Why has it been decided to call this "the Dublin institute" rather than the Irish institute for advanced studies.
Committee on Finance. - Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, 1939—Committee.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Because it is going to be situated in Dublin, and it is very much better to have it so called.
It appears to me that if it is going to be a national institute, endowed by the nation, it should be described by a national title. If the Dublin Corporation were going to endow the institute, it would be proper to call it the Dublin institute, or if there were an area of charge to be fixed, it would be proper to call it by the name of the area on which the charge would be levied. If it is to be a national institution and the revenue is to be a charge upon the Exchequer and upon the community as a whole, and if Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Cork and Waterford are to make contributions towards it, I cannot imagine why it should be called the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. I simply cannot see why, by the use of such a title, the rest of the country should be invited to take no interest and no pride in it.
The question is as to which way it can best be done. The thoughts which are in the Deputy's mind were also in my mind in selecting this title. In other countries, as a rule, the university takes its name from the particular place in which it happens to be located. Whether it be medicine or theoretical or mathematical physics, or even Celtic studies, on account of the capital city being the centre where the work was being done, it was generally called by that name. Whilst I appreciate the considerations which the Deputy has mentioned, I came to the conclusion—finally, and after full consideration—that it would be better, from the point of view of our reputation abroad, that it should be called the Dublin Institute, not merely from the point of view I have mentioned, but after the capital of Ireland as the capital of the nation. If the institute were to be situated somewhere else, I might doubt the wisdom of that, but, as it is to be situated in the capital I think there will be no misunderstanding and that everybody will realise it is an Irish foundation. The more particularised the name is, the better, in this instance.
The Collége de France is not called the Collége de Paris. At the moment, I cannot think of any institute of this kind but the Collége de France.
France has not the same constitutional difficulty in describing itself as we have here under the new Constitution.
I never have any difficulty in using the word Ireland, Constitution or no Constitution; I had no difficulty in using it before any of this Constitution business was ever heard of, and I should have no difficulty whether the Constitution were ever heard of or not. All I can say is that I differ with the Prime Minister in this matter. I think it is well to bear in mind that, in planning an institute of his kind, we are not planning something which is to last for ten or 20 years only. If it turns out as some of of us hope it will, it will last long after all of us are buried. The likelihood of any other country changing its name to "Ireland" is remote, but there are already about 40 "Dublins" in the world. I do not know whether any of those Dublins scattered about the world will ever rival our national capital in notoriety but, certainly, it seems to me that the name "Irish Institute"—both from the internal viewpoint and from that of our international reputation—is preferable in every sense of the word. May I remind the Taoiseach at this stage that the Prime Minister of Great Britain recently fell into a rather distressing error when he hoped that the word Narvik in despatches had not been misapplied to Larvik? I hope that the word Dublin will not be confused with the word Lublin and that no one will expect to find on the facade of the institute a Nazi cross and on the President of it a brown shirt. I will move an amendment next week.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) The functions of the institute shall be to provide facilities for the furtherance of advanced study and the conduct of research in specialised branches of knowledge and for the publication of the results of such study and research.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 41, to delete the word "such" and substitute the word "advanced", and to add after the word "research", the following words "whether carried on under the auspices of the institute or otherwise".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the institute will have the power to publish works by extern scholars. Under the present drafting, it may appear that the institute could only publish works which were the actual result of their own immediate labours in the school. We think that is not advisable. There is somewhat similar provision to be made in a subsequent amendment under which we are widening the scope, so that foreign scholars might be commissioned to do certain work. For example, we secured recently a book on Irish grammar by arranging with a foreign scholar to edit a former edition of his work, putting in amendments and notes which he was known to possess. That will be published fairly soon. We did that ourselves here. I think we had an Estimate in the Dáil on one occasion for it. This will mainly apply to the school of Celtic studies, but the same principle should hold in other cases. If there is a piece of work which it is desired to have done and there is a foreign scholar particularly fitted to do that work, it should be within the competence of the school to arrange for the carrying out of that work and pay to that foreign scholar whatever remuneration is considered appropriate.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I repeat my objection to paragraph (b), but I propose to refer to that in connection with an amendment which I will move on the recommittal of the Bill.
Can the Taoiseach say what the intention is with regard to the date of establishment of the school of Celtic studies on the one hand and that of theoretical physics on the other?
I hope that by the opening of the new academic year both schools will have been established. When speaking on the Money Resolution, I said that it was hoped to have two professors for the school of Celtic studies. My original intention with regard to theoretical physics was to have three professors but in view of the war and other circumstances it is proposed to begin with one. We would begin with one in October, or with two if a second is available.
Does the Taoiseach assure us that one appointment will not deplete the present university staffs?
As a matter of fact, under my original intention there will be only one that might have depleted a university staff, but I do not know if that will occur now.
And the other one the Taoiseach has in mind is at present here and is working already under the Royal Irish Academy?
That was done in order to retain his services in the country, so that he would be available immediately the school is started.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(2) The functions and duties of the school of theoretical physics shall be—
(a) the investigation of the mathematical principles of natural philosophy and the application of those principles to the physical and chemical group of sciences and to geophysics and cosmology;
(b) the training of advanced students in methods of original research in the said group of sciences and in geophysics and cosmology;
(c) the provision of facilities for advanced study and research in theoretical physics for university professors and lecturers on leave of absence from their academic duties;
(d) the organisation of seminars, conferences, and lectures on topics related to theoretical physics which lie on the frontiers of knowledge;
(e) the preparation and the recommendation to the council for publication of descriptions of recent accessions to knowledge in the sphere of theoretical physics and in particular descriptions of such accessions resulting from the scientific activities of the school;
(f) such other functions and duties in relation to theoretical physics as may from time to time be assigned to the school by the Government by order made after consultation with the governing board of the school.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), page 4, after paragraph (e), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(f) the commissioning of competent scholars, whether associated or not associated with the institute, to undertake, either with or without remuneration, the writing or the editing of works dealing with theoretical physics.
That is consequential on amendment No. 1?
Yes.
This amendment proposes to give power to commission works. Here, I think, a note of warning is necessary. I recently had brought before me at the Committee of Public Accounts a commission of this character. A man was given a commission to prepare a vocabulary of a certain very limited area, not much larger than a borough, in this country. I have no doubt the man was a perfectly bona fide scholar who threw his heart and soul into this work. I think what was envisaged was a modest octavo volume. When the work had reached 1,000,000 words and was heading for the 17th volume it was suggested to the Department of Education that the basis of the commission might profitably be reviewed, because if this went on the work might never finish and the cost reach proportions that were never anticipated by those who commissioned the work. I understand that some more satisfactory arrangement has now been arrived at. That is a matter that requires to be vigilantly watched because the person commissioned may have an entirely different view of the work anticipated from the body that gives the commission. If you have made up your mind to retain the services permanently of a man who is a research professor you know what you are in for, but if you confer upon a body of scholars, who are not primarily business men, an indiscriminate right to commission work from outside the institution it gives rise to problems of the kind that I have outlined which require constant vigilance from a person accustomed to the difficulties that arise in the granting of such commissions.
I agree with the Deputy that care has to be exercised in cases of that kind.
There is an immense loophole.
The trouble is that it is admittedly desirable that the power should be there. The exercise of it is another matter. In regard to the care that should be taken in the exercise of it, I am in agreement with the Deputy.
This is an amendment being put in now and I think an amendment to this amendment should be considered between now and the Recommittal Stage with a view to providing that commissions given to scholars outside the institution should be submitted to some competent authority who would examine the business side of them. I am not asking to have unreasonable interference with the council's discretion but I do not look to the council as primarily a business body. They are a body of scholars and I would be glad to think that the bursar would be required to consult with somebody—I am not quite clear whom, as yet—with a view to safe guarding the council against entering into any improvident commission the full liabilities of which had not been foreseen.
I think the Deputy will agree that the considerations which he mentioned before, which make it inadvisable that the accounts should be submitted to the Committee of Public Accounts, also arise here. If you tie them too tightly in the Bill you are going to make it practically impossible to get the work done. In this scheme of the Bill there is a series of checks in a sense. First of all, the only body that is capable of making contracts, etc., is the council, the body corporate. If the governing body wanted something to be done that involved finance they would have to come to the council. In addition the council in dealing with matters of finance would have to consult with the Minister for Education who would have to get the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. I think the danger in the general scheme of the Bill is one of restriction rather than of giving that amount of freedom which might have the effects which the Deputy fears.
Is the Minister sure he is right?
I think I am.
No.
In trying to get a scheme for this Bill I had to bear in mind two sides. First of all, the Government was coming in very closely and it was desirable, therefore, that if the Government were to be responsible there should be close contact and, in a sense, a certain amount of supervision, particularly where finance is concerned. In the Bill originally we had the Minister for Finance coming in directly, so that the council would consult with the Minister for Finance. We thought that was not right, that it was much better that there should be only one link between the council and the Government, namely, the Minister for Education. If financial questions are involved he has to have the concurrence of the Minister for Finance with regard to expenditure of a certain type.
I think the Minister is wrong there. If the Minister looks at his Bill he will find that where a professor or anybody is being appointed to the staff of the institute, when their terms of employment and matters of that kind are being fixed then the approval of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education must be got, but it is not argued for a moment that in the several functions set out in Section 5 the Minister's approval must be obtained on every occasion nor do I think it ought to be.
No, no.
But into Section 5, where there is a wide discretion and where we are all agreed there ought to be wide discretion and a minimum of interference from the Ministry of Finance, you are putting the power to commission outside professors to do work and it is because you are putting it into that section that I think you ought to be on the qui vive. As regards sub-heads A, B, C, D, E and F, as they appear in the section, I do not want any checks. I think it is wise to leave the council a wide discretion there, but if you are going to give them the further power to commission persons outside the institution then, I think, the procedure suggested under Sections 17, 18 and 19 would probably be more appropriate. I do not press the Minister for Education, but I would ask him to consider that question.
I think the Minister for Education will be held by the Government as a whole as more or less responsible for a lot of the activities in so far as they involve financial commitments, and he will have to keep in much closer touch than, for example, the Minister for Education has to keep with the universities. He is brought in much more directly. Consequently, I think the fact that money will be hard to obtain and that the council will have to be appealing for money for new projects, and the fact that the Minister may say, "Look at what you did in such a case" will be a check on the council. It may be locking the door after the steed is stolen, but I think it would be a constant warning that care has to be exercised in matters of that sort. I know the Deputy's anxiety, but I would leave it as it is even after the warning he has given. I do not think we should amend it.
Perhaps the Minister would cause inquiry to be made into the case which I have referred to in which, although everybody was acting in the best of faith, we got involved in this wholly limitless commitment. I think it was by the goodwill of the scholar that we were released and a more satisfactory contract substituted.
Yes. Accidents will happen in the best regulated families.
Agreed.
May I take it, in relation to this amendment, that there is no restriction as to the language, or may I ask if there is any restriction as to the language in which these works will be written?
I do not think so. If there is work that can be done by a specialist it may have to be done in his own language for the time being and then we may have to get translations of it, or something of that sort. I think we had better leave it as it is. Naturally, where it can be made available in a language that is known in the schools that will be the aim.
We might want to consider the question of dealing with translations, if so.
Well, I should like to suggest that we cannot run the school from here at this particular moment. We cannot go into very close detail at the moment here, and can only deal with the general question.
Yes, but you are indicating here the functions and duties.
Yes.
I suggest that you are limiting the functions.
Only in regard to a special language.
No, but by special Acts. This amendment, however, deals with the commissioning of competent scholars to deal with certain works, but I do not know if there is any provision there for the translation of such works.
I think that Deputy Mulcahy is perfectly right, inasmuch as you may deprive this institute of the power to pay for translations. I think that something should be put in there giving general powers in that regard.
Well, we can put in a note to that effect. By the way, I am reminded that there is a general clause which, I think, covers that, later on. In any case, we can amend this clause later on.
Amendment No.2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Speaking on the section, Sir, and arising out of the remarks that have been made by the Taoiseach and Deputies Mulcahy and Dillon, I think there is no general provision in the Bill to deal with this matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 says that
"every constituent school, other than the school of Celtic studies and the school of theoretical physics, shall have such functions and duties as shall be assigned to it by the establishment order relating to it or by an order amending that order."
That is to say, an establishment order for these two particular schools must have these particular functions and these only, and there is no provision for varying. There is provision made for the setting up of other schools, and provision is also made for the order, and the amending of that order, by which the functions and duties of such schools shall be determined but, according to my reading of the Bill, there is no provision whatever for the amending of the provisions in relation to these particular two schools and no power for varying these provisions afterwards.
I think that you could read such a power into paragraph (f), which I think appears in the original Bill.
Yes.
I think that it means that the amendment is incorrectly drawn.
Well, I shall look into that matter, but I think there is a general clause covering it.
I think that a paragraph (g) after the amendment, would give you the necessary power.
On the section itself, Sir; in so far as it deals with purely Celtic studies, as set out here, and the functions and duties concerned therein, I have expressed an opinion already as to why this school —I do not know why it should be called a school—is going to undertake a work that is the proper province, in my opinion, of the university, and I can quite visualise great reactions taking place on the standard and the volume of Celtic studies, now being pursued in the universities, as the result of this. Let us take into consideration what is proposed here. Section 5 says that the functions and duties of the school of Celtic studies shall be:—
"(a) the investigation, editing, and publication of extant manuscript material in the Irish language."
Now, I can quite easily understand machinery being set up for the doing of that outside the university. It already exists. It already exists in the case of the Irish Manuscripts Committee and also in the case of the Royal Irish Academy, and I am not quite clear at all as to the necessity for setting up new machinery to deal with such matters. However, I accept the fact that that is work that can be done outside the university without undermining the position of the university in any way. Then, we have paragraph (b):—
"the grammatical, lexicographical and philological study of old, middle and modern Irish."
Now, that, to my mind, is work that is proper to the university, and I should like to find out, if that is being transferred to the new body, how much of it is going to be left to the university, and, if a certain amount of it is going to be taken out of the university, to what extent the Irish faculty of the university is going to be reduced.
I do not want to argue too much on the question of personnel, but I do suggest that it is possible that some university professors will be taken from the service of the university for that particular purpose, and I should like to know how, under the existing and very stringent circumstances financially, they are going to be replaced. The next is paragraph (c): "the phonetic investigation of existing Irish dialects and the recording of the living Irish speech in all Irish-speaking districts." I think that, in fact, is the most urgent thing that is required at the present time. Such manuscripts as exist at the moment are there now and they can be studied just as well in two years' time as in three, or four, or five years' time, as the case may be. They are there, but the work of the phonetic investigation of the existing Irish dialects is a thing that is urgent. It is a thing in connection with which a beginning has been undertaken, I understand, as part of the university machine, by the Folklore Institute. I understand that that institute is part of the university machine, and I think that, at any rate, the Taoiseach does not deny that the Folklore Institute is housed in, and also a part of, University College.
Again, that is partially true.
Well, of course, I do not know how we are going to advance in higher mathematics if every figure that we examine is only going to be regarded as partially correct. However, as I say, the beginning of that work has been done by the Folklore Society, and I should like to know what machinery is going to tackle the work that is immediately necessary in that connection, and also to what extent there will be a withdrawal of work from the Folklore Society, and in what way there will be a corresponding withdrawal of finance. Paragraph (d) has to do with the collection and stndy of Irish place names. Now, if there is any more suitable machinery for dealing with that type of miscellaneous work than the Folklore Society, I do not know of it, and I should like to know whether, in view of this paragraph, that work is going to be taken away entirely from the Folklore Society. Paragraph (e) has to do with the study of Irish social history and of all branches of Irish history which require for thier investigation a knowledge of the Irish language. Now, it is very hard to know what that means: whether it means that we are going to extract, from old Irish manuscripts that exist, some kind of a picture of society in the Irish past, or whether we are going to see it from the picture of things that the Folklore Society is trying to create—from the Swedish point of view. Again, it seems to me that that is going to take away some work from the Folklore Society that, at any rate, it seems to me, it is trying to do or, at least, developing our people to do.
Then we have paragraph (f): "the preparation and the recommendation to the council for publication of works dealing with any of the subjects mentioned in any of foregoing paragraps of this sub-section and of other works calculated to promote a more general knowledge of the literature of the Celtic languages and to the cultural and social background of Celtic civilisation." I do not know of any people in this country, or in any part of this country, who are more qualified to make recommendations as to what manuscripts are most necessary to be examined, or what work should be done in that connection, than the Irish faculties in the Irish universities. If any direction or advice is to be got as to the priority to be given under paragraph (a), I say that there are no people you can go to for that but the people who are dealing with higher studies in the universities. They are the only people who can tell you in respect of what manuscripts they are handicapped, the general extent to which they are handicapped, as they are, and what particular manuscripts they require to have worked on. There is no research involved as to what manuscripts exist. There is a sufficient volume there to indicate at once what is required to be done, but I think it is entirely the function of the university side.
Paragraph (g)—the training of advanced students in the methods of research in any of the said subjects— brings me back to the point I raised on the Money Resolution. This school of high studies connot function except in an absurd, incompetent and costly way if the people who enter it are people who are not already trained, and, again in that respect, a strengthening of the professorial side of the universities is one of the most urgent necessities if a better approach is to be made to the work indicated in paragraph (a). If that better approach in the Celtic faculty, or the Irish faculties in the universities, is not made, or if it can only be made with a certain amount of expense, a lot of the work here is waste and a lot of the work talked about will be left undone.
I must say that I do not at all understand paragraph (h). The Taoiseach indicated that those who were professors in the new institute would attend and give lectures at University College, Dublin, for one year and attend Trinity College next year.
Not for a year, but to give occasional lectures.
I think the Taoiseach spoke of alternate years.
Yes; in alternate years, they will give a course of lectures.
In one university now and in another university again?
In one college.
It simply emphasises the necessity for a connection between this institute and the universities. A mere going to the universities and giving a set of lectures is not the kind of contact wanted. The kind of contact wanted is the contact that would exist if this institute were part and parcel of the National University.
So far as paragraph (i)—the provision of facilities for advanced study and research for university professors and lecturers—is concerned, I do not know why it is necessary to have a separate institute for that. Similarly with regard to the next sub-paragraph dealing with the exchange of students with other countries. That exchange is carried out by the universities already. To my mind, there is only one thing which, if the advancement of Celtic studies is to be effectively brought about, might be taken outside our universities, that is, the investigation, editing, and publication of extant manuscript material in the Irish language, and this should be done on the advice of those people who are dealing with Irish language matters in the universities.
With regard to the functions and duties of the school of Celtic studies, paragraph (c) provides for the phonetic investigation of existing Irish dialects and the recording of the living Irish speech in all Irish-speaking districts. You could not call the suburbs of Chicago an Irish-speaking district, and yet very valuable work has been done there. I would advise the striking out of those words: "In all Irish-speaking districts." It would take a great deal to persuade people that Buenos Aires is an Irish-speaking district. I have myself found Irish on the top of Lookout Mountain in Colorado, and I know scholars who have found very valuable repositories of folklore, song and idiom in the suburbs of Chicago. I therefore recommend the removal of these words because I think them superfluous and capable of creating unforeseen difficulties.
With regard to (e)—the study of Irish social history and to all branches of Irish history which require for their investigation a knowledge of the Irish language—what is the point of putting that in? Surely "The study of Irish social history and of all branches of Irish history" is quite enough? If it is the purpose of the council to leave the study of those branches of knowledge to other institutes except where they require a knowledge of old, middle or modern Irish, they can by their day to day arragements segregate the part of historical research which requires a knowledge of Irish and apply their minds to that; but let us not, by statute, limit them to such branches of Irish history as cannot be pursued without a knowledge of the Irish language. Otherwise you are going to have interminable arguments between legalistic experts as to whether certain schemes are or are not ultra vires the charter of the institute, and that is a very unprofitable kind of business to promote.
Under sub-paragraph (k), I think you could probably extend the scope of any of these sub-paragraphs, but if we imagine sub-paragraph (e) to be wide enough with the words which it at present includes, a branch of study might be embarked upon under that sub-paragraph and the point might not be raised until it had been seven or eight years in progress that it was ultra vires and that it should have been done under an order made under sub-paragraph (k). Let us, therefore, strike out the redundant words:
"which require for their investigation a knowledge of the Irish language."
That leaves the paragraph wide or narrow enough to meet every requirement.
I have already indicated that I propose to amend this section somewhat. These functions were originally suggested by the Irish Studies Section of the Academy and they are being sent, with some amendments, for further consideration. These amendments would have to be brought in at a later stage—unfortunately we have not got them ready at the moment—but the trouble is with regard to being too narrow or too broad. We do not want to have historical research generally, in so far as it affects Ireland even, undertaken by the school. We want them to undertake such research as they would be particularly fitted to undertake and the question is how to get a phrase which will, on the one hand, not appear altogether too narrow and, on the other, will limit them to what we intend. Our intention is that they should undertake that work for which they are best fitted, and those who have a knowledge of the ancient language would naturally be the best people for historical investigations in which that knowledge was required.
We must imagine all these people to be sensible. The appointments will indicate the type of work the men are specially fitted for. Here the intention is to indicate in a general way the type of work they will have to do. I think Deputy Mulcahy is opposed to this proposal because of some misunderstanding about its whole purpose, and the more I listened to him the more I began to blame myself for not having gone more fully into it at an earlier stage. I do not see how he can think that this Institute is going to do work which the universities should properly do. The Deputy knows the universities sufficiently well and the work that is actully done in them at the present day. The professors there have to teach and give lectures to different classes of students, first year, second year and third year, or those going for a degree and doing post-graduate and higher courses. That is the main part of the work of the professors. In addition to that the professors, being naturally interested in their studies, have no time at their disposal to pursue certain investigations. If they get good students that they think will have the ability to pursue a certain line, they lead them along that line to the point when they travel together and are beyond the frontiers of present assured knowledge. That is work that is being done. That ordinary professors in a university have no opportunity to undertake such a collosal task as to go through Irish manuscripts, selecting those which ought to be brought out first, and getting them produced in anything like a reasonable time. A professor may be interested in one stage. An M.A. student may take on the editing of one particular text as a thesis. The universities will never be in a position to undertake the systematic sort of work required to be done in this school of Celtic studies.
The Deputy suggested the compiling of a grammar. Anybody who has made a study of the language knows that we are in need of a really authoritative grammar at the present time. As a matter of fact, what we want is to start with three grammars, to analyse what is the correct usage in the three main dialects, and you want scholars who are able to do that. You want scholars who can collate the whole lot and give a unified or comprehensive grammar of the Irish language. That is not the work of a professor. A professor could undertake it, but it would be a very long and a very difficult task. It might take a lifetime to make investigations. If he was in the position of a director and had some assistants he could organise the work and say that such and such is to be the order. He might arrange to have three grammars going on at the same time, by having a general plan, and then when the three were brought along, he would get another authority that he thought more competent for a particular section. That is the work which would have to be undertaken away altogether from the day-to-day task of a professor in a university, with a growing number of students to be prepared for the life they are to lead afterwards in the professions and so on. I think Deputy will agree that these grammars are required.
The same thing applies to dictionaries. We have no perfect dictionaries. Those we have were a magnificent effort on the part of those who compiled them, having regard to the help they got and the amount of material available, but Deputies will agree that we are very far from having the type of Irish dictionary that ought to be available, and that will be available in the future, I hope, as a result of the activities of a school like this. You want people constantly working at one edition after another, in which you could expand the material which was available since the first went through.
Is not the Royal Irish Academy doing that at the present time?
No. They are doing a certain amount of that work, and there will be close contact between this school of Celtic studies, the University Faculty, and the Royal Irish Academy. There will not be duplication.
Is not the Royal Irish Academy doing a dictionary at present?
There was a project about an old Irish dictionary, but at the rate at which it was being produced it would take from 50 to 70 years to complete. That rate of progress is much too slow for us. We tried to urge it on more rapidly. We cannot get absolute perfection in this world. There will be a second edition of a book, and even in the second edition there will be errors of one kind or another. If we want to make progress we must be prepared to do our best every time, but even with the best there will be some errors. In subsequent editions there can be corrections. I admit that they should be as iew as possible. Remember, time is a very important element. If we spend a long time doing a small piece of work in order to make it absolutely perfect, it would bot be advisable that the larger amount of work, in which there might be some errors which could be corrected afterwards, should be delayed.
Going back to the question of the Irish dictionary an agreement was come to to have a different one from the one projected. It would probably take from 50 to 100 years to complete at the rate at which it was going. The very people who have sufficient knowledge to do the work might not be available, and others equally well qualified might not be left to do the work. Remembering that life is relatively short, and that when a man has reached the position in which he is really an expert scholar, the number of years left him for first-class work is comparatively small. There is a period of life at which a certain amount of work must be done if it is going to be done at all. In regard to the dictionaries, my idea is that we want a dictionary like Father Dinneen's as quickly as it can be produced. The nation will always be grateful to Father Dinneen for the work he did on his dictionary. We want to increase the usefulness of that dictionary. There are numbers of words not in it, and it has to be carefully examined from the point of seeing what is archaic. We want an etymological dictionary, and greater number of phrases, indicating the various uses of words. That is work which would require continuous direction over a very long period. In the ordinary way, the end of this work would not be seen in our time. That work could not be done by the universities. They have no way of setting aside three or four persons who could spend ten or 15 years at that work.
The same would be true with regard to place-names. That is specialised work. Others may be doing it, but the director of the school would avail of the services of the workers already in the field if they were regarded by him as competent. The collection of place-names and their publication would require continuous effort over a number of years. Again, that work could not be done by the university. It has been suggested that the Folklore Commission, or some kindred body might do it, but the Folklore Commission is concentrating on a particular piece of work. There is a great deal more of that work to be done and I think it is well to let them continue at that work for the present.
As regards the recording, in a specialised way, of Irish speech, there is a certain amount being done, but we want to ensure that it will be done systematically. If there is any need to supplement the work already done in that connection, it will be supplemented. The intention is that if the school thinks that it should enter upon any of these functions set out, it should not be excluded from doing so. The Deputy should, if he thinks over the matter, come to the conclusion that the continuous work over a period of years envisaged in this Bill could not possibly be done by the universities. The Deputy says that we are depleting the university staff. We have to remember that, at a certain age, professors retire and have to be replaced. Provision has to be made for the taking of their places by younger men. It is well that provision should be made while the older men are still available to guide the younger men and that they should be close at hand, as they will be in this institute. If provision of that kind were postponed until such time as these men would have passed away, a great deal of the knowledge they have would have gone with them. I find it hard to understand why the Deputy is opposing the Bill on the ground that the university will be robbed.
The Taoiseach gave us a description of the work that university professors do. I tried to intervene with a sensible question, the answer to which might have helped the House, but I did not succeed. Perhaps the Taoiseach would tell us what the function is of the Professor in Research in connection with Irish in the National University and if he is going to be taken out of that.
So far as I know, the Professor of Research was allowed to pursue any line he chose in regard to Celtic studies. He was quite free to occupy himself with any particular work in the domain of research and, if students wished to avail of his services for direction, they were free to do so. In this case, the professors will be expected to do the things that will be set out. One of these things would be the giving of a series of lectures in the colleges from time to time in regard to the particular subjects they were studying, so as to make the information more generally available. They will help students to do their particular branch of research and, by the holding of little conferences, encourage them to pursue certain lines. The professors will have assistants of the class I have indicated already and they will be able to pursue this work as if it were their life work instead of being obliged to engage in other activities. The case of the Research Professor in Celtic Studies is, more or less, unique in the National University and that faculty would not be sufficient to meet the need in this case.
Do I understand the Taoiseach to say that the Professor of Research in Celtic Studies in the National University is simply appointed as a personality, free to pursue his own whim in any particular way and without any functional duties to the university—that he is simply there as a person given asylum to carry out his own personal work?
I have not got the statute under which the Professor of Celtic Research was appointed and I could not answer the question with exactness but in general——
That is the picture the Taoiseach gives us of this advanced-study work in the National University.
I do not know what exactly the Deputy now means. The professors in the Celtic faculties in the universities teach students. In the case of those who have gone to the stage at which they might be given a thesis, they help them along with the research necessary to do the thesis properly. I do not think that the research professor had any student classes given him but he was always available to students if they wanted his services. I do not know if many students directly availed of his assistance. The professor was appointed under a special statute and I should have to look up the statute to learn what exactly his functions are.
In the case of this school, a definite programme of work will be drawn up by the director. One of the professors in each school will be indicated as director and part of his duty will be to map out the work which the particular school is going to do during a certain period. He will have to present that to the governing body of the school and get their approval of the plan. Then he will have to supervise the carrying out of the plan. Naturally, he would have consulted the other professors in preparing this plan and it would be so arranged that their expert assistance would be available. I am speaking now mainly of the school of Celtic studies because, in that case, there is available a definite volume of work. In the case of mathematical physics, or sciences like that, it is not always clear what particular field you may have to cover. Much depends on chance hitting upon something that may be fruitful. In this case, we know that there is a definite mass of material to be worked and that the task will occupy a number of persons systematically over a number of years.
The Taoiseach will excuse me if I say that I see the pale shadow, as drawn by him, of the Professor of Research in Modern Irish disappearing from University College, Dublin. Whether the picture be exaggerated or not, I see the taking away of the coping stone of advanced Irish studies in the National University. I also see this, that it would be of infinitely greater strength to the advancement of university studies in Irish if those who are working on grammars were working as part of the university. The Taoiseach talks about taking 30 years to prepare a dictionary. I do not know how long it is going to take in the case of a grammar, but I say that there is a day to day product of useful knowledge turned out from the grammar workshop and that the closer it is associated with the university the better would the work be done and the quicker and more valuable would be the impact of that work on the ordinary studies in the university. However dimly we see things, it would look as if we see things from different points of view.
I must ask the Taoiseach to peruse what he said when he was speaking of the dictionary, because I think he will find words there which are capable of interpretation as meaning that he would be content with a lower standard of learning from this institute than we have expected in the past from the academy. I do not believe he intended to convey that impression, but if he will peruse the words he used he may deem it expedient on recommittal to amplify them.
Lest there be any misunderstanding about that, I had better amplify it at once. What I mean is this: when you have exercised all reasonable care with the knowledge that you have got and when, if you are in doubt, you try to amplify things, you have got your work done. One should not stop publication merely on the ground that it is quite possible one has omitted something. Human effort is always imperfect and therefore it is much better, in my opinion, when you have got the highest standard which you can reach with your knowledge, to produce the work and make it available for the public instead of keeping it in your head and perhaps dying with it. Whilst I would like to have the highest possible standard, I would rather see an imperfect dictionary produced by the academy in a period of 20 years rather than to have a perfect one done in 100 years. If I get an imperfect one done in ten or 15 years, I know there are people who will come after me who will examine the imperfections and amplify the work.
The main point is that we should make a beginning. What may happen is that you will have the letters A, B, C, D, and E done in a lifetime. The people of the present day want some assistance and, instead of having these things done exhaustively—because it is often a question of doing the thing exhaustively—it would be much better, in my opinion, to have them done in a less exhaustive way so as to make some beginning. The point is that rather than attempt to do the thing exhaustively, such as taking the letters A, B, C, D, E or perhaps half the alphabet in a period of ten years, let us get in that period of ten years twice the number of letters without having the work done just as exhaustively, and then in the succeeding ten years whatever is lacking could be filled in. That is the viewpoint I have as a result of the ordinary experience of life, and I think it would be the wisest course. With regard to the academy there has been an effort made to hurry it up. They are not inclined to be quite as exhaustive in the new effort as in the old one. I would not like it to be thought that I want slipshod work. Quite the opposite is what I would like.
A question was raised relating to a certain amount of supervision and control, particularly in relation to finance, and reference was made to the Government being very closely in touch with this work. Is the Minister for Education going to control the spelling and the type of writing on the Celtic studies side? Will the Government outline the type of spelling necessary and are they to write in characters of a particular kind?
We shall have to leave that to the school itself. One thing I hope the school will do and that is that it will perform some of the functions of an academy and indicate to us a standard with regard to usage. I have in mind a standard in relation to spelling, for instance. I do not think it was ever suggested that we should dictate to them in what particular manner they should carry out their specialised work.
Question put.
I do not agree with the section. We are not dividing against it, but I do not agree that we should pass it.
Will the Deputy be taken as dissenting?
Very well.
Question declared carried.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill".
On Section 7, the establishment orders are going to deal with a certain number of things, such as the appointment and removal of professors, visiting professors and assistants and the admission and dismissal of students. If the professors of the school are to be full-time what are visiting professors and are they to be paid in any way? Are the assistants to be full-time? Under paragraph (i) there is reference to the relations of the school and the governing board thereof with the institute, and with the Minister and the Government. Is there anything particular intended in that? I should like to know whether it is considered that the details of the Bill do not define the relations of the governing body of the school with the Minister and the Government and so on.
With regard to the last part of the Deputy's remarks, you will notice that the Bill prescribes certain things in the case of the two schools that are being established directly by the Bill. The various functions, and so on, will have to be indicated. The Bill does indicate the relations of the school and the governing board with the institute and with the Minister and the Government. I do not know whether it might be considered an unnecessary duplication to have that in the orders. It seems to me that the Deputy is making the point that it would not be necessary to do these things inasmuch as they are already prescribed for in advance. I will look into that to see if there would be unnecessary duplication. The intention was to make sure that in the establishment orders in the new scheme some indication of the relations of the governing body with the Minister, the Government and the institute would be provided in the same way as they are provided for the schools that are being established. But it is possible inasmuch as the Bill is more general, that that particular section may not be necessary.
The first part of my question was with regard to visiting professors and assistants.
Oh, yes; first of all, with regard to the senior professors, these are intended to be whole-time. With regard to the assistants these may be whole-time or part-time as may be decided by the governing body. With regard to the visiting professors I am not quite sure whether the reference is to professors who might be on leave from their own work and who might come to study with the professors here, or on the other hand, to professors who would be brought over for the purpose of giving occasional lectures. Both of these things might happen. They may be here as students, so to speak, or some might be brought over as members of the academic staff for occasional lectures. In either case obviously these could only be part-time. Whether they would be regarded as whole-time or part-time I could not say now but it would be for a short period of years only that this question would arise.
The whole implication of the thing is that the institute is a teaching institute. It will do a certain amount of work and it will do it with the workers in it. Substantially it will be a teaching institution.
It can teach advanced students and direct them in methods of research. Nearly always when the students come to a certain stage they have already got a foundation built up and they know what is usually taught in the universities up to the M.A. degree. Then they start out to work for themselves. As a rule the student does not continue trying to acquaint himself with knowledge that has been already ascertained. He starts at some particular point where there is a difficulty, or in some particular field in which he is interested. I know one student who has made a special study of the Irish system of law. He felt he was fitted for it and he went on with it so that he has made it his own. To that extent there will be teaching.
Section 7 put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Section 8 raises the whole question as to whether it is desirable to have these appointments to an institution of this kind made by a political Government. To make an appointment of this kind directly by the Government has not been a very successful experiment in any country in the world where it has been tried because the Government finds itself subject to all sorts of difficulties. To appoint certain persons all sorts of pressure will be brought to bear; on the other hand pressure will be brought to bear not to appoint certain persons or to get rid of persons whose names for the moment may be unpopular. It is difficult for a popularly elected Government to resist that sort of pressure. While the Government may avoid the grosser results of favouritism, the fact remains that when desirable appointments fall to be made, the colleagues of the Minister for Education in the Cabinet may say to him: "You will not stir up a nest of hornets by appointing so and so; there is just as good a man available to whom there is no objection, but if you appoint the other fellow there is going to be pandemonium." So the tendency is to choose scholars who are most colourless on the grounds that they are the ones least likely to offend anyone. I do not see why this function should not be relegated to some other body such as the Council of State or the President acting in consultation with the Council of State, or the council of the Academy subject to the approval of the President of Ireland, in consultation with the Council of State. For although it is true that the Council of State is drawn as at present constituted from much the same kind of people as the Government, there is just one difference, that there are no emoluments attached to the office, and being a member of the body is only an additional burden on the person; so the person on the council does not give a hoot about the public. In that way the council is one stage removed from contact with the electors, and the members are not so subject to pressure as persons depending on passing public approval may be. I therefore suggest to the Minister for Education that he should consider the advisability of taking away from the Government these appointments. If that is not done, the result will be that the quality of the professors when appointed by a properly elected Government will be poorer. The experience gained in every other country in the world gives support to that view. In New York, recently, a man for whom I have no admiration or regard was offered some appointment of the kind in a New York institution. Very vehement pressure was brought to bear on the public authorities to prevent this appointment being made. It might have been very fortunate in the event if the public pressure had been successful, but it was not, because the board which had the ultimate say in the matter was not dependent on public approval. If it had been, it is quite obvious that this appointment would have been cancelled. It was put through because the members of the responsible body were able to say they did not give a hoot for public clamour. Probably the attention of the Prime Minister has not been directed to the case to which I am referring.
I think the Deputy indicated here a short time ago that if you are to pay the piper you should have some say about calling the tune. Therefore I do not know any better way than putting on the Government of the day the responsibility before the whole country. An appointment of this kind will not be done quietly, and if there are any mistake made they will not be made without exposure. I think the best procedure is to put it definitely to the Government to see that the right people are chosen for appointments of this kind. Elsewhere you have other boards and I am not going to say that they do not do their duty well, but in the case of an appointment of this sort everything depends on the people appointed being of the very first class. I would not have moved a finger for the establishment of an institute of this sort if I thought we were going to degenerate into getting second-class men for these appointments. If we are not going to have first-class men for them it would be better that we never had this institute for advanced studies.
Hear, hear.
When all is said and done I think the best course is to put the responsibility on the Government to select the people who have got to fill these chairs and to do that definitely. Let them face their responsibility. If the Government are to give way to pressure of the sort suggested, and appoint people who are not worthy of being appointed, I am afraid that there is not much hope that their other duties will be properly performed either. You must put the responsibility on some one, and my opinion is that there should be an experiment anyway. In the case of the chief professors they should be chosen from the point of view of the standing which they would give to learning and to the reputation they have gained before the world. If we cannot depend on them to do that, then, of course, there is no more to be said.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(3) The first council shall consist of a chairman and four other members all of whom shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Government.
(5) Subject to the provisions of this section in relation to the first council, the council shall consist of one member (who shall be the chairman) appointed by the President on the advice of the Government and two members from each constituent school for the time being established.
I move amendment No.3:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, line 45, after the word "Government" to add the words "and of the ex-officio members of the council”, and in sub-section (5), page 5, line 58, after the word “Government” to insert the words “the ex-officio members of the Council”.
This is a simple amendment. It makes provision for the ex-officio members who are set out in Section 10.
The Taoiseach calls this a simple amendment. Can he tell us how, in the case of such a long-thought-out scheme, it is possible to have such a simple afterthought as this? I do not think it is a simple afterthought. Originally the council of the institute was to consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Government. Does the Taoiseach think it is a simple afterthought to add to that the President of University College, Dublin; the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and the President of the Royal Irish Academy? I agree that it is an addition, but it simply makes me creep with regard to the whole scheme if we are to be asked to regard this as a simple little afterthought.
I do not know if we need dispute the question whether it is simple or complex. When I used the word "simple" in regard to this amendment I thought it was another amendment that I was dealing with. On the question as to whether it is a thing that should have been thought out in advance, I want to tell the Deputy that we had to make a start. In the case of this Bill we proceeded on the same lines as one would proceed in regard to any other work, namely, to get something done, and to have it done as well as it could be at the moment. If improvements suggest themselves later, whether they are simple or complex, they can be added. One had to make a start and get a certain amount of work done. In my opinion, the addition of these three names will mean a substantial improvement on the scheme as originally circulated.
I hope and trust and prophesy that there will be other simple and equally weighty improvements.
I am sure that if we had waited another year there are other improvements which would suggest themselves and which we might include.
Provided the Taoiseach thought of them?
I am prepared to take them from any quarter.
In theory.
No.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 10, page 6, to insert a new section as follows:—
The persons who, for the time being occupy the following offices, namely:—
(a)President of University College, Dublin;
(b)Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and
(c)President of the Royal Irish Academy,
shall be ex-officio members of the council, and in this Act, the expression “the the ex-officio members of the council” shall be construed accordingly.
The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate co-operation between those bodies and the institute.
Here again we are up against the evil to which I made reference when discussing the first section of the Bill. Either this is a national institute or it is not, and I do not see why it should not be. Everybody in the State is going to contribute financially to it, and I hope that scholars are going to be found outside the boundaries of Greater Dublin in the hereafter, and that the people coming from other parts of Ireland will be entitled to inclusion in the body of scholars which this institute is designed to produce. Why should the President of University College, Dublin, one of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland, be placed on the council of this body to the exclusion of the President of University College, Cork, or the President of University College, Galway? I understood that University College, Galway, was supposed to be the ark of the covenant of the Irish language. It is not getting very much consideration here. Its existence is not even referred to. University College, Cork, has a standing of its own in its own province, but it does not seem to be recognised either. Are we beginning to create a kind of preeminence for the President of University College, Dublin, or why is he, particularly, chosen out as the representative of the National University in perpetuity as an ex officio member of this body? I do not think that is right. I think that the President of University College, Dublin, the President of University College, Cork, and the President of University College. Galway, ought all to be persons well qualified to sit upon this board, and if they are it might be argued that to put them all on would be inexpedient from the point of view of numbers. There ought at least to be a proviso that if the President of University College, Dublin, is first appointed that, on his retirement, his place should be taken by the President of University College, Cork, upon whose retirement the president of University College, Galway, would represent the National University on this board. I suggest that you should rotate this position of honour and responsibility so that the existence of the three colleges might be recognised. I would be glad to hear the Chancellor of the National University, in his political capacity, tell us why he chooses to select University College, Dublin, specially in preference to the other two constituent colleges of the National University. I think Maynooth is also a constituent college.
No.
It is not in exactly the same position as the colleges in Dublin, Cork, and Galway.
I think that the Deputy has more or less answered himself in the ground that he has travelled over. He referred to the question of numbers and rotation. There is one element, and that is space, which in time may be an important factor. The President of University College, Dublin, was chosen because he is here at hand. You have here in Dublin one of the biggest colleges in the country. If the professors and students in it, or in Trinity College, are working in co-operation with the professors of the institute, carrying out a piece of work, and if the manuscripts that are being worked on are mostly in Dublin, and available here, then I think everybody will agree that if one person is to be picked out it is the person who is on the spot because he will be the more readily available for meetings and so on. There is also the question that we do not know what the future is going to mean with regard to the development of the National University.
It may disappear entirely at this rate.
No, quite the opposite. The Deputy spoke earlier about professors and their work. This is the place where, through the work of the institute, further material for professors will be made available, and where some of the work that the Deputy thinks ought to be done in the colleges might possibly be done. We do not know whether we are always going to have a federal university as we have at present, but we have two colleges in Dublin that are likely to remain here. Their association with the institute is very important. You cannot have what is suggested unless you want to have a body that will not be able to meet regularly. Owing to the distance that the presidents of these colleges would have to travel every time they came to a meeting it would mean a day or two away from their own work. On the whole, I think this is sufficiently representative. Besides that, the work that would be done by the two colleges mentioned would be work done in co-operation with the institute. While we are binding the professors to give lectures in the two colleges in Dublin, they ought not to consider that we think they should not give occasional lectures also in the other colleges. We are not actually binding them to do that, but we think that if it could be managed they should do it. There ought to be co-operation, so far as it can be secured, between the work of the corresponding faculties in the universities with the work that will be done by the schools. Owing to the advisability of not having a large number we have had to make a selection, and the obvious selection to make was the president of the college at hand.
My own experience of the Taoiseach leads me to believe that he could argue anything. He urges the inclusion of the President of University College, Dublin, to the exclusion of the President of University College, Galway, on the ground that we are nearer the manuscripts here. There is also a function of the institute to see to the phonetic investigation of existing Irish dialects and the recording of the living Irish speech in all Irish-speaking districts, the collection and study of Irish place names, and a variety of other matters, which bespeak a familiar and day-to-day contact with the living language or the vernacular of the people amongst whom you move. Whilst it may be true that the President of University College, Dublin, is closer to the manuscripts, who will deny that the President of University College, Galway, is closer to the living language? I have no doubt that the Taoiseach would argue angrily if we were responsible for these proposals, that we were trying to make an archaic exhibit of the Irish language and turning our backs upon the living thing. I think this proposal ought to be reconsidered. There might, for instance, be a rotational scheme. There is at present in operation a rotational scheme by which it is provided that the Vice-Chancellor of the University is from time to time the President of one college or the other. Seriously, I suggest to the Taoiseach that it may be desirable that the voice of Galway should be heard on the council of this body. I cannot imagine why it is the Taoiseach cannot see that.
There is a host of people whom it would be advisable to have on this council, but we cannot have them all.
I do not want to have them all put on to it. Is there nothing to be said for having the National University representative on this council at one time from Dublin, at another time from Galway, and at another time from Cork?
On the whole, I think it is better to have the person who is on the spot and who will have the manuscripts available.
In existing circumstances that may be true, but, at the same time, it would be more desirable if we had a worthy president coming from each of these colleges at fixed intervals to make the interests and desires of his particular part of the university vocal on the council of the institute.
The Taoiseach said that Deputy Dillon had answered himself. But so many interesting things have been unexpectedly stated since Deputy Dillon answered himself that I do not quite recollect at what particular point he answered himself. I should like to answer Deputy Dillon. This amendment is brought forward with the President of University College, Dublin, at the top of it, because this whole scheme should be under the presidency of University College, Dublin. The Provost of Trinity College is brought in simply because the theory is that you have to treat one university like the other. It is not disparaging in any way to the work in Trinity College or the position of Trinity College in this country to say that our advanced students in Celtic studies, whether in old or modern Irish, are not going to come from Trinity College, but are going to come from the National University.
Trinity College gave a job to one of the greatest scholars in modern Irish when there was no job to be got in the National University.
It is not a disparagement to say that you are not going to get advancement of your Gaelic studies in the advanced realms in any place except in University College, Dublin, as the national headquarters and centre, and that is why the situation is as it is here. Trinity College is only thrown in, as it were, to balance up that particular picture under this scheme. The President of the Royal Irish Academy is thrown in because there is some of this work that can be done and would be done there if the main scheme was put in the proper place—in the National University—and the work which the Irish Academy is doing to some extent, and it could do more, would continue to be done there.
I suppose we will have only to agree to differ about that. I think the Deputy is completely and fundamentally wrong when he says that this is work which could be done in University College, Dublin. The National University has quite enough work to do with the particular functions which it has in hands at present without adding on this specialised work. That is where I differ with the Deputy. I think that mistakes have been made in the past by encumbering it with work which would be better done by specialist bodies.
Work of what kind?
I will not go into that.
The Taoiseach does not say that it was encumbering the college to put agriculture into it?
I am not talking about agriculture, as a matter of fact. With regard to this question of the President, I can tell the Deputy that I did not put that in without any thought. It was the natural thing to do. We want a fairly small body. We want to get the work done, and it is advisable that the people on the council should be available and near at hand. I think that that would be sufficiently representative and that contact can be made with the other colleges, such as Maynooth. There is a good deal of valuable Irish manuscripts, for instance, in Maynooth. Contact can be made in the ordinary way. If will be the business of the professors in the institute and of the governing body to try to make the necessary contacts.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) The provisions of this section shall not apply to ex-officio members of the council.
That provides that the ex-officio members will be members of the council, as long as they hold the qualifying office. During the time they hold that office they will be members of the council.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Any member of the Council may at any time, resign his office as such member by letter sent——
(a) in the case of a member appointed by the President, to the Taoiseach for submission to the Government,
(b) in any other case, to the Governing Board of the Constituent School which appointed him.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, line 39, after the word "Council" to insert the words and brackets "(other than an ex-officio member of the Council)”
It is not contemplated that an ex-officio member can resign. If he does not wish to act, he simply does not attend. I imagine that such a member would have no objection to serving.
Does the Minister think that it is a wise thing to deprive him of his right to resign? Can the Minister for Education not contemplate a situation in which the Government, departing very much from the common purposes we have here, proceeded to degrade the Academy, and the President of University College, the Provost of Trinity College, and the President of the Royal Irish Academy, desiring to mark the disapproval of scholars for the course of conduct being pursued, felt that they were free to act effectively inasmuch as their positions were secure—to act in the name of scholarship—and formally decline to ramain members of the body? Does the Taoiseach not think it might be a useful thing to leave that kind of power in their hands as a deterrent to any Government, seeking to shelter under their reputation, from packing the governing board with undesirable persons? I do not know that it would not be a desirable thing to give them the right to resign in case of a public scandal of that kind or in case of gross misconduct. I do not know that these three persons are persons to whom you might not safely leave that power, because it is highly unlikely that all three would elect to use the power improperly at the same time. If one sought, from some improper motive, to resign, the refusal of the other two would make manifest the impropriety of the motive that led him to resign.
Where you have an ex-officio member, that is, a member appointed by virtue of his holding a certain office, I do not know how you could make that tally with the power of resignation. If a protest such as the Deputy mentions becomes necessary, it could be made in a public manner by the persons wishing to make the protest saying that they did not propose to attend during their period of office. I think it is better to leave the matter as it stands.
There is no penalty for non-attendance if they do not agree to attend?
No.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, and Section 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 13.
(3) The quorum for a meeting of the council shall be the least whole number which exceeds half the membership of the council.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, to delete all from the words "the least" in line 13 to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the words "a number equal to the total number of constituent schools for the time being in existence increased by one".
A smaller quorum than that which is provided for in the Bill is thought to be advisable. It is arranged in this way. If there are two schools, then the quorum will be three. If there are three schools, the quorum will be four. It is considered that that is a smaller quorum than was originally provided for, and it is the simplest way in which we can provide for a quorum.
I think it is an improvement.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to give notice of my intention to move on the next Stage to delete all the words after the word "institute" in sub-section (3), because an attempt is being made to carry into the Bill a most objectionable precedent established in certain other Bills—that is, to provide that the seal of the institute shall not only be judicially recognised but shall be taken as proof of the truth of everything alleged under it unless the contrary is proved. It is quite an undesirable provision. I am giving notice that I shall move to have that provision deleted, and the Minister can consult with his experts meanwhile.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 15.
(3) The council, in carrying out the duties imposed on them by sub-section (1) of this section, shall not provide for the erection or acquisition of any building without the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.
(5) If the governing board of a constituent school is dissatisfied with the provision or proposed provision or the maintenance by the council in pursuance of this section of buildings to house such constituent school or with the provision or proposed provision by the council in pursuance of this section for such constituent school of the things mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section, such governing board may appeal to the Minister and thereupon the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, shall give such directions in relation to the subject-matter of such appeal as he shall think proper, and such directions shall be final and shall be binding on and be complied with by the council and the said governing board.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, line 53, after the word "without" to insert the words "the approval of the Minister given with".
It is desirable to have a common scheme running through the Bill. Wherever the institute is dealing with the Government in any way, it will deal with one Minister only, namely, the Minister for Education. Then later it is provided that if there are any financial implications involved, the Minister for Education shall have the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.
This section deals with the housing accommodation for the institute. Might I ask the Taoiseach, when it comes to consultation with a view to providing for accommodation, to consider the architectural possibilities of this plan? In the initial stages, when the erection of an immense establishment is not contemplated, I would suggest that an effort should be made to rescue from impending destruction a group of the finer Georgian houses in Dublin, some of which still retain many of their splendid characteristics, particularly in plaster work and features of that kind. In their redecoration and adaptation for the purposes of the institute, I would urge that outrages should not be perpetrated on the structure such as sometimes happens when a building is taken over by a Government Department. I would urge that these buildings should, in fact, be handsomely restored, as some of the great houses in London have been restored, to the condition in which they were originally used by those who built them, so that we might have in the institute not only learning, but something of the native beauty which the architects of this country produced. I do not know if the Prime Minister saw, during any of his recent visits to London, some of the finer houses that were rescued in that way like Winchester House. They have been completely restored and adapted as commercial offices while retaining the nature of great residences such as no private individual could possibly contemplate maintaining in modern days. I think the opportunity should be taken to restore some of the old residences of this State as an example of typical Dublin architecture which is found nowhere else in the world except in Dublin.
I shall keep the Deputy's suggestion in mind, but the suitability of the accommodation is the chief factor to be considered in this connection. I would say that the institute should be suitably placed with reference to libraries, the University College, etc. However, the Deputy's suggestion conveys an idea which may be used in another connection, and I shall bear it in mind.
When the Taoiseach was speaking on this matter, his mind seemed to turn towards Merrion Square. He has no particular objection to Stephen's Green?
No. I thought it was the least objectionable place from the point of view of indicating beforehand a place that might be chosen.
Because Government Buildings are near?
No, for other reasons which the Deputy has only to think of for a moment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To delete sub-section (5), page 8.
This is the question of appeal. Instead of having that here in this particular connection, we are having a general right of appeal. Wherever any dispute arises in regard to any particular functions, where they overlap, between a governing body and the council, there is a general appeal to the Minister afterwards. The general appeal would cover this particular one, so we are taking out the particular appeal here and covering it by the general appeal later.
It would be necessary to regard carefully the words at the end:
... and such directions shall be final and shall be binding on and be complied with by the council and the said governing board.
Is this being deleted? These words are not being brought in somewhere else? The danger is that the Minister may tie himself up and not be able to amend any decision. I suggest that this case should be examined carefully. This says that, where a decision has been made on the appeal, such decision shall be final, which may mean that the Minister would bind himself by a law as binding as the laws of the Medes and Persians. Once having given the decision, it could not be altered. The word "final" should be struck out.
We might consider that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(5) If any dispute shall arise as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any pension, gratuity or allowance payable in pursuance of a scheme under this section, such dispute shall be determined by the Minister for Finance, whose decision thereon shall be final.
I move:—
In sub-section (5), page 9, line 8, to delete the word "determined", and in lieu thereof to insert the words "submitted to the Minister for determination."
The idea is to have only one Minister dealing with this matter. We do not wish to have the Minister for Finance coming directly in touch; where he comes in, it will be in concurrence with the Minister for Education.
That is not what the amendment does. The sub-section reads at present:—
If any dispute shall arise as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any pension, gratuity or allowance payable in pursuance of a scheme under this section, such dispute shall be determined by the Minister for Finance, whose decision thereon shall be final.
You strike out the word "determined" and this amendment says you insert in lieu thereof that such dispute shall be "submitted to the Minister for determination" by the Minister for Finance, whose decision thereon shall be final.
That is to say that the Minister for Education is merely the channel by which the Minister for Finance is approached.
What happens here is that your amendment provides now that the Minister for Finance submits the dispute to the Minister Education.
Surely that cannot be so.
Well, that is what the amendment says. The word "determined" is taken out, and instead there is inserted "submitted to the Minister for determination", making the section read: "such dispute shall be submitted to the Minister for determination by the Minister for Finance."
"shall be submitted to the Minister" comma.
No, no comma.
"shall be submitted to the Minister for determination by the Minister for Finance."
So that is the way it is to be read? They bring the dispute to the Minister for Education who refers it to the Minister for Finance for determination?
I hope it reads like that.
Then this says that the decision of the Minister for Finance shall be final.
We shall consider that word "final."
Is it intended that the Minister for Finance shall determine matters in dispute, arising from pensions, gratuities or allowances, or that the Minister for Education shall determine them?
I think it is better to have the Minister for Finance determine them. Naturally, the Minister for Education would confer with him.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
It shall be the duty of the Council, on the recommendation of the Governing Board of a Constituent School, to provide for the publication, in the manner stated in such recommendation and at the expense of such Constituent School, of contributions to learning which are the results of study or research carried on in or under the authority of such Constituent School.
I move amendment No. 11:—
To delete line 60 and substitute the following words and sub-sections:—
either in or under the authority of such Constituent School, or independently thereof but in relation to subjects included in the functions and duties of such Constituent School.
(2) The Council may, if they so think fit, provide for the issuing of learned journals or other periodical publications and may provide for the inclusion therein of any such contributions to learning as are mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section.
(3) The Council may provide scholarships to be held in any of the Constituent Schools.
The purpose of this is to make it possible to publish other material besides that which has been actually the result of study in the school itself.
The amendment goes much further.
There is the question of periodicals.
And the provision of scholarships. What has the Minister in mind there?
First of all, it may be necessary to provide some scholarships to enable particularly gifted students to continue a particular work for a further period. Otherwise, they may have to abandon their studies and earn their living in another manner. If a student is particularly fitted for a particular piece of work planned by the director, the director might bring him in as an assistant, or might find it more suitable to give him a scholarship. It may also happen in the early stages that one may wish to draw attention to the school. For instance, if it were known that there were students in other countries and if it were desirable, in order to spread the fame of the institute, to bring such students here, this will make it possible. That may result in the training of possible future professors in those countries; they would ultimately be working in connection with the school and would, perhaps, send some of their own students to the school later on. This will give power to grant such scholarships as would enable such students to come to this country. Naturally, that power will be exercised with very great care, and there will be no question of undue liberality.
Is the word "scholarship" anywhere defined by statute?
Perhaps not.
If it is not, that should be done. I always understood that a scholarship envisaged the offering of a prize for public competition. It not that so?
I do not think it is necessary.
I never heard of a scholarship which was not made the subject of a qualifying examination of some kind or other. Has the Minister? I can understand what the Minister has in mind. Supposing a student does turn up and it is desired that he should go on with his work: if they attempt to give him a scholarship they may be in much the same position as a board of health which tries to build a cottage for an individual tenant, and which is told by the Department of Local Government and Public Health that they cannot build the cottage for that particular tenant, that they must build the cottage where they think the particular tenant would want it, and if there are two or three other people making application the applications must be judged on their merits. If you create a scholarship for AB because you think he is the best qualified, and CD and EF apply for it, you may be put in the position that EF will get the scholarship which you might not have created if it were not to accommodate AB.
I do not think that would present insuperable difficulty, because obviously what the council or governing body would do in a case like that is that if they had clearly in mind the type of student they wanted they would probably publicly invite applications and they would decide in accordance with the qualifications who was to get the scholarship. If they has A in mind for the scholarship, and if in response to that advertisement B turned up who, in fact, was better qualified, they would have to take B, and I do not think they would have any regret for it, except that perhaps B might not be as useful from the point of view of bringing the institute to the knowledge of other countries and so on. He might not be as valuable from the institute point of view perhaps. I do not know if the word "scholarship" has been defined legally anywhere, or if the use of it in a statute would necessarily mean that it was to be a competition.
The word "scholarship" has been defined in income-tax cases.
Yes. I wonder whether the definition would not be very much ad rem there. I do not know. I will make some inquiries about it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—
If the governing board of a constituent school is dissatisfied with any action in relation to such board or such school taken or proposed to be taken under this Act by the council or with the refusal of the council to take under this Act any such action, the said governing board may appeal to the Minister, and thereupon the Minister, with (in case finance) the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall give his decision thereon, and such decision shall be final.
This amendment gives the general right of appeal which we are substituting for the particular one with regard to buildings, I think it was, in another section. If there are disputes we are providing a method by which they can be settled definitely.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
There is a point I want to raise in connection with this section. Sub-section (3) says that gifts accepted by the institute under this section shall be applied for the school for which they were given and all other gifts so accepted shall be applied for such one or more of the following purposes and (where appropiate) in such proportions as the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall determine, that is to say, for the purposes of the institute generally or for the purposes of one or more particular constituent schools. I want to put it to the Prime Minister that where you do discover an old-fashioned patron coming along and giving the council of this institute a gift which does not come out of public funds at all, it is not a good thing to be bringing the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education into it because it is now none of his business. It is quite right for the Minister for Education to follow public money and to say: "Full as is my confidence in the council, still I have a duty as a public trustee to see that public money is spent in accordance with certain defined priciples." But here is money that is not public money, money that the council has attracted to itself, and you are deliberately going in and gratuitously constituting yourself the trustee of moneys which were deliberately not handed to you by the person who was making the endowment. It is quite open to the person who made the endowment to give the money to the Minister for Education and to say: "Use that for an educational purpose." Then, of course, the Minister would be the trustee of it. But that is not the case here. The patron goes direct to the council and gives the money to them and they are the trustees of it. I submit to the Minister that they should be trusted to dispose of it properly without interference by the Minister and the more of that that comes along the better it will be. I suggest to the Minister that, far from desiring to interfere he should say to the council, if he is consulted about some scheme which is to be financed out of an endowment: "Do not bother me about that. That is your business. I have got quite enough to do to look after the moneys I give and to see you handle them without unduly restricting your activities. Here you are perfectly free. This is an endowment given to yourselves. You are a corporate body. You have got all the powers of a trustee; go and exercise them and, if anyone sues you hereafter for breach of trust, do not be passing the baby back to me and say you committed a breach of trust because the Minister for Education directed you to do so." Remember, that is interesting. Suppose the Minister did something which is ultra vires or consented to something which resulted in a loss a nice point would arise as to whether he should not be jointed in an action for breach of trust and damages recovered against him. But, leaving that aspect out of the question altogether, I think it is undesirable for the Minister to be poking his nose in where public duty imposes no obligation upon him to do so.
While there is a good deal, I suppose, to be said for the point of view taken by the Deputy, on the other hand, you must remember that the council is composed in a certain way, and we do not know what its leanings would be from time to time in regard to one school or another. A number of schools would be competing, naturally, for any money that would be going. In the case of a donor who specifies a certain school there is an end to it. That is finished. It is only where it is not apportioned between the schools that the council and the Minister would come in. Perhaps the Minister for Finance ought not to be there, but I take it that the idea of bringing in the Minister for Education would be to bring him in as a person who was particularly responsible for the co-ordination of the work of the separate schools—a sort of outside umpire—to try and see that in the case of the allocation of moneys which became available on one school would be unduly favoured just because it happened that the majority of the council were in favour of that school at a particular time. It is difficult sometimes to secure that a proposal would not be impeached from one aspect or another but perhaps the difficulty the Deputy sees could be got over to some extent. Perhaps we could arrange a compromise, if we kept the Minister for Finance out of it. He would be interested particularly, for instance, if a project came from a certain school which needed funds. He might say: "I will manage that very nicely by compelling this fund to be distributed in a particular way and made available for a particular purpose."
Exactly.
I find it very difficult to get a completely satisfactory solution. I am willing to meet the Deputy unless there is some consideration which I do not see at this moment.
Let neither of us make concessions at this stage. I will put down an amendment for the next stage, proposing to leave sub-section (3) out. I think the Government should not come in there at all.
Would the Deputy agree that it is desirable that money like that should not be allocated to one school just because for the moment there was a majority on the council in favour of that school? The Deputy can answer back that it would be a pity that money should be allocated to a particular school just because the Minister for Education for the time being might be in favour of it.
Quite.
Suppose we were to leave it "with the approval of the Minister"?
The Minister charged me with answering myself. I think the Minister answered himself. I think he is quite right in what he says. A project is coming forward; the Minister for Finance is remonstrating with the Minister for Education that he cannot provide money for that project. At this juncture some benevolent creature comes along and gives £25,000 to the academy. The Minister for Finance says to the Minister for Education: "Go to blazes. You have been pestering me for money for this scheme. There is £25,000; go and use that." The Minister for Education is in the deplorable position that he is bound to confess to the Minister for Finance that he is in a position to force the council to appropriate that £25,000 for this scheme. Suppose the Minister for Education was in a position to say to the Minister for Finance: "I cannot make the council use the £25,000 for that purpose. That is their money. It is not State money at all, and they will simply tell me to go to blazes if I try to force them; but let us come half way; give me £15,000 and I will try to get £10,000 from the academy for this particular purpose; but do not send me down to them in order to try and take these moneys from them, because, if I were to do so, I would be kicked out." I know the Minister for Education too well to ask him to commit himself now to this thing, because I know that he is too cautious.
Is it not advisable to be cautious?
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26
(3) The accounts kept in pursuance of this section shall be submitted annually by the Council to the Comptroller and Autitor-General for audit at such time as the Minister for Finance shall direct and the said accounts, when so audited, shall together with the report of the comptroller and Auditor-General thereon be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
I move amendment No. 13.
In sub-section (3), page 11, line 10, after the word "as" to insert the words "the Minister, with the concurrence of."
I think we just discussed this on the Financial Resolution.
Yes, it is the question of the concurrence of the Minister concerned with the Minister of Finance.
I am particularly concerned to avoid the duty being imposed on the bursar of the institute of having to attend before the Public Accounts Committee.
My information was that it would not be necessary for him to do so. However, I shall look into the matter, from the point of view of procedure, to see whether or not he should be forced to come before the Public Accounts Committee. My information was that it would not follow at all from this.
My only reason for saying this is that sub-section (3) says that: "the accounts kept in pursuance of this section shall be submitted annually by the council to the Comptroller and Auditor-Generl for audit at such times as the Minister for Finance shall direct and that the said accounts, when so audited, shall, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas." I presume that, if these copies are to be laid before each House of the Oureachtas, I, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, would be entitled to raise the matter.
I think that the Deputy would have to bring the matter before the House before doing so.
Well, as far as I remember, we had a case in connection with the Dairy Disposals Board in which, after a long and sanguinary dispute, we put certain things before them that they should do, and they are now doing them.
Well, I shall look into the matter.
Meantime, I assume that the amendment is agreed to?
I take it that the Deputy agrees with me that these perticulars should not be here?
Certainly. I think it should be something like the conditions under the old Congested Districts Board.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(1) The Council shall, in every financial year, submit to the Government a report of the work of the Institute and the Constituent Schools for the next previous financial year.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, line 15, to delete the word "submit" and substitute in lieu thereof the words "present to the Minister for submission."
Is there an obligation on the Minister to submit?
It is a question of making the submission to the Minister.
Yes, for submission to the Government. In other words, the report shall be presented to the Minister for submission to the Government.
The report of the accounts would have to be submitted.
It is merely a question of the channel of communications. It would not be direct, but through the Minister concerned.
I understand.
Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 and 29 and Title of the Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
This day week.
And on re-committal?
We can re-commit the Bill. There are a few amendments that we had not ready before to-day. I have indicated some of them, such as where there is a question as to an appointment by the President on the advice of the Government, and whether it is necessary that certain words should be inserted therein. I think I have indicated the point as to whether or not it would be advisable that the Government to go into this matter at all. I think it is advisable that the Government should not come into this matter at all, and that where the Government gives advice to the President, and he acts on that advice, the Government should not come into it.
What has become of your Council of State, if so?
It has performed all the functions of the Constitution that it was intended to perform.
I think its functions have become so attenuated that, even in the matter of public ceremonies, its existence has been forgotten. I think that in the case of the last two public ceremonies that took place here they were forgotten.
Perhaps the Deputy might tell me privately about these cases.
At any rate, I think that the President should act on the advice of the Council of State.
As a matter of fact, I think that that might be unconstitutional.
Well, at any rate, we will have this matter up this day week.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th April, 1940.