On the adjournment of the debate on the 28th April last, I urged on the Government the absolute necessity of postponing further discussions on the Bill until interested persons were given an opportunity of studying the report of the Board of Visitors. I am glad to say that the Government gave a fortnight to interested people for the purpose of considering this report and also fell in with our request that sufficient copies of the report of the Board of Visitors be made available immediately after the first day's discussion of the Bill. We, therefore, achieved our immediate objective of preventing this very important measure from being slipped through this House unobtrusively. Since the Report of the Board of Visitors has been circulated, Deputies, no doubt, have noticed that the fires of controversy have flared up in the daily papers on the report and on the speeches made in this House commenting on it.
I welcome the controversy and the debates that have arisen as a result of this report. Indeed, it is a pity that, to a large extent, the contributions in the daily Press so far have been more or less in the order of resolutions of loyalty and fidelity to the leader, in this case, the President of U.C.D., rather than in the form of reasoned argument or defence of the system in operation in the University.
On the last day, I emphasised that in the limited time at my disposal, I had not been able to make as careful a study of the Board of Visitors' report as I would have wished to have made. The report was made by learned judges and was highly technical and I confess that, as a layman, I found difficulty at times in properly weighing and interpreting it. Now I am satisfied as a result of careful study of it, that my first reactions and beliefs were absolutely correct, but, at this stage, I should like to say that in the course of my earlier remarks I mentioned the position in the other constituent colleges of the National University. I mentioned them specifically because they are mentioned on page 8 of the report of the Board of Visitors and, on my first reading of that report, I felt it would be desirable to have an examination of the position in the other colleges, if such examination were desirable in Dublin.
Now I find and am very glad to know that in University College, Cork, no such situation obtains as has been described in the Report of the Board of Visitors with regard to U.C.D. I quote from a letter to the Irish Times of Monday, May 2nd, signed by Professor Atkins, President of U.C.C.:—
In view of the statements made by Mr. McQuillan in Dáil Éireann on the debate which took place on April 28th, I wish to state that he is quite mistaken in thinking that University College, Cork, is involved in the matters which he raised during the discussion.
I accept that and I am very glad to note that the President of University College, Cork, has by that statement dissociated himself completely from the activities of U.C.D. which have been condemned by the Board of Visitors.
I might point out that Professor Atkins's denial that such system of appointments of assistant lecturers and college lecturers obtained in Cork resulted in an immediate reaction from the Registrar of U.C.D. who, two days after Professor Atkins's letter appeared in the paper, replied with an attack on the President of University College, Cork, and criticised him for not supporting U.C.D. He publicly criticised the President of University College, Cork, for not supporting U.C.D. It is significant that since 4th May, Professor Atkins, by his silence, has shown that he has dissociated himself from the practice that obtains in U.C.D. and that he has not been browbeaten or intimidated by the bosses in U.C.D.
At a later stage, I propose to deal with some of the arguments made by the officials, particularly the Secretary of the College, in rebutting the case made in this House—I must say solely by Deputy Dr. Browne, so far—a case that was based on the judges' report. I have not read such a collection of misrepresentations for many a day as appeared from the pen of this very learned Secretary of U.C.D., Mr. MacHale.
Whatever these gentlemen in University College, Dublin, may say about U.C.D. being a garden of roses and everything in the garden being lovely, without doubt, the report of the Board of Visitors has shown that, instead, it is a garden of weeds and that the fresh air of academic freedom that is so essential has not blown through that University for years. As a result of the report of the Board of Visitors and the discussions outside the House and the discussions that are already taking place amongst graduates and others, please God, very soon that state of affairs in U.C.D. will be remedied.
Very briefly, I should like to deal with some of the points made by the Board of Visitors in their report to the Government. Here we can see the inconsistency in the case put forward by various professors and officers of U.C.D. when asked by the judges as to the reasons for creating such posts as College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. At page 3 of the report, the following paragraph appears:
In the Report of the President of the College for the Session 1955/56 it was stated that "the grade of College Lecturer was instituted recently for the promotion of senior Assistants".
That was the case made by the President in his report. This is what the Secretary of the College had to say:
.... the grade of College Lecturer was a subdivision of the grade of Assistant.
The Registrar, the third gentleman involved, said:
... that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in certain important senses were really Assistants and in other senses were not, that they were simply Assistants so far as the University was concerned.
The House can work that out for itself. All I can say is that it conflicts with the statements of the Secretary and the President. The arguments put forward with regard to the appointments of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers by the learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of the University were on a legal basis and had nothing at all to do with the suggestions of the Secretary and the Registrar that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are assistants.
There we have four different points of view put forward within the College with regard to what was behind the creation of these posts of college Lecturers. I should like to know under which thimble—in this case there are four thimbles—are we to peep? Whom are we to believe? Of course, those conflicting statements made by these very learned gentlemen are in keeping with the conflicting statements they have made in the papers and with the red herrings they have produced in the past fortnight to cover their tracks. The position is that the Board of Visitors themselves could not make head or tail of what College "Lecturers" or "Assistant Lecturers" were supposed to mean. Now, this House in spite of the report of the Board of Visitors, is to validate something the meaning of which we do not exactly understand.
Further on in the Report of the Board of Visitors, we find that they were told by the College authorities that the offices of Professor and Lecturer were "statutory offices" and, having made inquiries into that, they found it was the policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many of the "statutory" lectureships. They discovered that, of the total number of statutory lectureships that could be filled in the College, 53 per cent. were left vacant. We are daily papers, that this was the policy of the College but we are not told why it was the policy of the College. We find out now definitely that it is the policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled 53 per cent. of the statutory lectureships.
That is an admission by the College authorities and the Board of Visitors found that the President had flagrantly violated the Charter by failing to take the necessary steps to have these offices filled. There is no doubt that the President must have some very sound reason for filling only 47 per cent. of the statutory offices. We find that this man, who, we are told, has been working so hard under such adverse circumstances and with an ever increasing number of students to deal with—in spite of this huge influx of students into the University in need of a steadying and stabilising influence —has neglected to provide that very essential requirement by his failure to fill these statutory lectureships.
I think it is quite reasonable to assume that it was because the President and his assistants were in a better position to control and manipulate within the University while having as few as possible independently-minded statutory officers appointed. If there were a large number of men on a temporary basis, no doubt, the controlling authority over them, or however he might be described, would have greater freedom to direct these temporary men than he would have if these men were free to the extent of being in a strong independent position by statute. The reason behind it is, of course, that by reason of reducing the number of statutory appointments, the way was made easier for the move to Belfield which this House endorsed not so long ago.
I think there has been no question so far of the President being asked to account for his breach of the Charter in this matter. There is no doubt in the world that the Charter was flagrantly violated and surely there must be some answer as far as the President is concerned. Surely the Government are not prepared to walk in here and say: "We accept the position; we want this Bill passed; and we intend to leave this important matter in the hands of the President again for the next two years", that is, to allow him to neglect his duty under the Charter by failing to fill these statutory posts. That is what the House is expected to do in this Bill.
I do not want to repeat anything that has been said already, and I do not intend to do so if at all possible, but I should like to make reference to the Petitioner, Mr. Kenny, for the purpose of showing the significance of what has taken place. The Petitioner wrote to the Governing Body on 18th May, 1959, pointing out that he was convinced that College Lecturers or Assistant Lecturers were not legally appointed. Note this, that letter was written on 18th May and he had a letter back dated 21st May—three days afterwards—from the Secretary of the Governing Body. In his reply the Secretary told the Petitioner:
... I am instructed to inform you that your opinion as to the alleged illegality of the title ‘College Lecturer' and ‘Assistant Lecturer' has been before the Governing Body of the College and the Senate of the National University on a number of occasions....
Note the significance of that: "I am instructed to inform you." I should like to ask who instructed the Secretary, three days after the letter was received from the Petitioner, to reply in that vein. Deputies know well that when communications go to any public body, the most the Secretary can do is to acknowledge receipt of the letter and point out that the subject matter of the letter will be brought to the attention of the board at its next meeting.
No meeting of the Governing Body took place between 18th May and 21st May. In other words, the Secretary, on the instructions of somebody—we do not know who it was, but we can all surmise who it was—wrote to the Petitioner and told him: "This matter has already been discussed" and went on to say:—
The Governing Body has decided not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper...
How can he write that back three days after receiving the Petitioner's letter without consulting the Governing Body, unless he and his advisers were usurping the powers of the Governing Body?
The real gem in this is page 6 of the report. The tail end of the letter sent back by the secretary of the Governing Body is as follows:—
The President has instructed me to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College, should query the actions of the Governing Body in a matter which does not appear to him to be any direct concern of yours.
That was the letter received by the petitioner when he wrote to the Secretary of the Governing Body explaining his fears with regard to the legality or otherwise of appointing Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. Instead of that petition being brought before the meeting of the board, the Secretary of the Governing Body replied immediately telling this man to mind his own business with the hidden threat: "The President will look after you if you do not keep your mouth shut".
An Assistant is on a yearly basis and consequently his services could be dispensed with when that year is up. That is why I think this petitioner was a very courageous man and I hope the Government are bearing in mind my recommendation here the last day that they should have a medal struck for this gentleman, if they have not found some other means of looking after him in the meantime. The letter written by the petitioner came before the Governing Body, according to the minutes, on the 24th June. That was a month afterwards. Naturally enough the Governing Body decided to reject the petition, which had already been done for them by the Secretary three days after the petition had been received, and as had already been done for them also by the President who warned the petitioner to keep quiet in future. The Board of Visitors also found, as recorded on page 6:
That the Governing Body did not seek legal advice as to whether it was authorised by the Charter of the College, or otherwise, to appoint College Professors, College Lecturers, or Assistant Lecturers.
That the Governing Body was aware in the year 1956 that eminent Counsel had advised that "The College has no power to appoint College Professors or College Lecturers".
That the Governing Body appointed College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers at all times aware that it was at least doubtful that it was authorised so to do ....
I am speaking purely as a layman in this and as a man who has some experience of local authority work. As such we have on numerous occasions been condemned and sneered at by these wise and learned gentlemen from the intellectual heights for not being efficient in our business. I have never found a case yet where a local authority was in doubt as to its powers, that it did not immediately seek legal advice, and even the most humble county council in Ireland would always be anxious to ensure that legal advice would be sought as to whether the action taken by a county council was legal.
Here is a body of people—Professors who themselves teach the law—who were aware that eminent counsel had three years back pointed out that their actions were illegal but who as much as said: "We are above the law." All I can say is that it is very bad example to set for the members of this House and for members of local authorities, and it is a shocking example to set for students who are now entering the University and who should be set good example by people who teach the law but who instead have shown a flagrant disregard for it.
The three learned judges had a very hard task trying to extract from the authorities of U.C.D. why these appointments were made. They got a number of reasons from various sources and the first I deal with are reasons given by three eminent senior counsel, Mr. Moloney, Deputy McGilligan and by Mr. T. McLaughlin. These three gentlemen gave evidence on behalf of the authorities and the Board of Visitors' report says:
Counsel appearing on behalf of the College declined to give any reason for the decision to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers and did not attempt to justify these appointments on any meritorious basis.
I presume these three prominent and very able legal men were pressed by the Secretary of the College and the President to put the case of the College before the Board of Visitors. My reading of the report is that they refused or failed to make available any reason for the appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers and made no attempt whatever —although no men were better able or more skilled in making a defence—to justify the appointments on a meritorious basis.
Is there not something wrong somewhere? These three learned gentlemen, I believe, were in a very awkward position and they could not possibly justify the appointments on meritorious grounds, knowing as they did the implications of any such recommendation. If the President of the College Authorities briefed senior counsel as to the reason for the appointments, why did the legal gentlemen in question fail to explain to the Board of Visitors the reason for the appointment of College Lecturers? If they were not briefed—and this is a puzzzle not clarified by the Board of Visitors—what was the purpose of counsel appearing before the Board of Visitors? Was it purely to argue that technically the College Authorities were entitled to make these appointments? The Board of Visitors received no assistance there, so it was left to them, as they say themselves, to find out from other sources what lay behind this. To quote the Board of Visitors' report: "It was left to individual members of the staff of the College to give to the Board their own personal reasons for supporting and approving of the actions of the Governing Body in this regard."
We know that the Agenda from 1949 to 1954 has been destroyed and that there is no record on the minutes of those years of the reasons for the decision to create these appointments. When the Board of Visitors made their inquiry, each individual member of the staff gave his own reasons for supporting the decision to justify these appointments. I do not propose to go into the reasons given by the various members of the staff. They are given in the report of the Board of Visitors. I am sure most members of the House have already read them.
The argument was put forward that men and women of the College described as "Assistants" prefer to be described as "College Lecturers". A second reason was that the numbers in the College had increased nine or 10-fold over the past 50 to 60 years and that it would be a laborious and awkward task to start making the statutory appointments. It was argued that the method of appointment of a statutory Lecturer, and so on, was very intricate, laborious and, in many instances, humiliating to the applicant. We can accept that point of view. I do, at any rate. The system of a canvass which had been in operation in relation to statutory appointments was in my opinion not a desirable means of obtaining an appointment but there was no need to go outside the Charter and start appointing College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers.
University College, Cork, in a sensible arrangement, did away with some of the heavy work involved in dealing with applications for statutory appointments. They by-passed a lot of the work and still made their appointments within the Charter—and University College, Cork, also is an expanding College. If they were able to carry on within the Charter and make the statutory appointments, why was it impossible for University College, Dublin, to do likewise? The fact is that there was a difference in outlook and that the policy in University College, Dublin, was not to fill the statutory appointments but to create as many temporary appointments as they possibly could.
After hearing all the arguments by the members of the staff, by the learned senior counsel and by other people who gave evidence, the Board of Visitors rejected them. They pointed out that, in order to deal with the problem of the increased number of students and in order to get away from the difficulties involved with regard to a canvass and other difficulties in the making of statutory appointments, the College had two courses open to them. The first was to take steps to have the necessary professorships and lectureships established and to have the vacancies therein filled by the Universities in the manner prescribed by the Charter of the University. The second course open to them —this is very important—was to make representations to the Government that the College Charter was outmoded and unsuitable to meet the demand of the new situation and to seek to have the Charter suitably amended.
May I ask if the authorities in the College accepted either of the recommendations made by the Board of Visitors? We know they did not. What is still more serious is that we know now that the Government have not accepted either of the recommendations of the Board of Visitors.
A number of people have suggested it would be an impossibility for the President and a number of the College officers to carry out all the things alleged in spite of the Governing Body or the Academic Council. Professor Wheeler evidently holds very strong views on this. He came into print immediately after the discussion in this House. He seems to hold that because various differing bodies are represented on the Governing Body nothing could be seriously wrong. That is like saying that because there are Ten Commandments there is no sin.
If it is a fact—according to the Board of Visitors it is—that only one name was put before the Governing Body or the Academic Council then is it not clear that the Governing Body, despite the safeguards alleged to be in it, according to Professor Wheeler by reason of the differing bodies represented on it, was not able to prevent the President from riding roughshod over the Charter and the statutes? The argument is put forward that because there are a number of county councillors on the Governing Body the public interest is thereby sufficiently guarded.
I happen to have made some very careful inquiries into the constitution of this Governing Body. According to Professor Wheeler there are 34 members on the Governing Body. Four are nominated by the Government and three by the Senate. Eight are nominated by the General Council of County Councils and one by Dublin County Council. There is the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Six members are nominated by the Graduates of University College, Dublin, six members by the Academic Council and four are co-opted. As far as I can ascertain, of those 34 members of the Governing Body, 14 are non-academic members. These non-academic members in practically all cases have supported the recommendations of the administration. They rarely attend in full strength and, when they do attend, depend completely on the academic members for advice as to what action they should take on any decisions of the Governing Body. These are 14 non-academic members.