continue to do it because we think it is necessary."
On that basis of argument, could a man who is hungry and sees plenty of bread in a shop window break the window to get some bread to appease his hunger? He knows it is wrong to take up a stone and break the window He also knows it is necessary for him to have bread. Perhaps he has a wife and children. We have read many cases reported in the Press dealing with robbery in which the accused robbed in order to feed his wife and children. Although it was tragic to see anyone in such poor circumstances, because he had broken the law, the decision was that he must be punished and sent to jail for stealing a loaf of bread. The Registrar of University College can, however, say that although they are flouting the Charter, he defends it because it is necessary.
This House is entitled to an explanation from these gentlemen of their activities. We are public representatives and there is no other way in which John Citizen can make his views felt except through his representatives here. As one representative of the people, I demand that those who carried on these activities be brought to book for their actions.
Deputy Dr. Browne referred to the fact that the Governing Body and the President appear to be one and the same, so far as decisions are concerned. I am afraid that is correct. After June, 1959, a new idea was arrived at. On the face of it, it would appear to be a decision of the Governing Body. The decision taken was that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers would be appointed in future on a five-year basis. This news was disseminated in the form of a circular letter and in the minutes of 24th June, 1959, it is recorded that "The President stated that it was intended to appoint College Lecturers for a period of five years". There is no word of the Governing Body making the decision. They did not even record the Governing Body out of sheer shame. They merely recorded that the President decided that in future Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers would be appointed on a five-year basis. It was pointed out in the circular that "certain persons would be excluded: (a) those being appointed for the first time; (b) those above the age of 60 years; and (c) those whose health might make it impossible to serve for five years."
The report goes on to say that "A list of those appointed for next year would be circulated at the next meeting. This was noted and approved." Are there not many Deputies here who would like an opportunity of studying that statement and absorbing its implications? Would it not be much more desirable if every Deputy had the opportunity over the next month of discussing the implications of the decisions to which I have referred before he makes up his mind on his approach to this Bill? I do not think that is too much to expect.
The implications I see in it are frightening. Certain men who have reached the age of 60 are told quite bluntly that they cannot get a five year appointment up to the age of 65. Surely it is not suggested that a lecturer or assistant lecturer is considered too old at 60 to be given employment and security of tenure for another five years. But the President—the President, mark you—stated that it was intended to appoint College lecturers for a period of five years and that certain persons would be excluded. Men of 60 years and over were excluded, and a number of others were excluded presumably, because the President did not think they were in good health and, for their own sakes, decided it would be unwise to give them another five years. Outside of Syngman Rhee I doubt if I know of any character who has acted in that fashion, and I hope there is no significance for us in the tragic happenings that have taken place over the last few weeks in the country recently ruled by that gentleman.
I referred earlier to the necessity of giving what Deputy Mulcahy wants— freedom to the University to discuss and to argue, freedom from the shadow of fear of a dictatorship by a group or an individual. I cannot be accused of suggesting that this House should control every facet of the University. I merely suggest that when we have Universities there should be some freedom for those charged with the responsibility of training our future professional men and women and that they should not be all under the thumb of either professors or a President.
The report states that:
College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are notified of their appointment by a form of letter which, having notified the fact of appointment, or re-appointment as the case may be, then sets out the salary and the conditions of employment which, inter alia, include:
"2. Your duties will be as laid down by the Professor."
As Deputy Ryan has rightly pointed out, if there is a clash of views as between the professor and the lecturer, that is the end of the appointment of that particular lecturer the following year.
Reference was made to this situation by the board of judges themselves when they stated it was not their function to comment. They say, at page 7:
It was put forward that from the purely administrative point of view it was preferable to have a Faculty or Department headed by a Professor with all the teaching staff under him subject to his direction, than to have a Professor with a teaching staff which included one or more Lecturers who were independent of the Professor. It is indisputable that purely from the point of view of administration a Professor would wish to have complete control of the staff under him. As against this view it is submitted that it was a bad University principle to have a Professor in absolute charge of his Faculty or Department. A very big question of principle arises at this point on which the Board does not propose to venture an opinion.
In other words, the freedom which is thought to be in a University is merely a joke. There is no freedom for Lecturers or Assistant Lecturers. They toe the line rigidly according to their terms of appointment in which their duties are laid down.
Can we through our discussion of this Bill bring an end to what I can only describe as this reign of terror within the University and restore to it as soon as possible the air of freedom which should be there? It is a terrible comment on the people responsible for higher education that the young people who will be our leaders in all walks of life in this country are being trained along lines which will not, in my opinion, leave them with the kind of dynamic approach and courageous outlook so necessary for the development of this country. This system is bound to turn out cynics and yes-men. It is bound to turn out place seekers and people who will toe the line to keep their bread and butter. Rather than trying to control the University, what we are trying to do is to bring about independence inside the University and relieve the professors, lecturers and teachers of the burden on them at present.
I do not know whether at the end of this debate the Minister will be prepared, even at this late stage, to accede to our request for a postponement of the Second Reading until copies of that report are in the hands of every Deputy and Deputies have an opportunity of evaluating it and studying it and the various organisations and individuals in the Universities and members of the public who are anxious to follow the matter up will have an opportunity of knowing what is in the report. Is it unfair to suggest that, before this legislation is steamrolled through this House, all persons interested in it should have an opportunity of knowing what it is about?
