andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been drawn to reports concerning a meeting held between himself and a delegation from the Staff Association of the National College of Art to the effect that a statement issued by the secretary of that staff association was subsequently altered after an official of his Department had interviewed members of the part-time staff of the National College of Art; and if he will comment on these reports.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National College of Art.
41.
I met a deputation of nine teachers from the National College of Art on 25th May last. I was amazed to find a report in the following morning's newspapers to the effect that the teachers were dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting. One report, in fact, referred to the threat of a strike. As I had an entirely different impression of the meeting I asked one of my officers to speak to the teachers and find out, if possible, what was the basis for their dissatisfaction. It emerged that seven of the nine teachers who formed the deputation were highly indignant at the report in the press which, they said, was published without their knowledge or consent. One of them suggested that a letter be sent to the three newspapers disassociating themselves from the statements made. A letter on these lines was signed by seven of the teachers and sent to the three Dublin morning papers. One paper published the letter and another referred to it in a news item. The third paper did not print the letter nor made any reference to it. Six of the seven teachers also sent a personal letter to me deploring the statement made in the newspapers. It is not true, therefore, that a statement issued by the secretary of the staff association was altered after an officer of my Department had interviewed members of the part-time staff.
Could the Minister say whether he stands over the statement issued by his Department through the Government Information Bureau which stated that seven of the nine members of the deputation wished to dissociate themselves from a report which appeared in the public press relating to the deputation, and that this letter which they wrote to the press was written of their own volition and without any prompting from any officer in the Department of Education?
The statement I have made here now is that when I saw this statement in the newspapers I was shocked and I asked an official of my Department to ask the teachers whether they had been satisfied with the outcome of the meeting and, if not, what was the basis of the dissatisfaction. As I have already said, the teachers were highly indignant that any suggestion should be made and one of them suggested that a letter be written to the newspapers dissociating themselves from the statements made.
The question I asked the Minister was whether he stands over the statement issued by the Department through the Government Information Bureau. Is the answer "yes" or "no"? The House is entitled to have this information.
The Deputy will have to put down a separate question to that effect.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Deputy please read the statement again?
"This matter simply relates to the position where seven members of a deputation of nine teachers wished to disassociate themselves from a report relating to the deputation which appeared in the public press.
"A letter from them to this effect appeared in a national daily newspaper today. This letter was written of their own volition and without any prompting from any officer of the Department of Education."
Yes, the letter was written of their own volition.
And without any prompting?
Please allow me to reply. I asked an official to ask the teachers if they were dissatisfied. I do not know whether the Deputy would regard that as prompting but the letter was written by the seven teachers of their own volition.
I am asking the Minister whether he stands over the statement issued by the Government Information Bureau?
Yes.
I have spoken to three of the seven——
The Deputy is making a statement.
These three have stated to me personally that they were approached by an official of the Department, in two cases in the school, and in one case phoned and asked to come into the Department for an interview and that in each case they were shown a letter—in one case a draft— in handwriting, I presume the handwriting of the official, which was not the final text and which they were asked to approve.
This is an enlargement of the question put down by the Deputy. If he wishes to put this question he must do so on another occasion.
Three of the teachers have told me this. Far from there having been no prompting, they were asked to sign this letter to the effect that they had not been prompted.
That is another question.
Why, then, did they sign it? It is all cod.
In view of the fact that three of the teachers have told me this I am asking the Minister whether he will now instigate an inquiry into the matter.
The Deputy must allow questions to continue.
I have informed the Deputy that I requested the official to ask these teachers whether the report appearing in the newspapers was true. Evidently, the official discussed this matter with the people concerned. So far as I know, it was a joint effort between the teachers themselves and the official. I would say, however, that I consider it to be very insulting to the teachers concerned to suggest that not one of the seven would have had the courage to refuse to sign the letter if they did not believe in it.
Who wrote it?
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 42.
Because of the conflicting evidence, the Minister should instigate an investigation into the matter.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat? At this stage I must point out that the Chair is to be the judge of what supplementary questions are to be put. We cannot proceed on the basis of Deputies ignoring the Chair.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Chair is being ignored completely in regard to Question Time. Other Deputies have rights in this House, too.
May I ask a final supplementary?
The final supplementary will be Deputy Thornley's.
Is the Minister aware that one of the seven teachers who signed the letter expressing dissent from the first statement—the chairman of the staff association—subsequently issued a statement withdrawing the views expressed in the letter? Further, does the Minister not think that he is being disingenuous in saying that there is no question of using influence and that all he did was to send down to part-time people, employed by his Department in a very formidable contractual position, an official to "find out what was the basis of the dissatisfaction"?
I reject entirely the implication in the Deputy's supplementary. I would suggest to the Deputy that he read the letter in the Irish Press of 16th of this month and which was written by one of the teachers.
One.
I would point out also that I have a letter from six of the teachers concerned. It is a shocking attempt to reflect on the integrity of seven decent people in the College of Art to suggest that they would not have the courage to refuse to sign a letter in which they did not believe.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I am calling Question No. 42.
42.
andDr. FitzGerald asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that the great majority of the teaching staff of the National College of Art are employed on a part-time and temporary basis; that many of these teach a number of hours per week which in a secondary school would entitle them to incremental and permanent status; and if he is satisfied with this arrangement.
I am aware of the situation in the National College of Art regarding the position of the part-time temporary staff. I am not satisfied with the position but existing legislation in the matter of making permanent appointments in the Civil Service prevented me from appointing some of the existing staff to permanent posts. As the Deputies are now aware, legislation is being introduced to set up an autonomous governing board to take control of the college. This board will not be subject to the same restraints in the matter of making permanent appointments as I was.
May I ask a question, which I hope is in order? I am not seeking to delay the Dáil. If I might say so, I never do. I find myself in some difficulty because of this new legislation not having studied it fully. May I ask the Minister to guarantee that there will be no question of victimisation of those members of the part-time staff who have engaged in disputes with his Department during the past year or so?
No, the situation is that I am endeavouring to guarantee the rights of part-time teachers who have had certain service in the College of Art. In relation to others who have had shorter service, the matter will be one for the new board and I will not intervene.
Is the Minister satisfied with the information supplied by Deputy FitzGerald in this matter? Further, has the Minister had this information checked because I have it from public comment that his information is unreliable and that he represents only a small minority of the teachers involved?
That is another matter.
I do not intend to represent any teachers. I was simply drawing the Minister's attention to statements made by them.
I accept that the Deputy does not represent any of the teachers but he is getting his information from one particular quarter.
From three of the teachers.
The Deputy is well aware that he is getting his information from one particular quarter.
Is the Minister aware that on recent occasions outside the College of Art a number of students seemed to have plenty of time to play guitars and annoy people coming in and out of this House and would he take the necessary steps to see that this practice is not continued?
The Deputy is out of order.
So far as the Deputy's question is concerned, I would say it is a pity that, because of the activities of a small group in that college, the college is getting a bad name throughout the country when it could be one of the most useful institutions we have.