Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy FitzGerald: it is suggested that consequential amendments be grouped together and the suggested grouping is Nos. 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72 and 73. These can be discussed together and it is suggested that one decision should suffice for all these amendments.
Private Members' Business. - National College of Art and Design Bill, 1971: Report and Final Stages.
Might I suggest that we take amendment No. 3 and consequential amendments with this one? They are closely inter-related and I think it would be convenient to discuss them together.
Agreed that No. 3 be taken with the others. The Chair would wish to point out that on Report Stage the Deputy proposing amendments may speak and reply but anybody else may speak only once.
There are certain other amendments consequential to No. 3, I think, Nos. 50, 51, 53, 56, 59, 61, 63 and 65. It would seem convenient to take them together. I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 12, to delete "An Bord" and substitute "the College Council"
This amendment arises out of the debate on the Committee Stage when I was endeavouring to create a structure which, in appearance at any rate, would be more akin to that of a third level institution, the College Council. I think the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out certain defects in my amendment, certain untidiness in drafting, certain omissions, and I have endeavoured to tidy these up and to produce a more coherent approach to this question in these two amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I hope they will be acceptable. If I have, in fact, managed to cope with all the problems, I think it would be better if we had a college with a college council and could get away from this awkward phraseology about "An Bord" with references to the college coming in at other points.
We have here an organisation which will be a college and it seems appropriate that we should refer to it as such, as indeed the Bill does in its present form at certain points. We should be consistent in referring to it as such and when we are referring to the body which is the executive body to run the college it should be given a title of a reasonably academic character reflecting the academic nature of the institution. For that reason I suggest that body be called "the college council". If I have correctly divided up the cases where "An Bord" refers to the institution and where it really refers to the body running it, then these amendments, as drafted, I think would meet the case. I hope the Minister will be able to give them consideration.
I fear I cannot accept these amendments. I think the Deputy will agree that in relation to our discussions on the Committee Stage I have made an effort to frame the amendments I have put down here to meet many of the cases the Deputy has put forward. However, in relation to this amendment I think, from what I could understand of the Deputy's statement in regard to this matter on the Committee Stage, that he was attempting to associate a board with commercial activities. But, as I pointed out then, there are many other types of boards besides those engaged in commercial activity, for example, the Board of Governors of the National Gallery and the Board of Trinity College, and so on. It is true that the two words "An Bord" and "Council" are used rather loosely to describe a body of people assembled together for a particular purpose. Generally speaking, the word "Council" is taken to mean an advisory or deliberative body. A college council in this country is the name generally given to a body set up to advise on various activities of the college and it has not got the executive function which one would envisage in a board.
Just to quote a couple of instances we have college councils in two of our Dublin colleges of technology and these councils are purely advisory. The board is a corporate body established to run an institution which is the college. It is the employer of the staff and the operator of the official seal and the college itself is merely an institution and does not have any corporate status. The term "An Bord" fills the situation I have in mind and I believe that in this instance the Bill should be left as drafted.
When a somewhat similar amendment came up on the Committee Stage one of the problems we found was the difficulty in establishing the connection or the line of authority between the board and the college council as proposed. Despite the thorough research of Deputy FitzGerald, I think the task has once again proved almost impossible. First, the Deputy will note that in the actual title of the Bill itself it says:
Bill entitled an Act to establish a Board to be known as Bord an Choláiste Náisiunta Ealaíne is Deartha, to define its powers and duties and to provide for related matters.
The Deputy has not in fact made any proposal to amend the title which I think he will accept would be a matter of immediate consequence if his amendment were accepted.
The Deputy's amendments have suggested that in the definition the College Council, which hitherto has read "The Board", the College Council has a meaning specified in section 4 (1) of this Act, in other words, substituting "College Council" for "The Board". When we look at section 4 (1) we find ourselves in this position, reading in the Deputy's amendment:
There shall, by virtue of this section, be established on the establishment day a board to be known as Bord an Choláiste Náisiunta Ealaíne is Deartha, to perform the functions given to it by this Act (in this Act referred to as the College Council).
I think there are some other anomalies that one could point to. I am not suggesting that anybody looking at a Bill of this sort, particularly in regard to substituting the words "College Council" for "An Bord" could immediately tie up all the loose ends but I hope Deputy FitzGerald would acknowledge from that that loose ends have not been, and I submit, cannot be tied up.
I may go further and quote from himself. I can understand his attitude generally being that "College Council" is more appropriate to an academic institution than a board which seems more appropriate to commercial or semi-commercial institutions, as the Deputy would argue it. On the Committee Stage debate he said himself on 2nd November as reported at column 778 of the Official Report:
The argument is made on section 4 (2). Section 4 (2) defines "An Bord" as being a body corporate.
The Deputy went on to say:
If it is a body corporate it cannot simultaneously be the college council running the place.
I suggest that the Deputy, in a number of cases here, has left the situation where the College Council is not a body corporate and having at the same time the College Council running the place.
Take section 12. One of the essential characteristics of a body corporate is that it acts under a seal as distinct from an individual who acts under his signature. A body corporate can only in most instances act under a seal. The Deputy has proposed in section 12 that:
The College Council shall, as soon as may be after its establishment, provide itself with a seal.
He is substituting the words: "College Council" for "Board". He is establishing in his own amendments that the college council is a body corporate. He is, on his own line of reasoning, disqualifying it from acting as the managing authority of an academic institution. I must confess that I do not have the diligence of the Deputy who has successfully distinguished between the College Council and the college in many of these amendments.
Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that even now and, I would suggest at any stage, what the Deputy is trying to achieve cannot be achieved because effectively it is a question of terminology that seems to be worrying him, nothing more nor less than terminology. He did, on the last occasion, seem to have a concern that there was no clear line of distinction between the managing authority and the executive. I think it is clear under the Bill as proposed that the board is the board of management and the executive are clearly set out to be in the Bill what they are—the director and the registrar and their staff but particularly the director and registrar. This has an analogy in commercial practice or in academic practice.
I would submit that it probably has in both. This is a clear indication of how normal the practice is. I cannot imagine that what is in the Bill as proposed is in any way unacceptable. The most important thing of all is that it does not in any way disable or disqualify the board or the officers or servants of the board from effectively doing what we all would want them to do and that is to implement the autonomous management of the college.
If I were a centipede rather than a Deputy I would have to say that the Parliamentary Secretary has only left me about 95 legs to stand on. He has pointed out some defects in drafting which I suppose are inevitable and, lacking the skills of the parliamentary draftsman which are not available as freely to me as to the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, clearly there are some defects here which he has cogently pointed out.
Had the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary felt that the spirit of my amendments made them desirable and had they been moved to accept them, what they could and would have done would have been to accept them and tidy up such anomalies as I may have left. Clearly, however, they do not seem disposed to do so. They do not feel that the basic thought behind them is worth considering. The Minister said the word "council" had an advisory meaning only. This is not, in fact, true in that in the universities the academic council is the executive body. It, of course, has certain advisory functions but in the academic sphere it is, in fact, an executive body. It may be different in other higher level institutions. I am not saying that the term is ideal. The Minister has a point but, I think, the word is one which has both advisory and executive connotations in different arenas.
Clearly I am not going to persuade the Minister. It is not a major point compared with some of the issues about which we shall be arguing. I note the analogy of Trinity College and its board. Perhaps resting on that I will accept what I am not very happy about but what is not worth holding up the House on any longer.
The Deputy said he did not think his amendments were worth considering. I can tell him we gave them a considerable amount of consideration.
I only meant that the Minister clearly decided against this amendment. Had he decided it was a good one in principle with a little bit of ingenuity the parliamentary draftsman could have helped him to tidy it up but obviously he did not feel it was worth asking the parliamentary draftsman to do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 22, to delete "‘student'" and to substitute "‘student of the college'".
This is merely a drafting amendment to pinpoint the fact that only students of the College of Art are involved.
Involved in what?
What we had here already was a definition of a "student".
Student means a person who stands entered on the student role of the college and is following an approved course of study there.
We were advised by the draftsman that it would have to be "student of the college".
It is a new point that had not arisen before. I find the Minister's explanation a little elliptical. It is not an important point but I am not clear as to why it is necessary to change it.
To be quite honest, I was not too clear on it but when the draftsman advised on this I thought it was as well to change it.
It is clearly a point of no great substance, of the kind we can leave to the parliamentary draftsman, unlike sections like the former section 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
As amendments No. 6 and No. 7 are related they might be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 14, to delete "if so requested by the Minister,".
As I said to the Deputy earlier we took cognisance of the arguments he put forward in relation to all the different sections and I am prepared to concede that there was considerable force in his arguments on Committee Stage in connection with these two subsections and I am prepared to agree that the words "if so requested by the Minister" may be omitted.
I am grateful to the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 16, to delete "if so requested by the Minister,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.
On a point of order, I am not quite clear how we proceed. Does each of us have a chance to make an opening address and then each of us a chance to make a closing address?
If No. 8 is agreed No. 9 cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, lines 23 to 25, to delete ", of such scope and extent as it may determine with the consent of the Minister," and to substitute "(on which the amount of the expenditure by An Bord shall have been approved of by the Minister)".
We had a very considerable discussion on this section last day and I tried to go as far as possible in relation to the suggestion put forward by, I think, Deputy FitzGerald again. I think the amendment I am putting forward leaves the board greater freedom in its decision regarding scholarships and other rewards. The only control retained by me on this is the overall expenditure involved. I do not think there is anything new about that. I think the board, once it is aware of the total moneys available to it, will apply these moneys in an equitable manner as between the entrance scholarships and other scholarships. I know I argued the last day at considerable length in relation to the entrance scholarships and their relativity, as it were, to higher education grants. Having considered the whole matter I thought it would be better if I gave more freedom to the board in the sense of relying on their own good sense to utilise properly whatever money was made available to them for this specific purpose. I thought this particular amendment would meet the Bill.
The Minister argued so persuasively on the issue of entrance scholarships last week that he persuaded me to put down an amendment to meet it. He has now circumvented me by changing his ground completely and by putting down an amendment of a quite different character on what is really a different issue altogether.
As I recall it, last week the Minister was not arguing that he must control the total expenditure on scholarships, prizes, et cetera, because he will control directly at present, and perhaps later through the HEA, the total expenditure of the college. I do not think we wasted much time on the point because it is not an issue. The whole question was whether there was a problem of co-ordinating entrance scholarships, as he defined them, although I would call them grants, with entrance grants for other higher level institutions. I thought him persuasive on the point. There was an issue here. I could see there was a sensitivity and it seemed worthwhile trying to meet him. I thought my amendment went the whole way to meet everything the Minister said last week. I am a little taken aback and a little disappointed, having gone to such trouble to meet the Minister, to find he has spurned my efforts and produced instead an amendment as to the value of which I am not clear.
In so far as the amendment is a control of expenditure amendment the Minister has that control in any event because he can control the total budgetary provision for the college. As drafted it does not enable him to exercise any control over the entrance grants—he has given up the control which he was seeking the other day —and when he says, as he did a minute or two ago, that this leaves the board free to determine their own scholarship scheme, it is a most curious form of freedom. They are free to provide any scholarships they like as long as they are within the sum of money named by the Minister. That is the kind of freedom which Henry Ford offered in regard to the colour of the car. I do not find it acceptable in its present form.
I would ask the Minister to tell the House what is wrong with the amendment I have drafted. He did not claim last week that he needed to control the amount of money spent on prizes and bursaries. He referred only to the need to ensure harmonisation of entrance scholarships to the college with entrance grants to other higher level institutions. Why then is my amendment not acceptable? It seems to meet completely the points he then made. Why does he wish to extend his control to a new area not hitherto mentioned, that is, control by earmarking college funds for a particular purpose? It was hitherto contemplated, as I understand it, that the college would be given a grant and the board given authority to spend it. No doubt the size of the grant will be determined in the light of representations made by the board, just as other higher level institutions will be making representations and putting forward submissions to the HEA about the amount of money they will need. That will have to be tailored to take into account what the State can afford. This board will have to put in a submission for their total requirements including scholarships, grants, bursaries, prizes and so on, and that total sum so provided should then be left to the board to dispense within their own autonomy, the kind of autonomy we are trying to give them.
Why at Report Stage does the Minister try to introduce an earmarking principle for this particular form of finance for scholarship, et cetera, when it does not give him the power which he not unreasonably sought to have in relation to ensuring co-ordination with higher education grants? This being Report Stage I regret that it will not be possible for me to pursue the matter as far as I should like. I would like to hear the Minister's reply because I am afraid his opening statement has not helped me to understand what is in his mind and if I am limited to just one speech by the formality of the debate I am going to be in some difficulties in dealing with him.
Both amendments are taken together.
Yes, my difficulty is that the Minister has not spoken to my amendment. He has not told the House what is wrong with the amendment which I have drafted for his benefit and not knowing what is wrong with it, and not knowing why he wants to introduce this earmarking principle on Report Stage, his opening address having been singularly taciturn on these two subjects, I am in considerable difficulty in carrying the matter any further than I have. It would have been helpful if he had explained the position further and it would be very helpful indeed if he explains it a bit further and if I could have a chance to comment again if he discloses something.
On the Report Stage of a Bill——
Could we not recommit the section?
No, the rules are quite definite in regard to this. Members speak only once to an amendment, except for the mover of the amendment.
The Chair appreciates my difficulty: my amendment was designed to meet the Minister's point. I am now moving it, but owing to the fact that he has put down an irrelevant amendment which does not meet the point at all I am being put in the position that I cannot reply to his reply to my own amendment. That could have been overcome had he replied to my amendment in his opening address but he did not. It seems to me there should be some way around this situation and I should not be precluded from replying to my own amendment because the Minister has put down an irrevelant amendment. To me it was a mistake to group the two together. I recognise they are alternatives but by grouping them together the debate is being impeded. Is there not a procedure for recommittal by agreement? This is often done on Report Stage when a complex issue is being discussed.
This matter has arisen out of the Committee proceedings and when it arises out of Committee proceedings the procedure which is being adopted at the moment is the normal procedure.
With respect, I submit the Minister's amendment does not arise out of Committee proceedings because there was no indication in it of any intention to put down such an amendment and no indication that the contents of that amendment would be necessary and no justification given for it. It is the first time we have had this concept put before us.
The position is that where a matter of substance has not arisen on Committee Stage it is generally recommitted.
I submit that the Minister's amendment does not arise out of the Committee Stage. The matter it deals with was not discussed, that is the control by earmarking of money for this purpose. The proposal on Committee Stage was of quite a different character. The Minister's argument was on a different issue altogether: the need to standardise entrance scholarships with higher education grants. Perhaps the Minister would agree to recommit for this purpose so we can discuss it briefly. I shall not detain the House long; I merely want to hear the Minister's reply and be able to come back again if the Minister will agree to that.
I should be glad to give the Deputy and opportunity he wants.
Would the Minister be prepared to allow the Deputy to speak again in the circumstances?
Yes.
Thank you.
I suppose I should have adverted to the Deputy's amendment when I was speaking. One of the things I felt about it when I had it examined was that, while I agree it conformed to a certain extent to what I was speaking about on Committee Stage, I felt it would hardly stand up in law. For instance we have here, "who had attained a certain standard". The question is: who would determine this certain standard? The earmarking of money, as I mentioned when I was speaking earlier, is not something new. I am informed by the Department that money is earmarked for Department of Education scholarships for universities and even the number of them is specified. What I felt here was that in a somewhat similar way the amount of money being made available by the Department to the college for scholarships, bursaries and so on, would be specified by the Minister and this money would be used by them for entrance scholarships, about which I spoke on the last occasion, and for other types of scholarships as well. The very fact that there would be a specified amount of money available for this would ensure that the board would carefully examine the situation and that they would make the awards of scholarships as equitably as possible. The very fact that the amount of money would be defined would ensure that they would have to have regard to the situation in relation to entrance scholarships as well as to other scholarships and bursaries.
For that reason I believed I was, in effect, giving the board a wider control of the situation. During all the discussions on this Bill in Committee the Deputy pressed for as much freedom as possible for the college board and, as he can see in many instances in relation to the amendments which we have passed, I tried to give as much freedom as I could to the board. This was my main reason for putting in the amendment because I thought it gave most freedom to the board while ensuring that the money was used to the best possible advantage.
I should like to make one small point. The Deputy has been concerned basically to preserve as much as possible the autonomy of the institution and has drawn the analogy of the desirability of having autonomy at university or third level institutions, which I accept. However, in the Deputy's amendment any grants or scholarships, or schemes of grants and scholarships, whether analogous to the grants schemes or scholarship schemes operated by universities, in each instance would require the consent of the Minister. Under the Deputy's amendment individual grants or scholarships would require the consent of the Minister. That would appear to me to be contrary to the Deputy's wishes in this matter and to cut across the arguments he has made. I can see that it might not represent exactly what he would want to do and I think the Deputy would agree with me on this point.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair is allowing discretion to the Deputy on this occasion to speak again on this matter.
I should like to answer the points made. First, the Minister said there might be some legal difficulty about the concept of a certain standard and who would determine the standard. I am open to advice on the legal significance of the terms I have chosen. What I intend by that is to distinguish between grants and scholarships. Grants are awarded to those who reach a certain standard. Depending on the number who reach that standard, grants are given and this is the grants system operated by the universities. I wish to distinguish this from scholarships, where it is decided to give a fixed number of scholarships to those who achieve the highest standards, perhaps subject to the provision that unless people achieve those high standards scholarships may not be awarded in certain instances.
They are two quite different systems. The phraseology I chose was designed to define in as near as I could get to legal terminology the concept of grants under the Higher Education Authority as they operate, namely, anyone who gets four honours in leaving certificate, reaching a certain standard which will be defined by the Minister—or in this instance by the board—will get a grant which will last him through his college career. This is what I call a grant and I think it answers the Parliamentary Secretary who suggested that I was tying down the college in regard to scholarships.
I am only tying down the college in regard to grants of the kind given for higher education to those who reach a certain standard to enable them to continue with their career. These are social grants rather than academic scholarships. They are designed to achieve the social purpose of enabling people who reach a certain standard to achieve higher education. They are different from scholarships which are an award for excellence, given only in a limited number of cases. The Minister may be suggesting that the Parliamentary draftsman may have thought that the phraseology "a certain standard" did not quite convey what I had in mind but, if that were so, I am sure the draftsman would have found some way around it if the Minister had thought the amendment commended itself to him.
With regard to the Minister's amendment, I find his argument unsatisfactory. I wonder if his Department have informed him fully of the circumstances in which the scholarships to which he has referred came into existence? The scholarships which he described correctly as Department of Education scholarships have nothing to do with the college. What happened was that prior to the grants scheme students coming to the college were entitled to sit for entrance scholarship examinations in the college. Scholarships were awarded lasting for one year on the basis of that examination.
However, it was also possible for students to get scholarships from the county councils up to that time. These scholarships were awarded in accordance with a certain scheme. The introduction of the grants scheme eliminated the county council scholarships but, unfortunately, there were people who would have got such scholarships because of the high standards they would have reached but who, perhaps, because of the means test, would be ineligible for them. This created the situation where the then Minister in seeking to introduce a grants scheme of a desirable and welcome, although inadequate, character was unintentionally eliminating the scholarship system which benefits people who could not benefit from the new scheme.
This gave rise to concern and the Department met this by introducing a certain number of Department of Education scholarships. These scholarships are not university scholarships and, in fact, the colleges are most unhappy about them because they consider they were tricked into taking these on with the promise of additional money which evaporated once the scheme was started. They are the cause of considerable dispute between the Department and at least one of the colleges.
In equating the Department of Education scholarships with university entrance scholarships, the Minister is confusing the issue. The simple fact is that the university colleges have their own entrance scholarships which have nothing to do with the Department. They are decided on at the colleges' discretion and there is no departmental control exercised in the matter. The Minister has no function in relation to the university entrance scholarships and I can see no reason why he should have a function in relation to the total amount of money to be spent by this particular institution on scholarships of the same kind, namely, their entrance scholarships, possibly payable to a student who does very well in order to carry him through his first year or any subsequent scholarships, bursaries or prizes that may be awarded at a later stage in his career.
The Minister has not given any reason for wishing to exercise a control which he does not exercise over the equivalent university scholarships, bursaries and prizes. I found his reason for introducing a principle of earmarking for this kind of expenditure unsatisfactory and rather worrying. The Minister appeared to be saying that there would be no danger of the board going wild in providing scholarships and grants and I saw here the rather ominous tight control of the Department of Finance, working through the Department of Education. The Department of Finance would make sure that the amount of money would be so small there would be no question of going wild on it.
This new board should be put in the same position as the universities: namely, entitled to operate their own system of scholarships in the strict sense of the word as I defined it previously, using as much funds for that purpose as they thought proper and felt able to do, given the other requirements it would have to meet out of the funds available. I accept that if a system were introduced of genuine grants for people reaching a certain standard and payable throughout the whole career of the students, these would be so closely associated with the higher education grant scheme that the Minister would have a proper interest in them and he ought to have some control over them.
On a point of clarification, would not what the Deputy has been saying cut across his own amendments?
Either the Parliamentary Secretary has not read my amendment or he has misread it.
They would have to have the consent of the Minister.
The amendment specifies that any grants or scholarships available to entrants who attain a certain standard, and so on, shall require the consent of the Minister.
For a particular kind of grant of scholarship?
There are two characteristics, the characteristics of the existing university grants scheme and, secondly, that they reach a certain standard and go right through the college career. The Minister's consent would be required only for those scholarships and grants which are the kind of grants operated by the Minister at the moment. It would leave the college completely free in the matter of entrance scholarships each year and any other such bursaries or prizes the college wanted.
I see the point but I wonder if the wording is to that effect. It seems totally to exclude the type of scholarships the universities are giving at the moment.
These extend for one year only and not over the career of the student. They are limited in number such as the top ten, the top five, the top two. Both these cases would fail to come within the phraseology of my amendment and they would be doubly excluded. The Minister, having heard the arguments, may reconsider the position and be prepared to accept my amendment as drafted or half of his amendment. I think I have given good and sufficient reasons for my amendment. His amendment seems unnecessary, indeed extremely unnecessary, and I suggest that either he modifies his amendment to delete the offending words or else that he would perhaps accept my amendment. I offer him that choice.
I take it the Deputy will accept that, even where the amount of expenditure by the board would be approved by the Minister, this would be part of the total amount of money which would be made available to the college.
Yes, an earmarked part.
Yes, but it would be part of the total. In such circumstances, I think the Minister should consult with the board as to the amount that would be made available for this purpose.
Why does the Minister want to earmark this amount of money?
At this stage we must have a conclusion.
I was trying to accommodate the situation put forward by the Deputy in relation to leaving the board as free as possible.
Would the Minister not consider accepting my amendment or half of his?
I believe my amendment is a good one and that the Deputy's amendment will not stand up to it. I cannot see how I can accept his amendment.
Would the Minister like to consider it further between now and the time it reaches the other House?
I have no objection to that. I will have a look at the arguments the Deputy has made and see if it is possible to meet him. To be quite frank, as far as this Bill is concerned I should like if we could have amity. I will have a look at it before it reaches Committee Stage in the Seanad.
Is the Minister pressing amendment No. 8 at this stage or does he want to withdraw it now and consider an alternative later?
I am pressing it on the basis that it is an improvement on what is there. I will see if I can meet the Deputy half way later.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5 to delete lines 3 to 6 and substitute:
"(a) there shall be eight ordinary members of the College Council of whom one shall be the Director, and a Chairman;
(b) No member of the College Council shall be a civil servant".
In its present form, the amendment has two purposes. Paragraph (b) is that the College Council shall not have a civil servant as a member. For reasons of general principle, I do not think it is proper civil servants should be members of boards of educational institutions. I am not convinced of the desirability of their being members of State bodies, except in particular circumstances. There are special cases which I have recognised in another form, in another place. There may be a transitional changeover of Departmental control of a State body or there may be a particular need for special liaision. In such cases a civil servant on a board may be desirable but I think it is undesirable as a general principle. In this instance it is particularly undesirable because of the need to make a fresh start in view of the fact, as the Minister has said, that the present arrangements in the college have not worked out as happily as they might have.
In regard to paragraph (a), I will try to explain my reasoning. It seems to me undesirable that this body should be one in which there would be a non-academic majority. By non-academic for this purpose I mean a majority of people other than staff and student representatives. I am not saying that staff and students should be a majority but I think the desirability of strong academic representation of at least half of the total number should be seriously considered. I have accepted the Minister's proposals for staff and student representation and I have not received representations from either staff or students to amend them, and the only way of ensuring they would not be in a minority is to limit the total membership of the board to eight—this may seem a rather round-about way of arriving at eight. I had thought of limiting staff and student representation to two each. I would be glad if the Minister would indicate whether he is prepared to give consideration to either of these aspects of the amendment.
I am afraid I cannot accept these amendments. While the Deputy has stated that he would not want the student and teacher side to be in the majority——
In a minority.
——in practice, if the director is included, they would be a majority on the governing body. So far as I can remember, the Deputy said at the Committee Stage that such a situation might lead to inbreeding. As I see it, the college is there to serve the community and not the community to serve the college. The overall control in relation to a college should not rest on those who operate inside the college day after day. In a situation such as I have mentioned, I would be afraid that those concerned would not be able to see the wood for the trees and for that reason I cannot accept the first of the Deputy's amendments.
In relation to the second of the two amendments, it is rather unfortunate that he should have put down an amendment of this kind, particularly in view of the recent past history of the college. I suppose it would appear to civil servants as if they were to be regarded as people who were not suited for this type of work. Apart from any other considerations, a civil servant could have an artistic bent and it is quite possible that he could contribute very effectively to the running of the college. However, what I consider to be unfortunate in so far as the tabling of this particular amendment is concerned is that during the past year, or perhaps two years, there has been a very particular type of antagonism towards officials of my Department. To say the least of it, this antagonism was irrational. I might add that, of course, I had no intention of appointing a civil servant but, because of the history of the college, I regret that this amendment was tabled.
As Deputy FitzGerald himself has remarked, neither the staff nor the students have complained to him or to anyone else about the representation being given to them on the new board. I would suggest that that is not surprising because the representation being given to them under this Bill is, in principle, a very significant if not a total breakthrough. I think everybody has recognised the breakthrough in this representation on the board of teachers and students. Under the Bill it is proposed to give a representation of four out of a total of, I think, 11. This is a considerable representation, but we must not go too far too quickly. What is suggested in the Deputy's amendment is that we reduce the number to eight, thereby ensuring that two students and two members of the staff and a director would provide automatically 55 per cent of the total representation: in other words, that those associated immediately with the college, either by way of students or staff, would provide five-eights of the personnel of the board.
Frankly, I do not know whether the public who, I concede freely, are not the final arbiters of what is good art or of what is the function of an art college, will be of the opinion that they, or someone other than those associated directly with the college, will have some say in the matter. I would go so far as to say that it is a situation where we would be blazing a very new and, possibly, very delicate trail for which there is certainly no precedent here——
Nonsense. We have it in the universities.
To the extent that the Deputy is proposing?
Yes, of course.
Students in that proportion?
Students and staff together.
We cannot have a discussion across the floor of the House.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I was provoked by the Parliamentary Secretary.
When one considers, both collectively and individually, the staff and student representation, one will find that this is a precedent. It is not reasonable to ask that we should go further, because if this college is to be what we might call a channel of influence on the public and on the public attitude towards art and artistic creation it is important that there will be others on the board who are not associated directly with the college——
Of course.
——and if those others on the board are to be in the minority, as the Deputy would have it under his proposal, I wonder whether what we all desire can be achieved, that is, the artistic reawakening of all of us and not only those within the college. For that reason I suggest to the Deputy that we are going quite a long way——
Backwards.
If that is going backwards, there is no hope that the Deputy will see my proposal on this. The Deputy is not only going forward: he is going head over heels.
The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks illuminate this difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition, or part of the Opposition anyway.
Exactly. That is what has been absent significantly during all this debate, although sometimes, at Question Time, the Opposition show great concern for the College of Art.
On this aspect of autonomy the Labour Party representatives might have a different view, but I am putting the views of my own party. Our attitude is that at the third level in particular academic institutions should, in large measure, be self-governing but that at the same time it is desirable that at the third level and, indeed, at post-primary level also, the public interest be represented. It is that principle that has formed our third level education in this country since the Universities Act of 1908.
Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary said, 13 of the 34 members of the governing bodies of the universities are public representatives, appointed either by the Minister or selected in various ways by the local authorities or in the case of UCD ex officio by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The Government of that time, which I have already had occasion to contrast favourably with the present administration, took the view that on the one hand the principle of self-government of an academic institution should be preserved and that it should therefore provide within itself the majority of the representatives on the governing body, but that there should be a significant and strong minority representation of the public interest. That principle is a good one.
I regret that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should take a different view. It is a step backwards at this stage to move away from the concept of staff and students being the people principally concerned with running an educational institution with the help of outsiders who can bring a breath of fresh air to the institution and prevent it from becoming inbred. To many people, including myself, the representation in respect of the NUI is unsatisfactory and anti-democratic, but the basic concept of the students and staff and the graduates having a majority representation and the public interest having a minority representation is a good one. I regret that principle is now being rejected. Perhaps the original drafting of the Bill was designed specifically to put them in a minority. That is a pity.
The Minister regretted that I should put down an amendment on the question of the presence on the board of a civil servant. The Minister is wrong about this. In saying that he is being over-influenced by a loyalty to his own staff, which is commendable in itself but which should not be allowed to affect legislation of considerable durability. The Minister and his staff may have had a raw deal. They may have been criticised unfairly. The Minister and his staff are entitled to feel that is so. It is commendable that the Minister should express his views about this matter but he should not be so moved by it as to enshrine it in legislation even negatively, by non-exclusion——
That is going a bit far.
The Minister is doing this by refusing to accept my amendment. I am giving the Minister the chance to cover this point and to provide that no member of the College Council shall be a civil servant. For the Minister not to accept the amendment is to insist that this issue be kept open and that civil servants could be appointed. This is bad for the general reason I have stated earlier. I see no reason for departing from that principle. It is also bad because of the history of the college. The Minister misunderstands me in thinking that I am over-sensitive when he takes the line he does on this point. In relation to this, I have not said that particular civil servants were unacceptable. I did not comment on who was responsible for the problems of the college. I avoided speaking on these matters in this debate.
The Minister knows more about the problems of the college than I do, and if it is the case that all the blame rests with the staff and the students and none with the civil servants—though I find it hard to believe that and I have some evidence to the contrary in relation to one particular matter which I produced in this House—the fact remains that this college is in a position where, because of the manner in which it has been allowed to run on under the present arrangements which the Minister himself says are not suitable, a polarisation has built up which has created a neurosis on both sides. I cannot say whether the civil servants are feeling sensitive about the way they have been treated. I suspect that they must feel badly. They should never have been involved in trying to do this job which was politically imposed on them. The staff and students feel a neurosis about the civil servants involved. If they feel that, it is irrelevant whether they are justified in their feelings or whether it is their own fault or whether the civil servants behaved skilfully or impeccably throughout.
If that feeling exists it is desirable to avoid starting this thing off on the wrong foot. This could lead to a continuation of attitudes which will do damage. The Minister said that it was not his intention to appoint civil servants to the board. The appointment of civil servants at this stage could lead to a continuation of damaging attitudes. The Minister wished to leave the question open because there might be a civil servant of considerable artistic ability at some time and he could be very useful on the board. I accept that. Poetry and literature in this country have been enriched by the Civil Service. Much of the talent in this country is contained in the Civil Service. It is surprising that the contributions of civil servants to the culture of this country have not been very great.
The Minister has said that he does not intend to appoint a civil servant to the board, and, on the basis that there could be a reason at some future stage why a particular civil servant could prove for artistic reasons eminently suitable, I shall not press this part of the amendment. I regret that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are insistent on the principle of minority participation for staff and students. The whole concept of participation by people in the running of their own affairs is one which the Government have failed to grasp. Perhaps this is so because they have been in office throughout the whole period when the growth of this feeling has emerged. One must cast one's mind back to when this Government came into office. The Government have been in office rather a long time. There may be a divergence of views as to whether they have been in office too long or not. They have been here rather a long time by the normal standards of democratic government. When they came into office vocational bodies were only beginning to play an effective and useful role. The concept of people running their own affairs instead of having everything done for them paternalistically by the State was something new. This concept did not emerge in the early decades of the State. From the late 1950's onwards, and particularly in the 1960's, Irish people have come to feel that they have a role to play in running their own affairs. This Government, having been in office throughout this whole period of resurgence in the real sense of Sinn Féin, have retained paternalistic attitudes which were perhaps necessary until the 1950's but are now completely outmoded. One of the reasons why the Government seem irrelevant to some people——
I wonder how all this is relevant? The Deputy may be taking advantage of the fact that we cannot reply to this. How relevant is all this to the College of Art? It is enlightening, but hardly relevant.
I had overlooked the fact that there can be no reply. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will find another occasion to come back on this point. It is relevant to point out the divergence of attitudes. It is regrettable that this divergence is showing up so much in this instance. Sixty years ago students were not thought of as having a role. We now seem to be coming to where the role of the college in the running of its own affairs is to be diminished. It would appear that the staff and students together are now to have only a minority role in the running of their own affairs. This is a mistake.
Is amendment No. 11 withdrawn?
I want to press the first part of it and to withdraw the second part. I will formally press it in view of the strength of my feelings on the first part.
In order to save the ministerial amendment No. 13 I am putting the question in this way: That all words down to and including "of" in line 4 stand part?
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Amendment No. 13 is a ministerial amendment, and with amendment No. 13 we can take amendments Nos. 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 27 and 29. These form a composite proposal. Amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy Dr. FitzGerald is an alternative proposal. If amendment No. 14 is agreed, Deputy FitzGerald's amendment cannot be moved.
Which amendment of mine cannot be moved?
If amendment No. 14 is agreed then amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy FitzGerald cannot be moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, line 4, to delete "ordinary" and substitute "other".
The position is that the chairman will be elected from among the members and not appointed directly by the Minister. The question of ordinary members vis-à-vis the chairman will not arise. Do I deal also with amendment No. 14 now?
They can be discussed together but there need not necessarily be a debate on each amendment.
Deputy FitzGerald will note that again I am taking cognisance of the comments he made on Committee Stage that the members of An Bord should nominate the chairman from among their members. It will be noted that in my amendment certain members of the board are specifically excluded from being nominated as chairman. These are the director, the two teacher representatives and the two student representatives. I do not think anybody could reasonably suggest that the chairman should be appointed from among those operating inside the college, those employed day in and day out in the college. I strongly feel that the chairman should be detached and neutral. I should add I have gone a long way towards meeting the case made by Deputy FitzGerald on Committee Stage in agreeing that, while the chairman will be appointed by the Minister, he will be elected by the members of the board.
The Minister has met me very fairly on this. His amendment is a good deal longer and more complicated than mine and I am sure there are very good legal reasons for that. I am sure that in that respect his amendment is better than mine. I note what he says about the chairman not being a staff or student member. Given the form of this institution, that it will have a director who will be an executive and a part-time chairman of the governing board—and I am not convinced that this is necessarily the right formula—I think the Minister is right in that. It would be wrong to have a director while another member of the staff was chairman. This would be topsy-turvy. The Minister is right in making that provision, given the format of the board. We might have thought of a different format altogether but, given that this is what we have, the Minister's amendment meets what I have in mind and covers the technical points involved.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 and 8 and to substitute the following:
"(2) (a) The chairman of An Bord shall be appointed from time to time as occasion requires by the Minister and may, if An Bord so requests and the Minister thinks fit to do so, be removed from the office of chairman by the Minister.
(b) The chairman of An Bord shall be nominated for appointment as chairman by An Bord from among the members of An Bord other than the Director and the members nominated for appointment to An Bord under subsection (6) or (7).
(c) The chairman of An Bord shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns the office of chairman or ceases to be chairman under paragraph (d) of this subsection, hold office until the expiration of his term of office as a member of An Bord.
(d) Where the chairman of An Bord ceases during his term of office as chairman to be a member of An Bord, he shall also then cease to be chairman of An Bord."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, line 13, after "Office" to insert "as chairman".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, line 15, to delete "An ordinary" and to substitute "A".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, line 17, to delete "ordinary".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Perhaps we could discuss amendment No. 26 with amendment No. 22. It is a cognate amendment.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, at the end of line 20, to insert "provided that the method of choice shall either involve a single election employing the single transferable vote or, if two separate elections are held for the two nominations, the numbers of electors in each case shall be approximately equal".
This is a variation of a Committee Stage amendment. The Minister implied reasonably enough on Committee Stage that my amendment tied down the system of election too closely and that it might also have had a slightly ideological air about it, as if I were trying to push PR as the only possible system even in this type of election. In the light of those considerations I tried to see how one could so word an amendment as to exclude the danger to which I adverted at some length last week, a danger for which the Minister should have more concern, the danger of any group of either staff or students dominating the representation if they had 51 per cent of the votes, or possibly in some instances less, and getting both the seats.
In view of the desirability of avoiding that and the desirability of leaving the method of election as open as possible I devised this amendment. If there is to be an open election for the two posts together, there is no way I can think of of doing this in a manner that will not leave open the bloc vote system with 51 per cent getting both the seats, except the transferable vote. My knowledge of electoral systems is limited. Maybe there is something I have not thought of but I cannot think of any other way of doing it. One way of avoiding the dilemma which would be posed by such an electoral system would be to have two separate elections and to divide the staff and students into two constituencies.
My other amendment excluded this possibility, or did not advert to it. It did not leave open the possibility of a simple "X" vote system. I am convinced that PR is preferable but I do not want to be ideological about it. If half the staff were temporary and half were permanent we could divide them into two groups. I hope the proportion of permanent staff will be far higher than half in future. There is no reason why we should not have two constituencies and let each elect one person. It seems quite a good idea to let them each elect their own representative instead of having an election for two representatives in which one group might sweep the board leaving half of the staff unrepresented.
Therefore it is desirable to amend my original amendment and to leave this open. It is the same in the case of the students. A similar division could be effected. If the Minister does not want to introduce a PR election for two seats, it is open to him, under this amendment, to divide the students into two groups—foundation students and other students, perhaps, if they are of approximately equal size—and to have two separate elections so that they will both be represented. This amendment is more open than the other. It is designed to be as open as possible while excluding only one thing, that is, a single election for two seats by an "X" system.
I commend and recommend the amendment to the Minister. I hope he is prepared to consider it because, as far as I can see, the only form of election it excludes is the one dangerous form of election which we should properly exclude. It would leave it open to those concerned to devise their own system subject to a single limitation. I could have drafted it the other way around and done it by exclusion but I found difficulty in describing in suitable technical language the "X" voting system for two seats. I am sure it has a suitable term and if Miss Enid Lakeman were around I could have asked her but in her absence I was not too sure how it should be described properly. Instead of doing it by exclusion I did it in this form.
The amendment or something like it is desirable. It avoids the danger of a system under which half of the students and/or half of the staff might be unrepresented. I was worried by the Minister's statement on the last occasion that he would accept any system proposed by a majority because 51 per cent of the students or staff could propose a system under which they would get both seats. It could have very unfortunate results if half of those concerned in either group were unrepresented. I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to my amendment.
When the Deputy was speaking earlier he tended to think that I was tied too closely to the situation as it is at present and that many of the proposals formulated by me were formulated because of this. He mentioned in particular the situation in relation to civil servants. My reaction at that time in my own mind—I was not permitted to reply to him—was that I could hardly visualise him putting down that specific type of amendment if he did not have at the back of his mind what the situation had been like in the college.
The Minister may not have read what I have written on that subject, in other contexts altogether.
When we are directing our attention to this Bill—and I agree that there is a certain amount of difficulty in it—we should try to get away from what the present situation is and what the situation has been for the past year or two. We should try to make our proposals on the basis of what we would hope it will be like in the future. For that reason I believe that it would create a better atmosphere if I were to leave the method of election open as I am doing.
I gave all the reasons when we were discussing this on Committee Stage as to why I do not propose to tie the hands of the teachers or students in the type of election they would adopt. I do not propose to go back over that again. I would qualify it in this way that perhaps I should have said that I am prepared to accept, within reason, proposals regarding elections put forward by teachers and students. Having listened to Deputy FitzGerald, while not willing to accept his particular method—it has no bearing on PR; it is simply that I do not want to tie anybody's hands at this stage—it is as well that I should re-emphasise what I have said here, that is, that I would accept the proposals put forward by the teachers and students, within reason.
I find difficulty sometimes in relation to Deputy FitzGerald's amendments that he tends at times to make arguments which run counter to what he has been plugging—if you like to put it that way—in relation to this Bill all the time, that is, that things should be left as free as possible. I have endeavoured to meet him in relation to this in many instances and I did accept in relation to some of the proposals he put forward that they were an improvement on the proposals that I had originally put in the Bill and I accepted them on that basis; but in this particular case he seeks to control the situation too rigidly. Of course, he has given his arguments for this. Nevertheless, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves it would possibly create an atmosphere of goodwill if the students and the teachers and myself could come to an agreement as to the best possible manner in which the election could take place. That is why I prefer to leave it open rather than to tie down the situation, so that we could have discussions on this and come as near as possible to agreement on it.
Another aspect is that elections will take place on a number of occasions. There will be the first election and then after a number of years another election, and so on. If it is found that the first type of election devised or agreed upon does not turn out to be satisfactory over a period of years it will be possible to alter it.
Satisfactory to whom?
Particularly to the students and teachers because they will be the ones who will be most likely to argue the point if they do not happen to turn out properly for them. Then it is always open to us to have a look at it again and to decide and agree between us as to a new system.
I have accepted on a previous occasion that the Deputy is a very able debater but in this instance he is arguing to a very considerable extent against the type of case that in general terms he has argued in relation to the college generally. I want to emphasise that in order to create a reasonably good atmosphere what I would like to do is to try to come to an agreement with the students and with the teachers as to the type of elections they would prefer. Again having listened, as I said, to the Deputy, I want to stress the words "within reason".
I wonder if the Deputy is convinced or if I might just add a few words to what the Minister has said?
I am not convinced. The Parliamentary Secretary's contribution might be worth while.
I hope so. The Deputy, in fact, has proved one thing by putting down the alternative, that is, that the amendment he had the last day was not the final answer. All of us will agree that the single transferable vote is one of the equitable types of voting but when the Deputy then saw the other alternative—on the last occasion he only had that particular choice—it is evident that the argument we posed on the last day is relevant, that there may well be other types and that if we write into the legislation these specific provisions that the Deputy requests, we are excluding all these other types.
What are they?
If I might suggest one or two of them—again I am not the expert on this but, from recollection of the Constitutional Committee Report, there is, for instance, a well-known system of election, the points system, where one's first choice is worth, let us say, ten points. This is a system used throughout the world, not as regularly as what is called the straight vote or what is called proportional representation. Nevertheless, the record is there that it does exist and, possibly, for people of the artistic temperament of the electorate in this case, it may in many ways reflect a balancing of their first choice and second choice and, in some ways, a valuation of what the first choice means and what the second choice means. That system does exist and who is to say whether or not art teachers or art students might not like that very system? If we accept the Deputy's amendment, they are not entitled to use it and we will have to come back to the House to propose an amendment. God forbid that that would happen for a purpose of that sort.
I hope I am not misinterpreting the Deputy. I would readily share his concern if there were a possibility of two blocks, block A and block B, one possibly 51 per cent and the other 49 per cent. Has the Deputy not thought of the possibility that in this very House we have three blocks and we have had in the past four blocks and five blocks. Is there any reason why in the College of Art one would be confined to just two blocks of students? You could have a situation arising where some students would, for instance, be proposing greater representation on the board for the students and less for the staff and who would make it the plank of their election campaign that they would propose that to whoever they should propose it. Others might have different views. Others again might have different views.
I have to grant that in what one might call normal circumstances, if we always had a guarantee of normal circumstances, the proposal the Deputy has put down is both desirable and, I would suggest, even adequate. But who is to say that we would always have normal circumstances and who is to say that the students or the staff might not opt for other systems? If they do, then I think the Deputy would be just as reluctant as we are to bring it all back into the House for the purpose of amending the system.
I feel that the Minister is doing in this case the prudent thing, that is, that he will accept the system of election, subject to reason, that the students and staff propose. This may, in fact, mean that, if they use one system in an election, next year they may propose a different system and, if it is an accepted system of election there is no reason why it should not commend itself. But if we accept this amendment we are tied to it for all times, at least tied to it in the absence of amendment here.
I find the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments more convincing than the Minister's in this particular case and I am glad that he rose to give us his arguments. He has made a case against the amendment on the grounds that it limits the students to two possible systems and there may be others. I think it is rather notional because this points system, all right, exists somewhere but I cannot imagine where because I cannot remember what I read in the Constitutional Committee Report four years ago. But in this country, in fact, the only systems of voting which are known or thought of are basically the ones mentioned here. Therefore, the point is rather theoretical. I am much more worried about a practical point which does not seem to have struck either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. I am wondering are they perhaps a little insensitive to the situation they may face. I expressed fears that the electoral system proposed may be one designed to secure both seats for a particular block. The Minister has responded at this stage—which he did not do at the other stage—showing some sensitivity on this score and has modified his initial enthusiasm for adopting whatever the students or staff suggest by saying "within reason". The difficulty he is going to face here is, quite frankly, this. If the students or staff put forward a proposal of the kind I have mentioned—again with the clear intention of securing all the seats for a bare majority of the group concerned and the Minister puts his foot down then and says: "No, I will not have it, it is not within reason", he is building in a new sort of conflict. If I were the Minister I would be trying to build out all possible sources of conflict and to work myself out of this college and its affairs to the maximum degree possible, consonant with the role of Minister for Education as the man who has to provide the money ultimately.
I fear that by leaving it on the basis of being with the consent of the Minister we are building in potential conflict. The Minister's belief that it will all be sorted out by sitting down around a table with the students and the staff and reason prevailing is not likely to happen. The recent history of the college would not suggest that this is a realistic assumption. The Minister is making a grave mistake here. I accept that my amendment can be criticised, as it has been by the Parliamentary Secretary, as being a little narrow. It would perhaps have been better if I had confined the possible election systems——
I do not think anyone could do better than the Deputy. I am not criticising the Deputy's amendment on that basis.
Thank you. It might have been done better in this way, if it was possible to provide something which would exclude by law the particular type of danger I have mentioned, that is the system in which an X system is used for a two-seat constituency. I just lack the technical expertise in description of this voting system to put it down on paper and therefore I took the easy way out by doing it the other way round which perhaps, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said may be at least theoretically a mistake.
I would like the Minister just to think about this—let it stand for the moment—between now and going to the other House because I really am worried about the possibility of conflicts being built in which we have now isolated. It would not help at all if, before you even get the new board elected, in order to get it elected and to hand over the college to this group, get the Minister and his Department out of the act, the first thing that happens is that he gets into conflict with the staff and/or students under the electoral system because they want the system which he for the very good reasons that I put forward in this House does not want them to adopt. That will not start things off on the right foot.
It would be better, I think, if instead of the Minister being put on the spot as an individual in the situation where already he has been in disagreement with some of those concerned, shall we say if the law were clear in the matter, that he did not have any option and he could not be blamed.
Let the blame be put on this House, and, indeed, on the Opposition if necessary, for proposing the exclusion of a system which could lead to a block vote and let the Minister be in the position of saying: "I am sorry, I cannot allow that system. Under pressure from the Fine Gael Opposition in the House I have agreed to exclude this system. You will have to have something else". If he does not put down some amendment like that in the other House I am afraid he is building in a possible source of conflict for himself and I think this is undesirable.
I would like the Minister to have another look at that between now and the time the matter is discussed in the other House. I am merely thinking of his point of view. I am not stressing any partisan view. I am trying to save the Minister and the college trouble. The Minister finally implied inconsistency on my part in my approach. It is not the first time he has said that. All I can do is to suggest that if he feels there is inconsistency it may be because he has not found it possible to follow all the subtleties of my thought rather than that I am inconsistent.
There are two principles involved here. One is the autonomy of this institution: get the Minister and his Department out of it; let it run itself with the minimum amount of involvement. We have done that in the Bill. The Minister has accepted a number of amendments to take out "with the consent of the Minister" and so on. That is important both because the general principle of autonomy is desirable in higher education and particularly because of the extent of the close involvement of the Minister and his Department in this college to date. The second thing, having taken the Minister out, is to leave the institution as free as possible within the limits of prudence and of what this House considers desirable.
You have to take both of these principles together. When I say as free as possible I really mean that. I mean there should be no limitation put into this Bill that is not shown demonstrably to be necessary. I have proposed none and I propose to get rid of them but prudence may require certain limitations. There are limitations in the Bill. It, in various ways, lays down what can and what cannot be done. I have not quarrelled with most of those and nobody would. It is common sense that any institution must have some constitution to abide by, which it cannot play around with and fiddle with. The constitution of this body has been laid down by the House but you should not build in any unnecessary restrictions.
It is in pursance of those two principles that I am proposing this amendment. I want to get the Minister out of the act for very good reasons, good from the Minister's point of view as well as this House and I want to have no unnecessary restrictions but there is a necessary restriction. Any electoral system which enables half of those concerned to get all representation is a bad system and it is a necessary limitation on the college that that should be prevented. I will go along with any necessary limitation to ensure the college works and I will oppose any which is not shown to be necessary. I do not think I am in any way inconsistent in pursuing those principles.
I hope the Minister, having heard me explain much more clearly than I had done previously, what has motivated me in moving this amendment to this Bill, will accept that I am not as inconsistent as he seems to be making me out to be. I commend the amendment to the Minister for further thought.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, line 21, to delete "ordinary".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
As amendment No. 25 involves a matter of substance not arising from the Committee proceedings, it is necessary to recommit the amendment.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 25.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 5, after line 24, but in subsection (7), to insert the following paragraph:
(b) The first appointments under this subsection shall be made as soon as reasonably may be after the establishment day, but An Bord may act before such appointments are made.
I felt it necessary to submit this amendment because of the definition here of student which means a person who stands entered on the students roll of the college and is following an approved course of study there. In view of the fact that the college is closed at the present time and is likely to remain closed until such time as the board is appointed I felt it was necessary to amend this particular subsection. As there are not, nor will there be, until the college is re-opened, students in the college following approved courses of study it would be impossible to appoint student members. I fear that this would create a complete obstacle to the appointment of An Bord. The amendment which I now propose, and which is before the House, will ensure that An Bord can be established in spite of the difficulties I have outlined.
The Minister worries me deeply because this is something which has not been suggested before. I am astonished to hear that this college has no students. I understood that the college had students but that it is temporarily not working for various reasons which we need not go into. The Minister seems to be suggesting that this board is to be established without student representation and that it is to open the college. The Minister is likely to make the opening of the college more difficult by proceeding in that manner. It seems to me to be very important that from the beginning the students should be represented in order to get the college opened. We may be going round in what could be a very vicious circle here.
I wonder could the Minister explain what he means when he says there are no students. I understood that the college opened, the students were there and certain work proceeded. In the foundation course two of the teachers said they would not give the course they had been given until they had got instructions. I am not aware of the position of the other teachers but there are five teachers in the foundation course. The students attended. Some teachers, including one of those dismissed, did in fact give some lectures or talks to the students. The foundation students were there and I cannot understand why there are no students.
There may be some legal technicality similar to the question of registration in UCD at the moment. The college authorities there have been talking about having no students. This is a legal technicality. I can tell the Minister that the place is full of students.
Even on the day of the strike there were many students in the college and barring that day the place is packed with students. It would be most unfortunate if on any legal, technical grounds the Minister proceeded to try to establish this board without student representation. I would like to suggest that instead of adopting this expediency the Minister would consult his legal adviser as to what, if anything, may be necessary in order to enable the first elections to take place prior to the opening of the college or as soon as this Bill goes through, and the people whom we know as students of the College of Art, whatever their legal position, the ones who turned up to be taught, but who are not being taught, at the beginning of the term were elected at the same time as the staff.
I would press the Minister very hard on this. I am shocked to hear that there is any suggestion to the contrary and I fear, lest we place any further obstacles in the way of the re-opening of the college. If this is a legal technicality let the Minister consult his advisers and let us put in whatever clause may be necessary here. It may be that some special section is needed saying that in the first election by the students the electors shall be those students in attendance at the college last year and who presented themselves again this year, having fulfilled certain requirements, and those foundation year students who presented themselves at the beginning of the year, and their identity shall be determined by some officer of the college. There is no difficulty in devising some ad hoc legal formula to ensure that all the students who were there in the first week of the college will vote. There are enough problems in the way of getting this college re-opened without adding to them by giving any students, some of whom may not be as enthusiastic for getting things going as smoothly again as others, any excuse to say that this college had been started off without student representation, that the director will be appointed, that it is all a way of keeping students out. Do not let us do anything to enable anyone, whether genuinely or acting as an agitator, to say things like that. I think the Minister should reconsider the amendment along the lines I propose.
I think the Deputy is unduly alarmed in reading far too much into the amendment.
I am not. I fear what others will read into it.
So that we would all agree on this and so that in fact we would convey the notion that there is no cause for alarm, it is important that any anxieties would be cleared up. "Student" as defined in the Bill means a person who stands entered in the students' roll of the college and is following an approved course of study there. I would submit that that is a reasonable definition of a student of the college in the circumstances.
In the ordinary way.
In the ordinary way. In laying down a structure under which students will be represented on the board, under which students will be entitled to scholarships, under which students will pay fees, under which in any way students will have an association with the college and the board, the Bill takes into consideration the ordinary circumstances. Just when the Bill had been drafted it arose that there were no students as such.
Question?
There are no students following an approved course of study there now.
Supposing the college had closed and the election were to take place in the Christmas holidays?
The college has closed.
There is an interruption in the course just as there is in the Christmas holidays.
I do not wish to argue the merits of whether or not it should be closed or the grounds on which the decision was taken. That is a different matter entirely. If we accept the fact that the college is now closed, under the Bill as it stands possibly the board could not even be constituted which, one would hope, would be the first step towards re-establishing normality in the college under this autonomous board, with all students and staff and everyone else concerned. For that reason, the important thing is to allow that first step of normality to be taken even in present circumstances and this is precisely what this amendment is about.
It prevents it.
It does not. Very clearly it relates only to this particular time. It says here:
The first appointment under this subsection shall be made as soon as reasonably may be after the establishment day, but An Bord may act before such appointments are made.
It refers only to the first appointment. There is no question of this being a permanent exclusion. It is simply intended to overcome the rather unusual situation that you do not have students within the definition of the Bill at present. As soon as the board are constitued and as soon as we have students, and we hope that will be as soon as possible, then the normal provisions of the Bill will come into effect. It can be argued—and this is where the Deputy might have had some grounds—that one would just look on the absence of students in the ordinary course as creating vacancies and the board could have acted in any event. It could possibly be argued that the board could have acted and could have continued to act without making any reference to this first appointment only. However, the fact that the Minister has seen fit to make it clearly refer to the present situation and the first appointments means that that potential disquiet cannot now arise. Whatever grounds there may be for dissatisfaction—and we all hope normality will be restored soon— there can be no grounds for any suspicion arising out of this amendment. It is purely meant to deal with the situation as it is, and I would hope we could put it forward to all concerned on that basis.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is just being a little bit naïve in saying it does not create any problem. I quite see the amendment is designed to enable the board to be established, that as soon as the college is re-opened the students would be enrolled and the election would then proceed. It is good to have that made clear, I suppose. However, the problem remains that the board will be appointed, will organise the re-opening of the college, will perhaps take the first steps towards the appointment of a director—that is a matter of great urgency—and will do this without student representation. This creates very serious dangers. Certainly I would hope it will not, and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary can be assured that anything I can do, if this goes through in this form, to persuade the students to co-operate, I will do. However, I am afraid the Minister is playing into the hands of anyone who wants to make difficulties, because in this form the students will not have representation on the board which will re-open the college. Of all the places where you want student representation it is on the board which has to perform this difficult task when the college re-opens. It is very important to reconsider this. There may be legal difficulties, although it would seem to me that there should not be, I presume the students were on some kind of a roll; perhaps they were not. Perhaps they were so disorganised that that never happened. Perhaps like the university it takes several weeks before the registration process begins. My assumption was that there were students, but the college had been suspended for a period, which could be regarded as a prolonged Christmas holiday. After all, the college is not open at Christmas and Easter. There are still students pursuing courses of studies, although they are not actually pursuing them on Christmas day.
That does not hold water. They are not pursuing approved courses.
It holds water in the sense that if the college once opens for an academic year, the students are enrolled and they are pursuing approved courses of studies which have been temporarily suspended just as they are during the holidays. Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that during the Christmas holidays they could not have an election because at that particular moment students are not pursuing a course of studies?
Of course I am not.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that, then the definition of pursuing a course of studies does not entail students being in the college on that day pursuing a course of studies. It accepts that there can be interruptions. The nature and extent of those interruptions are undefined. Either the College of Art opened and the students enrolled, or they did not. If they did enrol then they are on the roll for this academic year. There is an interruption which is akin in legal terms, but not in any other terms, to holidays. If, in fact, there is a legal problem and if they have not enrolled, fair enough, but, either way, the Minister must find some way around it. We cannot leave legislation in this form. We cannot have a vicious circle where some students might persuade their colleagues that the college should not re-open if there are no student representatives on the board and, therefore, the re-opening date may be held up. What is required here is a commonsense approach. We know who the students are. Everybody knows what students turned up. It is not such a huge place. The number of new students is quite small. The names of them are known to the staff. It is merely a question of making a list of these students, having them vote and getting the new board going with full student representation. If that requires legal formality to overcome the legal effect of the definition section, then let us devise an appropriate formula for that saying that: "Notwithstanding the definition of student in section 1, for the purpose of the first election anybody who attended at the college and pursued a course of studies there on such and such dates shall be construed as being a student of the college". I cannot draft something on my feet which will pass the parliamentary draftsman, but something on those lines could be done. There is no legal obstacle and commonsense dictates this should be done. We should not risk anything that will endanger the smooth and peaceful re-opening of the college.
Perhaps I might add my voice to that of Deputy FitzGerald's. He is, I think, perhaps characteristically, more one who seeks a compromise than I do but, in this case, I want to endorse what he has been saying because there is a real confrontation situation here. There is a sort of hen or egg situation; you cannot have a valid election of student representation to the board until you get the college going and you cannot get the college going until you have valid student elections and student representatives on the board. It is a vicious circle.
There are two sides to this. The final act of suspending the college was taken by the Minister. As I understand it, the academic year has begun and, unless there is some very elaborate registration mechanism, there are recognised students in all years, including the foundation course. There has been a suspension. I am interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's insistence on the words "approved course of studies" because I find it hard to believe that an institution of third level teaching under the control of the Minister would have any courses other than approved courses. I believe there are registered students and that there is a student roll. I believe the student year started. There may be holes in the roll, but it does exist, and there are courses of study which have at least the approval of past ministerial decision and the sanction of use over many years. I know there are courses one could criticise, but at least they are there and they have been functioning. There is no radical departure from what were approved courses in other years. One could have endless semantic or legal arguments as to how comparable the present recess is with the normal vacation, but that is not the heart of the matter. One is really looking for a way to get the thing going again and surely a resumption under the present dispensation would enable the situation to arise in which it could happen approved courses of study were being followed by students on a roll. I think the mechanism should be gone through in that way. If you insist the present college is dead and nothing can exist until the new board takes over, you cannot get a valid board off the ground until something is functioning and that something cannot function properly until you have a valid board. Deputy FitzGerald's compromise gets everybody off the hook. While I do not always approve of compromise I am happy to endorse it in this particular case. I suggest the Minister might consider what Deputy FitzGerald suggests.
I am not concerned with legal arguments. I am concerned with the practical approach to this problem.
Hear, hear.
The fact is that one entire class has not yet enrolled or did not enrol before the college was closed. In any case, this would be a new college and, on that basis, nobody is enrolled. Deputy FitzGerald seems to be concerned about when the students could be elected and appointed to the board. First of all, I want to ensure that the board will be legally constituted. The Parliamentary Secretary has gone into that aspect pretty fully. I visualise the college opening, the students going back, being enrolled and immediately electing their representatives to be appointed by me to the board. I cannot see where this will make any great difficulty. The basic consideration is to ensure that the board as constituted will be a legally constituted board. If I could have avoided putting down this amendment I would have avoided it. I was not anxious to put forward a subsection like this, but I recognised the need for it. In fact what I am doing here is protecting the legality of the board. I can assure Deputy FitzGerald that, immediately the students are enrolled and following approved courses, the election will take place and those elected will be appointed by me to the board. That will be done as quickly as possible. Whatever we may argue about the principle of the thing, the practical situation is that, unless we operate in this way, we will not have a legally constituted board. A legally constituted board is of basic importance. We cannot open the college at all until we have a board to open it. As I said earlier, it does not appear as if it will be possible to open the college until such time as the new authority is appointed. If that is so, then we must have a proper authority and, when that authority is appointed, we can have the college opened, the students enrolled, following approved courses, and immediately having their election and being appointed to the board.
There is plenty of evidence to show that the Minister listens to his advisers but there is less evidence to show that he listens to me. There is no evidence in his reply that he took in either of the points I was making or the solution I proposed. The Minister may either reject the point or reject the solution, but he should if debate is to mean anything, at least advert to them; this he did not do. First of all, he starts with a basic misconception. He said an extraordinary thing for which there is no warrant of any kind in the Bill: this is really a new college and there are no students of the new college in existence now and, even if it were opened, there would not be any students until it is established. I cannot follow that at all. I read section 1 of the Bill: a student of the college, as it now is, means a person who stands entered in the student roll of the college. I want to know what the college is. Where do I go? I look at section 1 again and I find the college has the meaning specified in section 2 of this Act. I then move down to section 2. It is customary for draftsmen to send one chasing around. Section 2, subsection (1) states:
In this Act "the College" means the college of art, crafts and design known as the National College of Art and situate at Kildare Street, Dublin.
and in section 2:
In this Act "the College" means the college of art, crafts and design known as the National College of Art and situated at Kildare Street, Dublin.
It is spelt out there. It is not a question that there is no college in existence now; the existing college is having its organisation transformed and there are students of the National College of Art situated at Kildare Street, Dublin. That is the definition here: they exist and, had this whole thing not happened, this closure, they would be students of that college and they would be entitled to elect. To suggest that until the new college comes into existence and the board is appointed you cannot have elections because there are no students and therefore there can be no staff of the college on that principle—this is ludicrous. I think the Minister at that point slipped up. I suspect that was not in the brief he had, that it was a momentary aberration on his part.
Having dealt with that, or putting it on one side, the Minister has not adverted at all to the point I made. He talks of it all being so simple: you set up this board without the students: then open the college; the students come trooping back and you have your election. Surely, by now the Minister has enough experience of student problems, particularly at the National College of Art, not to assume that life would ever be very simple where students are concerned. They may not see it this way. It may be— and I regret it is necessary in this debate, because the matter has been raised, to talk in such terms; I do not want to put ideas into anyone's head, but it is necessary, if we are to get this matter cleared up and avoid trouble, to get it settled at this stage.
I say to the Minister that it may not happen like that. It is possible the students may be unhappy about going back into a college whose board does not include student representatives under the Bill and the fact that they are to be told as soon as they come back and as soon as they follow approved courses of study—whatever they are; approved by whom is not at all clear—that then there will be an election at a stage when the board may already have taken very fundamental decisions about the running of the college and perhaps decisions about the appointment of a director. The students may very well be unhappy about that.
The Minister should advert to the suggestion I made. He said he is not concerned with legalities, that he wants to get on with the practical business of opening the college, taking merely whatever legal steps are necessary. I am in exactly the same position. I want the college re-opened. It is a practical problem. Let us find a practical solution and let the parliamentary draftsman put it in legal language.
I suggested a formula which I think would meet the point. There is a doubt at least as to whether there are at this moment students of the college as defined in section (1). If there is such a doubt what is required is a transitional section in the Bill to say that notwithstanding the definition of students in section (1), for the purpose of the first nominations by students of two members of the board those people shall be deemed to be students —"deemed" is the parliamentary draftsman's great word on such occasions—who were attending the college and pursuing a course of study there —if he likes to say it—in whatever week it was in October. I am quite sure that if the Minister can see the wisdom and desirability of it and the dangers of not accepting it and goes to the parliamentary draftsman there will be no difficulty in drafting a legal formula to achieve this practical result which will enable the elections to proceed simultaneously for staff and students and avoid the creation of any excuse for students not participating for the reopening of the college on what would be no doubt, in the Minister's view, and might very well be, spurious grounds of their not being represented.
Spurious or valid is irrelevant; if you give the students grounds for feeling that there may well be people to make the most of that who will thereby hold up the opening of the college. It is very unwise not to have the students in on the board on the ground floor from the very first meeting, when the board begins to regulate its procedure and elect a chairman. How is this board to proceed? Will it elect a chairman without the students being present to have a voice in that? If it does not elect a chairman at its first or early meetings, who will chair it? Has the Minister given thought to this?
The Minister is not listening.
To be fair, I think the Minister is——
It comes from a Deputy who comes in just now to advise a Minister or anybody else when to listen. The Deputy came in about ten minutes ago and was absent——
Let us not lower the tone of the debate.
Nonetheless we have this sort of helpful personal comment from Deputy Keating who has not been here—"the Minister is not listening".
The Deputy had a valid point but the problem arises on every Committee and Report Stage: one makes a constructive suggestion and the Minister naturally wants to consider it. He can only do so by turning his attention away from the speaker who must continue talking. Sometimes I find myself repeating a little in order to give the Minister time to consider what I am saying——
I hope this is not intended to suggest that I was not listening to the Deputy.
No, I am sorry. The Minister was consulting at that moment. I quite understand why he was doing so. He may well have been wondering whether there was not something in what I was saying and was trying to consider it. I can understand that and do not object at all. I was concerned that the Minister should take the point I was making because it is a new point I am raising and I should like to put it to him. It relates to the chairmanship. When the board meets, presumably the first thing it must do is nominate a chairman for the Minister to appoint. Will that come before the student members are there? Will they have a voice in the election of the chairman or not? I doubt if the Minister has thought out the full implications of this. If the students do not have that right and the chairman is elected without their having a say in it, they will probably—and I say advisedly—properly resent this procedure. On the other hand, if no chairman is to be chosen how will the board proceed in its early stages? I do not know what the Minister has in mind. He should spell it out in greater detail.
It is very urgent to have a director appointed; the college cannot get properly off the ground without a director. It will have a difficult year until there is a director and I think the board at its very first meeting should initiate procedure to advertise for a director. Will it draft an advertisement in the absence of student members who may have very good and constructive ideas as to how one should seek a director? If the Minister thinks about it he must realise that in the particular circumstances of this case it would be more than unfortunate, it would be disastrous if the student members were not present from the very beginning to elect a chairman and choose the director and get the college on its feet. Apart from any spurious grounds that might be raised by people trying to make trouble, there are valid grounds that any decent student anxious to play his part would feel strongly about and that would entitle him to object to the procedure which the Minister now proposes.
I suggest that between now and when the Bill goes to the other House the Minister should consider a formula of the kind I have proposed, under which the first election of students, on an ad hoc definition of students, would take place simultaneously with the election of members and staff representatives, so that the board with its full compliment would get off the ground from the very beginning and at the first meeting we would have a full attendance of students and staff representatives to elect a chairman and move towards choosing a director.
I fully appreciate some of the points I have made may not have come up for consideration until now and the Minister might be in difficulty in deciding what to do at this stage but I put it to him he should consider this further between now and when the Bill goes to the other House.
I take the point that there is a legal difficulty because when this Bill was drafted it was assumed that the transition from the National College of Art to the new College of Art would take place during the normal course of studies; it was not envisaged that the college would be closed. That is a situation that has since arisen. The Minister says he wants to be sure that the board will be legally constituted. There will be no demur about that; it is obviously necessary. But if we turn it around the other way it is arguable that section 6 (7) says that two ordinary members of the board shall be students of the college and if this has not happened, because elections have not been held, could it not then be argued that in fact the board was not legally constituted? Is there not a legal argument, if one is concerned with legality, that works the other way round?
Without this amendment it could be.
Even with it, I suspect.
No. Without this amendment that could be argued.
With respect, I think this is a rather general amendment which makes no reference to the specific difficulty. The board may act before such appointments are made.
What board?
I really think that if somebody with a legalistic turn of mind wanted to argue that the appointment of a chairman and all executive decisions which were made by the "board" before student representatives had been elected to it would be illegal. The Parliamentary Secretary is a lawyer and perhaps we could have an opinion off the top of his head. Is there not a real legal difficulty here in that what the Bill was designing was a transition from a National National College of Art functioning to the new school and that now the National College of Art is not functioning?
If that were the only argument we could look at the amendment to see whether we could substitute another amendment which would mean the same thing.
It is not, of course, the only argument.
There is possibly something in what Deputy Keating says. The transitional proposals that Deputy FitzGerald has made seem to overlook the fact that the Minister has indicated, that a number of students have not enrolled at all. How they can be classified as students I do not know.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that my amendment as formulated took account of that? It referred to students who were in attendance at the college during certain days.
The Deputy would have to have some kind of legal clarity as to what would be "in attendance". If people walked in around the college and walked out again would that qualify them as students? There are a couple of Deputies in the House who did just that. There must be some reasonable clarification about this. If students do not enrol and do not attend lectures, and this appears to be the case with a number of them, how can they be classified as students?
Because they appeared there and wanted to be taught but were not taught, presented themselves to people who took their names and addresses. Surely there must have been some correspondence before that? I know it is a curious place but there must be some system on which it is run.
I appreciate that but the Deputy will have to regard the fact that there must be some regularity in the legal definitions and interpretations and it would be very hard to tie that one up. One could say that all those between such and such an age who attended a the College of Art or thereabouts for a couple of hours and went and had a cup of coffee in that vicinity were students. I know what the Deputy means but how can it be tied down here?
By the Department officials who were involved and know what happened getting together with the legal advisers and working out a form. That is what officials are for.
That is beyond the wit of anybody, including Department officials and legal officials. First year students are students who have not as yet enrolled. What does one do?
Find out who were there. There are only 15, 20 or 30 people involved.
We are talking about a whole class.
May the Chair suggest that we should have contributions and they can be replied to? We are in Committee.
I think the basis of this cross-talk has been that all of us, frankly, share the same intention and each of us is not necessarily trying to score points but just trying to see the way out of a rather unusual situation. I concede that there may be something in what Deputy Keating has said. There may be something too in what I am now saying to Deputy FitzGerald. I do not think Deputy FitzGerald's suggestion in regard to student definition can be accepted. We can all start on the basis that the Minister's proposal is intended as reasonable and we might possibly mend the gap that Deputy Keating has referred to and introduce student representation as soon as ever possible.
It says here:
The first appointment under this subsection shall be made as soon as reasonably may be after establishment date.
The thought that struck me was that if we could get sufficient goodwill all round the way in which we could achieve what the Deputy and I and the Parliamentary Secretary want would be to reopen the college before establishment day. It is a thought that struck me whether it is possible or not. If it were possible we could have the students enrolled and we could go ahead with the election. Otherwise I have to hold by this.
I see the merit of that but there is a difficulty here. The Minister, I think, finds a difficulty in taking any action about the two members of the staff that were dismissed. Many of the students find a difficulty about going back unless this problem is solved. There is a deadlock there which it is difficult to get around but which could be resolved when the college board is appointed. The new board will have to decide what they will do about it. What I envisaged was that the Bill would go through, there would be establishment day, the board appointed, perhaps, when the Christmas holidays would normally start, and the board would then sit down and decide what to do and consult with students and staff and decide what action to take. The board might not be inhibited as perhaps the Minister is in the reappointment of members of the staff. Perhaps they would be. That is a matter for the board itself to decide. It is up to the board to say whether it thinks the staff should be reappointed and whether they think this is necessary or desirable for the good of the college. The board may take either view. I would not wish to prejudge it.
The difficulty in the Minister's proposal now is that it places an obstacle in the way of this because if the Minister does not find it possible to re-appoint those two members of the staff some of the students may not find it possible to come back and we may not be able to get the place reopened before establishment day. We must be realistic. It is for that reason that I am concerned that we should get an electoral system established which does not require the reopening of the college. I would love to see the college reopened and anything I can do to help that I will do. The Minister knows that. I am fearful, judging by the lack of progress to date, it will not prove possible before establishment day, before the board is elected, and in those circumstances we need to look elsewhere for the solution.
I think we have aired the problem. No amount of drafting off the top of my or anybody else's head will produce an amendment to resolve it. I would merely ask the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind what we have said and to see whether there may be an adequate legal solution to a difficult practical problem. That means a solution, if there is one, which would have to be found in consultation with people with practical experience who know what would happen and how difficult it is to identify the students and what criteria of identification we might have. That will have to be done between the Minister and his advisers and legal advisers. Perhaps the matter could be left at this stage without the Minister committing himself in any direction. It is very difficult for him to commit himself and we cannot offer him a copperfastened solution to the problem. Perhaps he would look at it again in the light of this discussion. We have tried to be helpful. Perhaps he will look at it again to see if there is any way out of the problem other than a way out which holds certain dangers for the college, dangers that it may not prove as easy as we had hoped to get it reopened.
I do not want to push this any more because there is a real difficulty which has to be resolved and we cannot resolve it here. I was nodding vigorously when the Minister talked about reopening the college. The point which Deputy FitzGerald has made is the central one. I should like to see us go back to what one might call the status quo anti, the situation in which this Bill was drafted and in which we envisaged the transition taking place, namely with the college open and with the staff as they were at the beginning of October. The new board will obviously be able to exercise a right of choice in the matter of staff. We have seen the compromise between the desire to give some protection on the one hand and the desire not to lumber the new board with a total staff on the other hand, and within certain limits that is a reasonable compromise.
I have been much more critical of this Bill than Deputy FitzGerald has, but I want to say now for the record that if we had the situation of early October with all the staff and the college open—and I am saying it publicly now so there is no point in my trying to do otherwise afterwards—I would be very anxious to wade in with all the influence I possess and say, "OK here is a new situation, it may not be perfect, but go in there, give it an honest trial and try and get the thing off the ground." I cannot obviously make this undertaking for Deputy FitzGerald but my experience of his attitudes makes me think he would agree with me.
Hear, hear.
I give that undertaking for myself. If we could get back to where we were at the beginning of October before the dismissals, the closures and the sit-ins I would give that undertaking. Conciliation on both sides is essential if the college is to have the start we all want it to have.
If that could be achieved the need even for this amendment would not then arise. If it does not prove possible I hope the Minister will consider the other points raised. I strongly support what Deputy Keating has said. I will do everything I can to get it off the ground.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 5, line 25, to delete "An ordinary" and substitute "A".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 5, line 28, to delete "ordinary".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 36 to be taken together.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 6, after line 12, to insert:
"(c) any interest in the appointment as an officer or servant of the college of a relative within the second degree of kindred".
The Minister has gone a long way to meet my amendment. He does not go the whole way in that it will be open to the board to decide in regard to a particular relationship that it would permit the person to vote on his own relative, whereas I defined it clearly as no voting if the relative were "within the second degree of kindred". I am not entirely sure what the "second degree of kindred is" in the sense that if someone put to me a query about great nephews I might be in doubt, but it seems to me far enough removed to cover most cases where anybody would want to exercise influence for a relative, although in this country of extended families perhaps even fourth cousins might come in for a bit of a push occasionally. The Minister's amendment has the advantage that it does not confine the relationship to any particular relationship; it does involve the disclosure to the board of the relationship whatever it may be, even if it is the tenth degree of kindred and the person knows about it. Presumably after that has been disclosed the board would normally decide, if the relationship were in any way close, that the person concerned would not vote. It seems to me, therefore, if I may speak on and in favour of the Minister's amendment, that his amendment meets the point I am trying to make. It is a very useful innovation. I am not aware of its existence elsewhere. I am glad to have played some part in bringing it in and I trust it will become standard practice in similar Bills in the future.
As the Deputy has said, I was endeavouring to meet a point raised by him on the Committee Stage. I am not all that happy about it. It is with a certain degree of hesitation I agreed to accept it, mainly because I felt that the amendment might perhaps be construed as a slur on the integrity of those appointed to the board.
Not at all.
But, having listened to the arguments put forward by the Deputy, I decided to meet his point.
No such slur was intended.
I appreciate that.
If there is a constitutional case as to what relationship means the Deputy can take a great deal of responsibility for this.
I shall offer my genealogical services in those circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 35, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 6, after line 16, but in section 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) A member of An Bord who is related to a person who is a candidate for appointment by An Bord as an officer or servant of An Bord shall disclose to An Bord the fact of the relationship and the nature thereof and shall, if An Bord so decide, take no part in any deliberation or decision of An Bord relating to the appointment, and the disclosure and decision shall be recorded in the minutes of An Bord".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 6, line 24, after "imprisonment" to insert "of more than six months' duration".
I had hoped there would be a ministerial amendment on this particular point because on the last day it did seem to me that, while I met at first a high degree of intransigence on this point from both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, when I drew to their attention the fact that this six months provision applies to Dáil Deputies I detected a change of tone and a willingness to consider the position. I hope the absence of a ministerial amendment simply means they wish me to have full credit for having put down this amendment and having had it accepted and that it does not indicate any unwillingness to accept an amendment which I think is a desirable one.
It would be quite invidious for us to make distinctions and to reserve for ourselves the right to go to jail for six months without in any way affecting our £2,500 a year but to insist that much higher standards must prevail in relation to members of this board. That type of parliamentary hypocrisy would not go down well with the public, students, or staff. I hope we will follow the principle which we have established for ourselves of the right to serve these brief sentences in jail without prejudice to our position in this House. Indeed, there was a long-standing political tradition here of imprisonment rather than university education for a large proportion of the TDs, although it was not necessarily always as educational. It would be a pity, if having established this for ourselves we failed to extend this privilege to other relevant bodies. I hope therefore the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
As the Deputy has anticipated on consideration of the matter it did not appear possible to accept the amendment for what I think are cogent reasons. I do not know whether it is appropriate to argue those reasons on the basis of a comparison between Deputies and students——
Deputies and staff, not just students.
If one takes the case of Deputies first, for the sake of dismissing it from consideration, a Deputy is not an appointee such as a student or a member of this board will be——
Both are elected.
Some are elected but some members of the board are appointed by the Minister and many are appointed without being elected. We should not get hung up on the staff-student ratio. I do not think it is possible to make a special provision for the members of the board who are elected and those who are appointed——
Agreed.
That being so, one has to have a common denominator. I do not suppose it is necessary to go on to rationalise the difference between the position of Deputies and their's, except that if we——
Why not?
The Deputy then might undertake a course of action that would involve him in six months imprisonment. That might commend the Deputy to some of his constituents but it would not commend me to any of my constituents. That would be sufficient deterrent to ensure that Deputies, apart from anything else, would not run the risk of such activities.
The real reason is that here you would be introducing a new principle into legislation. The Deputy has pointed out that the original distinction was between a felony and misdemeanour and six months was put in as the compromise in that connection. With regard to appointments to any boards under the aegis of the State, there is no precedent for suggesting that they could or should be fit people to serve on a board after being sentenced to imprisonment.
Except us.
We are not serving on boards appointed by the State.
With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, we are doing something more important.
There could be a possibility—I am not saying a likelihood—of this legislation tying the hands of the judiciary and creating a situation where contempt of court might be caused, not directly, by us here. For instance, students or members of the board, staff or others—because I do not think we want to confine this to students—who were engaged in unlawful picketing and who were injuncted to restrain from that picketing but who refused to act on that injunction, would be in contempt of court and, in certain circumstances, could be sentenced to imprisonment for that offence.
It could happen to us also.
If a person found that he was picketing the institution of which he was a board member, in fact, he would be proving himself unsuitable to act in the management of the institution. His responsibility would be to act from within. There must be responsibility as well as opportunity. We must have some reason on this.
Why not have a section against picketing then, if the Parliamentary Secretary is worried about that?
I am giving an example of what can happen. The Deputy is asking us to put in the six months. There are no grounds for distinguishing between a person who is unfit by virtue of imprisonment and a person who is unfit by virtue of six months imprisonment in an appointment of this kind.
Why not?
Six months is arbitary. We are the only example the Deputy can think of and there is no precedent other than that.
There should be.
There must be consistency in the whole corpus of the law. We cannot suggest that an offence that involves less than six months is not serious and that anything in excess of six months is serious. The Deputy's instance about a student who undertakes certain activities, such as demonstrations, and is sentenced to imprisonment is an unreal one, as I pointed out previously, and it shows a lack of understanding of the attitude of the judiciary to student activities. I have not known it to happen that a student who did what the Deputy mentioned, namely, to pour blood on something, and did not do anything other than this, would be sentenced to imprisonment.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows now.
I wonder if the Deputy has checked his sources since the last day? I have not and I must admit I find it difficult to visualise such a situation. That being so, one might leave it to the discretion of the judiciary and let them consider the matter.
I take it from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that if I check my sources and discover that I am right in thinking that the young lady in question had no previous conviction and that this is the offence for which she was committed, the Parliamentary Secretary will join with me in petitioning for her release?
I hope the Deputy realises that in speaking in this case he is precluding any other contribution if anybody else should wish to speak.
I am sorry. We are back on Report Stage?
We are back on Report Stage. If anyone should wish to speak he may not speak after the Deputy has concluded.
My belief was that we should get through this as quickly as possible. My intention was merely to listen to what was said and see what happened and I had not intended speaking. Then we heard the amazing instance of a person who, in the Parliamentary Secretary's words, was injuncted for picketing. It seems to me that this shows the chasm between us once again because I regard picketing as an extension of the process of communication in a certain, rather dramatic, way, I cannot see the faintest contradiction between someone trying to have his point of view carried out inside an institution and using this dramatic and fashionable method of communication to strengthen his position outside. The suggestion that someone who might find himself outside some picketing law and, therefore, would exclude himself from even being considered as a member of the board, terrifies me and gets us back to square one.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary now regrets having given this unfortunate instance because this is something we might divide upon? I cannot imagine a better example of the need to be a little flexible in this instance. He knows how fashionable picketing is this year. Maybe after some time that fashion may be changed for some other method but to exclude people from the possibility of participating in the running of the organisation because they were involved in picketing which might be outside some picketing law seems to negate the idea that you may have valid student participation and listen to the point of view of people who do what the Establishment might consider slightly erratic and impolite things. In fact, those are the kind of people we need.
If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he seemed to be saying that one might get sentenced for illegal picketing and because picketing in itself by a member of the governing authority——
On a point of clarification, I did not say that because you cannot get sentenced as such for illegal picketing but if the situation went a step further and one were in contempt of court——
If someone was picketing and was injuncted not to picket but continued to do so and was then brought to court, by virtue of the fact that it was improper for a member of the governing board to be picketing, by virtue of that impropriety—whether or not the person was sentenced to imprisonment—he was deemed to be an unsuitable person to be on the board and this appeared to me to be what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying. He astonished me somewhat because I could easily visualise circumstances in which the entire student body picketed—in fact, something similar to this happened recently in UCD, although it did not involve the entire student body—and therefore nobody would be deemed suitable to be on the board and student representation would cease until new students entered the college, people who had not been tarnished with this crime. What bothers me is not the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to the imprisonment aspect but his assumption about picketing that of itself it disqualifies someone from being a member of the governing board.
I am a member of the governing body of UCD. It is not my practice to picket the college. It is an unsuitable activity for a governor but I would not necessarily condemn some other governor if one of the student members of the college picketed the college —they probably have, for all I can recall; certainly one of them was picketing the Dáil on the subject of the night degree some months ago. If a governor is picketing the college it does not worry me. Nobody has suggested that that would disqualify such a student member of the governing body. I should just like to deal with it and get rid of that unfortunate suggestion which I think we probably have not thought out.
Dealing with the rest of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, frankly the word that came into my mind was "feeble" because he could not get away from the fact that it is all right for us in this House to commit offences which would merit six months in jail yet we can hang on to our remuneration and come back. He tried to make a distinction between appointees and electees, that apparently it has been laid down in some way that it is all right for people who are elected to get six months imprisonment but not for people who are appointed. This is the principle, but where does it come from? Who has suddenly decided that there is this distinction?
The Parliamentary Secretary then suggested that it is all right if you are elected because your electors might not re-elect you—that some of mine might but that in his more respectable part of the country he would be turfed out if he got a sentence of imprisonment for anything. This may be true, but may I point out that those who are not elected are appointed and the non-student, non-staff members, may not be re-appointed because it is perfectly open to the Minister not to re-appoint them if he takes a poor view of their having been in prison for six months. They are in exactly the same position. Just as we are elected for five years, they are appointed for four years; and at the end of the period, when we might not be re-elected if our re-electors did not like us because we had been in prison, so the Minister, if he does not like his appointees having been in prison, would not re-appoint them. The only difference is that he does it every four years and our electors do it every five. I cannot see any point in principle here.
In other words, the distinction the Parliamentary Secretary attempts to make is not a real distinction. He was faced with the dilemma of trying to establish some kind of distinction between Members of the Dáil and members of this board but he could not do so and he tried to confuse the issue somewhat by the way he presented his case.
Whatever views I may have had until this little debate I am quite convinced by the lack of any valid reason to the contrary that the principle which we in this Parliament have extended to ourselves must in conscience be extended to other people in other similar positions. We are told there is no precedent. This is nonsense. We are a precedent first of all, and if we have set ourselves as a precedent we have to start somewhere in extending this precedent. In so far as this is the legislation before us where the issue arises we can start here. It has also been suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that such clauses as these are not universal and, I believe, not normal in other similar State bodies. I am not quite sure why they come in here now or why this Department is so sensitive on the issue. There may be some precedents set by other Departments. If so, I should be glad to hear of them. There is a notable silence on this and there is no suggestion that this is a normal feature of legislation, that it applies to all the other State bodies, to Aer Lingus, Bord Fáilte, Córas Tráchtála and all the others, that they are all fussy about their members being in jail, that the Dáil laid down they must not have jail sentences without losing their jobs.
If this were the case one would assume that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would have mentioned it. They have not done so. What we have not got a precedent for, it seems to me, is not leaving it out. I am asking the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this.
Question "That the proposed words be there inserted" put and declared lost.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 7, after line 20, but in section 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Whenever and for as long as the College stands designated as an institution of higher education under the Higher Education Act, 1971, this section and section 16 (2) of this Act shall cease to have effect."
I find it necessary to move an amendment to amendment No. 41:
To insert after "education" the word "authority".
It was inadvertently omitted.
We accept this amendment to the amendment.
As I explained to the House at Committee Stage when we discussed the proposal to have the college designated as an institute of higher education, I had no power to do this without consulting first with the Higher Education Authority. It might conceivably happen at a later date that, having consulted with the Higher Education Authority, I might designate this college as an institute of higher education. To meet this possibility I am proposing this amendment which would enable a smooth transfer to take place without legislation being necessary. This is something on which Deputy FitzGerald pressed me. In my amendment I am providing for the nullification of section 14 and subsection (2) of section 16. I am informed that section 15 and subsection (1) of section 16 should be retained. I have gone a long way to meet the point made by the Deputy.
The Minister has and I very much appreciate it. However, could he develop his last sentence? Why should section 15 and section 16 (1) be retained? They do not seem to fit into the context of the Higher Education Authority Act under which it is the HEA which would require accounts to be kept, if I recall it correctly, and for reports to be submitted to them. Section 7 of the Higher Education Authority Act states:
An tÚdarás may annually or at such other intervals as it may determine require any Institution of Higher Education to submit a statement of its financial position to An tÚdarás and it shall be the duty of any Institution of Higher Education to comply with the requirements which are imposed on it under this section.
The provision is that is An tÚdarás——
I am informed that that does not relieve the institution of the requirement to send their accounts for submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In relation to section 15 (1), all we are asking here is that the accounts be submitted in a form which would be laid down and which would be suitable in relation to the provision requiring submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am informed that the accounts of the NUI and its constituent colleges must be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Under which Act?
Under the 1908 Act.
Are the terms of that Act similar to what is here?
Some, yes.
We are not in Committee. I think we have forgotten this. Is amendment No. 41, as amended, agreed?
The Deputy can be assured we have examined it and that, as far as I can ascertain, it meets fully what the Deputy had in mind.
In section 15 (1) is there any such requirement imposed on the universities to report to the Minister annually?
I again remind the House that we are on the Report Stage, not the Committee Stage.
Will the Chair allow the Minister to answer this one question?
It is quite a different matter.
The Minister says he is advised section 16 (1) should be retained.
It is quite a different matter. I am not comparing everything that is in this Bill with what has been done in relation to the universities. All I was trying to point out was that in relation to section 16 (1) and (2) the situation is in line with what is being done in the universities, but I am not necessarily tying myself to the suggestion that everything done in the universities should be done here. I see nothing wrong in that.
I do.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 are cognate and, if the House agrees, can be taken together.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 7, line 47, to delete "the College" and to substitute "An Bord".
These are merely drafting amendments. The director employs the board of the college which of itself has no powers of employing. Section 15 (1) requires the board to keep proper and usual accounts of all moneys received or expended by them and therefore the registrar will be required to keep the accounts of the board.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 7, line 51, to delete "the College" and to substitute "An Bord".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 8, after line 2, to add:
"provided that the term of office of the director shall be seven years, renewable for a second period of seven years".
In the light of the debate on Committee Stage I decided to put forward an amendment with regard to the appointment of a director analogous to the provisions which I think are recommended by the Commission on Higher Education for the presidents of third level institutions. It seems to me that this kind of provision is much better for this kind of institution than appointing someone for life. The whole movement in opinion is away from that and I doubt if we will see life appointments on third level institutions in the future. This is not considered desirable by the institutions themselves and neither did the Commission on Higher Education consider it desirable. I hope that the Minister and the Government also will move away from this. If this is the case in respect of the universities, it should also be so in respect of this body.
Perhaps seven years is rather long because here one is not dealing with somebody in a normal third level institution who has a great deal of experience of administration in the academic world; one is dealing with somebody who will try to keep an institution up-to-date in a rapidly evolving field. I support this amendment.
I argued this case on Committee Stage on the basis that I could not visualise an individual accepting the position unless we were prepared to offer him the best possible terms. I am speaking about a first-class person, a person who would be capable because this is the type of person we need on a board of this sort. I do not know whether the change from four years to seven years makes very much difference. On a previous occasion I pointed out that, as in the case of the Higher Education Authority, where it was recognised that it would be extremely difficult to get a first-class chairman, similarly, it would be equally difficult to find a top-class director who would be prepared to accept a job of this sort unless we could offer him the best possible terms.
Because of his contact with civil servants the Minister may consider security to be very important but in the academic world it is the other way round. Nowadays it would be very difficult to find a person of high calibre in the academic world who would be prepared to take a post if it was a life post. I know that in the university colleges there is the problem of finding people who are prepared to stand for the presidency of the colleges because most people of academic distinction have no wish to give up their academic work for the rest of their lives. They are prepared to do their stint and to apply their talents for a period in an administrative way so long as they can get out at the end of that period. One of the reasons why I suspect it is not easy to get a good field of candidates for the presidency of universities is that under the present system these appointments are for life. People in their 40's or even in their 50's are not prepared to take on the job because it cuts them off for the rest of their lives from academic work. The Minister is moving in a different world altogether,
Hear, hear.
He is unrealistic and if he goes about this in the way he is approaching it now, he is less likely to get good candidates unless he visualises a civil servant as director, but I would visualise somebody of distinction in the world of art as director. Such a person would not wish to take the post for life. Admittedly, it can be said that he could resign after seven years, but people do not work like that. If a job is for life, they think about it in those terms because they do not wish to take on a job with the thought of resigning from it after a period. The Minister is simply cut off from the world with which we are dealing.
There is no reason why the board would not lay down a condition such as this.
I hope they will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 49 to 56, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 8, line 17, to add "provided that any officer or servants suspended or dismissed shall be entitled to be given reasons for his suspension or dismissal, and that the Minister shall be obliged to inform the Dáil of whether this has been done, but shall not disclose the reasons given".
This amendment is designed to cover this point of the need to give reason for suspension or dismissal but to make it quite clear that the Minister not alone will have to give reasons to officers or servants if they are suspended or dismissed but will also have to answer questions in the Dáil on matters on which he has information.
I cannot accept this amendment. This is a matter on which I have strong feelings and one that I have mentioned by way of reply to supplementary questions in the House. It cannot be said of me that I have refused to answer questions in the Dáil because I must have answered more supplementaries than any other Minister. Since we discussed this I have had inquiries made among people who could view this matter objectively and they agree that provisions such as this one were more proper to a contract of employment rather than to legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 58 to 67, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 9, line 26, to add "provided that if the committee is one to which the Board assigns some of its functions, it shall include at least one representative nominated in accordance with section 6 (6) and one nominated in accordance with section 6 (7)".
This amendment is meant to deal with the question of committees being appointed that could actually delegate power. It would be most undesirable to have any situation arising where the purpose of representation could be subverted by reason of a majority of the board delegating functions to sub-committees which did not have any staff or student member on them. It is important that this should not happen.
When we discussed this matter on Committee Stage I pointed out to the Deputy that the reason I could not accept it was that I wanted to give the board full freedom to make their own decisions as to whom they should regard as being proper to the particular functions carried out by a particular committee. This suggestion of his, to some extent, is counter to the line he has adopted all along—that of giving as much freedom as possible to the board. What we should do is give the board the fullest freedom possible. I do not regard this board as being divided into various groups. I believe the board will be a unit, the whole concern of whom will be for the students and for the students' education. For that reason people who are best suited to serve on committees of this particular board are being appointed to these committees.
It would be undesirable to have committees for the purpose of dealing with staff and student matters if these committees did not have staff-student representation.
I agree with that but I believe that the board will have the interests both of the students and everybody else at heart.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 10, line 26, to delete "five" and insert "two".
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the probationary period from five years to two. No case has been made in this context for a five-year period.
This point, again, was debated fully on Committee Stage. There is nothing further I can add. I have said already that the board should have as wide a choice as possible and I decided to leave to the board the appointment of the remaining teachers.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 10th November, 1971.