I understand that this Bill is being recommitted for the consideration of the amendments.
Committee on Finance. - Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, 1939—Recommittal.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, line 18, section 1, to delete the word "Dublin" and substitute the word "Irish".
This amendment is designed to alter the title of this institute from that of Dublin Institute to Irish Institute. This matter was touched upon on the Committee Stage and, for reasons which I could not very well follow, the Taoiseach adhered to the view that the word Dublin should stand. Frankly, I want this institute for advanced studies, in so far as it is concerned with Celtic studies, to command the sympathy and support of all our people all over the country. But I think if you are looking for public goodwill you cannot afford to be too detached from the pardonable prejudices of our people, and anyone who has been brought up in rural Ireland knows that it is a constant cause of complaint that everything goes to Dublin and that, so far as this country is concerned, Dublin is the only part of it that is considered. I think that well-known sentiment will be stirred by describing this institute as the Dublin Institute and that whatever opposition there is to it will be augmented by this description, whereas those who desire to criticise this institute—as indeed any well intentioned person could—if they are to criticise an Irish institute will be constrained to criticise the proposal on its merits, but if they are concerned to attack the Dublin Institute, inevitably their criticisms will gather to them the instinctive prejudice of rural Ireland against any establishment which is exclusively of Dublin, and nothing else. The Taoiseach can say: "Well, convince the people down the country that an institute described as the Dublin Institute is not in fact a city institution as opposed to a national one". There are occasions when it is right to be indiscreet, and I know it is indiscreet of me to say that it may not be easy to bring home to the masses of our people the advantages which, I believe, will accrue to the nation as a result of the work this institute will do. There may be many in the country who will take the view that the whole thing is a bit of a "cod"; that we cannot afford this kind of business; and, in any case, ask, who wants it? I am quite prepared with arguments to combat that wherever it presents itself, but, as far as rural Ireland is concerned, the advocates of this institute will be materially embarrassed by the fact that it is to be described as the Dublin Institute as opposed to Irish Institute, with the results I mentioned.
I repeat seriously and deliberately that Irish is an adjective which will never lose its meaning so long as the world continues, but Dublin is an adjective which might well lose its meaning, because there are many Dublins in the world. It is quite possible to have a situation arising in a city like Lublin in Poland, where an institute might be established, and reference being made to the Lublin or Dublin Institutes, so that confusion might arise. I do not say that is of grave importance, and that that consideration alone should control the style and the title of this institute, but it is something to consider. In any case, if this institute is going to be something of which we might be proud—and I expect it will be—I would sooner gather that credit to Ireland rather than to Dublin. I know that if this institute is going to do the best work, the bulk of the scholarship which will distinguish it will come from Ireland rather than from Dublin. Why should those of us who glory in the fact that we were born in Mayo, God help us, be held up before the world as Dublin Jackeens, if we want to contribute to the labours of this institute of higher studies? I certainly do not aim at occupying a high place in this institute. That is not my line. But I imagine that there are many of my fellow-countrymen who will be glad to be known as Dons or research students of an Irish Institute, who would feel a certain measure of resentment if, in order to qualify for such a position they should be called upon to repudiate the counties from which they came. I do not think that is a matter of grave concern, but it is one upon which they alone should be allowed to make up their minds, as to how the institute should be properly described. Taking all these things together, and setting them against the reasons advanced to justify the description of this institute as the Dublin Institute, I think the reasons I have given for describing it as the Irish Institute, just as the College de France is called the French College, should prevail.
I am opposing this amendment for the reasons I stated on the last occasion. It is usual to describe institutes of this sort by the place where they have their seat, and after giving fair consideration to the suggestion of the Deputy I still adhere to the original idea of having it called after the place where it is to be, that is here in Dublin. Nobody is going to forget that Dublin is the capital of the country, and if it is in Dublin it is an Irish Institute also.
Why does the Taoiseach say it is usual, when the only analogy is the College de France?
It is not analogous. When a positive statement is made like that, one would expect that there would be a mass of evidence to show that the statement was well founded. The College de France is not the same as this Institute. The Deputy knows that quite well. There are institutes at Copenhagen, at Princeton, and Kharkov. The institute at Kharkov and the institute at Princeton are called after the cities. The more definite the name the better and nobody is for a moment going to forget that Dublin is the capital of Ireland and that this is an Irish institute. We considered carefully the arguments put forward by the Deputy on the last day, which did not differ much from the arguments he put forward to-day, and we have merely decided the matter in the ordinary way.
The Taoiseach speaks of the Institute of Kharkov and the Institute of Princeton, but they are both universities.
There is an institute at Princeton as well as a university.
Surely Princeton is a university?
There is an independent institute there.
Is it not true that 90 per cent. of the human race have never heard of Princeton Institute, whereas everybody has heard of the university?
It is not very long established and people will know of it in due course.
As regards Kharkov, I have heard of the University there. E.J. Dillon was Professor of Russian at the University of Kharkov, Am I not right in saying that it is a university?
There is an Institute at Kharkov.
It is a case of Sam Adams and John Adams. The Prime Minister has heard of the institute but all other simple creatures have heard only of the university. Why does the Taoiseach toss his head? Surely my views are just as reasonable as his. He has his view and I have mine. It should not vex him that I should persist in my view after he has pontificated. I do not toss my head when the Prime Minister differs from me and I might have better reason for doing so than the Prime Minister has.
I have given examples to substantiate my case. The Prime Minister has not given any to substantiate his case except in so far as he has named certain institutes. But the institutions commonly associated with the names he used were universities. It may be that, in the inquiries he made when examining this question, he discovered the existence of these institutes, but the vast bulk of mankind have not and, to the ordinary mind, Kharkov means university and Princeton means university. That is certainly true in the United States and amongst the vast bulk of our people here. If institutes of higher learning were established in America or in Russia, I should expect them to be described as the American Institute of Higher Learning, or the Russian Institute of Higher Leaning. There is no suggestion here that this institute should be exclusively associated with University College, Dublin.
I take it, from what the Prime Minister has told us, that Princeton Institute is expected to work in close collaboration with Princeton University, and that Kharkov Institute is expected to work in close collaboration with the University of Kharkov. There has been no suggestion that that should be the scheme in respect of this institute. Is it contemplated that the Universities of Galway and Cork shall have no association or contact with the institute of higher learning envisaged in this Bill? I do not believe that that is the Prime Minister's intention. On the contrary, I understood that he desired to emphasise that this institute was not designed to take the place of any university or to usurp the functions of any university, but was designed to collaborate with all university institutions and institutions of learning in the country. How can that be better effected than by making clear that this is not a Cork, Galway or Dublin institute, but an institute for the whole country, to which scholars from all parts of the country may come and whence scholars may go to all parts of the country. I differ radically with the Prime Minister in the title he has chosen for the institute. I think that it is a mistake. I do not suggest that it is going to do the scheme irretrievable harm, but it is going to lose the sympathy of many people who would be emotionally enthusiastic for it while their intellectual assent had been, as yet, imperfectly compelled.
We discussed a subject which is on the outskirts of this topic. The Taoiseach indicated on First Reading that there were three men of eminence to be got for the school of theoretical physics. I do not know whether he has objection to giving the names here, but I should like to know whether the persons in question were professors in universities or whether in any country at any time, they occupied positions such as he proposes to give them in this institute.
The three men in question were professors in universities. One of them had experience in an institute of similar type to this institute.
In his own country?
In another country.
After he became a refugee?
No.
Of the three men mentioned as likely occupants of professorial chairs of fellowships in this school of theoretical physics, two had been professors in universities and one had been engaged in an institute similar to this?
They were professors and men whose fame was world-wide.
These countries did not find it necessary to subtract them from professorial work in the university so that they might give all their time to the science in which they were interested?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
The decision on amendment No. 3 will rule amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 3, lines 6-8, Section 4 (1), to delete paragraph (b).
This is a proposal to delete from the Bill provision for a school of theoretical physics. A great many people are prepared to go the limit in the service of Celtic studies, and feel that, even in a time of acute stringency, it is justifiable to demand additional sacrifices from an overtaxed people to do work in Celtic studies which it might be too late to do if we waited for five years or ten years. The very essence of our problem in connection with Celtic studies is speed in availing of the still-surviving material. Few people who have not interested themselves in this branch of learning appreciate that in Celtic studies the seanchaidhe, the repository of old songs, the last surviving exponent of a perishing dialect may die, and that, when he dies, in our circumstances the chances are against anybody being found capable of supplying the knowledge that he carried with him to the grave. It is for that reason I believe that this institute for advanced Celtic studies should be set on foot now. No such argument can be advanced in regard to theoretical physics.
The Minister for Education has said that the reason he wanted to incorporate theoretical physics in the original scheme was that there were three exceptionally distinguished men available at the moment and that if we did not avail of their services now we might never get them again. Suppose this were a normal time and that we were not, as a country, struggling with very acute financial adversity, that argument might be used with great force but, when every penny counts and when you are trying to get the people to meet the difficulties with which they are confronted, I think that argument loses almost all its force because even the Minister for Education will not go so far as to say that the like of these three men will never be seen again. If we were to wait for three or five years for the establishment of a school of theoretical physics, provided we were prepared to hold out sufficient inducement, I have no doubt we should find scholars of approximately equal distinction in this sphere of learning.
I sent a message to the Taoiseach—I do not know whether he ever got it or not; I have no reason to believe he did and I have no reason to believe he did not, so that I do not want to commit him in any way—three months ago begging him to bring forward this Bill exclusively on the basis of Celtic studies so that its merits might be challenged on that basis alone, if challenged they were to be. I pointed out to the person to whom I gave the message that the question of theoretical physics, undoubtedly, contains the suggestion that the Taoiseach, who is notoriously a person who has all his life taken an amateurish interest in mathematics, was seeking to hold himself out for the kudos which would accrue to him as patron of mathematical learning and as a kind of pedagogue amongst the proletariat. I do not want to call anybody's pedagogy or scholarship into question at all, but if we were to provide a school of higher learning to accord with the qualifications of every member of this Dáil, we should have schools of higher learning filling every building in Dublin.
If the Taoiseach is to justify mathematical physics, I suppose we could invoke Senator Fitzgerald for a school of Thomistic philosophy, not to speak of the modest Deputy McGilligan for a school of international law. I suppose we might even draw on Senator Magennis as our questionable justification for a school of metaphysics. If we provide schools to please the special predilections of the Taoiseach, why should we not provide schools to please the special predilections of every Deputy in the House? The Taoiseach says that Rowan Hamilton was a learned man and a distinguished light in mathematical physics. No one will challenge that statement, but we have had great philosophers in this country, we have had great doctors in this country, and we have had good metaphysicians in this country.
The name of Bishop Berkeley is not unknown; the name of Stokes is not unknown. One could go through all branches of learning and find great names which might fittingly be commemorated in institutions of this kind. I see no objection to doing that in the years that lie ahead, as funds become available and as distinction and prosperity accrue to the institute as a whole. I should be glad to see it expanding within limits, but why should we in this country, a predominantly agricultural country, suddenly pretend to feel an exclusive and commanding interest in mathematical physics, co-equal with our interest and zeal for Celtic studies? There is just not any reason. It is an irrational, temperamental kind of thing to do. It is creating prejudice against the institute. It is presenting the opponents of the institute with an argument for which I can find no rational answer and it is confusing the public mind on the purposes to be served by this institute. It is detracting from the hallmark of approval in the field of studies that this Oireachtas can give by the passing of the Bill. I think it is a most deplorable feature of the Bill.
I think if the Minister for Education had the slightest desire to indicate his anxiety to draw sympathy and support to his proposal, the concession contained in this amendment was one that a reasonable man would have been glad to make, one in which he might have said: "Well, it did occur to me that theoretical physics would be a good thing; I admit I have a predilection in that direction but I am not going to force it on the House. We are getting a measure of unanimity in regard to the school of Celtic studies and I do not want to impose my views on the House. We have power, on the advice of the council, to set up a school of mathematical physics at a later stage. I am quite content with that. Let us start with the school of Celtic studies and determine hereafter what we shall do about the other proposal." That is not the kind of approach you get from the Minister for Education when we embark on the sterile path of seeking grounds of co-operation. I think it is a pity. I think, it is injurious to the project of which I had high hopes. I am going to divide the House on the propriety of incorporating this ancillary school in the Principal Act.
I do not want to repeat what I said on the last occasion if I can avoid doing so. However, it is very difficult when the same speech is made as was made on that Stage. It would be a misrepresentation of the purposes of the institute if it were to be confined to Celtic studies. It would be an attempt to put something over on the people on the plea that it was to be an institute for Celtic studies only, if some second school were not provided for.
The Deputy made a mistake when he said that the two schools were of equal rank. The cost will be very different and the reason that theoretical physics was chosen is this. Firstly, Celtic studies will have a very much narrower interest for people outside the country than will theoretical physics. Theoretical physics will get the institute known in circles where it would never be thought of, if it were to be confined to Celtic studies alone. First of all, therefore, to indicate that the institute is intended to have a special purpose other than merely advancing a knowledge of Celtic languages, the second school is necessary. If you look around you, when thinking of an institute of this type where one school is to be devoted to the study of languages, to find some other subject to which the institute might direct its attention, I think it will at once strike you that that other school should be devoted to some scientific subject.
From one point of view, I would prefer to see a school of experimental physics established but the cost of such a school—I hope that some day it may be practicable—would be almost prohibitive at present. The smaller countries in that particular field find it very difficult to compete with the richer and larger countries, particularly with the United States in recent years, so much so that in countries even like Britain, where they have considerable wealth and where a considerable amount of money is available for educational and scientific purposes, they are becoming more and more specialised and, while continuing on certain branches of experimental physics, they are leaving others to be pursued by wealthier countries. If you are thinking of any branch that would suit a small country you will inevitably be driven back to pure mathematics or to mathematical physics. Apart from that general reasoning, there is the consideration that the school will cost relatively little. The cost will not be one-third of the ultimate estimated cost of the school of Celtic studies. You will find that there is an urge to go back on pure science in the knowledge that you get such good results from such small expenditure. You merely want to pay the professors and to provide them with the necessary leisure for their work and with the necessary library and periodicals.
Another reason that should influence us is that we had a reputation in the 19th century for mathematics and mathematical physics. I think it is not too much to say that Hamilton was recognised as the greatest of Irish scientists. His work was associated here with Dublin University and with Dunsink Observatory. He was a lover of this country, and if anybody cares to look at any Lives that have been written of him, it will be found that one of the objects of his work was to try to enhance the prestige of his land. He loved his country, and in everything he did he was anxious that Ireland should get the credit for it. Partly for that reason, and partly for other reasons, I was wondering at one time whether, as a tribute to him, this school should be called the Hamilton School of Theoretical Physics. I had a particular interest in this, or otherwise I might have found it more difficult to arrive at this particular decision. If you leave all that aside and consider this question calmly, you will see that if you want an institute with more than one school, you would naturally divide it between the language side and the science side; and, when you choose the science you almost inevitably come to mathematics or mathematical physics and, of the two, it is nearer to the practical side, in my opinion, to take mathematical physics.
There was another point. At the moment, by a curious chance, when this Bill was introduced, it was possible to get three outstanding men in that particular branch. The Deputy is very sanguine when he says that, if you make the remuneration sufficient, you will attract scholars from other countries. One of the peculiarities is that it is not so easy to attract them from where they have been working, if they get enough to live upon. The average scholar is interested in his work and lives for his work, if he is worthy to be called a scholar at all. He has to live and has to get remuneration to enable him to live, but he is prepared to live sometimes on very, very little in order to be in the surroundings and conditions which enable him to do his work well. Under normal circumstances, I would not hope to be able to attract, even by good salaries, real scholars from other places. In this case it was possible to get three.
I do not think that one of the three I have in mind will be available now, but I hope that the other two will be. The three of them were so distinguished that they were members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. I think there are only 70 such all over the world. In Britain, some time ago, I think they had two in the whole country. Here we would have had three as professors in this institute, and I believe it would be unique on that account. I am afraid now that we will not directly have one of them, but we will be fortunate in being able to get his co-operation, as he happens to be here and has been here for a number of years. He will not be available directly any longer—I am sorry to say, from the point of view of the institute —but only indirectly, by co-operation with it.
In my opinion, it would be a great mistake to delete the school of theoretical physics from this Bill. That does not mean to say that, if there are other schools which ought to be added from time to time, that cannot be done. This city has a great reputation, for example, in medicine and the practice of medicine. It may happen that in research in connection with medicine the conditions may be such as to make it desirable to include in this institute a scheme for medical research of one kind or another. I do not think I can say anything more as to why we should retain the school of theoretical physics.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Speaking in the debate on the 10th April, 1940, col. 1109 of the Official Debates, the Taoiseach said:
"Coming back to the question of mathematical or theoretical physics, I indicated why that subject was chosen. It was chosen because there happened to be available a man who was described to me by a professor of mathematical physics in Dublin as being the greatest mathematical physicist in the world."
Is that the person now referred to as being no longer available?
No.
So that man is available? The Taoiseach then went on to say:
"Were it not for the war, another man of similar standing would have been available."
I presume that if he was not available then, he may be now?
He may be.
The Report continues: "Three men were available who had been selected as members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences." My conclusion was that five people were under consideration.
No.
I gather that the first two are enveloped in the other phrase?
Yes.
The first person was, presumably, the person recently appointed to a Chair corresponding to this in the Academy?
That is one.
That is one of the two. I am assuming that he is the No. 1 I have referred to in this debate. It appears that the other man is a person who has been described as one who might have been available but for the war, who would have been able to co-operate more closely were it not for the war. The position, as I read it, is this: The Taoiseach, in his statement before the House, said that, while we might have learned men here in connection with mathematics of different types, and while we might have had recognised also great names in our history in connection with other branches of learning, these particular types were taken in contradistinction because of the particular individuals who were available. I understand that that opportunity is lessened now, and, to that extent, the case for this is somewhat weakened. I will have to speak on another occasion in connection with another matter, because, as the Taoiseach has outlined the question it appears that this is only the thin end of the wedge to take one type of research away from the university and, to that extent, I am opposed determinedly to it; but that will arise on another occasion.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Cole, John J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and Seán Brady; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 3, line 22, Section 4 (3), to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall".
This simply means that, if the Government decides that it is in the public interest to do a thing, this amendment of mine places a statutory obligation upon them to do so, whereas the form of words used in the Bill leaves it open to the Government to abstain from doing that which they should do.
I do not think it makes any difference, but I shall give way on the matter if Deputy Dillon wants that substitution to be made. If the Government says that it is in the public interest that a thing should be done, and if each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution approved of such a thing being done, then I think it should be left to them to do the necessary thing. However, if the Deputy thinks that the word "shall" would help there, I do not mind.
I prefer the word "shall" for reasons that it is not necessary to mention, so long as the Taoiseach agrees to the use of that word.
Yes, but I do not think it is necessary.
Well, the Taoiseach will live and learn, and I think he will bless me for that amendment yet.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 3, line 25, Section 5 (1), after the word "be" to insert the words "the promotion of Celtic studies generally, and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing,"
The purpose of this and the other amendments dealing with the same matter is really to broaden the scope of what is in the Bill before. It is a general phrase to embrace all aspects of Celtic studies. The amendment proposes to insert, after the word "be" the words "the promotion of Celtic Studies generally, and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing."
It is not proposed to put in any corresponding general phrase in regard to the other school.
I do not think it is necessary, is it?
It is not, certainly, proposed.
I do not think it is necessary.
I can see the use of this general phrase at the beginning, but I thought if it was useful in connection with the School of Celtic Studies it would be useful in the other school.
I do not think there is the same necessity for it. The danger was that if philology or something like that was mentioned its omission from another sub-section might be a suggestion that philology would not come in, or something of that sort.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 3, Section 5 (1) (c), lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "in all Irish-speaking districts."
The purpose of this amendment is to widen the scope of the paragraph and enable the school to record and investigate living Irish speech, not alone in Irish-speaking districts, but wherever it may be found.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 3 Section 5 (1) (f), lines 41 and 42, to delete the words "of the literatures of the Celtic languages" and substitute the words "of the Celtic languages and of the literatures of those languages".
The purpose of this amendment is really the same as No. 6. There was a danger that when speaking of literature the narrower language points might possibly be omitted. This amendment is simply to make it broader than it was.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 3, Section 5 (1) (h), to delete all from the words "the literatures" in line 47, to the end of the paragraph, and substitute the following words "the Celtic languages and on the literatures of those languages and, in particular, on matters of interest to students of the Irish language and of its literature;".
This is for the same purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 3, Section 5 (1) (i), line 50, to insert after the word "research" the words "in Celtic studies".
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to limit it to the study of Celtic languages. It might appear too broad as it was. It is to provide for professors who might be on leave of absence an opportunity of going into Celtic studies. Anything else, of course, would not be appropriate to the school.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9 (a):—
In page 3, Section 5 (1), after paragraph (i) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(j) 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 Celtic studies.
Amendment No. 9a, which has been circulated in typescript, is to enable us to commission scholars, whether associated or otherwise with the school, to do a certain piece of work. I think it is advisable that that power should be there.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 4, line 38, Section 6 (1), after the word "Government" to insert the words "approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas".
Section 6, to which this amendment is moved, provides for the making of an order and in other parts of this Bill where orders are made it is provided that they shall lie upon the Table of the House and if not expressly disapproved within 21 days, shall have the force of law and, if disapproved, they shall be disapproved without prejudice to anything that may have been done under them prior to the recorded disapproval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that is a very desirable safeguard to preserve not only from the point of view of this Bill itself, but from the point of view of the dangerous precedent that would be created if the well-established rule that orders of this character always lie upon the Table of the House and are liable to review by the Oireachtas were departed from in this Bill.
The House will observe that, in another part of the Bill, which I propose to amend, a peculiarly vicious precedent that was recently established in another quite unrelated Bill to this, is being followed by the draftsman. An attempt is being made to make the Seal of the Council statutory evidence of all that the document contains. It is a vicious principle, and it is brought in here because it is taken from another Act where that vicious principle is introduced. I therefore object on the grounds of the institute itself to having these orders made without having them submitted to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and also on the ground that to depart from the well established precedent that these orders always are subject to the approval of the Oireachtas is a dangerous departure which should not be countenanced.
I think the Deputy wants more than the usual laying before the House. Is not that so?
I waive that.
I am prepared to introduce an amendment which is the usual form:—
On page 4, after sub-section (5), to add a new sub-section as follows, namely:—
Every Order made by the Government under any sub-section of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House shall within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after such Order is laid before it pass a resolution annulling such Order such Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
That is the usual form.
That is quite acceptable.
I am quite satisfied to do that.
There is one point on it. These establishment orders are to contain quite an amount of information. The details are set out in the next section. Under the proposed substitute by the Taoiseach for what Deputy Dillon has suggested it is only possible to annul the order. It is not possible to amend it. Therefore, supposing there was something in the detailed points of the establishment order that the House objected to their only resource is to throw the whole thing out. Would it not be better to include a power to annul or amend? We have met this difficulty before in connection with rules of court, but surely in this case it is quite conceivable that there might be objection to some point in the constitution of the body, but the House might refrain from throwing out the whole order, although there was objection to a part of it.
A subsequent amending order can be made. If, for instance, Deputies in the House thought that the order should have been varied or should have been somewhat different from the form in which it was, if a case was made for amending it, it can be amended. Suppose an order might be brought forward and that certain part of it was objectionable, if the Government said: "We agree there are objections to that particular clause or that particular provision", the Government, unless it wanted to put it to a vote there and then, could say, "Very well, we will bring in an amending order varying it to the extent that might be desired by a substantial section of the House." In regard to the other method I do not know where it would lead us to. I think, with ordinary reason and desire on the part of the Government to meet any reasonable expression of opinion from other parts of the House, it does provide a way of amending orders. It is not as if it was final. You can have an amending order. I suggest that would probably meet any of the difficulties that might arise.
It is a small point of detail. The answer to that is that if one looks at the section which contains as a sub-section this power to amend, that is to say, Section 6, sub-section (3), the power to amend depends upon the Government after consultation with the Governing Board of a Constituent School and with the council, I am thinking more of the occasion where it might be proposed to establish a new constituent school and there might be objection taken right at the beginning to, say, the method of selection of the governing authority. The suggestion given in answer to me is, let the order go through and let it be amended. Supposing one is objecting to such a root matter as the method of selection of the governing authority, what we have to do is to let the thing go through, to let the objected-to governing body come into being, and then to let it rest with the Government.
Yes.
Of course, somewhere in this Bill there ought to be, and possibly there is, a scheme whereby all orders brought before the House can be amended by the Government, but I have not yet discovered it.
If the Deputy goes back to Section 4, he will see that when a new constituent school is being established, under sub-section (2), the House has to approve of it.
Yes, but that does not tie up with this at all. The Bill itself sets out two schools and allows for the establishment of other schools. The other schools cannot be established until they are, so to speak, formally voted by the House approving the establishment of the new school, but that is all I think will be in that establishing order—simply a mere mark of approval of the idea of establishing the school. The procedure, as I understand it, is that, under the rest of the Bill, an establishment order will be brought in, and that establishment order will detail such things as the Government think proper, but "in particular shall provide for the following matters", and then follow all the paragraphs down to the letter (j).
I am thinking of the circumstances in which somebody may possibly object to something in, say, (g) of the establishment order, and apparently the only resort the House has is to say: "We will annul the whole order." The Taoiseach says, in answer to that, that what we will do is to pass it with a guarantee from the Government that they will bring in an amendment, which they can do under Section 6. I can see any number of circumstances in which it will work, but I can also see circumstances in which it will not work. It is a matter in respect of these orders which I have never understood—that where the House is given a certain amount of control, as it is by the scheme of having orders brought before it with capacity to annul them, it must always go the whole way of annulment, and that there is no half-way house. We all seem to be afraid of giving the House power to amend, instead of providing solely for a simple "yes" or "no" decision.
The Deputy will understand that it would be a very big question. I take it that the reason why in most of these cases you have details in an order which you have not got in a Bill is that there are a number of things of an administrative type which have to be carefully examined and which are put in after the most careful examination from an administrative point of view. I think we would have very little time for other work if we had all the possible amendments that might be proposed to us. I think this is one of the reasons why it is a matter of all or none. With regard to a fundamental matter such as the constitution of the governing body, I imagine that the House would not let the Government away with a proposal to establish a new school without trying to get some preliminary indication, at any rate, of what the governing body was to be like. I imagine they would be asked to indicate that in advance.
As I read Section 7, every establishment order shall provide for certain matters, and one of them is the constitution. It is one of the things which must be provided.
But knowing what the order must, in general, contain, there will naturally be an effort made by members of the House to get from the Government, at the very start, information as to how this school is to be governed, as to its constitution, and so on, so that, before the first resolution is passed at all, I imagine that some sort of outline of the functions of the school, the mode of constitution of its governing body, and so on, will be elicited.
I am quite certain that, on the resolution proposed in Section 4, in respect of the establishment of a constituent school, an attempt will be made to get that information, but I am quite certain that the answer will be made by whomever sits in the Taoiseach's seat: "It is a matter for the establishment order; wait till you see it." What will be proposed in the establishment order is simply this: A branch of science in respect of which it is proposed to have a new school. That will be the chief matter in the order; the rest will be a matter of detail.
There will have to be a resolution.
To establish a new school.
Yes, a school, say, of experimental physics.
For the conduct of research in a particular specialised branch of knowledge.
We know perfectly well that if a Minister comes to the House and says: "We propose that a school of experimental physics be established", the House will say: "All right; we may be prepared, in general, to agree to that, but tell us something about it. Tell us how its governing body is going to be composed and things of that sort", and before the House would pass the original resolution, which they would have to do directly, the Minister in charge would have to indicate to the House what its constitution was, what were its functions and all these things that are to be specified in the order, and he would be asked how he proposed to carry these out. I see the Deputy's point, but I am afraid it would be very difficult at this stage to face the bigger question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12 (a):—
In page 4, after Section 6 (5) to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Every order made by the Government under any sub-section of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if either such House shall, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 5, line 33, Section 8 (1), to delete the word "Government" and substitute the words "Council of State".
This is one of a series of proposals designed to withdraw the affairs of this institute from constant contact with the popularly-elected Government. Somebody wrote to me and told me it was unconstitutional.
That is the essence of your amendment.
Is it unconstitutional?
I would answer yes, so long as the President is in.
The President is there, and it is proposed in the Bill that he should act on the advice of the Government in these matters. My proposal is that he should act, in these matters, on the advice of the Council of State. I see, of course, the constitutional objection to giving the President the right to act independently of the Government's advice on any matter relating to the life and liberty of the subjects of this State, but it did seem to me that one could differentiate between an act done by the President in an academic institution and an act done by him, the ultimate effect of which would be to create law. I do not know whether the constitutional lawyers would there distinguish. It would be clearly unconstitutional to suggest that the President should take any legislative action independently of the advice of the Government elected by Dáil Eireann, but where you invite the President to act in an entirely different capacity, not in his capacity as a part of Oireachtas Eireann but merely as the ceremonial head of the State, I think there is a distinction. Or is there?
I am afraid that Article 13 of the Constitution is dead against you.
I have heard that view advanced. I have no doubt that in the preparation of Article 13 the Taoiseach spent a good deal of midnight oil. He devoted a lot of care in drafting it and perhaps he will tell us does he not distinguish, or could not a legitimate distinction be made, between the President acting as a constituent part of Oireachtas Eireann and the President acting without any pretension to be part of Oireachtas Eireann? There must be a distinction between the President acting in his capacity as part of Oireachtas Eireann and the President, let us say, opening a garden party. Nobody would challenge the right of the President to open a garden party or a fancy fair in Balbriggan, independent of the advice of the Government. Of course, it might be very indiscreet for him to go cantering off in that way, but there would not be anything unconstitutional about the President opening a fancy fair in Balbriggan. The Taoiseach now talks about co-relating the appointment of a professor in this institute of studies with a legislative Act and the objection is there and I am drawing an analogy between this Act and the opening of a fancy fair in Balbriggan. There surely is that distinction and I would be glad that constitutional lawyers would get rid of that difficulty. There are certain things that the President may do without coming in conflict with his constitutional obligation to consult the Government. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this might be one of them?
There might be a distinction in relation to the President acting in a matter which is not clearly and definitely associated with the Oireachtas. But this is associated with Parliamentary work. State moneys have been or are being paid out and in relation to matters of this sort I do not think you can distinguish the President in one capacity from the President in another. So far as the Constitution is concerned, I am advised, on the point of Article 31, which defines fairly definitely the functions of the Council of State, that you cannot add to these functions, and then you have Article 13 (11) which makes it clear that if any new powers are given to the President, other than those set out in the Constitution, he shall act in those matters always on the advice of the Government.
That is where the Taoiseach has got me, because this power is being given to him by law. I strike my flag.
I think you will also have it in the other respect, with regard to the Council of State. I think you will find the functions of the Council of State are pretty well defined.
The Constitution does say that if we give any additional functions to the President by law he must act on the advice of the Government. We need not go further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 5, at the end of Section 8, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) No salary of any professor shall be changed from the original scale fixed under sub-section (2) of this section without the unanimous consent of the Council of State.
This amendment raises a point of considerable importance. I think you ought to give some independent body the right of veto on any proposal to alter the terms on which a professor of this institute has been originally appointed; otherwise you are continually going to have the difficulty that badly-informed public opinion may be stirred up by some interested parties to prejudice the position of the scholar who has the courage of his convictions and the Government may find themselves in the desperate position of wishing to vindicate the right of the scholar to stand over what he believes, although in actual fact the Government themselves profoundly differ from the expressed conviction of the scholar they want to protect.
Suppose you had a scholar here who was solely concerned with philology and he made some foolish speech about divorce or contraception and a wild turmoil was started that a person of this kind should not be permitted to lecture on mathematical physics. Suppose the Government found themselves in the position that they were pressed to alter the terms of office of the individual in order to squeeze him out and, resisting that pressure, they found themselves arraigned with being the champions of the contraceptive law, with subsidising contraceptive publicity. The Government might say: "We are not interested in the merits of what this man has said, but we are interested in this connection, that we do not propose to penalise a man in his professional capacity for an expression of his private views. He may have been right or wrong, discreet or indiscreet." That sounds pretty improbable, almost ludicrous, but at the present moment a contest is actually proceeding and there is a very furious effort being made to dislodge a gentleman I very much dislike and whose views I very strongly condemn, but whose position, nevertheless, I do not think ought to be jeopardised by the fact that he holds very unorthodox and, to me, very disgusting views on many matters of fundamental importance.
As regards the gentleman in question, I forget at the moment whether he is a philosopher or a mathematical physicist. The point is that if a man is, let us say, dealing with ethics or pure mathematics, it seems undesirable that his private views in relation to other matters should be invoked for the purpose of driving him out of his job. Unless a section of some kind, designed to have the same effect as my amendment, is inserted in this Bill, the Government may find themselves in the position that they are advocating wholly unacceptable views and finding it difficult to explain to the people that they detest and despise those views as much as the people do but that they will not stand for victimising a scholarly man because his views on wholly unrelated matter are wrong or unpopular at a given time.
Is the Deputy not trying to do something which can hardly be done? If you find a Legislature feeling so strongly as that on a particular matter, would there not be strong pressure exercised to bring in an Act of Parliament to deal with the situation? It would not be beyond the competence of a Parliament to remove a professor if it were considered desirable to do so. I think what will happen is this, that there will be certain terms and conditions of service of one kind or another; some kind of contract will be made between the institute and the professors. Under this contract the professors will have certain rights and these will be protected, in so far as they can be protected, by the courts. It is questionable whether it would be a good principle to say that they cannot be changed.
Oh, they can be changed by agreement by the Council of State.
You cannot bring in the Council of State. It may be the same personnel under another name. I do not think you could bring the Council of State into it at all. It would be unconstitutional. I think there is only one way of dealing with it, and that is putting the responsibility on the Government, and if the Government does not carry out its responsibilities, get rid of it.
You do not do that with the judges.
The judges are in a peculiar position. There is a protection given them. There might be a clash between the Government and the courts, so the judges are given special protection. That, I think, is unique.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General is in the same position. He cannot be removed at the wish of the Government.
The position is more or less analogous.
It may be right, as Deputy Dillon suggests, to bring in the Council of State. No matter what has been said about the amendment, changing the salary of the professor does not require an order. I think the Act would override the order; where there is a specific statement anything so vaguely put as an order would be overridden. I think that once the school is established and the salary of the professor fixed, that an order should come before the House before that would be changed. The section reads: "The Government on the recommendation of the Minister.... shall from time to time determine either generally or in respect of any particular senior professor" the salaries and so on. Power is there distinctly given over to the Ministers to change from time to time in respect of the new professor his salary and emoluments, and I doubt very much if that was intended.
Not in that form, but it was necessary to put it in.
If any court came to construe this afterwards, they would be bound to take the view that it was open to the Government, intermediate and in the course of the professor's period, to change his salary. That may be desired. It may be a good safeguard for the professors. I suggest that either of two things should happen—keep in Deputy Dillon's phrase and leave out this reference to the Council of State. Then the amendment would read: "No salary of any professor shall be changed from the original scale fixed under sub-section (2) of this section." That would mean that once the salaries were fixed for the professors and occupiers of the posts you cannot change them.
I will consider the matter and look it up again.
There is agreement in principle that once the professor is appointed it is not the desire to alter the terms of his appointment without his own consent.
Not to change downwards.
He will not object to changing up.
If there is agreement on the principle I will withdraw my amendment.
Let it go for the present and I will look into it.
I ask the Taoiseach to hold up the Fifth Stage until next week.
I think the Deputy misunderstands the whole purpose of this.
I am taking it from what was said last night.
The Taoiseach will sympathetically consider the desirability of preserving intact the professors' conditions and terms?
From every point of view I am inclined to do that. We have not merely to hold out an attractive salary to the professors but to see about continuing conditions.
Amendment No. 14, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 5, line 53, Section 9 (4) (b), to delete the word "Taoiseach" and substitute the words "President of Ireland".
In that case I have to oppose.
I propose that the President of Ireland should exercise his power.
The certificate is to be given when the new council is to be established. The new council will be partly appointed by the President on the advice of the Government. The chairman also would be appointed by getting a nomination from the governing board of the schools. Now the person who will be most in contact with these things will be the Taoiseach, because he is the channel through which the President is made aware of the advice of the Government. If there is any delay it is brought to his attention. He will be aware also, as head of the Government, of what is being done. The Minister for Education will naturally report to him with regard to the appointment made by the governing boards of the schools. It seems to me that as action by the President is involved, the Taoiseach would be the best person to certify that all the formalities have been carried out.
I have the feeling that as we have a Great Seal of our own we should use it. I understand the Great Seal is now used by the President and not by the Taoiseach. Documents bearing the Great Seal are something in the nature of a charter. This would be the charter of the new institute.
It will be the certificate that the new council has been appointed and therefore the old council, that is to say the first council, disappears.
Does not the council of the institute subsist as a result of the issue of this certificate?
The new council will come into being as a result of various actions when it begins to operate as a result of the certificate.
Yes, the second council is the result of this certificate. This certificate is analogous to a charter.
The order is the charter of the schools.
This certificate is a warranty for it to the succeeding council.
Yes, to the more or less permanent council.
It seems to me an indication that you can begin operations.
I once said that such an institute should be surrounded by a certain amount of form and the Taoiseach stated that he took the view that the less form there was the better; that it would be more democratic with less form. That view has been a good deal expressed in America. I do not agree. You have the Great Seal of the Council of State and that should be used, otherwise you bring it into contempt and the Seal is in fact abrogated. I entirely differ from the Taoiseach's view. I believe in silk hats, and in form and dignity, whatever shape it may take, being associated with the procedure of this State. I do not think it adds anything to its democratic character to conduct our affairs as if we were a parish council. I regard the Great Seal as an essential part of the State machinery, and I think the more often that it is properly and, with dignity, used and brought to public attention the better it will be for the institutions that we control. The Taoiseach will not use the Great Seal.
I think the Deputy is elevating this to something that was never intended. You want to have some document to indicate that the old council is finished and that the new one has begun: that all the necessary things required to bring the permanent council into being have been completed. It seems to me that this is a very simple document. The whole question is who should give it. I think the person in the key position, the person who knows most about it, should give it.
The only difference between us is that I want it done with a fanfare of trumpets, and the Taoiseach wants it done with a rubber stamp.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The following amendment appears on the Order Paper in my name:—
In page 5, line 59, Section 9 (5), to delete the word "Government" and substitute the words "Council of State".
I am wondering whether it is unconstitutional to bring in the words "Council of State" there.
I think the Deputy is attempting to add to the functions of the Council of State, and that would be against Article 31 of the Constitution.
I think that is a tremendously narrow limitation to give to functions of the Council of State, which are merely incidental to this Bill. If it is possible to give the President new functions and to have him advised in respect of those new functions of the Council of State——
I do not think it is possible.
I agree that it is not possible to give the President new functions in which he will be advised by the Council of State if these new functions are given him by law, but if it is possible to give functions, otherwise than by law, then there is nothing in the Constitution to say that he is precluded from taking advice from the Council of State. Where functions are given to the President by law, he cannot have any other advice except that of the Government. Sub-section (5) of Section 9, in relation to the first council of the institute, says that the council shall consist of one member who shall be the chairman appointed by the President. Sub-section (3) of the section provides that the first council shall consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the President. In the one case it is distinctly stated that the President shall appoint, while in the other case it is more or less indirectly referred to that somebody shall be appointed by the President. The first clearly gives the President new functions by law. The second more or less assumes the power, but it does no give it to him. I think that the section might be better phrased if the wording in sub-section (3) were followed.
I will look into it.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 6, Section 12 (1) (a), line 53, to delete the word "Government" and substitute the word "President".
I think it would be more consistent with the whole scheme of things if the President, who makes the appointment, were to receive a resignation where a member wants to resign. The Taoiseach is the link between the Government and the President as regards advice. The question of the acceptance of a resignation would be a matter for advice, too.
The Taoiseach thinks that where a person wants to resign it would still be a matter for advice on the part of the Government to the President that the resignation should be accepted. If that is so that phrase ought to be expanded.
In the ordinary course the President makes an appointment. The person appointed, at some stage, wishes to resign. We all know that very often letters of resignation are sent but are not persisted in if representations are made. The idea is that the President, before he would accept the resignation, would communicate to the Government the fact that this resignation had come in. That would give the Government an opportunity of getting in contact with that person, of asking him if he could not continue in office or if it was absolutely necessary that he should go, since his doing so would mean the loss of his particular ability and knowledge to the council. In a case like that it would give the Government an opportunity of trying to get the person in question, if it was so desired, to reconsider his proposed resignation.
It is quite clear that the amendment must be carried in the sense that it must be a submission to the President instead of to the Government of the time. If a person wants to resign there is no question of advice.
You cannot stop him.
Would it not be better to change "Government" to "President" and say "together with the advice of the Government thereon?"
As the appointment has been made on the advice of the Government, I cannot imagine the President accepting a resignation straight off without letting the Government know about it.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
21. In page 6, Section 12 (2), line 61, to delete the word "Government" and substitute the word "Taoiseach", and in line 62 to delete all from the word "had" to the word "Government" and substitute the words "has been accepted."—Aire Oideachais.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 7, Section 13 (2), to delete all from the word "Government" in line 7 to the word "School" in line 8, and substitute the words "Governing Board of a Constituent School may, at any time, with the consent of the Minister".
This has reference to the removal of members of the council.
It gives the council the initiative with the consent of the Minister, instead of giving the Government the initiative with the consent of the council.
The point is that the governing board is to be the appointing body and is to take the initiative in removing. It is useful to get the consent of the Minister in a case like that so that the Minister, if there are difficulties, may be able to compose them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 7, Section 15 (3), to delete all words after the word "Institute" where it occurs in line 38 to the end of the sub-section.
It is sought to provide under sub-section (3) here that "All courts of justice shall take judicial notice of the seal of the Institute". I propose to stop the sub-section there, cutting out the proposal that.
every document purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Institute and to be authenticated in accordance with this section shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly and lawfully so sealed and shall, unless as aforesaid, be received in evidence without further proof and, in particular, without proof of any signature (including a counter-signature) affixed to such document for the purpose of such authentication and without proof of the office or authority of the person whose signature such signature purports to be.
So far as I am aware, it is open to litigants to call for proof of a document which purports to be signed, sealed, and delivered in a particular way. If the statute under which the document is made requires certain formalities to be conformed to, it is open to the litigant on the other side from that in support of which the document is produced to call on the officer purporting to make the instrument, to prove that he had done so, thus affording the litigant an opportunity of raising such relevant matters with that witness as it may be expedient for the due prosecution of his suit to do. These legislative proposals to exonerate officers of that character from the obligation of coming to court when the other side wants to bring them there, and going into the witness-box to prove their document and thus exposing themselves to cross-examination are, in my opinion, bad. I do not suppose the bursar, or whoever the officer of the institute may be who is to sign, seal and deliver the document on behalf of the institute, will be called to court once in 50 years. Therefore, we are not legislating to avoid a constantly recurring nuisance which would entrench on a busy man's time. We are going to spare him the necessity of attending court once in half a century, and I think we ought not to do that. We are removing a well-established obligation from his shoulders by express law, and, unless very grave reason can be pleaded for adopting that course, I do not think it is a course that ought to be adopted.
If this were not inserted, would you not have to prove practically every document before it was accepted as evidence? I am not a lawyer and therefore I am not accustomed to the procedure in court, but if this is left out I imagine you will have to prove every document and not merely when the opposite party would demand to have it proved.
If the court takes judicial notice of the deed does it not mean that the document will be accepted as a valid document unless challenged?
Yes.
I am informed that this is not an unusual practice; in fact that it is a common provision.
It is one of these poisonous provisions put in by Government Departments in order to spare themselves the necessity of facing a litigant in a court of law. Very often they do not want to submit themselves to cross-examination because frequently, when put on oath, all sorts of inconvenient lapses on their part are brought to light through cross-examination. If you subpoena them, you may not get an opportunity of cross-examining them at all; you will only be able to examine in chief. I imagine that if by law it is declared that a court will take judicial notice of a seal, that means that when a document is so sealed it is prima facie good; but that it is open to the other side to challenge its validity, whereupon the person presenting it must call the officer who has the statutory duty of executing it to satisfy the court that it was executed in accordance with law, and it is open to the other person to cross-examine. I do not see that that is any hardship. I do not see how you are going to inconvenience anyone materially if you accept the amendment and simply provide that the seal of the institute is to be added to the list of things which a judge is judicially to recognise. I can see that the Taoiseach, with his cautious mind, is hatching plans to avoid giving way on this because he is afraid of putting his foot wrong, but he can look into it between now and the time when the Bill reaches the Seanad.
I have looked into it since the last occasion and any information I got only confirms me in the view that it is a very useful provision generally. I do not think I am going to get any different advice between this and the next stage.
This is a matter on which the Taoiseach is quite as good a judge as the most experienced civil servant. Does he think that it is a good thing gratuitously to exonerate them from coming down and answering a litigant in the courts?
What question would a litigant ask in a case like that?
This is the kind of thing that might happen: There is a row in the institute between one of the staff and the governing body. The row gets very acrimonious, and the complaining professor thinks he is ill-treated because some formality has not been gone through which would have given him an opportunity of stating his case and preventing the injustice that he feels himself to be labouring under.
He can question the document.
The document comes before the court, and that man has not got the right to impose upon the institute the obligation of bringing down their officer and putting him in the box to prove the document, thus affording the aggrieved professor the right to cross-examine him as to whether, in addition to its being proved that the document is signed and sealed by him, it is also true that it was signed and sealed in all the circumstances required by equity, and that all the preliminary steps necessary for the due operation of natural justice had been taken before the document was drafted. That is the kind of case that arises. If you give the institute that right, the court must assume that it was properly executed, unless you can prove that it was not.
I am afraid the Deputy is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. What is in question is this: that a certain decision is taken by the proper authorities in the institute. That decision eventuates from some document, and that document, in order that it should be authentic, has to be sealed, and certain signatures are appended. All you can find out is whether, in fact, a resolution has been passed, and whether the witnesses were present when the seal was being affixed. It seems to me that in documents of that sort all corporate bodies take care to see that the seal is duly affixed, and that the signatures of witnesses are duly appended at the fixing of the seal. If you are questioning as a matter of argument the power of the body, or the persons, the position is that all these things are open to question.
It is common form for courts of justice to take notice of this proceeding, but here you do not require proof of authentication to be given by the people who purported to have signed. There is a considerable amount of difference between the position of this institute and the ordinary limited company. These reasons have commended themselves to generations of people. A limited company does prove that a certain document was sealed. The only question that can be raised is whether the document was properly sealed, and the court may have to decide if it was done at the proper time, if it was witnessed by the proper people, the whether they are the people they profess to be. Why is there any difference between the position of this institute and the ordinary company in that connection? If the institute was confined to running a college immediately its powers are lessened. You might have a poor person up against this institute, and why should that person not have as against the institute all the rights of a court case, and the necessity of these people coming to prove who they are? There might be a whole lot in the background. The Taoiseach said that this phrase has been found very useful. Of course it has. In the Pigs and Bacon Act the courts are at the moment in a peculiar position. The time has come when there is what is known in France as administrative law. That is a system of law whereby there is a completely new court and new tribunal for any case in which a Department of State or the civil service, or an official of State is concerned. In countries where they have administrative law they have courts and precedents and cases are decided before these administrative tribunals.
We are in the position here that more or less there is the pretence of continuing the ordinary courts. The Pigs and Bacon Act was a notorious example. There were things that had to be considered before orders were made. All that happened was that someone sent down an extract signed with the seal of the board, and it could not be questioned. There was no way of probing into the matter to see whether what was before the board was investigated. The owners were enabled to do a thing for which a public commission castigated them, putting money into private purses. The whole evil arose from the fact that the board was able to override a particular clause. I have no doubt that the people who wanted the board to function in a way that turned out to be misbehaviour wanted that hidden. What Deputy Dillon is talking about will not occur once in a generation. There is no reason for putting this institute on any footing other than that of the ordinary company, particularly as it is given power in an earlier section to buy and sell land. In a later section we are introducing a completely new provision to lease property. This institute may come before the courts as a landlord in respect of ordinary increase of rent cases. Why should it be in a better position than the ordinary landlord?
I do not know whether any further examination by me is likely to change my mind, but it seems in regard to the material part, that this does not affect it at all. Surely, if something ultra vires is done, or if a document is in any way inequitable, it can be questioned, and the only thing that could possibly be brought out was whether a revolutionary decision was arrived at by the council of the institute, and whether the seal put on indicated that that had been officially done, and the signatures properly appended. In the case of a public body like this, if anything was not done correctly, there is not the slightest doubt that it would become immediately a matter for litigation, if the signatures were not properly appended or a resolution passed. These are the only two things that matter.
How would the ordinary litigant prove that? The only chance the ordinary litigant has is to call and question these two people. They would have to parade themselves in court and say "That is my signature." On the other side, they could be asked: "Where is the resolution? Produce the terms. Tell us when it was passed and the number voting." If the two officers did not attend the court, but simply sent down a document, and someone questioned it, is the answer to be: "There is the document. You cannot question the signatures." What is the litigant to suspect in the background? He is given the task of calling these people as witnesses.
Surely, this is the common phrase.
It is not a very common phrase. The point of Deputy Dillon's amendment is to have judicial notice, which is very common, accepted, but this is going to preclude any possibility of challenge of the authentication of the document, by challenging the signatures and the status of the people purporting to have affixed their signatures.
Does the Taoiseach take the view, that if you subpoena a person to court as a witness you cannot cross-examine him, whereas if you get the other man to subpoena him, you have the advantage of cross-examination, and may make him admit matters that you could not raise at all?
Surely you would not be allowed to cross-examine except as to relevant matters—for instance, whether this decision was properly arrived at, and whether the seal was duly affixed.
Cross-examination is very wide.
You must not allow it to become an abuse.
It is not an abuse.
I shall see whether other lawyers agree with you.
We are not objecting to the judicial recognition of the seal.
I realise that. Perhaps the Deputy will hold over the amendment for the present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 7, Section 16 (1), line 47, after the word "Council" to insert the words "from time to time, as occasion requires".
Possibly it was only in the first instance that a certain thing could be done according to the Bill. It may be necessary to do a thing from time to time, and this amendment makes provision for so doing.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 7, before Section 16 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Any buildings acquired or erected by the Council under this section which are not required for the purposes of the Institute or of any Constituent School may be leased by the Council to such persons for such term and upon such conditions as the Council, with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, may determine, or may, with the like consent and concurrence, be sold or otherwise disposed of by the Council."
This is a similar amendment. It may be desirable to dispose of buildings already acquired in order to get a better position or something of that sort.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 8, at the end of Section 17 (4), to add the words "and the remuneration, tenure and conditions shall not be changed subsequent to their original determination without the consent of the Council".
This amendment is designed to do for the registrar-bursar on a more restricted scale that which the Taoiseach has recognised to be desirable in regard to professors. It is intended to make the registrar-bursar's conditions of service unalterable without the consent of the council.
We do not know what considerations might arise in particular cases. Suppose there were a situation of gravity in which the whole public service might have to consent to a cut in remuneration, do you want to put an officer of this type in a specially privileged position?
I certainly do. You want to turn him into a civil servant.
What case can you make for putting him in a particularly sheltered position?
I do not think you ought to envisage the servants of this institute being the subject of a general cut such as you made in the salaries of civil servants in 1932. I think that ought to be a matter between the bursar and the people who employed him.
His contract will be with the institute, and there is no suggestion that his contract can be changed without consultation with the council. It is on the initiative of the council any change will be made.
What is the Taoiseach actually arguing about? My amendment suggests that the remuneration, tenure and conditions shall not be changed without the consent of the council. The truth is that the Taoiseach does not know what he is arguing about, because I think the amendment was consequential on one bringing in the Council of State.
No. It is the council of the institute that is referred to.
Who fixes the bursar's conditions of employment?
The council.
How can his tenure be altered without the consent of the council?
I think that the phrase in the Bill actually meets the amendment, but the Taoiseach has put forward the argument that that ought not to be the position.
The position, so far as I understood it, was that the arrangement would be made with the council, and if the council thought that there was need of economy, there was no reason why it should not be influenced, if you like by a Minister, into participating voluntarily in a general scheme of economy.
Under Section 17 (4) the remuneration of the registrar-bursar cannot be changed except with the approval of the council.
Why, then, do you want to put in this clause specially?
I do not think it is necessary to put it in.
That is my view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 8, Section 19 (4), line 52, to delete the words "retiring age", and substitute the words "the time and conditions of retirement", and in line 54, to delete the words "retiring ages" and substitute the words "such times and conditions".
The term used in this amendment is wider than that in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 8, Section 19 (5), to delete all from the word "for" in line 59 to the word "Finance" in line 60, and substitute the words "who shall refer it to the Minister for Finance".
This amendment is intended to clear up the ambiguity suggested by Deputy Dillon on the last occasion. We had then to insert a comma to make it read correctly. The Minister for Education is the link in all these cases and the Minister for Finance is the determining person.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 8, lines 59-60, Section 19 (5), to delete the words "Minister for Finance" and substitute the words "The President of the High Court".
This is a very good amendment, because nothing is more intolerable than this system of providing that the Minister for Finance shall be prosecutor, judge and jury. Inasmuch as a great part of the moneys to finance this institute will be derived from public funds, it seems to me utterly unreasonable to ask a man who has a bona fide dispute with the institute as to what his rights are under his contract of employment to go to the Minister for Finance which, in fact, means a well-intentioned but unbending civil servant, to have his rights determined. Why not give that man the right to go to the High Court and get a decision as in any other dispute between citizens?
We cannot prevent him from going to the High Court.
Then, why do you say that the Minister's decision is final?
If everything is done regularly, the court will be bound by the decision of the Minister for Finance.
I do not want that.
Where public funds are involved, it is desirable to have that provision. If there is a dispute between one of the officials or professors and the council, public moneys may be involved, and the judge will say whether the matter has been dealt with properly or not. If anything has been irregularly done, that can be brought out in court.
All I want is that there should be a judicial interpretation of the original agreement of employment under which the retiring official claims a right, just as, under Article 10, a retiring civil servant is entitled to go before a Circuit judge and certain assessors and have his rights determined as against the Government. Surely that is a sensible proviso. I agree that, administratively, that ideal may sometimes be jettisoned because the number of claims might be so large that they would clog the courts. In that event, a ready means would have to be found of disposing of them. But is there any reason why a learned person from the far ends of the earth who finds himself high and dry in Ireland, and engaged in a dispute with the academic body which brought him here, should have his case decided by politicians here rather than by a judge of the High Court? Suppose I were in the U.S.A. and had to choose between a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Boss Hague, of New Jersey, which would I choose? Does the Taoiseach imagine that I would choose Boss Hague of New Jersey?
I do not think that Government work is done quite in that way.
What do you mean?
That the terms you are suggesting do not indicate anything.
Does the Taoiseach suggest that the members of the Government of this country are such pious perfect creatures that they can be trusted to administer absolutely abstract justice to men from all over the world? That is all codology and he knows it. I want the dispute to be determined by a judge of the High Court. I am sure that if the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, who is sitting there with such a pained expression, had a claim for a pension he would want his case to be tried by a judge of the High Court. I know when he has a dispute of that kind he will not be content that I should decide between him and the Government if I am in office as Minister for Finance. He would much prefer to go to a judge of the High Court because he would be afraid that I would put a blister on him. If the Minister is afraid of that, what shall we say about a man whose name may be Skiliovitch? It would give him some sense of security to know that he was going before a judge of the High Court whose position was impregnable and who could not be influenced by the Government of the day. Why does the Taoiseach object to let him to go to the High Court?
I do not object but it is a new principle.
If we ever have the misfortune to have Deputy Dillon as Minister for Finance, and I happen to have a claim against the State, I would not be satisfied to let Deputy Dillon decide the matter. If I had a contract I would go to the High Court. I am perfectly certain that if I had a contract and that there was something the State owed to me, Deputy Dillon would not be quite willing to pay that sum, whatever the High Court might wish to give me.
I do not know that we should go out of our way to suggest that Governments in all cases cannot be depended upon to do ordinary justice.
The Prime Minister need not be so sensitive. I say that such dispute should not be determined by a person who is not in a judicial position and who has not the impregnability of a judge.
The Deputy himself has provided one argument against doing so, that the court might be cluttered up with cases of this kind.
Does the Taoiseach imagine that the professors and servants of this institute are going to spend all their years in disputes in the courts?
I do not apprehend at all that cases of the sort that the Deputy has suggested will arise, but if we introduced this new principle, we would come up against hosts of other cases where we could not resist it.
I do not see anything wrong in allowing an unfortunate citizen to go into court and to have his case against the Minister adjudicated upon.
If there is any breach of contract, he will have redress in court.
Do I understand that this clause might as well be read with the addition of the phrase "subject to appeal to the High Court"?
Not from the determination of the Minister. A person can, of course, go to the High Court, but he will be presented with the fact that the Minister for Finance has given a decision in the particular matter. If the court considers that that decision has been given within the law, of course it will take cognisance of the law.
Am I to understand that the situation hereafter will be this, that a point arises where a person believes that he is entitled to a pension, and to a pension of a certain amount. A dispute arises and the matter goes to the Minister. We have then the phrase in the clause: "whose determination thereon shall be final". I understand that, notwithstanding that, the Taoiseach believes that an aggrieved officer will be able to go before the High Court. That phrase has been watered down now, and I am told that when he goes there he will be faced with the final determination of the Minister in regard to the amount. Where are we? What is it that can be brought to the High Court?
It seems to me that a question of breach of contract or anything of that sort can be brought before the High Court, but if there is a dispute such as is contemplated here, if it is determined by the Minister for Finance in the way set out here, the court will take cognisance of that determination and say: "This is a matter that has been properly determined by the Minister for Finance."
Whose decision is final?
Whose decision in that matter is final. There might be a case in which it would be quite proper to go to court. In the case of a document, for instance, there might be material within the document which might be questioned. In the same way, there might be a question as to whether the decision of the Minister was precisely the function given to him by law, or whether the question at issue was a question that the Minister should determine. Where he had properly determined a dispute the court would take that as a proper determination of the matter.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Taoiseach wants to deny these people the right to go to the High Court, instead of compelling them to submit to the decision of the Minister.
I do not want to establish precedents of this kind in disputes about pensions.
Disputes in connection with the Electricity Supply Board can be referred to the Minister, and after that, if need be, to an arbitrator. We have that in a number of Acts, that people are not to be left to the mercy of the Minister.
Is it not clear that there must be some finality in the procedure?
Give us an independent arbitrator.
You have the council and the official first of all. The council is independent of the Minister. The Minister cannot come in until there is a dispute between the council and the official. The dispute is one that must arise between two independent parties, and if the Minister is brought in to determine it, he is acting as arbitrator.
Certainly the bureaucrats have got hold of you. I do not know how hard a fight you had before you gave in.
If a non-lawyer may intervene in this, it seems to me that the whole question deals with superannuation schemes, which come under sub-section (6) of this Section 19. They have to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas and approved.
Yes.
That is the scheme, and if a professor comes along and takes a position under that scheme, he has the right to whatever superannuation or gratuities are allowed under that scheme.
Yes.
If there is a dispute between the council and that professor, or between the council and the Minister, with regard to what exactly is in this scheme, to what exactly the individual professor is entitled, then the Minister for Finance is the final arbiter of the man's legal rights under the scheme which has been approved by the Oireachtas.
Not at all; the Minister is to determine what his rights are.
I know one Act of Parliament pretty well—the Army Pensions Act—and in it there is a phrase: "That the decision of the referee shall be final and binding on all persons whatsoever." That phrase, "Final and binding on all persons", is not in this, and, consequently, if it were included in that Act in order to preclude the courts from coming in, I take it that when that phrase is not there, the courts still come into operation.
You make a great mistake.
The Minister has the final word in his own dispute in this case.
It is not binding on all persons.
It is.
Well, it is not his own dispute; it is between the council and the Minister.
According to the Taoiseach's colleague, there are two types of disputes which may arise— one between an individual professor and the council and another between the council—who, according to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, may want to give a professor a certain superannuation allowance—and the Minister. That is the point raised by the Taoiseach's colleague. I do not see it covered in any section. Most of the difficulty I had before this has been swept away, I am glad to say, by the Taoiseach. Under this, the Minister cannot come in if the council wants to pay. I understood that was the position.
I think it is.
If that is the situation, then, undoubtedly, unless the Minister can get a majority of the council to disagree with the professor, there can be no dispute, and the money would be paid and the professor would be all right. But there is another matter which has now been introduced. The phrase "in dispute" is very wide.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
The Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures has started a new and most beautiful hare.
We might pursue the hares we have got.
Supposing that the council wants to fix the pension and the professor wants to accept the pension and the Minister for Finance objects to the pension, is the dispute between the council on the one hand and the Minister for Finance on the other hand to be finally settled by appeal to the Minister for Finance?
I take it that the scheme has to be approved by the Minister for Finance.
But supposing the council interprets the scheme to mean that they are under an obligation to pay Professor AB a pension of £600 a year, and the Minister for Finance says that is not correct, that Professor AB is only entitled to £400 a year, is the decision which is to be final and binding in that matter to be made by the Minister for Finance, although he is one of the parties to the dispute?
I do not think that that is in the section.
Who is to settle the matter?
He would have another weapon to draw on if the council were behaving in that fashion. Remember that the council would generally be anxious to keep on good terms with the Minister for Finance.
Supposing there is a bona fide dispute in which the terms of the professor's appointment are interpreted by the council to mean that he is entitled to a pension of £500 a year?
I do not think he has any redress.
Supposing there is a dispute between the Minister for Finance and the Council, does the Minister think it desirable that the Minister for Finance should be the final judge?
I do not think that, in that case, he would be the final judge; I think he would have to seek the opinion of the courts if the question were in dispute.
There is no provision for his going to the courts.
There is. I think he has the ordinary right in the case of a dispute regarding the interpretation of a contract.
But he is precluded by sub-section (5) of Section 19.
There is nothing that takes away from a man his constitutional rights to go to the courts to enforce a contract.
I warn the Minister that if he intervenes again this hare will be travelling far and wide all over the country.
Let me read the section. It deals first of all with the duty of the council to submit a scheme for granting pensions, etc. Every such scheme, according to sub-section (6), has to be submitted and, when approved of, must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. There is the scheme and there is the man's contract as I see it, and there is no amendment of the Constitution in this section to prevent a man going to the courts and saying that the council or the Government has broken the contract with him and asking the courts to make an order telling the Government to fulfil its contract.
Read sub-section (5).
That is: "It shall be final as between the Minister and the council and as between the Minister and the professor ..." but there is nothing to preclude one going to the courts.
Let us get down to brass tacks. The Taoiseach says it is not true; the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures says it is true. Is there an appeal from the Minister or not?
Is there an appeal to the courts?
Is there an appeal to the courts? According to the statement of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, there is, and if there is, I withdraw my amendment; but, if there is not, I wish the Taoiseach would resolve the matter.
There is, as I understand it at the moment, but I will have to re-read it again in the light of what has been said. As I understand it at the moment, if there is a dispute between the governing body and the individual concerned with regard to a pension matter—there must be a dispute— in the case of that dispute the Minister comes in and determines the matter. If it should be brought to the courts by the professor, let us say, who was affected—then the courts will examine the matter and, if the Minister's action has been within the sphere indicated by the Bill, they will say to the litigant: "This has been finally determined by the Minister in accordance with law."
Then the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures is mistaken when he thinks there is an appeal from the Minister?
Only in regard to other matters—not in regard to the amount of a pension which has been duly and properly determined within the functions of the law. He can go to the court, but the court will take cognisance of the final decision which has been taken by the Minister, and the court will say that it has been duly determined.
I think he ought to be given the right of an appeal to the courts.
No doubt, the Minister has an appeal to the courts against the council.
I think he has.
The Minister has. If the Minister thinks that the professor is not carrying out his duties according to the terms of the contract, he can go to the court and have them enforced. The Minister has an appeal, but the professor has not.
Why has the professor no right of appeal? Why can the professor not go to the courts and say that the pension has not been allocated to him correctly?
The Minister has the final say. If he decides that the pension should be only £5 for the rest of the man's life, that determination is final.
But he can only determine the matter in dispute. The council must, first of all, have taken that point of view and the council is not likely to do so. They will not go out of their way to penalise a professor.
I thought that was the position.
Surely the courts will have regard to the details of a pension scheme which has been duly submitted to the Oireachtas?
If the phrase "final and binding" were cut out, that might settle the matter, but while that phrase is there the courts cannot act.
The view the courts would take of it, I should say—speaking as an ordinary layman—is that it would be their business to consider whatever representations were made and then to consider these particular questions: Was the Minister entitled to determine this matter? Did he do it? Was it the sort of thing set out here? If the courts found that it was duly and properly carried out, they would not go behind his decision.
Agreed; but I say that there ought to be an appeal from that decision, an appeal to a High Court judge.
It must be remembered that he has already a first appeal. I appreciate that there is a certain point in what has been said, but I do not wish to set up a new precedent by bringing in outside bodies where matters of pensions out of State funds are concerned.
In this case I will admit that you are not likely to have so many of such cases arising, and therefore, if this was the only type of pension concerned, you could do it, but the Deputy knows very well that the arguments he is making here would apply in hosts of other cases, and if we were to accept this it would be pressed in a number of other cases, and, honestly, I do not want to establish a precedent of that sort.
I think the Minister is allowing himself to be hag-ridden by the pseudo-patriots of this country.
I remember that something like this arose also in the case of the Electricity Supply Board, where the employment of a number of people was going to be disturbed by the legislation at that time, and it was suggested that they should be given some sort of an appeal there. I think that the phrase suggested here would meet the case. The argument was finally decided then to the effect that, if the matter could not be brought to agreement with the Minister, there should be provision for appeal to another source. I know that a number of people were disturbed, and I do not believe that the arbitrator sat once. That, however, is what the cluttering up of cases comes to.
Yes, but in this case here, is it not the fact that this can only arise if the council, which is an outside body, and on which a number of professors will be represented, were to take up an unfair attitude? I do not think it is likely that they would take up an unfair attitude.
I believe that is so. However, perhaps the whole content of this argument might be lessened if some amendment could be put in using such words as "if any dispute shall arise between any person and the council, as to the claim" and so on.
Well, yes. I shall look into the matter and see whether that other idea can be brought in. If it is, we can bring it down to the narrower point which I think the Deputy has in mind.
Amendment No. 32, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 9, after section 23 (2), to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) No regulation shall be made under this section for the good government of a Constituent School save after consultation with the Governing Board of that School.
This is simply to see that proper consultation is had with the governing board of the school; in other words, that the council should not regulate these matters without consultation.
Amendment agreed to.
With regard to amendments Nos. 34 and 35, if amendment No. 34 is accepted amendment No. 35 will fall.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 10, Section 27 (3), to delete all from the word "for" in line 48 to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the words "in accordance with such scheme, approved by the Minister, as may be prepared by the council after consultation with the governing body of each constituent school".
I think that amendment No. 34 should meet the points made by the Deputy. The object is to minimise the Government's interference in the matter of donations or gifts.
This cuts out the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance.
No, it leaves in the Minister for Education.
Yes, it leaves in the Minister for Education.
Well, I think it is an improvement on the original part of the Act.
It is a compromise in order to try to meet the Deputy as far as possible.
Very well, I accept that and shall not press my amendment.
Amendment No. 34 agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 11, to delete Section 28, sub-section (3).
The Taoiseach knows the point I have in mind here, and that is, that I do not want the accounts of this body to be subject to detailed examination by the Public Accounts Committee, nor do I want the bursar of this body to be liable to be summoned before the Committee of Public Accounts, either as a witness or as adviser to the Public Accounts Committee.
Well, I am resisting the amendment in its present form. I am advised that the position is that this section would put the institute into the same position in regard to the Public Accounts Committee as the universities.
Is that so?
It is.
I do not think it is so. It is a long time since I looked at the Irish Universities Act—I think it was somewhere in 1926, in connection with another Bill—but, as I understood it, there is a peculiarly limiting phrase in regard to the accounts. I am speaking from memory, of course, and I may be wrong, but I certainly understood that wherever accounts have to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General there is some phrase used such as "for examination and audit in accordance with", and then there is a particular Act named—I think it was the Exchequer Act of somewhere in the ‘70's. At any rate my memory is that there is some definite limitation there. I am certain that the clause in the 1908 Universities Act, which dealt with the sending of the accounts of the universities to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, did not send for audit in a particular phrase but in connection with a particular Act.
I shall look up that matter.
As far as the present Government is concerned, I take it that the attitude here is the same as the attitude in connection with the universities, which means that the accounts are just read?
I think you would have to have a special resolution of the Dáil to have these matters brought before the Public Accounts Committee. However, I shall look into it.
In any event, I take it that we are all agreed that these accounts should be put in the same position as those of the university?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments reported.
If the Taoiseach wants to take the Report Stage amendments now we will give him the Report and Fifth Stages.
If the position were that you could give me the Report Stage now and have the further amendments on the Fifth Stage, that would be all right, but I do not think it is usual to put in any amendments on the Fifth Stage.
No, it is not permissible.
Leave it over, then, and we will give you the Report and Fifth Stages next week.
The amendments now agreed to are reported. Report adjourned, and it and Fifth Stage to be taken next week. What day?
I think it would be better to take it on Tuesday next. There is other work to be done, and it will take some time to get this Bill through the Seanad.
I presume that the Bill will be taken somewhat late in the evening on Tuesday?
Yes. Would 6 o'clock be all right?
Yes, or at least not before 6 o'clock.
Very well.
Report Stage to be taken on Tuesday, 30th April, 1940.