Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1960

Vol. 181 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - University College Dublin Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Education on the 28th April, 1960:—

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Debate resumed on the following amendment thereto:—

"To delete ‘now' and add at the end of the motion ‘this day month'."—(Deputy Dr. Browne).

Mr. McQuillan

On the adjournment of the debate on the 28th April last, I urged on the Government the absolute necessity of postponing further discussions on the Bill until interested persons were given an opportunity of studying the report of the Board of Visitors. I am glad to say that the Government gave a fortnight to interested people for the purpose of considering this report and also fell in with our request that sufficient copies of the report of the Board of Visitors be made available immediately after the first day's discussion of the Bill. We, therefore, achieved our immediate objective of preventing this very important measure from being slipped through this House unobtrusively. Since the Report of the Board of Visitors has been circulated, Deputies, no doubt, have noticed that the fires of controversy have flared up in the daily papers on the report and on the speeches made in this House commenting on it.

I welcome the controversy and the debates that have arisen as a result of this report. Indeed, it is a pity that, to a large extent, the contributions in the daily Press so far have been more or less in the order of resolutions of loyalty and fidelity to the leader, in this case, the President of U.C.D., rather than in the form of reasoned argument or defence of the system in operation in the University.

On the last day, I emphasised that in the limited time at my disposal, I had not been able to make as careful a study of the Board of Visitors' report as I would have wished to have made. The report was made by learned judges and was highly technical and I confess that, as a layman, I found difficulty at times in properly weighing and interpreting it. Now I am satisfied as a result of careful study of it, that my first reactions and beliefs were absolutely correct, but, at this stage, I should like to say that in the course of my earlier remarks I mentioned the position in the other constituent colleges of the National University. I mentioned them specifically because they are mentioned on page 8 of the report of the Board of Visitors and, on my first reading of that report, I felt it would be desirable to have an examination of the position in the other colleges, if such examination were desirable in Dublin.

Now I find and am very glad to know that in University College, Cork, no such situation obtains as has been described in the Report of the Board of Visitors with regard to U.C.D. I quote from a letter to the Irish Times of Monday, May 2nd, signed by Professor Atkins, President of U.C.C.:—

In view of the statements made by Mr. McQuillan in Dáil Éireann on the debate which took place on April 28th, I wish to state that he is quite mistaken in thinking that University College, Cork, is involved in the matters which he raised during the discussion.

I accept that and I am very glad to note that the President of University College, Cork, has by that statement dissociated himself completely from the activities of U.C.D. which have been condemned by the Board of Visitors.

I might point out that Professor Atkins's denial that such system of appointments of assistant lecturers and college lecturers obtained in Cork resulted in an immediate reaction from the Registrar of U.C.D. who, two days after Professor Atkins's letter appeared in the paper, replied with an attack on the President of University College, Cork, and criticised him for not supporting U.C.D. He publicly criticised the President of University College, Cork, for not supporting U.C.D. It is significant that since 4th May, Professor Atkins, by his silence, has shown that he has dissociated himself from the practice that obtains in U.C.D. and that he has not been browbeaten or intimidated by the bosses in U.C.D.

At a later stage, I propose to deal with some of the arguments made by the officials, particularly the Secretary of the College, in rebutting the case made in this House—I must say solely by Deputy Dr. Browne, so far—a case that was based on the judges' report. I have not read such a collection of misrepresentations for many a day as appeared from the pen of this very learned Secretary of U.C.D., Mr. MacHale.

Whatever these gentlemen in University College, Dublin, may say about U.C.D. being a garden of roses and everything in the garden being lovely, without doubt, the report of the Board of Visitors has shown that, instead, it is a garden of weeds and that the fresh air of academic freedom that is so essential has not blown through that University for years. As a result of the report of the Board of Visitors and the discussions outside the House and the discussions that are already taking place amongst graduates and others, please God, very soon that state of affairs in U.C.D. will be remedied.

Very briefly, I should like to deal with some of the points made by the Board of Visitors in their report to the Government. Here we can see the inconsistency in the case put forward by various professors and officers of U.C.D. when asked by the judges as to the reasons for creating such posts as College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. At page 3 of the report, the following paragraph appears:

In the Report of the President of the College for the Session 1955/56 it was stated that "the grade of College Lecturer was instituted recently for the promotion of senior Assistants".

That was the case made by the President in his report. This is what the Secretary of the College had to say:

.... the grade of College Lecturer was a subdivision of the grade of Assistant.

The Registrar, the third gentleman involved, said:

... that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in certain important senses were really Assistants and in other senses were not, that they were simply Assistants so far as the University was concerned.

The House can work that out for itself. All I can say is that it conflicts with the statements of the Secretary and the President. The arguments put forward with regard to the appointments of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers by the learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of the University were on a legal basis and had nothing at all to do with the suggestions of the Secretary and the Registrar that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are assistants.

There we have four different points of view put forward within the College with regard to what was behind the creation of these posts of college Lecturers. I should like to know under which thimble—in this case there are four thimbles—are we to peep? Whom are we to believe? Of course, those conflicting statements made by these very learned gentlemen are in keeping with the conflicting statements they have made in the papers and with the red herrings they have produced in the past fortnight to cover their tracks. The position is that the Board of Visitors themselves could not make head or tail of what College "Lecturers" or "Assistant Lecturers" were supposed to mean. Now, this House in spite of the report of the Board of Visitors, is to validate something the meaning of which we do not exactly understand.

Further on in the Report of the Board of Visitors, we find that they were told by the College authorities that the offices of Professor and Lecturer were "statutory offices" and, having made inquiries into that, they found it was the policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many of the "statutory" lectureships. They discovered that, of the total number of statutory lectureships that could be filled in the College, 53 per cent. were left vacant. We are daily papers, that this was the policy of the College but we are not told why it was the policy of the College. We find out now definitely that it is the policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled 53 per cent. of the statutory lectureships.

That is an admission by the College authorities and the Board of Visitors found that the President had flagrantly violated the Charter by failing to take the necessary steps to have these offices filled. There is no doubt that the President must have some very sound reason for filling only 47 per cent. of the statutory offices. We find that this man, who, we are told, has been working so hard under such adverse circumstances and with an ever increasing number of students to deal with—in spite of this huge influx of students into the University in need of a steadying and stabilising influence —has neglected to provide that very essential requirement by his failure to fill these statutory lectureships.

I think it is quite reasonable to assume that it was because the President and his assistants were in a better position to control and manipulate within the University while having as few as possible independently-minded statutory officers appointed. If there were a large number of men on a temporary basis, no doubt, the controlling authority over them, or however he might be described, would have greater freedom to direct these temporary men than he would have if these men were free to the extent of being in a strong independent position by statute. The reason behind it is, of course, that by reason of reducing the number of statutory appointments, the way was made easier for the move to Belfield which this House endorsed not so long ago.

I think there has been no question so far of the President being asked to account for his breach of the Charter in this matter. There is no doubt in the world that the Charter was flagrantly violated and surely there must be some answer as far as the President is concerned. Surely the Government are not prepared to walk in here and say: "We accept the position; we want this Bill passed; and we intend to leave this important matter in the hands of the President again for the next two years", that is, to allow him to neglect his duty under the Charter by failing to fill these statutory posts. That is what the House is expected to do in this Bill.

I do not want to repeat anything that has been said already, and I do not intend to do so if at all possible, but I should like to make reference to the Petitioner, Mr. Kenny, for the purpose of showing the significance of what has taken place. The Petitioner wrote to the Governing Body on 18th May, 1959, pointing out that he was convinced that College Lecturers or Assistant Lecturers were not legally appointed. Note this, that letter was written on 18th May and he had a letter back dated 21st May—three days afterwards—from the Secretary of the Governing Body. In his reply the Secretary told the Petitioner:

... 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....

Note the significance of that: "I am instructed to inform you." I should like to ask who instructed the Secretary, three days after the letter was received from the Petitioner, to reply in that vein. Deputies know well that when communications go to any public body, the most the Secretary can do is to acknowledge receipt of the letter and point out that the subject matter of the letter will be brought to the attention of the board at its next meeting.

No meeting of the Governing Body took place between 18th May and 21st May. In other words, the Secretary, on the instructions of somebody—we do not know who it was, but we can all surmise who it was—wrote to the Petitioner and told him: "This matter has already been discussed" and went on to say:—

The Governing Body has decided not to change a practice which it believes to be entirely proper...

How can he write that back three days after receiving the Petitioner's letter without consulting the Governing Body, unless he and his advisers were usurping the powers of the Governing Body?

The real gem in this is page 6 of the report. The tail end of the letter sent back by the secretary of the Governing Body is 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 was the letter received by the petitioner when he wrote to the Secretary of the Governing Body explaining his fears with regard to the legality or otherwise of appointing Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. Instead of that petition being brought before the meeting of the board, the Secretary of the Governing Body replied immediately telling this man to mind his own business with the hidden threat: "The President will look after you if you do not keep your mouth shut".

An Assistant is on a yearly basis and consequently his services could be dispensed with when that year is up. That is why I think this petitioner was a very courageous man and I hope the Government are bearing in mind my recommendation here the last day that they should have a medal struck for this gentleman, if they have not found some other means of looking after him in the meantime. The letter written by the petitioner came before the Governing Body, according to the minutes, on the 24th June. That was a month afterwards. Naturally enough the Governing Body decided to reject the petition, which had already been done for them by the Secretary three days after the petition had been received, and as had already been done for them also by the President who warned the petitioner to keep quiet in future. The Board of Visitors also found, as recorded on page 6:

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.

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".

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 ....

I am speaking purely as a layman in this and as a man who has some experience of local authority work. As such we have on numerous occasions been condemned and sneered at by these wise and learned gentlemen from the intellectual heights for not being efficient in our business. I have never found a case yet where a local authority was in doubt as to its powers, that it did not immediately seek legal advice, and even the most humble county council in Ireland would always be anxious to ensure that legal advice would be sought as to whether the action taken by a county council was legal.

Here is a body of people—Professors who themselves teach the law—who were aware that eminent counsel had three years back pointed out that their actions were illegal but who as much as said: "We are above the law." All I can say is that it is very bad example to set for the members of this House and for members of local authorities, and it is a shocking example to set for students who are now entering the University and who should be set good example by people who teach the law but who instead have shown a flagrant disregard for it.

The three learned judges had a very hard task trying to extract from the authorities of U.C.D. why these appointments were made. They got a number of reasons from various sources and the first I deal with are reasons given by three eminent senior counsel, Mr. Moloney, Deputy McGilligan and by Mr. T. McLaughlin. These three gentlemen gave evidence on behalf of the authorities and the Board of Visitors' report says:

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.

I presume these three prominent and very able legal men were pressed by the Secretary of the College and the President to put the case of the College before the Board of Visitors. My reading of the report is that they refused or failed to make available any reason for the appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers and made no attempt whatever —although no men were better able or more skilled in making a defence—to justify the appointments on a meritorious basis.

Is there not something wrong somewhere? These three learned gentlemen, I believe, were in a very awkward position and they could not possibly justify the appointments on meritorious grounds, knowing as they did the implications of any such recommendation. If the President of the College Authorities briefed senior counsel as to the reason for the appointments, why did the legal gentlemen in question fail to explain to the Board of Visitors the reason for the appointment of College Lecturers? If they were not briefed—and this is a puzzzle not clarified by the Board of Visitors—what was the purpose of counsel appearing before the Board of Visitors? Was it purely to argue that technically the College Authorities were entitled to make these appointments? The Board of Visitors received no assistance there, so it was left to them, as they say themselves, to find out from other sources what lay behind this. To quote the Board of Visitors' report: "It was left to individual members of the staff of the College to give to the Board their own personal reasons for supporting and approving of the actions of the Governing Body in this regard."

We know that the Agenda from 1949 to 1954 has been destroyed and that there is no record on the minutes of those years of the reasons for the decision to create these appointments. When the Board of Visitors made their inquiry, each individual member of the staff gave his own reasons for supporting the decision to justify these appointments. I do not propose to go into the reasons given by the various members of the staff. They are given in the report of the Board of Visitors. I am sure most members of the House have already read them.

The argument was put forward that men and women of the College described as "Assistants" prefer to be described as "College Lecturers". A second reason was that the numbers in the College had increased nine or 10-fold over the past 50 to 60 years and that it would be a laborious and awkward task to start making the statutory appointments. It was argued that the method of appointment of a statutory Lecturer, and so on, was very intricate, laborious and, in many instances, humiliating to the applicant. We can accept that point of view. I do, at any rate. The system of a canvass which had been in operation in relation to statutory appointments was in my opinion not a desirable means of obtaining an appointment but there was no need to go outside the Charter and start appointing College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers.

University College, Cork, in a sensible arrangement, did away with some of the heavy work involved in dealing with applications for statutory appointments. They by-passed a lot of the work and still made their appointments within the Charter—and University College, Cork, also is an expanding College. If they were able to carry on within the Charter and make the statutory appointments, why was it impossible for University College, Dublin, to do likewise? The fact is that there was a difference in outlook and that the policy in University College, Dublin, was not to fill the statutory appointments but to create as many temporary appointments as they possibly could.

After hearing all the arguments by the members of the staff, by the learned senior counsel and by other people who gave evidence, the Board of Visitors rejected them. They pointed out that, in order to deal with the problem of the increased number of students and in order to get away from the difficulties involved with regard to a canvass and other difficulties in the making of statutory appointments, the College had two courses open to them. The first was to take steps to have the necessary professorships and lectureships established and to have the vacancies therein filled by the Universities in the manner prescribed by the Charter of the University. The second course open to them —this is very important—was to make representations to the Government that the College Charter was outmoded and unsuitable to meet the demand of the new situation and to seek to have the Charter suitably amended.

May I ask if the authorities in the College accepted either of the recommendations made by the Board of Visitors? We know they did not. What is still more serious is that we know now that the Government have not accepted either of the recommendations of the Board of Visitors.

A number of people have suggested it would be an impossibility for the President and a number of the College officers to carry out all the things alleged in spite of the Governing Body or the Academic Council. Professor Wheeler evidently holds very strong views on this. He came into print immediately after the discussion in this House. He seems to hold that because various differing bodies are represented on the Governing Body nothing could be seriously wrong. That is like saying that because there are Ten Commandments there is no sin.

If it is a fact—according to the Board of Visitors it is—that only one name was put before the Governing Body or the Academic Council then is it not clear that the Governing Body, despite the safeguards alleged to be in it, according to Professor Wheeler by reason of the differing bodies represented on it, was not able to prevent the President from riding roughshod over the Charter and the statutes? The argument is put forward that because there are a number of county councillors on the Governing Body the public interest is thereby sufficiently guarded.

I happen to have made some very careful inquiries into the constitution of this Governing Body. According to Professor Wheeler there are 34 members on the Governing Body. Four are nominated by the Government and three by the Senate. Eight are nominated by the General Council of County Councils and one by Dublin County Council. There is the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Six members are nominated by the Graduates of University College, Dublin, six members by the Academic Council and four are co-opted. As far as I can ascertain, of those 34 members of the Governing Body, 14 are non-academic members. These non-academic members in practically all cases have supported the recommendations of the administration. They rarely attend in full strength and, when they do attend, depend completely on the academic members for advice as to what action they should take on any decisions of the Governing Body. These are 14 non-academic members.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Deputy give us his authority for that? The Deputy is reading from a document.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy is not reading from a document.

Mr. Dillon

He appears to me to be.

Mr. McQuillan

In order to remember he has the numbers and the various segregations of the members of the Governing Body. I hope Deputy Dillon will allow me to look at it occasionally.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy told us their attendance. What was his authority?

Mr. McQuillan

If the Deputy discusses this with some of the members of the county councils who are members of the Governing Body, he will get his information. They make no bones about it. They are quite frank about it. I have gone to some trouble in the past fortnight in order to find out the position myself.

There are three members appointed to the Governing Body by the Senate of the National University of Ireland. I cannot comment very much on those learned gentlemen, except to say that they have always, I understand, voted with the administration. There are six elected on to the Governing Body by the academic council. Five of the six are elected on to the Governing Body as a result of an open and unashamed canvass by the Secretary and the Registrar of University College, Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

According to the Deputy's document?

Mr. McQuillan

According to my file. This so far gives the President, in my estimation, 13 academic men on his side in addition to the 14 non-academic members. I am not prepared to go any further with regard to the members elected by the graduates or to comment upon the members co-opted, because I was not in a position to get any details in connection with those, but I am satisfied that practically all the non-academic members and sufficient of the academic members vote with the administration in all circumstances. So much for Professor Wheeler's argument that because the Governing Body is made up of so many components nothing could go wrong.

I mentioned that five of the six members nominated by the Academic Council were "yes" men of the President. Let me deal with the Academic Council. Professor Wheeler, according to the paper, points out that the Academic Council consists of 63 University Professors and four University Lecturers, all appointed by the Senate of the University. First of all, that statement is misleading because it gives the impression that all the members of the Academic Council are appointed to the Academic Council by the Senate and that is not so.

These men were appointed to their University positions by the Senate and the Professors are automatically members of the Academic Council but the statutory Lecturers are not. In fact, quite a large number of statutory Lecturers are not members of the Academic Council. For a statutory Lecturer to become a member of the Academic Council, he must have the recommendation of the President of the College. Many of the 63 gentlemen, who are members of the Academic Council, have reached, or are very near, the retiring age of 65 years.

The House is aware that that is the end of their appointment. They must retire at 65 years unless the President decides that their terms of appointment should be extended until they are 70. They are independent until 65 years and then the President has the power and the discretion to decide they can continue in their appointments until they are 70 years of age. In order to clarify the position, he needs the approval of the Governing Body, which is an easy thing as we all realise.

That means that of the Academic Council at least 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. who reach this age would be very slow, indeed, to oppose the President's wishes, particularly if they have any ambitions to stay on after 65 years of age. We can see the result of that in what happened last week. I shall just make a brief reference to it. We saw where disciplinary action was taken against a body of students. That disciplinary action was taken, not as the statutes enact by a sub-committee set up by the Academic Council but by an ad hoc committee set up by the President which is illegal.

So far, the Academic Council has not registered a protest at this usurpation of their functions by the President when dealing with the students whom he wished to discipline for failure to toe the line. It is rather hard to understand why students are disciplined for their alleged breach of regulations while the President himself, who has flagrantly broken the regulations, the Charter and everything for the past 10 years and has actually persuaded the Government to bring a Bill before this House in order to validate his activities over the past 10 years gets away with it. He gets away with it but the students are disciplined. It is extraordinary.

To anybody who has had a look at the composition of the Governing Body and the Academic Council and who has studied the Board of Visitors' report, it should be quite apparent that the functioning of both these bodies, namely, the Governing Body and the Academic Council, is unhealthy because of the fact that the Academic Council as such has not a proper intake of new blood through the filling of the 53 per cent. of the statutory positions which are vacant. That means that the Academic Council should, if things were normal inside U.C.D., reflect the growth in the Academic staff by including more statutory Lecturers. To follow that up, since these men—namely, the new statutory Lecturers—would be entitled to vote for the nominees of the Academic Council to the Governing Body, it would mean that new blood would be introduced from the Academic Council into the Governing Body, by filling these vacancies which exist.

Under the present conditions the number of statutory appointments is kept low artificially and thus neither the Governing Body nor the Academic Council is properly represented in the sense originally intended by the Senate. We have already found out that the motives for keeping the number of statutory Lecturers artificially low is for the purpose of control. In other words, the pool of Professors and Lecturers, which is available to draw on for membership of the Academic Council, is getting small as a result of the President's failure to fill the statutory positions. The Board of Visitors found that the President of University College Dublin was guilty of breaking the College Charter in not taking steps to fill these vacancies.

I believe, and I am sure the majority of the Deputies would agree with me when I say that no further power should be given to this President until he puts his house in order and until he takes the necessary steps to have those statutory vacancies filled. That is the first step that must be taken before this House gives any control or any authority to indemnify those responsible for this situation created over the past 10 years in University College, Dublin. I do not think there is any doubt that the powers exercised by the President and a number of his staff are so strong that they can overrule any opposition on the Governing Body or elsewhere. Their activities over the past 10 years have proved that. When the Board of Visitors' report was published in the papers the public were stunned at the revelations in it. The reaction of the College authorities was very interesting and it would be only fair that we should have an answer in this House to the statements made by the different spokesmen of the College over the last fortnight.

I think it better to deal with the official answer first, that which was given by Mr. McHale who is the Secretary and Bursar of University College, Dublin and a member of the Governing Body of University College Dublin as well. He sent a very long statement to the papers within the last few days. This statement, I understand, was issued by the Secretary on behalf of the College authorities and represents the case made not alone by the Secretary but by the President and Registrar of the College. There are just a few points in it which I want to pinpoint and to show how full of inaccuracies this statement is, a statement made by such an able man in such a responsible position.

First of all, in regard to titles he said that the use of these titles, namely, "College Lecturer" and "Assistant Lecturer," constitutes a technical breach of the Charter. He said: "That the use of these titles constituted a technical breach of the Charter never even occurred to any member of the Governing Body."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. McQuillan

The reference is the statement made by the Secretary of University College, Dublin as reported in the Irish Independent of Monday, May 9th, 1960. That is a deliberate statement made by the Secretary of the College, that as far as the Governing Body is concerned no member had even an inkling that it was a breach of the Charter. The Board of Visitors' report, however, states that as far back as 1956 it was brought to the attention of the Governing Body that prominent senior and junior counsel had stated that these appointments were irregular. Not alone that, but several members of the Governing Body challenged the legality of the appointments at meetings. Again, the petitioner, Mr. Kenny, brought it to the attention of the Secretary of the Governing Body and got himself told off for his trouble by the Secretary and by the President. Yet Mr. McHale goes into print and states that the fact that the use of these titles constituted a breach of the Charter never even occurred to any member of the Governing Body.

That is the first point which I want to repudiate in Mr. McHale's case. The second is in connection with the relation in numbers between the statutory and non-statutory academic staff. Mr. McHale states: "This is and must remain a matter of College policy." May I again point out that there is no decision in the minutes of the Governing Body that this is College policy and that there is no record whatever of any reasons given in connection with this? Not alone that but the agenda, of the Governing Body from 1949 to 1954 are missing. The policy, if we want it bluntly from Mr. McHale, of the authorities is in this matter purely to ensure that more power lies in the hands of the President than his immediate staff. The third point——

Mr. Dillon

From what document is the Deputy now reading?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Dillon is like a hen on a griddle down there.

Mr. Dillon

It would be convenient if the Deputy told us from what document he was reading.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy is quoting he must give the source of his quotation.

Mr. O'Malley

Document No. 2.

Mr. McQuillan

No. 2.

Mr. Dillon

This all partakes of that procedure.

Mr. McQuillan

Mr. McHale in the statement admits that there was a technical breach of the Charter and also that there was a technical breach of the statutory position. The wording used is "a technical breach". To him it is merely a minor matter but I am speaking as a layman and I find it very hard to credit that men with the degrees of Dr. Tierney, Professor Hogan and others could so calmly look on such an important matter as this in such a flippant way—nothing has happened except a mere technical breach of the regulations. That is a shocking admission for men who know the law, who teach the law, to make. It would appear that as far as the learned gentlemen in question are concerned their advice to the students in future will be: "Do not do as we do but do as we tell you."

Mr. McHale's fourth point—he was dealing with the action that could be taken by the Government—was, as he said, "that the Government could have asked the College to cease the use of the offending titles and substitute, say, ‘Reader' and ‘Assistant Reader' or ‘Tutor' and ‘Assistant Tutor'..." That is a proposition put forward by the Secretary of the College. Here I come to Deputy Dillon's point which I shall quote. Chapter 26 of the Statute states as follows:

"The Senate may, on the recommendation of the Academic Council of any Constituent college, confer the title of Reader on any Lecturer in the University."

Since all the lectureships must be statutory appointments, this shows that Mr. McHale himself must not have read the statute because the Government could not legally take any such action as he has suggested in his recommendations to the Government.

Mr. McHale went on in his statement which he sent to the papers to refer to the Government, as follows:—

It could (and still can) give to the College the power to amend its own Charter by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Governing Body in two consecutive meetings.

I refer Deputies to the report so far as that statement was concerned where it said that the Board found that the College authorities could 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 new Charter suitably amended. The Board went on to say significantly:—

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.

In other words, the Board of Visitors found that the College did not, under any circumstances, want to carry out the suggestion that Mr. McHale in his defence now says it is open to the Government to adopt.

One of the most important points made by Mr. McHale—and I shall not delay the House further—is what he himself describes as the "red herring". I think this is very important. Referring to the mode of appointments of junior staff he says:—

This again is entirely a matter for the Governing Body of the College. As a matter of information: when it becomes necessary to employ another person on the staff, the selection of candidates is carried out at department level, in many cases by advertisement at home and abroad, interview and screening, by inquiries made to other University Institutions, by consideration of the merits of winners of Travelling Studentships in the subject, etc.

That is his statement and the Board of Visitors' report on page 3 states in relation to that:

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...

Whom are we to believe? The Board of Visitors after that went on to say that "in some instances the appointment was made by the Governing Body without any recommendation by the Academic Council." I think it is a very serious matter that a man of Mr. McHale's standing as Secretary of the University should make a statement for public consumption in the hope that the public will swallow what is nothing but a tissue of inaccuracies. One glance at the Board of Visitors' report is sufficient to refute the arguments put forward by this gentleman.

He goes on to say: "This system of appointment dates back to 1909." That is new, I am sure, to many people. He also says: "It is common to most other Universities and Colleges."

Again, the Board of Visitors did not think so. They found that this system of appointment dated back to 1949, to a meeting of the Governing Body, the agenda of which has since disappeared. But that decision was registered in the minutes—to create these appointments. Whom are we to believe in that case also—is it Mr. McHale or the three learned judges? I want to point out that the three learned judges at this stage have more than the direct evidence given to them to support their case because they can now quote the fact that Professor Atkins, President of U.C.C., agrees with them, because he has stated in his letter to the papers that the subject matter of the Visitors' report, mainly the illegal appointments, has no concern and has nothing whatever to do with his Constituent College.

I mentioned earlier that the Petitioner who applied on 18th May, 1959, to the Secretary of the Governing Body making a protest received a reply on the 21st without any meeting of the Governing Body taking place. Here is a worse situation. Since the Board of Visitors' report has been published and since the discussion took place in this House, no meeting of the Governing Body has taken place. Therefore, the published statements of the Secretary of the College and the Registrar of the College are completely unauthorised, so far as the Governing Body are concerned. Furthermore, the resolutions that have been in the papers as passed by the various Faculties—these resolutions and all such resolutions are normally sent to the Academic Council of the College but here, again, the regulations have been broken and the Faculties have sent their resolutions directly to the papers so that it would appear that the officials of the College are willing, not alone to break the law as this House makes it, but also the regulations which govern them as well.

I have mentioned that certain learned Professors have rushed into print in a loyal defence of the President. It is known that in the last fortnight certain of these gentlemen have been bringing pressure to bear on the non-statutory staff to persuade them to sign prepared loyalty pledges. This can only be described as an outrageous interference with academic freedom. I should like to express the wish now that these men and women holding non-statutory appointments will have the courage to hold out against any efforts made either to persuade or intimidate them into signing these disgusting so-called loyalty pledges. It has even come to my knowledge—I should like to have it checked—that after the report was issued, a very prominent member of the Governing Body was so vexed at the idea of their will being flouted that he stated publicly: "I spit on the judges' report and I spit on the judges."

Mr. Carty

Did he?

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think he did in reality, but, if that report is true, it should convey to the members of this House the mentality of some of these people who control higher education here.

Mr. O'Malley

Was that statement published?

Mr. McQuillan

It seems to be common knowledge in the corridors of the University and in every place in which this matter has been discussed.

Mr. O'Malley

Where did he do the spitting? Was it in U.C.D.?

Mr. McQuillan

I should like that matter publicly queried in some way by the Minister. If it is correct, then an apology should be made to the judges, the more so as the remark is alleged to have been made by a responsible citizen who was a member of the Governing Body.

I have pointed out that the Governing Body has to a great extent been merely a rubber stamp for the President. We should remember, however, that there are two very important committees—the Finance Committee and the Building Committee—which are the two key power-centres in the University. It is beyond contradiction that election to these two committees has been carried out en bloc for a number of years past. The same individuals have been pushed forward by the President, by the Registrar and by the Secretary. The Finance Committee is one of the most important of all, so far as the University is concerned. It is charged with responsibility for the finances, the accommodation and the expenditure both in relation to the present needs of the College and in regard to future building programmes.

The President of the College is a member of the Finance Committee. Professor Hogan, the Registrar, is a member of it also. His brother, another Professor Hogan, is likewise a member of it. Of the two committees, five members appear on both committees. There are nine members on the Finance Committee and eight members on the Building Committee. The same five—the clique, or group— control both these committees, and have so controlled them for years past.

Speaking again as a layman, I do not know what the expenditure of University College, Dublin, is on publications, but I believe the bill is a substantial one each year. I understand that the President of U.C.D. is also a director of Browne and Nolan Publishing Company Limited. I refer Deputies to the Companies Acts and to Thom's Directory. I want this matter brought home to the public. It is an extraordinary position that the President of the College —a College which receives money from the public purse—is also a director of a private concern, and that private concern supplies the bulk of U.C.D.'s requirements where publications are concerned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The private affairs of individuals are not for discussion on this Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to have the matter clarified. It is a very serious one. If the county manager in Galway, Roscommon, or Mayo held a directorship in a company supplying a local institution with its requirements, that county manager would be sacked by the local authority within 24 hours.

Mr. O'Malley

Or in the Irish Press.

Mr. McQuillan

That should have happened long ago.

Mr. O'Malley

Tell that to Fine Gael. They supported you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. McQuillan

I am not interested in Fine Gael. I am interested in putting the facts before the public. The fact is that public money has been handed over to this Finance Committee. The President of the College is a member of the Finance Committee. The President of the College is also a director of Browne and Nolan's. Browne and Nolan's supply the College with the bulk of its requirements.

Mr. O'Malley

Who draws up the list of books required by the University?

Mr. McQuillan

If the Deputy wants to draw me, I shall give him that later. I have no concern with this particular aspect at all. I have here a copy of the Calendar for 1959 of the National University of Ireland. It carries inside it the name of the printers: Alex Thom and Company. It states that they are printers to the National University of Ireland, Dublin; University College, Cork, and University College, Galway. There is one significant omission; they are not printers to University College, Dublin. I have here also the Calendar for University College, Dublin. It is another bulky and expensive document. It is printed by Browne and Nolan Limited, of which company the President of the College is a director.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel the Deputy is getting away from the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

I feel the President is getting away with murder.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make charges against private individuals who have no way of replying in this House. The Deputy will not be allowed to continue in that fashion.

Mr. McQuillan

Surely if a member of a county council were given a contract, while still a member of a county council, the matter would be aired in this House and aired all over the country and that councillor would have to resign from the county council. Surely in the public interest we must see where public funds are going? We cannot vote moneys from this House to a College and have the President of that College in a position to help himself to public funds in his private capacity while also remaining President.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to criticise any individual in his private capacity. He may refer to him only in relation to the Bill before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

The relation to the Bill before the House is that the Finance Committee is appointed by the Governing Body. There is a Building Committee composed of eight members, again including the President, the two Professors Hogan, Professor Hayes and Professor Purcell. That Committee will now have the responsibility of dealing with the funds voted by this House for the Belfield project, a project which could cost the taxpayers £10,000,000.

General Mulcahy

Has this anything to do with the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Mulcahy does not want the public to know the facts?

General Mulcahy

I am concerned only with the question of this House and the discharge of the business it sets before itself.

Mr. McQuillan

I am glad the Deputy is taking such an interest.

General Mulcahy

I am surprised nobody else has done it up to the present, because I feel we have gone very wide of the Bill from the time we started.

Mr. McQuillan

With your permission, Sir, I should like to point out that the Governing Body, which appoints this Building Committee, never saw as much as one plan or had any other tittle of information about the Belfield project.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. May I remind the Deputy that the University College Dublin Bill now before the House deals with the validating of certain appointments to certain offices? The Deputy is going wide of the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

It is a very serious matter. The Finance Committee and the Building Committee are both subcommittees of the Governing Body. The argument has been put forward, both in the House and outside it, that the Governing Body has not been functioning properly. On that basis I would ask you to consider carefully before finally ruling me out of order on something which, I am personally convinced, arises out of the powers of the Governing Body.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel it does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

I feel that the Bill is to validate, as far as the State is concerned, the expenditure of approximately £300,000. I suggest that the Committees to which I have referred handle far more than that sum or will handle far more than that. We should at least be in a position to discuss the composition of these Committees and the fact that both are controlled by the President.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already pointed out to the Deputy the purpose of the Bill and he must relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

In view of all who are affected by this, I felt that at some stage, when the boot began to squeeze, there would be from both sides of the House an attempt to block an exposure of a most disgraceful situation. I do not for a moment suggest that you, Sir, would be a party to that attempt. But beyond the slightest doubt it is a tragedy that the full facts of this situation cannot under this Bill be given to the public in view of the seriousness of the matter.

Referring again to the members of the Governing Body, I may give this as another reason why they failed to fulfil their duties properly. It is a dreadful situation that the Rules and Statutes by which the members of the Governing Body are supposed to govern are not available for members of the Governing Body. The Statutes, I understand, are out of print. The fact is that no new member of the Governing Body, up to very recently, was in a position to get a copy of the Statutes which would indicate his powers to him. However, provision was made that new members could consult the copy of the Statutes in the Secretary's office by arrangement with the Secretary. I also understand that for the last five or six years a very prominent member of the Bar has been engaged on preparing a copy of the Statutes and that these Statutes have not yet been made available in spite of the work of this able gentleman.

How can members of county councils, decent men coming up from the country and elsewhere, be expected to know their powers unless they are armed with a copy of the Statutes and allowed to study them at home? It would be rather awesome for a member of a county council who wanted to know his duties to be told that by appointment he could consult a copy of the Statutes in the Secretary's office. Within the last fortnight I looked over the Statutes and the Charter and I must confess that I would have to spend hours trying to decipher some of them to discover what the functions were.

I think it would be very unfair to say that any member of the Governing Body could, in half an hour, an hour, or two hours before catching his train down the country, make himself familiar with his powers in the governing of the major scene of higher studies in the State. Of course, it was an ideal thing to have these people without a copy of the statutes covering their powers. It meant that the people in the saddle could carry on without any danger of interference.

Deputy Dr. Browne and I are not the only ones who requested the Government to have second thoughts on this measure. Rev. Dr. Alfred O'Rahilly, in a recent statement, though he does not fully agree with my views——

Mr. Carty

Do not hold that against him.

Mr. McGilligan

That is an understatement.

Mr. McQuillan

There is room for a difference of opinion, but he has this to say, and I quote from Hibernia of May 6th:—

Nevertheless, there are serious objections to the Bill. It has been drafted and proposed without consulting the University of the College. It purports to validate the existing practice which it assumes to be a breach of the Charter. That is, it is really a compulsory admendment of the Charter. That is a very dangerous precedent; such ad hoc legislation might next be employed to impose certain positive requirements.

I think I am entitled to assume and give reasons why the Government might be attracted towards taking this step. I do not say that they may be correct, but, by taking this step, they are leaving themselves open to many charges. The Board of Visitors have said that in no case did more than one name come before the Governing Body for consideration and approval and in the majority of cases no advertisements appeared for the posts. This Bill will validate that position and will allow the President and his colleagues, his aides, his henchmen— anything you like to call them—to continue on the basis that they will be allowed to appoint, without advertisement and without competition, to these posts. Is this House expected to justify that position?

Suppose that in a village in County Clare a gentleman arrived delivering the letters next Monday morning, dressed with a new cap and new postman's outfit, the people would say: "We did not know there was a vacancy here. Was there an advertisement? How many applied for the position of postman?" What would happen? The Deputies from Clare would come into this House to raise the matter on an Adjournment Debate and would say that it was disgraceful, that gross skullduggery and everything under the sun was happening down in Clare. The public would be entitled to say that there was skullduggery going on in Clare if there was no advertisement, if they even found there was an assistant appointed to the present postman without anybody knowing there was a necessity for it.

The Minister would get into hot water and, in order to prevent such happenings, great care is exercised by the Civil Service to see that such will not happen. But, if the President of U.C.D. wishes to have somebody, whom I described the last day as one he thinks suits his book, appointed to a post in the College, he either has his name submitted before the Academic Council in some cases and it then comes before the Governing Body, or, as the Board of Visitors pointed out, he by-passes the Academic Council, puts the one name before the Governing Body and that person is sanctioned, without advertisement and without competition.

To our regret, this country has to export at the minimum 40 per cent. of its graduates every year. From visits I have made in England, I know the position of many of our brilliant Irish graduates. I have met them in London and, in the course of a social evening, many of them have asked me what were their possibilities of getting some position in Ireland, either in a teaching capacity, perhaps in a University, or in industry. These were men drawing the highest possible emoluments in Britain but they were willing to sacrifice the financial attractions there in order to come back and live in Ireland. Believe it or not, those men cannot know, do not know, and will not know, if this legislation passes, whether or not a vacancy exists in U.C.D. which would suit them and which they could capably fill. Is that not a disgraceful situation? Are we going to stand for that in this House?

Some moments ago when I mentioned Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly, some Deputies felt I should not have done so and that he disapproves of most of the comments I have made. That, of course, is not true. I should like to give one final quotation from his article in Hibernia. He said:

University Professors and Lecturers are appointed by the Senate, but only on the initiative of the College. No College could carry on with such a skeleton staff.

I agree they could not carry on with the skeleton staff of the statutory Lecturers appointed by the Senate, but Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly omitted, or forgot, to include the fact that of the statutory appointments in U.C.D. no less than 53 per cent. of them are vacant. So, when we talk of a skeleton staff, even with a full complement of statutory Lecturers and Professors, there are only a few bones of the skeleton left as far as U.C.D. is concerned because only 47 per cent. of their statutory posts are filled.

In his opening statement the Minister made some very brief comments on the situation as far as he knew it. I should like to ask the Minister now has he been aware of the situation that I have disclosed with regard to the finances of the University? If he has not been aware of it, he is now. If he has been aware of it, it is a serious business for the Minister to come into this House, knowing the situation, and ask us to pass this Bill. I would prefer to believe that the Minister has been in the dark with regard to what has been taking place in that University. If he has been in the dark, let him look for light before he takes this step to continue this arrangement for four years.

The suggestion is there that, at the end of four years, if the present President has not gone, as he should have gone long ago, prior to his departure in four years' time the Government will have arrangements made to line up a suitable successor. It is a well-known fact that, as far as the political situation is concerned, the Party in power can extend their tentacles into various sections of the community—business, industry, State bodies, and so forth. They have control of patronage in many fields, the law and elsewhere. There is, however, a vast untapped source of patronage inside the walls of U.C.D., untapped in so far as the Government are concerned but on full tap for the President of the College. If the President goes and if this position is validated, what is to prevent a Government from reaching their ugly hands into that institution and helping themselves, through a stooge or pliant President, to the appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in future?

Deputies have argued along the lines that it was a dangerous thing to interfere with the Universities, that we must give them as much freedom as possible. That is what I am trying to do, to save the academic life in the University, to keep it as free and independent as possible. This Bill will have the very opposite effect because it can enable this House or the Government, whatever Government it may be, to reach into the University and control the appointment of Assistant Lecturers and so forth, such appointments as are being validated under this Bill. Would not that be a retrograde step?

The present situation is bad enough, where a power-hungry President, for his own reasons and for his own desire to get the Belfield project going, and so forth, is getting away with the situation at the moment, without endorsing that situation for four years and then allowing an outside group, perhaps, of the Government, to take control after he leaves the field. The Government are open to that charge and it is as well for them to face it. I cannot say that that charge is correct but the Government will have to answer it. Otherwise, it is a complete mystery why the Government are taking this step at all.

I have nothing more to say except to deal with the position of, perhaps, the key figure who, so far, has not been discussed in connection with the University. I refer to none other than the Chancellor of the University. Clause 7, page 28, of the Charter states:

The Chancellor shall be the head and chief officer of the University and shall, if present, be entitled to preside over the meetings of the Senate and of the Convocation.

The question of these illegal appointments was discussed at the Senate of the University meetings. The Board of Visitors reported—and any Deputy who is interested can find out for himself—that the Senate of the University actually set up a sub-committee of their own to examine into the question as to whether the appointments made by the Governing Body were legal or otherwise and that committee reported back to the Senate.

The following was the recommendation made by the Committee to its parent body, the Senate:

That as the right to make such appointments is essentially a legal question the Committee does not feel competent to give an opinion upon it, and suggests that the Senate should authorise it to obtain a legal opinion; that until such opinion is obtained, the Committee is not in a position to examine and report to the Senate on the matter.

In other words, that Committee that was set up urged the Senate to authorise it to get legal opinion on the actions of the Governing Body and the President and at a special meeting of the Senate, held on 13th February, 1958, to consider the Committee's report, that recommendation of the Committee of the Senate was rejected by the Senate by 15 votes to 5, although there were 28 members recorded as being present.

The report goes on to say:

As far as the Board is aware, the Senate did not obtain the legal opinion suggested by this committee.

I understand that the Chancellor of the National University attends a number of Senate meetings. I also understand that in February, 1958, the Chancellor of the University was also Taoiseach. I wonder in what capacity he has been operating over the last nine or 10 years. He has been part-time Chancellor, part-time Taoiseach, part-time managing director of three national newspapers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how this can be discussed on the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not intend to discuss it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter is not relevant.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to point out how hard it is for a man in his position to keep abreast of some very important problems in the University if he has other very important positions, such as the position of Taoiseach, to hold down. It is a very serious situation that this University was given overdraft accommodation from the banks to pursue its course. Is it not quite clear that one of the reasons the accommodation was given by the Banks to the University was the standing of the man who was at the head, the Chancellor, who was also Taoiseach? Was there any better guarantee to the banks than that such a man was implicated, or associated with the University ?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Criticism of the ex-Taoiseach is not relevant. I have already pointed that out to the Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

I wonder what is relevant, Sir.

Mr. McGilligan

The Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

Of course, this Bill is simply a Bill, as the Minister says, to last for four years, to sanction the low-down jobbery that takes place in the highest field of education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that on at least four occasions. I am pointing out that repetition is disorderly.

Mr. McQuillan

I am finishing on that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not give the Deputy any right to repeat it.

Dr. Browne

On a point of order, is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruling out any reference to the Chancellor or any discussion on the Chancellor?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Except where it is relevant to the Bill. The Deputy was discussing newspapers and other things which do not arise.

Mr. McQuillan

I did not discuss the newspapers—just one word about the newspapers and you jumped out of your chair, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They are not relevant to the Bill before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

So far as the Senate of the University is concerned, I think their position was not properly considered by the Government before bringing in this legislation, because, surely, as the highest authority over the Governing Body, the Senate should have been consulted in any attempt to amend the Charter, as this Bill is about to do. Before the Government took such a step as they envisage in this Bill, they should have consulted the Senate.

In his opening remarks, the Minister said that he does not wish to prejudice any decisions which may be taken later by the Commission. What is he doing in this Bill? Is he not taking a step to validate a position that stinks, so far as appointments are concerned? Is he not asking this House to take a decision prior to the Committee itself having any opportunity to deal with it?

I agree that some steps are necessary, and should be taken by the Government, to protect the interests of the students, and of all those people who have been appointed in a temporary capacity as lecturers, but the fact that this is simply a Bill to indemnify them in that regard does not mean that it is necessary to bring in a measure for four years and to allow the position still to obtain in which the Charter is being flouted in so far as the filling of statutory appointments is concerned, which is a most important matter—that is what we are doing—and in which posts can be filled without advertisement or competition. It is improper and disgraceful and, in fact, outrageous that this National Parliament should endorse and condone the malpractice obtaining in the University, by giving another four years of uncontrolled jobbery.

There is an amendment to the motion for Second Reading requesting the Minister to postpone the Second Reading for a month. The mover of that amendment and I are satisfied now that the Government have given sufficient time for Deputies and for people outside the House to study the report of the Board of Visitors. So far as the amendment is concerned, we are no longer interested in it, as such. We do, however, oppose, and oppose with all our vehemence, the passing of the Second Stage of this Bill now, in twelve months' time, or at any other stage.

As my last appeal, I would urge the Minister to examine the matter again and to realise that the position is most unhealthy. Further steps will be taken, if not in this House, outside it, to have all the activities over the years subjected to the scrutiny of the public, so that, in the final analysis, the citizens of the State will be in a position to realise how they have been hoodwinked over the years and how bad was the example that has been set by those who should have been the first to set the highest possible standards as a guide for the students who will be the professors and the keymen in the State in the future.

Mr. McGilligan

At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Minister, as representing the Government, in connection with the temporary and exceptional circumstances which have arisen. The Bill is evidence of the goodwill of the Minister and the Government in this matter which has been brought to a head by what I must consider the very strict and, to my mind, incorrect interpretation of the Statutes and the Charter as given by the Board of Visitors.

I take it, also, that the attitude of the Government, as shown by the introduction of the Bill, indicates that they realise that the point at issue is not of any real importance and that they are validating, as I say, in a temporary and an exceptional way something which has turned up unexpectedly in order that they may have an opportunity to examine what is the best and what would be the approved remedial course to adopt.

In introducing this legislation, the Minister said that the measure was required to enable the Government to carry out their international obligations. That is a phrase that does not mean much, I am sure, to members of the House and might be better explained by the Minister. I understand it refers to an agreement which was made by the Government with the authorities of University College, Dublin, with regard to certain appointments already made in connection with the veterinary side of the College.

The situation which was disclosed was this. The Government had approved of a scheme which entailed the appointment not merely of statutory Professors and Lecturers at University College, Dublin on the veterinary side, but also of College Lecturers. They themselves agreed—in fact, it was part of the agreement—with the veterinary people in England that the set-up should be as arranged, and it, as the Minister said, now imposes on the Government the necessity of validating these appointments for some time in order that they may be able properly to fulfil their international obligations.

The collusion charge is completely and entirely without foundation and the more that charge is made, the more futile, of course, it will seem to be, but, again, the facts ought to be stated. I say in regard to that charge that the collusion, that is to say, the getting together of, say, the University College, Dublin, authorities and the Government, or two political Parties in this House, was no matter of arrangement.

As I am advised, the first intimation given to the authorities of University College, Dublin, was when the Minister told them that the Government had arrived independently at the particular decision which is shown in this legislation. That legislation was first shown to the authorities of University College, Dublin, on an evening when the Minister told them the First Reading was down on the Order Paper for the next day. Accordingly, no opportunity was given to them to make other proposals or to suggest alternatives. The matter was just simply there and it was agreed that having regard to the view which the Government took of the report of the Board of Visitors, something was required.

However, I want to put on record here and now what has been better put in some of the letters that have gone to the papers recently, that this is a very doubtful piece of legislation. It is an interference with University freedom. I repeat that I recognise the goodwill that is behind it. I recognise that this decision was forced by what I call the bad report presented by the Visitors.

Mr. O'Malley

The what report?

Mr. McGilligan

The bad report, from a legal point of view. It is only a series of three opinions. It is not a judicial determination. I intend to criticise it later. The decision is a rather serious one. I think it was Dr. O'Rahilly who, in a statement to the papers—a statement which cannot be contradicted—said that "there is no record as far as my researches go of any chartered body having interference put upon it by a Government without that chartered body asking for the interference". In other words, the initiative is always supposed to the with the body which was established by a Charter. In this case, there was no such request. There was no request for any remedial legislation. The University College authorities could have taken action and that action would probably have been as good as what is now proposed.

However, the proposal is before us and I only hope it will be regarded as completely exceptional and will not hereafter be looked upon as a precedent, that the action now being taken in this way will not hereafter be referred to so as to give ground for any real attack upon University freedom or any real interference with the powers the University authorities have. If there is any approach along those lines, I would suggest, as Dr. O'Rahilly has suggested, the proper thing is to give the authorities of the National University and its constituent Colleges the power which I think they alone in this island are deprived of, that is, the power to change the Charter of their own motion but by a special procedure. Trinity College and Queen's University have that power. It is only the three Colleges of the National University and the federalising body itself who have no power to make changes in an easy way when changes are shown to be necessary. There is a special procedure required, but it is a procedure entirely under the control of the authorities of the National University itself.

The petition was brought in on one point, a solitary and trivial point. It was stated by the Petitioner himself that it dealt with titles. He said in his opening remarks to the Visitors that if the College authorities would disclaim the use of certain titles, then he was without complaint. He had no subject matter to go on and the whole question was the use of titles, not any question of appointment or method of appointment. The Visitors have found that, because certain titles were used, the appointments, because they are phrased in a particular way, ought to be made as University appointments and not as College appointments. It is a mere legal construction, a small point, and it arises in the Charter which has the usual liberalising clause that one finds in old-time Charters.

The difference, if it is of any importance, between the ordinary incorporated association and a chartered body is that the incorporated body may not do anything except under the powers given by whatever the statute is that incorporated it, whereas the chartered body has the full powers of any individual. It can do whatever an individual can do, except in so far as there is prohibition on certain things. The Charter of U.C.D. contains the usual liberalising clause. Chapter XVIII of the Charter—which was made in 1908 and has the old-time phraseology—reads as follows:

Our royal will and pleasure is that this our Charter shall be construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the College and the promoting of the objects of this our Charter as well in all our courts as elsewhere notwithstanding any non-recital, mis-recital, uncertainty or imperfection herein.

That clause is ordinarily used when there is a royal will to establish a chartered body. That is the ordinary accompanying phrase to indicate that the chartered body was given the fullest possible power and that the instrument under which it was established was not to be treated as if it were an ordinary legal document or an ordinary conveyance.

Notwithstanding that clause, the Board of Visitors have interpreted the phrase that was put to them in a very narrow way. Again, it should be remembered that the Charter of U.C.D. and the Charter of the National University of Ireland ought to be read together. There is a definite ambiguity in the Charters, one occurring in each. In the National University one, the emphasis is on University Lecturers and University Professors. There is a statement: "The following and only the following are entitled to be and to be called Professors of the University and Lecturers of the University." When one comes to the College Charter, the phrase "Professor and Lecturer" is used without any distinction between College and University.

In spite of the liberalising clause and the fact that there is an ambiguity, the Visitors have interpreted this in what I call a very strict and narrow way. One could have expected that if they did find that there was no reference in the College Charter to College Lecturers and College Professors, that might have been construed as a non-recital, a mis-recital, an uncertainty or an imperfection. There was the advice given in the last phrase to have the whole thing "construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the College and the promoting of the objects of the Charter."

In addition to the ambiguities that were shown to be present as between the Charter of the College and the Charter of the University the Board of Visitors completely neglected, and indeed showed their anxiety to go against the views that have been expressed over many years by a series of Governing Bodies in U.C.D. and by a series of Senates of the National University of Ireland and by the practice and procedure of every College of the National University, including the recognised College of Maynooth. There was a traditional policy established, not in the year 1949 but away back in the year 1909. The first Statute for U.C.D. showed that divergence from the strict words of the Charter itself. The policy of the Colleges has developed into a real tradition. The tradition was to use that instrument which was wrung from an unwilling English Government for the best objects of the National University itself and for the best objects of each of the Colleges. The judges have interpreted the matter otherwise.

If one goes back and reads the debates in the English House of Commons at the time when Mr. Birrel was Chief Secretary for Ireland and when this measure was his responsibility, one will find there were clear expressions from him that this was an adventure and yielding to the demand made for many years for higher education for Catholics in this country. He recognised it was rather a new instrument. Here and there, he uses phrases to the effect that some of the things in this Charter were experimental and open to change. He clearly indicated that, in his view, this was not any straitjacket into which any of the Colleges was being fitted but something which could be moulded and fashioned to meet their needs as they developed.

In regard to the Visitors' report, I want to emphasise what was very admirably stated in Dr. O'Rahilly's letter to the papers the other day. This was not a judicial finding. These happened to be three judges who were picked as Visitors. They might have been three people who were not judges. They might have been one judge and two administrators. In fact, they happened to be three judges but they were not sitting as a court. What they have reported is not a judicial finding. It is an opinion of three men which they express as their findings. It certainly is in no way attached, so to speak, to their judicial independence and they are not carrying out their judicial functions.

I am bold enough to express a personal view contrary to what they have expressed, that the worst their report means is that a technical defect in procedure has been shown. I do not believe that there is any technical defect. I am fortified in my opinion by opinions I have read from very eminent members of the Bar.

This report speaks of legal opinion obtained by certain members of the Senate or the Governing Body at a particular time. The report criticises the members of the Governing Body or the members of the Senate for not, as a body, looking for legal opinions on the particular matter.

Dr. O'Rahilly discloses in his letter to the papers that, many years ago, in connection with the appointment of a College Professor in Cork, he obtained an opinion on the matter and the opinion approved of the appointment. That was a College Professor and the College Professor appointed in University College, Cork, held office for many years.

In addition to that, the Senate of the National University had, many years ago, got two or three legal opinions on a particular matter then agitating them. I think technically the opinion was sent to the members of the Hierarchy but it was brought before the members of the Senate and was included in the minutes of the National University. One of three counsel asked to advise at that time advised that there was a distinction clear to his mind arising from the documents as between a University Professor and a College Professor and a University Lecturer and a College Lecturer. That was on the Senate minutes.

During the course of the visitation, it was made known to the Board of Visitors that certain members of the authorities of the University, of the College, had sought and got a legal opinion which was to the effect that they were perfectly entitled to do what they were doing under the Charter and under the Statutes. I am reminding myself of the way in which that was treated.

It was put, first of all, by some of the Board of Visitors that it was clear that legal opinion had not been sought by members of the University College Governing Body because they were afraid that the legal opinion would be against what they were trying to do. Another suggestion was that if the University College, Dublin, people sought a legal opinion some awkward questions might be raised. It was then disclosed to the Board of Visitors that a legal opinion had been obtained.

Immediately there was a counter claim from one of the Board of Visitors—"I suppose it was not a considered opinion", or "I suppose it was an off-the-cuff opinion" or, as the jargon of the Bar Library goes, "I suppose it was a Capel Street opinion." It was emphasised and made clear that the opinion was a considered one, got on instructions conveyed by a solicitor to a member of the Bar. The concluding phrase on that was "An opinion is worth what it is worth."

Therefore, when University College, Dublin, or the Senate of the National University fortified themselves with legal opinions, the expression of one member of the Board of Visitors was "An opinion is worth what it is worth." But when an opinion is procured and spoken of by one of the dissenting minority in the Governing Body, that is elevated to a height of importance and the authorities of University College, Dublin, are criticised that they were afraid to look for an opinion lest it might be against what they were attempting to do.

The legal opinion that was spoken of came to light in a very peculiar way. Two of the members of the Governing Body stated they had an opinion—that, in their opinion, the Governing Body would not legally be entitled to make an appointment. One of the dissentients stated the view was based on the legal opinion he had obtained.

In reply to questions recorded in the minutes, he said this opinion had been proffered to him. He was asked to disclose what this opinion amounted to and he confined himself to giving his version of it. At no time, at that first meeting, did he disclose the author of the opinion. The Governing Body, on a procedural point of view, decided they could not attend to this. The view of the Governing Body at that time was that sufficient case had not been made that the Governing Body themselves should obtain a legal opinion.

That emerges as a most important point as far as the Visitors are concerned, but the Visitors do not mention that they had information. Statements were made in evidence before them. The minutes of the Senate were produced. They were given an opportunity to read what had been advised by counsel many years ago.

It was also stated, through that Board of Visitors, that a further unanimous opinion had been obtained which was favourable to the attitude the Colleges were adopting. Except on a solitary trivial point with regard to titles, and it is the only point on which the Visitors were really asked to report and on which in accordance with the Petition they have reported— excepting that—the rest of the report is and developed into a lengthy attack on the policy of University College, Dublin, and, I may add, is an attack, in fact, on the policy of the constituent Colleges.

Again, I remind myself of phrases used during the visitation. The attitude of the Governing Body was brought under criticism and when it was explained, fortified by minutes on that point, one of the Board of Visitors said: "If that was their attitude—" and then he said something of what was in his mind about them and wound up by saying he had better disclose what was in his mind.

Later, it was pointed out that if anybody felt there was anything wrong in this matter, it should be the Senate, because if there was any real encroachment, by way of making these College appointments, it must be upon the power of the University to make its own appointments. The Senate minutes disclosed that the Senate had said in precise terms they were not convinced that what the University College, Dublin, authorities were doing was illegal. At that point the comment made by one of the visitors was: "If that is the case, the Senate are guilty of a dereliction of duty."

Mr. Booth

On a point of order, is the Deputy quoting from something or just depending on memory as to what occurred in this case?

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy was listening, I thought I said that I reminded myself of what occurred.

Mr. Booth

I do not mind what you do to yourselves, but what you do to us.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know what the Deputy means by that.

Mr. Booth

I am not interested——

Mr. McGilligan

I am speaking in the Dáil in a debate which is free. I do not know what the Deputy means by saying I am doing something to him. At one time—I remind myself of this again—a member of the College staff, who was giving evidence, said that he hoped at the particular time he would be able to reassure the Board of Visitors that nothing wrong had been done. The comment that was immediately made by one of the Board of Visitors at that point was it would be very hard to convince him of that. He thought the whole thing was what he called "sticking out"—not very judicial language. I argue it does not even show that any judicial consideration was given to this matter when at a stage in the inquiry—it was not more than half-way through—one of the Visitors was in a position to say that it would be very hard to convince him that nothing wrong had been done.

I wish we could get an opportunity in this House of examining the net point that was before the Board of Visitors—the statement in the Charter of the National University that certain people and only certain people are entitled to be, and to be called, Professors and Lecturers of the University. In the statement in the Charter of University College, Dublin as to how certain appointments are to be made no distinction is made between University Professors and College Professors or University Lecturers or College Lecturers. It is a very net point. I personally believe that if there were three Boards of Visitors set up, you would be likely to get conflicting decisions. It all depends really on their mood. A lot would depend on whether they did or did not pay any attenion to what I call the liberalising clause in the Charter.

Outside the solitary trivial point of titles—it was expressed by the Petitioner as a matter of titles—we have this report dealing with quite a number of matters such as University policy. One of the matters that are made a lot of is what is called the list of unfilled statutory offices. The speaker who preceded me is apparently under the impression that, once a statutory office is made, it has to remain there for ever. He speaks of 53 per cent. of the statutory offices not being filled. There is no obligation on any of the Colleges to have a particular number of statutory offices, nor is it even imposed on them, nor must there be a precise relationship or any relationship between the number of statutory and non-statutory offices. There is, of course, no relationship fixed between the number of professors and the number of lecturers, nor is there any fixed between a combination of both of those and the number of people who may be employed as assistants and demonstrators.

There is an addendum to this report of offices not filled which apparently deluded one speaker into the belief that all this happened since 1949. Let me be quite clear. The part that was quoted here in relation to 1949 is prefaced by the remark: "In the period under review". That was 1949 to 1959.

There was a College Professor in Cork in the first ten years of University life down there. There was an effort made in the days of Sir Bertram Windle to have a University Lecturer in Russian language and literature appointed by University College, Cork, without advertence to the Senate of the National University. That was the subject matter of a Petition and in the Petition the right to make the office was disowned because it was made by the College but as a University post. That was done deliberately in those days by the President of University College, Cork, because it was in his mind to disrupt the whole federal system of the National University.

There was a College Professor in Cork in the early days of the establishment of University College, Cork. An effort was made to have a Lecturer appointed by the Cork Governing Body. There have been College Lecturers in U.C.D. for many years. I understand that there were College Lecturers in Cork other than the two I referred to. This is not something that started in 1949.

It was indicated to the Board of Visitors that there were two statutes, one in the year 1933 and another in the year 1937 in connection with University College, Dublin, in which reference was made to College Lecturers. Some post was being created to take the place of a post previously filled by a College Lecturer. This idea of Lecturers with the appellation of "College" in front of them is nothing new. It started with the very beginning of the University.

Many of these posts left unfilled of which so much is made came over in 1945, when Dr. Tierney was appointed President, from the days of his predecessors, the late Mr. Denis Coffey and the late Mr. Arthur Conway. Many of them could have been explained. An explanation was offered to the Board of Visitors but they would not listen to it. The offer was made of an explanation in regard to this list of unfilled offices. All the Board wanted was a list of unfilled offices. Then they were going to make their own comment on it but we did not know it at the time. Evidence could have been given which I now propose to give.

There was a time in 1926 when the Government of that day transferred to University College, Dublin, the College of Science and the Albert College. One had to take over with the Institutions the personnel of these two places. Taking over the College of Science meant there was a duplication of Professors. What was done was that new statutes were prepared which incorporated various people as Professors of the University, the intention being that, as each of these people disappeared, through resignation or death, the post would be abolished. Very frequently, when University posts are being created and when it is expected that a Lecturer holding a university appointment would succeed to a new Professorship, there is a clause put into the new statute to the effect that if the present holder of a particular post succeeds to a new post, the post which he vacates is abolished. That is not always done. Quite a lot of these offices were created simply because the College of Science Professors were transferred to U.C.D. and the posts were not abolished. They remained there.

In other cases it was the practice in University College, Dublin that, when a Lecturer served for a great number of years and his subject became of greater importance than was previously understood, the elevation has to be done by the creation of a new professorial post. The elevation has to be made by the creation of a new professorial post of a senior type and the contention is that if the holder of the lectureship succeeds in achieving the new post then the junior post will be abolished. That has not been done.

It has been said that there are 53 unfilled posts. If you take all the University posts which were established from time to time in lectureships, professorships and so forth, and add these up some 53 per cent. of them are unfilled. I hope Deputies are not under any illusion about this. A simple statute of University College, Dublin could abolish all these posts tomorrow. That is an alternative which the Governing Body of University College, Dublin has before it and the Senate has no say in this matter. If University College Dublin decided to abolish 15 professorships which are not filled at the moment, if by a simple statute it decided to abolish all those 15 posts, the Senate must accept that decision.

An error runs through this report which I find common amongst people who do not understand the federal side of each of the Colleges and who think that the Senate is the supreme body. It is not. There are many things in which the Senate has no right to interfere, the big matter being the payment or the emoluments attached to any post instituted by University College, Dublin. The Senate has no say whatever in what the emoluments are to be. In that matter the Senate is completely out of the picture. In the main, the Senate has to obey the wishes of the constituent Colleges. Recently, in fact, they decided themselves in regard to a particular statute which came from University College, Galway, and to which serious objection was taken, that they had no power to refuse the passing of the statute. All that they could do was to make some mild suggestions in the hope that they would be acted upon, as they have not been and the only resort is that somebody's petition might go through.

These unfilled posts which loom through the report are a matter of no importance. Over the years many of these posts have become obsolete, their former occupants have disappeared and no reappointments have been made. But that matter can be tidied up by a simple University College Dublin statute. The impression was created here that somebody was in dereliction of duty. That is a completely inaccurate and ill-founded assumption.

This matter of the unfilled posts goes further. It is solemnly reported here by the Board of Visitors that the President is in breach of duty. I am quoting from page 4, at the foot of the page, where it says—

The Board finds—

That it is part of the present policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many "statutory" lectureships.

It is not so much policy to leave these posts unfilled; it is part of their policy to abolish many of these posts. They just have not done so yet.

It goes on to say:—

That the failure to take the proper and necessary steps to fill vacancies in these "statutory offices" is a breach of the duties imposed on the President of the College by Statute 1, chapter IV, section 17, and chapter XIV, section 1.

To my mind that paragraph, as written, is the greatest criticism of the Board of Visitors themselves.

What is the duty imposed on the President with regard to an office which falls vacant? He must report the vacancy to the Vice-Chancellor. That is what is referred to in Statute-I, chapter IV, section 17, that he must report to the Vice-Chancellor. The second duty is to call a meeting of the Academic Council and to discuss certain things. It is said here that the failure to take the proper and necessary steps was a breach of the duties. The only evidence worthwhile having in that regard would be the evidence of various Vice-Chancellors as to whether the President, from time to time, had failed to report a vacancy. That could have been determined quite easily by evidence and all that was required was to get a list of people holding down office, a record of the date of their deaths, or resignations, and then an inquiry as to whether there had been any comment made to the Vice-Chancellor. Unfortunately, during four of the ten years in question, the President of University College, Dublin, was himself Vice-Chancellor. He was not even asked whether he reported the matter to himself, and no Vice-Chancellor was asked whether the President had taken the proper steps, so without any evidence whatever the Board made a very serious allegation that the failure to take these steps "is a breach of the duties imposed on the President".

Lest it be thought that the fact that posts were left unfilled indicated a breach of duty, that is not the case. As I said already, it is by no means so and every post once it is established must not always be kept filled. The President has to report to various bodies and those bodies then determine one or other of certain things: will they abolish the post? Will they carry on the post with certain variations or will they carry it on as it is? It is not for the President to tell either the Academic Council or the Governing Body what they are to do in these circumstances. They could decide not to do anything. If they did, it might be a breach of duty on their part, but to say that that would be a breach of duty on the President's part is going far beyond what is a reasonable inference from such evidence as the Board of Visitors had. This matter occurred at a late stage in the visits. It was not part of the Petitioner's case and arose incidentally out of evidence given by one of the staff.

An offer was made to give the sort of explanation that I am giving now but the Board would not have any explanation given them. They contented themselves, in the absence of evidence and not having availed of what was offered to them, with reporting that the President was in breach of statutory duty, a very serious allegation which, of course, loses nothing when it comes to be canvassed by whoever is briefing the two Deputies who have spent so much time on the matter. There is an attempt throughout this report to isolate the President of University College, Dublin. It may be a mere coincidence that that effort has been made by a small group in University College, Dublin, for many years; it may be a mere coincidence but it is a startling coincidence and it appears in the early stages of the visits when the Board of Visitors were not keeping to their discussion with a completely unprejudiced mind.

The Board of Visitors reported that the College authorities left the Board under the impression that they did not like to seek an amendment of the Charter. They were left under that impression. I find it hard to understand how they came to write that. They were told that it seemed to be a matter of considerable difficulty to get an amendment of the Charter. It was stated that the amendment of the Charter might open up a very big question and it was further stated that it was a rather big task to attempt the piecemeal amendment of the Charter, but the impression that must have been left on their minds was that approaches had been made to various Governments to get an amendment of the Charter.

I know as a member of the Government that in the year 1948 a deputation from U.C.D. put that question of amendment of the Charter as one of their demands before the Government of that time. I am instructed that they made a similar approach to a later Government. They got the same answer on both occasions—that it was a very big question and that it was better to carry on as they were, particularly as at that time nobody had suggested or given the slightest hint of a suggestion, that there was anything illegal or unauthorised in what they were doing. But the amendment of the Charter was sought.

Mr. O'Malley

For what purpose?

Mr. McGilligan

To get the full freedom such as is accorded to Trinity College and to Queen's University, Belfast.

Mr. O'Malley

In 1948?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes. Has the Deputy anything further to add?

Mr. O'Malley

I was just looking for information.

Mr. McGilligan

There seemed to be a tone of disbelief in the Deputy's voice. Am I right in interpreting it like that?

Mr. O'Malley

The disbelief is that the Deputy was in power in 1948— why did the Deputy not give them that freedom?

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy is not incorrect in any way in what he believes about that—I was. Is that not right? The amendment was requested 12 years ago and repeated on another occasion and, of course, that was the way in which this matter should be approached. It is strange that it is, so to speak, only the Catholic University system that should not have the freedom which the other systems have in this country and which many of the English Universities have and which has been very generously granted to many of the English Universities. They have the power, subject to the procedure of two meetings, to amend their own Charter because it is accepted there that a University cannot go on for ever on the basis of a document of 1908. This is especially true where a University institution has developed to the extent that U.C.D. has. It must require something better than what is in the Charter of 1908.

Anyhow, a request was made and the request will be made again and I suggest to the Minister that the only way he can couple University freedom with an easier situation is to give the University authorities, the College authorities who appreciate the difficulties of running an institution under that old document, the power they require, subject, of course, to its being put here to the Dáil, tabled in the Dáil, and passed by a certain majority of the Governing Body and repeated at two meetings. Give them that power; trust them as they have been trusted and as they show they have deserved to be trusted by their activities so far.

The Board of Visitors are concerned about patronage and the phrases they used have given people here an opportunity to talk about jobbery. The Petitioner himself in his opening remarks in connection with the petition, used a phrase, that he did not in any way question the academic standard of the people who had got these appointments. The Board of Visitors' Report on page 9 states:

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 would be appointed by the College from within the College without the posts being advertised.

Then they report solemnly in this way:

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.

There is, however, they say, always the danger that the existing system could lend itself to patronage. Remember the Petitioner disclaims any criticism of the appointments made in the College and the Board of Visitors said it was not suggested that the standard had suffered, and in fact it was claimed it was better because of the method adopted. Then, they go on to say that there is a danger that the existing system could lend itself to patronage.

The question of patronage was raised by one letter that was sent to the Board of Visitors by a member of the staff of U.C.D. who confined himself to writing a five-paragraph letter and not appearing before the Board of Visitors. He commented in this way:

The system now adopted in U.C.D. is, in effect, a system of patronage the results of which in an Institution such as this College I will leave to the Board to consider.

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, are we to get a copy of the letter or to be told who is the author of it?

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy may ask but I shall not tell him. I shall put the letter on the Table of the House.

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, when a Deputy purports to quote from a document, are we not entitled under Standing Orders to ask who is alleged to have written it?

Mr. McGilligan

I shall be very glad to put this on the Table of the House, if requested to do so by the Chair.

Mr. O'Malley

I have raised a point of order and I have not had a ruling from the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy McGilligan is willing to make it public, I do not see why there should be any difficulty.

Mr. O'Malley

That is not the point The Chair has given several previous rulings on this and one not more than four months ago. I am asking for a ruling and the Chair has not given a ruling on the point I have raised. The point of order is that if a Deputy quotes from a document, he must, if so requested, state who the writer of the document is or purports to be——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have never given a ruling of that kind.

Mr. O'Malley

——and further, Sir, that such document should be put on the Table of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have never given such a ruling.

Mr. O'Malley

I have asked you to give a ruling now.

An Ceann Comhairle

What Deputy McGilligan has read is evidently a private document——

Mr. McGilligan

No, it is a document presented to the Board of Visitors and one which I should be very glad to put on the Table of the House, if you rule that has to be done, but not otherwise.

Mr. O'Malley

Am I right in taking it that I am not entitled to succeed in my request to find out who the author of this letter is?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has asked——

Mr. O'Malley

And I have not been told.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, but it is not an official document.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy McGilligan has said it is an official document and that in fact it was put in officially to the Board of Visitors.

An Ceann Comhairle

Officially in respect of the College but not officially in respect of this House.

Mr. O'Malley

Officially in respect of the Board of Visitors whom we are discussing here, an official body, I might point out, set up by this House or by the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not ruling that the letter must be made public or that the author's name should be told to the Deputy. Such a ruling has never been made, to my knowledge, in the House. The Deputy is not a Minister and the document is not an official one.

Mr. O'Malley

Such a ruling, to my knowledge, has been made, with all respect.

Mr. McGilligan

I am accepting the ruling of the Chair and not Deputy O'Malley's. This question of patronage was raised in this letter and was discussed, and it was said that it was fair comment to say there might be patronage. Remember, the Petitioner disclaims any question of criticism except that which was made; and the Board find, if we take their opinion to be worth anything, that the standard of the teaching has not suffered by the method of appointment. They go on to say, however, that the system could lend itself to patronage.

I do not know, Sir, that many of the judiciary of this country have any special competence to decide on the question of academic qualifications. Indeed, I know a number of them who have no competence to decide in such matters as to the competence of University appointments. There are, of course, some of them who might profess themselves to be so competent, but that is a failure on the part of people who occupy certain offices. In any event, for what it is worth, the Board of Visitors set up said this system did not lead to any deterioration in the teaching staff but they are afraid it might lend itself to patronage.

I rather think there will be a cynical smile on the faces of a number of people when they discover that members of the judiciary have some apprehension about a system of patronage and a fear that there might be a deterioration in some part of the public life of the country, if patronage were allowed to creep in—patronage being the filling of posts which fall vacant not through the medium of advertisement and not by some external method of selection. However, there it is and, on that statement of theirs, that it might lead to patronage, we have heard all these comments made about jobbery.

There is not one hint of jobbery. There has been no examination; still less has there been anybody to say that there was jobbery. The Board themselves have rather repudiated any suggestion that inferior appointments have been made. But it has given scope to Deputies to speak of jobbery all over the place. The Governing Body of University College, Dublin, would seem to be constituted in such a fashion as to prevent anything in the way of nepotism, or the appointment of people to posts they do not deserve, or for which they are not qualified. Deputy Mulcahy gave the set-up of the Governing Body, constituted of 34 people, and how their various compartments of selection go. Comment was made on the composition of the Senate.

The Governing Body is composed of the President, four people nominated by the Government, three appointed by the Senate, six who are elected by the Academic Council, six elected by the Graduates of the College, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who takes his place ex officio, one person nominated by the Dublin County Council and eight people elected by the General Council of County Councils. The 30 who are thus amalgamated can co-opt four others. The lifetime of the Governing Body is three years.

President Tierney, against whom all these allegations of jobbery, corruption and a reign of terror have been made, has been President for 15 years. During that time, there have been five successive Governing Bodies appointed. In fact, taking an overlap, he has been there with six different Governing Bodies, 34 members on each body. It would be wearisome personally to read out the entire list, but there have been from time to time many eminent clergymen on the Governing Body. There have been people prominent in public life. There have been academic people. Finally, there have been the people who are elected by the General Council of County Councils. I always understood that the General Council of County Councils was constituted, so to speak, of the cream of the county councillors. In addition to that, you have the Lord Mayor of Dublin, whoever he may be, and somebody elected at a particular period by the Dublin County Council.

There have been two comments made on that list; one is that the academic people, of course, sway all the others. They are a sort of well-educated, cute personnel and they can coerce the simple non-academic people into accepting their views. The second comment made is that these unfortunate county councillors are, of course, such a poor lot that the wool can be pulled over their eyes and they can be hoodwinked by the clever people who belong to the academic side of the College. One heard at one time of the unfortunate people who could not even get a copy of the Statutes—these decent men who were kept out of the information as to the powers they had as members of the Governing Body. There was another representation that they were complete nonentities who would do anything that people wanted them to do. Surely that criticism cannot legitimately be persisted in. There are 34 people elected for a period of three years, with personnel changing from time to time—not, of course, completely changing. Over eight years, there might have been 120 people certainly; and the President of University College, Dublin, and a small core of associate dictators have to persuade all this changing personnel over the years and there is not even a single county councillor with enough brains and ability to realise that he is being hoodwinked, and raise a row about a single appointment. Over the years not a single appointment has been the subject of any great criticism by the members of the Governing Body.

All the members of the Governing Body get all the relevant documents. There are, first of all, reports from the Faculty to the Academic Council, and from the Academic Council to the Governing Body. These are considered. There may be rival proposals made from time to time, but there has never been, certainly in President Tierney's time—I have not been a member of the Governing Body for many years myself—any occasion when any criticism was made that there was jobbery or that someone was being put into a position of importance in the College because he was related to somebody or had some influence behind him. There was no solitary occasion in my own experience and I have made inquiries with regard to the 15 years in which President Tierney has been President.

It was suggested that, if one wanted to get a body which would allow an efficient administration to be got together, and, at the same time, wanted to prevent jobbery or nepotism, one could hardly think of a better set-up than the way in which the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, is associated together. There are 34 people with their different groupings, and not one critically-minded person can raise a controversy with regard to any single appointment. The records of the Governing Body can be searched and no such criticism will be found, and certainly nothing of the type of unwholesome stuff to which we have had to listen here for a couple of days.

In addition to that, there is the background of the Senate. The Senate were, of course, brought into this matter. They said at one time they were convinced that the Governing Body had not been guilty of any irregularity. As a body, they are constituted in an entirely different way, but, again, they are a big number. They are in the region of 35 and they have got, so to speak, to be parties to this jobbery, or else they are hoodwinked in the way in which the local authority people have been hoodwinked, if there is this corruption and jobbery and this reign of terror throughout the University institution. I feel that the mere enumeration of the numbers and a look at the personnel attached to University College, Dublin, Governing Body for the past 15 years is enough to scatter entirely the vicious comment there has been in this House with regard to University appointments.

In addition to jobbery, we are told there is a reign of terror. The junior staff are afraid because they are on a year-to-year basis. It is, of course, easy to say that they are on a year-to-year basis. Their appointments are from year to year. Dr. Ó Raghallaigh said, in the Press the other day, that, as far as Cork was concerned, he knew of only two occasions on which people appointed for a year were not carried on into the next year. That was from his own experience. He also said in regard to his investigations that he understood the same criticisms could be made in regard to Dublin—that only two or three of those appointed were not being carried forward in their year-to-year appointments.

We are told there was a reign of terror. This point was mentioned during the visitation. It was challenged at once on behalf of the College authorities. An offer was made, if any suggestion could be put forward, to give these people guarantees—any such people who were afraid to come forward because of fears with regard to permanence in their appointments. Of course, the technique of the poison pen was a good one. Once you start off by assuming a reign of terror, nothing can break that down. Any suggestion that people might be invited to come forward could be met by the same thing; they would all be still too frightened.

In any event, the matter was challenged. Again, I remind myself of the biassed comment made in regard to that matter. The matter was canvassed and queries were put to the Board of Visitors as to how the College authorities might dissipate this view put before the Board with regard to people afraid to come forward. The only answer that could be given by the members of the Board of Visitors was that the authorities in U.C.D. "seem to be unduly sensitive to a charge of that type." No greater charge other than jobbery could be made and that these people were kept hanging on from year to year, kept in position of temporary appointment in order to take away from them any freedom of thought or action they might have.

The matter had to lie until it was raised here, coming from, as I believe, the dissident minority in U.C.D. who have been promulgating this view for quite a number of years and who have failed in all those years to produce a single person to substantiate that allegation.

The Board of Visitors dealt with many things irrelevant to the trivial point they were asked to report upon —the question of these titles in connection with certain College appointments. They have quoted that when certain people were offered appointments the phrase was used at the end of the letter that "their duties will be as laid down by the Professor." We heard a lengthy tirade about the freedom of University opinion. Apparently "duties" is misread as being "your views will be as laid down by the Professor." I had always understood, and I considered that letter before, that when a Lecturer was told his duties would be laid down it meant he was to take a certain class at a certain time, take a class of a certain status and not go near others, or occupy himself with research instead of teaching—a variety of things might be suggested to him. But "duties," as interpreted here, means, putting it very bluntly, that although there are many theories about economics, the Assistant to the Lecturer in Economics would have simply to mouth the views of his Professor, that he would have no life and could not look forward to a new appointment unless he duly accorded to whatever the Professor wanted him to say.

This matter is not a mere passing illusion by the Board of Visitors. This point was raised. That phrase was in the letter, and it was canvassed by them. One of the witnesses before the Board said he was quite well aware that his Lecturers had a different approach to the particular subject of which he was Professor from what he had himself. He said it never occurred to him to ask his Lecturers what their views were or how they approached their particular subjects. He said he certainly would not think of telling them what they were to say in the classrooms. It was put to at least three of the witnesses, and they all had the same kind of view.

The Board went to the length of suggesting that there might be considerable difficulty if some Lecturer developed materialistic or atheistic views and proceeded to use his position as Lecturer in some scientific subject to promulgate views of a particular type. The Professor was asked what he would do in such circumstances. All he could say was that he had no experience, that the thing never occurred. He instanced two or three things that might be done. He said he might put the chap on to research instead of teaching, if he thought that would be a way out. He said "I have no experience of it. It is completely beyond even my imagining." Yet, we get the comment made here that because a Professor is asked to lay down the duties of a Lecturer, that means he is telling him the content of his lectures and the line of approach he is to have to his subject.

The same wild comment has been made with regard to the phrases that the Board quotes: "It is now intended to appoint College Lecturers for five years." We are told the President said that. That is paraded here as an example of the dictatorial mentality of the President. "It is now intended" means "I intend it and, therefore, that will be the situation." People do not read at the end of the minute in which that is recorded the last phrase "noted aad approved"—notice that the Governing Body approved of the suggestion that certain Lecturers should be appointed for a five-year period.

I do not think it necessary to go any further into the irrelevancies of the Board of Visitors' report. There is a comment here—and it is a foothold for other criticisms—that the agenda for a certain number of years had been destroyed. It is suggested that there is something ominous in that. In the last three or four weeks, I had to apply to a Government Department for certain documents not many years old, say about ten years old. I got the same information. This was in the Custom House. The documents were kept there for five years and then destroyed. These were documents, not agenda. There is a complete record of what the files contained but the main files are destroyed. The reason is very obvious. Big and all as the Custom House is, it could not contain all the documents piling up over the years. There is a habit in certain offices outside the Public Service, and certainly in Government offices, that files are destroyed after a certain number of years. The Governing Body of University College, Dublin, kept the minutes. They are the important things. The agenda for a certain number of years are kept for five years. You cannot go back any further.

We are told that, if the agenda had been kept, some arguments might have been shown and reasons given for the proposal that Lecturers should be appointed for five years and not for any longer or any shorter period. I do not know how anybody who has been associated with any sort of committee work could believe that an agenda would have an argument and that a minute would not. As I understand it, an agenda is simply notifying people that certain matters are to be raised and certain subjects to be discussed. If very detailed minutes are kept, a minute might record what somebody said or proposed, or what somebody said objecting to a proposal, but it passes my imagination to believe that an agenda would contain an argument and that somebody would fail to record it. Again, there is the hysteria of agenda papers destroyed even though the minutes were kept.

The Minister for Education, when speaking on the Belfield project, referred to the number of people who graduate in different subjects in the Twenty-Six Counties and to the number of those who are forced by circumstances to emigrate. Notwithstanding the details he gave on that occasion, a Deputy came in here to talk sorrowfully about 40 per cent. of the graduates in this country having to emigrate. I think we graduate something short of 1,000 people in University College, Dublin, every year, and the figure the Minister gave during the Belfield discussion was that about 150 people, mainly confined to two Faculties, had to emigrate. This is now regarded as 40 per cent., but it is completely ridiculous to say that 40 per cent. of the graduates must emigrate. There was a time when there was not as much work at home for them as now, but it is ridiculous to propose any such figure as 40 per cent. as being the figure of graduates from our University system who emigrate.

I want again to express the view that this report of the Board of Visitors is a bad report. That is a criticism I feel entitled to make on it. I cannot see how anybody could consider this an important report on an important subject. It is a long, mainly irrelevant report, representing three points of view on a mailer that could have been dealt with in one page, on a single, trivial topic, as to whether certain titles were proper to be used or not. The result has been to lead to all the hysteria we have had for the last two days.

The College and the National University have withstood many attacks. The Catholic University system, as proposed for this country, has withstood many attacks. Those who founded it got the help of the Irish people after the Famine period, as the Minister for Education mentioned in the Belfield debate. The pennies of the famine-stricken poor of Ireland were collected to help Newman found the Catholic University, but the opposition to it has continued, and the lines of this debate have given great comfort to those who have been traditionally opposed to higher education for Irish Catholics. That opposition, of course, is still going on and it is a pity that some extra fervour has been lent to those people, traditionally opposed to us on this matter, by the type of debate that is taking place.

It has been said by an eminent clergyman that the Catholic Church is an anvil that has worn down many hammers. University College, Dublin, I think, will be found to be an anvil that will wear down many hammers of those who oppose it. As long as the lines of the debate are confined to this kind of splenetic and frenetic upsurge of hatred and malevolence, I do not mind, because that will recoil on those responsible for it, but I do object to finding decent people in University College, Dublin, being dragged in by people following a lowdown tradition of opposition in regard to higher education for Irish Catholic people.

Mr. O'Malley

I think it is stretching the imagination a bit too far when Deputy McGilligan suggests that the National University should be compared with the Catholic Church, with the wearing down of hammers which hit against the anvil. There is just a slight difference between them, that the President of University College, Dublin, is not entitled at any time to speak ex cathedra. I shall be as brief as possible, for various reasons, but I think that much extraneous matter has been introduced here today. The issue is a simple one and, in my opinion, the Minister and the Government have taken the only course open to them in bringing in this measure. However, I think that this report and Bill suggest that the attitude of the Government and the Opposition is more or less: “Forgive them, Father, for they know what they do.” I think U.C.D. know damned well what they have done, and nothing has become so obvious as the phrase: “He who excuses himself accuses himself.” It has become very evident by the rushing into print of the various dignitaries, Lecturers and Professors of the various Universities recently in the papers. Everyone makes mistakes. I made one or two myself in my time.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Never!

Mr. O'Malley

I do not see that there is anything to get hot under the collar about, but I do think it is a bad thing when Deputy McGilligan tries to have a hearing of the evidence given to the commission presented before this House again. Also, I think it was a unique position which Deputy McGilligan occupied before the Board of Visitors—the three High Court Judges.

Mr. McGilligan

They were not.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy McGilligan, with Mr. H. Moloney, S.C., and Mr. T. McLaughlin, appeared on behalf of University College, Dublin, and Deputy McGilligan has read from certain documents which he has not placed on the Table of the House. My only reference will be to one of those documents which, he said, an official, a member of the staff of U.C.D.—I cannot recall the exact title, whether a Lecturer or a Professor—wrote to this Board, but who did not bother to give evidence before it. I asked for the name and Deputy McGilligan refused it. I rose then on a point of order and, as usual, I was ruled out of order.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Apparently that was another one of your mistakes.

Mr. O'Malley

However, by a process of deduction, I think I know who the person was. It says on the first page of the report that the Board also received written submissions from the Professor of Latin, Professor John J. O'Meara, and the Lecturer in English, one Dr. Roger J. McHugh. I think it is 5 to 1, we can say who it was.

General Mulcahy

It is 50-50 anyway.

Mr. O'Malley

Having said that I agree that the Government and the Minister had no option but to bring in this measure, I do think the Minister for Education is far too great a gentleman to be dealing with the gentlemen in U.C.D. I can visualise the type of speech there would have been if Deputy MacEntee were Minister for Education.

Mr. O'Sullivan

God forbid! Spare us.

Mr. O'Malley

And I must say it would have a certain amount of appeal.

Mr. O'Sullivan

No doubt.

Mr. O'Malley

If I may, I shall ask a few rhetorical questions. Why is it that on this occasion unanimity exists between the Government and the Opposition? In other words, why do the Fine Gael Party unanimously support this measure of the Government? Why are the Fine Gael Party rushing and endeavouring on all occasions to show that the Government are perfectly right—this Government, this Fianna Fáil Party about whom Deputy T.F. O'Higgins said in Offaly, three years, three months and four days ago, that the ambition of Fine Gael should be to annihilate it from public life? Now, according to them, we are a responsible Party, for today and tomorrow, until this Bill comes in. Why is that? The man-in-the-street does not understand this.

I am glad that Deputy O'Higgins has entered the House. I was talking about his suggestion that the avowed ambition of Fine Gael should be the utter annihilation of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Deputy better explain at this stage that he is talking about the Universities Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

I am relating my remarks. I think I am very relevant. The Petitioner—"the man who came to dinner"—this vague person here referred to as the Petitioner—who is he? One sees the name Mr. John Kenny, Senior Counsel, M.A., and a few more eminent degrees after his name. Is Mr. John Kenny a prominent member of the Fine Gael Party? No interruptions? I am inviting interruptions.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Chair may oblige the Deputy in a moment.

Mr. O'Malley

Is Mr. John Kenny a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is the suggestion that he is?

Mr. O'Malley

I am asking a rhetorical question, with the permission of the Chair.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You said you were inviting interruptions. I am asking is it suggested that he is?

Mr. O'Malley

It is not. I am just putting a query. He is not a prominent member of the Fine Gael Party and I shall say this: he is a supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, if not too prominent on all occasions.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is that a reflection on him?

Mr. O'Malley

No, a suggestion. The ordinary man in Limerick reading this debate tomorrow night and discussing this matter with some colleague will find it very difficult to get to the bottom of it.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is not helping him very much.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy McGilligan made one remark with which I did agree. He said that there are people in this country—these are not his exact words—who never lose and, in fact, seek, an opportunity of having a crack at the Catholic Church. He is perfectly right. I as a sinner could not point the finger but I could say that I find it very difficult to understand that a Deputy, who could claim to be a Catholic, holds up to odium on every possible occasion that religion which he professes. If it is so abhorrent to him, he has an option. Having said that, I think I should leave it there.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Deputy might.

Mr. O'Malley

Might what?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Might leave it there. The Deputy rather fouls his mouth.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Look at the looks of shame on the faces of your colleagues. You cannot see them from your position.

Mr. O'Malley

Looks of shame? I cannot see that I have said anything shameful. I am referring to a remark, a suggestion, made by Deputy McGilligan. I have made my observation on it and if anyone disagrees with it, it is open to him to express such disagreement.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is a shameful remark.

Mr. O'Malley

A shameful remark? With all due respect, some of the remarks made by the person to whom I refer are far more shameful and have been far more shameful and the sooner an end is put to them, the better.

I subscribe to the view that, in time, the Charter must be changed. The Charter was brought in in accordance with the Universities Act, 1908. I do think that the Charter is outmoded, that there are certain sections of it which could be brought up to date in the light of experience gained. The Commission that is to be set up will make recommendations. I do not anticipate their recommendations but I think they will recommend to the Government the repeal of the Charter in toto and the introduction of a new Charter or the making of certain very necessary amendments in the Charter.

I would ask the Minister, when concluding, to answer one question. Who paid for this inquiry by the Board of Visitors? The Government appointed the Board of Visitors in accordance with the Charter. They found, whether they were right or not, a dereliction of duty. Against whom were the costs awarded or are we to have a Supplementary Estimate to defray the cost of the inquiry resulting from alleged indiscretions, misdemeanours or transgressions? I do not see it in the document but has the Board of Visitors made any award which, I understand, it is entitled to do, with regard to payment of costs? If a county manager or such officer is found to have exceeded his powers or to have done something which he was not entitled to do, he is surcharged.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is the Deputy suggesting that the Chancellor should be surcharged?

Mr. O'Malley

If Deputy O'Sullivan wishes to introduce this usual dirty observation and reflection—he never wants to lose an opportunity of having a crack at our esteemed President, Éamon de Valera—he can be well satisfied. I do not say anything to him on that matter.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I was dealing with the Deputy's suggestion.

Mr. O'Malley

Those remarks do not appeal to anyone. I shall treat them with the contempt they deserve. I would ask the Minister to deal with the point when he is replying. There was a suggestion by Deputy McQuillan to-day which did not make much appeal to anyone. I recall the attitude of Fine Gael, the righteous gentlemen over there now, who are supporting this Government measure, when Deputy Dr. Browne brought in a motion supported by Deputy McQuillan, looking for some information as to the shareholding in the Irish Press newspapers and castigating the then Taoiseach, now the President of Ireland. Fine Gael, having lost that golden opportunity of showing themselves full of the virtues to which Deputy Mulcahy often refers—justice, charity and prudence—smiled at Deputy McQuillan's eloquence, laughed at and applauded his cracks, while Éamon de Valera sat there. There was no justice, prudence or charity then, when he was castigated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This matter does not seem to have any relevance to the Bill before the House.

Mr. O'Malley

It arose to-day and I wish to refer to it. Deputy McQuillan wanted to know what the Chancellor of the University was doing when he was Chancellor, Taoiseach and the governing shareholder in the Irish Press.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McQuillan was informed by the Chair that that matter did not arise and that there could be no discussion on it.

Mr. O'Malley

Having arisen, and Deputy McQuillan having got his point in, I want to point out that it is understood that a Chancellor of the University, who is appointed for life and cannot be removed except through death or resignation——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Is the Chair going to insist upon its ruling being observed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already pointed out that Deputy McQuillan was ruled out of order on that subject.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy T.F. O'Higgins is very fond of sticking to the rules of the House when he is not speaking himself.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

On a point of order, may I point out that the Chair has already ruled on the matter? The Deputy has apparently not heard the Chair and I respectfully suggest that the Chair should insist that its ruling be observed by Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. O'Malley

I am making a submission——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understood the Deputy was getting away from the particular point.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Rather slowly.

Mr. O'Malley

Very well. The Charter deals with the position of the Chancellor of National University. Not so long ago, the Chancellor of National University referred to here in the Charter, happened to be the Taoiseach. There is one point I wish to stress: the Chancellor of National University, now the President of Ireland, and still Chancellor of National University, was elected for life very many years ago, in the early 1920s or, I think, 1919. He can be removed, or his office ceases, only on his death or resignation. It is an understood thing that "Chancellor of National University" is, to all intents and purposes, an honorary title of appreciation from the graduates of National University and, to all intents and purposes, he does not take any active part in the day to day, or week to week, administration of the University.

Deputy McGilligan also referred to the method by which this measure was introduced into this House as it affected his colleagues in U.C.D., where he is a member of the staff. He said that all of a sudden, out of the blue, they got a notice that the First Reading was to be taken the next day. Is it not well known, is it not established practice, do not most people understand that the First Reading of a Bill is simply "leave to introduce"? Surely he could have no foundation for any criticism on that score. The Second Reading of this Bill was taken the following week.

Deputy McGilligan also referred— and in fact I was surprised the Chair allowed him to get away with it—to the Board of Visitors and the "bad" report they had brought in. The members of that Board were Judge Murnaghan, Judge Teevan and Judge Binchy. He certainly cast reflections on those three gentlemen and said it was very doubtful if they had started with completely unprejudiced minds. Deputy Booth was here and heard him say that. Yet the Chair—I had better not cast any reflection on the Chair, but I shall say that when I made reference on one occasion to a district justice I was nearly put out; I had to withdraw my remarks and the ruling was——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not criticise the rulings of the Chair. They are not before the House.

Mr. O'Malley

The only point I wanted to bring to your attention was that it was a ruling, and an established ruling, that people who are not here to defend themselves may not be criticised.

Mr. Dillon

Go bhfoiridh Dia orainn!

Mr. O'Malley

Go bhfoiridh Dia oram freisin.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Amen.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy McGilligan —and it should be brought to the attention of the public—had his entire brief there. I have already pointed out that during the inquiry of the "Board of Visitation," or whatever they were, he was acting professionally for University College, Dublin. He gave a lot of information today which, evidently, he did not give before the Board because, in their report, they said that: "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." Deputy McGilligan, ex-Attorney General, former Minister for Finance, came in here, as a member of this House and gave plenty of reasons for the decision to appoint College Lecturers and made every attempt to justify these appointments. It is hard to understand.

I said in the Minister's absence, and I now repeat in his presence, that he is too great a gentleman to be dealing with this measure, and I said that I was sorry it was not someone of the calibre of the Minister for Health who would not be so loth to express himself——

Mr. O'Sullivan

About whom?

Mr. O'Malley

About the Fine Gael junta in University College, Dublin.

General Mulcahy

And the Fianna Fáil informer, according to the Deputy.

Mr. O'Malley

Who?

General Mulcahy

The Fianna Fáil informer the Deputy was boasting of.

Mr. O'Malley

The Fianna Fáil informer?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. O'Malley

I was not boasting. I was making things very clear as to what the exact position was. The Petitioner, Mr. John Kenny, S.C., has Fianna Fáil political affiliations, I am glad to say, like many thousands of others, not perhaps in the legal profession, but all over the country. I am compelled, in view of Deputy O'Sullivan's interruption, to come out into the open and say—to clarify the position once and for all—that the reason the main Opposition Party have thrown their weight behind this measure is that, in the main, University College, Dublin, is run by strong supporters of the Fine Gael Party. There may be nothing wrong with that.

General Mulcahy

Is the Deputy referring to the Governing Body of University College, Dublin?

Mr. O'Malley

To answer the Deputy's question, there is a certain section of the Governing Body which, in the main, is running the University from day to day. As I say, there is nothing wrong in these people having political affiliations, nothing wrong in the slightest degree. I trust there is nothing wrong that these people should be members of Fine Gael and be in control of Cardinal Newman's University. We can only hope "Lead Kindly Light, Lead Thou Me On" will eventually inspire them and influence their political outlook.

My main reason for speaking is to clarify the position for the uninitiated. Deputy McGilligan castigated the Board. When the Board of Visitors referred to the agenda being lost he said he went to Government Departments looking for agenda and they were gone. Is it any wonder they were gone? Was the Four Courts not shelled on one occasion so that most of the records were lost to posterity?

Deputy McGilligan said it was not the first time that a request had come to a Government to amend the Charter, that it came in 1949. They wanted to amend the Charter and if it had been amended then in accordance with the wishes of U.C.D. there would have been no reason for investigation by the Board of Visitors. Does that statement of their own senior counsel not suggest that an anxiety existed in their minds back in 1948 that perhaps what they were doing was not in accordance with the Charter or the correct legal interpretation of the Charter? If they had a case in 1949 for the amendment of the Charter in certain respects could we get an explanation from Deputy McGilligan, from the Leader of the Opposition Party or Deputy Mulcahy as to why their representations to the Coalition Government of 1948 to 1951 were not listened to and adopted and the necessary steps taken about which Deputy McGilligan has waxed so eloquent for over an hour here today?

Deputy McGilligan referred repeatedly to the Minute of 24th June, 1959, mentioned in this report. He did not think that Minute meant very much or could have such an important impact as the Board of Visitors believed. I should have prefaced my observations on that remark of Deputy McGilligan by referring to the last two paragraphs of the report, in which is stated the opinion of Judge Murnaghan, Judge Teevan and Judge Binchy:

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 would be appointed by the College from within the College without the posts being advertised. To date it is not suggested——

nor was it suggested by Mr. Kenny, S.C., M.A.—

——that the standard of the teaching staff in the College had suffered by the method of appointment that has been adopted.

The Petitioner, Mr. Kenny, accepted that view and prefaced his remarks when appearing before the Board by stating that that was the position.

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. There is, however, always the danger that the existing system could lend itself to patronage.

It appears to me that appointments were made of friends, members of an inner group in U.C.D. I see nothing wrong in helping one's friends.

Mr. Dillon

Including Mr. Kenny.

Mr. O'Malley

The appointment of Mr. Seán Kenny, S.C., as Assistant Lecturer in Law to University College, Dublin, was made under quite different circumstances. As a matter of fact Mr. Kenny was sought after by the College Authorities to apply for the position which he occupies because he is one of the most eminent jurists in this country for the past 25 years. That is an accepted fact. However, that inner group must have got wind of the word that all was not well. The Petitioner, having had his letter rejected, was ticked off by the Registrar of U.C.D. in reply to his suggestion that the appointments were not made legally and by way of an addendum was asked: "Who are you as a member of the staff to be querying the action of the Governing Body?" The inner groups must have said to themselves: "This fellow will cause trouble yet."

Fianna Fáil came back to power in March, 1957. On 24th June, 1959, the Minutes show that the President stated that it was intended to appoint College Lecturers for a period of five years, but here is the injustice—we hear talk from the opposite benches of justice, prudence and charity and we hear the Constitution quoted that they so bitterly opposed—that certain persons would be excluded. This is the Minute of the U.C.D. meeting:

Certain persons would be excluded, i.e.,

(i) those being appointed for the first time;

Visualise the position: one of the inner group has been appointed. I am in the outer group but I am still going to apply when the post is vacant. However, they see that and what do they do to exclude me?:

(ii) those above the age of 60 years,

not 65. My heart is broken. I have been waiting since I was 24 to be appointed to the position of Assistant Lecturer. I am now 60 so they rule me out again.

(iii) those whose health might make it impossible to serve for five years.

You need a medical card to present to the Registrar of U.C.D. "Those whose health might make it impossible to serve for five years." None of us has a lease of life. Nobody can say: "So it was the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, who stated that this applicant's health might make it impossible for him to serve for five years." These are very onerous, serious and unjust conditions. They are not in accordance with the principles and precepts of prudence, justice and charity.

I have said enough to enlighten the public somewhat more. For once I must subscribe nearly in toto to what was said by Deputy McGilligan. He did not come up with a suggestion as to what option the Government had, having received the findings of the Board of Visitors, other than to introduce this measure. It is the only thing that can be done. The period of time during which the position which obtains at present is to be continued is two years, with the option of extending it for a further two years, making four years in all.

I am sure that what the Minister has in mind is that possibly the Commission might report at an earlier stage. If, for any reason, they do not report at an earlier stage, then the proviso is there in law. I think he had no further option.

The public should appreciate very much the manner in which this Bill has been handled by the Minister for Education. I dread to think of the way a Fine Gael Minister for Education would have handled it if the position were reversed and a Board of Visitors reported on the lines on which this Board of Visitors have reported and there did exist in University College a small junta of Fianna Fáil running the College as unfortunately this small junta of Fine Gael has been running it for a number of years. Evidently, it is now being legalised. They have been treated very kindly and very courteously.

The Government have not adopted the uncharitable decision to make political capital out of this situation. I am glad we did not have any talk of removing any of these people from the office they hold.

Mr. Dillon

Out of much evil good can sometimes come. If this debate has served any purpose, it must convince rational men for all time how entirely unsuited Dáil Éireann is to run the University. When I look back on my experience in this House one thing sticks in my mind, that is, that when you see an unusual alliance combined to attack an individual, you may be fairly certain that there is some sinister influence behind it.

For three hours, I heard Deputy Dr. Browne slander President Tierney of University College, Dublin. To that, Deputy McQuillan went on with a further 3½ hours. I challenged Deputy McQuillan when he was speaking that he was speaking from a brief. I believe he was. As he unloaded the poisonous filth that brief consisted of, he laid it by in instalments.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order, I pointed out to Deputy Dillon that I did not speak from a brief. I repeat that now. I hope Deputy Dillon will accept it or at least will have the courtesy to withdraw his allegation.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder what the Deputy means by a brief? A note can become so copious that it is, in my judgment, a brief. The Deputy may say it was a note of what he was told. I say that when a note reaches that stage, it qualifies for the description of a brief.

Mr. McQuillan

The only brief produced here was produced by Deputy McGilligan—a brief to which nobody had access prior to this debate.

Mr. Dillon

I adhere to what I said. I desire to put it on record that Dr. Tierney is a distinguished scholar and a distinguished public servant. If any mistake can be charged against him, it is that he has spent himself too generously in the service of the University of which he is one of the most distinguished alumni.

When I hear proceedings to which I listen with loathing, I sometimes ask myself what curse has come upon us in this country, why is it that we must degrade and bespatter our own? If an attempt were made to drag University College, of which so many of us were under-graduates and are graduates, through the dirt I would have expected that from all sides of this House there would have been Deputies ready to rally to its defence. Instead, I find there is a kind of malignant joy in crying stinking fish before the world about the National University of Ireland, which our people fought so hard to establish and of which our enemies said that, if we established it, it would become a disgrace and a byword because it was ours. Now we are the people who are crying stinking fish before the world about a University whose only crime is that its Governing Body consists of our own people. That is its crime and that is why it is dragged through the dirt. What curse is on us that makes our people want to do that?

I remember the struggle to wrest from the British Government the Charter we got in 1908 and 1909. I remember the allegations and the prophecies that had to be repelled. It is disheartening now to see built up upon this mare's nest a whole superstructure of scandal and dirt, in the confident knowledge that if you throw enough dirt, some of it will stick. Because some people in this House are concerned to assassinate the character of a distinguished Irish scholar, the President of University College, Dublin, they do not give a damn that before the world they will pelt the University with mud and hold it up as a rotten, corrupt institution where jobbery is the order of the day. They do not care that every cheap yellow rag in Great Britain and everywhere else will plaster on its front page that in the Irish Oireachtas it was proclaimed for all to read that the National University was a seething sink of corruption, patronage and fraud and that, upon inquiry, it is established that the Governing Body of the University, where all that horror was allowed to obtain, was representative of every element of the national life of Ireland. The only people who will be excepted are the Ascendancy, the implication being that if they were represented nothing would have happened.

I suppose I ought to speak with calm and detachment but I cannot when I see such havoc wrought on the things that should be precious to our people —all out of a splenetic hatred of one man whose only crime is that he loves his University too much. It might be challenged against him legitimately that on occasion he shows an excessive zeal born of an ardent love of the College over which he was called to preside. It is no great sin in any man to love too much but it has been made to appear in Dáil Éireann that excessive love is, in fact, a corrupt desire to advance his relatives and friends.

Nobody in this House dare make a specific charge of corruption or fraud against him because they know they could not do it. Against any one of us people are entitled to say he had the chance to do it or that he was so circumstanced that he might have committed fraud and there would be sufficient simple people in this country to believe that where there was smoke, there must be fire also. They do not know the quality of the spokesmen sent up here.

Every appointment to which this report refers was made by the Governing Body of University College, Dublin. Not a single appointment was made by the President. No single appointment could have been made by the President. Is it to over-simplify the facts to say that if University College, Dublin, had called all these appointees assistants, never a word could have been said? Every single one of these appointments could have been made, provided they were described as servants or assistants, but because of a very natural human desire in men of a certain standing to aspire to the dignity of the title in their own University of Lecturer, that title was given them. The Board declared that there was a technical breach of the Charter. If the whole thing had been disregarded, no greater clamour could have risen in Dáil Éireann.

Every kind of a trumped-up charge is founded on that futile peccadillo, that futile pedantry that these men or women were called College Lecturers instead of Assistants. I think it was Deputy McQuillan who tore passion to tatters at the suggestion that such a thing had ever happened in Cork. He quoted Dr. Atkins as repudiating such an allegation with his hand on his heart. Deputy McQuillan, in his rôle of eager research student, finds volumes and his notes become so copious that he cannot hold them in one hand. He should have taken the trouble to read in yesterday morning's paper an allocution from the ex-President of Cork University. This is what the Reverend Dr. Alfred O'Rahilly, former President of University College, Cork, has to say:

The issue, dealt with in the Bill, is simply this: May certain Assistants be called College Lecturers? It is really nothing but a trivial question of nomenclature.

This is not, as has been suggested, a recent sinister development. Thirty years ago there were College Lecturers in U.C.D.

I hope Deputy McQuillan will turn from the study of his brief to listen to this and I quote:

Forty years ago, there was a College Professorship of Agriculture in U.C., Cork, and in my time there were several College Lectureships there.

Deputy McQuillan was scrupulous to tell us what Dr. Atkins said in his letter to the Independent but the man who could find the text of that letter coyly hidden in the columns could not detect the headlines in yesterday's edition of the same paper. If he did, he had not the honesty to quote it. I wonder which indictment is true—that of his honesty or his eyes? I have never known his eyes to falter. Certainly they did not falter where the ground work of scandal and calumny could be discerned in the context. Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly goes on to say:

Once through me, when I was President, the title of College Lecturer, was offered to certain Assistants in the Medical Faculty. No one had ever expressed the smallest doubt about the validity of such a title. Nevertheless, to make doubly secure, I secured an approving legal opinion.

But now doubt has been cast by the recent Visitation of U.C.D. And the opportunity has been used to subject to hostile criticism a College which has, under appalling difficulties, done such excellent work and coped with an enormous expansion.

Can you conceive the morality of a Deputy's concern to make a case in this House, who comes in and reads one letter from University College, Cork, and forbears to make known the testimony of another such as the one I have just read? Can you conceive the morality of making the case that there could be no question that everybody knew that the appointment of College Lectureships was prohibited by the Charter and that the ex-President of University College, Cork, said so without directing the attention of the Dáil to the fact that the ex-President of the University took a diametrically opposite view and on its being doubted fortified himself with legal opinion?

Of course there are two views. The Visitors did their job according to their best lights. They were not there as judges; they were there as Visitors and they made their report as they saw the facts. But there are many views about the facts, many interpretations of the Charter of this National University of Ireland which would be quite legitimate. They gave it their interpretation and the Government, very properly, acting on that interpretation, have taken steps to ensure that a more liberal interpretation of the Charter will be possible until such time as the matter is inquired into by a commission in the general context of higher education and then the whole question of the Charter can arise.

I intervened in this debate because I was appalled at the irresponsible, reckless malice of those who sought to denigrate and slander a very distinguished man. I do not believe their slanders can do him serious harm. I do know that, no matter how noble a character may be in this country, if you throw enough mud at him some of it will stick. I want to say, occupying the post I do in public life, and in private life as well, that I want to share with Dr. Tierney any of the dirt thrown at him from the source from which it came, and if any sticks to him let it stick to me as well. I do not doubt that he has more contempt for the dirt that was cast at him than I have. Some of it may stick but ultimately, as our people come to understand the truth, it will wash away in the flood of reprobation that will some day overtake Deputies who use this House to slander a good man and that some day will overtake the man or men who sent them in here to do it. But let us learn our lesson from the deplorable experience which we have had. Let us resolve that the academic independence of the National University of Ireland will forever be held sacrosanct from direct control by this Oireachtas.

Nothing can be more certain than that if we had a repetition, or many repetitions, of what has transpired here in connection with this Bill, we would have the melancholy satisfaction of demonstrating our capacity for tearing down what our fathers built. I am ashamed of what has transpired here and I took pride in the work that went into the building of our University. I am ashamed that there should be colleagues in this House of Parliament who recklessly seek to tear it down. That is what they are doing. I am not sure that they understand the nature of their act. I give them the benefit of the doubt but great damage has been done—not to Dr. Tierney because those who know him understand the malice of the slanders that have been offered against him—but great damage has been done to the University. All the strictures that have been passed on University College, Dublin, are equally true, on the testimony of Dr. O'Rahilly himself, of University College, Cork.

I assert what the Visitors say, that no appointment has been made under the powers invoked by University College Dublin which did not contribute to the teaching capacity of University College Dublin. I assert, and I believe, that ultimately the vast majority of our people, contemptuously rejecting the allegation of Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Browne and Deputy McQuillan—how strange a combination—will come to realise that nothing was done in University College Dublin that was unworthy of the National University of which it is a constituent College. I assert that University College Dublin is an institution of which everyone who lives in this country can be justly proud. I assert that the Governing Body and the President of the College have overcome incredible difficulties with dramatic success; that they have contended with adversity and problems that would have broken up lesser men and lesser institutions.

I am proud to have been a student of that College. I am proud of the man who is today President of it. I congratulate him on presiding today over a student body of close on 5,000 in a College designed, in effect, to accommodate fewer than 500, on having carried on under a Charter dragged from the British Government in the best form we could get, and on providing the numbers of our people that it has provided with the opportunity of higher education under conditions which it was possible for them to accept.

I think the Government have acted wisely in introducing this Bill. They made one mistake which, I think, it is as well to put on record and acknowledge it for what it was. They might have, with perfect propriety, refrained from publishing the Visitors' Report. That is the practice in Great Britain. In Great Britain the old system prevails that the Visitor is appointed by the Crown and reports to a committee of the Privy Council and a Visitor's Report is never published. They might with propriety have decided in our special circumstances to publish the report. In that event a copy should have been provided to every Deputy of this House at the time of the circulation of this Bill. That was an error of judgment. Every conceivable kind of fantastic propaganda has been built up out of that. Every one of us knows that once a copy of a report is put in the Library of Dáil Éireann, it is open to everyone to go into the Library and copy out the entire report if he wishes and in fact effective publicity is given to it the moment it is placed in the Library of Dáil Éireann.

It was given to the Minister; it was placed in the Library of Dáil Éireann; but there was the chance, which was eagerly availed of, to suggest that there was an attempt to suppress the truth and that there was something awful concealed. Why anyone who wanted to conceal something would go out and set it in the middle of O'Connell Bridge, God only knows. If one had a secret to conceal, who, in the name of commonsense, would take his secret to the Library of Dáil Éireann? Do we not know that amongst us we have sufficient scavengers to seek carrion further than that? They would smell it one thousand miles away and wear their pads to the bone until they found its place of concealment, never mind walking down the stairs and into the Library. There was no concealment but there was ineptitude. They should have circulated the report to everybody, if it was to be published at all. But in the legislative measures they propose, they do what, in my opinion, and in the judgment of this Party, is the right thing.

The time for a commission on higher education is probably overdue and it is probably true that under a Charter— the history of which is known to some of us and, of course, a closed book to many of us because we know little of our own history—which has in it manifest inadequacies, we had to content ourselves in the circumstances that obtained when that Charter was drafted. It is proper that there should be time for a commission to examine and inquire into all relevant matters before embarking on a comprehensive review of the Charter of the National University. I think—and here I shall anticipate what that commission should include amongst its recommendations—that the National University and its constituent Colleges should have the same right in regard to amendment of its Charter as is enjoyed by Trinity College, Oxford, Cambridge and many of the provincial Universities in England.

It is a mere chance of history that the National University finds itself in the straitjacket of an archaic Charter. It is manifest that a change in that regard is overdue. If this University College had the facilities readily available to Trinity, Oxford, Cambridge and provincial Universities in England, all this hugger-mugger could never have been stirred up. If those who are privileged to sit in this House had considered this matter dispassionately and weighed on the one hand, the damage that reckless misrepresentation of U.C.D. could do against the political advantage of being the source of the scandale I think they would have realised that the political publicity they have got was very dearly bought. I cannot help thinking that some of those who encouraged them in this activity will live to regret the inspiration they provided. They may have the comfortable solace tonight that they tried successfully to get dirt thrown at Dr. Michael Tierney but a great deal of the ordure that was flung has struck the University of which they themselves are servants. It is a poor bird that fouls his own nest and he does not long survive within it. Perhaps Deputy McQuillan would tell that to some of his friends——

Mr. McQuillan

Tell it to Deputy Ryan.

Mr. Dillon

——particularly when he was virtually hatched, fed and maintained by it. But it is a distinguished man that sticks to his post in fair weather and foul and attempts the impossible and succeeds to a degree that can only be described as dramatic. I am grateful to Dr. Michael Tierney for the work he has done for University education in Ireland. I am proud of the President of U.C.D. and I think the vast majority of honest men and women in the country will join with me in wishing him long life and strength to carry on the work he has been doing, that he is doing and that he yet can do, despite the bitterest malice and the most unscrupulous slanders that can be launched against him.

Mr. Russell

I wish to say very little on this Bill. I think everybody inside and outside the House would wish to echo the sentiments of Deputy Dillon in the tribute he paid to the historic part which U.C.D. has played in the sphere of higher education during the past 50 years. I do not think anybody in the House would consciously wish to hurt the name of anybody associated with higher education in Ireland. Certainly, I have no wish to mention anybody associated with U.C.D. but I feel that as a layman and a member of the House—not a graduate of the National University or, indeed, of any University—that I have a duty to express certain views on this Bill.

I should first like to express my deep regret that the Minister for Education has found it necessary to bring this Bill to the House and, despite the sentiments that have been expressed on the grounds of the triviality of that matter, I think one must either accept or reject the report of the Board of Visitors which was presented to the Minister and as a result of which he has introduced this Bill. It is very difficult for a layman to be dogmatic about a document such as this, particularly when eminent professional men both inside and outside the House have given it as their considered opinion that the report is open to criticism for its findings.

I am clear, however, in my own mind about it and I accept the report of the Board of Visitors. Their strictures on the Governing Body are well founded. In saying that, I quite appreciate that over the years, and particularly over the past 10 years, the Governers of University College, Dublin, have been faced with very considerable difficulties, due mainly to the enormous expansion in the number of students in a University which was originally built to accommodate 1,000 students and is now called upon to accommodate five times that number. I appreciate difficulties have arisen in regard to obtaining competent personnel, and professional men are just as jealous of their status and their titles as anybody else.

Allowing for all that, however, I cannot overlook the fact that the Governing Body did not take the necessary steps to get legal opinion as to the legality, or otherwise, of the particular appointments now in question. The report, particularly on pages four and six, makes it quite clear that the three distinguished judges who constituted the Board of Visitors, having considered all the aspects of the matter, were quite satisfied that the authorities of University College, Dublin, had acted improperly and illegally. The Minister, having received and accepted that report, felt that the only course open to him—it was, I think, the only course open to him—was to introduce a Bill to validate or legalise appointments which had been illegally made and which, under the Charter, the Governors should not have made.

There is a further aspect to which I should like to refer. I cannot find more opportune words than those which appeared in a recent article in a paper which has been quoted here this evening on more than one occasion. The article written by the Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly which appeared in Hibernia has been quoted. Another article which appeared on the front page of the same paper has, by some mischance or oversight, not been quoted. I shall quote the penultimate paragraph:—

For the future this sad story should serve to remind those in authority in the National University that laws, rules and regulations must be either obeyed or amended. A chartered corporation using public funds ought to be scrupulous in respecting its own Charter. If, as a result of what has happened, the gates are opened to bureaucratic interference in the life of the University all parties in it will have much to regret, but no one will be so much to blame as the College which, in the words of the Visitors, "adopted the course of expediency and, in doing so, seemed to the Board to overlook the fact that its action might affect not only the University but the other constituent colleges."

The short Bill which the Minister has introduced has, as I see it, three purposes: (1) to validate every appointment which the Governing Body purported to make at any time before the passing of the Act; (2) to ensure that any appointment made up to the specified date, which is 31st March, 1962, will be a valid appointment; and (3) that, if the Government so decide, that specified date may be extended to March 31st, 1963, or, further to March 31st, 1964.

The Minister stated in his opening speech that this was a temporary measure to deal with a temporary situation and that the whole matter would be investigated by the commission which he intended to set up to inquire generally into the position of higher education. I regret that this commission will be burdened by the necessity of inquiring further into this particular aspect of higher education. It will be sad news to the 10,000 secondary school children in Limerick, and its surrounding area, some 98 per cent. of whom will never see the inside of a university, that the commission which they hoped would deal primarily with the extension of opportunities for higher education to their area will now be burdened with a different task.

I cannot help feeling that there will be some cynicism in their attitude when they recall that over the years people in Limerick have fought to get even the primary year of certain Faculties in Limerick city and have failed, on the ground principally that the Charter would not permit it, and discover now that that same Charter, which was used to block their efforts, is being violated, as it has been violated, by the Governors of the principal constituent college of the National University of Ireland.

Down through the years, the Presidents of the constituent colleges have fought to preserve the autonomy of the National University. Whether we like it or not, this is the first intrusion by the State into the affairs of the National University of Ireland. I hope it will be the last. I hope it will be a warning to those in charge of the affairs of University College, Dublin, that they have a duty, above and beyond that of any ordinary layman, to ensure that their Charter, which they treasure so highly, is not violated through ignorance, apathy, or disregard for its contents.

I believe that the more discussion there is of matters of this kind, the better it is. Since this Bill had to be discussed, I think it would have been better if the Minister had arranged that all Deputies, and the public generally, had been made aware, prior to the introduction of the Bill, of the contents of the Visitors' report.

I do not believe in slipping Bills into the House, no matter how mild their purpose may be. In saying this I do not want to exaggerate the necessity for this Bill. As I said, I think there are pressing reasons which possibly influenced the College authorities to act in the way they did, but the fact remains that parts of the Charter were broken and, unfortunately, they must suffer the consequences.

One of the consequences in a democracy, if you fail or sin, is that the public has an opportunity of discussing your shortcomings. It is inevitable, I suppose, in a case like this that charges, some of them serious charges, may be made against persons in responsible public positions. May I make it quite clear that I want to be completely dissociated from any charges made against any individual or any member of the authorities of University College, Dublin? I am purely concerned with the fact that, as reported by the Board of Visitors, they violated their own Charter, and I feel they must suffer the consequences.

I am not concerned with the personal ambitions or suggested personal reasons of any individual. It is easy to exaggerate these. We should remember that in this democratic House, if people get up and take advantage of the House to criticise unfairly or, as Deputy Dillon suggested, to throw mud at an individual, thank God there is always someone else to stand up and champion him. If it brings out its detractors, certainly it brings out its champions as well. Generally speaking, the sense of fair play and justice Deputy O'Malley alluded to does prevail in this House. At least, that has been my experience in the short few years I have been in it.

I think we would be very naive if we accepted as a fact that cliques, pressure groups and influences are unknown in Universities. They are not. I have only some small experience of the Governing Body of one of the constituent Colleges, and, in my view, academic gentlemen are no different from the ordinary public representative and county councillor. They are only human and I do not think for that reason they are to be deprecated and their character destroyed if from time to time they use certain endeavours to promote their own interests. But, by and large, we have reason to be proud of the men in the various Universities who have manned the different Faculties— Professors, Lecturers and Demonstrators. Generally they have given honourable service to their Universities and their country. We should be thankful for that because it is difficult nowadays for a small country, not rich in the material things of the world, to staff its Universities, or indeed any of its institutions, with men of the right calibre.

I am sorry the Minister has taken powers in the Bill to give the Government the option of extending it for the full period of four years. I should have preferred if the section giving that power to extend the Bill to 31st March, 1963, and 1964, were deleted. I should wish that within the period of two years the University authorities themselves would take steps to seek an amendment of their Charter. After all, if these irregularities have existed all these years, it is pertinent to ask why steps were not taken if the Charter was not suitable in this mid-twentieth century? Why did the authorities not take the necessary steps to have the Charter amended and put themselves in the clear? I would much prefer that, rather than the Minister initiating any changes in the University's method of appointment, the University authorities themselves would take the initiative in seeking an amendment of the Charter that would give them the necessary legal powers to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, that all such appointments would be publicly advertised, would be selected by a competent, independent committee and that the appointment would be made by the Body of Governors.

I feel, with other Deputies who have spoken, that the Minister had no option in this matter. As I said at the beginning, my only regret is that the necessity for bringing in this Bill ever arose at all. However, it has arisen and we must face up to it. In the circumstances, I support the Minister's action.

Mr. Booth

I intervene in this debate with a certain amount of apprehension, in view of the fact that Deputy McGilligan has stated that those who are critical of the present direction of University College, Dublin, are those who are opposed to the Catholic Church, while Deputy Dillon has suggested that the Opposition comes mainly from those who are supporters of the Ascendancy. I do not agree with either of them, but I certainly plead not guilty myself on both counts. Yet I am afraid I feel myself forced to be critical. I should like to make it clear that I do not want to make any criticism of University College itself. Its tradition and its academic standing are far too high for any discussions such as we have had here today to have any really adverse effect whatever.

I am very glad it seems to be generally recognised now that there was no desire by the Government to whitewash something which happened which was improper or to restrict any discussion. That suggestion was originally made by Deputy McQuillan and he largely took it back, very generously, in his speech today. However, I think the Government have allowed themselves to be placed in a rather awkward position by giving a certain appearance originally of not stressing the importance of the issue. At the same time, I appreciate that if the issue had been stressed unduly, it would have been regarded as an attack, and a direct attack, by the Government on U.C.D., so that the Government were placed in a very difficult and embarrassing position by reason of the creation of a situation which was not their responsibility at all.

I support this Bill. I feel, as other speakers have said, that the Government had no alternative. At the same time, I think that what exactly the Bill provides is insufficiently appreciated. In particular, I think it is not fully appreciated that the appointments in future which will be made by the Governing Body shall be made for a period not exceeding one year. Granted that there is a further provision whereby these appointments by the Governing Body may also be declared valid for subsequent periods, but there may only be an appointment for one year at a time. Therefore there is no danger that appointments made under this Bill, when enacted, will seriously jeopardise anyone in the staffing of the University in future.

I was very glad that Deputy Ryan spoke on this measure and I feel he spoke with courage as a graduate of the College. I think he spoke not only with courage but with a keen, analytical mind, and got right down to the basis of the whole situation which has led to the Bill being introduced. I quote from the Official Report, Vol. 181, Col. 355, where Deputy Ryan stated:

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.

That was spoken by a Deputy of this House and a young, or comparatively young, graduate of the College, and I do not think anyone can accuse him of being a supporter of the Ascendancy or of being anti-Catholic. I think what we can say about it is that he was greatly embarrassed by having to say it and yet he did say it.

From that we turn to the periodical Hibernia which has already been quoted, where it refers to the freedom of the University being breached not from without but from within. Is that a responsible comment? I do not think anyone could say that a paper which carried an equally prominent article by Rev. Dr. Alfred O'Rahilly was essentially Communist or atheist. It is a responsible paper and yet it states quite definitely in its editorial that in its belief the freedom of the University has been broken from within.

There is one paragraph which I feel I should quote, and which I do not think has been quoted so far. It states:

It is high time, too, for the authorities of U.C.D. to learn that academic freedom cuts both ways. It means freedom for the University to go its own way free from State intervention in ordinary matters, though substantially supported by the State. But within the College it should also mean toleration of divergent views of College policy and freedom for the academic staff from the least hint of a threat of penalisation.

That I regard as a dreadful commentary, a dreadful criticism from a very responsible quarter, a warning that freedom within the University is in danger, and unfortunately it appears that such is the case.

We have read in the Press of the suspension of a student on grounds of discipline. It seems at least open to doubt whether his suspension was validly carried out. That has led to subsequent action by College societies, whose inaugural meetings have been peremptorily banned. I am afraid I must agree with Hibernia that freedom is in danger in this case, and I quote those other instances simply to show that this is not an isolated instance.

Deputy McGilligan spoke at great length this afternoon but I think he did not sufficiently stress the fact that he spoke, not just as a member of this House, but that he was speaking in the capacity of a defendant. He was speaking as a member of the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, and as a member of the teaching staff. He stated that the Government realises now that the matters involved in this whole investigation are of no real importance. Where he got that idea I do not know, but from what I know of Government policy I could deny that absolutely.

He goes on to say that the Bill interferes with the freedom of the College. What alternative had the Government? The College, through its Governing Body, had got itself into a tangle by acting in an irregular manner and those who infringe the law are hardly justified in arguing with the Legislature if it tends to interfere. He says that the report of the Visitors is a bad report, that it is not a judicial decision but merely the decision of three judges. That is a distinction without a difference or a difference without a distinction. I cannot follow it. Why a judge of the High Court or Circuit Court would suddenly cease to be a judge when he gets outside the Four Courts I do not know, or why he becomes less reliable in his opinions I do not know, but his main objection seems to be that he did not agree with it.

He stated that the point at issue was really only a question of titles. Deputy Dillon also tried to give that impression. A number of people have tried to give that impression recently but the facts do not confirm it. In page 4 of the report of the Visitors it is set out quite clearly:

... the argument propounded by counsel for the College was not on the basis that College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are Assistants, but was on the basis that the College could appoint Professors and Lecturers other than to fill vacancies in Professorships and Lectureships which had been established prior to 31st October, 1916.

According to the report, therefore, it was not merely a question of titles, not for a moment. There is a claim by the College that the Governing Body could appoint Professors and Lecturers and there is no justification at all for this assertion by Deputy McGilligan that it was purely a question of titles.

Deputy McGilligan went on to remind himself of the proceedings and I was not at all impressed by his selection of extracts, purely from his own recollection, as to what happened during this investigation by the Board of Visitors. Anyone could select small items of conversation. He referred at times to formal statements and at other times to asides made by one of the Visitors to another, which I think it was very improper of him to reveal at all if, in fact, he heard them or if, in fact, he remembered them correctly. I do not for a moment accept his recollection of what may or may not have been said during these proceedings, and I think he did himself and the College very little service in proceeding along those lines.

He said there was no significance whatever in the vacant statutory lectureships—no significance at all— that they should be allowed to stay as they are and they should even be abolished, or could easily be abolished. But, he did not refer to the fact that he himself was qualified to be in the position of an acting Professor in two cases, that he was not only qualified but was actually holding these acting professorships. He paid very little courtesy to the House in not making it perfectly clear that in speaking as he did he was speaking as a very interested party because it is clearly set out that he is one of the acting Professors in the Law of Property, Common Law and Equity and the acting Professor of Constitutional Law, International Law, Criminal Law and Procedure. Then, he attempts to persuade this House that he is speaking without any vested interest whatever in support of a system which had been condemned by the Board of Visitors.

He goes on to quote from a letter or from some document the nature of which he will not disclose, the source of which he will not disclose, and he expects us to be impressed by that. When a man refuses to disclose information in that way, I am afraid I assume the worst.

He criticised the three judges for speaking of the danger of patronage and he stated that they least of all were entitled to criticise anybody for patronage. We all know that Deputy McGilligan suffered a severe disappointment on a certain occasion but I do not think that entitles him to be so vitriolic in his statements about those who have attained to the Judiciary. He stated that people like the county councillors on the Governing Body were people who were not easily hoodwinked, who knew very well what they were doing, and yet, almost in the same breath, he says that the judges were hoodwinked up to the eyes, were deceived both as to the law and as to the facts.

He states that there is not, and never was, any reign of terror in the College. I think the expression "reign of terror" is an exaggeration at the best of times. I do not think anyone did say that there was a reign of terror but there is, as stated in Hibernia, definite lack of freedom, as shown by the suspension of a student and the banning of meetings in the College, and also shown in respect of at least one senior member of the staff of the College who was given the option of supporting in writing the Belfield project or resigning—that I know to be a fact—and he was bitterly opposed to the project.

There is undue influence, to put it mildly. I do not think anything is gained by overstating the case but there is certainly undue influence being used to influence people to do certain things. That is not a reflection on the College in any way, only a reflection on those who use that improper influence.

On the report of the Visitors itself there are just a few points which possibly have not been commented on as fully as I would like. On page 3 it is recorded that the Governing Body continued to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in increasing numbers for each of the ensuing Sessions from the Session 1954/55. The report states:

For the present Session (1959/ 60) 45 College Lecturers and 30 Assistant Lecturers were appointed at the meeting of the Governing Body of 24th June, 1959.

That is, 75 appointments were made in one meeting of the Governing Body.

There is a limit to what any committee or any Governing Body can digest and a Governing Body which is faced with 75 nominations for 75 vacancies is bound to take the easy way out and to say "Agreed". What else can they say? There is no time to discuss more than five or six of the appointments. I gravely doubt whether the Governing Body could possibly have known more than eight or ten of the people nominated for those appointments. I am afraid that a small group who, I gather, are known as the College Authorities, that is, the President, the Secretary and the Registrar, have produced the items for the agenda very efficiently and the Governing Body is very grateful just to be able to say: "We are sure that is perfectly all right and we agree to whatever you suggest." It could only be in such a way that 75 appointments could be made at one meeting and I would be very surprised if that was the only item on the agenda for that meeting.

Reference has been made also to the fact that in no instance of the appointment of a College Lecturer has more than one name been before the Academic Council or the Governing Body. I cannot help feeling very anxious to know who makes this one nomination to the Academic Council or the Governing Body. That is a matter which I think and hope the Minister will investigate in due course.

The Board has found, and recorded its findings, that it is part of the present policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many "statutory" lectureships and that that is a breach of the statutory duties imposed on the President. Exception has been taken to the description of what has happened as a breach of a statutory duty and it is contended in the same quarters that this was a very small matter which we can disregard. I think all the surrounding circumstances would prevent any normal person from taking any such course. There seems to have been a complete disregard of statutory obligations and, unfortunately, this is not the only instance of such disregard, although it was a very serious one.

There is a very valuable collection of legal books known as the Palles Library, which was given to the College under a deed of trust. The terms of that trust have been flagrantly disregarded and the matter has been brought officially to the attention of the authorities but without any result whatever and this Library is now being spread around the College instead of being kept intact in one place, according to the deed of trust under which it was accepted. This appears to me to show an almost incredible disregard for statutory obligations.

The Registrar of the College told the Board of Visitors:

"I defend them (College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers) on the ground of our chartered freedom to do what is necessary."

That is stretching the clause to which Deputy McGilligan referred, far beyond breaking point. That is the claim of the Registrar of the College, that whatever was necessary was authorised by the Charter, and that the only judge of what was necessary was the Governing Body, in the end, or possibly the authorities of the College. "Our chartered freedom to do what is necessary"—no body governed by a Charter has any such freedom to do what is necessary. If it had, there would not be any need for any other clause in the Charter at all. It would just be told: "You are in charge of the College; do what is necessary." In actual fact, there are restrictions and they are there for a purpose. The restrictions were ignored; they were wilfully ignored by people who should have known that it was at least doubtful that they were authorised to act as they did. In fact, the Board found that the Governing Body were "at all times aware that it was at least doubtful that it was authorised" to act in this way.

I cannot see how anybody can defend the action of counsel appearing on behalf of the College and declining to give any reason for the decision to appoint College Lecturers. I cannot see how anyone could leave it to a few members of the staff to give their own personal reasons for supporting and approving of the action of the Governing Body. The only conclusion I can draw is that counsel appearing on behalf of the College knew that there was no merit whatever in their case. They "did not attempt to justify these appointments on any meritorious basis," though two paragraphs higher up on the same page, it is recorded: "That the College has on this Visitation ex post facto and for the first time sought to justify on a legal basis the action of the Governing Body...”

At the conclusion of this Report, it is stated that:

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.

I do not know enough about University College staff—I do not know anything really; but I am certainly not in a position—to judge whether the standard of teaching has suffered. I think it is extremely unlikely that it has suffered to any appreciable extent, if at all. At the same time, I feel that it is worth noting that the College authorities—I do not want to name any individual but I think it was one or other of the three main officers of the Governing Body—had the effrontery to say that the way in which they appointed staff is better than the way in which the University would have done. I cannot see how anybody can say University College was all that much wiser than the Senate of National University. I cannot agree with that for a moment, and I feel it is a matter which ought to be considered very carefully by the University Senate itself.

There was a reference to the terms under which these appointments were made and there was one reference to the fact that reappointments were made subject to good conduct. That appears to me to be sinister. I do not know of any other appointment by any national University which would be made subject to good conduct. It is quite obvious that those who received the appointments knew that they were kept there on approval. That is no position in which a University Lecturer should find himself. He should never feel he is in danger of having to find another job if he does not conform very strictly to the wishes of those who are employing him.

An attempt is now being made to throw all the responsibility back on the Government and to tender advice to the Government as to what they should now do. I hope the Government will resist any such pressure. The only reason the Government have come into this at all is that an intolerable situation has been created by reason of irregularities by some few people on the staff of University College. They are few, but the only way in which the matter could be regularised was by Government intervention. That has got to be done but it is being done with obvious regret by the Government. As little as possible should be done by the Government.

I would hope that the Senate of the University would take back the responsibility which is properly its own and that the Governing Body would also take greater responsibility for the decisions with which it is faced from time to time. It is very easy for any committee to be unduly influenced by the executive members thereof. To date, I feel this position has been used by a few members to obtain an undue influence in the running of University College. So far, the standard of teaching does not appear to have suffered but in-breeding is bad in any sphere. If the College staff is to be constantly recruited from inside, the College is bound to suffer in the end. For that reason, I think it is very much to be desired that, in future, in appointments made by the Governing Body under this Bill, there should be proper advertising of vacancies. There is no reason why there should not be.

Deputy McQuillan suggested that we were making it legal and proper for one nomination only to be considered in each case. I do not regard that at all as being the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to hand back authority to the Governing Body as such, in the hope—and I trust it is not only a pious hope—that the Governing Body will take responsibility in the matter and use their responsibility in the way they should.

In closing, I should like to pay tribute to the petitioner, Mr. John Kenny. He had a very difficult job. One of the things which makes me feel most concerned is that only one person was found who saw clearly enough the potential danger of the situation which was developing and, having seen it, was courageous enough to take action. It is not a pleasant duty to have to take action in public in a way which seems to go against your own college. He behaved with great dignity and great propriety, and we should all be grateful to him for the action he has taken in defence of the law, and in defence of the individual. I hope when this Bill goes through there will not be any mud-slinging at University College and I hope the Senate of the University will take very serious note of the report of the Board of Visitors, and of some other matters which have been referred to in this House.

I am sorry I had to refer to the matter at all and I hope it will not be taken in any way as a criticism of the College. I have far too many friends, both graduates and undergraduates, in the College not to wish it well in every possible way. I have spoken as I have spoken this evening, solely out of a desire that the reputation of the College shall not be adversely affected in any way by what has happened. This is a question of personalities and personalities only. It does not reflect on the College, and its reputation should remain absolutely without stain.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I had not the benefit of hearing Deputy Booth's speech. I heard only the end of what he said and I should like to believe that the sentiments the Deputy expressed at the end of his speech represented his sincerely held views in his contribution to this debate.

This Bill has been made the occasion for an attack by a number of Deputies on University College, Dublin, and on those in charge of the College. It is apparent that the report of the Visitors has given the occasion for attacks from various sources on the College. The whole affair has been regrettable and much that has been said in the debate might well have been unsaid.

Without attempting to parse the report of the Visitors to the College which has made necessary this Bill, I think it true to say that U.C.D. in recent years, whatever the reason, whatever the policy may have been, has undoubtedly reached a peak of distinction. I should like to remind Deputies that in the last decade or so the thought and contribution from U.C.D. have profoundly affected the deliberations in this House and the policy formed in this House.

I do not think it necessary for me to refer to any number of Faculties but I refer just to one, that is, to the Economic Department in U.C.D. I should like to remind Deputies, and in particular Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan who have a very real experience of the policies pursued in this country since 1948, that in the past 12 years the Economic Department of U.C.D. has had it effect on Government policy and on the deliberations in this House. That is due to the fact that that Department is staffed by a group of brilliant young economists.

When Deputies criticise, as they have done and are entitled to, the manner in which the staff in U.C.D. have out of necessity been recruited in recent years, they should at least realise that the result has been an extraordinarily successful one. In the last 12 years or so we have seen a brilliant contribution of economic thought from the Economic Department and also, I believe, from other Faculties in the University, and while it is apparent from the report of the Visitors that the manner in which the appointments were made suffered from a technical legal defect, one should not assume, as some Deputies have been prepared to assume, that because the defect was there under the Charter the appointments were mala fide appointments. In fact they were not. I have little doubt that even the sternest critics of the College would recognise that the appointments made in the last 12 or 14 years have given the best possible results in regard to the work of the College and the contribution which the College has made to constructive thought.

It is unfortunate that this matter has come before Dáil Éireann. It is unfortunate that Deputies—and I for one would like to join in this complaint—did not have available for study in sufficient time the report of the Visitors. I would have wished that it had been otherwise but certainly a pretext has been made for an unwarranted attack on the University authorities and on the President of the College. The President of the College is a person of standing and distinction, a person who has contributed in other days and in other ways to the country and to the University of which he is now President. To put it mildly, the manner in which he has been attacked in this House was ungallant. If he has been in fault, if he has been outside the strict letter of the law in relation to the University's Charter, undoubtedly it is not because of any regard for himself but because of a desire to advance the interests of the College of which he is President. The results which he has achieved in the last 14 years have undoubtedly led to the betterment of the College.

I unfortunately had not the opportunity of hearing the discussion in full but I do hope, now that this matter has been aired and discussed here, while we may regret the manner in which it came to the House, that Deputies will appreciate the very real contribution to modern Ireland made by the University College in this city, a College which has contributed in the past to the life of this country and a College which, in my view, has contributed in a very definite and signal manner in recent years towards constructive and progressive thought in Ireland.

Minister for Education (Dr. Hillery)

The amendment which, I understand, is being withdrawn, that the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed for a month, was moved by Deputy Dr. Browne. In moving it he stated he had not had time to study the report of the Board of Visitors. He suggested at that time that an attempt had been made to suppress that report and, to substantiate that, he said that only one copy of the report was available to Deputies.

It was also suggested that a White Paper should have accompanied the Bill when the Bill was circulated and that this was not done. The facts show that the suggestion that an attempt was made to suppress the report was baseless. Normally, procedure lays down that when a document is being presented to the Oireachtas six copies of it should be sent to the Librarian.

In the case of the report made to the Government by the Board of Visitors set up by the Government, this was done and done at what I thought was the appropriate time—simultaneously with the circulation of the Bill to Deputies. Explanatory White Papers are issued only in relation to involved measures which require a detailed explanation. I think in his speech promoting that case Deputy Dr. Browne showed he had studied the report in detail and seemed to understand the provisions of the Bill. So much for the Deputy's statement that he had not an opportunity of studying the report or that a White Paper was necessary.

Dr. Browne

I had 24 hours to study it. In fact, I had two hours to study this report, because of other business.

Dr. Hillery

I must say the Deputy did very well.

Dr. Browne

Thank you very much. It is no thanks to you.

Dr. Hillery

I should like to assure the House that there was no attempt or intention on my part to prevent this report being available. In fact, Deputies know from experience that once the regulation number of copies of such a document has been sent to the Oireachtas Library further copies are readily available and they were in this case. Apart from that, I do not intend to chase all the Deputies who have spoken in their travels through the report of the Board of Visitors or outside of it.

I am not, in fact, pronouncing on the merits or otherwise of the practice which attached to the making over a period of years of these appointments. I have my own opinions on the matter. However, apart from other considerations, an expression of opinion is no solution to the urgent, if temporary problem with which I am called upon to deal.

The Government, as a result of this visitation, accept that the Governing Body is not empowered to appoint persons to the academic staff and to call them Lecturers. In my opening speech, I mentioned in particular the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. A number of further appointments require to be made urgently to that Faculty so as to complete the staffing of it. These appointments are in the categories to which it has been the practice to assign College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. My information is that they will not be filled if mere Assistantships are offered to the possible appointees.

Some points made during the debate require comment by me. I think Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan insinuated that the practice followed in the making of the particular appointments dealt with in this Bill involved misappropriation of public funds. Since I am the Minister responsible to this House for the moneys voted for the Universities I must refer to that matter, at the same time stressing that I am not pronouncing on the merits or otherwise of what happened.

Therefore, I feel it incumbent upon me, in view of the charges made, to point out that the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, had it fully within its powers to appoint as Assistants the persons involved in relation to the posts of College Lecturer and Assistant Lecturer and to pay these persons as Assistants exactly the same salaries as they received as College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers.

An Teachta Ua Maolchatha and, I think, Deputy Russell and Deputy McGilligan raised the question of the autonomy of the University. I am glad they did so as it gives me an opportunity to assure them that there is no desire on our part to interfere with that autonomy. Whilst saying that, I should like to say also that it is possible that the machinery for the making of University appointments may need overhaul. It would be for the Commission on Higher Education to say whether or not they consider this to be so.

General Mulcahy

But that would not necessarily remove that outside the Charter of the University?

Dr. Hillery

No, not necessarily. One statement by, I think, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan was that this Bill supports a policy of non-filling of statutory posts or appointments. The Bill does no such thing. It does not support any policy. It merely caters for an interim position.

In that regard, I would point out that while Section 2 of the Bill gives power to the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, to make appointments to posts as College Lecturer and Assistant Lecturer it does not in any way take away from the Senate of the National University power vested in the Senate to institute such posts. It enables the Governing Body to make appointments without circumscribing the powers of the Senate to create the posts and to make the appointments if it so desires. It is enabling legislation which permits the Senate in any particular case, for instance, to say that what is required is not a College Lectureship but a University Lectureship.

Dr. Browne

It enables the College to carry on practices which have been condemned by the Board of Visitors.

Dr. Hillery

I do not think the Deputy has it clearly. It enables the College to make appointments but it does not take from the power of the Senate of the National University to create posts.

Mr. McQuillan

The Senate cannot force the Governing Body to apply to have the statutory positions filled. Does the Minister propose to see that the 53 per cent. of the positions vacant will be filled?

Dr. Hillery

The Senate has the means of dealing with that. Those statutory posts must either be filled or abolished altogether. If the Governing Body want to abolish a particular statutory post by a Statute, the Senate can appeal against that Statute. For instance, the Governing Body usually initiates the process for the creation of a statutory post. In a particular case under this legislation, they may propose a College lectureship to the Senate. That leaves discretion to the Senate to say that it is not necessary to create a College lectureship, with the special facilities of appointment by the Governing Body given in this Bill and that it should be a University lecturership with the appointment to be made by the Senate.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Minister aware of the statements in the papers and elsewhere that it is the policy of the Governing Body not to fill statutory positions for Lecturer? Has he any comment to make on that?

Dr. Hillery

It is declared by somebody else that it is the policy of the Governing Body?

Mr. McQuillan

It is declared by the Registrar and the Secretary in his statement to the papers that it is College policy not to fill the statutory vacancies of 53 per cent.

Dr. Hillery

In that case, this Bill enables the Senate, if it so desires, to have certain posts as College posts. On the other hand, the Senate may decide to make a particular post a University post to be filled by the Senate. It leaves the discretion and the powers of creating posts with the Senate and deciding which type of post will be created and by whom filled. I do not know whether that is absolutely clear. To draw a firm distinction between validating what is past and gone and catering for the needs of a limited period in the future, I feel it will be necessary to introduce a slight amendment to Section 3 of this Bill. I shall be in a position to deal with that on the next Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Dr. Browne

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main motion put.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the motion is carried.

Mr. McQuillan

Votáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will those Deputies asking for a Division please rise.

Deputies McQuillan, Browne, Kyne, Casey, and M.P. Murphy rose.

The Dáil divided:—Tá, 63; Níl, 5.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Carew, John.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Rooney, Eamon.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

• Browne, Noel C.
• Casey, Seán.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• McQuillan, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Browne and McQuillan.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th May, 1960.