I welcome the opportunity to debate this all-important matter on this token Vote, particularly in regard to the transfer of U.C.D. from its present location to its new site at Belfield. I hope that the vote—and I trust that one will be challenged in the matter—will be so decisive as to give the Minister all the incentive he wants to proceed with this scheme at the fastest possible rate. I hope he will recover from what I feel was the very bad bit of pessimism in which he talked of finishing in 20 years. I am very jealous of the Minister, I may say, very jealous of the situation in which he finds himself, that the turn of the political wheel leaves it in his power on behalf of the Government to put this very important further stage to the completion of what was started in 1854 when this country first addressed itself to the theme and the objective of providing higher education for Catholics in Ireland.
That began in 1854 and the stage then developed to what was called Newman's University, up to the old "Royal", through the Jesuit control of U.C.D. and eventually to the passage of the 1908 Act. One of the things that I feel Deputy O'Malley lit on by accident as regards accuracy was that he said there was not a full demand. Whatever it was, the idea was taken up with the objective of making the best possible use of promoting the aim and objective of higher education for Irish Catholics. The 1908 Act was developed and the Charter has even been changed by a slow process. Certain improvements have taken place in practice which I hope will be developed by amendment to the Charter, if that be necessary, because that old instrument certainly is not fully adequate for the present necessities of any of the Colleges of the University or even for the federal body, the "National" itself.
In 1926, one effort was made to provide, or make up for some of the deficiencies there were in the old provision by the National University and that was when the College of Science and later, the Glasnevin College, were both handed over to U.C.D. That, certainly, represented a great enlargement of the facilities and teaching facilities in that College. They got a big development of the Science Faculty and the Engineering Faculty. They got some provision for development of agriculture through students in this country. That situation remained until 1948. Deputy Corish is right in what he says. I want to emphasise what he says not for any Party purpose whatever because, as far as we are concerned, we are joining wholeheartedly behind the Minister and his Party in this new stage—not the final stage—of University progress. It is a very important stage to which we have now come.
I make these remarks because very often the criticism levelled against this project may be stated in two words— that the decision is precipitate and that there has been a certain amount of secrecy surrounding development to the stage we have now reached. So far as speed is concerned, in this matter there has been delay that is difficult to understand. As far as I I am concerned, the matter started in 1948 when permission was given to U.C.D. to wipe off its overdraft and to put its superannuation fund into a solvent position as well as to require provision for better terms for the staff in that College.
The President of U.C.D. was told that an old ban that had been put by the Department of Finance on U.C.D. itself in respect of overdraft was withdrawn. The letter was ambiguously worded but—and I conveyed this myself to the President— the intention was that the President, having the overdraft cleared, should avail himself of the new opportunity he had to get a further overdraft for the purpose of buying the lands at Belfield.
There was secrecy possibly at that point but I considered that that was the best way of dealing with the matter instead of coming here with a token vote for £10 for the purpose of making it clear that U.C.D. would build on that new site which was being looked for. It was thought that the best way to have the purchasing done at some reasonable cost was to have the matter shrouded in secrecy in that way for a period. But the matter had been discussed by the Governing Body of U.C.D. for some years. It was not a new thing in 1940 as far as this body was concerned. When I heard of it, it was in an advanced stage though not at the stage reached under the auspices of the recent Commission, but we had advanced a stage to the time when it was not merely a pious aspiration. Plans were made, rough plans with nothing like the detail now available, but definite plans.
The College authority which is the Governing Body, had over many years discussed this matter. There were representatives of different organisations on the Governing Body and there was no question of secrecy. The matter was openly discussed as far as the Governing Body was concerned. The Governing Body of U.C.D. consisted of a group of people, 34 in number; ten of those represent outside interests. There are eight people elected by the General Council of County Councils, the Lord Mayor of Dublin is there ex officio and there are representatives of the County Council of Dublin. There are four representatives of the Government; six people elected by the graduates of U.C.D.; six elected by the Academic Council and three who come from the Seanad—a mixed body but certainly not one that could be relied upon to maintain complete secrecy over anything they were to discuss, and there was no pledge of secrecy. The matter was discussed by them and I could, through my associations, hear that the idea was permeating through and was getting a good hearing.
The Governing Body of University College, Dublin is elected for three years. Suppose I take 1948, though the question started in 1947. There have been four or five changes in the personnel of the Governing Body in that time. It has had this matter under consideration from time to time and I understand at no time has there ever been found as many as five people in separate Governing Bodies to have any objection to the plans then being promoted. As far as my efforts with the College went, having provided them with certain funds with the authority of this House, I then said to them they could proceed through overdraft arrangements to buy in that way the very valuable property which they now possess.
As far as speed in this matter is concerned, it was announced here, possibly not in a blatant way, what was on foot. When I went into Opposition in 1951 I took the first occasion on one of the Votes to speak very diffidently about this whole matter, to ask how far the plans had progressed, and to urge the Government to make speed in bringing these plans up-to-date and in giving sanction for expenditure of money and a promise to provide the money. When the inter-Party Government resumed office in 1954, Deputy J.A. Costello, as Leader of the Government, took the occasion of a celebration in connection with University College, Dublin to make a public pronouncement that the Belfield plans had been fully approved by the Government of 1954, and he went on to add, as they had been previously approved in the 1948 period.
It is quite wrong for people to speak of this as being hurried. I thought words had lost their meaning when I read the other day a prominent reference in a paper using this word "precipitate", asking the Government not to precipitate a decision on this matter owing to the nature of it and saying that once a decision was taken it would be irrevocable. Apart from that, I had always understood, through various people on the Governing Bodies who had affiliations with the Party that now forms the Government, that there was no Party division on this matter and that Fianna Fáil, as well as Fine Gael, were definitely in favour of this further provision, for, as I say, higher education for Catholics in this country. When I had again become a member of the Opposition, several times I asked why the plans were not being pushed forward more speedily and finally the Commission was established.
I remember feeling disappointed because, if we take the four Governments in power since 1947 to the present time, these plans had the approval of all the Governments and all the Governments had agreed that the money would have to be found. It was only a question of what was the appropriate date for the introduction of a Vote of this type in order to have the public given full knowledge of what was proposed. The answer I consider most satisfactory when the Commission was set up, was that there was a certain amount of comment in the country, voiced mainly through some of the newspapers, that there had been a certain amount of unnecessary secrecy about the matter and the Commission was regarded as the best way of dealing with it, a Commission before which witnesses could go and a Commission which would eventually report.
The Commission took three years and more in their deliberations and at the end they have reported in favour of the Belfield plan. It is quite clear from reading that report that they started off with a prejudice against the move to Belfield. They started off directing their minds as to whether it would not be possible to preserve what they call the traditional association of the University with the area in which University College, Dublin, now stands. They were driven by force of circumstances and they report in terms which make it clear that the circumstances were overwhelmingly against the proposal to stay in Earlsfort Terrace, and by force of circumstances they were driven to vote in favour of the move to Belfield.
One comment that occurred in the Minister's speech last night should be brought home to the people who are now making objections to this move. It is in the typescript of this speech, paragraph 43, where he says, speaking of the Commission:
After one and a half years' labours, however, during which it held 33 meetings, visited twenty different institutions, both at home, in Britain and on the Continent, and received evidence from numerous home and foreign experts and interested parties, it found itself forced to the conclusion again in its own words:
"In the English and Danish Universities we visited, we found that the authorities were dealing with problems similar to the problem of University College, Dublin. We met administrators and, in some cases, architects and building officers. We discussed the solution of the Dublin problem with them. Everything we heard of the experiences of these other universities has indicated to us that the right solution of the Dublin problem—and the only final solution for it—is to transfer the College, the entire College, to a new site of adequate size.
The last sentence is:
The advice we received in these universities unanimously supports that view."
In another part of his speech, at paragraph 61 he dealt with a matter which has been canvassed in a certain newspaper outside, that is with regard to the suggestion that part of University College, Dublin, might remain at Earlsfort Terrace and that part might be transferred out to the Belfield site. He said:
The Commission's final conclusion, after thorough investigation of all these matters, was:—
"The difficulty in the case of University College, Dublin, has been to find for the College's accommodation problem a solution which will maintain the general physical unity of the College. We think that it is essential to maintain that unity. Without this unity and the opportunity of mingling together which it affords to students and professors of the different faculties, the College would lose what is one of the most valuable attributes of a University. It would in our opinion be no solution of the problem to build the College's additional accommodation requirements (450,000 square feet net)—(which is the equivalent of 600,000 square feet gross) —on the Stillorgan Road site and to leave the rest of the College at Earlsfort Terrace and Upper Merrion Street. This would divide the College, make it less than a university, and seriously affect the quality of the students."
These are two of the matters that are being spoken of outside, mainly spoken of in a newspaper that certainly has not any tradition of furthering the cause for higher education for Catholics in Ireland. In this morning's paper. The Irish Times, in its editorial worries how the precious unity of University College, Dublin, is going to be preserved. We can imagine the sleepless nights the Editor of The Irish Times spent worrying over the “precious unity” of University College, Dublin. Certain other comments which follow are just as hollow as that.
Even in my time, my student days, which go back about fifty years now, I have seen a great improvement in the situation with regard to the provision of higher education for Catholics in Ireland. A colleague of mine, in an address which he read, spoke of the different attitude there was these days towards education compared to that at the time when subscriptions were being collected for a Catholic University.
The phrase he used was: "The present attitude of the Irish people is in marked contrast to that of 100 years ago following the famine. When over a million people had died of hunger and typhus they subscribed their pennies at the church doors to start the Catholic University." We are following at least in their tradition in this debate in providing from the resources of a better organised State the moneys that are required in order not any longer to start a Catholic University but to put on a better foundation University College, Dublin, that emerged from the struggles of the people in those early years.
I should like to emphasise here that I hope we have heard the last of the talk about amalgamating with Trinity in the Minister's very decisive phrases last night. The Minister said that one of the things that had to be remembered was the sacrifices that had been made by people in this country to get education of this type for the people who belonged to the religion of the main body of the country, and he has said that he could not back it himself. I do not think any Government could live in this country that would back it and put the parents of University students in the position that they had to go to an institution where they did not believe that their essential needs in education would be properly catered for.
I turn again to my staff colleague and what he said, looking back on the old days and recording history in a very brief paragraph. He said:
"The structure of the present Irish University system was hammered out most painfully fifty years ago as the culmination of a long struggle led by the Irish Hierarchy to secure under conditions acceptable to them opportunities of University education for Irish Catholics equal to those enjoyed by the religious minority, at that time the cultural and material ascendancy of the country. It was also the general desire that the University should be democratic and national in its outlook. In fact, as far back as 1887 Dr. Walsh said that it should be a National University."
Let us keep clear of agreements of the type that Cardinal D'Alton described as ill-considered experiments in the educational field. In a speech he made in June, 1958, he said: "There seems to be desire on the part of some to throw the University question once more into the melting pot and to aim at some type of merger between the existing Universities in the Republic. That would be an attempt at a union of incompatibles."
I take it that the Minister's view last night is the view of the Government and that he clearly is against this effort to make a union between people between whom there can be no unity. I take it in any event that there is one thing removed from any further Commission of Inquiry or from any hesitancy, and that is the question of the Belfield move. I take it also from what the Minister said in very strong but proper language that there is no longer any thought here now, or in 50 years' time, of anything that can be called an amalgamation between the National University of Ireland and the other University we have. We have in this country a particular outlook on life, and I want to quote from a pamphlet written many years ago with regard to higher education for Catholics for Ireland. It said that elsewhere than in the National University there was no attempt made to provide a knowledge of Catholic religious, philosophical, ethical or social teaching, quite apart from the books recommended in the various courses. It also spoke about the staff that might be selected to guide students with the aid of certain books along the lines of their development through the different subjects.
The pamphlet at a later stage went on to speak of the philosophy of life that Catholics in this country have, and described it as "one that runs counter to the notions and conventions of the non-Christian pagan world, which sets up a high moral standard and which, therefore, imposes a great strain on those who will not compromise with the world."
It said that "the forces working against adherence to Catholic faith and morals are undoubtedly great for all classes of people in the modern world, but they are especially great for those engaged in higher studies where they will meet difficulties of every kind against Catholic faith and morals."
Our National University is the bulwark against those dangers, and even though there is the criticism that it does not fully correspond with certain definitions of what a National University should be, at least it is one in which the Catholic view of life prevails and it is a very good thing that the College, by the provision of better provisions and removal to a site where it can expand, can give people of every category a better opportunity to guide students along correct ways by the provision of the site and the developments that must follow the development of Belfield. There is definitely a new stage being reached as far as the Catholic University in this country is concerned.
I want to return again to the lecture delivered by a colleague of mine when he spoke of what Universities do in other countries, more particularly Universities in small countries like this. I quote it as something that I think will be accepted by people who give serious thought to this matter. The passage I want to refer to is this:
"In a small country the Universities will carry on their normal work of producing educated professional men and women and generally satisfying the vocational needs of the community. In another way, however, a small country with limited resources is vitally dependent on its Universities. Such a country inevitably can possess only a limited number of experts and scholars in the various fields of science and of knowledge, and must in a special way depend on these specialists to keep it abreast of the scientific and intellectual developments in the world outside if it is not to become a backwater. In large countries there may be specialists in the great industrial corporations, in certain branches of Government and in various research bodies who can to some extent replace the University in these matters. In a small country with thriving Universities specialists in virtually all fields will be available doing their normal work, ready to act when needed."
It was claimed that the 1908 Act with the foundation of U.C.D. as one College in 1909 greatly helped the State but barely came in time to cater for the various people who derived their education from National University sources and helped to forward this country to any degree of prosperity it has attained.
I want to make one last remark on one part of this. In the Commission's Report they gave an estimate of the cost of the move; against that they set off the savings that would be made when the buildings now at Earlsfort Terrace can be handed over to the Government for use for Government or administrative purposes. A great deal of argument has been used to show that this is a fictitious saving. I do not know whether it will be so. My consideration of the matter in 1948 was real enough, because in those days when the Belfield project was being considered and one thought of the Earlsfort Terrace site being evacuated and the college's whole work being done out along the Stillorgan Road I had certain views.
I had got from the office of the Minister for Finance a statement of what buildings there were occupied by civil servants in his city and it was an amazing revelation to me to find that one knew of the buildings where the income tax people are, the offices in Dublin Castle, the offices across the street in Government Buildings and the offices in Government Buildings itself but there were numerous houses in addition scattered all over the city and mostly held on lease at fairly heavy rents. The view I had was that there could be a revision of the public buildings situation taken to correspond with the move from Earlsfort Terrace to Belfield and it seemed to me that the staffs of the Civil Service could be accommodated in at least three buildings and the others turned back to their owners.
That was the idea we had in 1948. I do not say that it was a very important consideration but it was of some importance and it helped to get the approval of the Government and of the Party to which I belong for all sections of the plans now approaching, I hope, finality under the Minister's auspices. As I have said I am jealous of him for the reason that it falls to him to do this very important piece of work for Catholic education in Ireland. I do not understand the mood of pessimism as to the time. It seems to me that people are afraid to get these plans going. University College, Dublin will help in every possible way.
There are groups already in existence which have been discussing and considering these plans in an advanced stage. I cannot see why the money factor should stop this development or hinder its progress over 20 years. There is plenty of money in this country for worthwhile projects and this is a worthwhile project. The Minister will add to the fame he will get from being the person to move this Vote if he will put some speed into the development of the matter.
Many years ago when the Shannon scheme was under discussion that discussion took place in a period very much like the present period, the month of April. April was then in the season which is known as Lent and one of my colleagues gave me the advice—festina lente. What he meant was to make a lot of hurry during Lent.
