Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 were discussed with amendment No. 7.
Committee on Finance. - National College of Art and Design Bill, 1971: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (6), page 5, lines 18 and 19, to delete all words from "in" to the end of the subsection and substitute "by means of an election employing the single transferable vote".
The Bill as drafted provides in subsections (6) and (7) that the elections by the staff and students will be in such manner as may be approved by the Minister from time to time. In a Bill of this kind one does not want to tie down the electoral system. The college should be reasonably free to make up their own minds on that, but I do not think it should be left to the Minister in that form. There is a problem here, because already within the college there have been informal elections from the student body and the Minister has intervened to object to the particular form of election. I do not know enough about it to say whether he had reasonable objections to the form of election adopted. What concerned me was that the form of election which he proposed at that time did not seem particularly democratic.
It involved equal representation from a number of different groups of students varying very much in numbers. There are schools in the college which have only four students or fewer, while others might have 20 or 30 or 30 to 40. The Minister proposed at that time equal representation for these different groups. That is a system which does not commend itself to this House because in elections to this House any system which involves grave departure from one-man-one-vote was found to be unconstitutional in 1961 and I do not think we in this House should envisage a system which might in a similar manner depart from that basic principle.
I am sure with the best intentions of securing that all interests in the college were represented, the Minister insisted on an election system for students which very much departed from this principle. He gave to three or four students in one school the same representation as students in the very much larger first and second year schools. I think we have reason for trying to tie down the system a little more tightly and not to leave it entirely to the discretion of the Minister.
In thinking out how best it might be done, it seemed to me that a possible solution would be to lay down in the terms of my amendment that an election should employ the single transferable vote. What is involved here is an election. As the Bill is drafted, there is reference to student and staff representatives being nominated by the students "in such manner as may be approved by the Minister from time to time". The Bill does not state "shall be nominated by an election being carried out as laid down by the Minister".
As it stands it is open for the Minister to arrange for a number of separate elections for separate groups, whereas the wording I propose is designed to ensure that there will be one election for the whole college operating on the single transferable vote system and that therefore the student council emerging will be representative of the whole student body and proportionally representative of the different interests rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Minister, which might produce the kind of results which would give excessive representation to an individual group.
If the Minister has an alternative proposal to make I am prepared to listen to it. I am not tied to this. In putting down the amendment I am not seeking to make the case for PR in the College of Art. I am not being dogmatic or ideological about it. I merely thought that something sufficiently general was required to leave flexibility in regard to details but in particular to prevent the Minister from prescribing a system of election which might involve excessive representation for some groups and inadequate representation for others. We have some indication that this might be prescribed by the Minister in view of the line he took recently. As I have said, if the Minister can suggest another way around it, different to what I have proposed, I am prepared to consider any counter proposals he might have.
While I agree with what the Deputy has said in relation to the teachers and students being free to make up their own minds—that is the underlying point I have been endeavouring to make—if I were to accept the amendment it would mean that the teachers and students would not be free to make up their own minds; they would be very definitely tied down to a particular type of election. Perhaps I should mention that in laying down a system that would be approved by the Minister from time to time, what I had in mind was that I would consult with the teachers and ask them which type of election they would prefer and settle for that, and that I would also consult with the students and see which type of election they would prefer.
As a matter of interest, I am sure the Deputy is aware that on a previous occasion when he suggested the students should adopt the PR system they wrote to me demanding that they should have the straight vote system. I do not know whether their tongues were in their cheeks when they wrote.
I do not recall that.
The Deputy did suggest PR on a previous occasion. The students wrote emphatically saying that they wanted the straight vote and that this was the type of vote which the Minister's party preferred.
One suspected the motivation in both cases.
To come back to the subsections, I have explained to the Deputy what I propose to do and that I was simply approving of whatever method they would prefer themselves.
The Minister has said that the students have already expressed a preference for the straight vote.
On that particular occasion.
I am not too happy about that. I am not too sure whether we should not tie them down a little. I am not arguing about the straight vote in itself. There is a case for the straight vote in single member constituencies. In another context we have been opposed to that. A system of the straight vote for two positions would worry me. If there was the straight "X" vote in an election for two posts, I am afraid that the block vote of a bare majority or even conceivably of a well organised minority would ensure that a minority vote would succeed. There is no doubt that the "X" system is workable, though I think it is undesirable for national politics, in single seat constituencies. It is dangerous in multi-seat constituencies because it leaves itself open to manipulation.
The Minister's disclosure that that is the system favoured in the instance we are talking about, in the election of 12 students to meet him, suggests the need for us in this House to lay down a system in sufficient detail to prevent manipulation. I am strengthened in my view now that it is perhaps important to press the amendment in the particular form in which it is. I am not happy that this should be left to the Minister. He has told us he will take the view of the students. I am not sure that, if the students did come forward with a proposal along the lines that they put to the Minister in another context, and which is open to manipulation, I would like the Minister necessarily to approve of it. This is something which may not perhaps be safely left to the students themselves. I do not think it is something that should be left completely to the Minister because he has shown a disposition for an electoral system which is unrepresentative in terms of giving equal representation to groups of totally disparate size. The Minister and the students have shown an inclination to look for a system which does not commend itself to me. This suggests strongly to me that we should lay down a strong line here. The Minister in what he says persuaded me that my amendment has considerable merit. I am less open now to withdraw it.
One has to choose one's words very carefully when making a suggestion to the Deputy. We may reach the stage where we will say nothing.
There is a serious point to be considered. Would the Minister like to comment further on the possibility of a system, such as the students proposed to him on a former occasion, being proposed by them and whether he would propose to adopt it? A certain amount hangs on that.
I find it very difficult to follow the trend of the Deputy's remarks, not alone in his statement now but also since the beginning of the discussion on this Bill. The Deputy has come down strongly on the side of what he would term democracy, that is, giving considerable rights to people, and in this case he would appear to me to be endeavouring to limit those rights. I do not want to get into any discussion in relation to the merits or demerits of PR or the straight vote. In general, this is, as it were, a single seat constituency with two seats.
That is a new concept.
The college as a unit is going to vote. There are only two seats, and according to my knowledge of the PR system it is not regarded as possible to have that type of vote with less than three seats. I am not advocating the straight vote system. I am saying that I will leave it to the students to decide what type of election they would prefer. I will let them make a decision and I will approve it.
The Minister has made several statements. He referred to a concept which, if this debate were broadcast outside Ireland, might be regarded as an Irish concept—the single-seat constituency with two seats. Perhaps the Minister wants the single constituency with two seats. His views will not be shared by the Minister for Labour who was elected to this House in just such an election on two occasions.
We know the exceptional circumstances. We have by-elections, where we have only one seat. The general feeling in regard to proportional representation is that there must be three seats. Basically the situation is that, having made the statement here, I would be willing to consult the teachers and students as to the type of election they will have and I will approve of whatever the majority there decide on.
The Deputy seems concerned particularly about the teachers and students exercising their democratic rights and that they might recommend to the Minister the block list system. The Deputy knows that many professional bodies in Ireland operate that system, have been doing so for a considerable time and will continue to do so without in any way diminishing their democratic function. The Deputy is jumping many steps together when he assumes that either the students or the teachers will propose an undemocratic system of election and that the systems he is talking about are undemocratic. We are all concerned with the exercise of representation. It is very seldom that the Members on this side of the House get an opportunity of noting the presence or absence of some of the people, more or less following the precedent of Deputy Cruise-O'Brien. It might be no harm to note that the Deputy opposite is the only representative of any Opposition Party in this House at a time when we are discussing democratic procedure. The spokesman for education in the Labour Party has not attended at all during this debate. The public would be very concerned to know that one member of the Opposition is now here expressing the views of the total Opposition on the system of election to be operated in the college.
That raises an interesting thought, but I think there may be special reasons at this moment for the absence of any member of the Labour Party.
Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and others who call for quorums always give us an opportunity for explaining special reasons, too.
However, my function here is to speak for my own party and that is what I am trying to do. I am not very happy about some of the ideas the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are putting forward. First of all, the suggestion that democracy entails allowing any group whoever they may be to fix the electoral system for themselves for their own benefit is a claim we utterly reject in regard to Northern Ireland where the system of election devised there by a majority to suit themselves is one to which we are bitterly hostile and universally critical in this House.
The example of Northern Ireland is being quoted too much by the Deputy in this context for some strange reason.
I quote it for different reasons.
Is the Deputy suggesting the College of Art is a splinter from some other institution?
I am sorry. I am not talking about that. I was talking yesterday about the problem of the alienation of many students there from authority which is akin to the alienation problem of the minority in Northern Ireland and the split between the two groups and the feeling it arouses is akin to the split between the communities in Northern Ireland. There is an analogy there because some of the psychological attitudes there are akin in the two cases. I make the reference here merely to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that every majority should have a democratic right to determine their own system of election is something which we do not concede in the case of Northern Ireland and which I do not think we concede in relation to this country itself. The electoral system here is laid down in general terms in the Constitution and we do not permit the majority party in this country, whoever they may be, to determine the electoral system. That is a matter to be determined by the people as a whole, not by the majority in this House.
I think there is a danger here—and I am surprised that the Minister is not more sensitive to it—that even a minority, or conceivably a bare majority, of the students can so organise things that two student representatives representing their viewpoint only could be elected. The fact that the students who, if I gather correctly, were in touch with him before and are what might be described broadly as the dissident students did, in fact, propose a block voting system of this kind should alert the Minister—who is concerned with the interests of other groups of students as well—to the danger here. There is a real possibility that, if the Minister simply accepts whatever proposals are put forward, he might get a proposal from what one can describe as the dissident students designed to ensure that they get the two seats, even if half the students or perhaps even more than half the students, less well organised, want a representative of their viewpoint. I am a little surprised that the Minister is not sensitive to this issue.
Any electoral system in this instance, when we have a college in which the students and staff are very deeply divided, should be one designed as far as possible to ensure that the different viewpoints are represented and that no one group will dominate the representation and exclude from representation the minority, perhaps even a majority. I would be rather unhappy if, as would be entirely possible, if the Minister's suggestion is carried through, the staff representatives elected by the system represented the viewpoint of what was the majority of the staff and perhaps the viewpoint of the more conservative members in charge of the staff who, because of what has happened in recent years, are, for reasons which one can understand from their point of view, out of sympathy with the students; and if the student representatives were both representative of the dissident students. I cannot think that the college would get off to a very good start in that way.
It is very important, when we are dealing with a body which is so deeply divided, that the electoral system should as far as possible ensure that the two viewpoints that are now to be found among staff and students, who are virtually not on speaking terms with each other, should be represented as far as possible. We should certainly not adopt a system which would tend to exclude that and tend to intensify a staff-student polarisation which is not, in fact, a full reflection of the situation in the college. Therefore, quite apart from pressing my amendment, I would press the Minister to give consideration to that.
It would be unfortunate if we imported into this particular situation an attachment to another electoral situation in another context which we do not employ, which nobody has ever proposed we employ, in a multi-seat constituency and which is known to be dangerous in multi-seat constituencies because it can give one group control of all the representation. Let us be fair to the Fianna Fáil Party. They have never proposed such a system for national elections and, in fact, such a system for national elections except in a limited usage in certain boroughs in England, where it has since been abandoned, is not, in fact, employed. In those boroughs what happened was that in a very large proportion of cases, even when the vote was very evenly divided, one party got no seats. That system was abandoned because of its undemocratic character. The Parliamentary Secretary may say professional bodies have used this system here. I am prepared to believe him. If so, this may or may not produce bad results. I have known it to produce very bad results indeed and to be manipulative by very small groups voting consistently in a particular pattern and getting their people in even though they were in a minority. Whether or not the Minister accepts my amendment he should be cautious about accepting any electoral system which is likely to produce the kind of block vote result in which you get two representatives of one viewpoint and the other viewpoint, which may be shared by half the students or half the staff, is not represented.
I wonder would the Minister even go so far as to indicate whether he is taking my point and that in saying that he would wish to accept the recommendation of staff and students here he is not committing himself necessarily to a system that might produce undesirable results. I think it is a mistake for us to contemplate that. If the Minister says that is what he intends to do and that if the students recommend it he will accept it, I think it is a strong reason for not giving him the power. If people feel they have not a fair system, that it has been rigged against them by the Minister, these kind of paranoic delusions will develop, and it would be much better if we did whatever minimum was necessary to ensure that the system would yield representative results.
I am not wedded to this particular amendment. Any alternative that would exclude the possibility of a non-representative type of election I would accept, if the Minister can devise one or if I can think of one between now and the Report Stage which would be an improvement on this; but the Minister should think twice about doing what he has indicated he might do. His own concern to ensure that the different viewpoints in the college are represented, which he has very properly insisted on in this House, should encourage him to think twice about what he has indicated here.
I am afraid I am not convinced by anything the Deputy has said. Perhaps this is one of the problems of the Deputy that he can. I believe, having listened to him over yesterday and today, argue equally well on one side or the other, and I have not the slightest doubt that if he took the opposite stance he would argue just as strongly as he is arguing in relation to this amendment.
That is not a reflection on my integrity?
No, it is not. It is a compliment to the Deputy. The Deputy referred to the question as to whether or not I was sensitive to the particular situation. I certainly am, but I have not the slightest doubt that if I showed that sensitivity in one particular direction the Deputy would immediately object to it. Undoubtedly, there are problems in the college. Quite possibly the attitudes which I was forced to adopt are now leading to a situation where good sense will prevail, and I have no doubt that the very large number of students who failed to make their voices heard until the college was actually closed down will see to it that a proper type of election will take place which will give a fair representation to the various viewpoints. We are permitting only two students to represent the whole body of students and, no matter what we do, it will be difficult to have every possible viewpoint brought before the board. Nevertheless, by leaving it to the students and to the teachers, after the difficult period we have had, to make the decision as to the type of election they would like I am showing a trust in them. Because of that I cannot see any reason why I should change the sections as they are in the Bill.
I fear the Minister has not, perhaps, taken my point. Perhaps I should be more explicit. Supposing there are 110 students and 60 take one viewpoint and 50 take another; under the proposed system two candidates will be put up by both groups. The two candidates put forward by the 60 student group will get 60 Xs and the other 50 will have no representation because they will get only 50Xs. If the Minister uses the 1, 2, 3, 4 system proposed here each of the 60 will have to choose one or other, giving a 1 to one and 2 to the second and out of that will emerge, as emerges in Donegal/Leitrim in elections, one candidate representing each viewpoint. One would need an extraordinarily disproportionate strength of the two sides to end up with any other result.
I should like the Minister to take my point. It is rather important. I fear he has not appreciated the significance of the voting system he has indicated, which students have looked for in the past and may look for again, a system which would of its nature exclude representation of the minority. I do not care whether the minority is the more dissident students. I am not speaking for one side or the other. The Minister knows that. At the moment the minority are the moderate students and what I am proposing would benefit them. They may in the future become the majority and the others may become the minority. I am concerned in not adopting an electoral system which will exclude representation of a minority. It could be a very large minority, 49 per cent of the total. That would be very dangerous in the situation of the college.
I would impress this on the Minister and I should like from him some indication that he understands the difficulty and will, in fact, ensure this does not happen and, in approving the electoral system, will not be inclined to accept a system which will exclude minority representation. In the ordinary way this might not matter very much. If the college was a united body and there were no differences we could take a chance on it. Many professional bodies act in this way. In some circumstances it does not matter very much, but it does matter where there is a polarisation of opinion. The Minister does not seem sensitive to this particular point in view of the dangers. It may well be that I have not explained clearly enough what the danger is until now, but I think the Minister will see that there is a real danger that, with the kind of division I mention, the 60 students will get both seats. Surely we should prevent that happening and ensure that student representation does represent student opinion and that no group will be excluded from representation. If the Minister does not see that and does not accept that, then this is an amendment I must press, though it had not been my intention to do so when I started speaking. I was inclined to be prepared to consider any alternative. I thought the Minister might come forward with some wording which would not tie us to the particular method here. I cannot think of a better wording. I am not tied to what I have here, but I cannot think of any other wording which would exclude the danger I mention and, unless the Minister or I can think of another wording to prevent this danger and given the Minister's apparent willingness to let this happen, this is an amendment we will have to press.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 64: Níl, 53.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Forde, Paddy.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Loughnane, William A.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Des.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Browne, Noel.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Finn. Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fox, Billy.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hogan-O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McMohan, Lawrence.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Francis.
- Thornley, David.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies Cluskey and R. Burke.
Question declared carried.
Amendent declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
I move amendment No.16:
Before subsection (8) to insert the following subsection:-
"() One ordinary member of the College Council shall be a member of the Art Teachers' Association and shall be nominated for appointment to An Bord by the members of this Association by means of an election employing the single transferable vote, provided that should this association cease to exist this member shall be elected by the graduates of the National College of Art by means of an election employing the single transferable vote".
This relates to the question of representation of the Art Teachers' Association on the college council, as I have suggested it should be named, or An Bord, as it is named at present. It seems desirable that the representation on this board or council should be as wide-ranging as possible. There is by analogy with other third level institutions a case for representation of people who are graduates. Admittedly, the Art Teachers' Association cannot be equated with graduates of the college who have passed through it and secured diplomas, and if the Minister felt that a wider selection were desirable I should be prepared to agree. It seems, however, bearing in mind the very special function that the college has in regard to the teaching of art and the existence of this association with a special interest in the subject, that there is a case for having representation for them on the council or board. This would also have the effect of creating a more even balance between those elected to this body and those nominated by the Minister which would be more in line with the practice in other similar institutions. It seems to be a suggestion worth making, and I should like to hear from the Minister whether he feels it worthy of consideration or not.
I do not think I should accept this amendment. First, I should point out that the board will consist possibly of 11 members and five of these have already been determined in this Bill, the teachers and students and the director. It would confine me too much to add another to this number. Also, I can see a situation where the teachers appointed could possibly be members of the Art Teachers' Association and the argument would be put forward then that the Art Teachers' Association was over-represented on the board. The main consideration is that we have already determined where five of the total representation must come from, and I think I would be confining my choice in regard to the remaining members too much if I were to agree to a provision whereby a member of the Art Teachers' Association would also have a right to be appointed to the board.
Does the Minister agree that there is a case in a third level educational institution for representation on this governing authority of those who have passed through the institution, that it encourages them to retain interest in the educational body of which they are graduates or diploma holders and that this is a principle we should encourage? I am not pressing the particular form of the amendment, but does the Minister not think it wise to make this provision which exists in the case of the universities at present in one form or another? It is in a very different form in the case of Dublin University but it does exist in some form in both universities. Is it not desirable to try to achieve this? If the Minister is concerned that this would not leave enough independent representatives— I am not convinced of that—one can vary the total size by adding one to the figure he has mentioned. It seems a pity not to have some direct link particularly with those who have passed through the college and have continued their interest in art through art teaching which is so much a concern in the country at the moment?
I am not precluding the appointment of a member of the Art Teachers' Association but I would find it restrictive if I were to decide that what would be tantamount to six of the 11 members should be determined in the Bill itself. For that reason I think I should have as wide an opportunity as possible to select what I would feel, after proper consultation, would be the best people as members of this board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 inclusive. not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
There are a number of points on this section that arise out of the discussion. One point relates to the composition of the board and to an amendment which I had down and which was withdrawn for re-drafting. One aspect that was not discussed and which I should like to put now to the Minister is the desirability of ensuring that the membership of this board in the particular circumstances of the college does not include a civil servant. There is no criticism of civil servants in this or any other context; but the college, as the Minister has said, has operated for a long time in conditions which are less than ideal. The direct running of a college of this kind by a Department of State imposes on such a Department a burden which is so out of line with their ordinary functions that it does not necessarily lead to a successful result. A clean break should now be made rather than maintaining the link.
We do not have on the governing bodies of the universities civil servants representing the Minister or appointed by the Minister. The Minister would want, I would hope, to appoint independent people such as he recommends for appointment to the governing bodies of the universities. This point was included in an amendment which will be coming up again on Report Stage. I should like to press the Minister on this point when we come back to it.
On the question of the membership of the board, as we now have it, it is a board with a membership of between nine and 11. The Minister said that five of these would be predetermined and I take it he meant those selected by the students and the staff and the director. In a sense the chairman will also be predetermined. The question of his manner of choice is a matter to be considered further. The Minister has agreed to look at it again and to consider a proposal which I put forward as a compromise that he would appoint the chairman on the recommendation of the ordinary members of the board.
I suppose a board of nine to 11 is a reasonable size for this purpose. I did consider the question of whether that size might be varied and I decided not to attempt to vary it. I also considered whether it was desirable to increase the representation of staff and students so that they would be a majority. Interestingly enough, no pressure came from the staff or students on this point. I am afraid this may more reflect inexperience on their part of the making of representations about Bills rather than any lack of interest in securing adequate representation for staff and students.
The students have, in fact, at another time claimed that they should have not only representation but that the college should be run by staff and students jointly. I understand that this is the way in which a number of colleges are run in other countries. I read in today's paper—I do not know how accurate this is—that in at least one country all the colleges of Art are run on that basis. I am not happy with the present situation. In not putting down an amendment to vary staff and student representation on Committee Stage I was, perhaps, over-influenced by the fact that no such request came to me. It seems to me from subsequent consultations that this reflects a certain confusion on the part of those concerned and a certain inexperience.
I spoke recently to some members of the teaching staff who are very opposed to the occupation of the college and to the various events which occurred. I asked them did they consider the Bill and had they made representations and they told me, to my astonishment, that they were waiting to be consulted. I had to say to them that they were naive if they were waiting to be consulted and that they were unlikely to have an opportunity of pressing their viewpoint. Owing to the disorganisation in the college, its closure and the difficulties they have had, the staff have not been meeting together to express their views coherently. I would not think that the students have been expressing their views very coherently either.
Perhaps I was over-influenced in not pressing for increased staff and student representation by the failure of the interests concerned to see this. This may be due to special circumstances. I am not sure that it would not have been better to have pressed the issue on Committee Stage even though it was not sought by the people concerned.
I do not diminish the value of outside independent representation. I think every educational institution needs this. Whatever the students may say, a college run only by staff and students could become inward looking and could be insufficiently conscious of legitimate public interest and concern, and insufficiently conscious of their function in society and the role they should be playing. Some of the students very properly fear that economic pressures in society might, if other voices were involved in their governing authority, pressurise them towards fulfilling an economic role in society as at present constituted. They feel this would be inhibiting to their true education.
This is a legitimate fear. It is a fear felt by students all over the world. In some countries pressure of business on third level institutions has created very unhappy conditions indeed. This has not been the case in Ireland. In fact, far from the problem of business interests pressing assistance of various kinds for research, and so on, on third level institutions and seeking their assistance in solving their problems, they simply have not shown any great interest in higher education. Our problem is not excessive pressure of business interests but inadequate interest on the part of business interests in higher education.
In this country, therefore, when students sometimes express fears on this matter they are being a little unrealistic. It is a legitimate concern and there is a danger which is, perhaps, exemplified in the very change in the title of the college, that the college could be orientated very much towards very practical functions and become part of the economic establishment, designed to produce people who would play a role in increasing the productive resources of the country in terms of goods and services saleable on the market. That is not what a college of art should be for, and any attempt to orientate it excessively in that direction will provoke a very proper resistance by the students and the staff, indeed, in their concern that the college should perform a genuine cultural function and not primarily an economic one.
Of course, in a small country we cannot have a proliferation of institutions. It may be necessary for this college to fulfil practical functions as well as cultural ones. I do not want to be too dogmatic about this. There is a legitimate concern on the part of staff and students on this score and there is a fear that, if the staff and students between them are in a minority they could come under the influence of people appointed by the Minister who, because of their involvement in public affairs generally, might try to orientate the college too much towards an economic function. I would hope that this will not happen and that the Minister will make enlightened appointments. I am not, of course, excluding the appointment of somebody engaged in business. In fact, one of the names mentioned as a possible member of the board—and it has been said to me that he might be acceptable to quite a wide range of staff and students—is somebody who is engaged in business. There is not necessarily a dichotomy. A business man may have a very great contribution to make because of his interest in art. I do not rule that out.
It is important that, given the fact that the representation on the board as at present proposed—and this has not been challenged in any representations made to me—does involve the staff and students in being in a minority, the other appointments should be demonstrably appointments of people who are primarily concerned with artistic education, and not of people who could be alleged to be concerned primarily with developing the college as an institution to assist in economic growth. I hope the Minister will have regard to this in making the appointments. I am still somewhat unhappy with the staff and student representation being in a minority but, if the Minister shows sensitivity in the appointments he makes, that may not create problems in this case.
The Minister has turned down the suggestion that the Art Teachers' Association should be represented directly. He pointed out that this might involve dual representation if one of the teachers chosen were a member of the Art Teachers' Association. I suppose that could happen. In seeking suitable people to appoint, the Minister might have regard to the desirability of appointing at least one person who had passed through the college at some stage, and had direct experience of it with its faults and virtues, and who could, therefore, bring an insight into the discussions of its problems which would be a more detached insight than that of the staff or students directly involved but which, at the same time, would be an insight based on actual experience of the college. I would not push it beyond that at this stage. I hope the Minister will have regard to that when he is making these appointments.
There are other aspects of the section which have given rise to some concern. Some of them will come up again on Report Stage so I shall not dwell on them here. A lot hangs on the Minister's appointments to this body. We all wish him well in these appointments. If any of us have constructive suggestions to offer him we should do so privately, and I am sure he will have regard to any constructive suggestions he receives from any source. I hope he will be successful in the appointments he eventually makes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The term of office here is three years. That seems reasonable. It could be three years or four years. I do not want to be dogmatic about it.
It is related to the time a student would be likely to be in the college. In the diploma school it is three years.
I see. In the absence of any very strong reason one way or the other that gives you an indication, I suppose, of the kind of period. I think that is appropriate. I am unhappy, however, about the provisions which were in the previous section which enable the Minister to terminate the office of members before their term of office is up. I hope that will not happen, that he will not exercise that power but allow them to carry out their duty for the full period unless they get sent to jail for some ignominious offence or something like that.
It would be undesirable to have the Minister intervene to terminate the appointment of a member during the three-year period. He will have regard to the desirability of changing gradually the personnel, not leaving the same people there indefinitely. There is a tendency when people are appointed by Ministers to State bodies to leave them there for a very long time. A feeling grows up that if you do not re-appoint somebody this is an insult to him. It is important when making the appointments to make it clear to the people concerned that there will be a need for change-over and that there will be a tendency not to re-appoint one of them at the end of each term of office and that they need not feel that it is in any way a reflection on them.
If the Deputy will look at subsection (4) of section 7 he will see that what he has in mind is included there.
Over a six-year period? Well, the Minister should not exclude even varying the composition at the end of three years within the six-year period.
It is open to me to do that.
Yes. Otherwise this section is acceptable.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The section is opposed. I again raise the issue I raised before. It seems to me undesirable that we should automatically disqualify Members of this House from playing a useful part in bodies of this kind. The tendency to do so in legislation isolates Members of this House from activities to which they could contribute and from the general life of the community. However, the Minister has said that that is something that must be considered in a general context. I accept that but I would like to know when is it going to be considered in a general context. I have been hearing this since I went into the Seanad six years ago. I have yet to hear of anything practical being done and I would hope that something will be done about it very soon.
Perhaps the Deputy might put the matter to the committee dealing with Dáil procedure and so on.
It comes under that committee?
It could be considered by them.
Quite possibly it could be considered under the terms of that committee.
I had not appreciated that.
They might not be the competent ones actually to determine it but I think it could be considered certainly.
As I said previously, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Deputy particularly in relation to subsection (1) whatever about subsection (2), but I feel it is not something which should be dealt with in an individual Bill because it is part of a considerable number of Bills and I think if it were dealt with at the committee something could be done about it in general terms.
I note that constructive suggestion and shall try to take advantage of it. I withdraw my opposition in the circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 27 has already been dealt with.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section covers the case where a member of a board would have an interest in a company or contract and makes very proper provisions to exclude him from decisions in respect of that company or contract. It does not, however, cover the case of appointments. In this country where appointments are sometimes made on a basis other than merit it is desirable to safeguard against this and that where people have an interest in an appointment of and close relationship with a candidate they should not take any part in his appointment or his non-appointment, if he is not to be appointed or is to be dismissed in these circumstances. I think this is quite important. It needs to be clearly established.
I have a reason for feeling this because several years ago when acting in my capacity as a member of the governing body of UCD an issue arose which affected a close relative of mine and it seemed to me proper to take no part whatever in the discussions relating to that matter and to withdraw from the meeting at which it was discussed. I think this should be a requirement because at the moment one does not know whether a person in that position has acted in this way or not. May I say that on three occasions at least in this House varied imputations have been made against my character by a Deputy opposite which, as I interpret them, from what he has said in the House and has said to me on the corridors of this House, throwing remarks at me as I pass by, suggest that he is unaware of the fact that in that instance I, of course, withdrew from any involvement in the matter and did not seek to influence anybody in the decision taken. The fact that I am in a position where my character is being impugned in and around this House by that—I was going to say gentleman but I will say that Deputy in the circumstances—the fact that that has happened arises from the fact that there is no clear requirement in this matter which would make it clear to everybody that this is the manner in which people should and must act. There is something to be said for including a provision which will not only ensure that people will act in this manner but ensure that they will be known so to have acted and these kind of imputations will not be made against them. You will appreciate that I have reasons for feeling strongly in this particular matter. Owing to the veiled way in which these accusations have been made I have had no previous opportunity of clarifying the position. I think you will see the need for something to be done to deal with this matter. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to consider adding to the requirements here that where a person has an interest in the appointment of a close relative that he shall also take no part in the deliberations. It seems to me important in the circumstances.
This is an unusual request and the Deputy is quite obviously concerned about it because of a personal interest.
Not only that but it has directed my attention to the fact.
This is what brought it to the Deputy's mind. I have never made any suggestion of this sort so I know the Deputy is not referring to me.
No, Sir, and I know the Minister never would.
I do not think there is a real need for it in the sense that any person with any wisdom would refrain from taking part in a discussion in a matter of this type. As I see it, a person could be involved, for example, in a company or concern without the knowledge of the other members of the board but it is most unlikely that if a personal relative of his was going forward for a post that this would not be well known to the members of the board and they would be able to take the type of action that they might not be able to take in relation to these other matters because they would not be aware of them.
This is a fairly standard provision in legislation of this sort. There is a very clear reason for it. It can mean that a person can be party to both sides of a contract either directly, personally or in some other capacity. It would effectively nullify or vitiate a contract and this is very undesirable. For this reason this provision has been included in all legislation of this sort. I sympathise greatly with the Deputy's suggestion about appointments but human nature being what it is I do not think it would be possible to confine it to relatives. The Deputy can appreciate that one is sometimes more influenced by associations with friends than by associations with relatives. In Dublin particularly it is one's friends rather than one's relatives who create the greatest demand. It is one of those occasions on which, unfortunately, people may impute certain things that do not hold water and people have to tolerate this. It is not feasible to include that type of provision in legislation. If one says "relative" how far does one go in specifying the relative? By including a relative does that mean a close friend? By the exclusion of one the other may be included. I sympathise with the Deputy, but I think the Deputy is only expressing a concern. I do not think the Deputy has an amendment down on it.
I do not have an amendment down at this stage.
I take the point that the Parliamentary Secretary has made. There is indeed, a difficulty of demarcation in this context. I do not think anyone on this side of the House was suggesting the (a) and (b) of section 9 should be dropped. One is seeking an extension or a strengthening rather than a change of what is there.
I was not suggesting they be dropped. I was simply pointing out how obvious the one put forward by Deputy FitzGerald would be compared with the possibility of people not knowing what was in, say, the first section.
Though I recognise there is a real drafting difficulty we have to deal at the same time with a country where the pool of available people is very small and where there is a tradition which stretches back for 100 years—I am not making a party political remark here—of jobs for the boys and such is the extent of mistrust in the country that these things are often imputed where they do not happen. It is alleged to occur frequently where it does not, in fact, occur. In this House we are trying to legislate for a situation where very deep distrust does currently exist. If relatives are specifically excluded does one give by implication carte blanche to those who are friends and not relatives? The Parliamentary Secretary knows the law much better than I do but I do not think this, in fact, would be implied.
Someone once upon a time said: "Is he a friend or only a relative?"
There is a difficulty in drafting but there is a real point in what Deputy FitzGerald is saying and although no amendment is down I should like to urge the Minister to see, in consultation with his advisers, whether there is any generalised form of words which could be added to this section. I recognise that no legislation will be able to prevent the occasional case where the thing is subtly done but I would urge the Minister to consider if it might be possible to get some form of protection in this area.
I mentioned last night the depth of the distrust and the depth of the division. I do not say that to increase it but we must recognise that it is there. I do not think we shall have a good art school until that is dispelled and I do not think that will be the work of a moment. Any provision in this Bill which serves to spell out even more than would be required on other occasions the absolute neutrality, the absolute justice, the absolute equity of all sections would be useful in the present context even simply from the point of view of reassurance.
The Minister's remark "Is he a friend or only a relative" reminds me of a story told to me by a very senior officer of the Polish Government who has since died and it is, therefore, possible without risk to him to tell the story——
Do not tell me it happens there as well.
I am just reminded of the story by the Minister's remark. This senior officer told me of a visit by the Poles to Hungary where they made a reference to "our Russian friends". The Hungarians corrected the reference and said: "No, you mean our Russian brothers." The Poles were a bit disconcerted and asked "What is the difference?" The Hungarian reply was: "We can choose our friends." We can choose our friends but they are not identifiable in the way in which relatives are. The Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly right, the kind of amendment I envisage would not rule out the possibility of malpractice and of a person favouring somebody who is a friend of theirs for personal reasons. Nothing can ever exclude that but the evident scandal of a person participating in the appointment of a close relative is something so clearly identifiable that it is worth guarding against even if the more general and probably more widespread evil of people making appointments on the grounds of friendship cannot be dealt with. It is not impossible to define the degree of kindred; it is done when it comes to marriages and if it is done for marriages it can be done for appointments to the College of Art. We could have a forbidden degree of kindred clause here too.
That could be unfair, I suppose.
I suggest the Minister consider this not only in this context but in others. In any public body financed by public funds there should be a positive requirement known to exist so that in the first instance there will be no question of people appointing relatives and in the second instance no one shall have any grounds for suggesting that such a thing could have happened.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I note that allowances in respect of expenses have to have the approval of the Minister for Finance. I do not really think this is necessary. It is not the practice in other higher level institutions. It did not, however, seem an important enough point of autonomy to challenge by way of amendment. I have not, therefore, challenged it, but in minor things like this I do feel such institutions should be left to make up their own mind and to act responsibly as such an institution always would.
I should like to endorse that. In what this section says it is not very important either way. The number of times there would be any invoking of this power on the Minister would be quite small. The objection to it is similar to the objection which both Deputy FitzGerald and myself have voiced about other parts of the Bill, that over and over again the Minister is claiming powers which seem to me quite unnecessary. If we get the sort of people that are essential then they are as devoted to the commonweal as anybody else. They are as concerned at doing a job as honourably as the Minister or anyone else is. I certainly do not think this sort of supervision is necessary. It is a niggling intrusion which adds to the general atmosphere. There is a remark about motorcars attributed to Henry Ford that one could have any colour one wanted provided it was black. In this Bill we have the situation where people will be given as much power as they want provided the Minister has the ultimate say about everything. The Minister cannot give it and not give it. It is niggling and in itself it is trivial. Let us try to establish the principle of the devolution of power in our legislation and of trusting people who are given that power instead of trying to supervise all the small print. Vastly more devolution exists in all sorts of areas in other countries. I consider the best system of agricultural education in the world to be that run by committees of local farmers with different curricula, different standards, different everything and yet they have a very brilliant result. I suggest they should be left alone and told that no one will breathe down their necks and that we will be amazed if anything improper is done.
The Deputy is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is a normal matter in relation to expenses in any Bill.
In third level institutions? It is normal in State bodies perhaps.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No.29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 6, line 24, after "imprisonment" to insert "of more than six months duration".
This was raised in the HEA Bill and it is raised again here. I think it quite wrong that a member of the board should be disqualified because of a relatively minor offence which may have been committed. There is a girl student in prison for three months for an offence which consisted of having been involved in the spilling of some sheep's blood in the vicinity of a particular institution in the city. That sentence seems unduly harsh for a student who had no previous record of any misbehaviour. The fact that that can happen to a student for what most of us consider a prank, but certainly not a crime, suggests that it is extremely undesirable to have a position under which such a student would be automatically disqualified from being on the board. If a serious offence is committed it would be wrong to have the offender on the board. Given the way that students and university staff can be involved in demonstrations and the way they can find themselves arraigned if something goes wrong and given a harsh sentence for an offence which most people would regard as not worthy of a prison sentence, suggests the extreme undesirability of having this clause in an unlimited form. I raised this point on the HEA Bill and I press it here again. It is possible at some stage that a member of the staff or the students of the College of Art who have been elected to the board might do just the kind of thing that the girl I have mentioned did at the American Embassy. There should be a provision here to deal with cases of minor offences.
I add my voice to that. It comes back to the sort of board who are going to be appointed. It is not any breach of confidence to relate a conversation I had with a Deputy of the Government party who is known for his concern with art and whom I believe to be both enlightened and absolutely genuine in his concern. We were talking about someone and I said "X is crazy". This man said: "That is par for the course." We are dealing with people who are creative workers. There must be some creative people on that board if they are to be acceptable to the student body. The actual formulation of this section—and I do not refer to the bankruptcy bit—would remove half the great painters that ever were in the College of Art from the possibility of being appointed on a board like that. Artists do violent and sometimes irrational things with the same motivation which generates the tension inside them to produce valid works of art. One must accept that that is so. Are we going to have a board similar to one composed of the trustees of the stock exchange? If this is done there will be no rapport with the students. There should be some penalty for major crimes. Deputy FitzGerald's amendment deals with that. If for the sort of misdemeanour in which either the staff or the students might get involved—or even independent people if we are to have some really creative people on the board— and if as a result of pranks or protests they may find themselves in jail for three months, the Minister must remember that this is not a stock exchange or a bank or a factory. It is a school of art. The provision is restrictive.
I was interested in the analogy drawn by the Deputy when he referred to the stock exchange. It has not been unknown for members of the stock exchange to be in prison.
We are not objecting to the financial clauses.
This matter was discussed at length when we were discussing the Higher Education Authority Bill. I repeat the views that I expressed then in connection with that Bill. I pointed out that an amendment of this sort would be unprecedented.
Is that an argument against it?
Not necessarily. The amendment was suggested in relation to student agitation. I indicated at that time that I could not accept it. I could not accept the type of situation which would be created in relation to that Bill. I would expect that the students elected to the board would be responsible people with the interests of their fellow-students as their prime consideration.
That might get them into jail at the moment.
I would question a little of what the Deputy has said in relation to that. If their activities in relation to the college or otherwise involve them in lawbreaking to the extent of being sent to prison, one would be entitled to doubt their sense of responsibility or their suitability to act as members of the board. Those who would be elected to this particular board should at least have a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that their duties as members of the board would be to ensure that the college would be conducted in such a manner as to make certain that the future of the students would be assured. These duties, coupled with their own studies, in my view should be more than sufficient to fill their time. If they feel they desire to indulge in illegal activities they should resign from the board and make way for somebody who would be more concerned with the welfare of the students. Furthermore, in relation to this amendment not only should the law of the land be upheld but it must appear to be upheld. If certain offences are excused it could be held that this legislation was holding other laws in contempt. For all these reasons I can see no particular value in the amendment put forward by the Deputy in relation to this matter.
Some of what the Minister has said sounds substantially like the Establishment view. The suggestion that a student should have enough to do with his own studies not to involve himself in public activities is one which can only be described as Victorian and is not realistic. I do not think the girl whom I mentioned was a student in the college but if, because she was involved in a demonstration and because of the harsh and unjust sentence——
The Deputy knows that he should not refer to the courts and their decisions.
I was tempted by the Minister's approach to be unparliamentary. The view that a student who engages in a demonstration and is sentenced in a manner which many people feel excessive should not be on the governing board of this particular college is unacceptable. Of course, if somebody does something which is seriously discreditable and if he is consequently inflicted with a serious prison sentence this would disqualify him. I am open to suggestion as to how this might be revised. Do the offences need to be defined? The fact that a student gets a sentence of three months imprisonment for participating in a demonstration or acts in a manner which, although some people may say students should not behave in that fashion, is not something that most people would regard as a blot on the character of the person concerned. I think most people here, at any rate, would have sufficient understanding and sympathy, and if a student of the kind we are talking about came forward for employment of some kind we would not rule him out because of a prison sentence. Most people in those circumstances would have sufficient sympathy and understanding to appreciate that the student was motivated by a genuine, altruistic concern on a political issue with a high emotional content and that what was done was not of such a character as to be equated with somebody pinching the funds of an organisation or hitting his mother-in-law on the head with a hatchet. It is ridiculous to say we must equate these things.
There are minor offences which do not carry with them the kind of ignominy which would justify people being precluded from participation in, say, the governing body of the College of Art and it may well be that a student found to be the most valid representative and the one most acceptable to the student body would be the student who demonstrated his genuine concern for and dedication to the interests of his fellowmen; he might be the very kind of student involved in a demonstration on possibly an extraneous issue and could, as a result of that involvement, receive a minor sentence. For us to exclude such a person and to say that students are not entitled to choose such a person is going quite beyond our function in the matter and going quite beyond what is required by any reasonable concern with the responsible government of the college and what we are entitled to do in normal democratic practice.
All sections of society—students, farmers, businessmen and others—are subject to hazards in certain activities which may be peculiar to their particular calling or profession. Some might suggest that farmers coming home from fairs are more inclined to be in a condition which would, through no particular malice, leave them open to committing a driving offence. Businessmen might find themselves in the same situation in taking advantage of circumstances not altogether in accordance with the law. It is accepted that students are inclined to express their views more vocally than the rest of society. That is not to say that, in doing that, they are doing something unlawful, which is what Deputy FitzGerald would seem to imply. It does not suggest, as Deputy FitzGerald would seem to imply——
She is in jail.
It is not my intention to set myself up as a judge on the facts presented to me by Deputy FitzGerald, who acted both as advocate and judge in giving us a short statement of what he alleges happened.
I would not be permitted to give a longer one.
The Deputy said the sentence was an intolerable one. I do not know what happened, but it is the function of the court to take all relevant factors into account. Students are not establishment figures. They cannot be. On the other hand, it is not sufficient to exempt them from conditions which apply to the rest of society. As the Minister indicated, the law must be consistent in these things. One cannot bring in legislation which runs contrary to the general corpus of laws. Participation in demonstrations does not mean that one would be excluded from the board. There was, I think, a supposition that if so-and-so had been a student she would, first of all, have had to be a student, secondly, a member of the board elected by the students and, thirdly, the facts presented to us would have had to be the facts. I am not questioning the Deputy's accuracy.
There is another point. I have had a little experience in courts and if we specify a period of three months or six months we leave ourselves open automatically to a situation in which lawyers defending people will say that the offence might warrant six months, or three months, or whatever the period is, but "My lord, I have to tell you that, in fact, this particular person is a member of An Bord Coláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne agus Deartha and, if this particular person is sentenced to three months or six months, then he or she will automatically be excluded". If we specify a period we invite that kind of argument. If the Deputy is concerned about the consistency of the law this is something he might like to consider. In actual fact no students go to prison for a first offence, or for being found spilling blood, as the Deputy put it, unless there is some element of previous activity.
Previous criminal activity.
Yes.
Proved to the courts.
It is no harm that students should recognise that they are subject to the same conditions as the rest of society. There are some who are coming around to the view that the sooner students realise that the better it will be. I do not necessarily hold that view.
I hope not.
But there is something in it and perhaps it would be no harm if students recognised that. Maybe farmers are concerned just as others are concerned about the attitude of the farmers. I would leave this to the good sense of the courts. I do not think there is any great cause for concern.
I am not too sure that the reference to the farmers is valid. Farmers have also demonstrated and found themselves before the courts. I am not suggesting they are in a position to cast stones.
I am not suggesting they are.
I am impressed by the Parliamentary Secretary's argument on the need for consistency and the argument that one cannot differentiate between different degrees of offence. My understanding is that the law of this House was that you were disqualified from being a Member if you committed a felony but not if you committed a misdemeanour. You are now disqualified if you commit an offence calling for six months imprisonment but not for an offence calling for three months imprisonment. How is it the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister accept this for Members of this House but not for the College of Art? She could still be a Member of this House but she is "turfed out" of the College of Art. What is good enough for this goose should be good enough for that gander. Why the inconsistency? We should not legislate other people out of their jobs if they are in jail for less than six months. If anyone can produce a cogent argument to justify that I should be glad to hear it.
I did intend to rise but I am waiting for the Minister's reply to Deputy FitzGerald's point
Or the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.
I must admit I was not aware of the fact that Deputies could commit an offence, be imprisoned for less than six months and be allowed to remain Members of this House. I visualise it being much more unlikely that Members of this House would commit an offence which would put them in prison for six months. With regard to the general point made in relation to the students, we accept that students are somewhat different from others but, as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, the fact that a student is a student does not place him in a special category as far as the law is concerned.
Like Deputies?
The law of the land must be upheld.
Not for Deputies.
It must also appear to be upheld. Perhaps the Deputy will give me some instance of a Deputy who found himself in prison for less than six months and who continued to be a Member of the House.
I was interested to hear the Minister's reply because we now have a great category of things that are described as non-events. So far as I am concerned, the Minister's answer was a non-event in that it did not answer the points raised, but we have become accustomed to this practice during the course of this debate.
I said that there would be two other categories as members of the board, those who are currently and euphemistically called the independent members, namely the Minister's nominees, and also the teachers. I am not claiming any special conditions for students. I take the interesting suggestion that the law must be consistent to mean, as enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary who is a member of the legal profession, that it is therefore impossible to differentiate between different categories of persons. In my superficial way, I would have thought that almost the entire body of law so differentiated and that the sort of consistency he is urging is meaningless.
The Deputy misinterpreted the sort of consistency that, as he says, I urged.
All right. Then the consistency that is urged here is that, if you have certain rules for national, secondary or university teachers, you must have exactly the same rules for people who are on the governing body of an arts school. Last night I made a case that, if there is to be a difference in terms of the way the place is run between the arts school and the third level institutions, then the arts school must have more freedom and not less than a third level institution.
I work in a third level institution and, together with my colleagues, I try to turn out reasonable graduates. In the faculty with which I am associated, I am not concerned with creativity. I endeavour to turn out a man who will discharge his professional responsibilities confidently and skilfully. If one person in a hundred happens to be creative, he can go ahead and do research work and become a creative artist. That is very good but there is no structuring of the teaching of creativity in the vast majority of university faculties.
The reason that an art school is different is that not only is the aim to get the students to do skilful representations of persons or buildings or to make nice chocolate box lid sort of pictures, but they must be taught the skill of the accumulated know-how of mankind in regard to painting and stone work and so on; but one also wants to teach them to be creative and to use those skills to make significant comments to communicate with and to have emotional impact on other human beings.
Deputy FitzGerald used the word "victorian" in relation to the Minister's interjection, but I would have used the word "square" in relation to it. An art school is really a different institution and the freedom and creativity and the possibility of a certain wildness and woolliness is very important if the students are to be creative. I would hope to see the Minister appointing people who might well be strange people who do odd and erratic things. By accident of my birth I have known many artists in Ireland during the past 30 or 40 years. Without mentioning names, I can think of quite a few of those who, in their ordinary behaviour, were strange people who did erratic things that society would probably have disapproved of but who, in my view, would have been valid and useful members of the board of an art school. I have little hope that what I am saying will get through. Teachers must be produced who hand down particular skills, and to that extent a school of art could be compared to a place where, for instance, doctors or lawyers are produced; but one must also try to produce an atmosphere in which people can genuinely innovate and be creative and can produce works of art which, by consensus of opinion, are different from works of reproduction or works of skill. There is another ingredient. If one does not generate an atmosphere where these things can flourish all one's efforts are vitiated. The core of my reservations and worry about this Bill is that we are building an institution where, conceivably, skills might be taught but where creativity would be destroyed, and creativity is the one thing for which allowances must be made.
Deputy Keating has made a very good case for, if anything, being more lenient in matters of this kind in relation to the College of Art. Given the curious position I mentioned earlier—that the young lady would be all right as a Member of the Dáil or Seanad or as a member of the governing body of UCD or, I think, on the council of Dublin University—she is nevertheless to be disqualified from the board of the National College of Art and Design. Why? What is it about this institution that it must be protected in this way from the depredations of demonstrators—people who may offend against the law in some minor respects and find themselves, as this girl is, in prison for three months. Where has this come from? Who got the idea that, whereas it is all right for members of the governing body of the university to have been to gaol for any length of time, even if it is for as long as 20 years, they can still be members of that governing body but that in this instance the most minor offence must exclude people? The Minister has given no answer to this.
What was clear from what he said and from the silence which preceded what he said was that both he and his Parliamentary Secretary were unaware of the fact that Dáil Deputies are in the position whereby they are not disqualified from membership of the House unless sentenced for a period of more than six months. In view of the fact that the Minister was not so aware and since he had made his case for consistency beforehand, he should, on the grounds of consistency, reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage. He can give no justification for discrimination against members of the board of this body in a way which is not used in relation to this House or to the Seanad or of the governing body of a third level institution.
It is not true that I cannot give any justification. I have made a case on it.
What was it? I did not hear it.
So as to let Deputy Keating have an event instead of a non-event, I would be willing to consider what the implications might be. That is as far as I will go.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.