I welcome the opportunity to discuss in the Seanad two matters arising out of the terms of the Act which was passed in 1971 setting up the present board of the National College of Art. The first of these is the fact that there is a statutory duty on the board under section 16 (1) of the Act to report to the Minister, and a duty on the Minister to cause a copy of such report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Section 16 (1) provides that the board shall make a report to the Minister annually of its proceedings under this Act during the previous academic year of the college and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Section 16 (2) states that the board shall provide the Minister with such information regarding the performance of its functions that the Minister may from time to time require. The board were constituted and took up their duties in May, 1972, so that they have been in operation for more than a full academic year. We are now well on in the academic year of 1974 and no report appears to have been sent to the Minister. Certainly no report has been laid by the Minister before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
If all was well in the National College of Art one might have a little more patience and wait for such a report to be submitted. But, as we all know, things are not well in the National College of Art. The period since the introduction of the board has been one of discontent, of protest and of extreme despair on the part of the students. As Members of this House we cannot pretend to be unaware of this sorry state of affairs since we are immediately adjacent to the building which houses the National College of Art and we have seen the pickets of protest carried so frequently by the students. I intend to deal with this at greater length. The failure of the board to report, as required under the Act, and the failure of the Minister to lay the report before the Houses of the Oireachtas has a particular significance. It has deprived us in this House of tabling such report to be debated as we have tabled many other reports— for example, the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women and the Report of the National Library and Museum. This is done in order to have an opportunity to comment fully on what is in the report and, very often, what is not in the report but ought to be concerning the various activities of the college. That is the first matter at issue this evening.
Another matter is the failure by the board to appoint a director as provided by section 17 of the Act. Section 17 provides that there should be a director of the college. Subsection (2) of this section states that the director shall be the chief officer of the board and shall control and direct the staff and students of the college and the activities of the college, subject to the authority of the board. Elsewhere in the Act it is provided that the director will be a member of the board. From the whole reading of the Act he is the key figure. Looking back on the debate in both Houses in 1971 it was clear that the whole framework depended on an active director who would implement his function and powers under the Act so that the National College of Art could get off to a fresh start. I should like to refer Senators back to the debates on the establishment of the board under the Act of 1971. It was a controversial Bill. Many amendments were put down by the Opposition at the time but were not accepted. It is strange to see the very serious matters that were raised in the debates on the Bill by people who are now in government and who have an opportunity either to amend that Act—and there is good reason for amendment—or certainly to scrutinise and monitor the activities of the board and in particular the way in which they are implementing the provisions of the Act. It is a serious weakness in the whole structure that a director has not been appointed. The appointment of a full-time director is one of the issues which the students have sought to secure and have argued for. It is a matter which the board have been prepared to make public statements about. I refer to a public statement made by the board and publish in The Irish Times on 17th January, 1974, which relates to the fact that the board proposed to introduce reforms. It reads:
The Board of the National College of Art and Design in Dublin last night announced proposals for reorganisation and recruitment which it hopes will transform both academic standards and the general atmosphere within the college.
The proposals are contained in a statement issued following a meeting of the board which discussed the reported decision of the Labour Court on the board's decision in the case of four teacher members of the ATGWU.
The statement said far-reaching proposals for reorganisation and recruitment were put to the board in December by the consultant director, Professor James Warwick, and were approved.
The plans include the constitution of an academic board or council in the college; the appointment of a board of examiners; the setting up of an industrial liaison committee; the creation of a new grievance procedure for students and the creation of the post of Head of Department of Teacher Training.
I would be interested to take each of those items in turn and ask whether in fact the reforms are being implemented. My information is that none of the proposals has in fact been implemented of which the relevant one here was the proposal to advertise for and appoint a director forthwith. This is a very serious matter. It is unfair in a sense that it had to come before this House in the straitjacket of an Adjournment Debate, where there is not the opportunity that there should be for us to examine the way in which this Act is operating and the very serious situation in the College of Art.
There are several urgent matters I should like to have commented upon in debating a report duly submitted by the board. For example, I should like to see a discussion in the House relating to the difficulties arising out of the refusal by the board to renew the contract of four teachers in the College of Art, and the allegation that this was because of "disloyalty to the college" because they were voicing criticism. I am glad not to be in a position of being a teacher in the College of Art—who might be dismissed—but of being able to echo their "disloyalty", to reinforce their criticism and to back them up in their moral courage at having spoken out about the conditions in the College of Art.
I have had the opportunity of seeing the physical conditions under which the students work, and of listening to them about the lack of teaching in the school. They point out that every time they get a progressive teacher who tries to introduce change then he is either harrassed, dismissed, or, in the case of Arthur Armstrong, he resigns. I think it is relevant to look at what has happened to the talented and creative people who might have introduced the changes needed in the College of Art. I refer again to a report in The Irish Times of 17th July, 1973:
An Irish painter, Arthur Armstrong, has resigned from the staff of the National College of Art and Design in Dublin in protest against the "curiously irresponsible administration" of the College.
Mr. Armstrong joined the staff of the college last September as a part-time teacher in the school of painting. In a letter to the board last week, he said he had joined the staff because he believed that the board was sincerely trying to improve conditions and standards there. "Now, after a year of curiously irresponsible administration, culminating in the dismissal of four teachers who were seriously and successfully raising the standards of teaching in the college, I feel I have no option but to disassociate myself from the college and submit my resignation".
We have evidence of the dismissals of teachers; we have a resignation of a painter of the standing of Arthur Armstrong and we have evidence of constant protests by students.
