As I was saying prior to the adjournment, the important consideration in this matter is to secure the best possible use of the resources available and to ensure that the maximum advantage is derived from the resources available in University College, Dublin, and also in TCD. The new buildings and the facilities which are available at Belfield have special advantages in certain respects, but there are also available in Trinity College not merely a valuable library, which has been extended and improved very considerably in recent times, but a tradition which in certain respects, particularly from an external point of view, has advantages which can be utilised. I do not wish to elaborate particularly on the special advantages of either college except to say that the overriding consideration should be to exploit to the full and use to the maximum advantage the special attributes of both colleges and to consider other institutions in that connection. I refer to the special consideration which should be given to the position of St. Patrick's Training College, Drumcondra. I think special consideration ought to be given also to Carysfort College and to the Christian Brothers Training College at Marino. Probably pre-eminent among all these is the special position of Maynooth College.
An important aspect of this matter which seems to me to have been overlooked, or certainly not to have been given adequate consideration is the length of time which must elapse before traditions develop in any particular direction. We are all aware of the long tradition in Trinity College. Even in so far as UCD is concerned the university has existed in one form or another since the time of Cardinal Newman. It has existed in its present form for the last 60 years. It is not possible to build up institutions of that character and to change their format radically overnight. It is true that you can change the position legally. You can alter its legal or even constitutional framework by legislation or by the passing of a constitutional amendment, but that does not provide what we wish to establish here. It seems to me that the fundamental mistake being made in the excessive use of the term "merger" is that some illusory, imaginary condition will be created merely by the passing of legislation and by the enactment, if necessary, of a constitutional amendment.
Suggestions are being made that those involved in the merger are interested only in themselves or that they have vested interests in the retention of the status quo. I suppose there are a few people in either college—and indeed in that regard they are no different to people in any other walk of life — who are anxious to retain conditions as they are. On the other hand, views have been expressed and people have come together and signed a document because they are concerned with, and anxious for, the future development of university education in this country. Some of these people disagree fundamentally in many other ways, but all of them are interested in education. I know that some eminent professors have expressed a particular view in regard to medical education. It can be argued, and rightly so, that their views are entitled to consideration. Many other eminent medical people in both colleges, or indeed not directly concerned in either college, have expressed different views. But from the national point of view and from the point of view which we are obliged to consider here what we ought to ensure is that the maximum use will be derived from the proper use of all our resources—financial resources, actual facilities like buildings and, above all, personnel.
It is obvious that cannot be done if we get ourselves into a rigid position in which the dominant consideration is the word "merger" which, in fact, was not originally envisaged in the statement made initially by the Minister at the time. In any event we ought not to allow ourselves to be circumscribed in regard to future action by allowing a particular word, or the implications involved in it, to dominate all thought in this matter. The essentials of the whole question involve a rational and reasonable approach so that we may use to the maximum extent in the national interest all the resources available. That is why I stressed at the beginning that it seems to me it was a mistake to indicate a definite decision or to suggest that there was no possible alternative to the lines laid down in that decision.
In recent times the attitude adopted by the Department has caused concern. Not merely is that concern being reflected in the authoritarian attitude adopted in connection with the university question but also in connection with the articles published recently in Studies. This has caused a great deal of concern in quarters that hitherto probably were not in some cases aware of and never expected an attitude to be adopted comparable to that expressed in the article which has given rise to so many opinions being expressed by people qualified to speak on this subject, who are concerned, in their experience, with different aspects of the educational question.
Leaving aside entirely the propriety of a civil servant of the rank of Assistant Secretary—I described him last week as Secretary—it is a departure from precedent in this country that civil servants should express views that specifically do not reflect the views of the Minister or the Government. It is well established practice here that in discussing Estimates or legislation, in the presentation of either a case or a viewpoint, whenever a civil servant expresses a view the person on whose behalf he expresses that opinion or viewpoint is the Minister for the time being or, as the case may be, the Government for the time being. This seems to have marked a departure from that and that is the most serious aspect of it. It displayed an extraordinary bias, a bias partly corrected or attempted to have been corrected at the end of the article, against religious orders who have made such a remarkable contribution here and, as shown in one of the articles, a contribution at great personal and individual sacrifices; a bias against academic distinction, a bias against consultation.
To that extent, it conforms with the attitude adopted in respect of the decision laid down by the Minister and the Government for the Higher Education Authority and a general tendency towards a levelling down rather than an up-grading. These are matters that evoked and secured a very quick response from different highly qualified persons to such an extent that people who in the past might not have been so aware became for the first time aware of many defects in the attitude of the Department.
There are other aspects in it which are open to comment. One suggested that all improvements have taken place in the last five years. Leaving aside other political Parties, that was strong criticism of the Minister's colleagues; but the over-riding impression having read the article, which I did, is that it has a number of good points as well—it was not all on the debit side. However, having read the informed criticisms of the article by qualified people, I was left with the impression that some of the changes made are made merely for the sake of change and that a number of them have not been well thought out.
That is why I suggest at this stage— I have no interest in or connection with either university in Dublin except to visit them on occasions to speak or to listen to discussions or debate—that the over-riding consideration which must guide our deliberations on this matter is to have the widest possible consultation with all interests concerned on an open and frank basis without laying down in advance predetermined conditions or a predetermined course of action, because we are now legislating for the present only. If, after the discussions which are undertaken, legislation is proposed, then it should be of a minimal character, laying down the broad framework, conscious that whatever we do or say now will not be the last word on this matter—that it is reasonable to assume and natural to expect that many of the decisions which might in present circumstances appear to be desirable and appropriate may not be appropriate and may, indeed, have to be altered or amended in five, ten or twenty years, because all experience indicates that university education and universities have long traditions, some valuable, some not so valuable.
What we want is to evolve a system which will suit our needs now and, in so far as we can, the immediate future, and take appropriate action to deal with what we regard as the needs of the years immediately ahead. It would be a mistake to imagine that whatever we do today will be the last word or the final settlement of the question. This whole question has had a long history and anything we do can be regarded only as a continuing part of a historical process. It is important that we should do the right thing and the best hope of our doing the right thing is in consultation on the widest possible basis, in a spirit of goodwill and without appearing to be authoritarian.
That is the fundamental mistake the Minister and the Government are making at the moment. Because they have been so long in a particular position, Ministers or their advisers get into fixed attitudes, rigid approaches. As many questions are, this is a question that does not permit of a simple or easy solution. Above all, where we consider the whole broad spectrum of higher education it is necessary that we should not be too rigid, that we should have a flexible approach and that we should approach it in a spirit that we are prepared to get what we regard as the best out of all those who have a contribution to make towards shaping a system that will serve the real needs of Ireland and the Irish people.
