I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
University College Dublin Bill, 1960—Second Stage.
There is an amendment to No. 7.
The amendment will be moved, I take it, when the Minister has concluded his opening statement.
I always understood that the question as to whether the Second Reading should be taken or not should be taken first.
Not at all. Any amendment to the second reading is moved after the Minister has concluded his statement.
We are anxious to have the general principle of whether the Bill should be read a Second Time or not considered before we hear the Minister's Second Reading speech. The question of the general principle should come before the discussion.
The amendment may not be moved until the motion has been moved.
If the Minister moves the motion for the Second Reading, surely that is sufficient. It is sufficient at this stage to enable an amending motion to be taken that the Bill be not read a Second Time.
As I have already pointed out, when the Minister has concluded, the Deputy will get an opportunity of moving his amendment.
There could be no amendment if there were no motion.
In moving the Second Stage of this Bill it is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is a short and simple measure and intended to have a purely temporary effect. The necessity for it will be apparent to Deputies who have read the report of the Board of Visitors which was set up to consider a petition in relation to the making of certain types of appointment in University College, Dublin. The appointments in question are those of College Lecturer and Assistant Lecturer. As I see them the findings of the Board add up to this—the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, may appoint only assistants and demonstrators and all appointments as professor, lecturer or assistant lecturer must be made by the Senate of the National University of Ireland.
The House will recollect that in connection with a recent discussion on University education, I announced the intention of the Government to set up a Commission to examine and report on matters connected with higher education. Among the matters in relation to which the Commission will be called on to make recommendations is the machinery for the making of University appointments. The fact that this matter is to be referred to the Commission on higher education makes it undesirable that I should now comment on the present mode of appointment as to do so might be construed as an endeavour on my part to anticipate the work of the Commission. It is my desire that the Commission should approach its task unfettered and thereby be in a position to deal in the most objective manner possible with the problems which will be submitted to it.
In the meantime, however, there is the practical problem of dealing with appointments which have already been made or perhaps I should say in the light of the report of the Board of Visitors, which purported to have been made to posts as College Lecturer and Assistant Lecturer. The Government has given full consideration to this question and has come to the conclusion that the proper course for it to take is to seek the authority of the Oireachtas to validate these appointments. The Government is also satisfied that pending the receipt and consideration of the report of the Commission to which I have already referred, the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, should be allowed to continue its present practice for a limited period subject to a requirement that any appointments made in that way should be on a year to year basis. Apart altogether from the necessity of not taking any action which might pre-judge any of the problems to be submitted to the Commission the Government is very much concerned to ensure that there will be no delay in the adequate staffing, in particular, of the Veterinary Medicine faculty in University College, Dublin. This is necessary in order to discharge our international obligations in relation to the staffing of that faculty.
I trust, therefore, that the House will treat the Bill for what it is—a temporary measure to meet a temporary situation.
I move the amendment on the Order Paper:—
To delete "now" and add at the end of the motion "this day month".
This legislation, which appears before us in very curious circumstances, stems from a report issued by three very distinguished members of the Judiciary, Mr. Murnaghan, Mr. Teevan and Mr. Binchy. That commission was established by the Government as a result of a petition made by a Mr. Kenny which made allegations of the most serious kind against the Governing Body and the President of the University. That very responsible commission issued its report dated February this year and presented it to the Government. Arising out of the findings legislation was introduced here.
The report constitutes, it seems to me, one of the most damning indictments of the University authorities. Most serious charges are made against the whole administration of University College, Dublin, and charges are made particularly against the activities of the Governing body and the President. The history of how this report came to our hands has a special and a sinister significance. The report has been available since February, 1960, and the Government have had time to draw up legislation arising out of it. The report was laid upon the Table of the House, put into the Library on Saturday last at 12 o'clock. The Dáil met on Tuesday last and up to that time no report had been made available to the public or to Deputies or Senators. This Bill authorises or recommends changes validating, in effect, illegal, unconstitutional practices by the Governing Body and the President of the University. This Bill is circulated without any explanatory memorandum and without recourse to the usual practice of circulating some form of report or White Paper or giving some justification to Deputies.
Deputies who choose to read this report will find it is of very great interest. It is of great importance to us because it concerns the largest of our Universities about which we have had such a prolonged debate here recently and to whose care we have entrusted the expenditure of a sum in the region of £10 million. This report, one copy of which was put into the Library, was intended for the consideration of over 140 Deputies—one of the most important reports that has probably ever come before this House and certainly one of the most serious in its charges. One copy of it was made available two days before this debate. The House is not accessible to Deputies on Saturday afternoon and Sunday, and the debate takes place here on Thursday morning, the report being released in the shadow of the Budget of yesterday.
On the basis of the charges made the Minister, acting on behalf of the Government and in his own right, has lent himself to a most sordid conspiracy in trying to conceal from the public the many serious charges made in this report against the Governing Body of the University by the devices which I have mentioned, the delayed submission of only one copy of the report to nearly 150 Deputies. Only after Deputy McQuillan had asked that further reports be made available were those reports provided within a matter of half an hour or so, but sufficient copies are still not available for every Deputy.
The Minister and the Government are making a mockery of this Parliament. It is not the first time this has happened, that we have been called upon to rubber-stamp decisions taken outside this House. It is scandalous on the part of the Minister that he should have lent himself to this procedure. We are now asked to whitewash, by suppression of the facts, the disreputable activities of the President of this College and the Governing Body over the past 10 or 15 years for their own special ends. It is quite shameful that the Minister should so belittle the functions of this Parliament as to treat it with the contempt with which he has treated it by this action.
This report is highly technical. It concerns that most highly technical unit of education in any society, the University. There are very few of us who know very much about the whole question of University organisation or administration or the functions of the various bodies within it. The Minister knew quite well, and the Government also knew quite well, that Deputies, using the one copy which was made available for two days for 140 or 150 Deputies—one copy of a most complex and technical report—could not possibly intelligently, constructively or usefully debate this Bill this morning. The Minister deliberately attempted— and I am charging him with deliberately attempting—to suppress useful, intelligent, constructive or helpful debate on this Bill this morning. It was his intention to befool the Dáil in order to validate what I describe again as the disreputable practice of the Governing Body of this College in the past few years.
I am at a very great disadvantage, and I am merely one of many Deputies who are at the great disadvantage, of not knowing the intricacies of University organisation as well as I should like to. I am also at the very great disadvantage of being forced, in a very limited time, to assimilate all the implications of the case made in this report by these three eminent judges against the Governing Body and the President of the University. Those judges went to very considerable trouble and clearly took great pains in their investigation of these charges. The Minister has shown considerable contempt for his own commission in so far as he did everything he could, short of suppressing the report, to prevent the public and Deputies and Senators— particularly Deputies—from having an opportunity of examining the report before being presented with the subsequent legislation arising out of that report.
It seems to me that to establish a commission of this character consisting of three judges, to consider their report and, arising out of that report, to submit legislation to this House conceding, in effect, the seriousness of the report and, at the same time, to fail to allow Deputies to have full and prolonged access to it in order to enable them to study it, understand it, and grasp its full implications, shows contempt for both the members of the Judiciary involved and the members of this House.
Will the Minister explain why it is that we received no White Paper with this Bill? Will the Minister explain why it was that this report, which we were told was put in the Library on Saturday at 12 o'clock, was not made available in the ordinary way to Deputies? Will the Minister explain why only one copy was made available at the very late stage at which it was made available when 147 or 150 copies should have been made available on Saturday? The one copy which was made available at the week-end for two days might as well not have been there at all. Precedents have been established, of course, that these reports are made available, especially serious reports of this kind, to give Deputies a full opportunity of examining them and grasping their full implications. This morning, we got a Social Welfare Bill which was accompanied by a proper, useful and helpful White Paper. Will the Minister explain why that practice was not followed in this case?
It appears, from what I can gather at any rate, that what has happened is that the Senate of the University have the function of making permanent appointments to the University and that the Governing Body which, as I understand, is virtually the President, Dr. Tierney, has usurped the powers of the Senate to make appointments of lecturers and assistant lecturers over the years. There is one obvious reason for the usurping of this power and it is that there is an individual autocrat avid for power who wished to absorb as much as possible into his own hands by hook or by crook.
That is one obvious human failing, but there is another consideration as to why the small group within the University, and particularly the President, Dr. Tierney, wanted to usurp the powers of the Senate and wanted to control completely the minds of the personnel, the administrators, professors, lecturers and assistant lecturers of the University.
The findings of this report are, I believe, inextricably bound up with the Belfield project which was recently discussed in this House. It is a fact that the gradual acquisition and abuse of the tremendous power and patronage by the University in the past ten or 15 years had as its main purpose—the obvious purpose was common jobbery—the forcing through of his personal ambition to remove the college from the city and have it built in the Belfield area. In order to suppress any contrary opinions, any opposition there might be to this project, he proceeded to institute a reign of fear—fear of insecurity of appointment—by the devices to which he resorted and which are reported on by this eminent commission set up by the Government. These are serious charges. The Minister cannot fob them off and hide behind the old device of evading his responsibilities.
These men have been shown to have flagrantly, consciously and deliberately broken the Charter, evaded their responsibilities and refused to honour the serious demands of their position as a Governing Body and the individual concerned as President of the University. We are talking about a University; we are talking about the Governing Body of a University. We are talking about the President of our greatest University. We are talking about a body to whom we have recently entrusted, misguidedly, mistakenly, in my view, the expenditure of £10 million of patronage which is what it will be according to the findings of this report —patronage to men who have shown themselves to be completely unscrupulous in their pursuit of power, according to the findings of these three eminent judges.
The Minister dismissed the whole thing with: "I have set up a commission." Since Victoria, weak Ministers have been sheltering behind commissions in their refusal to face up to their responsibilities. The Minister should remember that this is not a primary school. This is not a case of corporal punishment by a teacher. This is not a minor disciplinary matter concerning a vocational or a secondary or an industrial school or one of these other minor institutions.
This report discloses a major dereliction of duty on the part of the Governing Body of the most important educational instrument in the State. Universities are the fountainhead of all knowledge in a society. These are the intellectual élite of a society. It is in these colleges that the professors educate the students in philosophy, ethics, religious teaching, in the professions, in the classics, and, most bizarre of all in the light of the circumstances here, in the law and in particular in constitutional Law.
These are the people who teach the law. These are the people who have been shown to have flouted the law. These are the people who have been shown to have snapped their fingers at the law. These are the people who have been told: "You are breaking the law" and who have just turned aside and said: "We are the law. I am the law. We are above the law." Now, the Minister has turned to them and said: "Yes, I approve of your action" and we, the Dáil, are to be asked to approve of their action and the Oireachtas will indemnify them against their dereliction of their duty, against their outlaw behaviour, against their anti-social behaviour, against their irresponsibilities.
I understand that, in law, these people, if we do not indemnify them here, will be held responsible for the financial commitments into which they have illegally entered in relation to the salaries paid through public funds over the years to various lecturers and assistant lecturers. Alternatively, I understand we have the choice of prosecuting the lecturers and assistant lecturers for taking money under false pretences.
It must be quite clear to the Minister, as Minister for Education, that if things are so rotten at the head of our educational system, he cannot simply turn his back on the problems mentioned in this report and its findings and pretend they do not exist. If the rottenness is here at the head of our educational system, how can the activities of the State be healthy? The University is responsible for turning out the intellectual and the professional leaders in our society. Our whole economy is dependent on the quality of their training. Their standards, morality and ethical behaviour are dependent on the standards, morality and ethical teaching which they receive in the University from professors and Governing Bodies and the President who clearly knows little or nothing, certainly, about the practice of any of these virtues.
First of all, the report examined the complaint of the Petitioner that "during the 10 years prior to the date of this Petition the Governing Body have appointed numerous persons to the office or position of ‘College Lecturers' and have appointed other persons to the office of ‘Assistant Lecturers'." In taking this action the Governing Body were acting ultra vires as far back as 1949, eleven years ago. This decision to act in defiance of the Charter was taken apparently without any discussion whatever. There was certainly no recorded discussion in the minutes. It was taken without any reason having been given. No debate took place and there is no record of any decision having been taken to make any change.
Subsequent to that decision taken by the Governing Body, taken by the President, assistant lecturers continued to be appointed for the following three years. In 1953 another change took place. According to the minutes, a change in classification took place. According to the minutes again, there is no record of any discussion as to why the change in classification took place. There is no reason given for that change. In the session 1953-54, 24 assistant lecturers and two college lecturers were appointed by the Governing Body. Of these, 22 assistant lecturers had been appointed by the Academic Council and two other names were added by the Governing Body.
Then there is the curious finding that no agenda was made available to this investigating board for the meetings because, it was said, the agenda for the meetings was not held for longer than a period of five years. Minutes were held all right but no agenda. It certainly seems a very strange way in which to conduct the business of the College. I can understand the appointments made on the recommendation of the Academic Council of 22 lecturers. I should like to know the process by which the two college lecturers, in addition to the 22 recommended by the Academic Council, were appointed.
There is a paragraph here which I do not follow and which I wish the Minister would explain. Page 2 of the report says:
The minutes of the 23rd February, 1954, record that on the recommendation of the Finance Committee two assistant lecturers were "raised to the status of college lecturers". From that date until the 24th June, 1959, the word "status" was used to describe the position of college lecturers and assistant lecturers. On the latter date the Governing Body decided that the word "status" in this content should be replaced by the words "title" or titles".
I should like to know why the Finance Committee decided to take this action if they had the power to recommend this action in respect of the appointment of assistant lecturers who have not had, in fact, any statutory status. Neither assistant lecturers nor college lecturers have any statutory status according to the Charter of the College.
The Governing Body continued to make these completely unconstitutional appointments of college lecturers and assistant lecturers in increasing numbers for each of the ensuing sessions, from the session 1954-55 and for the present session 1959-60 45 college lecturers and 30 assistant lecturers were appointed at the meeting of the Governing Body of the 24th June, 1959. Right up to June, 1959, they continued to break the law, as will be shown later on, long after they were aware that there was, at the very least, considerable doubt as to the legality of their actions.
One can only infer the position of the President in the College from extracts made available in this report. I think that one of our disabilities here is that a number of bodies and communications are referred to. These are matters which have arisen since the report was published or became relevant or important since the report was published. It would have been of great help to Deputies if they could have had consultations with interested parties about the status, functions and powers of these different bodies—the functions of the Academic Council, the powers of the Academic Council, the functions and powers of the Finance Committee and the functions and powers of the Governing Body—and if they could have had fuller access to the correspondence referred to in these letters. I think it would be of considerable help to Deputies to be able to have ready access to the Charter of the University itself so that we could be in a position to judge for ourselves.
The report is most helpful and is very valuable but I think that, where serious charges of this nature are made, Deputies should be in a position to consider all the evidence themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. However, it is the Minister's fault that we are subject to the present limitations of the abbreviated report, abbreviated in parts so far as they are extracts from minutes, letters and communications made to the Governing Body and the officers. It will be the Minister's fault if we are now restricted in our information or if we are in any way misinformed as a result of the lack of information.
There is one extract—which I think is a startling and remarkable one— from the minutes for 24th June, 1959, which the Minister might explain to us. At a meeting of the Governing Body, it is recorded that:
The President stated that it was now intended to appoint College Lecturers for a period of five years. Certain persons would be excluded, i.e., (i) those being appointed for the first time (ii) those above the age of 60 years and (iii) those whose health might make it impossible to serve for five years.
It goes on:
A list of those appointed for next year would be circulated at the next meeting. This was noted and approved.
I should like that sentence explained to me in simple terms because its implications disclose a most disturbing position within the Governing Body.
First of all, is it proper that following a meeting of a body such as the Governing Body of a University it should be said: "The President stated that it was now intended ..."? Surely the correct phraseology, if there were an active Governing Body, an articulate and independent Governing Body and not one completely dominated by an autocrat and a dictator, would be: "The Governing Body decided that it would now appoint college lecturers for a period of five years?" What right has this man, having through the nominal Governing Body usurped the functions of the Senate, now to decide to usurp the functions of the Governing Body and become, in effect, the Governing Body himself? Is there a Governing Body in University College, Dublin? Why not disband them if they are such a band of rabbits as they appear to be? I shall justify that suggestion.
"A list of those appointed for next year will be circulated at the next meeting." Now who would circulate that list? The President? Where would he get it and what would be the purpose of circulating it? Have the Governing Body powers to approve or disapprove or would they have any functions? Were the names circulated for their information? Were they circulated for their approval? Had they power to reject this list or any member on the list? Had they power to suggest amendments to that list? Had they power to suggest additions to the list? Who initiated this list and how did they initiate it? How were the appointments made?
Reading this report, it seems to me that these five words are the most pregnant in regard to the level of inertia which exists, or appears to exist, in the Governing Body—"this was noted and approved.""A list of those appointed for the next year would be circulated at the next meeting. This was noted and approved." Surely that is a remarkable action, a remarkable minute for a decision of this kind. First of all, the President "states"; apparently he does not ask the Governing Body whether they agree or disagree or ask them for their opinion or for amendments or suggestions. Even the Minister allows us to debate this Bill this morning. Apparently in the Governing Body, the President speaks and thereafter there is silence.
He makes that first statement that a new law is made, that these people will be appointed for a period of five years, and this in defiance of the fact that he has no power to make these appointments, even assuming he has usurped the powers of the Governing Body. As the judges showed here, he has no power to do this. Secondly, he informs them that a list of those appointed for next year will be circulated at the next meeting. It cannot be suggested that the list to be circulated is a list of candidates approved by the Senate because if they were approved by the Senate they would be statutory appointments made for a period of at least seven years, so consequently "a list of those appointed for next year" is presumably a list prepared by the President of the University, in consultation, no doubt, with a couple of his cronies in accordance with the remarkable appointments procedure and the terms and qualifications and the conditions of appointment later disclosed in this report. So, the assistant lecturers continue to be appointed on a yearly basis and this of course is a most important consideration. This temporary appointment device is a linch-pin of the President's and his associates' campaign to obtain complete dominance, complete mind control in the University and to achieve their objective of the removal of the University from Dublin to the Belfield site.
As one distinguished member of the Governing Body remarked, at a certain stage in the University, because of this mind-conditioning technique adopted by the President and the Governing Body, if you do not conform, you do not eat. You lose your job; you are not reappointed. As a result of that technique in the University, first of all, in order to achieve power, and secondly, to achieve the objective of moving the college to Belfield, as the member of the Governing Body remarked agreement to the idea of removal to Belfield became a loyalty test. If you were not in favour of moving to Belfield then you had no place in Earlsfort Terrace. In order to ensure that they could enforce their loyalty test, they kept these unfortunate men and women on this temporary appointment system which made sure that they learned to keep their mouths shut or get out—conform or get out.
He achieved his object and, as we all know, the Belfield site was approved practically unanimously by the House. There is a number of dissentients outside and they are brave men because if they have any academic ambitions they certainly cannot realise them in the lifetime of the present President of the University because they have flouted his will.
The professors in a University, and particularly in this University which is responsible for training the professional people, the technocrats, the scientists and theologians and all the other intellectual leaders of society, are of vital importance. It is of vital importance that only men of the highest calibre in academic and scientific attainments should be entrusted with teaching posts in our Universities. Has the President of the University, has the Governing Body placed this criterion above all other considerations in filling teaching posts in the University? Surely the answer to this question is to be found in the system of appointment. What was the system of appointment? Here we are given an insight into the whole question. Unless the teachers are of the highest possible intellectual calibre, it is quite clear that the undergraduates and later the graduates must suffer. The quality of the intellectual, scientific and professional ability of the graduates must suffer.
We have been up against this problem before. In order to ensure that standard in relation to public health appointments, engineering, architectural and other appointments in the State, we have set up a most elaborate and, in most cases a most effective, fair and just appointment system in the Civil Service Commission, on the one hand for Civil Service appointments and the Local Appointments Commission on the other hand. The function of these bodies is to ensure in the best possible way that the best-qualified candidate is appointed to the post so that the quality of the personnel in the Civil Service shall be the best available from all the talent in the country and equally, in the administration and operation of our public services, so that the best qualified engineers, doctors and architects shall be available to operate these services.
The Minister may be already aware of the machinery adopted by these bodies. It is a most interesting study and from my examination of it, it seems to go as far as is humanly possible to eliminate all possibility of nepotism and jobbery and "fixing" of one kind or another. That applies to the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission. In spite of attempts to interfere with them from time to time, they certainly do the best they can. One of the most important basic conditions which they observe is the wide publication of the fact that vacancies are available. They then adopt the procedure in which there is an examining panel of experts presided over by an administrator. There is the question of a short list of the candidates most clearly superior and then the assessment of the various qualifications followed by personal interview and then the appointment is made. Every citizen in the State with the requisite qualifications has the same chance of appointment to the job.
The Minister must know from the findings of this judicial committee that no attempt of any kind has been made by the Governing Body of the University to observe anything like the fairness of either the Civil Service Commission or the Local Appointments Commission in the making of appointments to the University. In support of that I quote the Report, which says on page 3:
In no instance of the appointment of a College Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer has more than one name been before the Academic Council or the Governing Body.
How are these people to choose the professors? On what grounds are they chosen? What are the grounds of appointment? What qualifications are asked for? Is there an assessing committee? Are fixed marks allocated for knowledge of different subjects? Is a short list made? Is there an expert panel?
Clearly, Professor Tierney and the Governing Body cannot presume to be expert on every subject in the University. Do they employ any expert panel to assess the merits of the different candidates and, above all, how is the public made aware that the posts are available? Where are the posts advertised? In the University itself? Are they advertised in other Universities in the State, or in other Universities in other countries? We have not a monopoly of wisdom and knowledge. There are intelligent, talented and well-educated people in other countries outside Earlsfort Terrace. Where are these posts advertised? Are they advertised solely in the Universities here or elsewhere? Are they advertised in the Press here, or are they advertised abroad? Are they advertised in the professional Press here or abroad?
What guarantee have we that we have not accepted, under the system which seems to obtain, a most unhealthy system of sustained mental inter-breeding, with no possibility of any clash of ideas, no possibility of any clash of opinion such as would inevitably follow the introduction of "new blood" from other societies, countries and Universities outside the State, and outside Earlsfort Terrace? We may as well admit at once that there is no choice. Where there is no choice, the likelihood of appointing mediocrity becomes not necessarily inevitable but very nearly inevitable. The tendency is to fill the University with mediocrities. Why spend £10,000,000 on that?
So far as this Bill is concerned, I presume we have a right to a certain say in the operations and administration of this University, and of any University to which we give public money. This is public money. The taxpayer who goes to the trouble and expense of putting a son or daughter through University, here or elsewhere, has an equal right with every other taxpayer to see that son or daughter appointed to the University. Appointment should not be a closed shop for the friends of the President or the few who control the Governing Body. Every one of us supports these Universities through the money we pay in taxation. Every citizen should have the same rights, but it is quite clear that every citizen has not the same rights.
It is equally clear that every citizen has not the same responsibility where this University is concerned. If every citizen had the same rights and the same responsibility, these people would be in court this morning rather than here in the Dáil being indemnified against their breaches of trust over the years. In the past, Ministers have abolished urban councils, county councils, corporations and hospital boards for less. These authorities were abolished for what was called "dereliction of duty" of one kind or another. The whole managerial system stemmed from our disgust here with the activities of some local authorities in the past—their corrupt practices, their abuse of power, their evasion of their responsibilities. The proper course of action for this House this morning should be an indictment of this Governing Body, not an indemnifying Bill to indemnify the President for his failure to discharge his responsibilities properly over the years. There are precedents for dealing with neglect of duty of this kind.
It is quite clear that these reasonably well paid, interesting posts which should have been open to clever young men and women, trained in Universities here and elsewhere, have been restricted to a certain minority. Remembering the machinery of appointment, it is quite clear that they must have been so restricted. Clearly, that is wrong. Equally clearly, it is wrong of the Minister to suggest now that we should, first of all, indemnify against that ignoring of the Charter over the years and, secondly, indemnify for the next four or five years to come. Why should we seek now to stabilise and justify a position which has been found to be an abuse of power on the part of certain people? The Minister is not responsible to a handful of men in the University. He is responsible to the public generally, and it is the public who have been defrauded, in effect, because of the activities of these men.
This practice of temporary appointment has resulted in a régime which is founded on fear—fear of losing the job unless the individual conforms. In my view, there has been a corrupt practice on the part of the Governing Body and the President. I do not mean corrupt in the sense of taking money, for instance; I mean corrupt in the sense of undermining freedom of thought, freedom of speech and, above all, that academic independence which one normally associates with the highest level in education. Corruption has played an implicit part in the campaign adopted over the years by the President and the Governing Body to obtain complete dominance and complete power over the hiring and firing of lecturers and assistant lecturers, complete power to appoint professors, and so on. The aim obviously was to obtain complete dominance in order to achieve their own petty ends.
There has been, I think, corruption of an even more serious kind than that associated with money. There has been the corruption of men's minds. It is quite clear that the public have been defrauded of opportunities for their young people, the opportunity of entering into academic life, appointment to the teaching staff of these Universities. There have, of course, been exceptions. The report states, at page 3:—
In no instance of the appointment of a College Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer has more than one name been before the Academic Council or the Governing Body. In the majority of instances the post was not advertised, and in some instances the appointment was made by the Governing Body without any recommendation by the Academic Council.
The post was not advertised. Surely the Minister must concede that that represents a most serious breach of the Charter. I do not give a damn whether it is a University or what it is. They are spending public money and they cannot be permitted to continue to run this University as a sort of boundless source of private patronage for those prepared to toe the party line at Earlsfort Terrace. This is a system of appointment which the Minister cannot afford to allow to be carried on for another four or five years. It is a most improper system and has been found to be so by the Minister's own judicial commission of inquiry.
I should like to know what is the position in relation to the accounts and in relation to the finances of the University in these special circumstances. Page 3 of the Report says:
The salaries of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are paid out of the general College fund which is a mixed fund comprised of public moneys and other moneys of the College. In the accounts of the College these salaries are included under the heading "Assistants and Demonstrators".
In page 4 we find, in finding No. 3:
That the College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are paid out of public funds.
There seems to me to be a conflict there between whether the assistants and the lecturers are paid entirely out of public funds or are paid out of public funds and other moneys of the College. What is the position in regard to the payment of these people? Who does pay them? Are we entirely responsible for their payment or is it a joint College fund and a public fund?
It is impossible to tell from this report in fact how many jobs were made by Professor Tierney and the Governing Body since they usurped the powers of the Senate and decided to act in defiance of the Charter of the University. Just 105 are mentioned here in this report, but since appointments were made on a yearly basis since 1949/50 there must be very considerably more than that. That is a very considerable source of largesse or patronage for any one man to exercise —a most dangerous source of patronage. I am not the only one who thinks so.
Remember the Minister's own commission found that with this system of appointment, as they say, "There is always the danger that the existing system could lend itself to patronage." Of course it could lend itself to patronage. Of course it did lend itself to patronage, and of course it did achieve its main objective when it won a unanimous decision on Belfield— Belfield, which became for the members of the Governing Board a loyalty test. "Accept Belfield or get out" and, mirabile dictu, he gets his unanimous report. They all want to go to Belfield. If they do not want to go to Belfield, they can go somewhere else. That is what is made quite clear to them. That is one of the reasons this decision was taken by this man to lay hold of this patronage on a vast scale since 1949/50, 11 years of it. He has been found out at last by this board and the Minister has tried to suppress the fact by conspiracy and disreputable actions himself in the last few days.
On top of finding these things out, the Minister must have been aware of this when we voted £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 to this same corrupt board, and I use "corrupt" in the qualified terms I gave earlier. He is conniving at what he knows will be a continued misuse of public funds and an abuse of the powers entrusted to the Governing Body and to the President of the College.
The Commission finds, in page 4:
The College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are not assistants whom the College is empowered to appoint and remove by virtue of the College Charter, Clause III (5).
I have not got a copy of the College Charter and we must assume that is correct. Therefore, the Minister must know that this first charge made by the petitioner has been substantiated.
The Governing Body did not have the brass to try to make statutory appointments—that function rests with the Senate—but it adopted the device of making temporary appointments and refusing to allow statutory appointments to go to the Senate for appointment in the ordinary way. This, of course, was again part of a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the board of the College to create a wealth of patronage of public money for the Governing Body and the President of the College. The more statutory appointments left unfilled, the more jobs could be made, the more minds could be bought, the more mouths could be shut and the more votes could be assured for the project to go to Belfield.
At page 4 of its report, the Board finds that it is part of the general policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many statutory lectureships and we are now asked to back a Bill supporting that policy. The total number of lectureships left unfilled at the moment amounts to 53 per cent.—over half of the statutory lectureships— which would give the unfortunate men or women some sort of status, some sort of stability and some sort of independence from this creature who has so successfully imposed his will on a whole academic society in our leading city for a period of seven years. They have been denied that right to some form of permanency.
Apparently there is no completely permanent status for any appointment to the University, statutory or otherwise. In fact, the term of appointment has been restricted to a period of one year and I should like to dwell on this point later on. That is the Board's first finding, that it is part of the general policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many statutory lectureships. As I say, 53 per cent. have been left unfilled and that is a wealth of jobs.
The second finding, again on page 4, is that the failure to take the proper and necessary steps to fill vacancies in these "statutory offices" is a breach of the duties imposed upon the President of the College by Statute I, chapter iv, section 17 and chapter xiv, section 1. We are not talking about ignorant men. We are talking about the cream, as I said, the élite of our intellectual society. These people teach others the law. They give Degrees in law, lectures on law, and write theses on it.
Surely it will not be suggested that this President was unaware of his functions, his powers and his responsibilities and that he did this in ignorance? He knew well what he was doing. He was fully conscious of it and for that reason the charges made here are all the more serious. He cannot plead innocence and ignorance; if he does he should not be President. So, the Board have found against the Governing Body and against the President of the College in very clear and unequivocal terms.
In the light of the fact that they were the heads of the University, I doubt if they could reasonably plead ignorance of the law but, if they did, it is again quite clear from this report that they have no right to do so, because, on 24th April, 1956, four years ago, they were aware of the problem.
They were aware of the possibility as to the illegality of the making of a College Professorship of Econometrics in the University. At a meeting on 24th April, 1956, it was proposed:
"that the Governing Body is of opinion that legal advice in writing be obtained as to the legality of the proposed appointment in relation to the Charters of the National University of Ireland and University College, Dublin as a Constituent College."
This is recorded in the minutes of the meeting that day and they continue:
(2) The proposer told the meeting that he had obtained legal opinion to the effect that the Governing Body would not be legally entitled to make such an appointment, and
(3) that after discussion the motion was defeated.
The motion was discussed, and I suppose it was some advance to have got as far as that, but the appointment was made, even though they knew at the time that there was responsible legal opinion to show that they had no right to make it. How can the Minister stand over actions such as that? Surely he should be recommending an inquiry into the administration of the College under the President and the Governing Body of the University because of their failure to act in accordance with the Charter?
Again, in May, 1959, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Governing Body and I quote the following extracts from it:
I am convinced that the Governing Body is not authorised by the Charter of University College, Dublin or its Statutes to appoint College Lecturers or Assistant Lecturers.
He went on:
I think it would be better for everybody to have the matter of the legality of these appointments finally decided.
and continued:
Unless the Governing Body are prepared to disclaim any power to appoint College Professors, College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, I propose to petition the Government to appoint a Visitor to decide this matter.
I suppose it was arising out of that that the commission was set up so there can be no pretence at all that the Governing Body were not fully, fairly, and as long as four years ago, warned that they were acting in defiance of the law and of the powers vested in them when they made this and the other appointments. Therefore, they cannot claim ignorance of the law, even if they did make that impudent claim, in the light of their position in our society and their position in that University.
It is said that if you listen to somebody talking long enough, you will see something which will give you a window into his mind and tell you the type of person he is.
Hear, hear!
That certainly happens here and I think this gives us a window into the activities in the University, the general arrogant attitude of the Governing Body and in particular of the President of the University in relation to the staff and in relation to this critic, and probably any critic, who chooses to question his decisions and his dictates from time to time. The Secretary of the Governing Body replied, in so far as is relevant, as follows, to the suggestion that the Petitioner would ask the Government to appoint a visitor if they continued to break the law:
"... I am instructed to inform you that your opinion as to the alleged illegality of the title ‘College Lecturer' and ‘Assistant Lecturer' has been before the Governing Body of the College and the Senate of the National University on a number of occasions. The Governing Body has decided not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper, and which has been in operation to the great benefit of the College for a considerable time."
"Which it believes to be entirely proper". We are now shown that it is entirely improper if we are to believe the Minister's investigating board— entirely improper—and this man— because it is the President; he is referred to later on—this man, who does not know that he is acting in defiance of his own Charter, refuses to seek legal advice. Such is his arrogance, such is his certainty of his infallibility that he has decided—the Governing Body has decided—not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper. It goes on:
"and which has been in operation to the great benefit of the College for a considerable time".
I would say that that sentence is of interest in itself. It goes on:
The Senate has also decided by Resolution to take no action in the matter, being satisfied as to the position.
They were completely wrong. The same letter goes on—it is an odd sentence—this is the window into the mind:
The President has instructed me to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College, should query the actions of the Governing Body in a matter which does not appear to him to be any direct concern of yours."
Notice the threat, the blackmail— there is no other word for it—implied in that—"as an Assistant in the College, whether you think it altogether proper". "You, as an Assistant in the College, should keep your mouth shut"—is that not the vulgar synopsis of that sentence?—"and mind your own business".
Whose business is it? Is there a single taxpayer in this State who has not a right to ask that question and to say: "You are breaking the law Mr. President, and you should cease to do so and I have Senior Counsel's advice which assures me that you are breaking the law"? Mr. President writes back and says: "I am above the law and you have no rights", that because this man happens to be an Assistant, or whatever he is, because he happens to be working in the University, he deprives himself of his right to speak, to question, to criticise the actions of the Governing Body and this omnipotent President.
This letter is particularly strange, as I said, for this reason: It mentions the Governing Body. It is purporting to speak for the Governing Body in the first part—"the Governing Body has decided not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper"—and then it goes on to say, "The President has instructed me". Which is which? Is there a Governing Body? Is the President the Governing Body? Who is the Secretary writing for? Was he writing for the Governing Body when he said: "The Governing Body has decided not to change a practice" or was he writing for the President? Was it the President who decided not to change a practice which he believed to be entirely proper, or for whom was the Secretary writing?
This man who was completely vindicated, as he has been by the investigation commission, vindicated in the event by the findings of three judges, was told to shut his mouth and mind his own business by this man, this President of the University, and the meek and mild Minister comes into the House and expects us to shut our mouths, too, and not to question the activities of this man and in fact, to validate his grossly improper practices for the past 11 years, to justify his practices for the past 11 years and to give him carte blanche for the next four years for his tyrannising of his staff by these activities. It is clearly a tyrannical attitude implicit and implied in that letter: “to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College ...” It is a clear threat: if you want to stay Assistant, keep your mouth closed. That, in writing, discloses the integrate machinery devised by the Governing Body and the President since 1951 to get the unanimous decision they wanted to get.
Here it is clear, in writing, for everybody to see what they were either told, written to in this case or—a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse— understood, and gradually all opposition within the College to this man's will was being beaten down by his exercise of patronage on a vast scale and his misuse of his position over a period of 11 years.
In June, 1959, it was again proposed that the Governing Body should seek legal advice on a question. The proposal was again defeated. The Board of Judges states:
The Board finds:—
1. That the Governing Body did not seek legal advice as to whether it was authorised by the Charter of the College, or otherwise, to appoint college professors, College lecturers or assistant lecturers.
2. That the Governing Body was aware in the year 1956 that eminent Counsel had advised that "The College has no power to appoint college professors or college lecturers."
3. That the Governing Body appointed college lecturers and assistant lecturers at all times aware that it was at least doubtful that it was authorised so to do, and on the basis of a belief that the possibility of legal action being taken——
legal actions do not usually succeed in that quarter, as has been shown
——to question the regularity of such appointments was remote.
There are very few private individuals, particularly struggling lecturers and assistant lecturers, who can afford to challenge the might of the Governing Body of a great University. They were well aware of that and that was at the back of their minds when this was written:
"The President has instructed me to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College, should query the actions of the Governing Body in a matter which does not appear to him to be any direct concern of yours.
There is an arrogance of tone, a certainty of superiority and, as the Board found, the certain knowledge —that is where they made the mistake—or belief at any rate, that the possibility of legal action being taken to question the regularity of such appointments was remote. Fortunately for us, it was not quite as remote as he thought. The petitioner continued up to very recently, I understand, to object but fortunately for us he protested just long enough for the judicial commission to go into the University and find out the gross mishandling and grave misuse of the great powers vested in the Governing Body and in the President of the University.
The judicial board goes on to say without any equivocation:
In the opinion of the Board the question whether the Governing Body was authorised by the Charter of the College, or otherwise, to make the appointments here called in question was one in which the Governing Body should have sought and obtained legal opinion of its own motion before making any such appointment.
There again is a condemnation by these three judges. Of course, these judges are right that they should have sought legal opinion. When they were told by a reputable senior counsel four years ago that they had no legal power to take the action they did take, it seems to me to have been completely outrageous that they should have continued to act in the manner in which they did, and to write, as the President did, and virtually threaten this man with expulsion if he did not keep his mouth closed. It is implied there: "You are an assistant in this College and this is none of your business", and earlier on in the letter: "Anyway, we are in the right."
If we are to believe the three judges —and I chose to believe the three judges rather than the President of the University, he acted improperly and he can turn me into a canary if he wants to with his great powers—quite clearly, these people have been a law unto themselves over the period of 11 years in which they have behaved in this way, and instead of a vote of censure on them in this House, we are now discussing a Bill to validate their most improper actions. The Board say:
Counsel appearing on behalf of the College declined to give any reason for the decision to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, and did not attempt to justify these appointments on any meritorious basis.
An attempt was made then by the Governing Body to justify certain of these practices and they suggested that to a certain extent they did it in the interest of applicants for posts. However, the Board did not accept these findings and said:
The Board is not satisfied, as at present advised, that the method of appointment laid down by Charter, divorced from the practice referred to...
that is, the sending around of 150 copies of applications, and so on, to the various persons concerned——
... is of itself unwieldy.
They are satisfied that it is not in itself unwieldy so that they do not support the President. On every count, the Board has found effectively against the President and has not even accepted the explanations—in my view the very limp and inadequate explanations—as to why he followed out these various practices in defiance of the law and in defiance of the Charter of the University over a period of 11 years, having been warned repeatedly and being aware, as he must have been, that he was acting in defiance of the Charter of the University. It was found on every count, even with his explanations, that he acted improperly and the Board refused to accept his explanations. The only people who are prepared to accept them apparently are the Minister and the Government, in so far as they are asking us now to validate his actions.
The Board again seemed to be, and rightly so, disturbed by the fact that some members of the Governing Body appeared to feel that because of the mitigating circumstances to which they referred, they could put what they called a liberal interpretation on the Charter. This is an extraordinary attitude of mind. We are dealing with highly educated men, men of long administrative experience. As an illustration of this attitude of mind, the Registrar of the College told the Board he thought what was done was sufficient. He defended this breach of the law, this repeated defiance of the Charter of the College:
I defend them on the ground of our chartered freedom to do what is necessary.
All right; scrap the Charter. The Charter is there. It states in clear terms what should be done. It has been interpreted by counsel in a particular way and it has been interpreted by three eminent judges in a particular way. They were not in conflict in that the procedure of making assistant lecturers and other appointments is in defiance of the Charter. Yet we have this member of the Governing Body, and apparently others, who feel that where they choose to do so, they can act in any way they want to, and the Charter might as well not have been written. So far as they were concerned, when they wanted to do something, they just went and did it.
Is that the way in which men in their very exalted and responsible positions should be permitted to continue to act, in the light of the fact, as I said, that it is to these people who have such complete contempt for the Charter of the University and the law that we have recently granted a further £10,000,000 of patronage? If the most recent example of patronage is followed, the granting of the architectural contract to the Professor of Architecture for one part of a science building without bothering to advertise the post, it is clear that this £10,000,000 of public money will be £10,000,000 worth of patronage to the friends and closed-mouthed associates of the Governing Body and the President. That is a lot of public money which we can ill afford to misspend.
We are not in any way asked to criticise these people. We are merely told to legalise their illegalities and to rubber stamp their decisions, as, in fact, we were asked to do with regard to the Belfield project. It is clear that there was no debate here at all on that question. There was no conflict of opinion. It was already decided and this alleged deliberative assembly was asked to ratify it and nothing more. Now we are asked to ratify these activities in exactly the same way. As I said earlier, the Minister and the Government entered into a conscious conspiracy to try to deprive the House of a proper opportunity of a full debate and full discussion on this most important matter, by resorting to the most unwholesome strategies. It is quite clear that if this report could have been suppressed, it would have been suppressed. They went as near as they could to doing so.
We now have this Registrar expressing the point of view held by a number of members of the Governing Body that they could, where necessary, ignore the provisions of the Charter, and the regulations under which they should make the appointments; if they were to observe the provisions of the Charter they could not do what was necessary. The commission of judges made the obvious point that if the College authorities were in difficulties, they had two courses open to them It was suggested that the exigencies of expanding Faculties demanded special conditions under which appointments could be made. That was one of the attempted justifications for these practices over the years.
The Board made the comment that the College had two courses open to it:
(1)to take the necessary steps to have the necessary Professorships and Lectureships established, and to have the vacancies therein filled by the University, in the manner prescribed by the Charters of the College and the University.
In fact, they should obey the law and should carry out their functions in a proper manner. That was the first suggestion—a fantastic suggestion to have to make to the governing authorities and the President of a University.
Secondly, if they felt that the provisions of the Charter were too clumsy, inconvenient and unsuitable for recurring modern demands, it was open to them:
(2) to make representations to the Government that the College Charter was outmoded and unsuitable to meet the demands of the new situation and to seek to have the Charter suitably amended.
That was a perfectly reasonable proposal which should have occurred to men of that standard, that calibre, of intellectual ability and administrative experience. Those are two of the obvious devices: the first one being to carry out the Charter conscientiously, to observe it conscientiously and, on the other hand, if they conscientiously believed it could not be observed in the light of modern demands for the making of appointments, to seek to have it amended. They did neither of those things.
The Board go on to say
It is sufficient for the present to say that the Board was left under the impression that the College did not wish to adopt the second alternative.
So the judges found that, in fact, the excuses put forward by the Governing Body were—the only word that can be used is—dishonest. They did not believe them. The proof is there that they did not believe that the Charter could not be operated, or that it was too clumsy or inconvenient for the modern demands of expanding Faculties, or too difficult to operate, because if it were, the Board would not have found that the Governing Body did not want to amend the Charter. They are quite happy with the provisions of the Charter. Why should they not be, because they take no notice of it, and they depend on a compliant Minister to side with them in acting in defiance of the Charter, a complaint Government and no doubt a compliant Dáil? Why should they seek to amend that Charter when they do not have to take any notice of it? The Board found that:
It is sufficient for the present to say that the Board was left under the impression that the College did not wish to adopt the second alternative.
The Governing Body want to keep the Charter they already have. They do not want any amendment of it, even though it was part of their implied defence that they could not work under the existing Charter because of its inadequacies, its lack of modernity and its lack of suitability in the light of present demands. They cannot have it both ways. It was either workable, in which case they should have used it, or unworkable, in which case they should have asked for its amendment. But they have not to adopt either of these reasonable courses because they can depend on the Minister to legislate them out of their difficulties.
Why not give this facility to every lawbreaker? Why should we stop at University Presidents, at Governing Bodies? Who is to be above the law? Somebody should tell us about our Constitution: we are all meant to be equal before the law. Why are these people granted this facility and other people penalised and punished? Why are other people censured and criticised? Why are county councils, corporations and urban councils dissolved and replaced by managers? Why are hospital boards swept away and replaced by managers? Is it not because of activities which are not dissimilar to this in any substantial way? Is it not because of the misuse of power, the abuse of position and flagrant jobbery? Who are these people that they should be above, or consider themselves to be above, the law of the land in this way? Who are these people that they should be able to call on this Parliament to back them in their defiance of the Charter of the University?
I should like to know from the Minister what the position is. We have dealt with the non-statutory appointments of assistant lecturers and lecturers— appointments made by the Governing Body which have no statutory position. What is the position in relation to lecturers who have statutorily been appointed and who have been in possession of their jobs for a period longer than what I understand is the statutory period of seven years? I should like to know from the Minister whether in fact there are lecturers or professors or appointees at the College who were statutorily and correctly appointed by the Senate and who are in their posts for a period longer than seven years. Are there any such appointees in the College and, if there are these people —members of the College staff who are there for periods longer than seven years—is their position covered by this legislation? Is it our intention to cover their position by this legislation? These are permanent appointees who should be submitted to the Senate for reappointment after their seven-year period.
What is the position about the number of statutory vacancies which have been allowed to lapse over the years? Is any attempt to be made to encourage —"force" is too vulgar a word to use —the President to discharge his functions in relation to permanent appointees to the College staff? Under this legislation, I can see no such provisions. I would like to know if they are to be given another four years of this wonderful dispensation of lavish patronage at their whim and will. Of course, it is the unfortunate University that is suffering as a result of all this practice over the years. Are the unfortunate undergraduates, is the State, are the taxpayers, entitled to have the activities of this College properly observed and carried out?
Is the College to be properly and completely staffed? Is it to be given an opportunity to have access to the highest possible technical, scientific and professional advisers, teachers and professors or is it to be restricted to appointees made at the whim and fancy of an individual or of a small group on the Governing Body? As far as I can see, this legislation makes no attempt to deal with this contingency which has already been condemned unequivocally and clearly in simple terms by this board of three judges. While we may condemn its having happened, how can we justify continuing to carry on practices which have so clearly been shown to be grossly improper, to put it at its very mildest?
One of the matters to which the report refers is the fact that the National University is composed of three Colleges and that, in taking this action in relation to the making of appointments—disregard of the Charter of the University, disregard-of the regulations which should be made under the Charter for the making of appointments—it is establishing precedents and certainly it is making things very difficult indeed for the authorities of University College, Cork, and University College, Galway. The question is this: If, in Dublin, they act in a particular way, what are they to do in Cork and Galway? Are they to ignore, just as they do in Dublin, the provisions of the Charter? Are they to observe the provisions of the Charter? Why should they observe the provisions of the Charter in the making of appointments if Dublin can do what, it likes, and get away with it, with the consent and approval of the Dáil, the Minister and the Government?
Surely the gratification of this malpractice over the years now puts the Universities in the position that they have every right—I do not know whether or not they observe the same practices in making appointments— in law to set about driving a coach and four through their Charter and making their appointments through the Knights of Columbanus or whatever organisation or body dominates the particular University or can take it upon themselves, as individual Presidents, in the words of one of the minutes here, to act like this: "A list of those appointed for next year would be circulated at the next meeting. This was noted and approved". They can send in their list to the Governing Body and let them approve it in defiance of the Charter, but under the cover of a law to be passed by this House, in order to accommodate the President of University College, the two other constituent Colleges are now to be permitted to act in defiance of the Charter. We are all to act in defiance of the Charter of the University by voting this legislation and by supporting those who support this legislation. I certainly do not. We are to act in defiance of the Charter. We are all acting in defiance of the Charter—the President of the University, the Governing Body, the Governing Body of the University College, Galway and University College, Cork, and no doubt the Seanad—all in defiance of the fact that the Charter is shown by this judicial commission to be perfectly workable.
There is nothing wrong with it; nobody suggested there is anything wrong with it. Nobody suggested you cannot make appointments. Nobody suggested that it should be amended. Nobody suggested how it could be improved. Yet we are to set this Charter aside by a conscious and deliberate act of law, simply in order to accommodate men who act in defiance, both consciously and deliberately.
Surely this House has never before been asked to take such a remarkable decision? So we are all asked to join in this scramble. We are all asked to become parties to the conspiracy. We are all asked to set aside a perfectly valid, a perfectly workable and, to all of us, a perfectly satisfactory Charter. No case was made at all to suggest that the reason he wants this legislation is that the University is expanding and is to move out to Belfield and special facilities must be made available in order that, in the circumstances, more appointments can be made than ever before. No such case was made.
It was not suggested that under the Charter any increased appointments cannot, in fact, be made. We are acting in precisely the same way as the Governing Body first acted in 1949 when they took a decision to make the appointment of 21 assistant lecturers which was ultra vires the powers given in the Charter. In 1949, they took that decision and no reason whatsoever was given as to why it was taken.
The Governing Body did not take either of the reasonable alternatives suggested by the Board. The first was simple enough. It was to observe the Charter and secondly, if the Charter was not workable, in the light of the existing circumstances, to change it. The Governing Body decided that they would not take either of these two courses. They, as the commission note here, adopted the course of expediency. They adopted the course of expediency and, as the judges observe, they thereby overlooked the fact that their action might affect not only the University but the other constituent Colleges, in spite of the fact that there is a clearly condemnatory implication in that comment by the judges.
There were the alternative courses suggested—amend the Charter or observe it. Quite clearly, the judicial board regretted the fact that they had adopted this course of expediency. "Expediency" is the word used. In the light of that fact, in the light of that implied condemnation of their action, we are now asked by the Minister to follow precisely the same course of expediency.
We can do one of two things. We can recommend to the Governing Body that they observe the Charter and make the appointments in accordance with the Charter, that is, that the Senate should make the statutory appointments. Secondly, we can recommend that the Charter, being unsuitable, can be amended. We are taking neither of those things. We are taking neither of those two perfectly reasonable courses. We are doing precisely what the board of judges described as taking the expedient course.
Surely that is most reprehensible. Indeed, if it can be condemned when followed by the Governing Body and the President of the University, it must be roundly condemned when followed by this Parliament.
Even if we were to suggest that the Governing Body behaved improperly in the past, that over the past eleven years they acted in defiance of their own Charter, and even if we were to forget the fact, we must regret it and suggest that henceforward the Charter must be observed or must be amended. It would be reasonable to follow either of those two courses. It seems to me that it would be very much more proper to adopt either of them. If the Dáil will not go as far as I should like it to go—and that would be to set up a judicial board of enquiry into all the activities of the Governing Body and the President of the University and into his administration of the University and his competence to administer it in light of the tremendous added responsibility, expenditure and patronage to be made available by the Dáil and to indict this man and the Governing Body for failure to discharge their responsibilities conscientiously—then surely it should be the proper function of the Parliament of any society to insist that the legitimate Charter of major Universities must be observed and cannot be set aside in this way.
The amendment of the Charter or the observance of the Charter, for the next four years should be insisted on. There can be no justification whatsoever for this subterfuge of a commission used by the Minister to evade his responsibilities. It is no proper substitute for action in this position. He should not ask this House to be a party to this petty minor conspiracy —even though it be on such a large scale—over such a long time. The remarkable thing about these activities is probably the mixture of arrogance and indifference to the law on the part of people in the highest possible positions in the land, people entrusted with educating the young in matters of ethics, morality, standards in the professions—the legal profession, medical profession and other professions. They were completely indifferent to the call of office, the responsibilities of office.
The Governing Body, throughout this period—certainly since 1956— were fully aware of the improper course which they were taking. On 13th February, 1958, a special meeting of the Senate was held to consider the committee's report. By a majority of 15 to 5 it was agreed:—
That the Senate take no further action, not being convinced that there has been any irregularity in the proceedings of University College, Dublin.
As far as I can ascertain no legal advice was taken in face of the fact that the Governing Body had been informed that senior counsel had advised that they were acting ultra vires.
A Deputy
The Deputy said that half an hour ago.
It is well worthwhile repeating.
The Deputy is using the same arguments over and over again. Repetition is not in order.
This point appears to be most important because it is referred to over and over again by the judicial board of enquiry to whose report I am referring.
That may be so but it does not justify repetition in the Deputy's speech.
The report is a most important one because one of my points was the fact that it had been virtually suppressed until recently.
The Deputy already referred to that fact on at least two occasions, perhaps three.
This is a different date, Sir. It is a remarkable thing that they considered this point on a number of occasions and the remarkable thing is they refused to take any action even though they considered it on a number of occasions. That is really my point —even though they considered the point on a number of occasions they refused to take legal advice. The board of inquiry concludes with this paragraph of censures on the Governing Body:—
The practice of appointing College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in the College could, and in the opinion of the Board would, lead to the situation that a large majority of the teaching staff being appointed by the College from within the College—
which would not be desirable—
—without the posts being advertised.
Clearly if the opinion of the House was sought, and in fact the opinion of the House has been sought over the years, they would agree with this finding. The opinion of the House has been sought in regard to the establishment of the Local Appointments Commission and its basic requirement is the advertising of posts. The wider the advertising, the more likelihood there is of higher qualified staff being appointed. That I think would reflect the attitude of mind of most Deputies—that posts for the College, for all these colleges, should be advertised and widely advertised.
The Deputy has already referred to that aspect on at least three occasions. I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed in this fashion because repetition is not in order.
On a point of order, surely when the Deputy is dealing with different aspects of the report of this board he is entitled to comment on the various aspects, to discuss references in the report and to comment on the various references within the Report. Surely that cannot be described as repetition.
The Chair has allowed the Deputy to comment on all these matters, but the Chair does not agree that he should be allowed to comment on all of them a number of times, as he has done.
On a further point of order, in order to understand this matter, it is necessary for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to have read the report of the Board of Visitors. I understand that is nine pages long, and it is possible for a Deputy to appear to repeat himself in his remarks when in fact he is dealing with the various sections in the course of his speech.
The Chair is not concerned with the report. The Chair is concerned only with repetition. Deputy Dr. Browne has indulged in repetition on more than three occasions, and I cannot allow him to repeat himself in this fashion.
I do not like to have to suggest that in addition to the attempts to prevent Deputies from knowing the facts, the pressure of your powerful office is to be used to silence——
The Deputy may not make a charge against the Chair in that fashion.
I said "I do hope ...." I prefaced my remarks with that.
The Deputy should not make such remarks to the Chair.
I tried to make clear in my opening statement that there are very special circumstances associated with this debate. It is quite impossible to discuss the Bill before the House without knowing what that Bill purports to do and how the Bill intends to do it, and as I pointed out, there appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to deprive Deputies of the right of access to a report on which the legislation is based. For that reason, I have dealt in great detail with the findings in the report. I should like to make a bet that not more than 30 per cent. of Deputies have read this report. I defy any Deputy to debate the provisions of the Bill intelligently, usefully or constructively without having read the report by these three eminent judges.
An attempt has been made by the Minister to stampede this legislation through the House, but I believe this is one of the most important measures we could have. It is important because of the seriousness of its changes and because of the status of the people involved and because the whole of the youth of our country in the higher educational echelon, shall I say, is to be entrusted to a group of men who have administered and controlled the University for a number of years. Their activities have been investigated by a judicial commission and this commission, which even by the widest stretch of imagination could not be called cranks or in any way irresponsible people, have found very serious fault with the proper discharge of the duties of the University authorities.
This Governing Body has been shown to be gravely defective in the handling of its own administrative affairs. This is our greatest University and we spend a great amount of money on it and it seems to me to be a debate for which every Deputy should have every opportunity to be fully briefed. In order to give all Deputies an opportunity of reading the report and of fully understanding the implications of the legislation which they are asked to support, we should like to move that the Bill be put back.
I have no doubt that the Minister will ultimately get his Bill—I should be surprised if he did not—but I see no reason why there should be any great rush. This matter has been going on since 1949 and all we want is to delay the validating legislation for one month. During that time, we want to see that the report is made available to all Deputies and Senators and that public representatives will have an opportunity of considering it. We must all be well aware of the valuable comments which were made on another report on U.C.D.—that in relation to the building committee which made its unanimous recommendations—yet, after a certain amount of public controversy and as a result of very public-spirited action, a small group, the Tuarim group, of very talented people, who were able to examine this matter—a number of them were specialists in the work— produced a most valuable memorandum differing from the unanimous findings of the Building Commission. That was of great help to myself and probably to other Deputies.
I am in the difficulty that I am not a specialist in any way in the problems that are involved and the questions that arise here. I am simply a private Deputy and I had a very short time in which to study this report. I am very alarmed and disturbed about the findings in it, and I should like an opportunity of sitting down and thinking about it at much greater length and of having the experience of people who know more about University administration and University politics, the operation and administration of a University, the organisation of curricula, the meaning of words—"Academic Council", "Finance Committee", these various bodies. In the light of that, and preferably in the light of some help from people who know very much more about it than I do, I should then like to have the debate here, and if the Dáil wished to accept the Minister's Bill at that stage, I certainly would have no complaint at all. There is no doubt that the present attempt to get this legislation through in these suspicious circumstances is very disturbing indeed. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision to ask for this legislation now. These activities have been carried on over the past 11 years and surely he could wait another little while.
Is the amendment seconded?
I wish formally to second the amendment. I reserve the right to speak later.
We welcome the Minister's approach in this matter before the House this morning. We have given very careful consideration to it and our minds have not changed since half-past ten this morning.
A Petition was made to the Government to the effect that, as stated on page 2 of the Report of the Board of Visitors: "During the ten years prior to the date of this Petition the Governing Body have appointed numerous persons to the office or position of ‘College Lecturers' and have appointed other persons to the office of ‘Assistant Lecturers'". Arising out of that Petition, a Board of Visitors was sent to visit the University. On page 8, for practical purposes, we find the result of the Board of Visitors' examination.
It was stated that the present system of appointing College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers gives a flexibility in the running of Faculties and Departments which would not exist if all Lecturers were appointed by the University and, in particular, permitted of leave of absence being easily granted to suitable persons for the purpose of study abroad. The Board accepts that the system has these advantages.
The question whether or not the College has the power to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers depends on the terms of the College Charter. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the arguments advanced in support of the claim of the College that it has power to appoint not only College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers but also College Professors, but having given careful consideration to the submissions of Counsel the Board has no doubt but that on the true construction of the College Charter and, in particular, of Clauses III and XII thereof the claim is misconceived.
Some members of the Governing Body appeared to have the idea that the exigencies of the situation as it appeared to them could be invoked for the purpose of putting a "liberal" interpretation on the terms of the Charter. The Registrar of the College told the Board that:—
"I defend them (College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers) on the ground of our chartered freedom to do what is necessary."
Later on, towards the end of the Report, they say:—
To date it is not suggested that the standard of the teaching staff in the College has suffered by the method of appointment that has been adopted. On the other hand, it is claimed that the standard is higher than it would have been if the appointments had been made by the University.
That is the viewpoint of the people dealing with the practical situation. That is the report made by Visitors on the issue involved here; the conclusion reached by the Visitors is that the appointment of Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, allegedly, as claimed, inside the Charter, is a misconception of the terms of the Charter. What has been found wrong in the situation is that the form of appointment of certain people has not been strictly in accordance with the Charter and a technical difficulty arises.
The Minister found himself faced with the problem of dealing with the situation. He proposes now to validate by statute the actions that have taken place over the last ten years, in a bona fide way, and he proposes, at the same time, to set up a commission to examine into the general question of higher education. It is our belief that this is the proper way in which to deal with the situation, consistent with the requirements of the University and with the proper carrying on of its work.
In the interval before finality is reached, steps must be taken to rectify the position and to ensure the proper carrying on of the work of the University. We know that no appointment to the academic staff of University College, Dublin, can be made except by the Governing Body. We know that all appointments that have been made have been made by the Governing Body. All the appointments that may be made in the interval that will elapse before the commission reports will be made by the Governing Body. I doubt if there are many Universities to-day so democratically governed and so democratically safeguarded from the point of view of the interests of the people generally, both students and taxpayers.
The Governing Body of University College, Dublin, is composed of 34 members. It includes the President, four nominees of the Government, eight nominees of the General Council of County Councils, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Chairman of the Dublin County Council, six representatives of the graduates, three from the Senate of the National University of Ireland, and six from the Academic Council of University College. That body can coopt four to add any element of intelligence or experience that they may feel has been omitted from the automatic assembly of the other 30.
I feel, in view of the various matters that it has been possible to discuss here this morning and in view of the general tone of comment upon the authorities looking after our University work here, that the Minister is acting very sensibly and is making the job of those who have parliamentary responsibility in relation to the Universities very easy.
It was said to us here this morning that we are discussing a University. Our approach, as I understand it, is that a University is a body that is given a Charter to do a very responsible and difficult piece of work. The Charter is intended to empower them to do everything necessary to get their highly specialised and important job done. It is particularly desired to see that the University is independent in every way and that independence, freedom of action, freedom of thought and freedom of work can contribute to the very important work of a University. All kinds of things have been suggested about the mode of appointment, etc., etc. I just want to express the hope that, in approaching any examination for the purpose of drafting a new Charter or making amendments to the present Charter that may be required or suggested as a result of the Commission's examination, there is no tendency on the part of parliamentary thought in Ireland that interference with the mind and the work of the University will be contemplated in such a way that would require that University appointments would be made by the Civil Service Commission or by the Local Appointments Commission. I know nobody would think of it, but we were bordering on some suggestions of that type this morning.
I sympathise with the Minister in some of his troubles here just at the moment, but I should like to refer to this from the point of view of control of or interference with the Universities. Up to very recently, so detached was the National University of Ireland from Government interference of any kind that the Minister who answered in the Parliament for the moneys voted to Universities from public sources was the Minister for Finance. I hope I did not falsefoot it when I pitied the plight of the Universities and those who had to speak for them. I pitied the plight of the Minister for Education for the time being and the staff of the Department of Education who were necessarily put into the front bench as a kind of rampart between the Minister for Finance and the people who had to carry on the Universities. Those people inevitably found themselves in deep discussion with the University authorities as regards their problems of staff, building and finance. They had to go and fight the Universities' case at the financial level. I felt that was wrong, that it was unjust to the Universities, who had to sup with a long spoon, who had to get their voice, as it were, put through a transmitter, conveyed through some kind of induction coil to the Department of Finance.
I feel my attitude in the matter was ultimately responsible for the Minister for Education being made the accounting officer for the Universities. That was not intended to imply—and it was very clear in my mind that it would not imply—that there would be interference by the Department of Education or by the Government with the proper autonomy of the Universities. I am sure the Minister appreciates that point and that no difficulty or danger in that particular way has arisen up to the present. I am sure that the University authorities do not feel that their position of autonomy has been threatened or is threatened in any way. I think it proper to remark on that point in view of the discussion that took place here to-day.
The Minister is dealing with this matter in the only possible way in which it can be dealt with systematically and effectively and he gives those who have Parliamentary responsibility for dealing with these matters the opportunity of knowing that the matter is being dealt with in that way. We look forward to his taking early action to see that the commission he contemplates is actually set up. In the meantime the affairs of University College, Dublin, including the control of the President and any additions to the staff that will be made, are in the hands of the Governing Body of the College. It has been that way for years past.
The actions that have taken place in the last ten years have been taken by Governing Bodies, the personnel of which has changed from time to time by various representatives coming in from the different bodies. Therefore, at the risk of repetition, I think it important to say that the bodies that have taken these actions, the results of which have been described in such simple and clear terms by the Board of Visitors, consist of the President of U.C.D.; four Government nominees, changed from time to time; eight members of the General Council of County Councils, changed from time to time; the Lord Mayor of Dublin for the time being; the Chairman of Dublin County Council for the time being; six representatives of the graduates, who change from time to time; three from the Senate of the National University of Ireland and six from the Academic Council, together with four co-options. I do not think that this Dáil challenges either their bona fides or their judgment in doing their work in the best possible way. The Charter, under which they are exercising their intelligence in doing the job given to them, was drafted 50 years ago.
It may be that the commission which will look into this matter may recommend many and important changes, but I do not think they will be changes that will be brought about impugning the bona fides of the type of representatives who are put on the Board of University College, Dublin, nor will they interfere with the effective discharge, in freedom of the greatest possible kind, of the duties that are being put on the Governing Body and the staff assembled under them, whether they are appointed by the Governing Body or by the Senate.
I think the issue arising here is a very simple one and, in consequence, I cannot take much notice of the contention that the Minister has not issued any explanatory White Paper. Any member of the House who wished to have a White Paper had access to the report of the commission, if he were minded to read it and make himself acquainted with the details in that document.
Surely the whole thing boils down to this: it is a question of the designation of the appointments made, that they are College appointments instead of University appointments. If they had been University appointments, a certain course of advertisement and examination of candidates' credentials, qualifications and degrees would have to be undertaken, but surely the procedure which has been followed here is followed year after year by every public authority? If an appointment occurs, which it is properly the function of the Local Appointments Commissioners to fill, while waiting for that to be dealt with, the manager, county council or corporation appoints a local appointments committee to interview candidates and to make an appointment for a limited period, which may be extended from time to time according to the exigencies of the situation, up to a maximum decided upon by the local authorities. That goes on until such time as the Local Appointments Commissioners can get round to dealing with the matter in a specified way.
There is a difference.
The College has done that because, instead of the Senate being the appointing authority, the local board of governors have made these appointments. They may have carried them on too long, but surely the issue is very simple? Whilst I admit a situation has been disclosed which calls for action, either by the University bringing itself within the terms of the Charter or dealing with the matter in some other way as may be recommended by the commission, which the Minister is setting up to deal with higher education, to my mind, in all institutions there may be procedures that may be questioned from time to time. I am not denying that at all. It is readily admitted by the Government, after examining all the procedures, that this is a situation which needs an Act of the Dáil to set right at the moment, and I think the accusation that the Minister is sheltering behind any procedure cannot be sustained.
Where else could the matter be so freely debated as it is when brought into this House in the form of a Bill and the members of the House have an opportunity of getting all the details necessary for them to participate in the debate? The point can be dealt with, at the present time, only in the way the Minister is dealing with it, unless it is to drag on for a considerable period. I am sure these appointments made by the University were from year to year. I think that has been admitted, and at the end of the year, they could be reviewed and the particular appointees continued in office, or somebody else selected to discharge their functions.
In the circumstances, I presume that the University, or the Governing Body of any University, or of any public authority discharging functions for which public funds and a variety of interest provide, deal with such matters in the same way. I feel that the course proposed by the Minister in introducing this Bill, and the very adequate way in which he is dealing with higher education by the appointment of a commission, is ample and adequate to deal with the problem as it now exists.
Perhaps a good share of the blame or credit must go to Deputy McQuillan, when we consider the length of this debate. After all, had he not raised the matter yesterday about the inadequate supply of copies of this report being made available to Deputies, many Deputies, even now, would not be in a position to discuss it. What surprises me is that Deputy MacCarthy should claim that all the information was at the disposal of Government Deputies. It may have been at their disposal, but if they are to be mere numbers to support their Minister on this Bill, it does not matter whether they have it or not.
Deputy Dr. Browne was very severe in his criticism directly against the Minister and, indeed, very much so against a certain group of individuals. This group, because of their position. are directly responsible to a very large degree for the higher education in this country, and whether or not they have been correct in their attitude now remains to be tested. Perhaps numbers may decide one way or the other here, but I do hope that general opinion outside will be able to come to a conclusion as to what is happening in certain establishments.
Deputy Mulcahy spoke of the freedom of thought and freedom of the persons concerned. It seems quite obvious, if we read this report, that not alone did they make use to the full of their freedom of thought but that they translated that very much into freedom of action. Apparently, Deputy Mulcahy at one stage pitied the plight of these people and thought he was doing well by coming to their aid as Minister for Education. If the report of the Board of Visitors is carefully read and considered, it will be seen that there was no need for any Minister for Education to worry about the plight of these people.
From this report, we must come to the conclusion that the innocent have been found guilty and the guilty have been found innocent. To a large degree through the instrumentality of Deputy McQuillan, information has been made available to us. The Board heard submissions from a very large number of people. The three members of the Board did their duty and ultimately reported, not in a milk and water fashion or in any way which would show vindictiveness towards anyone concerned. Yet, it is quite obvious from the speech of the Minister here this morning that he is condemning the report.
When we consider the Petitioner, it is obvious that he has been severely reprimanded by all concerned, apparently by the responsible Minister and particularly by people about whose plight Deputy Mulcahy was so concerned at one time. Take, for instance, the first paragraph of page 6 of the report which quotes a reply sent to the Petitioner:
The President has instructed me to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College, should query the actions of the Governing Body in a matter which does not appear to him to be any direct concern of yours.
That is pretty strong talk from people who are in their position because the State has placed at their disposal the necessary finances. Many of us, including, I would say, the Minister, are anxious to provide opportunities for working people to send their children to the University. It is a strange place to send them when one individual can address to another person such an impertinent reply to a question as to the illegality of what had been going on for some years.
Take Page 5 of the report:—
The Secretary of the Governing Body on the 21st May 1959 replied...
"... I am instructed to inform you that your opinion as to the alleged illegality of the title ‘College Lecturer' and ‘Assistant Lecturer' has been before the Governing Body of the College and the Senate of the National University on a number of occasions. The Governing Body has decided not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper"
... and this is the part to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention—
"and which has been in operation to the great benefit of the College for a considerable time."
Strong talk again. It seems from the report that certain people were not concerned about the legal aspect of what they were doing, but only about what they said was of great benefit to the College. To whom was it of great benefit and was it legally to the benefit of the College?
Deputy Dr. Browne posed a question which some people may regard as impertinent but which is, in my view, most pertinent: Is the law to be such that some people can ignore and flout it while others must accept its rigours?
It is quite obvious from the report that no group of men ever went out of their way to offend, insult and ignore the law more than the people concerned. There have been funny stories about absent-minded professors. In an effort to be charitable, we might consider the people concerned as absent-minded professors, but if we were to designate them in that way in connection with some of their pronouncements at times when they are dabbling in other affairs, they would be very indignant.
To anyone who believes in fair play, it is quite obvious that things have gone wrong and that the Minister is being put in the position of carrying responsibility for trying to force this measure through the House. I am sorry for the Minister's sake because in the short time he has been Minister, he has been exemplary in every way. I am sorry that he should find himself in that position.
On page 8 of the report, there is quoted a statement by the Registrar of the College. He told the Board: "I defend them (College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers) on the ground of our chartered freedom to do what is necessary". What is necessary is one thing but what is very important is what is legal. Other speakers may take a different point of view but my view is that when everything is considered, there will be a rude awakening for all of us as to what is happening in the higher strata of educational society.
Deputy Dr. Browne drew attention to the fact that the State provides the nice tidy sum of £10,000,000. For what? It is no use having grand buildings or for anyone in Government or Oppossition to take pride in the amount provided for education unless we can be assured that inside the grand buildings thus provided all is well, all is proper and all is legally carried out. If that is not the case, it is tragic for the country.
I read in the papers recently a statement made by a delegate, at a certain congress dealing with the question of education, as to the importance, first of all, of educating politicians. When it comes to educating politicians, we must go to the absent-minded professor who, undoubtedly, could teach us a thing or two as to what should be done when it is suitable to do it, even through it is illegal. For many years many people outside have been trying to point the finger of scorn at the politician in an effort to suggest that the most disgraceful and the most dishonest type of person is the person in politics. Naturally enough, many of us have tried to prove that that idea is false. Now we are faced with the position in which some of our most learned men are making pawns of the politicians in order to defend themselves and to get out of an awkward situation. If an unfortunate man down the country broke the law to a fraction of the degree to which it has been broken by those so-called educated people, he would have penal servitude, perhaps, imposed on him for five or ten years.
Are we supposed not alone to defend these people but to extricate them from this situation? Deputy Dr. Browne has expressed his views on this and I think it would be unjust and dishonest of us to relieve them of their responsibility seeing that they must have known they were acting illegally. They took action even though its illegality was brought to their attention.
Deputy Mulcahy mentioned all those who are on the Senate. The majority of those honest people had not the foggiest idea of what was going on. I know some of these people on the Senate. They are decent people who come from different parts of the country to attend the various meetings. What was placed before them? Where are the minutes of the meetings at which some of these matters were discussed? They were as uninformed after attending some of these meetings as they were before going in. It was not their fault. It was perhaps the fault of the absent-minded professor whose cuteness enabled him to get what he wanted without anyone else being the wiser.
Mr. Ryan
I do not intend to vote for this Bill because I see it as an attempt to get parliamentary approval for a practice which has bedevilled this country, a practice summed up in the phrase: "Who you know is more important than what you know." That has been the practice under the arrangement which the Board of Visitors has found to be in breach of duty of the President of U.C.D. as laid down by the Charter of the University. Having been given the information that what has been done was not proper, the Government are endeavouring in this Bill to give legal sanction to its continuance for the next four or five years. That is most undesirable.
I am most unhappy about this Bill as a graduate of the College to which it relates. I am unhappy about the intentions of the Bill and about the circumstances which have given rise to it. I am also unhappy as a parliamentarian that in the short period of nine months during which I have been a member of this House, this Government on three separate occasions, this being the third, have come into the House with Bills relating to outside institutions and asked the House to forgive these institutions their trespasses and their mismanagement. We had a measure in relation to the Abbey Theatre to which £250,000 was given because of mismanagement. There was a second Bill in relation to the institution affected by this Bill when because of mismanagement, not entirely by the University authorities but also by the Department of Finance in cheeseparing at the wrong time, the House was asked and the House, through inactivity rather than any activity on its part, sanctioned the spending of £7 million or £10 million for the housing of the University on a site outside the city.
Instead of the University authorities taking the proper step 10 years ago of openly and honestly approaching the Government with a view to amending the Charter for the purpose of improving the system of appointment and of creating offices, they resorted to this intrigue, this system of creating new lectureships in the University which was not considered and certainly was not in the mind of the people who drafted the Charter under which the University is supposed to be operated.
The conduct of these people who were not prepared to seek amendment of the Charter is open to some serious consideration by us. Was it that they were afraid that, if they sought to amend the Charter in relation to the appointment of lecturers and professors, there would be an effort on the part of the Government or Parliament to have other necessary amendments made in the Charter? I think that was the reason. It is to be hoped that the commission which the Minister has in mind will work speedily in order that the improvements which are so necessary in the Charter and the University will be introduced. I certainly must put on record my regret that the Government have put the cart before the horse by giving a blank cheque for the building of the University before it took the proper step and the long-needed step of establishing a commission for the purpose of improving the whole structure of the University itself.
As a humble graduate of a great College, I would not give sanction of any kind to any attempt to restrict the freedom of a University. If you try to restrict the freedom of the University or of any persons in the University, you kill the whole University idea. The essence of a University system is freedom of thought and action. That is the very reason for my condemnation of the system which has been in operation for the past 10 years and which it is sought to continue for another four years under this Bill. Statutory professors and statutory lecturers had permanency in their time. Therefore, they were free to think and advise as they thought fit. The persons appointed to College lectureships, improperly appointed—in case the word "improperly" offends, I shall say "appointed"—to College lectureships in breach of duty, were appointed from year to year and their reappointment depended on the goodwill of the head of the College and perhaps ultimately on the goodwill of the professor who was the person, in the first instance, who selected him for the position.
How could you have freedom of thought or freedom of action in such a situation? You could not possibly have it. In the first instance, it was almost certain that no person would be appointed unless he and his potential professor were ad idem, unless he and his prospective professor were going to agree on all points. Take certain subjects like Economics and Politics. There are many different trends in such sciences in a changing world, and according to one's outlook on affairs and perhaps according to one's generation, there will be different views on these subjects. A lecturer with progressive views who wished to instruct his class on a certain line could be restricted by a conservative professor from proceeding on those lines.
That is the kind of thing which could, and I suspect, did happen under the system which has been condemned in the report of the Board of Visitors, which system it is sought to continue for another four years under the Bill. It is obviously desirable that, in relation to important posts in the University, a system should operate to select the best person available, whether he or she is within or without the wall of the University. The system which has been in operation, to all intents and purposes, precluded the selection of the best person available, unless his availability was known to the professors of the particular faculty at the time.
Unfortunately, as we know only too well, many of our most brilliant graduates are lecturers or professors in England, America or even further afield. They were not aware of vacancies in University College, Dublin, which have been filled by lecturers. Many of these brilliant brains, which other Universities are only too glad to have, were ignorant of the possibility of getting an appointment here similar to the ones which they now hold. I do not think that is desirable. We need not go even so far as the countries across the oceans of the world to find ignorance in relation to appointments being made in Universities here. It is well known that a vast body of graduates and the greater proportion of people who have not got day-to-day contact with the Universities were not aware of the different appointments until they heard, by chance, that someone else had walked in, in a grown, and proceeded to lecture.
That is the situation which Parliament has had brought before it because of the courage of Mr. Kenny, the petitioner. He received a rude threat to the effect that it was not proper for him as an assistant in the college—one of the inferior fry, one of the inferior persons in the hierarchy —to dare to question the actions of any persons. In relation to this House, we can say of all Governments, that no Minister or Taoiseach has ever taken exception to the most junior, or the most stupid, member of this House questioning the actions of the Government. That is the essence of democracy. Surely the essence and test of freedom in the University is whether or not a junior member of the staff may respectfully, as he did, question the manner in which the President and the Governing Body were carrying out their duties.
I have a feeling—and it is justified by the history of the past three years in University College—that, as the Secretary and Bursar of the College quoted the President in reply to Mr. Kenny, they are asking in Earlsfort Terrace, if they are aware of this debate—or they will ask it when they hear of this debate—if it is proper for us to query the actions of the Governing Body in a manner which does not appear to be any direct concern of ours. Is that not the attitude which has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that, when those who were in the best position to know, felt that the system of appointment was not the one best suited to the modern needs of the College, the Governing Body did not seek authority from anybody outside the walls of the College to change it, as they ought to have done, because they felt it was no concern of ours?
In criticising education in this country, it is necessary to emphasise that it could not possibly operate on its present scale, without the money voted by this Parliament. When Deputies vote money to the University, they are voting it out of the pockets of the poorest members of the community as well as the wealthiest, and out of the pockets of the most ignorant as well as the most educated persons in the community. We have a duty, and we are directly concerned, to see that those to whom we vote this money carry out their duties in accordance with the Charter of the University. If they do not wish to do that because the Charter needs amendment, let them have the courage to justify the need for a change. I do not think there is any member of this House who, if the need for change were justified to the House, would criticise that change. If he did criticise it, he would have every right to do so as representing the taxpayers who are contributing towards the Universities in question.
As I said at the outset, it is not pleasant for me to have to rise to criticise many of those in University College with whom my personal relations have always been of the best. I can only hope their magnanimity will be sufficient to ensure that our personal relations are not spoiled. Whether or not they are spoiled, I feel it my duty, as a public representative, to give voice to these views because it is timely to say that those outside this Parliament may not assume that their conduct will always be forgiven. They may not assume that Parliament is not aware of what has been happening.
With regard to the Government's conduct, I must express very great regret that they did not publish, to the country in general, the report of the Board of Visitors. It is a well-known fact of human conduct that when a person tries to conceal something, other people presume the worst. The generality of Irish people will presume that the situation in University College is very much worse than that disclosed impartially by the Board of Visitors. They will assume that there were ulterior and base motives behind those actions.
I would not subscribe to all that has been said by Deputy Dr. Browne. I do not think the motives were of the nature which he described, but whatever the motives were, the people of Ireland will presume the worst. I do not think that is a healthy situation. I believe the Government are doing a disservice to the country in general in not publishing this report of the Board of Visitors. Certainly, as Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Desmond have emphasised, they have done a disservice to the members of this House by not circulating one copy of the report to each member, at least one month in advance of so serious a debate. They would not have lost anything if they had done so.
It is important to appreciate that Deputies are not experts unto themselves. In a democracy, it is a very good thing that in relation to any question, Deputies should have the opportunity of consulting other people. In the course of the past few days, I was reprimanded for my views on this matter, and I was reprimanded because I did not consult some individuals in the University who know more about the matter than I. Of course, there are many people within the walls of the University with whom I have had contact over the years and whose views I know, but there are others whose views I do not know.
It was only yesterday that I had an opportunity of reading this report. I certainly did not have the opportunity of speaking to the person who reprimanded me or to the members of the academic staff of University College. That was most unfortunate and the blame lies with the Government, because they did not afford me that opportunity. As has been said this morning, this situation which has existed for 11 years would not bring the University tumbling down if it continued for another 11 weeks. It is most regrettable that the Government did not make this report available.
What will happen now? A garbled account will be published in the Press. The sections of the report which are mainly critical of the University will be published and those which explain the reasons for the operation of the present system are hardly likely to get as much notoriety. The blame for all that lies on the shoulders of the Government. On that account, I do not believe their motion should be passed today. I would prefer to see the Government accept the amendment put down by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan.
I am at some disadvantage as against some previous speakers in this debate inasmuch as I have not been fortunate enough to have had the advantage of attending a University. Apart from being a member of this House, I feel as a taxpayer that this report is of vital interest to everybody.
I have listened to most of the speakers, particularly to Deputy Dr. Browne. Whilst I may not be competent to form a definite opinion on a number of points which he made I feel that, to some extent, he exaggerated the position in so far as the appointments in question are concerned. The thanks of everybody should go in the first instance to Petitioner Mr. Kenny who brought the irregularities complained of to the notice of the Government. He petitioned the Government, as we note from the report of the Board of Visitors, on the 6th November last to investigate this matter.
It is all the more praiseworthy on the part of Mr. Kenny that, before petitioning the Government, he took a very reasonable attitude. He brought the irregularities which he complained existed at that time to the notice of the College authorities. It is most disappointing to read on page 5 of the report a copy of the letter sent by the Secretary of the Governing Body on the 1st May to Mr. Kenny. What is most disappointing about that letter is the concluding part which more or less endeavours to intimidate the Petitioner. It reads as follows:
The President has instructed me to enquire whether you think it altogether proper that you, as an Assistant in the College, should query the actions of the Governing Body in a matter which does not appear to him to be any direct concern of yours.
That is rather strong language and it is something that should not be allowed to pass without adverse comment.
It is accepted that Mr. Kenny was at that time a member of the lecturing staff of the College and attached to a Faculty that is regarded as of supreme importance in this country. When Mr. Kenny found that the irregularities he complained of in the first instance to the Governing Body existed and that no steps were being taken or were likely to be taken to correct the position, he quite rightly brought the matter to the notice of the Government.
In modern times, it is quite unusual to meet a person of the independence that Mr. Kenny has shown. I am rather glad that previous speakers—possibly speakers with some personal knowledge of Mr. Kenny's capabilities and qualities-saw fit to comment favourably on his action. I do not know the gentleman. In fact I do not know any of the persons concerned on either side. What worries me most is that the taxpayers down the country, who look up to our Universities as being on the highest plane, on finding that serious irregularities in the matter of staff appointments have been taking place for the past 10 or 15 years will be further fortified in the impression which, rightly or wrongly, has been abroad in the country for a number of years that University education does not give all that it could. As a previous speaker has remarked, the disclosures in this report will reinforce in no uncertain manner that feeling that has unfortunately been created amongst our people throughout the country. We all know that in the day-to-day running of the University there is a serious difference of opinion between the students who, in the first place, pay the piper and the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of imparting the higher form of education that a University is expected to give.
It is well that at long last the light of day has been given to these allegations. As the matter stands, the Government had no alternative but to introduce this amending legislation to validate the actions of the University people. It is very right and proper in every way that comment should be made on the cause for the amending legislation. I learned some time ago that this investigation was being carried out. I could not believe, at the outset, that a responsible body such as the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, would have any irregularities in its management or administration such as would give rise to an inquiry.
The truth is that this report by very eminent men who were especially competent to carry out the inquiry, indicates that irregularities existed. I could not subscribe to certain comments by Deputy Dr. Browne as to the cause of the irregularities, especially in so far as they might refer to the President of University College, Dublin. A man in that position must and should be trusted, by and large, to do what he thinks is best for the College. However, even in his very high office, he is only human, just as we all are.
I find it very hard to credit that such a man should, as alleged, take it on himself to make certain appointments that are not in order. The most unsatisfactory feature of the report is that most, if not all, of these appointments were made without recourse to the usual form of public advertisement. It is quite obvious that if that is so, the more talented type of professor or lecturer, as the case may be, and the one most suitable for appointment has not had the opportunity of competing for the position. It is hard to blame parents of University students for thinking that the University is not giving their children all it is supposed to give.
There is one part of the report which more or less indicates in a general sort of way that the College authorities did as they thought best for the College. That may be so. However, it is not for the College authorities to do what they think is best for the College. If the Charter of the College is such that appointments to the staff cannot be made within its terms and provisions, the Governing Body, and the President particularly, should be the first to bring that matter to the notice of the Government, and ask the Government to give whatever amending legislation is necessary with a view to correcting that position.
In that connection, we have a very important function. We have, in the first place, to legislate and to some extent, I imagine, to influence the terms, conditions and provisions of the Charter that governs a University College. More than that, we give substantial sums of money every year for the purpose of defraying the greater part of the expenses of University education. Because of that fact, we are entitled, in a general way, to lay down policy and particularly to lay down policy in relation to appointments.
Statements were made to the effect that a University should, as far as possible, be independent of Government control. I entirely accept that view. I think that the idea of giving over particular responsibility to a competent authority to carry it through is a good thing, once you are satisfied that the authority is competent to do the job assigned to it. When the authority goes beyond that and sets out to do something that it was never intended to allow it to do, it is time to call a halt.
That is exactly what has occurred, in my opinion, in University College, Dublin. I do not know whether that position is peculiar to University College, Dublin, or not, but I sincerely hope it is. However, as I said already, I think the Government quite rightly stepped in when this petition was put forward and availed of the machinery at their disposal to investigate the complaints. When the report came forward, it was made available here.
Complaint was made that this report was not sent to Deputies several weeks ago. Evidently it was issued in February but it takes some time to prepare it. A great number of Deputies have direct association with the management and control of Universities, or if not the management and control, they at least have the advantage of having attended a University, Dublin University or, for that matter, one of the constituent Colleges of Galway or Cork. They have a fair idea of what is going on. I think it is true to say that, long before the report was issued, it was generally known here what the findings would be.
I do not suggest that the investigating committee, directly or indirectly, communicated their views on the matter to anybody. We all knew what was wrong. It was quite obvious that it was very easy to prove that the irregularities complained of existed and that there would naturally be a report as there was by the Board of Visitors.
One thing that did strike me was that in the course of their investigation, the Board of Visitors were not accommodated as I think they should have been in the first place by the President and the secretarial staff working under his control and, secondly, by the Governing Body of the University. The question about the agendas of meetings not being available for a longer period than five years is inexcusable. The minutes of the proceedings of the various meetings of the Governing Body were available but the agenda, which would have a very big bearing on the minutes, should also be available. The matter should not be let pass at that. I think, if there is any means of doing it, that it should be brought to the notice of the President that the House is most dissatisfied with that particular aspect of affairs.
Secondly, it strikes me from reading the report that the College authorities did not go out of their way to facilitate the Board of Visitors. They had, therefore, to make their investigation directly from the staff. That is a very sad state of affairs. It is anything but satisfactory for a body such as the University. For the management and control of the University to adopt that attitude is, to say the least, very disappointing.
However, there was evidently cooperation from a number of other sources. Thanks to them, it was possible to investigate very fully the allegations made by the petitioner. It was possible for the board of visitors to make out the very comprehensive report which is here before us. I think that while that report is as brief as it could be, it gives at the same time a very true picture of the state of affairs as they found them.
What is done is done. My attitude in that connection is that it is better late than never to mend something that is wrong. I can see the wisdom of the Government bringing in this Bill at the moment and indemnifying the actions which have been taken within the past 10 or 15 years, the period under review here. The position would be far more serious, were it not for the fact that the Minister had already taken steps to set up a commission to examine the entire field of higher education and more particularly University education.
No human organisation can be expected to be perfect and the measure before the House will in the interim help to correct the present position. I sincerely hope that the College authorities will recognise that their actions over the period under review are resented bitterly and, moreover, are resented bitterly by the taxpayers and the parents of the pupils in the University and that they will try to create a better system of co-operation between the professors, lecturers and staff for themselves in the future than that which existed in the past.
This Bill, as Deputy Mulcahy stated, is the result of a petition. A petitioner, who was a lecturer in University College, Dublin, decided to approach the Government in connection with what, in his opinion, were irregular appointments made to positions in the University over a period of years back to 1948 and 1949.
Like other Deputies in this House, I should like to pay a tribute to the courage of this petitioner, Mr. John Kenny, for courageous action far beyond the normal call of duty. We have not in this country, I understand, awards for courageous actions or deeds of merit performed by humble private citizens. The only award I know of and for which I have great respect is the Scott Medal presented to members of the Garda Síochána for courageous action. When a courageous action such as this is taken by this lecturer in University College, Dublin, it is a pity that we cannot in some way show our appreciation and recognition of the excellent work he has done. It is open to me at this stage to suggest that the President of the Republic should very seriously consider the possibility of conferring some signal honour on this distinguished member of the legal profession for giving the people of Ireland an opportunity of looking inside the gates and seeing what has been going on inside University College, Dublin.
I can safely say without contradiction that it would be an absolute impossibility for the general public to have even the slightest inkling of the happenings in the field of appointments in this college were it not for the fact that this Petition which was sent to the Government resulted in the setting up of a Board of Visitors to examine into the allegations made by this Petitioner. At this stage I do not propose to refer in great detail to the report of the findings of the Board of Visitors. First of all, I want to point out to the House that apart altogether from the Report, the Bill that has come before the House is such that it deserves sufficient time to be considered carefully and to have the advice of people outside this House who have more experience in the matters referred to than most Deputies.
Whatever about the disclosures in the report, I think the action of the Government is contemptible, in their very, very slick attempt to slide this Bill through the House without giving members an opportunity to discuss, examine and consider the proposals in the Bill, apart altogether from the report of the Board of Visitors as a result of which the Bill was drafted.
I should also like to say how much I regret the fact that it is the present Minister for Education who is in the dock on this occasion. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Minister as a member of this House and I have always admired him. I feel truly sorry that the burden and responsibility for this measure must be carried by him, but seeing he is the Minister and that, it would appear, he has closed his ears to any appeals made by responsible people for extra time to consider this, I am afraid he will have to carry the responsibility in conjunction with other members of the Cabinet, who, I am sure, will not lose many hours sleep in any case, being the hardened warriors which they have been for many years. It is a pity that a young Minister with a fresh mind is to be put in this position at such a stage of his career when he shows promise of doing great things. It is unlike him to bring in a measure such as this. It is an approach that I would expect only from a hardened old warrior, well-skilled in Parliamentary procedure and in how to lull the Opposition and other Members of the House into a false sense of security.
If it were some minor measure that the Government wanted through without much ado, perhaps it would be understandable that, human nature being what it is, they could barely resist the opportunity of getting the measure through with the least possible discussion, but surely a measure such as this can be described as nothing else but a vindication and the word "vindication" appears in Section 3 of the Bill. That is the most accurate description of the Bill, the word which is in Section 3—a validation, I should say, of what has taken place over the past 12 years.
There is a big difference between the two words.——
I do not think that the Deputy, who has interrupted two or three times today, has read either the report or the Bill.
That is where the Deputy is presuming.
I would appeal to the Deputy to read them——
If the Deputy is allowed to continue without interruption, we might make more progress.
——seeing that he is so anxious to give us the benefit of his very great experience inside and outside this House. In order to give Deputies, like the Deputy who interrupted, an opportunity of reading and studying the report of the Board of Visitors before dealing with the Bill, Deputy Browne and myself decided to put down this amendment, namely that the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed for a period of one month. We are open to suggestions that three weeks or five weeks or three months may be more suitable, to enable every Deputy and his constituents to read the report so that they also would have an opportunity of studying it. The general public and interested organisations would have a similar opportunity.
Some Deputies like Deputy Moloney may innocently believe that this report may have been available since the date which is on it, February 1st, 1960. That is the date on which the judges on the Visiting Board presented their report to the Government. Members of the House and the general public got no wrinkle about this report until the Minister, in his kindness, on Saturday last before noon sent a copy to the Dáil library. I agree that a copy of the report was available in the Library on Saturday. Perhaps a number of very hard-working city Deputies rushed in here on a nice fine Saturday evening to discover for themselves whether or not any new papers had been laid on the Table of the House. I am sure it would be easy to check that at the gate and in the library. But if a Deputy did not know that the paper in question was in the Library it would be very hard for him to know whether such a report had even been issued.
The first official intimation that any Deputy outside the Minister and the Cabinet had—I am open to correction in this; perhaps some members of the Opposition Front Bench had it—that the report was available was last Tuesday, the 26th April, because that day's Order Paper carried on the back page a list of Papers on the Table of the Dáil and, buried in a list of 16 papers ranging from the Report of the Metric System and Decimal Coinage Committee, 1959 to the Agricultural Wages Board Report, 1959, was the University College Dublin Report of the Board of Visitors, February, 1960.
Even the most alert Deputy experienced in the automatic routine—and "routine" is the word-examination of the Order Paper when he gets it would, and should be, forgiven if he failed to find in that long list a reference to the report of the judges. I confess, for what it is worth, that although I am probably as keen a student of the Order Paper as any Deputy in the House I failed to discover or note that report on Tuesday's Order Paper with the result that on Wednesday last I rang the Minister's Office to find out whether a copy would be made available to me. The Minister very courteously, as always, hastened to point out that a copy was available in the Library. I proceeded to the Library and with the kind assistance of the Librarian I unearthed the Report. I am speaking as a layman and far be it from me to suggest that I could absorb its contents in the limited time available from midday yesterday until the debate commenced to-day. I could not hope to absorb and get into my mind the significance of all the statements made by these learned judges.
It is well known that judges do not indulge in exaggeration or flamboyant descriptions and therefore it is beyond contradiction that each and every sentence of that report carries weight and meaning and deserves the most careful consideration by everybody interested in this matter.
Debate adjourned.