Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 1977

Vol. 298 No. 11

Private Members' Business. - Portlaoise Vocational School Post: Motion (Resumed).

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Education to hold an immediate public inquiry into the conduct of the County Laois Vocational Education Committee which according to a High Court decision was and is in breach of its statutory duty in relation to its failure to appoint a qualified Principal for Portlaoise Vocational School.

—(Deputy Lalor).

Mr. Enright

The House will recollect that last night I was dealing with the position in regard to the people who comprise the selection board at a meeting of which directions were given in relation to Laois Vocational Committee. I pointed out that the committee comprises one member of the Irish Vocational Education Association, two inspectors from the Department of Education, and Councillor Thomas Keenan, who has been a member of Laois County Council for approximately 21 years. Another member is the Minister for Defence, Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan, who has been a representative of the constituency of Laois-Offaly for over 30 years. Another member is Councillor Fleming, whom I have known for many years. The seventh person on the committee is Canon Grey.

I am sure that the representatives of the IVEA will be only motivated with ensuring that the best possible person is selected to fill the appointment. The two representatives of the Department of Education, I am convinced, will act in a completely impartial manner. Councillor Thomas Keenan is a hardworking, dedicated public representative who I am certain has acted according to his conscience in making this selection which is the subject of the motion before the House. The people of Laois Offaly in electing Deputy Flanagan for so many years have indicated their high opinion of him and I am certain that Councillor Fleming acted with the best motives. Canon Grey is not a member of the Fine Gael Party so no matter how one looks at it there are four ordinary members as against three politicians. I would like Deputy Lalor to put on the record of the House whether or not he doubts the integrity or the honesty of Canon Grey. From what the Deputy stated last night it seems that he questions the Canon's honesty and integrity. The Deputy should put on the record of the House the motivations he attributes to the three politicians who are members of the Committee, and the motives he attributes to the four non-politicians. There has been a tremendous amount of confusion created by this request for a public inquiry by Deputy Lalor. It got widespread publicity and the matter should be further clarified by the Deputy. The record should also show that Mr. Parsons is a fully-qualified teacher. This appears to have escaped the notice of some people. The judgment of Judge McWilliam on page 3 says:

On receipt of this letter, the Committee obtained counsel's advice as to whether the provisions of clause 12 (b) of the Memo were mandatory or not and was advised that the provisions were merely a recommendation and, at a meeting of 10th June, 1974, proceeded to appoint Michael Parsons to the post as and from 1st September 1974.

The point is that counsel advised the committee that Memorandum V.7. was merely a recommendation.

Mr. Lalor

What counsel?

Mr. Enright

A counsel that they had consulted. I do not know who. It is not referred to in the judgment. The Deputy should bear this advice in mind. The judgment also pointed out that Memorandum V.7. was not binding on the Minister although there would be evidence of the improper exercise of his powers were the Minister to ignore his own requirements without reason. It would appear also that this would not be binding on the committee. I am convinced that the committee were acting in good faith. It is stated in the final paragraph of the judgment that Mr. Parsons is neither principal nor acting principal of the school and that the committee are bound forthwith to take such steps as may be necessary to appoint a principal to the school.

A public inquiry at this stage would be against the spirit of the judgment and would lead to a long delay in the appointment of a principal. Those who would suffer from such a delay would be the pupils of the school and I do not believe that either Mr. Parsons or Mr. Phelan would welcome such a situation. It would be no harm to recall some inquiries that have taken place in the past on foot of legislation. There was the inquiry into the RTE programme on illegal moneylending. The resolution setting up the tribunal in that case was passed here on the 17th December, 1969. The tribunal sat on 51 days but did not report until 5th August, 1970. In 1957 there was an inquiry into cross-channel freight rates. The relevant resolution was passed on the 23rd October, 1957, and the hearing took 25 days. The committee did not report until the 4th May, 1959. Further back, in 1944 there was an inquiry into the Dublin milk supply situation. In that case the relevant resolution was passed on 30th November of that year and after 22 public sitting days and 91 private sitting days the committee reported back on the 30th December, 1946. There is no justification for a public inquiry on this occasion.

Deputy Lalor has told us that he did not consult with Mr. Phelan before tabling this motion. If he had consulted with Mr. Phelan I am sure he would have been advised against taking this action because Mr. Phelan would have had the interest of the pupils at heart. The Minister has stated that he considers an inquiry to be inappropriate, one of the reasons being that an advertisement has been published seeking candidates for the post. The closing date is Friday next. We can rest assured that the bringing before the House of this motion will not encourage any man or woman to apply for the position. Instead, interested parties will be deterred from applying. On the last occasion there were nine applicants. I wonder how many applications have been received to date on this occasion. Deputy Lalor has made a great mistake in seeking a public inquiry into this matter. This question has been going on for the past three years and Deputy Lalor has not missed any opportunity of capitalising on it. Mr. Justice McWilliam in his judgment did not seek to compel the committee to appoint Mr. Phelan to this position.

Deputy Lalor has placed much emphasis on the question of Fine Gael monopolies but in this regard he should look to his own house. I have here a copy of the Leinster Express, dated April 16th, 1977, and in which is published a report of what occurred in Laois County Council when, in the absence of two Fine Gael Councillors, Deputy Lalor assumed control. When, in regard to the sending of a party to London, Councillor Taaffe suggested that one person from each party go on the trip, Deputy Lalor replied “No, we are in control now”. Apparently, what Deputy Lalor suggests is wrong so far as Fine Gael are concerned is all right when Fianna Fáil are in control.

Mr. P. Barry

This is very telling stuff. I was not aware of this last night.

Mr. Lalor

This is the first time that the Minister has had the opportunity of crowing.

Mr. P. Barry

And to think that the Deputy used the word "hypocrisy".

Mr. Lalor

And will again. Let Deputy Enright read the whole story.

Mr. Enright

On that occasion Fianna Fáil sent two members on the trip because they had control.

Mr. Lalor

Read the reference to the vocational education committee.

Mr. Enright

I am referring to the tactics adopted by Deputy Lalor when he was in a controlling position.

Mr. Connolly

The Deputy is totally out of order.

Mr. Enright

The only reason for Deputy Lalor tabling this motion is his desire to get as much publicity as possible from it both in the national and in the local papers. This stems from his being scared of Councillor Hyland in the light of his success in the last local government elections. The people should be made aware of Deputy Lalor's motives. We might recall that in his own area he was the third candidate to be elected and that Councillor Hyland headed the poll, having received 1,146 votes as against 656 votes for Deputy Lalor. Councillor Phelan received 684 votes. Obviously, Deputy Lalor is endeavouring to win back dwindling support not only for him but for his party in Laois-Offaly.

It is to be deplored that Deputy Lalor is trying to get publicity and make capital out of this situation. He has put down this motion in order to achieve some little bit of publicity and notoriety so that he can keep ahead of Councillor Hyland in the general election. In the past he was able to control the organisation in County Laois. He could put up somebody who would be able to gather a few votes and he would come home ahead of him. Councillor Hyland is now in control and Deputy Lalor is trying to obtain some publicity.

Mr. P. Barry

We all have our problems.

Mr. Enright

This is a poor display on the part of Deputy Lalor.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Desmond)

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Enright

In conclusion, I wish to state that I am convinced that the appointments committee will appoint the best person. Only the best is good enough.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to support the motion put down by my colleague. I would have gone a little further in the wording of the motion. Laois VEC should have been dissolved a couple of years ago for failure to comply with the regulations laid down by the Department of Education. I have listened to Deputy Enright with great interest. He did not talk about the facts of the case because he could not do so. I know that this would not happen in Offaly and that Deputy Enright would not be a party to it. We conduct our affairs in a proper way.

Mr. P. Barry

Bully for Offaly!

Mr. Connolly

Here was the Mafia of Fine Gael. There is no point in saying that they were not members of the Fine Gael organisation. Three were not. Who appointed the four representatives on the interview board? They were appointed by Fine Gael. The most extraordinary thing was that the recommendation from the Laois VEC was signed by four who were in favour of the candidate they thought should get the job. The other three, the two officials from the Department of Education and Mr. McCann, did not sign the document. Why not? They knew that the Laois VEC was in breach of an Act. That is the position and no twisting or hunkersliding can get away from that. Some of the representatives on the VEC are well known to twist and turn and somersault anyway they like when it suits them. The pupils are the ones who have suffered during the last two years and the administration side is not going very well.

Now we get back to the facts of the case from a legal point of view. Laois VEC sought the opinion of a senior counsel and he did not seem to think they had a great case. We all know what legal people do. They say "You might do well". You go into court and they tell you when you are beaten "It was the wrong judge and you should have been in court No. 4 instead of court No. 2" and you then have to pay the piper. Laois VEC have to pay the costs of this. That is the position. There has been some talk about the money coming from a Central Fund or from the Department of Education, but it should come from the pockets of the people who saddled us with this situation. I am not in the legal profession and know very little about it but it costs a few thousand pounds to open the doors of any court. The costs in this case must be substantial. At the next estimates meeting will Laois County Council have to vote extra money to the Laois VEC to pay for this bungle in trying to put someone into a job who was not qualified? It is as simple as that. This matter has dragged on for a very long time and, as far as I know, the members of Laois VEC were informed legally and otherwise that they were in breach. I want to put on record that the minority of members on the Laois VEC were not a party to this. They knew they were wrong but what could they do? They are now under a cloud through no fault of their own. It was the fault of the Fine Gael monopolised Laois VEC. Deputy Enright talked about monopolies.

Mr. Enright

I never used the word "monopolies".

Mr. Connolly

He talked about it using phrases which legal people use when it suits them. He said that Fianna Fáil when they got the chance used their power on the county council to take trips abroad but I can tell him that Fianna Fáil would have to follow up a lot of options to catch up with Fine Gael. Before the last county council election they threw us off every board in the country. What about that? He did not mention that.

Mr. Enright

I did and I said it was wrong.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Enright tried it on in Offaly after the last election but he could not get support among his own. He does not want to listen to the truth. He was wishy-washy when he got up here. He tried to put his foot in one camp and then he lifted it out and tried to put it in the other camp.

Mr. Enright

The only place the Deputy ever put his foot was in his mouth.

Mr. Connolly

He is trying to play for Councillor Keenan's No. 2s. He is afraid they may go to MacDonald.

Mr. Enright

I was always in ahead of the Deputy and I will again.

Mr. Connolly

He said "I will row in with Tom and let Charlie fight his own battles". Charlie is not here now because he knows all this is wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Enright must cease interrupting and let Deputy Connolly continue.

Mr. Enright

He is attacking me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Connolly must keep to the motion.

Mr. Connolly

A few years ago a few Fine Gael members of the interview board did not row in and some of the leading lights in that party said "We will ditch you. We will get rid of you". Deputy MacDonald was shoved out the door because he did not agree with the breach in the regulation. The big boys in Fine Gael said "We will shove you out if you do not row in with us." Deputy Enright was interested in everybody when he was speaking. Councillor Keenan was a great man because the election is only a few weeks away. Deputy Enright is hoping that when the Councillor is out of the field Tom will be in and Charlie can go to hell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should be referred to as Deputies.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Enright talked about a public inquiry. In 1972 he wanted a public inquiry into the affairs of a very good company giving very good employment in Offaly, namely, J. and L. F. Goodbody in Clara. He is now talking about the expense involved in a public inquiry and he does not want a public inquiry. He cannot have it both ways.

This matter has been dealt with at emergency meetings and other meetings. The local papers said "Another saga. VEC in more trouble." The former Minister for Education would not agree to the appointment, and I have no doubt the present Minister will not agree either. Will the candidates who will be interviewed next week or the week after be fully qualified? Will we have more compromising? Deputy Enright said this matter should not have been raised here. Why not? Laois VEC are in breach of memo V.7.

I do not see the Minister for Defence here who led the show for them down the country. He has now planked himself on the interview board. I thought Ministers had to resign from all councils and local committees. Now it seems there is a new rule. The Minister for Defence must have said to the Leader of his party "I will not resign. You can do what you like, but I will not be moved. I will hang on." He is hanging on to see how the election goes so that when he is defeated he can revert to the committee. He probably likes to have a leg in both camps. He defied memo V.7. and tried to say it could be changed. He tried to twist it. The correspondence shows he defied the Minister and wanted his way, right or wrong. I do not know whether the applicant he has in mind has the qualifications, but he may have. It will be interesting to see what he will do. The interview board is Fine Gael controlled. There is no use in anyone trying to tell us it is not.

After the High Court case the Laois VEC wanted to rush through an advertisement and get it in the papers as quickly as they could to the effect that they had won. I believe an official from the Department of Education rang up the Laois VEC and told them to hold their advertisement. They had to ring the papers in a panic and ask to have the advertisement withdrawn although it was with the printers. When he was summing up Justice McWilliam said the VEC were in breach of the regulations. As I said earlier about senior counsel's opinion, you can always leave your options open.

A letter was sent to the VEC on 7th March, 1975, by a senior counsel stating it seemed to him it followed that the Minister is entitled to direct the VEC to make another appointment where he has declined to approve of the earlier appointment or appointments. To me as a lay man that was good enough. He left the options open. Some of the members of the VEC, including the chairman, tried to twist it and say they were all right and it was worth a gamble in court. It was worth a gamble in court at the expense of the Laois taxpayers. They will have to pay the piper. I do not know how the people of Laois will look at that. They will probably take a very serious view of it. When the Laois County Council come to allocate money to the VEC many questions will be asked about the money to be paid to solicitors, junior counsel, senior counsel and everybody else involved in this High Court action.

This matter should have been rectified long before it went to court, but the Minister of the day was in a jam. He did not know where to run. There was no burrow open or if there was he was afraid to go into it. He decided to let the case go to the High Court but they were nailed. Now they are saying they were in the wrong court, that instead of being in Court No. 2 they should have been in Court No. 4, that the judge was in bad form and so on. The taxpayers in Laois had to pay for all of this and the people take a serious view of the matter.

Anybody who knows "Blessed Oliver" knew how he would act. They knew he could twist things and say everything was all right. They knew he would say "We are going to appoint you, Mr. Parsons". However, he could not do it because in fairness to the Minister he would not allow it. I have no doubt that when the interview board meet they will try to launch this man whom they intended to appoint two years ago irrespective of qualifications or ability. In the High Court case the judge left it open to them to appoint the second man but they did not want him. A few years ago it was all right to have him but not now.

When the interview board met the neutral representatives did not agree. If they had agreed they would have signed their names but this they refused to do. They told the other members they were in breach of the rules but they would not listen. Many decent men on the Laois VEC were caught up in this and they were opposed to the course of action suggested. It was not that they had anything against the man the interview board were anxious to appoint but they knew they were in breach of the statutory regulations. How will this appear to the other VECs throughout the country? What will it mean to the many teachers who are applying for posts? The whole situation looks very bad to them. Many of these people will question where they stand in this matter.

I agree the best applicant should be appointed and I hope that will be done as soon as possible in the interests of the pupils and the school. Those on the administration side cannot be in a happy position about this matter because it is obvious there cannot be great harmony in such a situation. Fine Gael are to blame for this and they must carry the responsibility. The people of Portlaoise are aware of this.

Fine Gael thought they would get away with it because they have been monopolising all the boards for the past eight years. They thought they could dictate the tune. I mentioned earlier the pension board. This is a minor board but they monopolised it. They put all their people on it but that did not work out because the general election took place and they lost out.

Mr. Enright

We won a third seat.

Mr. Connolly

That happened in the last election. Before it Fine Gael backtracked on some of the appointments. I realise the Deputy was not a party to this because we do not behave like that in Offaly. I am glad to say that Fianna Fáil members in Laois as well as the Independent and Labour members were not a party to it. It was the mafia of Fine Gael who put this scheme into operation but now they have to pay the penalty.

I would go a lot further than looking for a public inquiry. The people concerned should have been dismissed. I am sorry for some of the members who wanted to uphold their statutory obligations but the majority did not want that. They wanted to run the business their way despite the Minister and the Department. That body should have been dissolved long ago for failure to honour their obligations. I hope the pupils of Portlaoise and the administration will not suffer. I hope there will be harmony from now on and that the school will succeed. Deputy Enright did his best to defend the situation but he knew it was not right. He had to appear as though he were in favour of what happened.

I hope that when the interviews are undertaken only applicants who have the necessary qualifications will be invited to participate. When the recommendation goes to the Minister I hope he will look at it—and I have no doubt he will—to see that the right man is appointed to do the job in the best interests of everyone concerned.

Mr. P. Barry

How long has Deputy Lalor to conclude?

Mr. Kelly

We will not be mean if he wants to run over his time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Until 8.30 p.m., if no other speaker is offering.

Mr. Lalor

I was extremely disappointed last evening that the Minister took such an attitude. He stood up, spoke for 15 minutes in complete justification of the need for either an inquiry or the dismissal of the Laois Vocational Education Committee and finished up by criticising me for putting down this motion at such an inopportune time and for interfering with the future prospects of the pupils of Portlaoise when we are within shooting distance of having a new principal appointed to that school. Those words were very insincerely expressed when one recollects the contribution made in this House on 22nd May, 1975, by the Minister's predecessor.

As my colleague, Deputy Wilson, said last night the Minister presented his brief in a most apologetic manner and did it with every degree of justification. He rolled off paragraph by paragraph an account of a rebellious committee telling the Minister for Education to go to blazes. As I said yesterday evening, the regrettable fact appears to be that those rebels will get away with it. I also said last night that I regretted the necessity for moving this motion, but the people of Laois-Offaly will make their own decision about this case.

Deputy Enright criticised me for raising this matter. He said I was clutching at straws and that I had milked—that may not have been his actual expression but the end product was the same—this dispute for what it was worth and that I had continued to raise it over the past three years. I confess to that but, unfortunately, I must also confess that the end product is one that will redound to the eternal shame of the last two incumbents of the office of Minister for Education. Last night I said that I respected Minister Burke. If he were not in Europe he would have dismissed the Laois Vocational Education Committee by now. In his contribution on 22nd May he said that.

I am aware of what is involved when I talk of dismissing a vocational education committee. When this problem was a year old I raised this matter on the Adjournment. At that time I said I was not calling for the dismissal of that committee because I realised that we want as much local democracy as possible, but local democracy properly operated and used, not misused as it has been by the majority of the members of the County Laois Vocational Education Committee.

I give credit to Deputy Enright for contributing to this debate although, as Deputy Connolly said, his contribution was a bit wishy-washy. There are three Fine Gael Deputies representing our constituency. One is the Minister for Defence who is a target in this issue. He has not even come in to defend himself, and not for the first time. I am sorry Deputy MacDonald is in Europe. It may be fortuitous that he is away because if he were here he would be forced tonight to go through the lobbies against his will, but basically this is no trouble to a Fine Gael man.

That Deputy was kicked off the vocational committee. Along with the other four members of that committee, in June, 1974, he voted in favour of the qualified man. Let us not think that the innocent VEC which existed in 1974 walked into this situation blindfolded, not knowing how they were fixed. At that first meeting there was a direction from the Minister to the Laois Vocational Education Committee telling them that the man selected by the selection board was not qualified and that the Minister would not accept the recommendation if his name was put forward.

Deputy Enright is a legal man and he presented a legal case. I would hate to be trying to earn money selling that case. He tried to justify the committee's decision of June, 1974, against the orders of the Minister to appoint the number one man because the then chairman had got legal advice. It is the greatest distortion of justice to find that not alone was Deputy Enright deceived by this but Justice McWilliam was also deceived because he built it into his final decision. I say this with all seriousness because the item on the agenda which Deputy Enright quoted in this regard and is taken from the minutes of the Laois Vocational Education Committee meeting of 10th June, 1974, says:

The chairman stated——

The chairman being Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan.

——that he had confirmation from a reputable firm of solicitors who had consulted senior counsel that the clauses in Memorandum V.7. section 12 (b), "That the person appointed should have not less than five years' whole-time teaching experience" was not mandatory, but merely a recommendation.

That is the message sold again to Justice McWilliam. I want to put on record in this House—and this is one of the reasons I wanted this inquiry— that no such inquiry ever went to a solicitor and no such answer ever came from a solicitor. As I said in my contribution last evening, this is where the whole across-the-board committee were set astray from the word go.

Mr. Enright

Can the Deputy prove that? He is making a statement.

Mr. Lalor

I am making a statement.

Mr. Enright

I am not trying deliberately to interrupt the Deputy but I would like him to justify that statement.

Mr. Lalor

No, but he is succeeding. My answer to the Deputy's question is that if I get the inquiry I am seeking I will put the proof of that on the table.

Mr. Connolly

We have it here.

Mr. Lalor

That is a separate advice. Here we have a copy of the opinion—my colleague did not want to put it—of Kevin Lynch mentioned by the Minister in his brief last evening, presented to Laois County Committee on 7th March, 1975. Laois ratepayers have paid money for that. That long document finished up, as Deputy Connolly said, in the final paragraph saying:

...it seems to me to follow that the Minister is entitled to direct the Vocational Education Committee to make another appointment where he has declined to approve of the earlier appointment or appointments.

That document was in the hands of Laois County Council prior to my raising this matter, making it, according to Deputy Enright, two years ago in May, 1975. That was the position in May, 1975. I should like to quote extracts from what the Minister for Education said at that time. I shall quote him from the point of view of getting across to the Government and to the present Minister for Education the shallowness of his criticism of me last evening bringing in this motion at this untimely juncture when, for the past two years, he had before him the promise, the obvious commitment, built into the statement made by his predecessor in this House on 22nd May, 1975, now almost two years ago.

Mr. P. Barry

But there was a law case.

Mr. Lalor

The law case did not emerge until much later.

Mr. Enright

It was sub judice at that stage.

Mr. Lalor

The threat of the law case did not emerge until early 1976, as far as I can recollect.

Mr. P. Barry

Wait now; we will see.

Mr. Lalor

I am giving the Minister an opportunity to study it. The Minister quoted elaborately from the contribution his predecessor had made in February of that year, but he did not quote elaborately from the Minister's contribution on the 22nd May of that year when he said:

I do not think it is necessary for me to recount in detail the advice of senior counsel to the committee.

That is the opinion to which I referred a moment ago—

It will suffice to say that he concluded his opinion by a statement in relation to the Minister's position where he has had to decline to approve the proposal put to him. This statement was generally in conformity with the request which I, as Minister, had made to the committee in relation to the filling of the vacancy and which a reading of my reply on the Adjournment debate will clearly illustrate.

Later on in that speech the Minister said in relation to what he could do about this recalcitrant committee:

I am not precluded, however, from pointing out that the committee's attitude presents me with a situation where certain action which is open to me to take within the provisions of the Vocational Education Acts is one which a Minister for Education would hesitate to adopt until all attempts at reaching a solution based on reason and conciliation have failed. I hope the Deputy and the House will appreciate my concern that every effort should be made to avoid the necessity for resorting to such action in the particular circumstances of the case in question.

That was in May, 1975; fair dues to the Minister. Previously, in October, 1974, the then Minister had written a letter in much the same strong terms to the chairman of the committee. The present Minister took the opportunity of quoting a couple of paragraphs from that letter last evening, but he did not quote the operative one. However, I built the quotation into the speech I made last evening. It was a letter of 23rd October, 1974, an extract from which nonetheless bears repeating. What the secretary of the Department wrote, on the instructions of the Minister, to the chairman of the Laois Vocational Education Committee, the then Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan, was:

If the matter should not be satisfactorily resolved at such a meeting, the Minister feels that he will have no alternative but seriously to consider invoking the relevant powers conferred on him by the Vocational Education Acts. This, of course, the Minister would be most reluctant to do.

That reluctance has continued from that date until now.

We had the present Minister saying last evening words to this effect: all right; the whole show will be over in a fortnight and I will do the right thing. I do not think the right thing will be done. Like Deputy Connolly, I accept Deputy Enright's sincerity in this, particularly because he selected the individuals who would be on the interview board and spoke about them as being decent men. He spoke about the chairman of the Vocational Association, who was in the House for the discussion last evening, Mr. McCann, a man who was so decent that he could not see his way to signing the rebellious document of appointment, an improper document of appointment, on the last occasion. There were two officials from the Department who did not. I will clear that with the Deputy.

How does one go back to the people who maladministered the affairs of vocational educational in Laois for the last three years in relation to this and expect justice from them on this occasion? How can it be done? Here we have a situation in which a Mr. William Phelan took the Laois Vocational Education Committee to court and sought a High Court ruling ordering the committee to appoint him. He did not get that decision. Knowing the three county council people about whom Deputy Enright speaks so well, what I expect to happen is that they will be capable of thumbing their nose at his application. I can quote from a contribution made by one of them recently at a meeting of Laois County Council, held in March and reported in the Leinster Express on Saturday, March 12th. The meeting would have been held on the previous Monday. At this stage, according to the report, Councillor Kelly, a Labour county councillor, submitted a list of signatures from people living in the Portlaoise area who, he said, supported Mr. Phelan for the post of principal. The report goes on:

Councillor Keenan said that if these signatures were put on record it would disqualify Mr. Phelan from being eligible for the job since it would be canvassing on his behalf. "I propose that they be ignored. If they are accepted by the Committee they will debar the candidate," he added.

Councillor Lodge said they were submitted by people who had the best interests of the school at heart.

Mr. Graham asked how many signatures had been submitted and the Chairman replied that there were 101 sheets each containing about 20 names.

Mr. Graham: So we have 2,000 parents for 260 pupils. That is very good.

Councillor Keenan: Put them in the wastepaper basket.

Mr. Connolly

He will not want them in the wastepaper basket in a month's time.

Mr. Lalor

I refer again to the statement by the former Deputy Richard Burke, Minister for Education, on 22nd May, 1975. He said:

The continued pursuit by that committee of the attitude it has adopted in this case seems to me entirely irrational. I trust it may still be possible to prevail upon the committee to understand that no good can come from an unyielding stance in an indefensible position.

That was the Minister's description and here we are, two years later, with an end product—an injustice is being done. I say that seriously. The Minister at that time went on to thank me for not pressing him for the dissolution of the committee and said he appreciated my views and that they were shared by him. Indeed he found fault with me for not suggesting an alternative and he said:

It is not his duty to do so. It is my duty as Minister to do so but I would like the benefit of the Deputy's point of view in this matter, personally or privately.

He went on to say:

...but I want to assure the House that I shall, as I have tried to do since the beginning of my term of office as Minister, try to do the right thing. However, the question is what is the right thing in this matter? The Deputy has excluded dissolution of the committee but there are other options and we will take them in due course when I communicate with the County Laois Vocational Education Committee.

The debate finished on those terms. surely, having given the new Minister for Education time to settle in, I could have expected in 1977 that he would have demanded some action from the committee. It must surely be obvious to even the most committed Deputy on the Government side that justice will not be done by the interview board and the committee.

"Bully boys" is the only way to describe those people. I do not describe all of the majority members of the Laois VEC in these terms. I have spoken about the leading man there and his sidekick. I blame it all on the two. In the past 30 years there has been no trouble in getting Deputy Oliver Flanagan, the Minister for Defence, to come in here to defend himself. I expected he would be here on this occasion. I was hoping Deputy MacDonald would be here. I should not be a bit surprised if Deputy MacDonald had been encouraged by the Whips to go to Europe at this time. I have enough faith in Deputy MacDonald to think that he would kick at this juncture because it is bad enough to be asked to support something you are not in favour of, but to be asked to support a crowd of bully boys who have kicked you in the teeth is a bit much. It is turning the third cheek.

Yesterday the Minister did not reply to my question of who will pay the cost of all this. Is it the ratepayers of Laois or the VEC's legal expert, Councillor Keenan? According to the report I have, Councillor Keenan announced at the meeting of the committee on 7th March, 1977 that the committee's costs in the High Court case which they lost would be paid by subvention from the Department of Education. I asked the Minister if he would pay the costs of a case which arose because the VEC in Laois had refused to obey instructions from his predecessor. The committee also had gone against their own paid for legal advice.

There is no doubt that Mr. Phelan did not get the High Court decision that he had gone for and that he had justifiably expected—I suppose I should leave out the word "justifiably". I do not think Deputy Enright would disagree with me that in the normal run of pub law justice there is not a man or woman in Portlaoise or in County Laois who does not believe that Mr. Phelan should have got this post. Deputy Enright said last night that the end product would be that we would get the best man for the job. There were nine candidates for the position on the last occasion and seven presented themselves. I am sure there will be more candidates on this occasion and there may be a different quality of opposition. I am not begrudging the children of this school the best headmaster available but the vacancy would not exist if Laois VEC did their duty and, with due respect, if the Minister for Education did his duty.

It is possible that I am doing Mr. Phelan harm. Friday is the latest date for receipt of applications and I do not know whether he has applied for the post or not. However, I should like to ask the House if Mr. Phelan has any chance now of being selected. Deputy Enright asked me to give my views about Canon Grey and I politely replied that I would not. We know there are three reliable independent people on the committee and there is also the Minister for Defence, Deputy Flanagan, who amazingly got himself re-elected to it. it appears that the Deputy is getting shaky and he does not appear to have enough reliance on his dictatorial ability to get another person to do his bidding. There is no doubt about the way Councillor Keenan feels because he was on the committee before with Councillor Fleming. I cannot see Mr. Phelan getting any greater justice on this occasion. I hope that the three gentlemen involved, if Mr. Phelan submits an application, will avail of the opportunity of telling me I was wrong, for the sake of Mr. Phelan.

Deputy Enright said I was anxious to kick up a fuss about this matter because I was losing my place in the political queue for election. I leave that accusation to the electorate of Laois-Offaly. The Deputy also picked out Councillor Hyland for special reference. He could not have picked out a finer man and I have no doubt that he has the confidence of the people of Laois.

Mr. Enright

The Deputy used a phrase last night about Mr. Fleming that is appropriate to him now.

Mr. Connolly

The Deputy will have to rely on Tom Keenan for the transfers, not Charlie. Turn him over. I do not blame the Deputy for that; it is good policy to keep one's feet in two camps.

Mr. Lalor

This rebellious situation has been with us for three years and I pity the Minister having genuinely to go against his conscience in this regard. He has to do what he knows is the wrong thing because he cannot afford to offend his colleague.

Mr. P. Barry

That is not correct. I am going in accordance with the High Court judgment.

Mr. Lalor

Is the Minister saying that Laois VEC were right in not appointing Mr. Phelan as headmaster of this school?

Mr. P. Barry

The High Court said that a headmaster should not be appointed.

Mr. Lalor

Is the Minister saying that the High Court stated that Mr. Phelan was not the headmaster and should not be appointed?

Mr. P. Barry

He failed in his action to have himself made principal teacher of the school. The court held that the committee should take immediate steps to have an appointment made to the position of principal.

Mr. Lalor

Is the Minister saying that the committee could not have appointed Mr. Phelan?

Mr. Enright

Mr. Justice McWilliam stated that as far as he was aware he could not see anything in the Vocational Education Acts which required the committee to appoint Mr. Phelan.

Mr. Lalor

This young man's future is being flung out the door by the majority on Laois County Council but I hope not by the majority in this House.

Mr. Connolly

By the Mafia.

Mr. Browne

It is not funny for the poor fellow who is being victimised by the bully boys.

Mr. Lalor

After I raised this matter in the House previously the committee made the decision to advertise the post. The Minister did not think that was the correct thing to do and he directed the committee not to advertise the post until he had an opportunity of studying the facts.

Mr. Enright

Four of the committee are non-political.

Mr. Connolly

What four? The Deputy must be codding. Their politics are spewing out through them.

Mr. P. Barry

Mr. Justice McWilliam said that his attention had not been directed to any provisions of the Vocational Education Act, 1930 or the Act of 1969 which required the committee to appoint the plaintiff under the circumstances that have arisen.

Mr. Lalor

That is what Deputy Connolly is talking about. The attention of the judge was not drawn to that. If the legal luminaries of this country are as crooked as that, to take that sort of a reading from it, I am disgusted with law.

Mr. P. Barry

The plaintiff was represented by counsel and if counsel knew anything existed in the Acts he would have brought it to the attention of the judge.

Mr. Lalor

The judge was wrapping counsel on the knuckles.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Enright

The Deputy quoted from The Leinster Express but he did not say anything about what he proposes to do once he gets control. If the Deputy had a majority I know what he would do.

Mr. Lalor

If Deputy Enright is anxious to get his kudos out of the fact that on one occasion, when some Fine Gael members failed to turn up, we took the opportunity——

Mr. Enright

Was that correct?

Mr. Lalor

I said publicly that I did not feel happy doing it but I was doing it.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Enright's party have been doing it for eight years.

Mr. P. Barry

What went against Deputy Lalor's concience?

Mr. Enright

Has Deputy Lalor any such a thing as principle?

Mr. Lalor

I put it on record that no member of the committee would go to London and I would see to that and that was what was behind it. I regret it is necessary to have to put this to a vote and that the Minister did not accept my motion. The Minister should either have accepted it or done as was promised by his predecessor, dissolve the committee.

Mr. P. Barry

The Deputy did not want that.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 55.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Leary, John.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and Pattison.

Question declared lost.

Barry, Peter.Barry, Richard.Barry, Michael.Belton, Luke. Burke, Liam.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Conlan, John F.Coogan, Fintan.Cooney, Patrick M.Corish, Brendan.Costello, Declan.Creed, Donal.Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.Desmond, Eileen.Dockrell, Henry P.Dockrell, Maurice.Donnellan, John.Dunne, Thomas.Enright, Thomas.Esmonde, John G.Finn, Martin.Gilhawley, Eugene.Halligan, Brendan.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Patrick.Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.Jones, Denis F.

Belton, Paddy.Bermingham, Joseph.Bruton, John.Burke, Joan T. Kelly, John.Kenny, Enda.Kyne, Thomas A.L'Estrange, Gerald.Lynch, Gerard.McLaughlin, Joseph.McMahon, Larry.Murphy, Michael P.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Connell, John.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Leary, Michael.O'Sullivan, John L.Pattison, Séamus.Reynolds, Patrick J.Ryan, John J.Spring, Dan.Staunton, Myles.Taylor, Frank.Timmins, Godfrey.Toal, Brendan.Tully, James.White, James.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28th April, 1977.