I do not wish to say any more on this section at this stage in view of the Minister's willingness to have a look at some aspects of it. We can come back to it again on Report Stage.
National College of Art and Design Bill, 1971: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
All I would say here is that I would have to consult on the legal aspect of it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 6, subsection (3), lines 42 and 43, to delete ", unless the Minister otherwise directs,".
I think Deputy FitzGerald raised this matter on Second Stage and, having considered it, I decided to agree to delete "unless the Minister otherwise directs".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 40, inclusive, not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 41:
To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:-
"( ) On the establishment of An Bord, the Minister shall designate it as an institution of higher education for the purposes of the Higher Education Authority Act".
As the Bill is drafted it appears the intention is that this institution should not be treated as a third level institution coming within the framework of the Higher Education Authority but that grants should be provided for it direct. This seems quite wrong. Once again, here, it seems there is an inclination to treat this institution as if it did not belong to the third level sector. I am anxious to get over this difficulty and, consequently, I propose the deletion of subsection (1) and its substitution by a subsection saying:
On the establishment of An Bord, the Minister shall designate it as an institution of higher education for the purposes of the Higher Education Authority Act.
I am not aware of any reason for not doing this; it seems a reasonable thing to do and I should like the Minister's views on it.
The College of Art, in fact, is not entirely an institute of higher education. It caters for second level education in the foundation school. It also provides courses leading to vocational school examinations. The Deputy suggests here that the Minister "shall designate it as an institution of higher education...". The Deputy is aware from our long discussion on the Higher Education Authority Bill that I could not designate an institution without prior consultation with An tÚdarás. For that reason I could not bind myself to do something which An tÚdarás could possibly advise against.
I am sorry the Minister did not develop that theme a little further to establish the extent to which it does not come under this heading because, of course, third level institutions frequently have courses for non-matriculated students, for example. That does not mean they are not third level institutions. I am not clear as to the nature of the distinction the Minister is making. Our universities have traditionally provided such courses for particular purposes. In fact, one of the categories in the categorisation of students statistically, for example, in the President's report in UCD is "non-matriculated students". It is not clear what the Minister means by saying that it is partly second level. Does he mean that some or all of the students are non-matriculated? That in itself does not make it not a third level institution. I am in a little difficulty to know what the Minister means.
On the point the Minister made about having to be advised by An tÚdarás—that seems a fair point which suggests at least the redrafting of the amendment but I should like to hear more about what he means about the college not being fully a third level institution.
The Deputy said that in the case of the universities some courses are operated which are not of degree level——
No, sorry—for non-matriculated students, not of degree level.
Yes, and he said that this does not mean that it is not a third level institution. As I said here, this college caters for second level education in the foundation school which is not a minor part of the college. I do not know if I would call it the least important part of the college but it is certainly not a minor part in numbers. Also, I am informed that students can enter the foundation course from the age of 16 so that, in fact, part of this college will be at second level.
The last point about the age of entry has nothing to do with it. It is, or used be the case that you could enter Trinity at the age of 15 and there is I think at least one very distinguished graduate who did enter Trinity at that age. The age of entry is irrelevant from that point of view. It does not define second or third level.
I think it is relevant now. I do not think you could enter Trinity now at 15.
I am not certain of the pesent regulations but I think they differ from those in UCD and involve a lower age.
In any case you could not finish in the post-primary level at that age.
Under the peculiar regulations the Minister has introduced about not entering second level until the age of 12——
This regulation is upheld by very many countries as well as ours.
No. We discussed that and I think I established that as a requirement for entering second level it is not, but as a normal age of entry, it is. These are two quite different things.
Not at all.
It is the normal age of entry in certain countries but the Minister did not attempt to suggest, and I think had to accept, that it is not a requirement in other countries that you should be aged 12 before entering second level—far from it. At present, it is not possible for somebody below the age of 12 in this country to get a grant-aided, post-primary education and to complete education to the leaving certificate standard below the age of 17, perhaps; that is true, but it does not mean that people cannot do it if they are willing to forego the grant. It is a temporary situation introduced by this Government and will be remedied at the first opportunity. It does not exist in other countries and the College of Art could take students from other countries, in any case. Therefore, I think the Minister's interpolation on that point is irrelevant. I do not think the question of age of entry to the college defines it as not being third level.
The Minister made a second point that the foundation school is second level. I do not understand that. I would not deny it without having more information. How does the Minister define second level? The normal definition, as I understand it, is that when people complete their education in a post-primary establishment and move on to an establishment which will award them some sort of diploma or degree, the institution to which they move is third level. Some third level institutions require matriculation; some do not: some have an age of entry of 18, some 17, some 16, perhaps, or lower. It is the fact that people move to an institution which gives them a diploma or a degree, having had a secondary or post-primary education in a post-primary school, that defines third level as I understand it. I should like to hear how the Minister defines second level and how he says the foundation year is second level. What is his definition of second level for this purpose?
In his last contribution the Deputy was concerned with the distinction between second level and third level. I think the kernel of the matter is that under the HEA Bill which recently went through this House, An tÚdarás, the authority, are vested with the responsibility and the right to recommend to the Minister the designation of an institution as an institution of higher education.
I accept that.
Any amendment of this legislation cannot affect what is in that legislation.
It could, if so expressed.
I cannot see how it could without cutting across the provisions of that legislation. To that extent, and so soon after that legislation has gone through, surely the appropriate thing would be, apart from the level of courses undertaken there, that this would be a matter to be considered by the Higher Education Authority. Nothing that can be written into this legislation can deal with that. I have here the definition section of the Higher Education Act, 1970. It provides that an institution of higher education means (a) a university, (b) a college of a university, or (c) an institution which the Minister, after consultation with An tÚdarás, designates by regulation as an institution of higher education for the purposes of the Act. You cannot cut across that. Possibly this matter will be considered by the Higher Education Authority but I do not think it is possible to go further than that in this legislation.
I accept that as a valid criticism of the amendment. It could be so expressed as to amend the Higher Education Authority Act to require this body to be accepted. I would not wish to do that. I recognise that the amendment, as drafted, would have that effect. Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment in due course. What we were discussing is what is second level. I should like to hear from the Minister the grounds on which he defines the foundation school as second level. It is a concept I have not come across before. I was unaware that this was the view of the Department. I should like to hear what is the definition of second level under which they feel the foundation school comes under this heading. Perhaps the Minister could come back to that in a moment.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is the intention that, if the Higher Education Authority recommend that this body should be brought within their compass, he will accept this. Secondly, if it is his intention, is he satisfied that the wording of the section as at present drafted will not stand in the way of the implementation of such a decision? It seems to me that whereas in section 14 (1) the provisions are optional, because it provides that there may be paid to An Bord out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant or grants—that seems to leave the matter open—when we come to the second subsection it provides that An Bord shall submit to the Minister an estimate of their financial requirements for every financial year.
That suggests that the Minister does not contemplate this body coming within the compass of the HEA because if they did, if I recall correctly, the HEA would be submitting their requirements to the Minister. I wonder whether the Minister feels that section 14 (1) and more particularly section 14 (2) are in a form that would permit him, without difficulty or embarrassment so far as this Bill is concerned, to accede to a recommendation by the HEA in favour of this college coming within the responsibility of the HEA.
On the question of second level, generally speaking second level is regarded as post-primary up to leaving certificate standard. I agreed in discussions with the students that it would not be possible to make the same academic requirements necessary in their case as in others. Nevertheless, I would say that those entering the foundation school at 16 years of age would hardly be regarded as being third level students.
In relation to the question of the designation, certainly if the Higher Education Authority advise me that this college should be designated as a third level college I will certainly accept their recommendation. I do not think that the section as it stands would interfere with this.
Does the Minister not agree that subsection (2) does not seem to be compatible with the procedure in the HEA Act?
That is possible at the moment.
Supposing the body are designated, will this board be required to submit their financial requirements not only to the HEA but also, unlike all other bodies, direct to the Minister?
Not necessarily. At the moment this is a particular situation. If a change is made we will have to look at it. I do not want to have a situation where a designated third level institution will be submitting their financial requirements both to the HEA and to me.
Then the Minister will agree that, if we do not want to have amending legislation coming through within a matter of months on this small, unimportant point, some proviso is required in subsection (2) to the effect that, unless this board are designated under the terms of the HEA Act, they shall submit to the Minister an estimate of their requirements.
I do not know whether that is necessary. It might be but I am dealing specifically with the situation as it is at the moment.
The fact is that this body could be so designated and I think some amendment is necessary.
It is possible.
Will the Minister agree to have a look at it between now and Report Stage?
I will, yes. So long as there is no implication that it will necessarily be designated.
I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I have not got the HEA Act in front of me and I can only wonder whether there is anything in this which would be incompatible with the normal procedure if this body were designated by the HEA.
If we find it necessary to make any changes we can have a look at it.
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 43:
To delete subsection (2).
This section requires the board to make a report to the Minister annually on their proceedings and that this will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is reasonable. I do not think there is any inconsistency with the HEA Act in this instance. It seems a reasonable requirement. I am not so happy about subsection (2) which puts the Minister in a position to require information about how the board are performing at any time. This seems to me to make some inroads into their economy and leaves it much too open to pressure from the Minister and his Department. It seems to me that the annual report is sufficient. I do not think that, in other State bodies, even those in which control is more important, we have provisions quite as tightly drafted as this. It is certainly not the case that in regard to the universities there is any requirement of this kind, requiring them to provide information as and when the Minister seeks it. It seems to be inappropriate that this requirement should be put in here when, as far as I am aware, it does not apply in other kindred instances.
The Deputy will remember that when we were discussing the Higher Education Authority Bill the same thing arose. I felt that it was essential that we should maintain this because I think the Minister is entitled to get information from a body such as this whenever he feels it is necessary for him to do so. For example, in connection with teacher training which the board may be requested by the Minister to undertake, it is essential that the Minister should be in a position to obtain information as to the courses, the number of students, and so on. I think there is nothing at all unreasonable about it.
The Minister says the Deputy will remember but the Deputy does not always remember, I am afraid. My recollection is—and it may be at fault—that the requirement was that the bodies should furnish information to the HEA rather than to the Minister. Am I correct in that?
It is furnished in that instance.
Looking at sections 14 and 15——
If I may put it this way to the Deputy, unless the college is designated I am in a position in relation to the College of Art very similar to that of the HEA in relation to the Institute of Higher Education.
If the Minister feels it is reasonable that the HEA should have this information even though we did not accept this I can quite see that it is logical that he should seek it here. Given that it is in the HEA Bill, I would not be disposed to press my point unduly but I would suggest that given that he has to look at sections 14 and 15 from this point of view he should look at section 16 also. These are kindred sections and in all of them some provision may be required to open up the possibility of designation by the HEA and of direct contact between the HEA and these bodies rather than between the Minister and these bodies.
If there is a need arising out of what I have agreed to look at in section 14 I will see what I can do.
All right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In subsection (4), page 7, line 54, and in page 8, lines 1 and 2 to delete ", with the approval of the Minister and with the consent of the Minister for Finance,".
This amendment is designed to remove the power of the Minister and the Minister for Finance to intervene in the matter of the terms and conditions including remuneration of the director and registrar of An Bord. It should be entirely a matter for this body to decide for itself the remuneration of the director and registrar just as the university decides what their president and their registrar are paid. The idea that the Minister should intervene in a matter of this kind again demonstrates the continuing approach to this body as if it were still under the Department of Education and an unwillingness on the part of those who drafted the legislation, not necessarily on the Minister's part, to recognise that this is to be an autonomous education institution and should be treated in much the same way and with as much freedom as, if not more than, the existing third level institutions. One cannot justify imposing this condition here when no such condition applies to other third level institutions.
The position in this case is that the director and registrar will be paid out of public funds. They will be appointed by the board. It does not seem to be unreasonable that their terms and conditions then could be determined by the board with the approval of the Minister and with the consent of the Minister for Finance. That does not infringe on the autonomy of the board in discharging its function. One must have regard to the fact that the Minister is just one agent of what we might call the co-ordination of the level of salaries paid to officials employed by boards. There must be some level of liaison, some level of co-ordination. I can sympathise with the Deputy's arguments in many ways but one must appreciate that it is not always possible to remove any or all levels of control and that control does not always involve restrictive control.
I wonder why the Deputy has put down this amendment relating to the director and registrar and has not put down, as far as I can see, any such amendment to subsection (6) which relates to other officers of the board. That does not appear to have caused him concern nor has he put down any amendments with regard to the superannuation of the officers and servants of the board. I am not suggesting that he should, but I am merely inquiring whence the particular concern in this area derives and if he has overlooked other areas that are specifically analogous. There must be some level of co-ordination. It is not just a matter of infringing. If it does apply only to the director and the registrar it will not infringe on the autonomy of the board.
I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's implied criticism of the lack of amendments to other subsections. I was consciously not putting down an amendment to section 20 on this matter because it seemed not unreasonable that we should try to achieve some kind of standardisation in superannuation schemes; it seemed a very useful long-term objective throughout the whole economy so as to minimise the mobility of labour, so as to make it easier to work towards a single scheme or an interchangeable scheme, so as to ensure that people can move freely. For this reason and because superannuation is a less sensitive issue and there is a genuine need for standardisation here it did not seem to be desirable to put down amendments. However, the absence of amendments to other subsections of the section we are now discussing was, I think, an oversight. I am glad to have my attention drawn to it and shall take appropriate action on Report Stage.
Despite what the Deputy has just said.
Coming back to the point at issue, I really cannot follow the line of reasoning here. If the Government feel the need to impose any kind of incomes policy at any level to ensure co-ordination of salaries throughout the whole range of activities, public and private, it is open to them to introduce legislation to that effect and this House will make up its mind on that legislation. I do not think one should pick out piecemeal particular educational bodies in which to introduce this when it does not operate in other educational bodies. I do not think the fact that this body is about to be liberated, in inverted commas, from the Department of Education, is a reason for maintaining all kinds of ministerial involvement in it which do not apply in the universities and which the Minister has not suggested should apply in the universities and which I hope he will not propose should apply. There is an inconsistency of approach here which would suggest a continuing failure to approach this body with an open mind as a third level institution, autonomous, free and standing on an equal footing with the other third level institutions. I cannot accept that there is a need for ministerial involvement in this matter. The board should determine remuneration here just as the governing boards of the colleges determine the remuneration of their president and registrar. Unless I hear some good reason for this differentiation I cannot accept that it is desirable.
One reason is the factual one that the universities have been established for a considerable number of years and have been exercising their functions under the university system. This, and the Deputy wants us to forget it, is breaking new ground. It has been fairly clear in the course of the discussion here that there is not any precedent for this type of legislation in this House. We had the example yesterday evening of references from this side to the Institute for Advanced Studies which was not meant to be a clear statement that this was an exact precedent. The Deputy said it would be more appropriate to go back to the beginning of the century, to legislation establishing the universities. This is a totally new area from that point of view and one must accept that the funds, apart from the fees, are being provided by the State. It was not so when the universities were being established and it is not entirely so right now either. Apart from the fees, the bulk of the moneys will be provided by the State. Until experience proves otherwise this must be so. The public are entitled to have a reasonable assurance, through the Minister and the Minister for Finance, that the level of remuneration paid here will be on a par with that which operates in other institutions. I cannot see what the Deputy's concern is. The terms and conditions will be fixed by the board and they will be referred to the Minister and the Minister for Finance for approval——
Or disapproval.
——or disapproval as the case might be. That does not necessarily mean to say that their autonomy will be infringed. All Members of this House like to feel free to express various views. They like to feel they can launch into a long and learned dissertation on the function of Deputies but they are subject to this very type of control. I do not think it makes them any less autonomous or independent. I know university autonomy, third level independence and academic freedoms are different but the fact that one's salary and conditions are fixed after approval with the Minister and the Minister for Finance does not mean that one is subject to the direction and control of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
What does it mean then?
Does it mean that Deputies are?
Indeed, we are. We cannot even employ a stenographer without the authority of the Minister for Finance.
Does it mean that Deputies are subject to the Minister and the Minister for Finance?
We have no autonomy whatever. We cannot spend a ½p without the authority of the Minister for Finance.
In the exercise of his functions as a Deputy, and Deputy FitzGerald is as good an example as anybody, he exercises them fully and fearlessly without any regard for what the Minister for Finance who pays him thinks about it. That is really what the analogy is. I do not think we should read too much into this. If experience shows that this is a restriction on their activity then it can be looked at again but in the meantime there must be some level of consistency.
The revelation of the Government's mind in this matter is interesting. I could translate what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the first few sentences of his remarks as follows: If in 1908 it had been a Fianna Fáil Government rather than a British Liberal Government, the universities would not have got away with being able to determine and run their affairs in the way they do in matters of this kind. It is maybe a true proposition but it is something of a reflection on self-government that that should be the case. Are we all to look back with nostalgia to the Liberal period of British rule and regret that self-government has come in? Is this what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting? I cannot accept that this is the standard we should apply. It is true that the universities were established before the State was founded. They were established in some respects on Liberal principles of freedom from State interference and those are principles which far from wishing or wanting to devalue we should seek to preserve and extend. For this Government to say: "Oh, if we had been there that would not have happened and now we have a chance to determine our own laws and our own ways we will not allow that kind of thing to happen again." This does not sound well coming from the other side of the House.
That was not said.
That is a clear interpretation of what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
A rather peculiar interpretation.
I am translating it into plain English. I think I am permitted to translate——
My Tipperary dialect may be somewhat defective but it does not need that kind of——
I am permitted to translate Parliamentary secretarial circumlocutions into plain English for the people of Ireland and I have done so.
The people of Ireland understand the Parliamentary Secretary very plainly.
I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say quite plainly that the fact that universities have certain provisions which do not involve ministerial control does not mean that now we have the power to run our own affairs we should not, when we are starting off with the second institution of this kind in the line of advanced studies, have a different system and bring the Minister into it. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said and meant. The only case made for the inclusion of this is that it should apply to universities, too, but we have not got at them yet. I do not think that is a very encouraging note to sound in this particular debate.
In his first and second contributions the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the director and registrar being paid from public funds. What does he mean by being paid from public funds? I am not quite clear about this. All kinds of people are paid from resources which include contributions from public funds. It is true in the universities and it is true in many State bodies but that does not mean that the Government should or does in every instance claim the right to intervene and interfere with the autonomy of the board it has appointed and take decisions over the heads of the board. I should like the Minister to tell us in which State bodies outside the educational field does this right exist? I spent 12 years in Aer Lingus and it is not my recollection that there is anything in the Air Navigation Act, 1936, which provides that the chief executive of Aer Lingus shall have his remuneration approved by the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance.
Is it, in fact, the case that not alone are we to have a less liberal government under self-government than under British rule but that the later Fianna Fáil Governments are becoming less liberal than the earlier ones and in the good old days when Éamon de Valera was Taoiseach the Government did not interfere with these matters but in the latter Lynch days control is going to be tightened up? Can the Minister tell me in what State bodies these kind of provisions exist because I do not recall them in the legislation on other State bodies although I would not claim familiarity with the 60 or 70 Acts involved. I think an especially bad precedent is being created here for bodies in the sphere of higher education to which the State makes a contribution. I would ask the Minister to reconsider it in the light of what I have said.
Having listened to both the Deputy and the Parliamentary Secretary, I am inclined to favour the Parliamentary Secretary's argument.
Surprise, surprise.
It is not a particular surprise because I have given way on a very considerable number of amendments.
I accept that but considering the Minister was pointing out points for the Parliamentary Secretary to make, it is not at all surprising that he is agreeing with the points he did make.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 47:
To add to subsection (4) the following:—
"Without prejudice to the powers contained in the rest of this section, the Director and Registrar shall be appointed initially for a period of four years, but shall be eligible for re-appointment by An Bord".
This subsection is designed to ensure that the board will have open to it the possibility of not continuing the appointment of the director or registrar after four years if they decided it was better to make a change. This is a new body being established in new circumstances and the choice of a director and registrar is going to be a very difficult one. I do not envy the board having to make this choice and I do not envy the Minister having to appoint the board to make the choice. It is going to be a very difficult matter. We hope they will both be good appointments and probably they will but supposing they are not and the director and registrar turn out to be unable to master the numerous problems of this institution and after a number of years it transpires they are not of the calibre, mental disposition or flexibility to cope with these problems. It would be tragic if we were left in the position where the institution had to drag on with a conflict existing which could prevent it ever from getting off the ground as a successful institution of higher education. We must have regard to that danger and for that reason it is desirable that these two appointments are in the first instance open to review. The Minister may well reply that it is going to be difficult enough to get somebody without getting them on the basis that their appointment may not be continued after four years. I admit this provision will increase the difficulty of finding a suitable person to accept the job but it is worth accepting the fact that it is going to make it a little more difficult to get a person if we at least ensure that whoever we get can, if necessary, be replaced. For that reason, it is valid to suggest that this amendment be added to the section.
I do not think the Deputy really believes in this himself. He has supplied me with the answer to it.
And with the amendment to the amendment.
We know the answer to the amendment. First of all, the Deputy and other Deputies here said earlier that it would be absolutely essential that we should get the best possible man to take over the job of director. Surely nobody could imagine a worthwhile individual agreeing to accept an appointment which could be terminated for many reasons after four years. We know the past history of the college. We know that there are enormous problems to be dealt with. Unless we are able to get the best possible man from the beginning it is obvious that the man appointed will not be able to deal with the problems. We are aware that some of the difficulties have arisen in the past not necessarily because the director was not a man capable of doing his job, but because particular individuals did not happen to like him. They put pressure on him. I have no doubt that the acting directors were glad to get out of the job. The Deputy can surely appreciate that if we were to agree to permitting such insecurity as would exist if this amendment were accepted we would not get a person who could be capable of overcoming the problems. We would not get a person capable of overcoming the difficulties and we would also be placing very considerable temptation in the way of certain people. It is quite obvious that it will not be easy to get a person of the calibre we need. If we impose this type of limitation on the appointment we will not get a director of the calibre we need.
If there has been any consistent theme through the Deputy's contribution it has been that we should as much as possible in this legislation, with regard to this establishment, follow the pattern of the university. The Deputy seems to have a facility for arguing a case on whatever basis is given to him. I mentioned this this morning and the Deputy seemed to think this was a reflection on his integrity. I meant this as a compliment to his powers of advocacy. Is it the custom in the universities to appoint a president or a registrar for a period of four years and to tell him: "We will see how you have done after four years and then we will consider the position again."? Is this system of dependence not what the Deputy has been asking us to avoid all along? Perhaps the Deputy should withdraw this amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is superficially attractive. In both universities the head is appointed for life, up to a certain age. The Minister will be aware that the Commission on Higher Education, having considered this matter, decided that this was a bad system. Representations made to the commission were generally of that tenor. There was a widespread view that this type of appointment for life is undesirable. I am not suggesting that the proposal made by the Commission on Higher Education involved a four-year term and I am open to argument on that particular point. I think a life appointment is wrong. The practice here and in other countries suggests that the general trend is towards appointment of a somewhat limited duration renewable for another term. Some university bodies suggest that in the university reform legislation which we hope to see in this House some time, there should be provision for seven year appointments renewable for another seven years. The reason why I took a shorter term in this instance was because I was concerned primarily with the initial appointment and the danger that it might prove unsuccessful and that we would find ourselves back in our current situation of difficulty in the college.
The Minister could validly argue that I am over-concerned about the immediate situation and that one should not think only of the first years of the institution but should look ahead to the way in which it should be run in the long term. There is a case for amending the amendment along the lines suggested—that is, that the director be appointed for seven years and that his appointment would be renewable for another seven years. That would line it up with what is proposed for the universities. There is general acceptance that the present system in the universities is unsatisfactory. While this would mean a rather long initial period if the director did not prove satisfactory it is probably worth taking that risk in order to avoid building into legislation provisions against the initial situation when the legislation should be geared more to the long-term situation. Would the Minister be prepared to consider an amendment on Report Stage along the lines of the seven years appointments renewable for another seven years? This would align this college with what is likely to emerge in the universities. That may prove wrong, of course, but that is my recollection of the recommendation of the Commission on Higher Education.
I could not accept what the Deputy suggests. The most important thing here is to ensure that we will get the best possible person. To get that person we must offer the best possible terms and the terms include the length of service. What the Deputy is worried about is the first appointment, but as I see it this same type of thing could arise on any occasion, whether it is the first, second or third appointment of a director. We should aim at trying to get the best possible person. The only way in which we can do that is to ensure that we are in a position to offer the terms which are likely to attract a person of the calibre we are looking for and if we are to confine ourselves to a limited number of years in that sense I believe that we most certainly are most unlikely to get the type of person we would like to get, and that we would be more likely to become involved in the difficulties which the Deputy has underlined. In other words, if we do not get a person able to cope with a difficult situation and overcome problems we could find ourselves in similar difficulties to those in which we find ourselves at present. The basic consideration here is to ensure that we get the best possible person and the only way to do that is by offering the most attractive terms.
The Minister's approach is influenced by Civil Service thinking that you get people if you offer them security of tenure and a good pension. This is an academic appointment and not a Civil Service appointment. In academic institutions —England may be an exception to this—in places like Scotland and in continental countries, as I recall from the report of the Commission on Higher Education, the practice is to have a rector or the head of the institution appointed for a rather short term of years. In fact, it can in some instances be as short as a year, in other instances four years. But, under our tradition here of rather longer appointments, the feeling was that it should be for, perhaps, seven years. Certainly, I do not think people in academic circles would take very seriously the suggestion that you will not get a man to go as head of an institution unless you appoint him for life. That is the kind of thinking I can understand from an administrator who is used to thinking in these terms, but it just does not arise in academic circles.
No doubt everybody wants a bit of security, but the concept of holding a position as head of an institution for a period, and then retiring from it, is one, I think, that is very readily acceptable to most adacemics. I think it was, in fact, the academics themselves in the various institutions here who recommended this in relation to the universities. That being so, I do not think the Minister should import the thinking of another group of people into an academic institution and that he should be unduly concerned with this question of security for life. I think that he is right in suggesting I should not be thinking only of an initial term; he is right in saying the difficulties I mention can arise after the appointment of a director, and reappointment for a second term, or something like that. I see that and I see the need to make some changes in my amendment, but I would press on him that he should not think in terms of security of tenure for life as being necessary to get a man. In fact, the kind of man who wants security of tenure for life is on the whole rather unlikely to be a successful director of a college of art. Such a man is a man who will be oriented more towards an administrative career. The kind of man you want here is a man with flair and imagination, as well as administrative ability, who has enough confidence in himself to take this job on and has in mind doing it for a number of years and then moving on to something else when he finds himself getting tired of the administrative routine and wanting to get back to something which gives a free range to his imagination.
It is precisely because in academic institutions that kind of person is generally found to be the best administrator, not totally administratively oriented but having still an academic bias, that the idea of the seven year term of office, renewable, is generally accepted in academic circles. On the whole, academics say they do not want to appoint a man president of the college who wants to be there for life. They want a man who is an academic, who is interested in academic things, who will take on the burden of this job because he feels he will make a contribution for some years, and who is likely to get restless at being tied down to his desk and want to get back to his academic—in this case, artistic— interests after a period. That is the kind of man we want to run successfully an academic institution in the field of Art.
I think the Minister has not looked at it from this viewpoint. I think he has been overly influenced by the administrator's viewpoint here and has not thought of it sufficiently in academic terms. He ought to take account of the recommendations made by academic bodies with regard to the headship of universities. That is a much surer guide to what is needed in this instance than the practice of the Civil Service of appointment for life.
What I said was that it would be necessary to offer the most attractive terms. It could happen that an individual might want to serve for only seven years. It could happen that he might want to serve for three years. It could happen that he might want to serve for 14 years. The fact is we will limit the value of the terms we offer if we decide that he can serve for only four years, with a possibility of re-appointment. I do not think one can compare the position of director of a college of this kind with the head of a university because, if the president or rector decides that he does not want to continue as an administrator, he has his position as a professor to fall back on.
If he was a professor before, which is not always the case.
It is usually the case.
Not in University College, Cork.
One does not know whether it would be possible for such a director to return to the particular type of employment he had before he was appointed. Therefore, as I said, this is an added attraction; there will be security in this particular post. He may not be a person necessarily anxious for security but, if he does happen to be concerned with security and he is also the most capable person we can get, then we should be in a position to appoint him. I think the Deputy's amendment would prejudice the possibility of our getting the type of person we need. I am convinced that we must be able to offer the most attractive terms and those include the period of appointment.
In a sense I have been discussing for the past ten minutes not the amendment I have moved but another amendment which, in the light of the Minister's comments, appears to me to be a better one. It might be better, therefore, to pursue this discussion on Report Stage. I think the drafting is inadequate and there is something to be said for terminating the discussion at this point and coming back to it on Report Stage when the Minister and I will have had an opportunity of seeing what the Commission on Higher Education said about it; this is higher education and we should look at the arguments for and against and see whether, in the context of this college, they merit consideration. The best thing I can do now is withdraw the amendment and come back to it on Report Stage.
If there is one amendment that does not help it is this one.
I suggest that both the Minister and I agree to consider it between now and Report Stage. I should like to look at what the commission said and I would hope the Minister would also like to do that. Having done so, he may change his mind.
It is most unlikely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 51, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 8 to add the following to subsection (9):—
"provided that any officer or servant suspended or dismissed shall be entitled to be given reasons for his suspension or dismissal".
This is a very important amendment and I hope the Minister will look at it with favour. It is essential that any person suspended or dismissed from a post should be given good reasons for that suspension or dismissal. I would go so far as to say it is a requirement of natural justice that this should be done. but I cannot produce any legal authority for that. I have not got any. The section simply says:
An Bord may remove or suspend from office or employment any of its officers or servants.
I do not think any employer, never mind an employer established under an Act of the Oireachtas, should be in a position in which he need not give reasons. I hope the Minister will accept this as being reasonable. In the debate on the Higher Education Authority I used a form of words which had apparently a meaning other than that which I intended and the Minister did not accept the particular form of words on that occasion. Here I am putting it in simple language and I do not think there is any reason for the Minister not accepting the amendment. There is a very good social reason for accepting it. I hope he will accept it.
I can bring personal knowledge to bear on this. I am a trade union official and if any such clause appeared in any agreement I would immediately ask for its deletion. This seems a most reasonable amendment and I wholeheartedly support it.
This is a somewhat similar type of amendment to the amendment put down by the Deputy on the Higher Education Authority Bill and I did not accept it on that occasion. I do not propose to accept it now, and so far as I can remember, I do not think that anybody supported the Deputy on this particular matter.
The Minister does not think that anybody supported me?
I do not think so. If the Deputy looks up the record he will find that they did not. However, this, in my view, is a provision which is much more proper to the conditions of service than to a statutory enactment. I pointed out on the previous occasion that if I were bound here by this enactment to give this information to the person concerned, I would also be placed in the position in which I would have to answer for this in the Dáil. The Dáil could ask questions; the Dáil could ask me why a person was suspended and I would have to give a reply publicly to the question. I think it is accepted that, generally speaking, the vast majority of people concerned in cases such as this who would be justifiably dismissed would certainly not want to have the reasons for the dismissal announced in the Dáil. Again, I want to point out that I feel that this should be covered in the contracts of service and not in the Bill.
The Minister has, I think, replied to an amendment which is not down. The amendment the last time——
Was "cause stated". I quite appreciate that.
Those words were interpreted, I thought, indirectly but I may have been wrong, as meaning that they were causes which would have to be stated publicly and which the Minister would have to give in the Dáil if asked. It is for that very reason that I have changed the wording here. The wording of the amendment, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will see, is "provided that any officer or servant suspended or dismissed shall be entitled to be given reasons for his suspension or dismissal". There is nothing whatever to suggest that anybody else is entitled to have the reasons except the person dismissed, and I cannot conceive, if that amendment were accepted, that any Deputy would have the right to any information about it. We might argue about that on the amendment to the other Bill but you cannot argue it on the amendment in this form. That argument is, I think, spurious.
The Minister says that this provision is more appropriate to the contracts of service than to this Bill. That is all very well, but how do we know it is going to be in the conditions of service unless it is stated in the Bill? The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we should lay down certainly the minimal content of the conditions of service.
Is the Deputy suggesting, to be clear, that the conditions of service of officers and servants of the board which may vary with the type of employment should be written into this Bill?
I did not say that. I am suggesting that this provision should be written——
The Deputy is endeavouring to write it into the legislation.
I am writing into the legislation a requirement that the conditions of service of all the officers and servants of the board shall include this provision. That is entirely proper. That is what legislation is for, to safeguard people's interests against exploitation and it is very necessary that people should have this safeguard. I have never heard a reason given and I do not think the Minister has attempted to give a reason why people should not know the reason for their suspension or dismissal. The Minister gave a reason which might have been valid in relation to the wording of the amendment the last time, that he does not think the Dáil should know the reason for dismissal, and that I understand, but he has not given a reason as to why this amendment should not be included. To say that it is more appropriate to conditions of service is a non-starter and the Minister has not given any reason against the amendment and seems to accept that it is desirable that the conditions of service ought to be along these lines.
I do not accept this at all. There would be very many other matters concerning conditions of service and an employee, and this tri-bunal, would naturally ensure that a contract of this kind would include the fact that he should be informed as to why he was suspended or dismissed.
How could an employee ensure that?
He could, through his trade union. If he cannot do it on his own, he can certainly do it through his trade union.
What trade union?
And see to it that the proper conditions of service are laid down for him.
What trade union?
Whatever trade union he happens to belong to.
The members of the staff of the College of Art may or may not belong to a trade union. We do not know that.
I would sincerely hope they would be members.
I hope so too, but we do not know that.
I am very much in favour of every worker being a member of a trade union. I am very partial towards trade unions, but the point I am making here is that I believe that it is not appropriate that we should insert this particular provision in the Bill but that it should be in the conditions of service.
Would the Minister tell me how we can ensure that it is in the conditions of service if it is not in the Bill?
As I said a moment ago, there will be many other things in the conditions of service, and if we were to accept what the Deputy is now asking me to include in the Bill, we would then be placed in the position where it would be necessary to put all the other conditions in as well because the implication would be "This is the condition of service", so far as the rest of the conditions are concerned. We have had this problem previously, and I am convinced, as I said earlier, that it is a matter of "conditions of service" instead of a matter for the Bill. This would be absolutely wrong, to concern ourselves with one particular condition of service. I have no hesitation in regard to this amendment, as I had none in the case of the previous amendment, in not accepting it.
The Minister will not accept that this is the most fundamental of all conditions of service. The most fundamental condition of service arises on the question of being dismissed. Everything else is subordinate to that, and if the Minister accepts that this should be in the conditions of service, it is a right people should have, and he accepts that they will have it—he hopes they will be in a trade union and hopes that it will ensure this—what is wrong with having it in the Bill?
I believe it should be in the conditions of service but I am also convinced that, apart altogether from the fact that I believe the conditions of service is the place to have it, if it were part of the Bill, I could be called on to answer questions in the Dáil and to state publicly the reasons why people were dismissed. This I have refused to do, and I certainly will not agree to insert any subsection in this Bill which would place that type of onus on me because it would be most unfair to the people concerned. As I say, it is basically a matter for the conditions of service and I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
I did not really think the Minister was going to throw that out again. We have dealt with that. There is nothing whatever in this requirement to suggest or imply in any way that the Minister would be obliged, or even entitled, to disclose the reasons to the Dáil. The fact that the board are required to tell a person dismissed or suspended the reasons cannot conceivably be held to give the Minister a duty to disclose it to the Dáil.
Would the Deputy accept that if you have a statutory provision in legislation, a Deputy is then entitled to ask the Minister if the person was given the reason for his suspension, and he is entitled and the Deputy knows it well, to suggest that what were given as reasons, et cetera, were not in fact reasons, et cetera, and the whole matter then becomes aired in the House. The Deputy mentioned that the fundamental condition of service is the right to be notified——
The terms of dismissal.
I am not sure that an employee or worker would look on it that way, that he would look on it as being a very good condition, but equally there are the questions of terms of pay, superannuation, hours of work, sickness regulations and so on. He would regard these as being in many ways of much more practical importance than the terms of dismissal and the reality is that if one starts to put this into legislation and leaves out the others, then one assumes a particular significance and the others appear subordinate.
I think the Minister has clearly indicated, if any assurance is needed, that he believes this should be included in the conditions of service. If that is not a satisfactory guarantee I do not know what is. The Deputy is merely suggesting that this matter and others which are important—nobody suggests they are not—should all be written into the legislation. As a result of that we might find ourselves discussing in this House the conditions of service of each individual as a right. That should not happen.
While all the matters, holidays, health regulations, salary and so on are important, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that they are not as important as the reasons for dismissal? Surely if a man is dismissed it is of over-riding importance.
The normal person in normal employment is more concerned with the conditions under which he might be dismissed. The Deputy as a lawyer will appreciate that apart from the guarantees that are to be written into this Bill, or into the conditions of service, there is one very clear safguard in any event, an action well-known to all lawyers and solicitors, an action for wrongful dismissal. You cannot be turfed out because an employer feels like it. We must look at the reality of the situation and not assume that the power to "turf" somebody out resides in employers or boards such as this. If it did, it probably would then be necessary to spell it out here.
While it is essential that there should be the right to take action in court ordinary people do not wish to be engaged in litigation; they want their terms of employment guaranteed. In a situation like this, dismissal can cover such a wide field that they would want to know the reasons. The amendment here suggesting that they be given the reasons for suspension or dismissal——
Surely nobody would accept conditions of service which did not cover these matters. Nobody is suggesting they should not get reasons. All I am saying is that I do not accept that this should be incorporated in this Bill.
Saying that nobody would agree to conditions of service which would not include this, that and the other thing, including the right to be given reasons for dismissal is nonsense. A person accepts a job because he needs it; it may be the only job going in this country and he must take it. Let us be realistic about it. The idea of people picking and choosing jobs and saying: "In this case I shall be given reasons for dismissal; in this case I will not" and choosing the job on that basis is utter nonsense. The disparity between the economic strength of an individual seeking a job and that of the institution which may employ him is such that the individual is powerless except to the extent that he may be a member of a union and that union may have considerable bargaining power. In the light of recent events I do not think anybody will feel that union membership is such a wonderful safeguard. Two people have been dismissed from the College of Art and in fact they have a union who no doubt are taking up the matter but the college is still closed and these two people are still dismissed. In those circumstances when we know what can happen it is important that we should give the safeguard to which people are entitled as a natural right, the right to know the reasons why they are dismissed.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for guidance in his legal capacity in relation to an action for wrongful dismissal, what rights there are legally in such an action to be given the reasons? Is it the case that people who take such an action are entitled to be told the reasons in court or, if they are not so entitled, is it the case that perhaps their non-entitlement puts them in a weaker position in such an action where they have not got as a condition of employment the right to be given reasons than in cases where they do have the right? I am not familiar with the law in the matter and would be glad of advice on it.
For two reasons the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to advise nor, if he were, would he do so. First, I am not at present engaged in practice but, secondly, and most important, one does not advise in a vacuum on a broad basis. One looks at a particular case and sees what rights are there. One looks at the conditions of employment and conditions of service in each individual case to ascertain whether a dismissal was unlawful. I am certainly not prepared to make an observation on a broad basis as to whether in an academic sense people would be entitled to certain notices.
I thought one of the Parliamentary Secretary's reasons would be that I had not employed a solicitor and put the question to him. I could do that if necessary. I am not altogether convinced by the reply. Am I not right in suggesting that if I take an action for wrongful dismissal and a reason has been given to me, and I can show that reason is unsound, I am in a much better position to pursue the action than if no reason is given to me and I have to pursue it in vacuo not knowing the charge against me? Is there a right at law in taking such an action to be given the reason? If there is such a right as part of the action this would somewhat alleviate the position. It would not, however, put the person in the same position as the person who is told the reason and has a right to be told it when dismissed. There is some danger in the case of somebody dismissed without having a right to get that reason at the time and who subsequently takes an action, that the employer would go to some trouble to devise a carefully worded reason which would let him out whereas if he had to give the reason at the time of dismissal the employee might have got a truer reason, one on which he could more effectively sue. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary tells me that the law is much different from what I think it is, it is necessary for us to ensure that somebody dismissed by the institution would have a right to the reasons so as to put him in a good position to dispute it if the reason is wrong. Could the Minister now tell me if the two people dismissed in this instance have been given the formal reasons for dismissal? I think we are entitled to know that when talking about this institution.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister not agree that, particularly in the case of servants, the information which this amendment would require to be given on the reasons for dismissal is vital nowadays as a result of the Redundancy Payments Act which requires that notice be given to employees, as well as the reason for dismissal? A good deal of money could be involved in the dismissal of somebody and it is becoming much more important that the reasons for dismissal are clear particularly in the case of servants who can claim redundancy. Therefore, there is a basis for including this amendment in this section.
I believe, as I said before, that this should be a matter for the conditions of service. I shall not place myself in the position where as Minister I might have to state in the Dáil the reasons why a particular individual was dismissed. I have clearly indicated my point of view in regard to this matter. While I cannot dictate to the board what they will do in regard to conditions of service I have no doubt they will take cognisance of what I said. I do not intend to place myself in the position in which I shall have to state in this House the reasons why particular individuals were dismissed. Neither do I propose to refer to any individual names in the House.
That is a dead issue.
It is not.
There is nothing whatever in this that entitles anybody in this House to that information. The only thing we are entitled to know in this House, on the strength of the wording there, is was the person given a reason or was he not. Once that question is answered any Deputy who persists in trying to ask what was the reason will be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle without difficulty. At the moment this institution is part of the Civil Service. The person involved is a part-time civil servant under the Minister's jurisdiction. I am perfectly entitled to ask the Minister any questions I like.
This will be an autonomous body. I intend to press the Minister further about what information was given to the people concerned. I am not talking of an imaginary or hypothetical case. I am talking about a real institution with real people, some of whom may be dismissed. We cannot just say that it will not happen. It has happened in the past few days in respect of two people. We must, therefore, have regard to that reality. We must be in a position to assure ourselves that all necessary precautions are taken to ensure that the human rights of the people concerned are protected.
The very fact that the Minister keeps stressing that he will not be put in a position of having to tell the House what the reasons are, when it is perfectly evident from the wording of the amendment that no such requirement could exist, and that the Ceann Comhairle would rule out of order such a question under the normal rules about not inquiring into the day-to-day affairs of a public body, seems to me to suggest that he has not got a very strong line of argument to go on. His other line of argument is that it should be part of the conditions of service and that it is not up to us to put this in, does not hold water. It is our job to ensure that the essential elements in these conditions of service are applied.
On the question of trade union membership, the people concerned may or may not become members of a trade union. In most academic institutions the great bulk of the academic staff are not members of trade unions at the moment. It may be different in the College of Art now or in the future. That is the normal situation.
Would the Deputy not agree that it would be open to Deputies to say: "This is not a reasonable or adequate reason" and to read out a letter or a notice? Would that not open up the whole question here in the House?
Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to say in what way the words in the amendment would make that more likely or more within the rules of order of this House? At the moment, if this does not go in at all, any Deputy can ask was the person given a reason for dismissal. The mere fact that it is not a legal requirement does not prevent a Deputy asking the question. If he goes on and starts reading out letters he may get away with that before the Ceann Comhairle intervenes——
The Deputy remarked that the board will be autonomous. Therefore it will not be open to us in the House to inquire into the reason.
That does not stop somebody putting down a question or reading out a letter. To put down questions or read out a letter would be equally out of order. I cannot see that there is any difference between the two out-of-order activities. The Minister said that he will advise the board that the contract should provide that a reason for dismissal should be given. He believes this is the form which contracts for people in the College of Art should take. He believes that the staff of the college should have a contract setting out the possible reasons for their dismissal. The Minister has been in office for how long? Two years?
Two years.
What has he done about the condition in the contract which means that no reason may be given for dismissal from posts in the College of Art, or part-time posts in any event?
The Deputy is perfectly well aware that, because it was proposed to bring in legislation in relation to the College of Art in general, I did not interfere with any of the setup in the college.
That does not answer the question.
It certainly does and I said that on many occasions when I was asked questions in relation to the employment of teachers and so on. I said that it was my intention to bring in legislation which would establish an autonomous body which would control the college and for that reason I would not concern myself with any aspect of the college as it stood.
I do not know how the Minister can have the face to put it like that because the Minister's officers, presumably acting in the Minister's name have been deeply engaged in the affairs of the College of Art.
As it stood.
They interfered in the most detailed matters. I am not objecting.
What is the Deputy's point?
The Minister cannot say that he would not interfere with the way the college was run for those two years when his officers, acting on his authority, have been intervening, quite properly, in its affairs.
Of course they have.
What did the Minister mean then?
I meant that I would not make any changes in the way in which the college had been run and in the way the teachers had been employed until such time as I brought this Bill before the Dáil and established an autonomous body to deal with it.
The Minister is getting deeper into it.
He is not.
The Minister and his officers have made a number of changes in how the college is run, some of them improvements and some perhaps not. The whole system of examination has been changed into a system of assessment. The Minister has made changes in regard to the foundation school course. The whole running of the college has been changed and modified in many ways as a result of the intervention of the Minister through his civil servants. For the Minister to say that, while he is making all these changes which have drastically altered the way the college is run, in many ways for the better, and that, at the same time, he was not doing anything about changing a contract which specifically precluded the staff from being given a reason for dismissal, although he himself believes they ought to be given a reason, does not add up.
What does add up is that, because of the fact that from the time I became Minister it was obvious to me that, despite the best efforts of my Department, it was not the best type of institution to run a college of art, I decided that I would bring a Bill before the Dáil which would establish an autonomous body to run the college and that, therefore, I would not make any changes in relation to the employment terms of teachers, and so on, until such time as this autonomous body were set up and could deal with that matter. I said this on many occasions. I was questioned here on why we had not more permanent teachers and I explained some of the reasons. Basically the point I made was that I was leaving the situation as it stood until such time as the autonomous body would take over control.
The Minister has certainly explained to the Dáil why he has not made more teachers permanent——
And why I have not interfered with any conditions or lack of conditions.
The Minister has interfered considerably, through his agents, with the conditions in the College of Art: the working conditions, the examination system——
I am speaking about conditions in relation to the teachers.
Now we are narrowing it down. The Minister is saying that he would not intervene in the conditions of employment of teachers until such time as the College of Art were under new management.
I do not think the Deputy can point at anybody who does not make permanent conditions of employment in the College of Art. Some of his own amendments are not consistent with the concern expressed by him. He talks of permanent employment but some of his own amendments are totally inconsistent with that principle.
What principle?
The principle of permanent employment.
What principle of permanent employment? When have I enunciated this?
The Deputy appears to be concerned about the Minister's failure to——
Perhaps I did not complete what I meant to say. I think I was interrupted. What I was trying to say was that as far as the permanent positions are concerned the Minister has explained to us on a number of occasions why he did not make temporary positions permanent. The reasons he gave were basically sound reasons because if it is to become an autonomous college I do not think it is wise to burden that college with a whole lot of permanent people who may or may not be entirely suitable. I accept that. What I do not accept is that having enunciated that principle the Minister should have failed to bring in the Bill for so long. His statement a few minutes ago that he had other things to do sounds very weak and hollow in that respect.
If the Deputy will consider the various matters I had to deal with over the past year and a half he will appreciate that my time was fully occupied.
I do not, really. One of the curious deficiencies of this Government which bothers me a lot, although I understand the pressures that any government are under, is the conviction of their members that they can only do one thing at a time whereas the art of government is to do a number of things at one time. This is perhaps the biggest single deficiency in government that we suffer from. It is not confined to this Government, it is just particularly intense in this Government.
Perhaps the reason the Deputy's arguments are so inconsistent is that he does too many things at the one time.
I am coming to the Parliamentary Secretary's curious allegation of inconsistency. I am just trying to answer the point he made that I was suggesting that all the staff should be permanent and that I am now, on this Bill, saying that they should not. I can understand that there was a desire to set up this college as an autonomous body and not to make temporary staff permanent for the brief period until that would happen but for how long has that gone on? I have had questions answered in this House which elicited that this has gone on for, I think, seven years. It was back in 1963 that this process of appointing temporaries to the permanent staff started, if not earlier. What I have said is that it is absolutely intolerable that matters should be put on the long finger for seven years and that during that time the staff should be run down so that there are only six permanent staff and 30-odd temporary staff. I can understand any Minister saying at a certain point in time: "I am about to bring in a Bill to hand this over to an autonomous body and during the month or two while this is going through I will not make temporary staff permanent", but to do that for seven years was intolerable. During that period successive Ministers should either have brought in a Bill or if they were not competent or willing to apply their minds to bringing in a Bill they should have made the staff permanent at some time during that period. You cannot let it run for seven years.
The Deputy would let it run for three months.
I have not been Minister for seven years. Everybody will accept that I was fully occupied since I became Minister with teacher's disputes, with various Bills that we have been preparing, and so on. I find rather strange coming from the Fine Gael benches the suggestion that we are not coming in quickly enough with legislation. I remember when the Coalition were in power and they could not find enough work for one day a week. Now we have to sit overtime to try to deal with the amount of legislation that we are bringing before the House.
What a curious argument.
The Deputy should go back and have a look at it.
The Deputy refers to curious arguments. He will very shortly, I suppose, be advocating that after the coming into effect of this Bill the whole-time members of the academic staff shall have their positions reviewed after three months. Maybe the Deputy is capable of doing a few mental convolutions and telling me how that is consistent with his apparent criticism—I am not quite sure how it is related to what we are doing now —that these people have not been made permanent over a period? Could we have some level of consistency in this?
If the Parliamentary Secretary would let me finish my answer. I have been interrupted about three times. There is no inconsistency. It seems to me that a body of this kind should, in the ordinary way, be staffed mainly by permanent staff. There may be a need for some temporary part-time element in it because of special skills that may not be readily available in permanent form. It was quite wrong that for a period of at least seven years the college have been allowed run down so far as staff is concerned and people have been appointed part-time in replacement for full-time staff, not because there were special skills involved but because a Bill was going to be introduced to put this on a right footing. If, in 1963, it had been known that this would go on until 1970 I do not think the decision would have been taken not to appoint permanent staff. It is simply that this thing has been let run on by a Department and Ministers who have admittedly been preoccupied with other things but who either should have had the time to bring this in or should not have held up the process in the College of Art of appointing permanent staff. I do not think they can justify such a long period of not appointing permanent staff because they were not able to bring in legislation.
On the question of my amendments towards the end of the Bill in connection with the way in which existing staff should be treated by the new board it seems of great importance that this board, starting fresh, should be given power to determine which of the existing staff are carried over and if they feel that some staff should not be carried over, then they should be in a position to terminate their appointment. In such circumstances the people concerned should, of course, have reasons given for the termination and I think also, and this is set out in my amendments, that both permanent and temporary staff whose appointments are terminated should be fully compensated.
Money alone does not compensate.
The Parliamentary Secretary, if he has read my amendments, will know that the compensation proposed there is a compensation that will give them the same income as if they had been permanently employed.
The Deputy does not know much about human satisfaction if he thinks that money compensation alone would be adequate.
I do not suggest it is adequate. I suggest that it may be necessary. The new board may decide, they must be free to decide, that they should make some changes in the staff when they take over because for a period of 44 years now, all but one year of my lifetime, there have been reports on this college which have commented, inter alia, on the staff position and suggested the need for changes in this Act. It would be quite wrong for this House to allow the personal interest and satisfaction of members of the staff, however important that may be, to stand in the way of launching this new college on the right lines but, of course, if anybody is to have his appointment terminated at that point he must be fully compensated and given the reasons. There is nothing inconsistent in that whatever. We have to balance, in this situation, the interests of the individual who must be protected against any hardship for reasons that are beyond his control and the interests of the college. I have tried to do that and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that putting down those amendments at the end was certainly not erring on the side of political popularity. As the Bill as drafted offers security of tenure to anybody who has more than five years service in the college, he will at least not accuse me of looking for votes by reversing that and suggesting insecurity of tenure but, because of the human importance of it, assuring them of full compensation if their appointments are terminated. I put down that amendment in what I regard as the public interest. It is in no way inconsistent with my concern that the staff of the college should be properly treated.
The Minister said that he has been Minister for Education for approximately two years and that he has been very busy. I admit that. There have been many changes in all aspects of education in that time. Ministers have been changed from one Department to another and it takes a Minister a while to catch up but he can consult his predecessor and his staff in the Department are permanent. While it is understandable that the Minister was preoccupied with many things it is not fair to the people whom this Bill is catering for to say, "We have only been two years in the Department." I do not believe references to coalitions and so on are particularly relevant to this amendment.
Even if correct, which I do not think they are.
They are most certainly correct.
Subsection (9) states:
An Bord may remove or suspend from office or employment any of its officers or servants.
and amendment No. 52 adds to it:
"provided that any officer or servant suspended or dismissed shall be entitled to be given reasons for his suspension or dismissal".
In fairness to all those concerned with this Bill and its effects I see no reason why this amendment cannot be allowed. A person who is suspended or dismissed from the College of Art should be entitled to be given reasons for his suspension or dismissal. I am not an authority on the teaching of art but there are people who have flairs and talents which are not common to the ordinary man in the street and if they are dismissed from their office or employment I believe, because of the somewhat unique positions they hold, they should be entitled to ask for and receive reasons for their dismissal.
I have explained my position on two or three occasions and I do not see why I should repeat it again.
I do not want the Minister to repeat it again either. It did not contain any reasons for his attitude so I agree there is not much point in his repeating it.
That is the Deputy's viewpoint, but it certainly is not mine.
I make a clear distinction between reasons which I may not accept and reasons which are not relevant to the issue at stake and in this instance the reasons were not relevant.
The Deputy makes a clear differentiation between reasons which he will accept.
Does the Minister agree that he does not wish to be asked reasons for the dismissal of a person, in this House?
Yes, I believe I should not be under any compulsion to make the reasons public.
The Minister would not be, under this amendment.
I am not satisfied about that.
Is the Minister legally advised to the contrary? I thought not.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 53:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"The Director, Registrar, and officers and servants shall retire at age 65."
This is a simple amendment to deal with the age of retirement of the director, registrar, officers and servants. It seems to me they should retire at age 65, like most other people. If the Minister has some reason for not making that provision I shall be glad to hear of it but in the absence of any good reason it seems to me a reasonable arrangement.
The good reason I have is that this is something which should apply to the conditions of service relative to these particular posts and should not therefore be given a statutory basis. It is simple enough.
That is odd because in other third-level institutions this is dealt with by legislation. We seem to have got into the curious position that if anything is controlled by legislation in university it is not to be controlled by legislation here and if it is not controlled in university it is to be controlled here. We are standing the whole thing on its head. I do not think it is a very important point but it seems odd with this mania for controlling the details of the work of an institution that in an area where it seems entirely proper that the legislature should lay down what should be done the Minister is not disposed to intervene.
I do not accept there is any mania for controlling the institution; in fact I feel we have been very liberal in relation to this particular legislation.
Perhaps for a Fianna Fáil Minister Deputy Faulkner has been.
The Deputy wants to argue on the two sides as he has pointed out himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
We have dealt with so much in detail that it is not worth wasting time discussing the section any further at this stage but some of the points we have made have been valid ones. I am a bit bothered about the Minister's reaction and determination to retain control over the remuneration of the director and registrar and his reluctance on the other hand to give reasons for dismissal. This suggests a combination of attitudes which I find difficult to accept. I hope that despite this the system will work and that the officers and servants of the board will be employed on fair conditions and will be given reasons for their dismissal if they are dismissed. I hope also that the Minister will accept the view of the board with regard to the remuneration and conditions of service of the director and registrar.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Something which has been bothering me since last night, and I have gone over the Bill again carefully this morning, is the peculiar ambivalence in this Bill arising out of the use of "An Bord" and "the College". The academic staff of the college are referred to in most of the Bill under the heading of officers and servants of An Bord. This is implicit in this section where we are told that "An Bord may perform any of its functions through or by any of its officers and servants". According to this section and earlier sections—this came up several times in the previous section—these people are defined as officers and servants of the board but later on we find they are defined rather differently. In section 27 these same people are referred to at several points as "permanent, whole-time members of the academic or other staff of the college" and in lines 49 and 50 it is stated "shall become and be a member of the academic or other staff of the college". There is an inconsistency here. I have drafted Report Stage amendments which will take care of it but whether they will take care of it in a manner which the Minister will accept is another thing. We should be clear whether members of the staff of the college are officers and servants of the board because they can hardly be both. There is a confusion of function here. I do not press this point particularly on this section but I do have amendments down for Report Stage which cover this particular section and try to tidy this up. It seems to me that officers and servants and academic staff are, in fact, officers, servants and academic staff of the college, who are appointed by the board and may be dismissed by the board. There is a peculiar inconsistency which needs to be tidied up.
I do not think it is inconsistent but I shall have a look at it. The position is that in section 27 we are referring to the permanent, whole-time members of the academic or other staff of the college as it is at the present time.
No.
Yes, the reference is here to——
It is the wrong reference. If the Minister reads section 27, lines 34 on, he will see that the reference is to the new college. It is not the old college. It is the existing members.
But in the employment of An Bord.
Of course employed by the board.
There may be some problem there. We will look into it.
If the Minister compares sections 18 and 19 he will see the disparaties in close proximity. Section 18 refers to officers and servants of the board. Section 17 says an officer shall hold his office and section 19 refers to an officer or servant in the employment of An Bord. There is an inconsistency here and it seems to me that the simplest way would be to say officers, servants and staff of the college in the employment of An Bord. That formula in section 17 is clear and to the point but there is a conflict in formula as between it and section 19. We should tidy it up.
There may be some problem. I am not saying there is, but I shall have a look at it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 55:
To delete subsection (1) (c).
This is the question of somebody who is an officer or servant of the college becoming a Member of either House of the Oireachtas and of his superannuation. I think I made a mistake in not asking for the deletion of the entire section, but I can remedy that on Report Stage. The question as to whether somebody who is an officer or servant in the employment of the board and who becomes a Member of the Oireachtas should retain all of his functions in the college should be a matter for the board. It is such a matter in different institutions of higher education. They have adopted different practices and I may favour one over another, but I do not think this House should lay down that such a person must give up his job in the period in which he is necessarily seconded and lose his superannuation for that period. The practice adopted latterly by one of our universities is to reduce proportionately the remuneration for that period of the time of their ordinary working day which they, because of their parliamentary duties, are not free to spend in the particular college. But their superannuation is unaffected. If this Bill were to apply to universities such people would have to cease being employed by such universities at all. I do not see any reason for this.
I declare my interest immediately because I have an interest. It seems to me desirable that people in academic institutions should be encouraged to be Members of the Oireachtas. To the extent to which they can combine that with their duties in the particular institution they should be allowed to retain that link and be remunerated proportionately. To say that any such link must be severed is undesirable. It is not our practice. We have a very long practice here from the foundation of the State under which members of the academic staff of academic institutions at third level can become Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and retain their link with and their teaching functions in the institutions in question. Latterly there has been much greater sensitivity—I think rightly—on the question as to whether, if they become Members of the Oireachtas and that interferes with the carrying out of their duties in their respective institutions, there should be some adjustment in their remuneration. That seems entirely proper.
We are rightly more sensitive in these matters now than we were in the early days of the State. We can, I think, leave it to the commonsense of the institution, as we leave it to the commonsense of the universities. The practice up to now has been that an academic can be a Member of the Seanad without that interfering significantly with his activities in the academic institutions. If however, he is a Member of the Dáil, with longer hours of attendance and a greater burden of relevant political work, the interference with his function in the academic institution becomes more significant and it is proper, therefore, to adjust remuneration accordingly. That seems a commonsense approach.
It would be hard to find an institution situated in closer proximity to the Oireachtas than the one under discussion. There is only a railing between the two. It is desirable we should retain this tradition. Academic staff should be encouraged to be Members of the Oireachtas and any problems created thereby should be adjusted by appropriate financial measures. I do not think the amendment goes far enough. I suggest the person concerned should not lose his superannuation benefit. This institution should not be singled out. Why should it be all right for someone who is teaching veterinary medicine but not all right for someone teaching art? The logic of that defeats me.
In relation to (a) and (b), to which no amendment has been put down, I do not know that I would accept all the Deputy has said. This will have to get a great deal more consideration. He has a point with regard to (c) and I am willing to accept the amendment there.
I will come back to the other on Report Stage.
The Deputy may do whatever he wishes. The fact that I accept this amendment does not imply that I will accept what he puts forward on Report Stage.
I would ask the Minister in the meantime to consider an amendment that I shall table because there is no reason why this college should be treated differently in this respect from universities. The only difference I can see is that it is even nearer to the Dáil than the universities are, in so far as that is a relevant argument.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
It would be open to me to oppose it now, but I should like to give the Minister time to think about it. I agree to it now with the intention of opposing it later.
Is the Deputy opposing it or submitting an amendment?
I am agreeing to the section at this stage but I will be putting down a further amendment of a more drastic character on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
There is no very substantial point here. Once again we have the reference to "An Bord and its full-time officers and servants" and if we are tidying up as to whose officers and servants they are, the Minister would need to look at section 20 as well.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 9, to delete subsection (3) and to substitute the following subsection:
"(3) A committee of An Bord shall consist of such number of members appointed by An Bord as it thinks proper and the members shall consist of or include members of An Bord."
If I remember rightly, Deputy FitzGerald made a point in relation to this matter in his speech on Second Reading, and I decided to replace this subsection by an entirely new subsection which allows greater freedom to An Bord in the matter of the persons they would be empowered to appoint as committee members. I think the original subsection (3) was too restrictive and I changed it so as to broaden the scope.
I accept this as an improvement. I have another amendment down which would vary this further and which really should be taken in conjunction with my amendment No. 65, and if I may, I would like to refer to amendment No. 65 in the context of this amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that in so far as a committee of An Bord are appointed and such committee may carry out functions on behalf of the board as distinct from advising it, there is a natural and proper concern to ensure that such committees, if they do have delegated power, should reflect the balance of representation on the board. For example, one could have a situation where under the subsection as drafted, and as now being amended by the Minister, the board might by a majority, consisting of members appointed by the Minister, decide to appoint a committee to undertake certain functions which would exclude from membership anybody nominated by staff or students. In that way the purpose and value of the nomination of staff and students to the board would be vitiated. This could apply either to staff and students together or to staff and students separately. The Minister has rightly decided to give representation to staff and students on the board. Some people may quarrel with the extent of the representation but it is a good principle, and if that principle is to mean anything in practice, it is important that there should be no way of getting around it, under which the other members of the board could band together and decide to appoint committees not including representations of staff and students and delegating power to them to do things on behalf of the board. This is very important. I am not suggesting that the exact wording of my amendment is perfect and I think that, perhaps, the provision about a majority of members of the committee consisting of members appointed under sections 6, 7 and 8 may, perhaps, be a bit unnecessary but I think some provision is required.
The purpose of amendment No. 65 is to allow, however, for the appointment by the board—the college council as I have denominated it—of advisory committees which would not be tied in the same way, whose composition would not need to include representatives of the different representative groups on An Bord and which could, indeed, include members from outside, so that what I am proposing is a dual system under which An Bord can appoint committees to which it delegates functions, who can act in their own right but which must reflect to some degree the balance of interest within the board so that they must have representatives of staff, students and ministerial appointees.
On the other hand, if it is thought unnecessary to appoint advisory councils which do not have executive functions but which advise the board, there should be no such requirement tying down the representation in this way. As these bodies have no delegated power and as it may well be desirable to have a membership which might be drawn from outside the board altogether, there should be provision for that. As it stands at the moment, as the subsection has been redrafted by the Minister, I am afraid there is a possible danger of the whole purpose of staff and student representation being subverted. I should like the Minister to indicate whether he is in sympathy with the thinking behind my amendment, even if the exact wording may need to be checked.
I feel that my amendment is very much less restrictive than that of the Deputy. I know what the Deputy has in mind, but surely we should leave it to the good sense of the board when appointing a committee of this kind to include the type of individuals necessary to deal with a particular matter. While I fully understand what the Deputy is getting at, I do feel that, perhaps, on some occasions it might not be necessary to appoint students—that they would not have any particular thing to contribute, but on the other hand, if the board at any time so wish, they can appoint students; they can appoint students and teachers alone, or with other members of the board and so on, I think we should not be aiming at restricting to the extent the Deputy asks here the type of committee the board should have the right to appoint. I would prefer to leave this to the good sense of the board. I hope the board will be acting as a unit and that once it is appointed, it will not be regarded as a board made up of students, teachers and other individuals, but will rather be a body whose purpose is to run the college to the best of their ability for the benefit of the students and, therefore, that there would be no question of them ganging up on one another, as would be suggested might possibly happen. There is that suggestion in the Deputy's amendment and I feel that the amendment is psychologically divisive. I think we should regard the board, once it is appointed, as a responsible body who will be aiming at the interests of the students and will appoint their committees as they think fit in relation to whatever particular aspect they need a committee for and for that reason it is better to allow the broadest possible scope to the board in relation to its appointments. I think, therefore, that my amendment is better than that of the Deputy.
That sounds very reasonable but I am not sure that it will work like that. I accept that in putting down my amendment I am suggesting the possibility of division— once you try to guard against something, you are suggesting the possibility of it—but I should like to bring the Minister back to the discussion on the electoral system——
I did say that they proposed this, but I also said that I did not know how far their tongues were in their cheeks when doing it.
Yes, I appreciate that, but it was proposed for a certain purpose. It is a system which lends itself to the domination of representation by one group to the exclusion of another group. The Minister has said that he will be prepared to accept the recommendations of staff and students in this respect. Given those considerations, I am afraid that it is likely, unless there is a very radical change in the thinking of all concerned, of which there is no great sign at the moment, that we are going to get a board with two radical student members and probably two conservative staff members because that is how that voting system would work. That danger is there and nothing the Minister has said suggests that it is not likely to happen. On the contrary, everything he said suggests that is precisely what is likely to happen. He has not been prepared to concede the danger and that it needs to be provided against in the electoral system. I foresee a situation where there will be a board consisting of the Minister's representatives, two of the more conservative staff members and two of the radical, dissident student members. The way to get over the problem proposed by the presence of students on the board may be to appoint committees to whom functions will be delegated and which will exclude the students.
That is precisely what the students fear. Knowing how the minds of conservative academics work, I would myself fear that if the minds of the academic conservative members of the College of Art were in this way like those of university personnel they might well be tempted to adopt this expedient to get around the awkwardness of having to cope with awkward, abrasive students on the board. That will not work. It is important to guard against that. My amendment may be too strong but some provision is needed. I would not be concerned if we were talking about advisory committees. It is the practice in the NUI colleges for the committees to be purely advisory. They may not recommend to the governing body. If that was the case I should not be so sensitive about it. There might be some difficulty, but An Bord as a whole is there to take the decisions. When there is power to delegate a danger arises compounded by what looks like the kind of electoral situation we are likely to have in the light of the discussion we had earlier to-day. In these circumstances it is important to ensure that any committee to whom power is delegated by An Bord should contain representation at least of the students and of the staff. To that extent, this amendment is really desirable and the Minister should be prepared to have another look at it, even if the drafting does not satisfy him.
I feel that the amendment would psychologically be divisive. It is all very well to say that there could quite possibly be two militant students appointed. That may or may not be. If it were, is it not very obvious that if a board attempted to exclude one of these students from the various committees simply for the purpose of avoiding difficulties that they would, in fact, be piling up difficulties for themselves? Not only would the students on the board react to this, but probably a very large proportion of the student body would also react.
The Minister is being provocative.
I am speaking from experience. It does not necessarily have to be a large proportion of the students who create a difficult situation. I should like, difficult as it may be, to try to have a situation in which this board will operate as a unit and in which there will, quite possibly be argument and discussion—this is to be expected—but where it will operate as a unit and where the activities will be geared towards providing the best possible Art education for the students. A board that would act in the manner suggested by the Deputy would be an unwise one. I doubt very much if this is likely to happen. I feel that leaving it to the board to decide in any given instance what type of committee would best deal with the particular function or matter in question is the best way to deal with it in this legislation.
The Minister's suggestion that student agitation will provide an adequate safeguard is a curious one, coming from him. I should prefer to prevent student agitation and prevent the possible causes of such agitation arising.
I assume that the members of the board will be sensible people and that they will not deliberately provoke a situation. We are trying to set up a board to look after the students' interests. The various members appointed to the individual committees will be the people who are best able to serve in that particular capacity on that particular committee. This is the best way to approach it. The Deputy suggested that there should be at least one student on these committees. I do not know what difference this would make, except that the students might feel they were at least represented. I do not know how it could prevent certain types of difficulties arising. It would appear to me that in most matters in relation to the college with which committees would be dealing students would have a part to play and the teachers would also have a part to play. I am taking it that this board will be a reasonable, sensible type of board and that they will see to it that the proper people are appointed to the various committees. If it happened that teachers were not appointed on a particular occasion it would be clear to them why they were not appointed to these particular committees. I could not imagine a situation arising, considering the past history of this college, where a board would deliberately set out to create a situation which would endanger the proper running of the college. Therefore, I feel that it is preferable that we should leave it to the board to select the particular individuals who would be most competent to operate on the various committees.
Look at the effect of the existing subsection and of the amendment. Under an existing subsection which the Minister proposes to delete, the committee of the board would consist of members of the board who would either be members of the board or officers of the board, in other words, teachers, thereby excluding students from the board. The Deputy has put down a provision that only student members of the board would be entitled to represent the student interests under an existing section. The Deputy has put down an amendment to ensure that at least one member of each sub-committee would be appointed under subsections 6 and 7. That would mean that at least one would be a member of the board selected by the students to serve on the board or selected by the staff. In fact, the Minister's amendment goes further. It allows that a student who is not a member of the board at all could be nominated to serve on a committee. This goes further than the Deputy's own amendment and further than the original subsection.
The Deputy was expressing concern about the representation of students and that their voices should be heard. This would appear to me to be a written guarantee almost of the fact that those voices will be heard and not necessarily of the two students who are on the board who will be the only ones who may serve on committees, which, in fact, would be the position under the Deputy's amendment as I read it.
I do not follow that. If the Parliamentary Secretary reads my amendment in conjunction with the section it says:
A committee of An Bord shall consist of such number of members as An Bord thinks proper provided that the committee shall consist of at least one member appointed under each of subsections...
So, in fact, it is confined to the people who are actually serving on the board under the Deputy's own amendment.
The reason for this is that the authority must take this in conjunction with my amendment No. 65, if the Chairman will permit me to draw his attention to it.
But that relates to advisory bodies.
Yes. What I am concerned about is that any committee which is going to carry out functions delegated to it by An Bord should logically consist of members of the board: any committee which is to advise the board it is logical that it should be open to it to have other members. It is left rather vague as it stands. In fact, it is possible under the Minister's amendment for the board to set up a committee, if I read the amendment correctly, which might include people who are not members of An Bord and who carry out executive functions of An Bord. I think there is something to be said for distinguishing between the two types of committee. A committee with executive functions delegated to it by An Bord, the members of which should be members of An Bord and an advisory committee, with any membership you like, to advise the board.
On the other hand, looking at the Deputy's amendment No. 65, my amendment here could cover not only what the Deputy has in mind in relation to his amendment No. 60 but also his amendment No. 65.
Yes, quite.
Therefore, I do not see any need for it apart altogether from the fact that college council is mentioned. Apart from that, I think it includes the type of committees that I am suggesting and they could be either committees with these functions or with advisory functions.
Yes, but the Minister appreciates that he is making provision in his amendment for a committee which might not include members of the board and might even have a majority of non-members of the board which would be carrying out on behalf of the board executive functions delegated to it. So long as the Minister is clear that is what he intends——
If the board decides these things, this is the main point.
The nominations will be left to the board and if, as the Deputy seems to imply, they exclude themselves or any members of the board from membership of the committee it would be a very strange situation.
There is another point here and that is in relation to subsection (7) of section 21 which says:
The acts of a committee established under this section shall be subject to confirmation by An Bord.
That, I think, would cover the objection.
That goes a fair way to meet it. I accept that. If the Minister agrees to circulate a copy of this debate to all members appointed to An Bord so that they can see the views we have expressed on this matter and on the importance of having student representation on these committees and on not walking into difficulties—then on that basis I shall withdraw my amendment.
I shall be glad to do that. I imagine they will be most anxious to get copies of the debate.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
Amendment No. 60, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 61 to 64, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has made a good point about subsection 7. It does seem to be a reasonable safeguard and in the light of that I think the section as now amended is reasonable. We shall see how it works out.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I might point out that this section was inserted by the Parliamentary draftsman because it is a common provision in certain types of legislation but when I looked at this legislation, it had no bearing on the type of legislation we are now putting through. So I decided to agree to its deletion.
It is unwise to let the Parliamentary draftsman loose in areas of policy.
I would not say this is an area of policy.
I find the Minister's explanation a little unconvincing. So far as it is a full and factual statement of what happened it casts a disturbing light on the preparation of legislation. My understanding is that when legislation is being prepared it is a meticulous process in which civil servants concerned go over it very carefully and in which there is close consultation with the Minister. The suggestion that the Parliamentary draftsman, without the knowledge or understanding of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary or the civil servants in the Department, put this in and that nobody noticed it is a very odd statement. It may be true but, if so, I am a little unhappy about how legislation is drafted.
The Deputy need not worry.
The circumstances are not such as need cause the Deputy concern. It is being withdrawn.
If it is withdrawn it is not open for discussion and I think we should proceed.
Very convenient for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
Acting Chairman
It is not of my making. I suggest we go on to Section 26.
I have made my point.
Section deleted.
Section 26 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Acting Chairman
If the House agrees, amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 69 may be taken together.
No. 69 is not my amendment. If Deputy Keating would consent——
I do.
Acting Chairman
Then it is agreed that amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 69 be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 66.
Before section 27 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Every person who, immediately before the establishment day, was a permanent, whole-time member of the academic or other staff of the College, shall remain such until his or her position is reviewed by the College Council not more than three months after the appointment of the Director.
(2) Immediately on completion of this review each such member of the staff shall either: (a) be confirmed in this appointment, or
(b) if not so confirmed shall be retired on terms that will compensate that person fully for any loss of income incurred as a result of the failure to confirm the appointment, and will ensure full pension rights on completion of the period after which that person would normally have retired."
We come to a very fundamental issue here, one which I hesitated to raise for reasons already indicated but I decided that in the interests of this institution it was important that the new board should have a certain freedom of action. I think the Minister in the way he drafted this part of the Bill was showing commendable concern for and loyalty to the staff of the institution who have been through a very difficult time, all of them, whatever views they may have taken of recent events. The security of tenure given to the bulk of the staff was, I think, a good thought. I was, however, disturbed and bothered by one feature of it to which I want to return in due course and that is that the security of tenure excluded certain people who have not been in the college for five years. This five year rule seems a bit curious because in third third level academic institutions, so far as I know, the probationary period for staff is normally two or three years. I hope I am not incorrect but I think it is a fact that one of the staff who was recently dismissed had less than five years experience but more than two or three years.
One wonders why five years was put in. Where did the figure come from? It was not a figure taken from university institutions in Ireland or Britain. If it did go through in that form it would have had the effect of excluding from security of tenure one member of the staff who had since been dismissed and who was actively involved with and supported some of the agitation by the students for improvements in the conditions in the college. I think any security of tenure should be given on a more clear-cut basis than that.
My proposal reverses the whole thing. In fact, as it stands, it would enable the new board at a certain point in time after the director had been appointed and had been given time to examine the position, on his recommendation, having considered the matter, to decide not to continue some existing staff in office. I would not dream of prejudging this. I have no idea what the merits of the staff in the college are. It is a fact that at various times independent reports have not been encouraging about the college. In at least one instance, if not more than one instance, specific recommendations were made about members of the staff.
I do not think we should completely tie the hands of a new body in this matter. A new body should have the opportunity, when it has had time to consider it, and when the new director has examined the position, and has decided whether the staff are the kind of staff he wants, and that they would run the college successfully, to exercise discretion and to decide that if this college is to operate successfully certain staff should not continue in office. I have some expectation also that the new board will decide that the existing members of the staff have all got a contribution to make. One would be disappointed if this were not the case, but one cannot know that.
The public record of this college and the recommendations made about it by independent review bodies at different periods from 1927 on suggest the desirability of not tying the hands of the board. If we in this House decide to make it possible for this body not to continue people in office, there is an absolute obligation on us, especially in view of the local service they have given and the difficult conditions they have had to put up with there, whatever position they may have taken up for or against the students on particular issues, to ensure that people whose appointment is terminated, in what the new board on the advice of the director considers to be in the interest of the college, are adequately compensated.
I gave thought to what compensation would be reasonable and it seems to me that, if the permanent members of the staff are compensated by keeping their salaries for the rest of their active lives, and not having their salaries diminished in any way while being seconded to other service, shall we say, we could not do fairer than that. The cost involved, if it arises at all, will be small. We are talking, no doubt, about a very small number of staff, if any. One hopes we are talking of nobody at all. This provision is sufficiently generous to take the sting out of it.
For the other staff who are not permanent at present I tried to think what provision would be reasonable. They have a reasonable expectation of being kept on. Admittedly, the terms and conditions at the moment are not very encouraging but anybody who has served there for some time has some expectation of being maintained. While they are not in the same position as permanent staff and could not be compensated similarly, it seems appropriate to be generous with them too, and to suggest a sum of money in relation to their present salaries which would avoid any possibility of hardship in their case also.
I hope that, in the suggestions I have made for financing this redundancy, if redundancy it is, my proposals are sufficiently generous to be acceptable to the staff concerned, if that situation arises. I hope that the staff concerned will accept that, in putting forward this amendment, I am doing so out of a sense of public duty in the matter and recognising that it is neither profitable nor popular for any politician to propose an element of insecurity of tenure when, in fact, other politicians are proposing security of tenure.
The Minister will at least accept that the amendment is a disinterested one on my part and that, in putting it forward, I have nothing but the interests of the College of Art at heart. Given that this amendment has come from this side of the House, I hope the Minister will be prepared to consider it. He may have hesitated to propose it himself. He may even have felt that, if he proposed something of this kind, he might be attacked or criticised from this side of the House. I have taken the sting out of that. If there is any odium attaching to it, it attaches to me as the proposer of the amendment. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity afforded by this amendment to adopt some procedure of this kind which would give some flexibility of action to the new board. I should like to hear the Minister on this and to come back on it again, perhaps, having heard what he has to say. Deputy Keating may wish to speak first.
Circumstances have changed quite considerably since the time in July when I put down one of these three amendments. This Bill was circulated at a time when forces that could have been seen to have been at work for a long time were moving towards a confrontation and, indeed, in some ways, this confrontation had already taken place or was beginning to take place.
Provisions like the whole of section 27 relate to the period when the old College of Art under the Department of Education was going out of business and a new college was to be set up. I want to be careful here because I hope this thing can be resolved reasonably and I do not want to make the situation worse. On the other hand, I do not want to use this opportunity to say nothing. Perhaps I will have another bite at the cherry when I hear what the Minister has to say.
There are two essential provisions. There is the provision in relation to five years previous experience. I was appointed to something which, without the creative aspect to which I referred earlier, was roughly comparable to the old College of Art. This was the Veterinary College which was run by the Department of Agriculture. A great deal of my bitterness in relation to third level institutions run by Government Departments stems directly from my experience for five years as a member of the staff of the Veterinary College when it was part of the Department of Agriculture and also my conviction that civil servants are entirely unsuited to the work of administering such organisations.
I was confirmed 12 months after my appointment. That was the normal practice in the Veterinary College. If you cannot find out whether a person is suitable within 12 months, you cannot find out at all. This period of five years is much too long. I do not say that in all institutions it is one year. I do not deny that a probationary period is necessary. Sometimes the selection mechanism can pick somebody unsuitable. It is not a matter of taking even a year to find out. You should know within the first term. Some institutions have a short period and some have a year or two years, and Deputy FitzGerald says even three years, but five years seems to me to be entirely inappropriate in this context.
In a separate amendment we dealt with the question of the duration of employment during the week. Until I hear what the Minister has to say I do not want to discuss the misgivings that caused me to put down amendments to this section. There is an effort on all sides now to resolve this difficulty and to get the new organisation away to a clean start with goodwill and with a hope of success. The action of dismissing a number of people, when everybody knew that a final resolution of the problem was pending, and when the Bill had been circulated and given a Second Reading, made the possibility of a smooth start to the new organisation much more unlikely. This was a bad decision and I hope it will be reversed.
Hear, hear.
I do not wish to go more sharply into it now but I hope the Minister will be disposed to take a conciliatory line. If he so indicates I will be happy to see the difficulties overcome and resolved. My whole concern with these amendments was that I feared these rules would be designed not in a general way to see that the college was properly protected against unsuitable appointments but that they would be specifically drawn by people to exclude not the general category of the unsuitable but a certain specific number of people, certain individuals. I think that is an improper intention for legislation. The period of 18 hours a week is unduly long. I hope the Minister will share the view that every effort should be made to launch the new organisation with the best possible hope of success and, therefore, I would be disposed at this moment not to pursue the matter. I think the Minister is well aware of what I am talking about and he is well aware that a great deal more could be said about it but I should like to hear what he has to say about it.
I do not mind if the Deputy wishes to say a great deal more about it.
I want to see the Minister's attitude first. I want to see what the likely outcome is. I do not want to make a solution more difficult.
We do not want to exacerbate the situation.
In relation to the board and the appointment of teachers, the question arose as to whether it should be left entirely to the board to appoint whatever teachers they should desire or that they should feel were the most suitable teachers to teach in the College of Art. I felt that this would be unfair to those who had considerable service in the college and particularly to those who had been appointed on a permanent basis. I felt, and this refers to the five years period, that those who had five year's service and had been teaching for what could be termed the whole-time equivalent number of hours per week had an expectation which should be met. This was not a probationary period. It is simply that I felt that in these particular circumstances teachers who had this service were entitled to have particular consideration given to them. To carry this further would, in my view, tie the hands of An Bord too much in relation to the teachers they might wish to employ. I wanted to give as wide a scope as possible to the board but I felt that I had certain responsibilities and these responsibilities referred to the teachers who had a particular length of service in the college. This was not intended to be a probationary period as has been mentioned by Deputy Keating.
Knowing the background to the problems in the college, I could not accept these amendments. The first amendment here by Deputy FitzGerald states that:
Every person who, immediately before the establishment day, was a permanent, whole-time member of the academic or other staff of the College, shall remain such until his or her position is reviewed by the College Council not more than three months after the appointment of the Director.
It is quite obvious to me that this amendment was put down at a time when, quite possibly, the Deputy had only been discussing this matter with one particular group. Deputy Keating has almost gone to the extent of accusing me of bringing in this section of this Bill to exclude particular teachers, which is untrue, but this particular type of amendment could very easily react in a different way. Knowing the background of the problem in the college and the position that a number of permanent whole-time teachers have found themselves in, in relation to a certain militant group in the college over the past two or three years, I can very easily see what could happen if we were to have a situation where the appointment would be made for only three months after the appointment of the director. We could have a reversion to the situation where the lives of certain individual teachers in that college were made almost unbearable. Pressure could be put on them. On the one hand, their lives could be made such a hell that they would leave; on the other hand, the pill would be coated by offering them compensation. Mind you, the amount of compensation here is not to be sneezed at either because the compensation, as far as we can estimate, would work out at about £160,000 in immediate cash payment, apart from the payment of pensions afterwards.
Over how many years? How much per annum?
The giving of monetary compensation in lieu of retention would, on the one hand, entail expenditure that would be prohibitive and would, on the other hand, cast a slur on teachers involved for which no money would compensate them. These are teachers who have done a very worthwhile job despite criticism which has been levelled at them from many sources and despite the type of attack that has been made on them in recent times. I am convinced that arising from this particular amendment this is exactly what would happen. I must say it never was my intention to exclude anybody. The board will be an autonomous board. They will have the absolute right to appoint whomsoever they wish. Apart from the number whose interest I felt duty bound to protect the board will be fully entitled, as an autonomous body, to appoint whomsoever they wish. When I looked at this particular amendment it was very clear to me that this was the type of thinking that was behind the militancy which had been going on in the college for some time.
That last sentence was not clear to me. Could the Minister elaborate? He said this was the type of thinking that was behind the militancy that had been going on in the college for some time. What does he mean?
He means it is a Maoist amendment.
What I mean very simply is that some of the teachers whom I am protecting here were persecuted in that college by a small group over a period and I could see that if I were to agree to this type of amendment I would not alone be letting down people who have done a worthwhile job in the college but I would almost be placing them in a position where they could be forced out of their employment. I certainly and assuredly am not going to do that. I also pointed out that monetary compensation in this type of situation would not compensate these people if they had to give up their employment.
I said at the beginning that when I began to think over this matter first my problem was whether or not the board should be entitled to appoint all of the teachers. I felt I would be unfair to those teachers who were permanent whole-time members and I felt a responsibility to those who have given the type of service I have mentioned in relation to the five years. I felt I might be restricting to far too great an extent the right of the board to appoint teachers if I went any further. These were my reasons for putting in the sections and I cannot accept the amendments.
Would the Minister tell us where the five years came from? Why did he choose five years? It is an unusual academic probationary period.
I have pointed out to the Deputy that I felt a responsibility to people who had given a particular type of service for the past five years.
Why five years? Why not three or four?
Why four rather than five? Why three rather than five?
That is the normal probationary period.
I am not talking about probationary periods.
A probationary period in an academic institution means a period during which one's employment does not carry with it any obligation to permanent employment. Normally in academic institutions in this country and in Britain the probationary period is two or three years and at the end of that period one can be dismissed without any compensation and without questions of any kind, but after that period a person does acquire rights——
Acting Chairman
Does Deputy FitzGerald want to make a contribution?
Brief contributions have been made while the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were sitting down and I did not think I was that much out of order. I was hoping to get a quick answer from the Minister. This is the normal probationary period in these institutions. The onus is on the Minister to explain why he departed from the norm here and produced the five year period.
The effect of it was, as he must have realised, knowing as he does the situation in the college, to immediately arouse suspicion. It was thought that the purpose of making it five rather than two or three years was to make it possible to discontinue not only one of two teachers but both of them. When I was puzzling over the five years the point was made to me that the reason for adopting this peculiar period for which there is no precedent that I know of—the Minister may have one but we have not heard about it yet—might have been to make it possible to dispose of not only one but two of these teachers. In fact, both of the teachers in question have since been disposed of, which does not reduce the suspicion attaching to the action. The Minister has told us this is not his intention and if the Minister says that I know the Minister well enough to know that I must accept his word, but who drafted the amendment? Did the Minister suggest five years or did that figure come from the Department? I am not as convinced that his Department are innocent of having thought out this peculiar period in relation to the existing teaching staff as I am satisfied that it was not the Minister's intention. We are in a very unusual position because months ago it was suggested that the purpose of this was to enable two teachers to be dismissed and the two teachers who were named in that context have since been dismissed. This does not reduce suspicions and it makes one concerned about this particular matter. The Minister has an obligation to tell us where the five years came from and before we discuss the matter more generally I shall give him the opportunity of answering that.
I am not in the least concerned with what suspicions there may be——
The Minister ought to be; that is one of the troubles of this college.
——I am simply informing the House that, as I have already said, I felt obliged, in relation to certain teachers who had given a certain amount of service, to look after their interests and to ensure that the board would have a right to appoint teachers. The Deputy wants to know where the five year period came from. I want to state again that the five year period was not a probationary period. In relation to this Bill we have been arguing about the period for which the director and the registrar should be appointed. The Deputy had an amendment down and argued that the director and registrar should be appointed by the board for a probationary period of four years. I do not see the difference in my taking five years and his taking four years.
They are not academic appointments.
The fact is that my right to make it five years is similar to the Deputy's right to make it four years.
Nonsense. Could I ask the Minister a question: how many people on the present staff of the College of Art are permanent and how many are temporary?
There are six permanent.
And how many are not permanent?
About 25 or 26.
I would have thought it was a little larger. There are a number of separate strands in this. The Minister used an interesting phrase which I wrote down at the time. He said, "I am not in the least concerned with what suspicions there may be".
So long as my mind is clear and so long as I am satisfied that I have not done anything wrong, I am not concerned with what suspicions may be aroused by anybody else.
That is a very unpolitical approach to a very political issue.
That in a way makes it worse rather than better.
Indeed. It was Pontius Pilate who washed his hands and, as long as his conscience was clear, everything was all right.
We shall have other opportunities to talk widely on the history of the College of Art and to look at responsibility, not as the Minister was saying last night over three years, but over the best part of 50 years.
The Deputy cannot hold me responsible for that.
We cannot hold this Government responsible for it.
That is very obvious. I was not accusing the Minister of responsibility for events which occurred as long ago as that. The Minister desires to break the line of thought for the sake of interjecting but he ought be a little more relevant. The Minister was perfectly well aware I was not making that assertion.
The figures for the number of permanent and temporary people indicate a policy which has existed in the College of Art, and unfortunately in some other third level academic institutions, of running the place on a very small number of permanent people and a very large number of temporary people. My father spent from 1911 to the early sixties, one way or another, either as a scholarship student or a teacher working in a school of art.
For a considerable period of that time he was professor of painting and not alone a member, but President of the Royal Hibernian Academy, but he was never permanent. The Department of Education, over which the Minister now presides, have been pursuing a policy of running the place on temporary people up to the very highest level and up to the most senior appointments. In any sort of equity the responsibility is taken on to a person if he is considered good enough to be appointed and if he is considered good enough to be confirmed after a probationary period. The matter of probation does come into it, though the Minister may deny it. Then the responsibility is taken on towards them.
The Minister has said that he is not concerned about suspicions provided he is satisfied he has done the right thing. The reason I put down these three amendments was that, when the Bill was circulated, people came to me and said: "This is designed for the purpose of screwing Messrs. A, B and C. That is the reason these provisions are thrown up in this way". This was as plain as a pikestaff at the end of June or early July. Two of these three people have now been dismissed close to the moment of reorganisation and, in my view, and we will discuss this more fully at a later stage, dismissed in a vindictive way and in a way guaranteed to give a difficult start to a new organisation.
It may, of course, be coincidence. That is possible. But either at the end of June or early in July I was told these were the objectives of this formulation. Then it was actually done. I know these people. I know their creative work to be of high quality. I know their crime has been too much commitment to their students and to their efforts to have a real school of art. I am not in the least concerned with the Minister's good faith. Perhaps his faith is impeccable. I do not know. I have no way of telling. I do not suppose he himself drew up these regulations anyway.
Quite.
I think the Minister is drawn into the position of having to stand over something. Though I have no way of being certain that it was vindictiveness and for the purpose of execution, that was the purpose told to me three months ago and that has been validated by the events which have occurred since. If this is an effort at making a comparison with the North, last night, without being able to define which side was which—there is a proven separation between two groups of people; it was admitted there were two sides—I said the same events were seen by people as if they were different events and there were actually two complicated situations. Just as I declined to make a judgement that all the right is on one side and all the wrong on the other, it seems to me the Minister makes the opposite judgement: all the right is on the part of those persons he describes as being victimised.
No. On many occasions I have pointed out here that I recognise the problem is a two-sided problem.
If it is then the thing is to conciliate. One can make judgments until one is black in the face. They do not help. The great thing is to get a viable, happy and creative organisation off the ground. If I was told what I have put on record at the end of June or the beginning of July, and if we have these two dismissals since then, which validate the suspicions expressed to me, it does not seem to me to matter whether or not the Minister feels his hands are clean; all that matters is that suspicions were expressed and that events since appear to validate them. The sense of alienation is, therefore, deeper. The sense of betrayal is deeper. The sense of using the apparatus of the State to pursue vendettas against people is deeper. The Minister ought, therefore, agree.
The Minister says he is not in the least concerned with what suspicions there may be, but he ought to be concerned regardless of the propriety or otherwise of his own actions because, if he does not concern himself with allaying these suspicions, he does not have any serious chance of launching the school we want. The suspicions are real and divisive. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the suspicions, if they are there and deeply held, then the Minister, if he is seriously trying to discharge his duty, ought to be concerned.
I should like to stress that point too. We are all naturally concerned that we do the right thing, as we see it, but I do not think any of us can be happy if he just satisfies his own conscience that he is acting properly and that that is sufficient. We are politicians and, in the best sense of that word, acting politically, in a politic manner. It is right that we should have regard to the effect of our actions on people. I do not think we can simply say we have done what we think is for the best and, if people do not like it, they can lump it; that may be grand for other people, but it is not grand for politicians.
Our job is to conciliate, bring people together and make the system work. If we are simply satisfied within ourselves that we have done what is right and are not concerned for the effects of our actions, then we are not doing our job; we are not being effective politicians. I think the Minister in what he said on two occasions there was not giving full thought to the effects of what he was saying and, perhaps, to the effects of what he was doing. We are in a desperately difficult situation in relation to the college. We have tried in this debate to avoid anything which would make the situation worse. We have tried consciously to do anything we could to make it better.
I do not want to get involved in the controversy. I agree with what Deputy Keating has said and the Minister agrees there are two sides to this. There are profoundly two sides. I have known about both sides for a long time. I have seen both sides. I have known about the need to bring them together. From what we know of this college and the report we have had on it since 1927, together with the intimate involvement some of us, unfortunately, have had in its affairs in the last year or two, I do not think any of us can say that this problem is largely one-sided and that we can go ahead and simply commit the new board to all the existing staff and all will be well. I do not want to say all will not be well if the existing staff are appointed. I do not know that, but there are prima facie grounds for concern which make it necessary for us, regardless of whether or not it is politically popular, to create the conditions in this Bill which will enable the new board, if it decides it is the right thing to do, to relinquish the services of some of the staff and compensate them.
I was not impressed by the Minister's attempt to tell us the cost of this. First of all, he would not tell us the number of years. Some of the staff are quite young; some are in their twenties, I would say. Some of that compensation would be paid some time in the next century, 2015. Producing figures spread over 40 years can be very misleading. Certainly there is no ground for the assumption that the new board will sack the entire staff. I do not think anyone suggested such drastic action could or would be necessary. But, if all the staff were sacked and what that would cost, has no relevance to this debate and its introduction was an act of partiality; the Minister was endeavouring to bias the discussion in a particular way. I do not think it really added anything to the discussion. It was the kind of figure——
The Deputy was asking for details of the figure and he is now apparently implying that they are not forthcoming.
It was given without any details, without indication of the years it was over and to give the figure in that form is so completely misleading that it is better not to give it at all or give the full details, but to give it without giving the number of years is very misleading. To anybody who is not familiar with it is could well appear that this was going to be the annual cost and I do not think that is the right way to handle a serious problem.
The Minister ought to accept that in putting in these amendments I have been trying to help the situation. I would like to ask him a couple of questions which may help to clarify my mind. Is it his position, although unstated so far, that when the new board takes over, by the action taken in his wording here, they will have to take over certain staff but that they will have power to dismiss this staff just as they have power to do other things in the college? Is this what is implicit in what he said? Is he trying, on the one hand, to give the staff a feeling of security of tenure, while knowing that it is not security of tenure, that the new board can get rid of them. Is that what he is thinking? If that is so, we should say so plainly rather than mislead people. If that is the case what kind of compensation would the staff be entitled to if they are dismissed by the new board under the terms of the Bill as drafted? Could I have an answer to these two questions? Will it be within the power of the board to dismiss any member of the staff, who is in a permanent or temporary position? Will they be able to do that and what compensation will they be entitled to under the Bill as drafted? I do not think we can discuss this constructively any further until we have the answers to those two questions. When we know precisely what the powers of the board are as regards dismissal and the compensation given under the Minister's scheme, we can make a comparison validly with the scheme I have proposed. It may be that there is not that much difference between us but the Minister is not disclosing fully his intent in the matter and I should like to bring this whole matter out into the open.
In so far as much of this debate seems to be an exercise in self-justification for the views adopted by various Deputies, it might be no harm to mention to Deputy Keating that the number of part-time teachers is 29—a figure was mentioned earlier——
I thought it was 30.
I was going to come in to say that the figure given was wrong but it did not seem worthwhile correcting the Minister.
In regard to the number of part-time teachers, in case Deputies opposite should feel that anyone, including or excluding these or anybody else, may have grounds to think that it was drafted to exclude two, three or four people, only ten of the 29 are covered by subsection (2) of section 27.
We know that.
That might be in some measure confirmation, if confirmation is needed, of the fact that it was not directed at a particular two or three. Further confirmation may be derived from that fact—but, of course, some people do not want to be convinced——
It is not confirmation, as I will explain in a moment. I am not saying whether they are true or false but that is not confirmation.
It is what one might call indirect corroboration. Deputy FitzGerald mentioned Pontius Pilate. I do not know what the exact role of Deputy FitzGerald in the New Testament is. Obviously it would not be Pontius Pilate but some very honourable member of the Twelve Apostles.
Somebody other than Judas anyway.
We have to look at incidentals to assure each other of our bona fides. The fact that a teacher is not covered by section 27 does not mean that he is automatically excluded, which seems to be the impression that is being conveyed. It is open to the board—these 18 or 19 who are not included in that special provision because of length of service—to employ them. Note that it is so open subject to the condition that they may continue in the employment of the board:
on such terms and conditions as An Bord may from time to time determine, being terms and conditions that, in the opinion of the Minister, are not less favourable to the person than those....
So that to suggest that the Minister or the Department or some person had notions of acting vindictively does not hold water, having regard to what I previously said on the section.
I was amused by Deputy FitzGerald's exercise in what I might call exposure to public opprobrium. He said that he was more or less in the interests of good relations and harmony in the college prepared to accept the odium that would attach to his amendment. There is not much odium attached to amendments which provide, in the first instance, for full compensation for the rest of one's working life at the rate which one would have got had one continued to work and, secondly, pension rates on the basis that one had continued to work when one, in fact, did not. If the Deputy thinks that kind of proposal is going to attract odium——
It was you who said that money was not all.
I did say that money was not everything but——
Now it is apparently.
It was a little naïve of the Deputy to parade himself as being a martyr by virtue of his making a proposal of this sort which would attract odium.
I am sorry if I gave the Parliamentary Secretary that impression.
I am using the very words the Deputy used.
A public martyr— dear me, I do not remember saying that.
Could we have one contribution?
The Deputy did use the words "public odium" which would only attach itself——
Martyrs do not usually have odium attached to them —rather an odour of sanctity.
The Deputy was apparently sacrificing himself on the altar of public interest. If we are going to start with the idea that everything that emanates from the Minister is put forward for vindictive or selfish reasons and everything from the other side is put forward for reasons of public service despite one's own comfort, the debate would get very unbalanced. For this reason, I want to reassure not only Deputies but all concerned that it was not directed at any particular individual, and I suggest to Deputy FitzGerald, as well, that while he has been the very person who suggested that it is important for university or third level staffs to have security, he wants to have their positions confirmed after three months. That does not seem to me to give them a guarantee of security that seems to be consistent with third level institutions or universities as argued by the Deputy over a considerable period on the Bill. I feel that the Deputy is being totally inconsistent in putting down this amendment. He is arguing against his own case but nonetheless, suffice it to say that though he would be effective in arguing a hypothetical case, in the practical case he would fall down.
The Deputy then suggested that the figures are not relevant but maybe by the time we get to Report Stage we can give the Deputy the figures for each individual should he choose to operate it. Suffice it at the moment to say that the amount of money involved on a global basis—and I admit that the likelihood of its happening for all together is most remote, but for the number of teachers who would be concerned—something over 39——
Thirty-five.
Thirty-five. We have a total figure of approximately £300,000.
Over what period?
The rest of their working lives.
Which is 40 years.
It varies in each case and that sum is not peanuts. It is a lot of money.
Up to 40 years.
For any number of 30 people, and if we average it——
I can average it myself.
If the Deputy can average it without having the base on which to average, he is a better expert than I thought he was.
I asked was it 40 years. I suspect that the youngest member of the staff is not much over 25 years.
This matter can be confirmed in greater detail later on. The amount of money involved, even for three, four or five for the rest of their natural days would not be insignificant and it is a fact on which anybody on this side of the House— all the little bits add up to big bits— must have regard to in exercising their responsibility towards the public purse. It is the kind of a sum, even if the right is there, and if the circumstances are there, which one would have to consider if there was a possibility that the vast majority of that amount of money might be called upon.
That is a reflection on the staff.
It is not a reflection on anybody.
The Chair must insist upon one contribution at a time.
It is not a reflection on the staff but simply a matter of responsibility that if you write in conditions into legislation you must be prepared to honour those conditions when they arise. Who can say what the board, if and when the situation arises, will do and who can tie their hands in coming to any determination? It is possible that a global figure of that sort or a significant proportion of it will be decided on. That is something that the Minister for Education must consider before accepting amendments of this sort. I would hope by reference to the fact that there are no individuals involved in this that the board would be entitled to continue them on terms not less favourable. There is no question of their service being automatically terminated. It has been suggested to us that it is meant to be a coincidence that two people who apparently would not have been covered have now been dismissed. Deputy Keating sees a coincidence in this or a confirmation of suspicions some people had. It is quite the other way around. The fact that people have been dismissed indicated that nobody was sheltering behind any authority that would reside in any board under this Act. There was never any possibility that this Act would be introduced before the beginning of this academic year.
Was there not?
The prospects of the Act coming into operation with the amount of legislation and the manner in which it was going through the House, were remote. It was expected that these part-time teachers would have been in employment in the current academic year and then it would have been a matter for the board. That illustrates that it is the board who exercise responsibility and in the exercise of that responsibility they are not exercising it for the purpose of restricting or removing rights, but, if anything, to ensure that people will be continued in employment on conditions no less favourable than those under which they were employed previously.
We have all endeavoured to establish the necessity for an autonomous qualified board. This board will have students, teachers and a director as members. I know a little of students while not having the same constant association with them as Deputy FitzGerald or Deputy Keating. I know that if they thought that student representatives on the board were going to be intimidated by a board of which they were members they would create a row about it. The students themselves will be involved in the decisions which will be undertaken or effected by section 27. The staff selected by the staff association would also be responsible for the decisions. Is that not some safeguard?
What is all this talk about intimidation? What function of the board are we talking about?
It is open to the board, of which the students and staff would be members, to employ the existing staff even if they are not guaranteed employment under section 27. In the nature of things they are not going to exclude some from employment.
The problem has been resolved by dismissing two teachers.
I have endeavoured to get the Deputy to consider the 18 people, and then he might take a more accurate view of the situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that there are 18 people here and that that proves that the two dismissals were not envisaged. We find that one of the persons dismissed has four to five years service. The only way he can be got into a different category is to raise the limit to five years. In so doing other people are brought in—16 or 17 of them—but this is the only way one can get those two people into that position. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument that there are 18 or 19 people is not a conclusive argument or even indicative that the purpose of having 5 years here was not to exclude these people. I have accepted the Minister's statement that this was not his intention. I do not necessarily accept that the choice of this particular figure, so at variance with the normal figure for academic posts, in the draft submitted to the Minister did not have regard to the fact that one of the two people involved who has since been dismissed had a period of service of more than two or three years. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is inconclusive. If we pass this legislation without amendment, will the new board be in a position to dismiss members of the staff and what compensation will they get under the Bill as drafted? We need to have answers to these questions.
It has been pointed out already by the Parliamentary Secretary that there are certain members of the staff, whom I believed I had a responsibility towards because they were permanent whole-time members, who would be employed by the board on such terms and conditions as the board might from time to time determine but on terms and conditions which in the opinion of the Minister are not less favourable than those applying in relation to their previous employment. If these teachers are employed by the board then they will have to get conditions similar to those to which they have already been entitled.
Do those conditions preclude dismissal?
That would depend on the circumstances.
Is dismissal precluded?
Surely the Deputy is not going to suggest that if there were good and sufficient reasons for dismissal that I should try to tie the hand of the board? I am saying that the board must employ these people on terms and conditions that are at least as good as the terms and conditions which they had. When the Deputy mentions dismissal, if a situation arose where there would be good and sufficient reason for it, then the board has the right, just as in any other institution, to dismiss a person.
On what terms and conditions are permanent staff employed at present? Is it open to the Minister to dismiss them?
They are employed up to 65 years of age.
Supposing someone decides that one of them was unsatisfactory, is it open to him to dismiss that person and place someone else in his place?
Only if there are good and sufficient reasons for it.
The Minister could dismiss a person?
Yes. The same thing applies in other situations as well as this one.
The section is not, in fact, preventing the board from dismissing such a person if the board felt it desirable to do so. What compensation would such a person get?
This would depend on the circumstances of the dismissal.
Surely there are conditions of service. If a civil servant is dismissed there are well-established procedures of compensation.
There are conditions for compensation or non-compensation.
What are they?
I have not got them here.
The Minister does not know them?
I have not got them here.
We cannot proceed far without them.
That is ridiculous.
I have been accused of proposing terms of compensation which are vastly expensive and quite undesirable in relation to the possible dismissal of these people. I should like to know what the compensation is in the public service?
The compensation would vary with the circumstances.
Give us the general rules in the public service.
There is no compensation if a person is under 60 years of age or a pension if over 60.
A civil servant would be dismissed under 60 years of age and would get no compensation? That is what is known as a permanent post in the Civil Service.
I have informed the Deputy about it.
The Minister wishes to hand these people over to a board who, according to this, will be entitled to dismiss them on terms of no compensation under 60 years of age. The Minister is saying that there is no obligation on the board, except to employ them in a manner no less favourable than before. My proposal is that the board should have the same rights as the Minister says they will have, but that the teachers should be compensated.
The Deputy is placing them in a position where, in my view, they are very likely to be forced out of their jobs.
How?
I have stated this already.
Indeed the Minister has stated it but with all respect to his office his merely stating it, if it is palpably ridiculous, does not make it sensible. The Minister can go on saying it till he is black in the face and it will still be ridiculous.
And, of course, the fact that the Deputy says it is ridiculous does not make it so either.
Let us get behind this dialogue and get down to the facts of the matter. What the Minister is suggesting now is that under his scheme the staff will be transferred to a body which will be able to dismiss them without any compensation whatever. Under my scheme they would be entitled to compensation. I think my scheme is better and fairer. The Minister is adding as a justification for his method of doing it that if it is done his way there will be no pressure of any kind and that the staff will be quite safe while if it is done in my way pressures will arise and the staff will be liable to lose their jobs. I should like to know what kind of a board does he contemplate will be appointed by him—because it is he who will appoint them—which when it comes to review the position of these people three months after the director is appointed will be liable to dismiss them. The only difference between his scheme and mine is that the position has to be reviewed, whereas if there was a specific review point set there would be no question of the board doing anything. What kind of pressures are we talking about? What kind of board are we talking about that would act in such an irresponsible way? I think the Minister has been, shall we say, betrayed into exaggeration on this point.
The basic situation now is that the Minister is proposing to hand over these people to a board which would have the power of dismissing them without any compensation while I am proposing that they be handed over, that the position be reviewed and if they have to be dismissed they should have compensation. Can anybody doubt which of the two is the fairer and more equitable? The Minister's protestations of loyalty to the staff of this college and his accusations that on our side of the House we are in some way motivated by some animus sound very hollow when it transpires that he wants them to be in a position where they cannot be compensated and we are proposing they can.
I suggest that the Deputy have a discussion with the teachers and see whether my amendment or his is the more acceptable to them.
The teachers may not have been aware until we had this debate now of what exactly the Minister had in mind.
The teachers are very well aware of this but the fact of the matter is that the Deputy consulted only for a very considerable period with one particular group and only in very recent times was the case of the others put to him. I now say that he should consult with the teachers and ask them whether they think the terms offered by me or the proposals put forward by him are more acceptable to them. I have no doubt as to what the answer would be.
I should like to answer the Minister about consultation. I have not consulted people; people have come and made representations to me. I have not sought to immerse myself in the affairs of the National College of Art. I have failed to resist the pressure to do so and I have seen anybody who asked to see me immediately on this matter. It may well be that some people came to me sooner than others and that reflects on the situation in the college somewhat.
I did not want to suggest that the Deputy was deliberately consulting one side but what I am saying is that all of the information which was being relayed to him for a very considerable time was coming from one side.
I shall certainly admit—"admit" is hardly the word— I shall state clearly that I received representations from anybody who came to see me. For a certain period the people who came to see me were of one viewpoint. That put me in a position to make inquiries and my procedure in making those inquiries has been as far as possible to establish, by asking the Minister privately or publicly for his views on the information put to me, the truth of the matter. In that process I have established to my own satisfaction that a number of the points made to me are entirely valid. On others the position is less clearcut. In some I think the case made was exaggerated, as I would expect to find in an ex parte statement.
I do not think that goes far enough. The Deputy said some of the points were valid and that others were less valid. Were they invalid?
If the Parliamentary Secretary would listen to what I said, I said some were unclear and some were certainly exaggerated. I do not recall anything which was flatly untrue or that was shown to be untrue but certainly some things were shown to be significantly exaggerated, exactly what one would expect in getting an ex parte statement. I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know me well enough not to assume that I would accept the ex parte statements of any group as necessarily true. When put to one they provide a case for inquiry and I have inquired diligently in private and in public to establish the truth.
I have been approached by and have had consultations with members of the staff with the two opposite viewpoints. I have pointed out to them the provisions in my amendment. I do not want to put words into anybody's mouth but I did not meet with any dissent on the proposals. Some of the people concerned welcomed them and thought they were good and generous proposals. Others said they understood there were good reasons for giving the board a free hand even though they themselves could be affected. I found throughout that the people concerned, whatever their viewpoint, had an open and public-spirited approach and were not motivated by narrow considerations of personal advantage. That is as true of one group as of another.
Did any of those with whom the Deputy consulted or who consulted him direct any odium at him as a result of these proposals?
No, I must say they did not.
Then I wonder what was the basis for the statement the Deputy made in the House today that he was leaving himself open to odium with the teachers concerned.
I did not say the teachers concerned.
Who else?
I said nothing of the kind. I said that any politician putting down a proposal which, on the face of it, involved the possibility of dismissal for people was hardly doing it for political advantage. I was trying to establish with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that, in putting down this amendment, I had only the good of the college at heart, and that I was not motivated by any other consideration. I think it was legitimate for me to point that out.
So far as the staff are concerned, the ones I have met have shown an understanding of the reasons for these amendments. They were not aware, and naturally I was not aware, that my proposal was one which would be greatly to their advantage because I did not detect on the part of any of them an awareness that even the permanent staff could be dismissed without compensation, and that the Minister's proposal would hand them over to a board and leave them in that position. Since neither they nor I were aware of this I do not think they appreciated the significance of my amendments and their possible value from that point of view. However, that is really neither here nor there.
We should now try to come to some conclusion on this. We are faced with two choices. One is the Minister's proposal which has the merit, from his point of view, of appearing to offer security of tenure to this loyal staff he wants to support for their great work in the college, but which leaves them exposed to dismissal without compensation. The other is from somebody he seems to feel has an animus against him and is one which will, in fact, ensure that, while on the one hand the new board will have an opportunity and will be required to review the position, and to ensure that the staffing arrangements of the new college are in the interests of the college, will also ensure that the staff to whose loyalty and hard work the Minister has paid tribute can and will be compensated adequately if the new board decides to dispense with their services.
On the basis of the argument to date and what has emerged from this discussion, and what has been disclosed in response to my questions, I have no doubt that my amendment is better from the point of view of the college and from the point of view of the people concerned. It may be less good from the point of view of the Exchequer but that is the least of my concerns at this moment.
Again, let me say that if it is a fact that the teachers concerned did not know before now what was involved in my proposals and what was involved in the Deputy's proposals, I assume that they will know now after this debate. I would ask the Deputy again to see them and to find out from them whether they think my proposals or his proposals are more satisfactory.
For whom?
For them. I want to point out clearly that the teachers concerned know quite well that they cannot be dismissed by An Bord unless they are guilty of gross negligence or criminal acts.
That is not what the Minister said earlier. He spoke of good reason.
Good and sufficient reason.
Good and sufficient reason, and that requires gross negligence or criminal acts?
In the particular situation in which these teachers find themselves.
Why did the Minister not tell us that before? He used the phrase "good reason".
That is not misleading. Is the Deputy implying——
I can think of good and sufficient reasons for terminating somebody's employment other than gross negligence or criminal acts. They might be incompetent, for example. They might be as hard working as you would like but not able to do the job.
Would the Deputy regard that as good and sufficient reason?
Now the Deputy is providing us with some of the propaganda——
I am answering the point made.
The Deputy is giving us the type of propaganda——
I am giving no propaganda.
——that has been tried all over the place for the past few months.
If there is no distinction between the Minister's two formulations and if good and sufficient reason means precisely the same thing as gross negligence or criminal acts——
I did not say that. I am not suggesting that they are synonymous.
The Minister misled the House. If they are not synonymous the Minister misled the House.
The Deputy is making a charge against me which he knows is not true. The fact of the matter is that the teachers who are in permanent employment in the college at present are in a somewhat similar situation in relation to dismissal as civil servants.
That is my point.
That is what I told the Deputy.
I am entitled to say that whatever the Minister's intention was—and I think he was inadequately informed because he was getting advice at that point—he did, in fact, in actual terms, mislead the House because the Parliamentary Secretary has now said that the two terms are not synonymous. He is not claiming they are synonymous. In fact, they are not synonymous. In one case it is possible to dismiss people because they are not able to carry out their duties adequately and in the other case it is not. By giving to the House a form of words which suggested the inclusion of the possibility of dismissal for lack of competence when, in fact, that is not possible the Minister misled the House. I am sure he did not intend to do so. I am sure he was inadequately informed but he has wasted half an hour of the debate as a result. He ought to have been better informed.
I most certainly have not wasted the time of the House.
He has not got the Deputy's capacity for using time.
I said that the teachers concerned know well that they cannot be dismissed by the board unless they are guilty of gross negligence or criminal acts. Surely they are good and sufficient reasons. Let us look at it from that point of view.
Let us restart the debate now that we have got the factual information.
I certainly will not restart the debate. I have made my position clear on this.
It is becoming clear but it is a tough job pulling it out of the Minister. The position now is, therefore, that under the Minister's proposals these teachers will be taken over by the board but, if the board takes the view that some of them are not in a position to carry out their duties effectively, with whatever diligence they attempt to do so, and that it would be better if they did not continue, the board will not be able to replace them. That is now the position that emerges from the Minister's statement. It seems to me that, if the Minister has the interests of the college at heart, he should make it possible for the new board, if it finds in any instances that one of the teachers is not in a position to carry out his duties adequately and competently, to be free to take steps to replace that teacher and to compensate him adequately.
The case for my amendment is even stronger. It emerges at this stage that my amendment creates a slightly greater element of insecurity for the staff. I accept that. When I talked about odium, since the Parliamentary Secretary is so sensitive about this word, it was because I felt at the time — although I had been misled for half an hour and led up a blind alley—that my proposal did increase the insecurity of the staff. I felt that would not be very popular.
So the Deputy was talking about the staff.
Most people will be inclined to be against any proposal which reduces the security of tenure of anybody through sympathy for people in that position.
Did they ask the Deputy to do that?
I look forward to hearing from Deputy MacSharry later about what happened in another place but I am afraid his intervention in this debate is mistimed.
We carried on in the Deputy's absence.
There was an interruption from a casual visitor from the Opposition.
His was very much to the point. I do not understand that reference. Let us not waste time on that. The issue is becoming more clear-cut now. The new board must be in a position to review the position of teachers and, even if a teacher is not a criminal and does not commit gross negligence, if the board feels that it would be better to replace him with somebody else it must be free to do so and this college must have a fresh start. I hope that will not happen and I am not saying it will happen. If it does happen the teacher concerned must be adequately compensated. That is the purpose of my amendment. The case for that amendment has now been made by the information we have dragged out of the Minister. I do not think anything more needs to be said.
There was no need to drag it out of the Minister. The Minister gave it without any difficulty.
It took a long time.
I should like to ask the Minister if the dismissal requirements apply to part-time as well as permanent civil servants?
I have given the situation in relation to the full-time teachers. My information in regard to the part-time teachers who had over five years service and 18 hours a week is that they could legitimately claim that had the college remained as it was they would have been kept on the staff.
That does not answer the question.
That is the question I was asked.
With respect, it is not. One rather despairs of getting answers.
Try again. The Deputy is very patient.
In what conditions can the existing part-time staff be dismissed?
The provisos about the five years service and the 18 hours were introduced by the Minister. I simply asked on what condition could part-time members of the staff be dismissed. We are in the course of enacting, if the Minister gets his way, the five years and the 18 hours. That is not something they were told about when they were appointed. That has no formal existence legally as yet.
The conditions of the part-time teachers taken over by the board will be similar to the conditions they have, not worse than the conditions they have at the moment, but the board if they so wish can make them permanent.
I was asking about their present conditions precisely for the purpose of elucidating the conditions on which they could be dismissed once they were taken over. I wonder if the Minister could now tell me, regardless of five years service or 18 hours a week or anything else, under what conditions can part-time members of the staff now be dismissed, which was my original question?
They can be dismissed on a week's notice.
For what reasons?
Good and sufficient reasons.
Are "good and sufficient reasons" gross negligence and criminal acts?
Under their present conditions of service, which I do not think are at all satisfactory, they can be dismissed without any reason.
Without any reason given or without there being any reason at all?
Without any reason.
Somebody just wakes up one morning and decides to dismiss one of them? It is easy to improve on that.
I am improving on it very considerably in the Bill.
At least the Minister has said that provided they have this nice fine mesh net of five years and 18 hours a week, provided they can get through that very carefully engineered piece of restriction, they will not have conditions worse than they enjoy at present. He now comes up with the piece of information that the conditions of service they now enjoy are that they can be fired on a week's notice without any reason given. Is it possible to have conditions of service worse than that? I suppose they could have less than a week's notice but they could not have less reason for being dismissed.
It is possible to have much better conditions of service and that is what I hope they will have under the board.
The ones who get through. I am particularly concerned at the moment with amendment No. 69. I complained last night about the irrelevence of introducing, for the purpose of comparison, things that were not comparable. We got the HEA and the Institute for Advanced Studies.
And the universities.
No. You would not be able to bring universities into that.
Deputy FitzGerald brought them in.
To disagree with you, not to support you.
If he brings them in it is all right. If we bring them in it is all wrong.
It has generally been the case, in fact, in this debate because I found the arguments terrifyingly feeble. We now get the matter of five years being validated for a teacher by comparison with a chairman of a board. I should like to hear the Minister validate his demand for five years by comparison with any teaching institution, for teachers, if such is possible. It is indeed possible that he can dig up something in the obscure regulations of some group of teachers. I do not want him to bring in some other sort of people. We are talking about teachers.
I should like him to consider the point that if someone is thought good enough to get by an appointment board, in the first place, and then is good enough to be confirmed after a probationary period, that by these two steps a responsibility towards him is taken on in regard to his future employment. I have never heard of a case where the confirmatory step, after the probationary period was over, was as late as five years. The Minister may argue that one year is too short, though I would like to hear why, but it is interesting that somebody should have been considered fit to work for three or four years and is not thereby considered to have established any right to be continued in employment if the particular institution is dissolved and another one set up. There is a real point at issue here and I would like to hear it argued in regard to teachers. The Minister must have reasons. I should like to hear what they are.
I said previously that five was not a magic figure. The Deputy suggested that teachers who passed a board should be satisfactory after a year or two years. So far as I am aware, this was not the method of appointment of teachers in the College of Art. The teachers who are appointed on a permanent basis were appointed by the Civil Service Commission and this was one of our problems because on one occasion when a number of teachers went before the commission, the commission only agreed to sanction half of them. The other teachers in the College of Art were appointed by the director. I do not know whether or not these teachers would have been appointed if they had had to go through the procedure of going through the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, I felt that I should not be too restrictive in relation to the situation in which the board would find themselves. I believe we have a responsibility towards those who were appointed full-time by the Civil Service Commission, that we have a certain responsibility also to those who had given a considerable length of service to the college but I feel it should be left to the board to decide, in relation to the remainder of the teachers, whether or not they should continue their appointments. This, as I said a moment ago, had no bearing at all on a probationary period. It is very much in line, although I know the Deputy wants to get me off it, with the four year probationary period which Deputy FitzGerald proposed in relation to the director and registrar. That is not any more magical than the five years.
The director and registrar are irrelevant to the matter of teachers.
It is irrelevant because it suits the Deputy.
They are both concerned with autonomy.
These teachers have to be compared with other sorts of teachers. Would the Minister not agree that whether a person is appointed by the Civil Service Commission or a director—a director is someone whom one must have some trust in and although his judgment may not be invariably correct by and large he would not be there if he did not have some talents for making judgments like that—that once selected the person is seen in action for a period of time. By the time people have been seen in action for, let us say, two years, is it not incumbent then either to give them some security and some responsibility with regard to their future employment or else to dismiss them? Is it not a scandalous thing to say, "O.K. We took you on, you seemed to be O.K. and even though four and a half years have elapsed we still do not admit we have any responsibility with regard to your future employment"?
I am satisfied to leave this with the board. I believe they will deal very responsibly with it.
I do not think there is much point in pursuing this any further but I have one question to put to the Minister: how many days notice did the two teachers who were dismissed last week get?
I am not going to discuss any individual cases.
The Minister has stated here that at present part-time teachers get a week's notice. He has repeated that twice and I want to know what these two teachers got.
I am not going to be drawn into any discussion on this.
The Minister knows they did not get a week's notice; they got three days notice. He misled this House by saying that at present part-time teachers get a week's notice.
The Deputy is far too fond of saying the Minister misled the House.
If we all had the Deputy's standard of intelligence and integrity nobody would ever be misled.
The Minister knows he is wrong; will the Minister tell the House they got a week's notice? He cannot do so.
I simply refuse to discuss the matter.
Because the Minister knows they got three days notice. He is a truthful man and he will not deny that but he did mislead the House about half an hour ago by saying that they are entitled to and that they got a week's notice.
The Deputy seems to be over-fond of charging Ministers with misleading the House. This Minister did not mislead anybody.
I have not made any such charge except where it has not only been shown to be true but where the Minister concerned has had to admit by silence that it is true.
I am not admitting anything by silence. I am simply saying I will not discuss this particular case here.
I am asserting—I am open to contradiction if I am not telling the truth and if I am misinformed—that these teachers got three days notice. If that is incorrect the Minister can say so and if it is correct he misled the House by saying that they get a week's notice. I will sit down on that and suggest we move on to the division.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Richard.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Dockrell, Henry F.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fox, Billy.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Lawrence.
- Malone, Patrick.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Paddy.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Taylor, Francis.
- Thornley, David.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- 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.
- Delap, Patrick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Forde, Paddy.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- 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'Malley, Des.
- Power, Patrick.
- Sherwin, Seán.
- Smith, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies R. Burke and Cluskey; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Meaney.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 69, inclusive, not moved.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 70:
In subsection (2) (b), page 10, line 48, after "day" to add "or".
Perhaps we could discuss amendments Nos. 70 and 71 together.
These amendments are separate only for purposes of drafting and are part of the same thought. I am concerned with persons who are not permanent staff. The objective of subsection 2 (b) is to define the period of time and the amount of service. We have already discussed the matter of the five years in the last line of the subsection and we found the Minister, in my view, unwilling either to concede any amount of time or to advance any argument in favour of the five year period. However, that is water under the bridge.
I want to turn now to the amount of time. In most third level institutions there have evolved rule of thumb conditions about the length of time for which one was expected to teach. I think that pretty well any university teacher who thought he would have to teach for 18 hours a week would consider himself grossly overworked, because there is the matter of preparation. The amount of time actually spent with the student is only a small part of what has to be done. I recognise that the teaching art is not entirely comparable with certain academic disciplines, but it does appear to me that on the basis of a five day week, this is rather a lot of teaching time for people employed on a part-time basis. I would be very interested to hear the Minister telling us what the average teaching time of a part-time teacher is, what the largest amount of teaching time of a part-time teacher is and what the smallest amount of time is; in other words, what is the scatter of teaching hours of the 29 or 30 people currently on the staff of the college.
I said earlier that I put down these amendments in the circumstances of three months ago in an effort to protect the jobs of certain people. It is water under the bridge in regard to two of them now because two of them have, in fact, been dismissed and I will have the occasion to express my thoughts on that, not speaking to any amendment but to another section. I must say that I have held back in the hope of a more conciliatory attitude than the Minister has shown and I am a little disappointed that he has not been more considerate on this. I can think of a particular instance where someone is teaching 17 hours a week and has the qualification under the number of years. That person misses out on the number of hours by one hour and the number of hours chosen is rather large. I suggest that if people teach for a period much shorter than five years, and, indeed, for a period much less than 18 hours a week, provided, firstly, that they are appointed in good faith, and then adjudged to be satisfactory, so that they are retained, without questioning their appointment, for a reasonable period, such as one or two years, by the fact that they are continued in their employment—it is possible to terminate these part-time jobs, as the Minister said, at a week's notice—by the fact of their being continued after one year or at most two years, I believe that any public institution, whether in the Civil Service or under a separate board, takes on a responsibility towards these people. If one draws analogy with other sorts of work, there is a responsibility which in many instances is covered by redundancy legislation that once the work is adequate and the job is there—provided the job is not abolished—if a person has been adjudged to be satisfactory enough to be re-employed even for a second year, then a responsibility towards him is taken on. This is built into the social legislation of very many countries in regard to very many jobs.
I have already argued that I think the period of five years is much too long and the purpose of these two amendments, which are really a drafting mechanism to add on another sentence, is to indicate that the period of 18 hours is much too much. There is a further objection to this rather long period of 18 hours that it does not say in the original draft in the Bill that people must have been working for 18 hours for a previous number of years; it does not say that they must have put up an average number of so many hours a week—X hours a week for a certain number of years. What it says is that they are required to work not less than 18 hours per week. This I take to mean at the time the decision is being taken that they might have been working only for 18 hours for the previous fortnight and other people who had been putting up 18 hours and more—25 and 30 hours—in previous years could be precipitately dropped for the purpose of exclusion from this net to 17 or 16 hours or some number less than that barrier.
I know a particular case where I believe this has been done, or at least — let me put it at this moment more charitably—where there is a suspicion that it has been done, where there is a presumption that it may have been done. I think that not alone is the five years too much but the 18 hours is too much. It is too much in relation to the experience of third-level academic institutions I have got and in the sense that it can provide a mechanism whereby the authorities could say to Mr. So-and-So: "Your work is, indeed, satisfactory; we have no quarrel with it, and we are not going to dismiss you, but simply because we do not have the need for your services and we are going to drop your number of hours of work below the threshold level," which would be the mechanism of denying the right of employment. The Minister may say that the board will be autonomous and may re-employ such a person if they so wish. The question of whom the board employs is a question for the board themselves. The board will decide in their own time and, I hope, objectively and without influence from any outside source. At the same time people have a right to protection. It is not their fault that the employment to which they had given a number of years of their lives—though in some instances less than five years—is being abolished by the institution in its present form.
I would ask the Minister to consider this question. Perhaps some of his advisers can tell him the average hours worked by part-time teachers and what are the maximum hours and the minimum hours worked. The Minister might be able to give us an estimate of the hours worked by the 29 or 30 people in this category. The Minister might tell us how many of them are working more or less than 18 hours. I recognise that it may not be possible to produce that information quickly. but this information would help us in trying to assess the wisdom or otherwise of the situation. I am suggesting that the period of 18 hours is too long. I suggested a period of eight hours per week in my amendment. Part-time teachers are often people who want to do creative work on their own but find it impossible to make a living while doing so. They opt to teach a few days a week in order to live and they use the money so earned to subsidise themselves to practise their own creative work. They would be people who would be extremely valuable members of the staff of the college. A person carrying on his own creative work would be more valuable than somebody who opts to work the maximum hours and does not do creative work at all. Some of the people opting to work the shortest number of hours might be the most valuable people and might have established the best right to be employed by the new institution.
I am sorry that the Minister did not see fit to alter the period of five years. My suggestion of one year was perhaps too small but it is possible for people, if they wish to meet each other, to compromise. The Minister may have cogent arguments for suggesting more than the eight hours I have recommended. Perhaps eight hours is too short, but it is my conviction that 18 hours is too much. The object of my amendment is to reduce that amount.
I am afraid I have not got the figures on the hours worked.
I understand that.
I do not see much difference in the arguments which I can put forward in relation to this and the ones which I put forward in regard to Deputy FitzGerald's previous amendments. As I said, I felt that I had an obligation towards a certain number of people but this board who are now being appointed are an autonomous board. I wanted to restrict their scope of action as little as possible as I felt that the number of teachers I took in under the sections of the Bill was the limit to which I ought to go and that I should leave it to the discretion of the board to appoint the remaining teachers. It will be a matter for this board which has already been mentioned as consisting of two students and two teachers as well as other independent members, to decide on the teachers they will appoint apart from those that I have already determined should remain in the college. As I said, I have the same argument in regard to this amendment as I had in regard to the other one, that I feel I should not be too restrictive and that I should leave it to the board to make the appointments of the teachers apart from those to whom I felt I had a particular obligation.
The Minister has said rather the same thing that he said earlier but which he did not say very much earlier. Essentially, he said he has responsibility towards some of these people but he does not want to restrict the board too much. This section is concerned with people who are not permanent. The position of the permanent staff is simpler. If one has ever been a permanent civil servant one enjoys some certain well understood rights, some legally established, some not. This is a case of, I think, five or six people. The second sector of people whose jobs will be abolished when the College of Art goes out of existence are the part-time teachers who are more numerous, five or six times as many. There are two extreme positions and I do not think any of us would take up either position. I am not suggesting that all of them have the right —those taken on a few months ago, for instance, if there were any—to be taken in automatically: I do not think the Minister suggests that none of them has the right. I mentioned what I consider is a very bad principle but one which many institutions have operated. I do not know the current situation in UCD but I remember a time when UCD was grossly lobsided in the direction of college lecturers and the whole place was being run on college lecturers rather than by people who had a real stake in the place. I think that was very bad. The running of the College of Art with a very small number of permanent people and a large number of temporary or part-time people is also a bad principle. I gave one particular instance to indicate that although they may, in law and in their formal relationship with the college, be part-time people they are, nonetheless, people first of considerable excellence and, secondly, people who have been doing the job in a distinguished way for a long time.
We are really concerned with saying: "Not everybody has the right to the job and not everybody should be excluded." Where do you draw the line leaving some people with the right to go on and leaving some people outside? The Minister has chosen to draw it at five years and 18 hours. I suggest both are too much. I have not heard any arguments from him as to why the period should be so long. Both in years and in hours the figures seem too high. Look at it this way: the pool of possible art teachers in Ireland is quite small and it is obviously necessary that the various trends and attitudes in the art world should be represented on the staff. I do not want to discuss these attitudes or trends now and I do not know that I would be competent to do so; it is a very rapidly shifting scene. But I think it would be impossible to have a balanced school without having people representative of all trends.
In the long run one wishes it well. It may be that the appointments after it has been established will cover this aspect but will the Minister see his way to reduce the qualifications? He simply set a couple of limits, one in years, the other in hours. A case can be made that both are rather high. He has proved utterly immovable in regard to the number of years. I do not mean this abusively but I cannot see, without any arguments, if you take on responsibility to somebody over a period of five years that you do not take on a comparable sort of responsibility over three years. Either the person is (a) good enough to appoint and (b) good enough to confirm and you then have a responsibility to him, or else he should be thrown out quickly and not left in agony. Once you retain people long enough to indicate confidence in them you have a responsibility to them and that is a much shorter time. I should be interested to know if the Minister is disposed to "give" at all in this matter on either point.
The Deputy will probably appreciate that by accepting his amendment we would again extend the scope of those who would be guaranteed further employment by the board, though not very significantly. The question could then be asked: why should one stop at that particular figure for those particular teachers? You would still be excluding a significant number of part-time teachers. You are then in a situation that no matter what proposal you introduce you will exclude a certain number unless you go the whole way and say that all of them, whatever the periods, should be employed.
I rejected both extreme positions of "nobody" or "everybody". I said we were trying to find some rational compromise in the middle and I wanted to hear reasons why the Minister had chosen the figures he has given.
One must come down somewhere. I do not suggest the Deputy was arguing either extreme position but the further it is extended the more you confirm the fact or demonstrate that there are others who are excluded from the extension. One must therefore reach what would appear to be reasonable figures in regard to working hours in a week and reasonable length of service during which those working hours operated. It is only on that basis that the 18 hours per week would appear to be reasonable. It may not be the norm but on a broad basis it appears to be reasonable. The five years figure was selected also as being reasonable. Those who have served five years would be guaranteed employment but others would in fact be eligible for re-employment. These are not the only hours that could have been fixed, nor is five the only period of years that might be determined, but had the hours been 15 and the years four we would be open to the suggestion that it should be 12 hours for three years. It seems reasonable in the interests of the staff who have been there to introduce this proposal to guarantee them employment and to give the reasonable assurance that the board will be satisfied—one cannot anticipate that—to re-employ the others, if necessary, on a permanent basis. I suppose one can never give a conclusive answer such as the Deputy requires but those are some of the reasons.
I shall try one further argument, or at least reiterate one that I have not heard answered. There is the point of view that "those who can, do and those who cannot, teach". If you turn that around the other way I should say that in an art school the people you want as teachers are those that you know are good at doing. They are good creative workers who are evolving and devoting a fair amount of their time to their own creative work and are much better than those who have given up and who have said: "I have had a bash at it; it is not in me. I shall settle down and teach." The first type of people are much more useful if you want creativity. If that is so, the more desirable person is the person you want to conciliate and you should do everything possible to get him into the college. This is the person who devotes a very significant part of the time to his own work but is prepared, either, for economic reasons or love of teaching, to teach. There are people who have the gift themselves and have a great desire to pass it on to those coming after them and to whom they can give their skill. If you make the qualification of 18 hours a week, that seems a bit high for them and in that way you would tend to get those who just want to be teachers. The people you really want will say: "Perhaps eight or ten hours a week but 18 is too much."
There is nothing in the section which says they will be required to work 18 hours from here on. They can be appointed permanently and may not be working 18 hours a week.
If they have been working 18 hours a week in the past they are already in a certain category.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
Section 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
May I ask the Minister if, in fact, this school is officially known as "The Metropolitan School of Art"? That is what we are deleting from the Schedule of the Fourth Part of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924? It is not so described at the beginning of the Bill?
I am informed that is its legal title.
Why do we not use the legal title in the Bill, in section 2? There the college is referred to as the "college of art, crafts and design, known as the National College of Art"?
I suppose it is because it was always known as the National College of Art.
This is not a gossip column; it is a Bill which will be a law and surely if it is a law we should describe the college by its correct legal name. It is not a very important point but it is a curious way to draft a Bill.
I cannot see the Deputy's difficulty.
If the legal name of the institution is the Metropolitan School of Art, why is it described in section 2 as the National College of Art?
I see the Deputy's point. It is a fair point.
The Minister had better look at section 2 between now and Report Stage in case we are not transferring the right place.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 32 and 33 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
The Minister knows of our anxiety to get the Bill through. I have indicated our willingness to take Report Stage earlier but I appreciate that, in view of some of the issues that have arisen and some of the matters the Minister has to look into, there would be a problem about taking it before Tuesday. I can only assume that the fact that it is postponed till Tuesday will enable it to be taken and that we will still be here on Tuesday but I hope not on Wednesday.
No problem.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 9th November, 1971.