Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - National University of Ireland Bill, 1969: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), line 10, before "Senate" to insert "existing".

The purpose of this amendment is to cover the problem created for the Senate of National University of Ireland by the fact that procedure for initiating an election has not yet taken place while, at the same time, permitting the Senate to be renewed for an indefinite period. There is some confusion here. Perhaps I contributed to it myself by being inexplicit and not sufficiently informed. The position is that it is legally possible in theory for the NUI Senate at this stage to initiate the procedure for election but in practice they would not feel able to undertake an election now because there is not sufficient time to initiate the procedure. When I put this to the Minister the other day, I was thinking in terms of an actual legal time limit having run out——

That is what I understood.

But I had an unclear understanding of the problem and my lack of clarity was, of course, communicated to the Minister. The position is that the legal time limit has not been passed but that the Senate was informed at its meeting in April that, unless at that stage they took a decision to initiate then the proceedings necessary for an election, it would not be possible to do so. It is to cope with the problem that arises from this that my amendment is designed — a problem that could arise by having let time run out and not having the necessary arrangements made with regard to the preparation of envelopes, printing and so on. At the same time, the amendment, if accepted, would prevent the present Senate continuing in existence for more than three months beyond its ordinary term of office.

This is desirable for the reasons I stated on Second Stage. These reasons were contradicted in part by some of the other speakers, notably by Deputy O'Kennedy. The suggestion was even made that by referring to the possible dangers of the erosion of moral authority of the university bodies, I was in some way encouraging disorder. I wish to make it quite clear that this is far from being the case.

I fully accept that.

I appreciate the Minister does. I have been very concerned with this problem in one of our colleges and I have been deeply involved in trying to ensure that the ordinary life of the university is not disrupted. I would readily accept that the functions of the Senate of the NUI are so much less directly related to the life of the college and that the erosion of its authority is of much lesser importance than in the case of the Governing Body. I do not wish to exaggerate the problem but there was a serious problem in the case of the Governing Body.

During the past few months it has been possible for people in the college who were dissatisfied with the conditions to make the case that the fact that the Governing Body had been renewed at their own request by Government order deprived them of moral authority to govern the college effeclively. I readily agree that the problem is less with regard to the Senate than with regards the Governing Body. Nonetheless, it is a mistake to renew it longer than may be necessary to get over any practical problems of holding an election that may exist at this stage. It is for that reason that I put down this amendment and even at this stage I should like the Minister to reconsider the position. When the proposal was put to the Minister that the Senate should be renewed in this way, he was, perhaps, unaware that the Governing Body was about to decide to have an election. The Governing Body, whose chairman is president of UCD and a member of the Senate, apparently, unanimously made this decision and the Minister and the Department might have taken a different view with regard to the Senate had they been aware at the time that the Governing Body would take this line.

It is clear that at least some of those who took the decision to request the Bill took a different view later on when the Governing Body question arose and it seems possible that some or all of those who requested this Bill might have a different view at this point of time. Certainly, I should like to hear a justification from anybody who voted for initiating this Bill while deciding not to remove the Governing Body. It would appear that there has been a change of mind. I do not think that anybody will attempt to justify extending the Senate and not extending the Governing Body — the fact is that the same people took different decisions at different times.

There has been a change in the position since the Minister was first approached on this Bill. The decision to seek the extension was made last January and during those six months some highly significant events have occurred. Some of the people who voted unanimously to extend the life of the Senate have now voted against the extension of the life of the Governing Body. Part of the Bill in its present form gives power to extend the life of the Senate for a year. This is something which may no longer be desirable and it may not be wanted by all the people who sought it in the first instance. This is a change of which the Minister should take cognisance. If this Bill goes through and the life of the Senate is renewed it could contribute to disorder. It is likely to create a lesser problem than would have been the case had the Governing Body decided to renew itself for a further year. It is undesirable that any body in the university should be in a position of having sought its renewal and should be in a position to continue in office with the same personnel who were elected five years ago.

Deputy O'Kennedy corrected me on a legal point and I accept this correction as he is a practising barrister and I am a non-practising one. I made some reference to a Senate which had been extended as being one which would no longer be in the position of having been elected by due process of law that it would not be illegal. If we in this House decide to extend the life of the Senate it would of course be legal. My terminology was inaccurate in speaking on this point. I was trying to convey, not that anybody could claim that a body which had been renewed by this House would lack legal authority, but that a body which was in the position of having sought this extension and of having sought to avoid an election would have diminished its moral authority. It is not a question of the legality of the position if this House extended the life of the Senate. That concept of moral authority being undermined by a request for extension is a simple principle, and I can assure the Minister there are many university students who understand that concept and who would be unhappy about working with a body which had sought and secured a renewal of its life and a renewal of office at a time when its own subordinate body had seen the light and agreed to hold and election.

I would look for some justification from the Minister for the different approach adopted by the Senate to that adopted by the Governing Body. I accept that the Senate acted in good faith and did what they thought was right last January. It was decided several months ago not to seek renewal in the case of the Governing Body. The Minister should tell us why, when the Governing Body of UCD made that decision, the Senate has to be extended. The argument used for extending the life of the Senate seems to me to be a dubious one. There seems to be a suggestion that if there was an election it would prejudice the reorganisation of the university system. I cannot see this at all. The holding of an election would be the normal thing to do. The abnormality which needs justification is the decision to extend the body. It is obvious that the holding of an election requires justification.

If the Minister is preparing to press ahead with the proposal of the 6th July for a merger, the holding of an election does not prejudice the position at all. It would merely be an admission that the proposed reorganisation will not be complete in time for a new election system to be in operation before this election is due. The Minister has no intention of coming before the House with this reorganisation until the autumn. He cannot introduce the measure until early November. Even if he came up with such legislation and had got merger proposals from the Higher Education Authority on that point, which he will not have, that decision could not go through in time to have a new body in existence and the new Senate of the new universities elected until after the present Senate ceases to exist. The present Senate will cease to exist on the 31st October.

The Minister cannot initiate the legislation until after the Senate goes out of existence. Even if the merger proposals were not held up, even if proposals were published immediately and everyone decided they liked them, many months would elapse after the termination of the life of the Senate before new bodies would be in existence. It would take over a year to have all the necessary arrangements made. When one is faced with that reality it is unwise to extend the life of a body knowing that this extension is not to be for a matter of weeks or months, but for many months and perhaps for over a year. Even if the Minister does not accept my contention that the merger is now seriously prejudiced, and if he is unaware of the consultations which have taken place and of the direction in which things are going, not only in the universities, he ought still to recognise that there is no prospect of the reorganisation being through in time to avoid a position where the present Senate would have to be kept in existence for one year or more.

When the minimum period of the life of the new Senate is as long as one year there is no case for the extension of the life of the existing Senate. The extension should not be for so long. In proceeding with this Bill the Minister would not be prejudicing his merger proposal. He would merely be acknowledging that it would take many months to look into all the points and to arrive at the point where we would have a new university and new university bodies.

Deputy O'Kennedy's arguments are not really valid against the points I have made. I would readily concede that, if the Bill should merely give the Senate the power to extend itself for a few months in order to have a legal election, it would be highly prejudicial not to have one, but the Minister is aware that the Senate is a body which has power to co-opt members and to appoint members to the governing bodies of the colleges. It is contended in the colleges, and not merely by the students but by the staff in authority, that this power of co-option might provide an answer to certain problems in the near future and prior to any general reorganisation of the university structure.

There is a recognition that some student representation is now a matter of urgency. Indeed, representation of junior staff is a matter of urgency also. They are excluded from these bodies unless they can get somebody outside to elect them. They need representation also. It is recognised in the university that it is going to take time to get all this reorganisation through. We are going to be faced for the next academic year with having to work within the framework of the existing structure. We have to apply some ingenuity to the problem of securing that, even within those structures, we become a little more representative and make some concessions to the legitimate demands of the junior staff and students for some representation on those bodies, from which they are totally excluded. The mechanism by which that could actually be done, contemplated by the university authorities themselves at this point in time, is the power of co-option on those bodies. Of course, so long as the bodies are in existence there are members there who have been co-opted but the power of co-option cannot be exercised until some of them are persuaded to resign. The possibility of using this power to give representation on a small scale to the junior staff and the students can only be exercised if there is an election. We are now in the position where there is a body, which has been properly appointed, whose membership would, perhaps, reflect more accurately current thinking in regard to university problems than a body elected five years ago. Such a body then has the opportunity of exercising this power of co-option to appoint representatives of the students and the junior staff to the body concerned. The Minister by his decision in introducing this Bill——

It would seem to me that the Deputy is discussing his second amendment as he is now referring to the question of time.

Perhaps, I should have suggested that the two amendments be taken together.

If the Deputy desires they could both be taken together.

It might assist us so to do. It was my intention that they be taken together as it would speed up the debate.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.

I should have indicated that at the beginning. Extending the life of the existing bodies effectively means for the foreseeable future, at least for a year or more, that there is no prospect of the junior staff, who constitute two-thirds of the staff of the college, 70 per cent of the total staff in our college and a somewhat smaller percentage but still a very substantial proportion in the other colleges, and the students having any representation on the Senate of the National University of Ireland.

The Minister must surely realise how difficult it is at this point to persist in a situation in which no representation exists. It will be difficult enough to persuade the junior staff and the students that the exercise of the power of co-option is in their favour in regard to their representation on this and other bodies as it does not appear to represent any adequate concession over this period. I do not look forward to the task of trying to persuade people, who are at this stage extremely unhappy with their total exclusion from having any decision in the present running of their college, to accept such a limited concession for what could be quite a long period of time but I certainly will try to do so. But to tell them that the possibility of having representation on the Senate of the National University of Ireland has been dropped by an unnecessary decision to extend the life of the existing Senate and ask them in those circumstances not to press their demands and not to agitate further will be extremely difficult. In fact, it will be virtually impossible.

I have some experience of this. I have had over the last few months the experience of trying to persuade people that they should adopt constitutional means of seeking reform, that they should work under the existing system so long as it is there and seek to change it by constitutional means and that they should not beat their heads against a wall by demanding things which cannot be done at this point in time. The only way in which the events of February and March of this year in University College, Dublin, were brought to a happy ending was by holding out to the students the prospect that the existing system could be modified in a way which would solve the situation but to take a gratuitous action, which is totally unnecessary, will close off that possibility as far as the students are concerned and will make it less likely in their view that the appointments to the Governing Body of University College by the Senate will provide additional representation of this kind. This will create a very difficult situation.

The Minister will appreciate, quite apart from the question of co-option to the Senate itself, that the Senate has power of appointment with regard to the governing bodies of the colleges. It is hoped in our college, and I am sure in the other colleges, that the new Governing Body which will be elected in the autumn of this year and will take office in the early part of next year, will exercise their power of co-option in regard to representation in a situation in which 70 per cent of the staff and 100 per cent of the students have no representation whatever. It would be our hope also that the Senate of the National University would exercise their appointment to the Governing Body, would not follow the normal convention which has been followed hitherto by appointing people whose names are suggested by the president of the college, which is what has happened in practice for a long time past, but that they would exercise this power in such a manner as to provide further representation for those people in the college, who are almost totally unrepresented at present.

It seems unlikely that this power will be exercised in this way if the Senate, which will be called on to exercise this power of appointment to the Governing Body of UCD, is the present Senate, the Senate which have already by their actions five years ago shown that they are not prepared to depart from the existing convention and will exercise this power of appointment in accordance with the proposals of the president of the college concerned with a view to appointing people whom they wish to see appointed. We know that this Senate, although an alternative proposal was put to them at the relative meeting five years ago, rejected the proposal and followed the convention established by the three colleges, the horse-trading convention, under which the authority of each college of the Senate supported the authority of the college in question in exercising the power of appointment in a manner which suits them.

We know the Senate have done that. We, therefore, have good reason to believe they are likely to do the same thing again. To extend the life of the Senate which have shown they have exercised their power in this way so that they will have an opportunity of doing the same thing again next January or February is utterly wrong. If the election was held in the ordinary way we could have a Senate which would be much more likely to want to exercise this power in a manner designed to secure representation for the unrepresented bodies than the present body which is likely again to do something which will create unnecessary problems and difficulties.

I am not sure that the Minister has been aware of all those problems. It is, perhaps, asking too much even of a Minister who has been in office for a good while to know about the intricacies not only of the legal position of our colleges but also the conventions under which they are likely to operate, but to expect a Minister, as recently appointed as the present Minister, to understand those conventions, and to know how they have been exercised in the past, is, perhaps, asking too much. I must not be unfair to the Minister in suggesting he ought to have known of those facts. I put them to him now so that he will know the position and can check the veracity of what I have said. He should not persist with this measure where we will be in the position that the new Governing Body of UCD will have their Senate appointments made by the existing Senate and the possibility that they will now use the election in the same manner as they did the last time is something which we should try to avoid if at all possible.

It is for those reasons, which, perhaps, I did not explain in detail on Second Reading, as I was a bit hesitant to take up too much of the time of the House, as I thought if I summarised the position I would get my points across, that I have now explained the position more fully, because it seems necessary to do so. I am concerned we do not in this Bill do anything more than the minimum necessary to facilitate the National University of Ireland in carrying out the proper legal procedures in which they now find difficulty in doing so and the possibility of not having them left there for too long. I am hopeful that the Senate themselves would now reconsider their decision to seek a renewal at this point in time in view of the position of the Governing Body of the Senate. I believe the Senate were meeting this morning but I do not know whether this is so or not. It is for those reasons I press the amendments with the Minister and ask him to give them consideration.

I would also ask, although this, perhaps, would come in on the section, to make it clear what, in fact, is the effect of the Bill? Am I right in thinking that the Bill in its present form not alone allows the present Senate to be renewed for 12 months but allows it to be renewed indefinitely for 12 month periods thereafter at their request? Perhaps, the Minister might explain that also when replying.

I think I fully appreciate what the Deputy had in mind in relation to the first amendment. I can assure him that I do not foresee any circumstances, other than those existing at present, which would call for an extension of the life of the present membership of the Senate. I did find it necessary, however, when I got this amendment, to see what the legal position would be in relation to it. I am informed that it could possibly be misleading. I am advised that the Senate is always in existence. In those particular circumstances, perhaps, it really does not mean anything. Therefore, I think we could leave it out. I think I know what the Deputy meant. That is why I replied in this way to say that I do not contemplate any circumstances, other than existing ones, whereby there would be an extension of life given to the membership of the Senate.

I am not quite clear on that. I am not 100 per cent satisfied with my amendment. I recognise that my amendment was not perhaps happily phrased. I thought that if the principle in it was acceptable we might devise, between us, a formula. If the problem is that the word "existing" is an inadequate description of the present Senate, we could perhaps substitute something like, say, "...the Senate elected on such and such a date..." to make it clear that we do not intend——

I assumed that this was what the Deputy meant and so I have pointed out to him that I personally do not contemplate any circumstances, other than the existing ones, which would call for the extension of the life of the membership of the Senate.

There is a difference. The Minister is talking about some other extension of the life of the existing Senate. What I was concerned about — in that particular amendment to be taken in isolation — was to ensure that this power was not used in relation to some future Senate of NUI. The Minister's assurance really does not relate to the point I was raising.

I do not anticipate any possible circumstances whereby this will be necessary in the future— except the existing circumstances. I think that more or less covers what the Deputy had in mind. When I found that it was impossible to accept this amendment — for the reasons I have given — I decided that I would make this particular statement.

May I be clear? If I could just clarify this point? What, in fact, is the intention and effect of this Bill? Does it apply only to the Senate, that is, to the body of men now there who were elected five years ago or could this Bill be applied to some future Senate elected in the future if NUI continues in existence?

If the Act continues in existence, it could apply.

To a future Senate?

It could apply but, as I say, we do not anticipate any reason why it should be utilised.

Yes, but, you know, that is not very satisfactory.

Therefore, the point I am making is that the word "existing" would not change anything in the circumstances of the Bill.

I appreciate that the Minister's criticism of my amendment is probably a fair one but I am not happy with the assurance. The Minister will recall that in about 1940 the Act was introduced to enable the Government to extend the life of the Governing Body of UCD. Now, my historical researches do not extend to the detailed reasons for that but I have been informed that it was related in some way to the war-time conditions then prevailing which would have made postal elections — I suppose, overseas— difficult. That power was introduced for that purpose and quite possibly, for all I know, it was used two years ago in totally different circumstances. I do not think we could proceed by way of ministerial assurance. I should prefer, in the light of the Minister's criticism of my amendment, to propose — perhaps on Report Stage — a better amendment which would achieve my objective by some phrase such as "...the term of office of the members of the Senate of the National University of Ireland elected on (whatever was the appropriate date) ..." which would make it clear that it applies to this Senate. I think that would get over the difficulty which the Minister very properly sees in the word "existing" and perhaps he would study that and accept it?

Surely there must be a formula which the Minister could devise and which would meet Deputy FitzGerald's suggestion?

Yes, I think so.

Right. Perhaps we can come back to it on Report Stage; we shall think about it in the meantime. That is on the first amendment. What is the Minister's view now, in relation to the second amendment?

I think I have made it clear, on my Second Reading speech, that I feel that the life of the Senate should be extended so as to give us the opportunity of bringing in the omnibus legislation. The Deputy has referred to the Governing Body and compared it with the Senate. He has suggested that because the Governing Body is holding elections he can see no reason why the Senate should not do likewise. However, the Senate, as the Deputy is aware, comprises representatives of all the colleges whereas the Governing Body of UCD is concerned only with that particular college. Therefore, what the Governing Body of UCD might decide to do need not necessarily be a headline for the Senate. In fact, the representatives of the other colleges might have a completely different viewpoint on this. In any case, while it is a fact that the Senate requested, about last January, that this measure be adopted, I think, as the Deputy said, they have not, since then, suggested that they were not going ahead with this request.

I feel, also, that holding elections at this particular time on a structure which seems to satisfy nobody would only give the impression that we were putting the whole legislation on the long finger. The Deputy says that there is no reason for not holding the election. I feel that there is no particular reason why the election should be on a structure which has roundly been condemned by himself, if I might say so, and does not appear to satisfy anybody. Therefore, the passage of a relatively short space of time cannot make all the differences that the Deputy has enunciated here in his speech. Therefore, I do not feel that I should accept this amendment.

The Minister now, and I think on the Second Stage, made this reference to its being necessary— to facilitate the reorganisation of the new university system, or something like this. I do not see that it in any way facilitates it. It has no effect on it, one way or another, in fact. The other point he made is perhaps one with some psychological bearing in that he argued that if we hold the election this might give people an impression that this present structure is to be maintained and it might in some way reflect on the likelihood of the merger going through. I can see some point in that. I can understand, perhaps, that that is why the Government have accepted this request from the Senate — the feeling that it would get over that difficulty because of doubts cast on the merger. The Minister probably knows what is going on in that respect. I can see a certain Government sensitivity on that issue. I do think that that is rather an inadequate reason for doing something for which there are other reasons against it.

It does seem to me that the onus of proof in any democratic system lies on those who advocate that an election should not be held at the time it is normally due. I do not have to prove that it should be held: it is for the Minister to give reasons — and pretty cogent reasons — for modifying the democratic structure of the university and for preventing an election from being held which would give us a more representative body. I have given what I think are reasonably strong reasons for feeling that there should be an election — reasons which are not only theoretical on democratic grounds but which are practical as well because we have these problems of securing representation of certain interests on the bodies governing the university and its colleges. The desirability of doing this is clear, I think, and is accepted by everybody. The urgency of doing it should also be clear in view of the events of the past few months. I have given those reasons and they, together with the basic theoretical argument in favour of the working of the democratic system rather than its being operated in this way, should be sufficient unless the Minister produces cogent reasons to the contrary. The only reason he has really given is that it might in some way suggest that the merger was not going to go through. That kind of politico-psychological argument seems to me quite inadequate in the face of the realities of the situation. I do not think the Minister has discharged the onus of proof in relation to his proposed legislation. Accordingly, I think my amendment should be accepted. I should like the Minister to consider it still further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), line 13, to delete "twelve" and substitute "three".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share