University College Dublin Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.

Question proposed "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of clarification, I should like to refer the Minister to page 9 of the Report of the Board of Visitors at University College, Dublin, in which it says:—

The College, in lieu of adopting either of the alternative courses above mentioned adopted the course of expediency, and, in so doing, seemed to the Board to overlook the fact that its action might affect not only the University but the other Constituent Colleges.

In view of that feeling of perturbation on the part of the Board of Visitors that any action taken in connection with these appointments in University College, Dublin, would have an effect on the other Constituent Colleges——

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind the Deputy that this is interpretation simply, and that "the College" means University College, Dublin. "The Governing Body" is the governing body of the College and the Deputy may not raise matters outside the mere interpretation of terms.

Mr. McQuillan

I prefaced my remarks by saying that I wanted clarification as to whether it is this Section or Section 4 which deals with the other Constituent Colleges.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section I deals with interpretation of words and phrases. The Deputy may not hang a speech on the interpretation of the words "The College" and "The Governing Body".

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Browne

We are opposed to the passing of this Bill despite all the arguments advanced for it, particularly from the Opposition benches, strangely enough. Our reasons for opposing this section are broadly the reasons upon which we founded our opposition in the first instance. First of all, let me say I am not by any means impressed by the case made by Deputy McGilligan for this Bill. I thought he was quite unconvincing and I must confess that it surprised me to discover that Deputy McGilligan would attempt to defend what I regard as the indefensible. It was suggested by him that, because of the liberalising clause in the Charter—a clause which is included, I understand, in all Charters—the College authorities have power to ignore the Charter.

The clause reads as follows:—

Our Royal Will and Pleasure is that this Our Charter shall always be construed and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the University, and the promotion of the objects of Our Charter, as well in all Our Courts as elsewhere, notwithstanding any non-recital, misrecital, uncertainty, or imperfection therein.

Deputy McGilligan appeared to suggest that this clause allows the College authorities to ignore the provisions of the Charter and, because of that clause, they did not, therefore, violate the Charter in any way. The difficulty about that argument is that, if there was no breach of the law and if, in fact, this liberalising clause allows the Governing Body to ignore the provisions of the Charter, then, of course, there is no need for the legislation before the House. If they did not break the law there is no need to validate their action by legislation.

Deputy McGilligan welcomed this Bill. He voted for it on the Second Reading. In other words, he voted for a piece of legislation which attempts to validate appointments made by the Governing Body, or, as is stated in the Bill, "appointments which the Governing Body purported to make at any time before the passing of this Act." We must clear out of the way, in the first instance, any suggestion that there has not been a flagrant breach of the law in respect of appointments made over a number of years. In an institution of its size, anybody might be forgiven, be it the President or other senior officials, for an occasional lapse in a situation of the kind that occurred, faced with the urgency of expanding staff in a rapidly expanding University. In such a situation occasions might arise in which a temporary appointment might be made, but any such appointment should, of course, be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Charter with the minimum of delay. The charges are that this improper and illegal practice, this flagrant disregard for the provisions of the Charter, has gone on now for a number of years, despite the fact that the Governing Body, and the President in particular, were aware that there was legal opinion that they were acting ultra vires their own Charter.

I want to make it quite clear now that we are concerned exclusively with this question of the violation of the Charter. It is no function of ours at this stage to suggest improvements or amendments in the Charter. All we can do as Deputies is draw the attention of the persons responsible for breaking the law to the fact that they have done so and notify them that they must cease to do so forthwith. It is for that reason that I am so strongly opposed to this measure, and particularly to Section 2. The illegalities discovered by the Judicial Inquiry should not be legalised by this House.

It has been suggested by Deputy McGilligan that the Report of the Board of Visitors is a bad Report and that the decision to introduce legislation was forced on the Government because it is a bad Report. I do not think he substantiated that charge. Certainly he did not substantiate it to my satisfaction, but that is really not important. What is important is that the activities of a Board of this kind are clearly laid down and defined. They will be found in an article by Mr. Seamus Henchy, a member of the Faculty of Law in University College, Dublin.

He sums up the functions of a Visiting Committee as follows:— (1) Visitorial jurisdiction is available to all members of the University; (2) the jurisdiction cannot be anticipated or taken away by any Court of Law; (3) the jurisdiction is exercisable by an ad hoc Board of Visitors appointed by the Government on petition by a member of the University; (4) the jurisdiction is exercisable to determine complaints and appeals of members in respect of matters governed by Charter, statutes and regulations, and also to interpret the Charter, statutes and regulations; (5) a Board of Visitors has no power to interfere with the acts or omissions of any of the Authorities of the University in matters in which the Authorities have a discretion so long as such discretion is properly exercised; (6) proceedings before a Board of Visitors are informal and in camera but the requirements of natural justice must be observed; (7) the findings of the Board of Visitors on questions of fact are conclusive, but an erroneous interpretation of the Charter Statutes, and Regulations will not debar an aggrieved party from having the correct legal position established in the High Court by means of an action for a declaration or an injunction. I was interested in No. 6, that the proceedings before the Board of Visitors are informal and in camera. I was rather shocked to see that. I am sure Deputy McGilligan must be aware of that and that he was aware of it when he disclosed, and I suggest improperly disclosed, the proceedings that took place before the Board of Visitors.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be wandering from the matter before the House. The Report of the Board of Visitors may be valueless according to the opinion of the person dealing with it, but what is before the House is Section 2—the authorisation to make appointments.

Dr. Browne

The case made by Deputy McGilligan is that the Board of Visitors made a bad report and that the bad report, in effect, has established the position that there is no need for this legislation. The Minister must be concerned with that point, like the rest of us. If Deputy McGilligan is correct we should not be debating this legislation at all. Section 2 or any other section.

The other point arising from Deputy McGilligan's statement is that if the Board of Visitors have produced a bad report, which Deputy McGilligan suggests it is, then he has a right of appeal to the High Court. If Deputy McGilligan is not merely bluffing when he says that this is a bad report, and if he concientiously believes it is a bad report, then I challenge him to take the remedy which lies open to him and to establish it in the High Court by means of an action for a declaration or an injunction. I think he owes it to his legal colleagues on the Board of Visitors to take this action and establish this case before persons who are more competent than I to arbitrate on who is right—the Board of Visitors or Deputy McGilligan. It is not sufficient for him to make a charge of that kind and leave it in abeyance. The Courts are open to him; the remedy lies ready to hand, and I think he should be prepared to take it.

We are opposed to continuing the system of appointments because it has been shown that this system had many weaknesses. One of the most important was the fact disclosed by the Visitors' Report that there were no advertisements, that the advertisement was an exception. If we pass this legislation that must be the supposition in the future. I think that is a retrograde decision and we cannot condone that sort of action. Even if it were not part of the provisions of the Charter, we have established precedents for the making of appointments. The Local Appointments Commission and the mechanism of the Civil Service Commissioners both have as their most important and valuable feature the fact that all posts will be most widely advertised.

It is quite clear that, if we allow the Governing Body to carry out the practice of the past ten or eleven years of restricting advertising or not advertising at all, young Irish graduates or English graduates, suitable people who want to apply for a post here, will not know that the vacancies are in fact there. The consequences of that will be that the quality of the appointee in the University must be restricted to those who are in the environment of the University and because of that have a special knowledge denied to the many of our graduates in various countries in the world who might be very glad to come back to this country and help by contributing their knowledge, technical skill or whatever it may be, to improve the quality of the teaching facilities made available in the University. I think the Minister will agree it is a most retrograde decision and one to which he should not lend himself.

The second point on which we are committing ourselves here is the fact that one name will be sent forward to the Governing Body for appointment. That has been the practice in recent years. It makes it particularly difficult for the Governing Body to exercise their discretion in making an appointment if, in fact, they are restricted to a single name for consideration in regard to a particular post. I do not see why the Government should sponsor legislation continuing by implication these two serious defects in regard to the making of appointments to what is the greatest of our Universities, certainly the largest of our Universities.

It must mean that there will be continued deterioration, or a deterioration, in the standard of the quality of the lecturers, professors and other teachers at the University. If these people would advertise the appointments or seek alternative candidates as laid down in the Charter it would be a great improvement on the proposition which we are now asked to accept by the Minister. I do not think that anybody was impressed by the suggestion that the circulation of appointments is unworkable. The best proof of this is that the Visiting Board has given it as their opinion that the appointments provision under the Charter is by no means unworkable subject to the provision for the circulation of 150 copies being removed.

No case at all has been established. On the contrary we have University College, Cork in the position that they are continuing to use the mechanism as laid down in the Charter. It seems to me to be most unfair that this legislation should be introduced to allow one college of the constituent colleges to behave in one particular way, a way shown to be most improper and illegal, and that the other two colleges should be forced to carry on using a method which we are assured is an unworkable method. We are assured of that by implication, by the fact that this law is being passed here in order to allow University College, Dublin to expand the staff and to facilitate the establishment of the Veterinary Faculty and so on. If the appointment mechanism is unworkable in Dublin surely it is unworkable in Cork and in Galway? If you propose to amend it in Dublin why not do the same in Cork and Galway?

Unless there is a radical change in the future what we are doing here today is giving legal sanction to a practice established by one individual to control, and to have unlimited control of nearly unlimited patronage. The Visiting Board referred to this matter and said that this practice could lend itself to patronage. That was a wonderful understatement because not alone has it led to patronage but it has led to a complete and widespread mind control of a whole great University exercised through the operation of the fundamental factor of the insecurity of appointment, the making of appointments from year to year and the threat of disemployment for non-conformity.

We were attacked by Deputy Dillon for referring to that. It seems to me that Deputy Dillon, in his criticism, exceeded all the bounds of reasonable behaviour and that he was unnecessarily offensive to Deputies who are, after all, merely discharging their functions as Deputies as they see them.

General Mulcahy

Is this a Second Reading, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are on Section 2 of the Bill.

Dr. Browne

There are precedents for criticism of the nature of our criticism here and these precedents were exercised by Deputy Dillon himself in the past in matters such as the Ward Tribunal, the Locke Distillery Tribunal and various other matters that were before the House. It is a pity that Deputy Dillon did not find a better cause to defend than one which is so blatantly unsound as that which he tried to justify. In his implied attack on us, the inference was that in opposing this method of appointment we were acting as part of a spearhead against the advancement of Catholic education in Ireland. It seems to me that that was a particularly wide charge and a particularly unfortunate one. I am fairly used to people sheltering behind the croziers when there is only a bad case or no case at all to defend but it seems to me to be particularly preposterous in this particular case because the person who initiated these proceedings is a Mr. Kenny who cannot be said to be in any way a non-religious, irreligious or anti-Catholic person.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be getting away from Section 2 of the Bill which authorises the Governing Body to make certain appointments.

Dr. Browne

I was merely making the point that in regard to making appointments in this way, we have been accused of attempting to interfere with the advance of Catholic education. In fact, all we are doing is criticising or discussing legislation which arose out of the report made by Mr. Murnaghan, Mr. Teevan and Mr. Binchy. I assume they are three Catholic senior judges. I do not know if they all are, but I assume that they are not hostile to the expansion of Catholic education, and it seems to me particularly shameful to use religion in this way. In addition to that Mr. Kenny and these other three men are distinguished graduates of University College, Dublin, so that again the charge that I might be acting as the leader of a sort of Trinity College underground movement is equally absurd.

We are opposed to the system of appointments on a simple matter of abstract justice—right and wrong— and not because of any particular hostility to any individual or to a University. If the Minister could bring in legislation tomorrow about Dublin University, Queen's University, or any other University or institution, as far as I am concerned, it will get exactly the same examination and analysis as I have tried to give to this piece of legislation. We all know, and the Minister knows as well as I do, that this system of appointments has in effect been condemned by the Board of Visitors. It is also, in effect, condemned by extant practice. I think all Deputies here are unanimous in their praise for the practice established by the Local Appointments Commissioners and the Civil Service Commissioners. Very little criticism could reasonably be placed on the practice of these bodies in the making of appointments and the same should apply to University College, Dublin. All we want is to revert to the provisions of the Charter as used by University College, Cork, and University College, Galway. If the Charter is good enough for them surely it is good enough for University College, Dublin?

It is suggested that this legislation is merely concerned with the question of titles and that it was an issue which is not of any real importance. That is what Deputy McGilligan said— something which has turned up unexpectedly. On the one hand, we know that Deputy McGilligan is a very distinguished lawyer and, on the other hand, as Deputy Booth pointed out, he is in effect a defendant in this case, because, I understand, he is over age and is being held on at the University from year to year, as long as he remains in the good graces of the President of the College.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to have any relation to Section 2 which, as I have already pointed out to the Deputy, deals with the Governing Body making certain appointments as set out in the section.

Dr. Browne

The suggestion has been made that this Bill concerns something which is quite unimportant. The quotation is: "the point at issue is not of any real importance." If the Dáil shares Deputy McGilligan's view on this, then of course there could be no quarrel about it, but what I am trying to show is that it is a matter of the very greatest importance. First of all, we are validating improper actions, illegal actions, and we are to perpetuate for a number of years a situation in the University which has been so undesirable that it has led to the Judiciary coming in. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this whole question and, while I know well that he had to introduce legislation to validate the appointments up to date, I cannot see how he can continue to justify the practice. It seems that he should refuse to become party to practices which have been so clearly and unequivocably condemned in the report. By this legislation the Minister is making no change in the position.

The Board of Visitors found that the present policy of the Governing Body is to leave unfilled many statutory lectureships and approximately 53 per cent. of these are at present unfilled. This Bill is doing nothing to change that position for three or four years, and we shall have over half the staff, and probably more, involved as time goes on because the President has shown that he is not going to observe the law, not going to obey the law— in effect, he is not being asked by us to obey the law. That 53 per cent. by 1963 or 1964 may rise to 63 per cent. or 73 per cent. unless we make it mandatory upon the President to fulfil his functions under Statute I, chapter IV, section 17, and chapter XIV section 1. Unless he carries out his functions under those clauses the number of unfilled posts will continue to rise. It is 53 per cent. now and, as I say, it can go higher.

That, of course, has had one interesting consequence. The fact that less than half the members of the Faculties at the moment are statutorily appointed makes nonsense of the strings of votes of loyalty from the various Faculties which appeared in the newspapers after the Second Reading debate, because the Faculties are not representative in so far as less than half are statutorily appointed and the non-statutory appointees are not in a position to make a vote of loyalty, if they felt like it, so that these votes of loyalty were hardly worth the paper they were written on. Therefore, it seems very wrong that the Minister is taking no steps, that I can see at any rate, to insist that the President discharge his functions in that way.

The disturbing thing to me was not so much even to see this 47 per cent. —less than half—who sent in votes of loyalty as a result of meetings held, but the fact that there was practically no contrary opinion expressed at all, which would seem to me to give substance to our charge that this system of appointments had created in the University an effective mind control over the whole intellectual world in the University, which made it very dangerous, to say the least of it, if not impossible, to take a dissident or a contrary view to that held by the authorities in the University.

The fact that there has been so little overt criticism, in our society, knowing how we do criticise one another and disagree with one another, and that there have been votes of loyalty with very little or no dissidence at all, is one of the most frightening manifestations of this mind control. It seems to me to be quite uncanny.

I should like to ask the Minister a question in relation to the people who are statutorily appointed and who have been appointed for a period longer than seven years. I do not know whether it concerns Section 2 or not, but I think it does. I understand that they must be reappointed for a further period. I wonder if there are many of these people and if it is intended in any way in this legislation to deal with them. First of all, if they are now improperly appointed in so far as their period has not been renewed and, if they are improperly appointed, is their position in any way being remedied or rectified under this legislation?

I should like to know whether the Minister intends to take any steps at all in relation to this most important point—the 53 per cent. unfilled posts.

Mr. McQuillan

Has the Minister any comments to make on those points?

Dr. Hillery

That is the only stage at which the Senate can make any move. As far as initiating the post is concerned, the Governing Body is the responsible authority for deciding to fill a statutory post and the position over the last number of years has been that the Governing Body, controlled by the President, has flouted the Charter and failed to make the initial move for the filling of the statutory posts. That position is not being remedied under Section 2 of this Bill.

Dr. Browne

The Minister is giving new powers to the Governing Body, is he not?

Dr. Hillery

I tried to explain this on the Second Stage. As I see it, in regard to the staffing of the University, under this Bill, the posts of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers would require to be created by statute. The statute would be initiated by the Governing Body and would depend on the agreement of the Senate for its institution. As I see it, the Senate has discretion there to agree or not to agree to the establishment of a particular statutory post sent to them by the Governing Body.

Mr. McQuillan

But there is no word about the Senate in this Bill.

Dr. Hillery

It is not necessary in this Bill. It is not necessary to put into this Bill what it is not doing; what it is doing is stated in the Bill but what I am saying to help to clear the situation is what it is not doing.

Mr. McQuillan

I had a look at Section 2 on a number of occasions and I must speak as a layman with no claim to legal knowledge or experience. I am not prepared at the moment, at any rate, to accept the Minister's explanation because it makes the matter still more confused. My reading of Section 2 is that the Governing Body notwithstanding any other enactment, namely, the Charter or the Statutes, are now given power to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers on a yearly basis up to the 31st March 1962 and that thereafter the Governing Body will be empowered by Government Order to have that authority extended up to March, 1963 and by further Government Order extended to March 1964.

The first thing I want to criticise is the question of date, the specific day, namely 31st March 1962. If it was just necessary to validate these appointments, surely the Government could have taken the view that all appointments made prior to 31st March, 1960 should be validated and that thereafter the normal process which is carried on in U.C.C. would be resorted to by the authorities in U.C.D. to fill posts and that position should obtain until this commission that the Minister speaks about has been set up and has issued its recommendations. That would indemnify the people who have been appointed and it would mean that, so far as the future is concerned, the Government would not be in a position to put its finger into the administration of U.C.D.

I should like the Minister to explain why the Government decided that on an Order being made by them, the Governing Body would be entitled from March, 1962 until March, 1963 to continue to make these appointments and at the end of 1963, if the Minister wished to make a further Order, that the University authorities could extend this arrangement until 1964. Why the need for Government Order? Would it not be a much more straightforward way of dealing with this problem to bring in the legislation, at least for a limited period, and then come before the House and ask for a continuation measure rather than try to take the opportunity by Order, at a later stage, of having the powers continued for the University authorities without this House getting an opportunity of discussing it?

Deputies on a number of occasions have criticised Government by Order, and I think it is a very dangerous form of legislation. It is most dangerous when we see Government by Order being brought in in connection with the control of U.C.D. It means that in this legislation no provision whatever is made, when the legislation as such terminates on 31st March, 1962, for this House to have an opportunity of considering what further action should be taken— whether the power of appointment should be extended for another year or two. That privilege will be removed from the House and instead, the Government by Order, will be in a position to give that authority to U.C.D.

In other legislation that has come before this House, it was generally the position that where the Government Order was to be made provision was inserted in the Bill that the Order concerned would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I want to refer the Minister to a number of such Bills over a number of years. We had the Supplies and Services (Continuation) Bill. That came before the House each year and had to be discussed by Deputies before the Government were allowed to have the measure continued for the following year. Another Bill of importance that has been before the House, and will be regularly before it, is the Rent Restriction Bill. For a number of years—I would say 20 years—the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill had to come before this House each year to be passed. There was no question of Government Order in those important measures, and I cannot understand why similar action has not been taken by the Government here. If they feel it desirable to extend this power to 1962 let it end at that and, in 1962, why not bring in a Bill giving authority to the Governing Body to have a further extension and let the matter be discussed here in the light of circumstances at that time?

It is to be regretted that the Minister has taken a very peculiar way out of these difficulties. I should say, as on the first occasion in this House when an effort was made to slip this Bill through the House in the middle of the Budget Debate, we now have another example of an attempt to slip legislation across on the public by Government Order. According to this Bill, Government Order means that the matter will not come before the House for discussion prior to the Government Order being put into operation. There is no other reason for the introduction of the Government Order.

I want to refer the Minister to what happened before whenever the Government found themselves in the position that they had to bring in legislation by Order. This is significant. It was accepted by all Governments in the past, where the matter was of importance, that that Order would be made available to the Members of the House and a section to that effect was written into the legislation to ensure that whatever Minister was in office could not evade his responsibilities in that regard. I shall read the particular section that is available in a number of Acts for the Minister's benefit:

Every Order under ... shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it annulling the Order, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

That Section was brought in to safeguard the rights of Deputies and the interests of the public generally so that the Government would not be entitled, by some hush-hush means, to get their weight across by means of an Order rather than be responsible to the House.

I have a number of suggestions to put to the Minister with regard to this matter. I would suggest to him that he would go no further than subsection 3 of this Section and specify the date as March 31st, 1962. If he is not prepared to do that he should, on the Report Stage, bring in amendments to ensure that a section will be embodied in the Bill making it mandatory on the Minister, whoever he may be, to lay any Order made on the Table of this House and before both Houses of the Oireachtas in connection with the extension of the time limit referred to in Section 2.

The implication in Section 2 is that this House is seriously asked to pass legislation that will enable the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, which is controlled by the President and a group of his associates, to continue making appointments of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers without advertising these posts, without giving an opportunity of an interview to any potential or likely candidates for any of these posts. I wonder this House does not feel a sense of shame that it is being used to rubber-stamp the continuance of this practice, which has lasted for 11 years, of making appointments without advertisements appearing and without a competition being held. That statement I have just made is based on the Report of the Board of Visitors. I did not pick it out of the air. I am relying for my authority on three members of the Judiciary who weigh their words well and who do not indulge in flights of oratory or in exaggeration. There is enough of that here in the Front Benches of the Fine Gael Party.

If we are to allow by legislation today the continuance of this system of making appointments we might as well stay at home. Surely this suggests that there is no point any longer in having the Local Appointments Commission functioning or any other Commission which makes appointments on the basis of merit. This House, on both sides, has always been unanimous that the best method, the safest method of making appointments, the least subject to influence of any kind is that conducted through the Local Appointments Commission. I believe most members of the community throughout the country have a feeling of confidence that the Local Appointments Commission does its job in a proper and responsible manner. In other words, the public have a feeling that the best individual will be appointed as a result of the interview and examination carried out by that Commission.

Why should it be different with regard to the appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in University College, Dublin? Why should the position arise there that a small group within the University be given power now legally to continue this practice? Why should this body be allowed to say that it will invite no competition among potential candidates and that it will not notify emigrants in Britain through the newspapers that such vacancies exist? That position has obtained now for eleven years and this Bill ratifies and gives it legal authority. The Minister shakes his head and says "no"—that this Bill will not validate that position. Does the Minister think we are coming in here for a joke? Does he think this Bill changes the position?

I would refer the Minister to Section 2(ii) which says:—

An appointment under this section shall be made for such period not exceeding one year and on such terms as to remuneration and other matters as may be determined by the Governing Body.

Does that not clearly mean that it is the Governing Body which determines who shall be appointed to these posts and is not the Governing Body controlled by the President? Is it not a fact that for these appointments only one name may appear before the Governing Body and that that name is automatically sanctioned by that Body? Do not we know it was the group controlling the Governing Body who put that name before the Governing Body which then automatically rubber-stamped the appointment?

I challenge the Minister to say that this Bill remedies the present practice of appointing College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in University College, Dublin. Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon went to great pains here last week to suggest this practice of appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers has been in operation in some cases back to 1949 and that the practice is in operation in Cork. I shall not deal with the position in Cork except to refute the statement made by both Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon last week.

Professor Atkins, the President of University College, Cork, in a letter to the newspapers on 2nd May stated that there are no College Professors or College Lecturers in University College, Cork, at present. "All existing appointments of Professors and Lecturers to this College have been made by the Senate of the University after receiving recommendations from the Academic Council and the Governing Body of the College. In addition, copies of the advertisements and conditions are circulated to every University in Ireland, including Queen's, Belfast. Furthermore, where posts are in the Sciences the vacancies are advertised also in British scientific and technical journals." That is the position in Cork. Why cannot U.C.D. carry out their duties under the Charter and the Statutes in the same legal fashion? I want the Minister to answer that question.

All this goes to show that a deliberate attempt was made here last week by both Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon to mislead this House and the country; they stated that what obtained in U.C.D. obtained generally in the constituent Colleges. They got their answer, not from me or anyone else in this House but from the learned Professors outside the House, speaking on behalf of U.C.C. I doubt if we should worry too much as to the accuracy of some of the statements made by either of the two Deputies to whom I have referred.

Deputy Dillon, speaking about these appointments, said dirt had been thrown in this House at the learned and noble President of U.C.D. and that the position was not as suggested by the Board of Visitors or by the Deputies who quoted the Report of the Board of Visitors. He suggested an attempt was being made by Deputies, who were being used by people outside this House, to tear down the structure of U.C.D. He challenged whether in any one instance it was shown that patronage had obtained in appointments. He shoved out his chest and said: "If there is dirt to be thrown at Professor Tierney I want that dirt to be thrown at me also". Those were his words.

The Board of Visitors stated in their Report that the system of appointments, which we are now legalising under Section 2, could lead to patronage. On page 9 of the Report they say:—

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

That is the finding of the three judges and, in relation to that finding, this House is now asked by the Government to legalise a system which the judges say could lead to patronage.

What interpretation can be put on that word "patronage"? Patronage can mean in relation to these appointments that the people who have the power to make them can dispense with advertising, can dispense with interviews and can make the appointments on the basis that the individuals concerned may be related to other members of the staff or to members of this House. It may be quite true, and is in many cases, that applicants for posts who are related to influential people may, on merit, deserve the posts but, before they get them, there should be the deciding factor of competition and fair play for all the applicants and the post should not be filled purely on the basis of "who you know" instead of "what you know".

I want the House to understand that it is not only Deputy Browne and myself and the members of the Labour Party who feel perturbed about this. I want to inform the Minister that Deputy Ryan, one of the younger members of the Fine Gael Party, came in here on the day the Minister made his opening statement and stated he was completely against the method of appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in U.C.D. His statement was to the effect that the system in operation was a matter of who you know rather than what you know. When Deputy Dillon decides to launch a personal attack on me and other people here who sought to expose this system he should include in his criticism Deputy Ryan and others of his own Party. It was significant that Deputy Ryan and other members of his Party failed to come in and support Deputy Dillon when they were ordered to do so on the Second Reading of the Bill

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What Deputy Ryan did or did not do does not arise on Section 2. The Deputy should address his remarks to the section.

Mr. McQuillan

Mr. McQuillan

I shall await the decision of the Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sir, I have to report that in the debate on Section 2 of the University College Dublin Bill I warned Deputy McQuillan, on more than one occasion, that he was repeating his statements. He paid no attention to my admonitions and finally I had to ask him to resume his seat. As he refused to obey my ruling I ordered him to leave the House. This also he has refused to do.

It is scandalous.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is Deputy Browne attempting to interrupt the proceedings of the House? I am asking him to resume his seat.

Dr. Browne

It is scandalous that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should try to prevent the House from discussing this matter. This is a deliberate attempt to consolidate patronage.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 18 May 1960

University College Dublin Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 May 1960