Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), page 2, line 12, after "such member" to insert "and for the full duration of his period of membership".

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the academic members so described will be genuine academic members, by which I mean people who not only at the time of their appointment but throughout their period of service on this body are live academics currently engaging in academic activities. Without this amendment there could be the danger that academics would be appointed towards the end of their working life in universities or colleges of higher technology, or indeed any institutions eventually included. They would be members of this body for a period of time which might run into their period of retirement and this could be undesirable.

The provision in section 4 (2) of the Schedule would enable such a person to be a member for five years, renewable for another five years. If my interpretation is correct it might not be required that the person be an academic at the time of renewal, so long as he was an academic on appointment. This would mean that it would be possible for people to be members of the body when they were in their late seventies. That body could, in fact, have a high preponderance of elderly people.

This is no dream—or nightmare depending on one's viewpoint. It may be seen if one looks at some academic bodies at the moment. In the Senate of the National University of Ireland, to which body the Minister may be applying his attention shortly, the membership, if renewed for one year in accordance with recent legislation, will consist to an extent of 45 per cent of people aged 70 years and over. The fact that this is so indicates a tendency in bodies of this kind to appoint people towards the end of their careers, when they have reached positions of eminence. The result may be that they are no longer in touch with university affairs.

The Minister's intention is clearly to ensure adequate representation on this body of academics who are in touch with academic life. It is not that they will represent particular interests but they will be people who are familiar with current problems of academic life and it is important that this intention should be fulfilled. There should be no question of any significant number of these members being retired academics, thus creating the kind of situation which now faces the Senate of the National University of Ireland, which is causing intense dissatisfaction.

The position is that one of the colleges has five former members of the staff on the Senate of the National University of Ireland. They are all retired, although the President of the college is a member of the Senate. We are seeking to avoid this kind of situation. This amendment is designed to ensure that academics are appointed at an age that they will not become retired in the ordinary way during their period of office or, alternatively, they would cease to be academic members of the body if they cease to hold an academic post. This amendment is entirely in the spirit of the drafting of the Bill. I should like at this point, though it may be more proper to the section, to welcome the fact that he has included this provision. He will recall that the Commission on Higher Education for some curious reason recommended that in the equivalent body to the one now proposed there would not be any academic representation as such and the Minister's decision not to adopt this proposal but to provide for a significant body of academics on this authority is one which we welcome. It is in the spirit of his decision to do that that I move this amendment in order to secure that the intentions behind his proposal are fulfilled.

Mr. Faulkner

Quite possibly the Deputy overlooked section 10 of the Schedule when he was discussing this. It states that where a member of An tÚdarás attains the age of 70 years he shall thereupon cease to hold office. I felt that quite possibly what the Deputy had in mind was that when a member was appointed as an academic, if he ceased to be an academic member during the course of this period he should resign. I think the Deputy will agree that where a member is an academic when appointed and if he serves for some time and if at that stage he changes to some other position which does not permit him to regard himself as an academic any longer, he would, in the first place, have his academic experience and he would also have the experience and expertise he would have gained on An tÚdarás. For that reason, a man of this calibre should be kept on the board until the end of that term but I would agree with the Deputy that he could not be appointed subsequently for a further five years because at that stage you would create an imbalance.

Dr. Thornley

I should like to support Deputy FitzGerald's amendment. Leaving aside the question of the person who reaches an advanced age which as the Minister said is to some extent legislated for in the Schedule, I would also fear the situation of someone who had given token service in an academic teaching post which might subsequently cease to function. The argument comes in then—in a sense that is in the later amendment; we have the next amendment by Deputy FitzGerald but there is no guarantee at this stage that amendment No. 2 will be passed; in fact it probably will not. In addition to Deputy FitzGerald's fears, my fear would be that someone could be seconded to an element of teaching which qualified him to be described as the holder of an academic post under this Bill and then could give up his post and continue apparently to represent the academic world. It is a bit loose here. If we are to have academic domination by the Minister we should be quite clear as to who is an academic.

Let me give an example to the Minister: a university administrator suddenly starts to give a course of seven lectures a year in quaternion studies or something like that and then ceases to give them the year after. Would he be eligible for appointment as an academic member?

Mr. Faulkner

I am sure the Deputy will see that the Minister would be concerned with the calibre of An tÚdarás and that when he appoints academic members he will ensure that they are, in fact, academic members. Let me point out that the academic members like other members are not chosen on a representative basis but are chosen because of their individual experience. There is at least the safeguard that an academic member who ceases to be an academic at some stage of his first period as a member of An tÚdarás he cannot be appointed for the next five years.

Dr. Thornley

Frankly it is not the Minister I am afraid of here; it is the universities.

Mr. Faulkner

The Minister will be the one who will appoint.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept the Minister's point. I had in fact overlooked the reference in section 10 of the Schedule. When he mentioned it, I remembered seeing it earlier. It does meet my point, although we are still in the position that in the case of somebody who retires from a university post to some other post or who has retired at the age of 65 and whose appointment is not renewed or, if retiring age in universities is lowered to 65 as has been proposed, somebody who retires at that age and who is no longer an academic—in all of these cases the person concerned would remain a member of the body. I would be less worried about that on two conditions: one which the Minister is prepared to meet that the renewal of an academic member as such takes place only if he is at the time a live academic.

Mr. Faulkner

That is my interpretation and it is the legal interpretation as well.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps we could come back to that. It could be clarified in the amendment to the Schedule, if the amendment is necessary and is put in and in the second amendment which we are not yet discussing, that the academics appointed should be full-time academics. Then I would be reasonably happy to allow the situation where somebody would be allowed to complete his initial five year term of office even if he ceased to be an academic. However, it would be helpful to know whether the Minister accepts that academic members should be full-time academics and that part-time appointments, including part-time medical appointments, would not qualify for this purpose. I do not want to anticipate the next amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is what the Chair is afraid of.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would the Minister agree that we discuss the two together?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the House wants to do this.

Dr. Thornley

My great difficulty is that I for one do not support Deputy FitzGerald's second amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House could take separate decisions on them.

Dr. FitzGerald

The fact that Deputy Thornley does not support my amendment—and possibly the Minister does not either—should not prevent our discussing them together. It does not mean we would have to vote on them together if a division arose. I think Deputy Thornley is agreeable to that. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's view on the question of whether he would be prepared to agree to this requirement that any academic should be full-time. There is the possibility of people holding part-time posts in the university. Sometimes they give only a couple of lectures. I received a letter from Queen's appointing me a part-time lecturer, to my astonishment, when I had agreed to give a lecture some time this term or next term and I was honoured with this great appointment there. Therefore I felt that such a person coming to give a lecture in UCD from Queen's or in the other direction should not on that account be entitled to be an academic member representing Irish universities on this body.

Therefore in view of the very loose character of part-time appointments, that they can be confined to people giving only a couple of lectures, it is necessary to say that a person to be a genuine academic must be fully involved in the life of the university.

Mr. Faulkner

I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. As I said in my reply on the Second Stage, it would tend to confine the choice and would exclude from academic membership many eminent academics who, as the Deputy has mentioned, are in medicine and law——

Dr. FitzGerald

Precisely.

Mr. Faulkner

——where, I am told, a high proportion of professors and lecturers are part-time. There again you will accept that a Minister concerned about the composition of An tÚdarás would ensure that only eminent persons would be appointed and he would not like to cut himself off from the right to choose certain people if they as individuals were the best people he could get.

Dr. FitzGerald

We do not want to deprive the Minister of the right to appoint eminent persons but the Minister has ample room to appoint eminent non-academics in the ordinary members or the non-academic members. What I am concerned about is that he should not palm off somebody who has got a couple of lectures to give in the college, and who might not even be living in this country, as an academic member representing the academic community.

Moreover, I am unconvinced, frankly, by his reference to eminent people, part-time professors or lecturers in medicine or law. Their eminence in their own subject may be undoubted, and the university may be very fortunate to have their services for the courses of lectures they give, but it is a notable feature, especially of those who are engaged in the medical faculty, that their interests, to a remarkable degree, lie outside the university in many cases. As one who has suffered through the controversies about the united or non-united medical schools for the past four years of the merger discussion, I would not be very happy, nor would many others, if the interests of the university were represented by some, at least, of the part-time medical people who have fought this hospital battle over the dead bodies, virtually, at this stage, of the academics in the university.

It is precisely because it is important that, if there is to be any representation in the loose sense of the word of, for example, academic medicine, it should be genuine academic medicine. The full-time professors and lecturers on medicine in the university are the kind of people who should be there, and not part-time hospital appointments who will fight out in An tÚdarás as they fought out in the universities the Mater versus Vincent's battle which so little concerns the rest of us ordinary non-medical mortals. It is because I fear that kind of representation, either by people whose connection with the university is very slight indeed—just a couple of lectures —or people who, although they may be much more involved in the university, as many of these part-time medical appointments are, are, nevertheless, primarily orientated towards the hospitals rather than the university, being described as academic that I am concerned about this amendment.

That such people should be on the body is entirely proper. Their eminence in their own walk of life would suggest that, and that there should be people representing the viewpoint of the teaching hospitals as non-academic members may be quite proper, but I do not think some of us would be entirely happy with them having academic representation in medicine confined, as it might be, to such people. I hope what I have said will not be misunderstood by any of my medical colleagues, but we are concerned here with the representation of academic institutions rather than hospitals.

Dr. Thornley

I sympathise with the Minister here. I accept Deputy FitzGerald's first amendment but not his second one. Already we are in danger of slipping into a slight dilemma here, that is, that both Deputy FitzGerald and I bring to this subject the advantage of academic experience, but we are in danger of bringing to it a little too closely particularised academic experience and of reaching a point where we will be talking to ourselves.

I know what Deputy FitzGerald is getting at and I can see a difficulty here which I too, would like to get around; the difficulty of appointing people as academics who are not meaningfully academics. He mentioned specifically legal and medical people but I would also think of those who might be primarily administrators and only secondarily exercising teaching functions. Frankly, I think Deputy FitzGerald is trying to put into statutory terms a degree of particularity which is just impossible to achieve. How will the Minister determine what is and what is not a full-time academic? He has excluded one obvious category of part-time academic, to wit, Deputy FitzGerald and myself, in a subsequent section of the Bill. To ask the Minister to adjudicate on what constitutes a part-time or a full-time academic in terms of a statue, is just splitting hairs a bit too far at this point, and I accept the Minister's argument on this.

Dr. FitzGerald

After that ministerial speech it is scarcely necessary for the Minister to reply.

Mr. Faulkner

Hardly. It struck me when Deputy FitzGerald was speaking about the troubles in relation to the medical schools that it is not only the part-time professors and lecturers who can fight very hard for their own spheres. Deputy FitzGerald mentioned that these people could be appointed as non-academics but, if we were to add them to, say, seven full-time academics, that might tend to lay an undue emphasis on the university viewpoint on a body which will be responsible for the co-ordination and development of the whole system of higher education.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 4, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38 and 39 are related to amendment No. 3 and may be discussed together. If Amendment No. 3 should be negatived, the others would fall.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is there not a part of amendment No. 37 that would not fall?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There could be a separate decision on it.

Dr. Thornley

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following definition:

"student member" means a member of An tÚdarás, who at the time of his appointment as such a member, pursued a course or courses of study leading to a university degree or diploma or to a qualification of equivalent standard recognised by the Minister.

All these amendments tend to have the same effect. Whether they are adopted in Deputy FitzGerald's wording or Deputy Desmond's and mine really does not matter substantially. As the Minister is well aware, representations have been made by the student bodies for inclusion upon this body, the Higher Education Authority. In viewing those representations, I see two difficulties which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading. One is that the HEA is not a representative body. In my opinion, with due deference to a subsequent amendment of Deputy FitzGerald's, and to the representations made by the Irish Federation of University Teachers, it is correctly not a representative body.

A second difficulty I see is that the claim of the students for, as I recall it, six representatives is excessive and unrealistic. I further recall that the Minister made the point that one of the difficulties in bringing student representation on to a body of this kind is that the degree of experience which would be requisite to allow a student to make a valuable contribution to the HEA would not be attained until he was near the conclusion of his academic career. A problem would then arise as to how long he should be continued in this office after he had ceased to be a student in any meaningful sense.

This is an argument which has some validity but surely, if this argument is valid, it applies equally to the composition of, say, governing bodies of universities in the same sense. Yet this point of student representation has been conceded in respect of precisely those bodies. I would regard six not merely as being too many but as introducing an element of massive representation which would be dangerous to the entire principle under which this authority is constructed. I would be happy, and I would not stand too violently over the amendments, if the Minister used the powers which he has left to himself of adding further members to the HEA. As I recall it, the complement of the HEA is not yet full. If the Minister were to give an assurance that he would use these powers to co-opt, say, the president of the Union of Students in Ireland, or one or two more student representatives, this would be adequate. At this point, to give statutory authority to a higher educational body which does not include students, is retrogressive. It is only a matter of time until student representation is accepted in principle on this body as it has been on the actual university bodies.

Dr. FitzGerald

Before developing my own point on this amendment I should like to put a query to Deputy Thornley about his amendments. Amendment No. 3 defines a student member but amendment No. 38, if I understand it correctly, does not specifically define these people as student members. I presume I am right in taking it that his intention is that the three members to be appointed on the recommendation of the National Council of the Union of Students in Ireland are to be as defined in amendment No. 3. I am not entirely happy about this because it seems to me that his amendment No. 3 would require the people appointed to be students at the time of their appointment to this body.

Personally, I visualise that for this body, as distinct from other bodies, within the colleges, the most appropriate kind of student member would not, in fact, be somebody who was a student at that time, and who might not have the necessary expertise or, indeed, the time to devote to the work of a body of this kind, but rather an officer, more likely of the Union of Students in Ireland who have full time staff, who, as I said on Second Stage debate, do excellent work and who could contribute, judging from the quality of the material that I have seen them produce, as well as and, perhaps, even better than academics who do not have full time staff to help them in this job; that is, staff associations as distinct from governing bodies.

For that reason I put it to Deputy Thornley that while his amendment No. 38 would, by itself, meet my point —although I think that two members rather than three are sufficient—I wonder whether he is being somewhat restrictive in amendment No. 3 by excluding the very people who are likely to be most effective student representatives. Perhaps he might consider not pressing amendment No. 3 on that account.

I shall not dwell at length on the substance of the issue. I am clear that this is not a body on which large numbers of students are going to play an effective part and, as a consistent advocate of student representation at every level, I would say that at each level we must consider what is the most appropriate form. In this instance, it seems to me, that a small representation of students rather than a large one is appropriate. When it comes to the financing of universities, students have a contribution to make. They should have a contribution to make to the whole question of how this financing should take place and its adequacy. These are matters in which student representatives will have a particular interest and whose expression, if accompanied by sufficient experience to give it weight, could add considerably to the work of this body. Indeed, it may well be that the kind of student representation which I and others have advocated within the universities, while I favour it and believe it is at worst a useful safety valve, I recognise that in some cases it will not be much more than a safety valve and that the actual contributions students make within a university may not always be that great. But the kind of student representation I am thinking of in connection with this body would probably be more consistent in the contribution it would make and its contribution is more needed in relation to matters such as financing of universities even than representation of students at certain levels within the universities themselves although I would advocate that too.

I put it to the Minister that he should give serious consideration to my amendment. This amendment and the accompanying amendments are modest in that they would involve two student representatives on a body of 14 to 18 people. That is not an excessive weight of representation and I believe it would be useful. The kind of experience and knowledge that they can bring would be enlightening on this body. I would ask the Minister to consider the amendment as one which is not unduly ambitious and which could be helpful particularly as I have made it clear that the representation could come from one of these student representative bodies and not necessarily be confined to people who are themselves students.

Dr. Thornley

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I could answer Deputy FitzGerald by expressing a preference for my own amendment rather than his. Could I suggest to Deputy FitzGerald that he is being a little inconsistent here—an academic is to be an academic and an academic is to be a full time academic for every minute that he is on the higher education authority. A student can be a full-time officer of a student organisation even if he is not himself a student. I do not see the consistency between these two view points.

Mr. Faulkner

As I said, in reply to the Second Stage debate, it is my opinion that the demand for student representation on this body is based on a misconception. An tÚdarás is not part of the university or of a higher education institution. It is a separate organisation which was set up for the specific purpose of giving independent advice to the Minister. The amendments and, in particular Deputy FitzGerald's amendment, would lead to the appointment of members who are committed to act as representatives of the student body. As I explained earlier, it is not intended that they should be a representative body in that sense. It is my belief that, in practice, no student would be likely to remain in office for more than two years so that he would not be likely to become fully effective as a member. To be quite frank, it is my opinion that such appointments would simply be empty gestures.

I have stated already that I am particularly anxious that students play their role in the development and operation of our educational system. It is for that reason that I do not consider I should accept this amendment. Appointment of students to a membership of a body to which, realistically, they cannot be regarded as qualified to make a useful contribution, would tend to discredit the concept of student involvement in the conduct of higher education institutions.

I have already indicated that I am in favour of students having a role in the development of higher education. Indeed, I was the first Minister to appoint a member to a governing body and since then I have appointed students to various governing bodies. It is because I am concerned with ensuring that the role of students in higher education will be seen to be a real one that I do not think I should accept this amendment.

In so far as students are concerned they could and should have a place on the advisory committees which will be set up by the Higher Education Authority.

Dr. FitzGerald

My trouble with the Minister's remarks is that he did not show much signs of relating them to what I had said but, rather, that he related them to a different case that might have been made. The only part of his remarks that related to the kind of representation I was talking about was the suggestion that the type of representation I was proposing would be such that the people concerned would consider themselves under an obligation to report back to their members. I do not see why that should be so. If the Minister would choose—my amendment leaves it open to him to choose —as student representation, one or two persons who were full-time officers of a national student organisation, I do not believe that such people would be under any obligation to report back any more than the academic members who would come from a particular institution, being members of the staff of such institution, would consider themselves to be under any obligation to report back. Nothing that I have said suggested they would have to report back. On the contrary, I would hope that they would consider themselves not to be under any such obligation.

The remainder of the Minister's remarks related to the idea of appointing current students and, while I have left this open in case the Minister should consider that some such person was qualified for this body. I visualise that any members would, in practice, be more likely to be full-time officers of one of the bodies I mentioned. Because of the work that is done in regard to research and so on by the Union of Students in Ireland—I do not speak about their conferences which are often tempestuous rather than informative—and which work bears the mark of experience it is my opinion that it would be proper to have people representing these bodies —people who are doing this kind of work, work which nobody else is doing at the present time and which is particularly suited to this body.

To exclude them, as is implicit in the Minister's rejection of the amendment, seems to me to be a pity. I wonder if the Minister would not consider the point I am making rather than object to a proposal I am not making. If the Minister wishes to eliminate even the possibility of his appointing someone who is currently a student and to confine it to the officers of these bodies I would not be unduly concerned, but I merely put both alternatives in to leave the Minister freer in the matter. What we want to ensure is that it is a person who has experience and who has shown he has the experience and is able to do a good job in this sphere.

Mr. Faulkner

As I said, I am mainly concerned with ensuring that where students are appointed they will be able to show they have an effective role on the body to which they are appointed. As consumers they are entitled to be on the governing bodies of the universities and, in fact, when the omnibus legislation in relation to universities comes before the House, I propose to concern myself with this particular aspect. In spite of what Deputy FitzGerald says I have not the slightest doubt that in practice, whatever we may say about the theory of it, the student members would have to report back to their respective bodies and in that sense, therefore, they would be representative.

As I said on the Second Stage, students are not ineligible for membership and it may be that at some future date they may become members. I have given this very weighty consideration. I have concerned myself with it and I think that the conclusions to which I have come, weighing everything in the balance, are the right ones.

Dr. Thornley

The Minister seemed to me to give a ray of light there when he said students were not ineligible for membership. There are two points Deputy FitzGerald made. First of all, in defence of students, may I say it is not students only who hold conferences which are tempestuous?

Mr. Faulkner

That can apply all round.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not know about that. We had no trouble recently. A more clement time of year, perhaps.

Dr. Thornley

The Registrar of Trinity College is on this body. The Registrar of UCD is on it. This does not mean that they go back and answer to their constituents. The Minister is sticking on a very small point in an uncharacteristic way, as far as he is concerned, if I may pay him the compliment. He has sufficient flexibility— some think too much—to appoint people and surely he could have an ad hoc arrangement to bring on an official of the students' union from time to time and, perhaps, terminate his appointment rather more rapidly than he would that of a senior academic member. He has got this flexibility and it would take a very small assurance from the Minister that he would extend his last reference to the effect that students are not ineligible and utilise his powers under this Bill to bring on one, two or three students, whatever number he thinks best. If I do not get that assurance I am afraid I shall have to stick on this.

Mr. Faulkner

I am afraid I cannot give that assurance now. All I can say is that they are not ineligible. I have considered this very carefully. In the interests of the students themselves and their effectiveness on bodies, such as governing bodies, I believe I am adopting the right attitude here. It will be possible, as I said, for An tÚdarás to appoint students to committees where they can make an effective contribution. Let us see how that develops.

Dr. Thornley

I am afraid it is not enough.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Dr. Thornley

I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 3 in favour of Deputy FitzGerald's amendment No. 4.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 has already been discussed.

Mr. Faulkner

Perhaps I should add that I dealt with this pretty exhaustively on the Second Stage?

Dr. Thornley

We just do not agree with the Minister. I am sorry.

Dr. FitzGerald

Sorry to fall out with him, but——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 4 withdrawn?

Dr. FitzGerald

There are two series of amendments. Deputy Thornley's amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 38 and my amendments Nos. 4, 29, 30, 31, 37 and 39.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All these are being discussed together.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position is that, if there is a decision on amendment No. 3, and it is negatived, then the others fall with the exception of amendment No. 37.

Dr. FitzGerald

Amendment No. 3 is withdrawn at this stage because it is not essential to the main body of the amendments and I understood we would then proceed to a decision on amendment No. 4. If amendment No. 4 is defeated then all the other amendments fall.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The discussion has been the same on all of them. If there is a decision on amendment No. 3, and it is withdrawn, as far as the House is concerned the others are——

Dr. FitzGerald

No. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives.

Dr. Thornley

If I thought for one moment I was imperilling the whole chain of amendments by withdrawing my Amendment No. 3 I would not dream of withdrawing it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If there is a decision then on amendment No. 4 and it is negatived all the others fall.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes. I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (1), page 2, between lines 16 and 17 to insert a new definition as follows:

"student member" means a member of An tÚdarás who, at the time of his appointment as such member and for the full duration of his membership is pursuing a course or courses of study leading to a university degree or diploma or to a qualification of equivalent standard recognised as such by the Minister, or who is a full-time officer of the Students' Representative Council of an institution of higher education, as defined below, or of a national students' organisation.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided :— Tá, 49; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Fox, Billy.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Laurence.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Paddy.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Taylor, Francis.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• O'Connell, John F.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Spring, Dan.
• Thornley, David.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Browne, Seán.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerald.
• Connolly, Gerald C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Loughnane, William A.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Delap, Patrick.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Foley, Desmond.
• Forde, Paddy.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Power, Patrick.
• Sherwin, Seán.
• Smith, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Byrne and Cluskey; Níl: Deputies Andrews and Meaney.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy FitzGerald has been ruled out of order.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (1), page 2, lines 21 and 22, to delete "the Minister, after consultation with An tÚdarás, designates by regulations" and insert "on the recommendation of An tÚdarás the Minister designates by statutory order".

I understand that amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it might involve a charge on the Exchequer. I should like to record my regret that it has been ruled out on technical grounds and to say that I hope the Minister will nominate the Royal College of Surgeons, which I think has always been treated as of university status. I hope the Minister will add this college to the list.

Mr. Faulkner

I can assure the Deputy that I will so designate the Royal College of Surgeons.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance and I am sure the staff and students of the college will also be grateful.

Dr. Thornley

Did I understand the Minister to assure us that the Royal College of Surgeons will be so designated?

Mr. Faulkner

I will designate it.

Dr. Thornley

In that case there is a principle involved here. Will the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are now discussing an amendment which has been ruled out of order.

Dr. FitzGerald

It would be legitimate to discuss this on the section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It can be discussed on the section.

Dr. Thornley

If the Minister can give a decision in respect of one college, why can he not do the same for another institute, such as that in Limerick?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any discussion of this kind should be made on the section.

Mr. Faulkner

I was asked by the Deputy for an assurance. I gave an assurance in this case because there was not any real problem involved. However, I would not like to be asked to designate a number of other institutions unless I had an opportunity of considering the situation in the case of every one of them.

Dr. Thornley

What is so special about the Royal College of Surgeons?

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister may find that he is asked these questions when we reach the section. However, at the moment we are discussing amendment No. 6. The purpose of this amendment is to modify the procedure by which additional institutions are brought within the scope of the Higher Education Authority's work and responsibilities. The system proposed at the moment is that the Minister, having consulted with An tÚdarás, will designate by regulations institutions of higher education for the purpose of the Act. The requirement to consult An tÚdarás is, no doubt, a good one but to our mind it is quite inadequate. The matter of whether a body should come within the framework of this Bill is one in which we believe An tÚdarás, should have an important role. We accept that the decision on this matter must rest with the Minister.

An tÚdarás could not be in the position of automatically extending the financial liability of the Minister by having the sole power to designate bodies; we recognise and accept that the decision must be the Minister's; but the effect of the amendment would be to modify the procedure so that, while the Minister would have the deciding power, he would be unable to act unless he had a recommendation from An tÚdarás. This would mean that the Minister would not be in a position to add to the responsibilities of An tÚdarás and to recognise as of university or institution of higher education status a body which An tÚdarás did not consider ought to come within the scope of their activities.

In a matter of this kind it is important that the sole power to designate should not be left to the Minister, although the ultimate responsibility for doing so must be his. The amendment is a logical one from that point of view and I hope the Minister will accept that by taking this amendment he will be giving to the various academic institutions an assurance that there would be no question of arbitrary action on his part to add to the list of bodies covered by this authority any body which it was not appropriate to deal with in this way.

Mr. Coughlan

Would the Minister specify exactly the position in relation to the institute of Higher Education in Limerick? It was supposed to be in operation in 1971—the Minister has given us that guarantee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing amendment No. 6 at the moment.

Mr. Faulkner

In reply to Deputy FitzGerald, I would say that in practice what this amendment proposes would not work out satisfactorily. An tÚdarás may not have any specific knowledge concerning an institution not already designated by the Minister but which would be receiving assistance from the State. The Minister would have this knowledge and if he considers that an institution should be designated he can raise the matter with An tÚdarás. I think this is a reasonable way in which this should be done. An tÚdarás will have intimate knowledge of the institutions that come within its ambit at the moment and with others after they have been designated. However, before the bodies are designated An tÚdarás may not have the specific knowledge which is necessary. I consider the proper procedure is that the Minister, who will already be dealing with these institutions and will have this specific knowledge should be the person who should raise the matter with An tÚdarás.

Dr. Thornley

The Minister should answer the question put by Deputy Coughlan.

Mr. Faulkner

With regard to the Institute of Higher Education in Limerick, I think I gave the Deputy a reply quite recently in which I stated that I had just recently received the report from the Higher Education Authority in relation to the proposals put to them and I am having them examined.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister has already said that the institute will be in operation in 1971.

Mr. Faulkner

The point is that I would have to make up my mind when I have considered all the suggestions and proposals put to me by the Higher Education Authority as to whether it is feasible to start this year. My main concern would be to ensure that this institute would get off to a proper start rather than that it should start at a specific time. I will have to consider all this when I have the opportunity of examining fully the report which has been supplied to me recently by the Higher Education Authority.

Mr. Coughlan

When will the Minister be in a position to let us know?

Mr. Faulkner

As soon as I have an opportunity of fully considering the matter. I have just received the report.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister has already told us that the institute will be in operation in 1971.

Mr. Faulkner

I have said that this will depend on whether I consider the institute has an opportunity to start on the right footing.

Mr. Coughlan

It is not just what the Minister feels about this matter. What about the people and their views on the matter?

Mr. Faulkner

I am concerned with the practical aspect of the matter.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.