Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In subsection (2), page 3, line 14, to add "having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students between the institutions of higher education."

—(Deputy FitzGerald.)

Mr. Desmond

The Labour Party support section 6 (2) which reads:

An tÚdarás shall recommend to the Minister the overall provision of student places to be made within the higher education system.

The proposed amendment, which is supported by the Labour Party, is that the words:

"having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students between the institutions of higher education".

should be added to subsection (2). This gives greater strength to An tÚdarás in assessing and continuously reviewing the demand and need for higher education. With educational costs rocketing we feel this kind of provision is fair and reasonable. Expenditure from public funds on education has increased from £18 million in 1959-60 to £70 million today, which is an increase of £52 million over a ten year period. The percentage of GNP we are now spending on education has gone up from 2.7 per cent to 3.7 per cent, largely as a result of social, political and economic pressures. Because education has proved to be extremely costly we feel measures whereby An tÚdarás would have a decisive say in regard to the distribution of the total number of student places in universities are worthy of consideration by the Minister.

Expenditure on university education has increased from £1½ million in 1959-60 to £8 million today. The number of university students has also increased substantially over that period. At present we have a rather lop-sided educational structure. UCD, which someone described as a steaming tech, has 10,000 students while the combined total of all other universities: Maynooth, Galway, Cork and Trinity is 10,000. We do not have an evenly balanced university structure. It might be argued that some colleges have reached their optimum size while others could do with an injection of students and capital. The average subsidy from public funds for a university student is in the region of £500 per annum, which includes capital payments averaged out. The way and the manner in which this money is spent is a matter of public concern.

Bearing in mind that £8 million is being spent on university education the Labour Party strongly support the view that An tÚdarás should have some say, under section 6 of this Bill, having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable balance of distribution of the total number of students between the various institutions of higher education. It would be easy for us to allow the HEA in its wisdom to do what it wants but we suggest it should have stronger powers and a greater say on behalf of the community as a whole. For these reasons we suggest that this amendment should be given the most serious and careful consideration by the Minister.

Minister for Education (Mr. Faulkner)

I still feel what Deputies are trying to secure is amply covered in section 10 (2). In fact, some of what Deputy Desmond has said in relation to it confirms my view, but, at the same time, as the amendment proposed does not conflict with what I am anxious to achieve and what I have in mind, I am disposed to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to make one point which has not been made clearly on the amendment so far. We need to be clear when the section talks about An tÚdarás recommending to the Minister the overall provision of student places, what this means. Does it mean overall provision of student places by providing the capital so that there are so many seats for them to sit in or does it mean that there will be adequate provision for that number of students in the matter of staff-student ratio? The difficulty with the universities has been that until five or seven years ago there was a total absence of capital spending and a growth of appalling congestion. There was a great neglect of the development of staff in line with student numbers. However, because the problem of congestion was more dramatic it got precedence. In the last few years the Government have increased the amounts provided for capital purposes and now they are about half the level recommended by the Commission on Higher Education as the level currently required. They gave a figure of £24 million over a six-year period but the expenditure has been about £2 million per year. While it may not seem a dramatic achievement to spend half the amount mentioned by the Commission it is an enormous improvement on the expenditure in the 1950s and 1960s. The increased expenditure has made a striking difference to the universities in varying degrees. Some are still facing grave problems of congestion but others have had certain reliefs or are in the process of obtaining reliefs.

However, this has concentrated attention on bricks and mortar. There has not been any corresponding financial provision to enable the recruitment of additional staff to bring the staff-student ratio to a reasonable level. I am wondering what is the significance of the phrase "student places". I fear it means simply the physical capacity to teach the students in lecture rooms and to provide some place for them to sit. I should like to hear from the Minister in so far as the recommendation of An tÚdarás is accepted—which is a matter for the Government to decide—whether he interprets the phrase as meaning there must be adequate provision both in capital sums, to provide the physical capacity, and in current grants to provide an adequate teacher-student ratio.

In this latter area we have made no progress. The latest figures I have relate to the Faculty of Arts in UCD, which is the biggest single area of teaching in our universities as a whole. The figures show that in the 1960s the ratio has deteriorated slightly and today it is at a level about three times the level obtaining in Britain. In other words, for any given number of students there is available only 40 per cent of the number of staff required. One recognises that with the large classes for general degree purposes it is possible for us to achieve a similar result in terms of student contact by way of tutorials to what is achieved in Britain even with a less favourable staff-student ratio. I am not suggesting that we should aim at the British figure but I suggest that the Commission on Higher Education took careful account of this and arrived at a target figure of 12 to one as an overall figure within which there would be variations depending on the faculty and college.

I should like to hear from the Minister if he regards the phrase "student places" as meaning providing for students to the given number specified in terms of physical capacity and a teaching force at a staff-student ratio which should reach the figure recommended by the Commission in a reasonable period. On that point of interpretation, I should like to hear the Minister's views before agreeing to the section in its present form.

Mr. Faulkner

With regard to one remark made by the Deputy, I do not accept that we are only spending half the capital we should spend. Others may say we should spend more but I do not accept this. However, in relation to the Deputy's main question, my interpretation of the provision for student places relates both to current and capital expenditure.

Dr. FitzGerald

The question of staff-student ratio involves a judgment of the appropriate ratio. Does the Government accept that as a general guide the overall figure of the Commission on Higher Education of 12 to one is the target towards which we should aim in the next five or six years?

Mr. Faulkner

I would accept that it is a target but when we reach that target would depend on the money available.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would the Minister agree that we should be making progress towards the target and that provision should be made to allow us to do this?

Mr. Faulkner

Yes, in so far as it is possible to make provision towards it.

Dr. FitzGerald

That rather suggests that the Minister thinks it may not be possible to make any progress towards it. Could the Minister not withdraw that condition and say that we should and will make progress at some, if at present unspecified, rate?

Mr. Faulkner

In so far as it is possible. I have to confine myself to the amounts of money available to me. While I accept that this is a target at which we should aim, I cannot specify in what space of time we are likely to reach a particular target or at what rate we can reach it.

Dr. FitzGerald

Or whether we are moving towards it?

Mr. Faulkner

Of course, we will do our best. We cannot reach the target unless we move towards it.

Dr. FitzGerald

This casts doubt on the significance of the Minister's acceptance that the reference to student places covers current as well as capital expenditure. When we speak about providing capacity for students, either we mean we are going to make provision for them in terms of physical plant and teaching or we do not. If it is not intended to make adequate provision, and if the intention is that the present staff-student ratio is to be maintained in the period ahead, the universities will be obliged to reconsider that ratio and their entrance policy. It is one thing for a university to accept an inadequate ratio as a temporary measure pending an improvement. However, for a university to accept that it should maintain that position indefinitely although it has not got sufficient staff to teach the present number of students and that it must continue accepting more students without any prospect of achieving an adequate ratio will create problems.

We all wish to minimise restrictions on entry but the universities must balance the desirability of minimising those restrictions and the requirement that they be in a position to teach adequately. The universities could not in conscience continue to increase student numbers indefinitely unless they get funds to increase staff so that they can progress to the point where the teaching ratio is adequate.

Dr. Thornley

Would the Deputy not agree that in the eye of the university teacher the ideal ratio is one to one?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sure it is but having regard to the ratio of 12 to one which I have mentioned that remark is irrelevant.

Dr. Thornley

It is not irrelevant in so far as it relates to a subconscious chain of reasoning which to some extent motivates arguments on this point.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept that many of the arguments of the universities are partisan and that there is a tendency for university teachers to think in terms of an ideal situation and to give that priority over the practicable desirability of bringing in as many students as possible. However, it has been wrong in the past of the universities to let the Government get away with the situation whereby they take in more students and the Government does not provide for their instruction. At some stage that problem must be resolved. I had hoped that the HEA would be the body to resolve it and that they would try to determine the appropriate staff-student ratio and the appropriate time in which to work towards this target. I had hoped that they would recommend to the Government the provision of capital and current expenditure.

Of course, the corollary to that would be that if the Government did not provide that expenditure, progress could not be made towards the education of that number of students in a particular period. Deputy Thornley would be critical of this but I think he may be wrong. The only way of getting an adequate staff-student ratio is if the Government accept their responsibility. During the years the universities have accepted more students without having adequate accommodation or sufficient numbers of teachers and they have allowed the Government to slide away from their responsibility by not providing adequate funds. Somebody some time must call a halt and it is my conviction—if I may convey this through the Chair to Deputy Thornley as well as to the Minister—that if the HEA did decide on some programme of policy as to what, in fact, would be an appropriate staff-student ratio as well as an appropriate number of square feet per student, which is being done—I do not see why one is less desirable than the other— and if as a result of that and the universities working towards that target there has to be a tightening up on the number of students going in that will create the pressures that will extract from the Government enough money to enable the numbers in the universities to go on expanding the way they should. If that is not done, if no standard is set, then we will go on with the situation where the universities will be probably still to some degree overcrowded despite the building and certainly understaffed. The HEA has a function here. Indeed I recall very clearly that when submitting evidence to the Commission on Higher Education over ten years ago it was precisely with this in mind, having a single policy-making body which would bring all these factors together and recommend on a single policy, that the proposal was made which has led to the development of this Higher Education Authority. I urge on the Minister a more positive policy in this regard than he has shown himself willing to admit to so far.

Mr. Faulkner

First of all, it would not seem sensible to me to provide the physical capacity to accommodate the students while at the same time not providing sufficient teachers.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is something.

Mr. Faulkner

While our aim is to move towards an acceptable teacherstudent ratio what more or less inhibited me in my reply originally was the fact that it could happen in a given year that the money would not be available and it would be said: "You stated that the staff-student ratio would be improved and this year you are not improving it." In general terms I would accept that we would move towards an acceptable staff-student ratio.

Mr. Tunney

I should like, if I may, to get Deputy FitzGerald to comment on whether or not he accepts the manner in which some university lecturers or teachers perform their functions as being perfect.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is a question which I scarcely need answer.

Mr. Tunney

I would suggest that the day has come when instead of bringing into the university people who have a knowledge of a subject it is more important that they should know how to teach it. Here I would castigate some of the lecturers on simple matters such as audibility and the presentation of their lectures. They have much to learn from teachers at a much lower level. The idea of a lecturer coming before a class and saying to himself and indeed to them: "In spite of you I will deliver this lecture" must be looked at. I hope we will depart from the system which has existed and that the lecturer will adopt a very different attitude and direct the students as to how they might pursue certain matters which he places before them. The idea of his getting out before them and pouring out a lecture in spite of them is something that must be re-examined very quickly.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not sure who that was addressed to but it seems to have been addressed to me for some reason. I claim to be at least audible to my students and I do not recall ever having heard a university lecturer telling his students that he would lecture despite them. Normally the students' attitude is not such as to provoke such an initial comment from the lecturer.

Having said that, nobody is in doubt about the many deficiencies in the system but I do not think Deputy Tunney meant to suggest that because some university lecturers are inaudible and some lecturers are bad that, therefore, we should not have more teachers, because the problems of which he speaks largely arise from an inadequate staff-student ratio, excessively large lectures and the absence of tutorials. If the staff were there some of these problems would be eased. All he says has its validity, of course.

Dr. Thornley

It would seem that this is becoming a very specialised debate between three teachers. It is not in fact. There is a very valid point here. We are balancing two conflicting but at the same time appropriate academic problems here and it should be written into the record. Deputy FitzGerald is correct——

Mr. Desmond

I represent the public.

Dr. Thornley

No comment. Deputy FitzGerald is quite correct in thinking that the staff-student ratios are inadequate. On the other hand, Deputy Tunney has a point and I would be, in some ways, much more in sympathy with him than with Deputy FitzGerald. I would prefer to have a class of a thousand students inside the university who at least were there than a class of ten students who were enjoying some sort of remote academic norm which satisfied the intellectual level to which Deputy FitzGerald is continually referring. In a sense we are chasing each other's tail here. We are trying to define an educational optimum which is almost indefinable. Frankly, I would find myself more on Deputy Tunney's side than on Deputy FitzGerald's. I could go on by talking about lecturers I knew at different universities who did not turn up and did not give their lectures but then we would begin talking about each other and it would become absolutely farcical.

Dr. FitzGerald

If Deputy Thornley would refrain from posing false dilemmas the problem could be more easily solved. It is not a question of whether one chooses to have more students in university or to have selected classes. Of course, we want more students but I must point to the danger which has been made absolutely evident by the history of the last 20 years that if a university adopts the policy of bringing in more and more students and does not succeed in putting sufficient pressure on the Government to provide funds for additional teachers a growing problem arises and it may be that in the interests of having more students and more students well taught at some stage a university has to say to the Government: "We cannot go on with the situation and if you do not give us enough money to provide a reasonable staff-student ratio or even to work towards that, then we will tighten up on entry" not with a view to tightening up on entry but with the expectation and confident hope that that little bit of blackmail would yield a result in more money from the Government. That is what I am talking about.

Dr. Thornley

Let us all please remember we are not Deputies for universities——

Mr. Desmond

Hear, hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

We know that.

Dr. Thornley

That is not a vulgar remark. Deputy FitzGerald is not a Deputy for UCD. I am not a Deputy for Trinity College and Deputy Tunney is not a Deputy for vocational education. We are talking about an overall problem.

Dr. FitzGerald

I thought I was.

Dr. Thornley

The Deputy did not persuade me. I remain resolute in my view that I would rather teach a thousand students badly than teach ten students well and I accept the Minister's financial problems here. I wonder could I get this off what is almost becoming a family level and ask the Minister since we are still on section 6——

Dr. FitzGerald

A salutary reminder.

Dr. Thornley

——if he has a view about two or three things. One concerns the optimum or minimum size of a university as such. I am in the rare position of being an academic teacher from a Dublin university and a Dublin Deputy trying to wear these two hats at the same time and my interest at the moment is more in thinking of Galway, oddly enough, Cork and ultimately, I would hope, Maynooth. It seems to me that a university of fewer than 4,000 is too small and that a university of more than 10,000 is too big in a community like ours.

The second question I should like to put to the Minister is to what extent does he simply see a university as serving a geographical catchment area. It seems to be suggested in the grants system, the way grants are flexibly devised in relation to distance, that a person in Galway should go to UCG. As against that, there is the idea of some specific excellence in some specific sphere—say, marine biology in Galway and sheer numbers in UCD. Would the Minister give a view on those two questions—the size of the maximum and minimum university and, secondly, the extent to which a university should be tied to a specific geographical catchment area.

Mr. Healy

We have been debating a point which has arisen in every university city in any part of the country and that is whether we should have fewer students per teacher, and what numbers there should be in the classes. Deputy Tunney has touched on a point which concerns us all. Surely the calibre of the lecturer or teacher is of paramount importance. Very few of us have escaped the criticism of students throughout the years who have complained about lecturers who do not attend and about lecturers who do not prepare their lectures but use the same notes year after year. Would the Minister have any ideas as to how the staff is recruited and what supervision of the staff exists?

Mr. Faulkner

I agreed with Deputy Dr. FitzGerald that the minimum size of a university should be in the region of about 4,000 students. The optimum size is another matter. I do not know whether I should give my opinion on this, but I am inclined to think that a university would become somewhat unwieldy if it had over 10,000 students. With regard to the point of whether students living in a particular area should be confined to a particular university, I would be rather slow to say they should. This might arise in relation to the placement of students. I would hope that what was mentioned by Deputy Dr. Thornley in relation to spheres of excellence would tend to attract good students from farther afield and, still more important, attract high calibre teachers.

Dr. Thornley

Is this going to affect the capital financing of specific university colleges? One cannot have excellence without money.

Mr. Faulkner

This would be a matter for the Higher Education Authority to decide. If they are going to establish centres of excellence in certain areas this will cost more.

Dr. FitzGerald

There is another aspect and that is whether the grant scheme is sufficiently flexible at present? If a student in Dublin wishes to study a subject available only at Galway University will he get a higher level grant for being from a district more than 30 miles from Galway? By virtue of being within 30 miles of a university is he confined to the lower level grant?

Mr. Faulkner

This is something which will have to be considered. If a student is doing a special course we will have to consider the question very favourably.

Dr. FitzGerald

I put the most obvious case first. If there is not a course at one university and if the student is interested in specialising in a particular field and anxious to go to the school which he is advised is the very best for that particular subject he may find himself having to turn to a university outside his own particular area. In Britain this is carried to incredible extremes. It is almost an unwritten law that one must go to a university away from home. It is regarded as being an essential part of a student's education to live away from home while studying. I am not suggesting that course, but I put it to the Minister that it is vital that the scheme be flexible and that if any student comes to the Department saying: "I am advised that while the course I want to follow exists in the university near where I live, I would do better if I went to another university for this purpose" and if he puts forward a reasonable case, his case should be considered. The Minister should set up a flexible system which would cope generously with the request. Otherwise, there would be great inflexibility with undesirable consequences.

Mr. Faulkner

In a case such as that, the student would have to put forward an exceptional case. The Deputy will accept that something like this would be open to abuse.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. Faulkner

If a course were available in his own area and if the student was informed that the course was better elsewhere an application from him to go elsewhere would have to be considered very carefully.

Dr. Thornley

The Minister is trying to have it both ways here. I agree with Deputy Dr. FitzGerald. If rationalisation of university teaching is going to involve (a) that some subjects are taught solely on certain campuses and (b) that some subjects are taught with greater emphasis on certain campuses than on others, then a student who wants to go to a campus where a subject is taught with the greatest degree of emphasis is entitled to that view. There is a point which is probably totally out of order because I asked a Parliamentary Question before about it and was ruled out of order, and that is the point of travel grants to students which are cut off at 21 years of age. This is the kind of thing Deputy Dr. FitzGerald and I are talking about. There is a human problem here of a student getting a place where he is told, on good authority, that something is done better than anywhere else. The Minister speaks correctly of rationalisation of faculties but he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Faulkner

So far as Deputies Dr. FitzGerald and Dr. Thornley are concerned they are oversimplifying the whole matter. If we had the finances to provide such alternatives quite possibly we might consider them more favourably. The facts are that at the moment we can only provide grants to certain people subject to a means test and if we were to expend extra money on students simply because they wanted to go to some other university rather than the one nearest to them, this would mean that a number of students who would normally qualify for university education could not have the required money made available to them. We are in a similar position in relation to the provision of free transport to post-primary schools. Many parents might prefer to send their children to some school other than that nearest to them because they thought it better, but we could not consider making free transport available to a school in whatever area the parents wished. From a practical point of view, we must come back to the point where we decide whether we have sufficient money or not.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister's remarks strike something approaching despair into my soul. They suggest an equation of the kind of circumstances which exist in post-primary education with those at university level. They show a failure to appreciate the nature and character of university education. We may be somewhat to blame for springing this on the Minister, who has not had a chance to consider the position. The Minister may have an opportunity of considering this further. The Minister's first reaction is the kind of one that can be expected under pressure when a thing is raised without notice and the Minister must reflect the views of the Departments of Education and Finance. There is much more at stake here than perhaps the Minister has appreciated. The question of specialisation at university and the level of excellence in different colleges is one of enormous importance. If we tried to tie down university students to the nearest university regardless of whether the particular subjects there were suited to them—at the honours level, because this is a problem at that level—we could do terrible harm. We could damage our whole educational system in the future. We are talking about the people who are specialising in a relatively small number of subjects at honours level where there is not either any provision for their particular subjects at the local university, or alternatively where there is not sufficient specialisation at such university. The damage that could be done by forcing such people to go into the wrong place might inhibit their ability to specialise and thereby to serve the community thereafter either in universities or elsewhere. This could be disastrous. The Minister should look at this again and should consider whether the very small cost involved is not worth paying. There are relatively few cases of subjects where this arises, and we are talking of honours students in practice—as far as I am aware in regard to general students the problem would not arise except in rare and special cases—we are talking of those few who happen to be located in one place whereas the centre of excellence and specialisation happens to be in another and they happen both to be in different cities—it is not even a Trinity and UCD problem. The number of cases involved here could be a handful. We could be talking of 20 or 30 a year, if that, for all I know, and yet if these 20 or 30 people are forced to go to the place where they cannot study their specialisation and where they do not get the particular kind of teaching that will enable them to become in their turn specialists and to serve the community in the future, the effect on the community and on the whole educational system over a period of years could be disastrous. I ask the Minister not to feel bound by his initial reaction and if he will study this with sympathy a little further bearing in mind the very small number of cases likely to be involved and the great importance to the community in the long run of adopting a sympathetic attitude to this handful of cases.

Mr. Faulkner

As the Deputy has reduced this to a handful of cases, if a good case were made we would favourably consider it but I think I should also draw attention to the fact that, for example, in Britain at present, students do not get into the university of their choice. There is competition for places and that is quite likely to arise here also. We could find ourselves in a rather difficult situation in relation to that. As the Deputy says, if the number is small and if there is a special reason, I am sure that we would consider that favourably. That is as far as I would be inclined to go at the moment.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is an improvement.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister referred to the question of money. As I see it education in the '70s will not enjoy the affluence prevalent in the '60s. Consequently I would be very concerned about getting every possible pennyworth of value out of every pound spent. Here, I revert to the point I tried to make at the beginning. I do not want to see university education as the intensive development of the abilities of the upper social classes. I am concerned about fitting into our universities as many as we possibly can. In this respect I suggest that, instead of accepting from lecturers that they can handle only so many students each, we should suggest to lecturers that they should look at themselves and see whether to date they have been indulging in a type of lecture which has done little except antagonise students. Those of us who have been at university will remember certain lectures—Deputy FitzGerald knows that I had not the good fortune of being a student of his; I was not suggesting that Deputy FitzGerald was inaudible—and some of the few pleasant memories I have are of the lecturers who were able to instil an enthusiasm for the subject-matter of the lecture. In this regard university lecturers have something to learn; they should and must realise that the old type of lecture is out with the present day student.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am now included.

Mr. Tunney

University education should not be the continuation of what heretofore obtained in secondary schools where facts were poured into students who had to assimilate them whether they liked it or not. In this respect certain economies could be carried out if university lecturers would re-examine the position and prepare lectures properly, if they would stop speaking in monotonous voices, if they would realise that they have the privilege of speaking to an enforced audience.

Dr. O'Donovan

"Captive audience" is the term.

Mr. Tunney

That does not necessarily mean that they are getting across to the student that to which he is entitled and that which gives most value for money which I think will be very scarce in the '70s.

Dr. Thornley

Let not this debate descend into a discussion between university teachers about university teaching. We are trying to give the Minister some guidance here. I agree with Deputy Tunney but to discuss the inadequacies of university teachers here is scarcely helpful to the Minister in the context of this Bill which does not empower him to take university lecturers by the scruff of the neck and teach them how to teach. Perhaps it should. What we are getting at here are two different concepts of teaching. I think Deputy FitzGerald is referring back, if he does not mind my saying so, to a slightly more middle-class concept of teaching than mine where the emphasis is on excellence, quality, smallness of numbers. Deputy Tunney is correctly, in my view, speaking about a concept of teaching where the emphasis is on the comprehensiveness, of fitting in people who would otherwise not be taught at all.

What we are all trying to get away from is the Kingsley-Amis syndrome that more means worse. If we go on much longer we shall virtually be talking code language to each other, with respect to Deputy FitzGerald. What I am saying to the Minister is that he should bear in mind on the one side the fact that Deputy FitzGerald is correct, that teaching breaks down at a certain point where the staff-student ratio is not adequate. He should also bear in mind that if he administers the Department whose emphasis is on rationalisation of teaching of certain subjects, he cannot have it both ways and evade Deputy FitzGerald's question as to some extent he has evaded it——

Mr. Faulkner

I think I have given a fair answer.

Dr. Thornley

What in effect the Minister is saying is that Galway teaches marine biology so that if you are a Galwegian you can study marine biology and if you are not—too bad. Broadly, that is what the Minister is saying.

Mr. Faulkner

Oh, no.

Dr. FitzGerald

If I interpret the Minister correctly I thought he conceded that if a subject is taught only in one place of course grants must be available but if it is taught in several places and the argument is about excellence or specialisation in that subject, then he is more dubious but on my assuring him that the likely number of people to make a good case for moving to another college when the subject is taught in both would be relatively few, he then conceded that for that purpose also he would be prepared to look at the matter and make some concessions.

Dr. O'Donovan

Do I understand the amendment is being accepted?

Mr. Faulkner

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is just too bad.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 3, line 15, after "other" to insert "reasonable".

If it would suit the House I should be prepared to discuss amendments Nos. 12 and 15 together as they both aim to achieve the same thing. This might speed up things a little.

The object of these amendments is to ensure that the requirements of An tÚdarás in the matter of presentation of financial data from the universities are not unreasonable. As it stands at the moment, An tÚdarás might require an enormous amount of detail beyond what would be practicable or necessary and some limitation on this seems to be desirable. That view has been expressed by at least one of the university colleges involved. I put the amendment down with a view to testing out the Minister's attitude on this point.

Mr. Faulkner

An tÚdarás must have full information on the financial position of each institution with which it is concerned if it is to make a valid assessment of the amount of State aid which will be made available to the institution. This involves the submission to An tÚdarás by each institution of the full particulars of all forms of its expenditure and of its financial resources. This is fundamental. With regard to the Deputy's amendments, first of all, we must assume that An tÚdarás will act in a responsible and a reasonable manner. I do not think that the amendment could provide an additional guarantee that it would so act, but it could give rise to very considerable conflicts in interpretation and for that reason I cannot accept it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not quite understand the Minister. If An tÚdarás will always act responsibly, if, in fact, the requirements of An tÚdarás are reasonable, how can there possibly be conflicts?

Mr. Faulkner

This would depend on the interpretation placed by the institution on what was reasonable.

Dr. FitzGerald

If you take the first amendment, I propose to insert the word "reasonable" before "intervals". This reads:

An tÚdarás may annually or at such other reasonable intervals as it may determine....

I think there is something to be said for that amendment because without it An tÚdarás could seek the information, say, monthly in great detail, which would be impracticable and pointless. The Minister says, of course, they would not. I think it is very likely that they would not. If they would not how could a conflict arise?

Dr. O'Donovan

If I may intrude for the first occasion in this Bill, the word "reasonable" falls because it is so indefinite. It has no meaning in this context.

Dr. FitzGerald

It has been a protection in law over the centuries.

Dr. O'Donovan

With all due respect to the Deputy's knowledge of the English language, it has no meaning in this section and this Bill would cease to be an effective Bill if it was accepted. If the Deputy had said "every three years" or something like that it might be acceptable. There must be some definiteness about legislation. We are here to legislate not to express pious platitutes.

Dr. FitzGerald

With respect, the word "reasonable" inserted in legislation has proved a most effective way of legislating for several centuries.

Dr. O'Donovan

Not in relation to time.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is part of our legal system.

Mr. Faulkner

Quite possibly information which An tÚdarás regarded as vital might be withheld on the plea that a request was not reasonable and the problem would then arise as to who was to interpret the word "reasonable". I believe it could ultimately result in purely delaying tactics.

Mr. Desmond

With regret we cannot support this amendment. We do suggest to Deputy FitzGerald that its insertion would mean, putting it politely, academic hair-splitting. If an institution were obliged to submit accounts annually it might well do so, say, on 31st March, 1971. Subsequently a governing body or the president of an institution might start committing financial mayhem and throw up major proposals on, say, April 15th, a few weeks afterwards. The various governing bodies would then be breathing fire and saying the Minister was looking for information at some period other than what they would consider to be reasonable. Therefore, the common sense approach is to leave the section to read: An tÚdarás "may annually or at such other intervals as it may determine..." and I do not think amendments Nos. 12 and 15 should be pressed.

Dr. FitzGerald

It seems to me that to say that the institutions must comply with any requirements which are imposed leaves it rather open, but in view of the opinions expressed I withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 3, line 16, after "education" to insert "in receipt of direct assistance from State funds".

This amendment is designed to ensure that these requirements can only be enforced where an institution is in direct receipt of State funds as distinct from being an institution of higher education which might not be so assisted. The Minister may feel that the link with the definition section 1 may cover this already, but I put the amendment down to make sure it was covered. I should like to hear his views on whether the terms of definition section 1, (a), (b) and (c) cover this; in other words, if we do not insert this provision, would it be possible to have a body which was an institution of higher education under the definition section, having been designated by the Minister as such, but which did not get any money from the State? If that is possible, then the protection of this amendment is needed. If it is impossible the amendment is unnecessary.

Dr. O'Donovan

If I might intrude on the Minister once more, could Deputy FitzGerald tell us an institution of higher education at present in this country which is not in receipt of assistance from State funds? If he cannot, the amendment has no meaning. It is all right to talk imaginatively but we are here to legislate.

Dr. FitzGerald

In this party we legislate for the future.

Mr. Faulkner

The very big problem I would see in relation to this amendment is that it could be argued that an institution receiving grants from An tÚdarás was not in receipt of direct assistance from State funds and in such a case the section would be vitiated.

Dr. FitzGerald

Does that mean the Minister would be prepared to consider an amendment to insert the words "in respect of assistance from An tÚdarás" instead? Could we have a look at that again on Report Stage?

Dr. O'Donovan

This is just semantics. There is no institution of higher education which is not receiving direct assistance from the State. Therefore, there is no use in discussing a development which is entirely imaginary and unlikely to occur in this country. The development is entirely the other way. towards the social approach, the exact opposite of what is suggested in this amendment. This amendment suggests we may some day have somebody like Cardinal Wolsey establishing a university institution like the established new college at Oxford and Winchester College which supplied the students to it. This is extremely unlikely, and we are not going to be around if it ever happens. I do not see why this Dáil should legislate for an entirely imaginary situation.

Dr. Thornley

I should like to support Deputy O'Donovan in this. To me the concept of an institution not in receipt of direct assistance from State funds is virtually meaningless because, as Deputy O'Donovan has correctly pointed out, every institution of higher education is in receipt of such funds.

Dr. FitzGerald

Direct assistance.

Dr. Thornley

"Direct"—the Deputy is playing with words on this point and I can assure him if he chooses to divide the House on this issue he will not get the support of the Labour Party.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am still waiting to hear the Minister.

Mr. Faulkner

Such an amendment would be unnecessary because any designated institution would be receiving funds from An tÚdarás.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, because of the Minister's reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 3, line 17, to delete "financial position" and to insert "statement of accounts".

This amendment arises because of the vagueness of the words "statement of its financial position". This seems inadequate because, if I may argue a little in the opposite direction now, if you have an institution being asked by An tÚdarás for their financial position, they might reply very briefly: "Our overdraft at the bank is £800,000." That is their financial position. I think what the Minister wants is a statement of accounts and it seems to me that something more precise is required than what is written into the Bill so that the authority will get the information they reasonably need.

Mr. Faulkner

I feel that the terminology used by me is much broader than the Deputy's. When we refer to "financial" here, we mean all information relating to financial resources, whereas a statement of accounts would mean that the body concerned could send in a statement of all money received. What I believe is essential for proper working is that all information in relation to the financial position of the institution should be made available.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is precisely what my amendment requires but the amendment may not be achieving our joint efforts. If you ask an institution to submit a statement of what the financial position is it could be very brief indeed indicating whether they owe money or have money in the bank. What the Minister wants is something that would ensure a fuller statement, something more than is required under the section.

Mr. Faulkner

Some of the institutions are already working with An tÚdarás on a method of dealing with this.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is it not a fact that already statements of accounts of these bodies are submitted to us under existing law?

Mr. Faulkner

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

So what?

Mr. Desmond

If I may say so, under section 7 an institution is required to submit its financial statement only to An tÚdarás. I accept Deputy FitzGerald's point in relation to this matter. My understanding would be that if anybody asked me for a statement I would tell them what my current overdraft is. Deputy FitzGerald did not speak of an annual statement of accounts. We are talking about general expenditure and accountability to this House. There is a figure of £8 million involved. It was £1½ million in 1959. What is required is that at any given period An tÚdarás should be able to say to UCD or to any other institution: "We want the Belfield statement of accounts. We want a statement of accounts regarding a particular area". I think Deputy FitzGerald's proposal is quite fair and reasonable. It would strengthen the position of An tÚdarás considerably if the Minister took out the ambiguous phrase "financial position". That is rather ambiguous and anomalous.

Dr. O'Donovan

With all due respect to my Labour colleague, Deputy Desmond, I know a fair amount about this. I spent 20 years with the Department of Finance and I did not do so for nothing, and I ended my days there in charge of all State companies. This House already receives the statement of accounts of every institution of higher education in the country. Therefore, what is the point of reiterating the same language in this Bill? When a certain famous Bill was before the House on the last sitting day before Christmas I suggested that we should insert in it a provision in relation to a certain body being capable of administering the oath and I was shouted down by all sides of the House. The reality is that these statements of accounts are sent to this House every year. Therefore, I think the amendment is nonsense.

Dr. FitzGerald

On Deputy O'Donovan's point on the debate before Christmas, the reason why we felt this point was invalid was that it was covered by the 1924 Act, of which we thought he was unaware.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy will know tomorrow.

Dr. FitzGerald

In spite of the support I have got from the Labour Party, I must admit that the amendment may not be adequately worded. However, I say that the Minister's wording is not good. "Financial information" might be better. I just throw that out to the Minister and ask him to think about it between now and Report Stage. We will do the same. We need something more specific than the Minister's wording and something less technical than mine. In relation to the accounts of the universities, perhaps the Minister would tell us when the accounts of Trinity are submitted?

Dr. O'Donovan

They are available in the Library.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is what the Deputy said.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am talking realities, not semantics. This is not a debate. We are trying to legislate.

Dr. FitzGerald

I thought it was a debate.

Mr. Desmond

God forbid I should intrude between Deputies O'Donovan and FitzGerald.

Dr. FitzGerald

Please do.

Mr. Desmond

Every bursar of every higher education institution very jealously guards the financial information and accounts relating to his own institution. I remember very well when the Minister's Secretary was chairman of the study on investment in education and one of the most frustrating things about that OECD investigation was the blank wall. Professor Patrick Lynch can confirm that it was extremely difficult to obtain accurate detailed information regarding the whole role and involvement of the universities and the other higher education bodies in the general expenditure sphere. Therefore, I suggest, with deference to Deputy O'Donovan, that it is desirable this authority, power and influence should be open to the Higher Education Authority, if at all possible. With that in mind, the Minister might re-examine the position before the Report Stage.

Dr. O'Donovan

I proposed on behalf of the Labour Party in this House only the week before last a motion that a committee of the House should be established to investigate the affairs of semi-State bodies. The Minister for Finance was open-minded about it but the motion was defeated in the House. I know of no institutions in the country which are supposed to answer in the fashion Deputy Desmond suggests. I have listened to all the talk about night lectures. I gave three night lectures a week for years and I know a great deal more about night lectures than Deputy Desmond or any other Deputy. I do not like this kind of intrusion into the affairs of bodies which have not yet been proved to be doing their work inadequately. On the contrary, they have been under great difficulties and for years UCD were the only institution giving night lectures and there was not a word about it until it was decided to do it another way. Then we have everybody descending on it, putting down questions and all the rest of it. I am not here to defend UCD but I say they have done a jolly sight more for university education in this country than any other institution. I do not agree that you should duplicate requirements in this fashion.

Dr. Thornley

I just want to say again that I support this amendment which I think Deputy Dr. FitzGerald is prepared to withdraw if the Minister thinks about the wording. May I again appeal to Deputies to remember they are not Deputies for specific universities?

Dr. FitzGerald

It was nice to be outflanked on the right by Deputy Dr. O'Donovan.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am prepared to defend people when they are attacked wrongly and I do not care what my colleague, Deputy Thornley, says.

Mr. Faulkner

I must say I am satisfied with the wording in the section, "financial position". I believe it will give us the results which are necessary and particularly, as I mentioned to Deputy FitzGerald earlier, when there are consultations going on in relation to it. I would further refer the Deputies to section 8, subsection (1), which states:

Any request by an institution of higher education for State subvention shall be submitted by the institution to An tÚdarás in such manner as An tÚdarás may require.

This subsection of section 8 covers practically all of the points raised by Deputy Desmond.

Dr. O'Donovan

Unfortunately.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will put down an amendment again on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. FitzGerald

I will just say that I was glad to hear some time ago of this exercise being undertaken by the universities and An tÚdarás, by the ad hoc higher education authority at the moment. The inadequacy of university accounts at present, both internally and what is published, from the point of view of giving any indication of the relative costs of the different areas of work has been a matter of concern to many of us for a long time past. The authority and the universities getting together on this is a very hopeful sign. It is important that we should get some picture of relative costs. There are some areas of university teaching which are operated at very low cost in this country. It would be useful to us to have a fuller picture than we have at present. We need that kind of data from a planning point of view.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 16:

In subsection (1), page 3, line 22, after "may" to insert "reasonably".

This amendment is similar in intent, form and effect to amendments Nos. 12 and 15 and might have been linked with them. In view of the discussion on them and the fact that I withdrew those amendments. I withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. O'Donovan

On this section it is right that I should indicate what I think of this whole Bill. It is an outrageous situation in this country that, now that there is real pressure on university education, we should have the State coming in and making that kind of requests, section by section, in a massive piece of legislation that the universities should be required to do this, that and the other. Now, any request by an institution for State subsidy shall be submitted by that institution to An tÚdarás in such manner as An tÚdarás may require, not, mark you, as the particular university institution shall decide. Let us not forget that those are institutions that in every country in the western world, where real progress in the education of humanity has been made, have always been independent. Now we are to make them a kind of subsidiary of a subsidiary of the Department of Education. This is a typical piece of fascism. It is extremely symtomatic of the kind of thing we are now meeting with from the Executive. We have talked about what statements Ministers make and that kind of thing. I am not interested in what statements Ministers make but I am interested in what becomes the law of the land. We are doing something very wrong if we pass in this House a Bill of this sort which makes university institutions subsidiaries of subsidiaries of the Executive, the Department of Education being one subsidiary of the Executive, An tÚdarás being a subsidiary of the Department of Education and then the university institutions being small boys who cannot defend themselves. It may be that Deputies, even in the Labour Party, are all in favour of this kind of thing. I am speaking for myself, as I am quite entitled to do in this House. I say that this kind of thing is extremely bad for education. This kind of legislation is extremely objectionable.

Mr. Faulkner

I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy O'Donovan here. One of the main purposes of this Bill is to ensure that the best possible use is made of our rather scarce educational facilities and financial resources. Its purpose is to endeavour to eliminate unnecessary duplication and to make overall cost assessments, to which Deputy FitzGerald referred when he was speaking. For this reason alone, although there are other reasons, there is a need for this section in the Bill that An tÚdarás should have power to require submission of financial requests in such manner as it shall specify. This will ensure the establishment of regular and expeditious procedures for the assessment of such requirements, for comparisons and so on. This is essential in the Bill.

Dr. O'Donovan

May I ask the Minister, since he is so careful about resources, what is the cost at present per student educated in domestic economy in St. Mary's College, Sligo? Is it not closely approaching £2,000 a year per student? That is a creation of the Department of Education.

Mr. Faulkner

If the Deputy will put down a question to me about this I will answer it.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is relevant to this. The Minister said he wanted to see the scarce resources were carefully used. I have asked him a specific question. There are 36 students in that institution. What do they cost per annum?

Mr. Faulkner

Surely the Deputy does not expect me to answer off the cuff?

Dr. O'Donovan

I see one of the Minister's officials writing an answer and I am sure he will help the Minister. I do not believe the Minister meant what he was saying in the real meaning of the words. It is all right if one is across the House, as his colleague the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said, that you do not have to tell the whole truth in the House. You can say anything you like in the House.

Mr. Faulkner

That is a most unfair statement.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am not directing it against the Minister.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy should not direct it towards anybody.

Dr. O'Donovan

OK, but it happened.

Mr. Faulkner

It did not.

Dr. O'Donovan

It did.

Mr. Faulkner

It did not. I am not going to discuss that with the Deputy, as it is not relevant to this Bill.

Dr. O'Donovan

Of course it is relevant to the Bill. I say the Minister is not being realistic when he talks about the use of scarce resources and this kind of thing. Let us take an example. Let us take what the Fianna Fáil Party did when they set up two faculties of veterinary medicine in this city. This is very relevant to it as it is right on the ball. I spoke at that time to one of the Trinity Senators and I asked him: "Could you not make better use of the £30,000 a year than spending it on a faculty of veterinary medicine?""Of course we could, John", he said. He was jolly right. It is absurd to have two faculties of veterinary medicine in this city.

Mr. Faulkner

This Bill is to ensure that something like that will not happen again.

Dr. Thornley

Hear, hear.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is all right to get "hear, hear," from my colleagues here but the fact is that it happened and it is still in existence.

Mr. Desmond

That is an argument in favour of the merger and the Deputy is against the merger.

Dr. O'Donovan

I took no part in the discussion about the merger for the simple reason that I knew the board of Trinity College, Dublin, would never agree to it. Thanks be to God I did not spend one minute of my time considering the merger. Many of my colleagues spent hours at it. I have no doubt Deputy FitzGerald spent hours on it.

Dr. FitzGerald

Months.

Mr. Desmond

Years.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, years but I cannot account for the vagaries of human nature. I did not spend one minute of thought on it. Why? Because I knew that the board of Trinity College under one species of argument or another would succeed in torpedoing it. I was not one bit interested in it. Once again I was vindicated. Where is the merger? Let me use a famous expression in Irish—cá bhfuil sé anois?

Mr. Faulkner

Fan, fan go bhfeicfidh tú.

Dr. O'Donovan

Ní bheidh an tAire ann nuair——

Mr. Faulkner

Tá mé ag fanúint go bhfaghaidh mé scéal ón Údarás.

Dr. O'Donovan

To be fair to them, judging by what they have done so far they are not going to interfere too much in university education. This is the one good thing I see about the whole thing, that so far as I can see An tÚdarás will keep their mouths shut.

Dr. Thornley

First of all, let us get it on the record that it was not the board of Trinity College who killed the merger, if the merger is dead and, please God, it is not. In case, Sir, you think we have all gone mad let me say that the Committee Stage of a Bill in my limited experience is one on which one seeks constructively to amend legislation and, therefore, the patent difference of view between Deputy O'Donovan and myself is not inappropriate to this Stage. Quite frankly, Deputy O'Donovan has put his finger on a difficult point which was discussed earlier the other night, the difference between autonomy and fiscal control. This is something which in this whole section Deputy FitzGerald's amendment, now withdrawn, was designed to draw attention to. On the one side these are institutions responsive to the State, paid for by the State, almost totally now, and legitimately can be argued to be the institutions of the community rather than of the State. On the other hand, Deputy O'Donovan is reacting understandably—now I am not saying this in a party sense—to the kind of statement which a Senator of the Minister's party made about a specific lecturer in a specific college on one occasion. We have to draw the line somewhere between the two. It is quite correct for the Minister to say he gives Trinity College, £X00,000 a year, or UCD £X00,000 a year, and that he is entitled to a broad breakdown of how it is spent. It would be quite wrong for the Minister to be in a position to come to any institution of teaching and say: "You will cease to continue the salary of that person; you will run down that area"—this will come up under section 12 much more—"you will disemploy that person because his views are not congenial to us." What Deputy O'Donovan is looking for—and here I agree with him—is an assurance that the Minister's fiscal control of university teaching does not extend to the point where he associates himself with, to put it crudely, the remarks of his senatorial colleague about one specific university teacher. Can I have that assurance from the Minister?

Mr. Faulkner

I am sorry, Deputy, I did not hear the end of your remarks.

Dr. Thornley

I was asking if the Minister was stating he would never extend fiscal control of university teaching to the point where he, or his Department, or his successors would investigate the right to continue the employment, let us put it that way, of one specific lecturer.

Mr. Faulkner

No, I agree with the Deputy there.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. FitzGerald

Could the Minister give us some indication of the reasons for including this section? It seems to be quite a harmless one but so harmless I wonder if it has a purpose. As it is there it must have a purpose and I should like to hear about it.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy will see in the section that An tÚdarás may relate annual or other financial requirements of institutions of higher education to financial planning over such periods as it considers suitable. I mentioned on Second Stage that it was hoped to develop a system of quinquennial budgeting for higher education institutions. This would involve financial planning for five years ahead and the preparation of a scheme for capital and for recurrent expenditure to which the annual requests for financial assistance within that period would be related. We did not specify the quinquennial period in the Bill because the arrangements with which An tÚdarás will have to fit in are the budgetary arrangements in relation to the public services generally at any given time, but we felt that if some new course were to be instituted it would take the best part of five years to develop it. Experience in Britain has shown that five years are necessary to get adequate staff and so on. The general idea here is that we would plan ahead for five years but that the requests for finance in each year would be related to the overall plan for the five years.

Dr. O'Donovan

With due respect to the Minister's opinion and the advice he has received from his officials, I watched the development of the new universities in Britain and it did not take five years to establish a new university; it took ten to 15 years to establish each of them.

Mr. Faulkner

I did not say universities. I just said in relation to major developments in particular fields.

Dr. O'Donovan

Surely my comment is germane to what the Minister said. Apparently the Minister had in mind a period of five years but he did not put it in the Bill. Perhaps it was because if he had done so there might have been some sarcastic comment about five year plans. However, I hope we are going to have new university institutions and I must say I bitterly regret that nobody had the sense to establish a University College, Limerick, a liberal arts college in Limerick, and to have got that going properly would have taken, judging by experience in Britain, ten years. It is extraordinary how difficult it is to establish a university. When that great economist, Alfred Marshall, was president of University College, Cardiff, the total number of students there was 200 and the result was he had plenty of time to study economics. He became the most famous economist in the world at the time and probably still is the most famous of the modern economists. It is all right to talk about what you can do but you cannot legislate yourself into this kind of situation. These various sections are just words but they do provide people with power without responsibility.

Dr. Thornley

The Deputy should complete the quotation.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will. As was said by a very famous Deputy, the prerogative of harlots—power without responsibility. This, in effect, is what this means. I have no hesitation in admitting that I was flabbergasted when I first heard of the setting up by the Government of the Higher Education Authority. I hope that a future Government will abolish this authority because, personally, I believe that this sort of system pushes people around. In the first place, there is the Government, then there is the Department of Education as a kind of subordinate of the Department of Finance, and under the Department of Education there is to be An tÚdarás with its resounding title. It sounds really good, rather like Father Christmas. Then we have these unfortunate people who have the real responsibility, the authorities of the universities, who are to be forced to do this and that. I do not mind what my colleagues say but I am speaking for myself on this issue, as one who has some knowledge of universities. I know of universities that are good but I also know ones that are bad and ones that are indifferent. However, this sort of action on the part of the Government is typical. I watched it happen in relation to the medical profession when they had ceased to have the kind of staff that they had formerly and when they had ceased, too, to have the kind of incomes that they had formerly.

UCD are attempting to cater for 10,000 students. Their faculty of agriculture has one head of staff for each five students while the faculty of medicine has one head of staff for each four students. Both these faculties receive untold money from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries by way of the Agricultural Vote while, on the other hand, the faculty of commerce receives no part whatever of the annual grant from the State although students in that faculty pay more than the total cost of the faculty. There is no evidence in this Bill of any effort to right this sort of thing. We hear Deputies from all sides of the House, particularly those in Fianna Fáil and in my own party, attack UCD because that college has endeavoured to create a rational system of night lectures, but there is never a word about TCD which gave up night courses ten or 15 years ago.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Dr. O'Donovan

As soon as the professors there were well off enough, they dropped these courses but, if what I read in the papers is correct, they have now told the Minister that they require £30,000 a year to enable them to provide lectures in business studies and in economics, whereas UCD have been giving a complete commerce degree for the past 20 years for which they receive no money. Those of us who do the work have received no payment for it. I do not wish to be misunderstood because I shall be able to live without it.

Dr. Thornley

They were quite wrong to have dropped night lectures and I am on record as having said so at the time.

Dr. O'Donovan

Sorry, I am not saying that Deputy Thornley does not agree. What I am saying is that there has been a savage attack in the public Press. In mentioning the Press, I might say that they should be ashamed of themselves for not employing people who can do their work properly. There have been parliamentary questions during the past couple of months in regard to the universities. Of course, the Minister got his answer from the board of TCD, who told him they would set up evening courses if they were given £30,000 a year by the State. Any university could provide the courses with that sort of money but, in spite of the carefulness of my colleagues in this House not to ask any questions about the subject, this retort from the college authorities indicates very little concern on their part. I do not owe so much to the authorities of UCD that I should come here and defend them but, in fairness to them, I must so defend them.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 17:

In subsection (1), page 3, line 28, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

Before explaining the purpose of this amendment, I should like to hear the Minister on the meaning of subsection (1). It may be that the amendment as drafted is based on a misconception as to the meaning of subsection (1) which is in rather cumbersome English.

May I ask the Minister whether the intention of this subsection is to say that An tÚdarás may assess amounts of State financial provision either in relation to current or future periods, that it is concerned with offering an option as to how the assessment is made. If that is the interpretation of the rather cumbersome English, the amendment I have down is misconceived. If, on the other hand, it reads rather differently with the emphasis on "may assess amounts of State financial provision", it would be my opinion that they should be required so to do in respect of these bodies. Therefore, it is a question of what the words mean to begin with before we can attempt to amend it.

Mr. Faulkner

I am inclined to agree with the Deputy's amendment. The Deputy, I think, proposes to substitute "shall" for "may".

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Faulkner

It is obvious to me that An tÚdarás must make recommendations to the Minister concerning the financial provisions to be made for institutions of higher education if they are to carry out their functions. For some time, I was of the opinion that, perhaps, the mandatory "shall" might tend to be somewhat unsuitable in conjunction with these assessments, but nevertheless, I accept that An tÚdarás must do this, and I will accept the Deputy's amendment.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was not too sure that I wished to put the amendment at all until I understood what the sentence meant. The Minister's acceptance of the amendment implies a particular reading but I am not sure whether the Minister has taken my point. I shall read the sentence, if I may, in two different ways in the hope that my tone of voice will convey to the House the different meanings since, obviously, the record could not do this:

An tÚdarás may assess amounts of State financial provision, both current and capital, which it recommends for higher education and research or for any part thereof, either in relation to current or future periods.

If that is the reading, it should be "shall". On the other hand, if it means that:

An tÚdarás may assess amounts of State financial provision, both current and capital, which it recommends for higher education and research or for any part thereof, either in relation to current or future periods.

In other words, what this is saying is that the method of assessment may be in relation to current or future periods. If the last clause relates back to the first clause instead of being part of the sub-clause beginning "which", it would have a different sense altogether. I suggest to the Minister that if the meaning is as implied by his rather premature acceptance of my amendment, the comma after "thereof" is misplaced and may lead to a complete misreading of the subsection. The insertion of a comma after "thereof" would appear to indicate a separation between "or" and "either in relation to current or future periods" so that this can be related back to the first sentence.

Dr. Thornley

If Deputy FitzGerald would try to explain it in Latin, we might be more clear as to the point he is making.

Deputy Desmond rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald is still in possession.

Dr. FitzGerald

I may not be conveying my meaning well but there is a real ambiguity here. I read the subsection originally as saying simply that An tÚdarás may assess amounts of State Financial provision and that the rest of it simply went on to qualify that. If that is the case, the word should be "shall" but if, in fact, the purpose of this is to say that An tÚdarás, in assessing amounts of State financial provision, may do so either in relation to current or future periods, of course it must remain "may". As long as there is a comma after "thereof" it seems to me that this is the reading that emerges.

Dr. Thornley

But surely, a Cheann Comhairle, there is no need for that. As I understand it——

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Thornley does not need to understand it.

Dr. Thornley

I do understand it.

Mr. Desmond

Before my colleague, Deputy O'Donovan, launches into another broadside on this particular section, as I think he will, and before he opposes this particular section, I think we should strike a note——

An Ceann Comhairle

Could we deal with this amendment first and then proceed?

Mr. Desmond

I will speak on the section.

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the wording of the amendment been altered?

Dr. FitzGerald

As I understand it, it has been agreed to substitute "shall" for "may" and to delete the comma in line 30.

Dr. Thornley

There will not be a division on the comma.

Dr. O'Donovan

I wish to speak on the amendment. This is a typical example of people who have no real experience of administration. There is, in fact, no difference between "shall" and "may" in this context—none whatever. The word "may" in this context is an enabling provision to allow An tÚdarás to do something. The difference is negligible. It will not arise unless An tÚdarás has money which it is able to spend and, therefore, there is no difference whatever in the meaning. The provision is an enabling provision and in the next subsection of the section the word "shall" comes in—"shall have regard to the accommodation capacity for students of each institution and to the maintenance of a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students as between institutions". There is no difference whatsoever in the meaning. The provision is an enabling provision. The difference is negligible, if there is any difference; in so far as there may be any difference then, in my opinion, the word "may" is preferable to the word "shall" However, the Minister has now accepted it; he will have to weather it and so will his officials.

Mr. Faulkner

As I pointed out earlier, the fact is that An tÚdarás must make the recommendations and, therefore, there is no point in arguing it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is revised amendment No. 17 agreed?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes—"shall" instead of "may" and delete the comma after "thereof".

Amendment, as altered by the addition of a provision to delete the comma after "thereof" in subsection (1) line 30, agreed to.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 18:

In subsection (2), page 3, line 34, after "institution" to insert "the staff-student ratio of each institution, the need to maintain standards, the rate of growth and acceptable ultimate size of each institution".

This amendment is designed to ensure that An tÚdarás in making assessments in respect of institutions under this section—"may assess amounts of State financial provision, both current and capital"—takes account not only of the factors mentioned here, that is, accommodation capacity for students and the maintenance of a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students as between institutions, but also of other factors which it is important it should bear in mind, one such factor being the staff/student ratio, another being the need to maintain standards, and a third being the rate of growth and acceptable ultimate size of each institution. I need not speak at length of these because each has been considered already in some different context, but it seems to me appropriate they should all be brought in at this point as the different criteria in taking into account and determining the financial assessment. The Minister may disagree with any one, but I should like to hear his views and, if he accepts some but not all, I am prepared to consider any reasonable bargain from him.

Mr. Faulkner

I am not inclined to accept this. We had some discussion on this at an earlier stage and, as I said then, undoubtedly the staff/ student ratio and the maintenance of standards are closely linked but the maintenance of standards is not the direct concern of An tÚdarás. The maintenance of standards is a matter for each institution and I have already pointed out that this proposal would envisage some interference with the autonomy of the institutions of higher education.

With regard to the staff/student ratio, this is something which varies from one institution to another, depending on the work being done in each institution.

Dr. O'Donovan

It varies inside the institutions unfortunately, very much so.

Mr. Faulkner

There could, therefore, be no question of absolute standards in relation to staff/student ratios and we will have to operate on the basis that An tÚdarás, when making its assessments under this particular section, will take every reasonable factor into account. Some of the matters referred to by the Deputy can, of course, be taken into account, but I do not think they are matters which should be inserted in the Bill for the reasons I have mentioned. The Deputy was referring to the amendment he put down in relation to the rate of growth and acceptable ultimate scope of each institution. Here, apart from any other consideration, I think the word "acceptable" makes bad law. The question would immediately arise as to acceptable to whom and, from a legal point of view, I do not think it would be wise to insert this in this particular section.

Dr. O'Donovan

When we talk about staff/student ratio, what about the staff/ student ratio in different faculties? That is very much more germane to the discussion here. As I have already said, you have a staff/student ratio of one head of staff to each four students in veterinary medicine in UCD and, in Trinity College, you have one head of staff for each two students. In the faculty of commerce in UCD you have one head of staff for each 60 students. The position is all right if we think veterinary medicine is all important and commerce is of no importance whatever but, judging by the way the Government party talk, our future will depend on industry and commerce and it is a pity that the Department, since they have been entering very much on university education in recent years, did not pay some attention to this extremely serious problem. In the faculty of arts there is roughly one head per 30 students. In the faculty of medicine it is one head for every ten students. It is probably the same in Trinity College. There is no question about it; it is of extreme importance that there should be equality as between the different faculties in our universities and equality of treatment of students in the different faculties.

On the subject of accommodation, the new Arts and Commerce building, as it is called, in University College, Dublin, is already inadequate for the faculties of arts and commerce. It is crowded to the scuppers. Are we going to have more and more students coming into that already overcrowded building? Are we going to have University College, Dublin, changed from Earlsfort Terrace to Belfield and still a slum from the point of view of the way in which the students in both arts and commerce are treated? Are we going to have one part of it provided for by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on millionaire lines and another part of it provided for by the Department of Education on utterly disgraceful lines?

It is an outrage on decency the way the students in the faculty of commerce have been treated in University College, Dublin, in the last ten years. The staff/ student ratio is an absurdity. The accommodation for both staff and students is equally an absurdity. It is no use putting in nice language like this—"An tÚdarás shall have regard to the accommodation capacity for students of each institution and to the maintenance of a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students as between institutions". Does this mean someone will tell a student: "Since UCD is overcrowded you will have to go to TCD"? Is this what this means? I cannot see what effect it will have except putting into this Bill a bit of verbiage which will have no real effect.

An tÚdarás cannot direct students from one place to another. No matter how hard we try there will be massive overcrowding in Belfield in the arts and commerce faculties which are the only open faculties in the college at present. There will be massive overcrowding and inadequate teaching because the college is understaffed except in faculties like veterinary medicine which is overstaffed in UCD and super-overstaffed in TCD. What I am saying is reality and not a piece of verbiage in a Bill.

Mr. Desmond

This Bill will probably not be amended for at least ten or 20 years after it is passed. It is, therefore, vital that it should be as comprehensive as possible in order to cope with the anticipated growth in higher education. Subsection (2) of section 10 does not adequately set out the minimum criteria which An tÚdarás should take into account when assessing the particular needs of a given institution. It reflects on the student capacity for each institution and the maintenance of a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students as between institutions. Deputy FitzGerald has in this section specifically brought in staff/student ratios, the maintenance of standards, the rate growth and the ultimate size of each institution. These are four elementary yardsticks which, when handing out £1½ million of taxpayers' money to any body, should be taken into account.

The Minister's comment that the inclusion of the question of maintenance of standards as a criterion in the Bill would unduly impinge on the question of university autonomy is too ingenuous. If a student is given £25 one week and the following week it is decided to give him £35 the difference in that sum will effect a change in the standard of education he is likely to obtain. Whether we like it or not, money has a major impact on standards of education in each institution. The allocation of funds by An tÚdarás is going to have, in many areas, depending on the way in which they allocate money, a dramatic impact on standards of education and the need to maintain standards in particular institutions. It is inexplicable that one should pass a Bill on Higher Education and not mention standards of education. No provision is made for the raising of standards; it merely mentions the maintenance of standards.

In drafting this amendment Deputy FitzGerald has been circumspect and very understanding towards the Minister. The four criteria he mentions are well worthy of the Minister's consideration. Neither the Minister nor his Department should have any inhibitions about laying down various criteria. I want here adamantly to assure my colleague, Deputy O'Donovan, that I do not suffer from "anti-universityitis". I am concerned with the fact that Dáil Éireann votes £8 million per annum, and it will probably be £10 million by the end of this Dáil's lifetime, for university education.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy suffers from "anti-UCDitis".

Mr. Desmond

No Deputy desires to see UCD or any other academic institution commit hara-kiri over any particular issue affecting the higher educational structure.

Dr. O'Donovan

UCD is as big as the rest of them put together. The Deputy is talking rubbish.

Mr. Desmond

The biggest problem facing UCD is the hysteria it suffers because of what other people think about it. We have no intention of diluting or destroying the independence of UCD, which is generally well able to look after itself.

We want to see the proposals contained in Deputy FitzGerald's amendment inserted. Even at this stage the Minister might have another look at the section, if he cannot accept the amendment, and redraft subsection (2) of section 10, because it is very shoddy as it stands.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not propose to get involved in this dispute about UCD, but I should like to come back on the Minister's reply to my original brief remarks on the amendment. I was somewhat disappointed at his reaction. Taking them phrase by phrase, the reference to the staff/student ratio in each institution seems to be necessary and justified to balance the reference to accommodation capacity for students in each institution. It seems to me irrational to say that they must take account of whether there is sufficient physical capacity but they do not have to take account of whether there is sufficient staff. This pre-occupation with bricks and mortar is a danger to education today. We all fall into it, not just in Parliament, but also in the institutions concerned. If An tÚdarás is to have regard to whether there is enough room physically for students, it must in logic have equal regard to whether there is sufficient staff to teach them. There is no rational reason for picking one for a criterion to be considered and not the other.

I am quite willing to be told that the way I expressed it could be improved. As far as I was concerned the staff/student ratio was intended to be the equivalent to accommodation capacity per student; the staff/student modation capacity for students is the capacity per student; the staff-student ratio is the number of students per head of staff. In deference to Deputy O'Donovan's comments, some of which I agree with on this occasion, his references to the wide disparities between the internal staff/student ratios within each college are very well taken and while it would be wrong to equate them with some point of exact parity—he does not suggest that—nevertheless, some of the disparities are quite unjustifiable and have historical causes, in some instances of disreputable origin.

Dr. Thornley

To wit, the ban.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was thinking more of a by-product of the ban, the effect on the veterinary side, which was Deputy O'Donovan's main reference.

Dr. Thornley

A chain of reaction in relation to the ban.

Dr. FitzGerald

Even the cows had to be called Protestant.

Dr. Thornley

There were Protestant arms and Catholic arms.

Dr. FitzGerald

A familiar concept in our universities. It could justifiably be argued—I am taking Deputy O'Donovan as partly doing this—that the reference to "ratio" might better read "ratios". On reflection that might well be a better way of putting it, although if there is another formulation by which the Minister would agree to take account of the staff provision, as he is prepared to take account of the accommodation provision, I would be prepared to consider it. Logically the Minister must agree that once accommodation comes in as a criterion so also should the matter of staff.

In regard to the need to maintain standards, I am swayed by both sides. The Minister made the case that the question of standards was an internal academic matter for the universities. If one interprets it in a narrow way the Minister is right and it would be better not to put it in here. What I had in mind was that standards are affected by the availability of accommodation, staff and the financial resources for the provision of necessary aids, whether laboratory equipment or other teaching aids.

Therefore, one could argue that it should go in because financial provision affects the maintenance of standards, even though this might be regarded from the narrow point of view as a purely academic concern. However, Deputy Desmond's support on this issue has left me in some doubt as to which way to proceed. Perhaps if one gets the accommodation capacity and the staff/student ratio, this goes a long way towards ensuring that the necessary financial provision is made to maintain standards and perhaps the phrase itself is not necessary. On the other hand, I am almost persuaded by Deputy Desmond that I was right to include this matter and I should like to hear the Minister further on this point.

I did not hear the Minister say much about the rate of growth but he suggested that the concept of an acceptable ultimate size of each institution was void because of its vagueness. If this is so, I suggest that this applies to other amendments he has accepted. The Minister accepted increasing equality of opportunity in higher education and the maintenance of standards in higher education. In quantitative terms they are substantially less vague than the acceptable terms of each institution and the Minister has accepted that there is such a thing.

We may not agree as to the precise size or on an absolute limit of 10,000 or 11,000, but there is general agreement that a university can get too big. When the Higher Education Authority are considering what resources to allocate to each college they should take account of this. I do not think the vagueness is in any way objectionable and it seems substantially less vague than other phrases the Minister has accepted.

The rate of growth is important. Obviously a college that is growing rapidly, and for which student demand is increasing rapidly, should be given special consideration. It can be argued that the question of whether it grows rapidly is a matter to be controlled and students may be diverted elsewhere. We heard from the Minister today a flat statement that the students must go to the nearest college except in very rare cases. It appears to me that the rate of growth of an institution will be determined by student demand, not by external policy other than the policy of creating a new institution in the same area to which the students might be diverted. Consequently, the rate of growth on the Minister's policy in large measure will be unplanned.

It is liable to be a reflection of the response of students to greater opportunities for secondary education and ultimately for higher education. Some colleges may be in a position where the demand for entry will be greater than others. Some are situated in parts of the country where the population is growing rapidly; another is situated in an area where the population is declining. If therefore, you are going to tie students to the nearest college it is inevitable that there will be different growth rates and the HEA should take account of these growth rates in determining how the assessment should be made.

Each of the different criteria I have suggested has a validity of its own. I am willing to reconsider the question of the need to maintain standards. I am deterred from withdrawing it only by Deputy Desmond's support and I hope that the Minister, in the light of the arguments made by Deputy Desmond and myself, will reconsider his views. The Minister logically must accept that the reference to staff/student ratio must go in if the accommodation and capacity for students are considered.

Mr. Tunney

My fear is that when we speak about the maintenance of standards we may be indicating that present standards are satisfactory——

Dr. FitzGerald

That was not my intention.

Mr. Tunney

We may also be excluding the necessity for innovation. The past years have proved that education is amenable to change and hitherto accepted principles and fundamentals have been challenged. This is particularly the case in the universities. When I was at university I accepted what I was told but the present-day student is not prepared to accept certain points of knowledge that may be thrown at him. This change has been accepted in post-primary education and the process of education is being encouraged in many ways. I see the possibility of not presenting lectures but of presenting questions to students and indicating to them where they might get the knowledge or pursue certain facts and come back with the answers themselves.

I have the fear that what Deputy FitzGerald has in mind is the continuation of the system which has been in existence. I fear that the reference to the maintenance of standards and to the staff/student relationship accepts that which hitherto has been the position is the one with which we should continue. The Deputy may not be providing for the innovation which has come at different levels of education and which must come at the higher level. In the affluence which existed in the last decade the desire to bring people from what might be called the "lower social groups" into higher education might well have been due to the fact that the reserve in the higher group was not adequate to fulfil our requirements. However, if that need disappeared in this decade I fear we might revert to the situation where only the person who could pay for higher education would receive it. Instead of broadening the umbrella and bringing more from all classes into education we might be perpetuating that system, which obtained until the last decade, where only a select few could avail of education.

Dr. Thornley

I think Deputy Tunney would be the first to agree that both Deputy FitzGerald and myself have paid full and fair tribute to the changes made in educational matters by Ministers in his party. However, I think Deputy FitzGerald's amendment is acceptable in this instance. Frankly, I do not regard this as a terribly important amendment. It is a little like writing in the equality of opportunity thing. It is to remind these gentlemen of what their ultimate function is and to put it in a kind of creative, productive way. Here I do agree with Deputy Tunney that they must be continually reminded that their function is not simply to administer the system as it is at the moment but when Deputy FitzGerald speaks of the need to maintain standards he is correctly as a university teacher, I think, arguing that the greater danger facing the university at the moment is the declension of existing standards rather than the utilisation of a concept of the maintenance of standards to exclude people. I think Deputy Tunney knows that I share his desire to bring in to university people who are not there at present. At the same time I think the wording of this amendment is nicely drawn on balance and is acceptable and I do not think it is hostile in any way to the spirit of what Deputy Tunney has just said. I think I am still spokesman on education for the Labour Party.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is the third time the Deputy has said that and it is once too often, if I may say so.

Mr. Faulkner

May I first refer to some remarks made by Deputy O'Donovan? He referred to the accommodation made available in our universities. I think he will have to agree that in recent times very considerable progress has been made in relation to the provision of accommodation, particularly in UCD. A short time previously the Deputy referred to An tÚdarás as being unnecessary. Surely the matters which are now agitating him are the very matters which An tÚdarás will help to put right through the enabling authority in this Bill?

Dr. O'Donovan

If I had any faith in it, but I have not.

Mr. Faulkner

He was referring to a disparity in the staff/student ratio. I think he will accept, when he comes to have faith in An tÚdarás, which I have no doubt he will—in fact he should have it at present because of their very worthwhile activity over the past number of years since they were established——

Dr. O'Donovan

They have done nothing at all. I heartily agree with them for doing nothing.

Mr. Faulkner

If the Deputy would read their various reports he would find that they had been engaged in very worthwhile work.

Dr. O'Donovan

This Government are very fond of reports. I am interested in people doing things.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputies opposite have been very persuasive. In fact, they have, on a number of occasions, persuaded me to adopt amendments and they have found me amenable to discussion but in this instance I am afraid I cannot oblige them.

Deputy Desmond supported the amendment which has been put down by Deputy FitzGerald but I feel that if one starts laying down detailed criteria one will not know where to stop. I would assume that An tÚdarás would take into consideration all the matters which have been referred to here by Deputy FitzGerald when making assessments but nevertheless it is undesirable that we should have too much detail in relation to what they should concern themselves with when making these assessments. While I would accept that they must have regard to the staff/student ratio and so on nevertheless this is something that one would expect from An tÚdarás. If we begin by putting in the matters referred to in Deputy FitzGerald's amendment there is no reason why we should not continue on and put in numerous other matters.

I would say again to Deputy FitzGerald that the provision of accommodation carries with it the connotation that staff will be provided.

Dr. FitzGerald

It never happened before.

Mr. Faulkner

It has happened.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. Faulkner

The intention is that there should be developed a general policy in relation to staff/student ratio which would apply generally to all institutions. Therefore, mention of this particular aspect would be out of place in a subsection which is concerned with the taking into account in making assessments of varying circumstances within the institutions in question, something which I have referred to previously.

Again I want to refer to the amendment which the Deputy has put down in regard to the rate of growth and acceptable ultimate scope of each institution. This, from a legal point of view, apart from any other consideration, would not be acceptable because of the fact that it could not be defined in law.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hitherto in this debate either the Minister has made a good case and we have withdrawn the amendment or we have made a good case and he has accepted it. It has been a very good debate in that respect. This is the first time I have heard him totally unconvincing and indeed giving the impression of being unconvinced. He did not in his reply give any reason for including two criteria and excluding the others. He may well say: "We do not want a whole lot of criteria. We should leave it free." Why put in the two he has put in? On what possible grounds does he say that accommodation capacity must go in but staff capacity must not? He has not answered that point. When he has not got an answer to that point I think he is bound to accept that part of the amendment. Either neither of these should go in or they should both go in. No hint of a reason has been given for putting one in and not the other. When he says the two go together what he is saying is simply not true. The Government have in recent years provided the capital to make possible a considerable expansion of university building and the ratio of space to student has been very greatly improved. Unless of course this is well maintained it could disimprove again though I do not think Deputy O'Donovan is right in suggesting that the new arts building, for example, is too full already. It could certainly become so very soon.

Dr. O'Donovan

Perhaps I am there more often than the Deputy is.

Dr. FitzGerald

There are various replies to that but I do not propose to descend to personalities.

We have got increased capacity in our universities. The ratio of space to students has notably improved in recent years and has done so at great cost to the Exchequer. The amount of capital involved is quite considerable and all honour to the Government who have provided this additional capital, belatedly it is true, but they have provided it. The same has not happened with respect to the staff. I have already pointed out that in respect of the largest single university faculty—the arts faculty by itself or the arts and commerce faculties together in UCD—the ratio has disimproved over the years. We have a very considerable improvement in the ratio of space to student and a disimprovement in the ratio of staff to student.

For the Minister, therefore, to try to persuade this House that the two necessarily go together is, to say the least, disingenuous. It simply is not true. It has not happened. The opposite has happened and his unwillingness to include staff/student ratio here when he includes accommodation capacity is open to the interpretation that it will not happen in future either. If, in fact, his assurance given earlier that, although one could not ensure that in every individual year the staff/student ratio would improve, over a period of years the intention was to improve it, means anything it must logically be followed by the inclusion of staff/student ratio here together with the concept of accommodation capacity. The Minister is bound in logic to accept that part of my amendment. I put it to him that either he should say why he is making such a distinction or he should accept it. The other parts of the amendment are justified— particularly the questions of rate of growth and acceptable ultimate size—for the reasons I have given. This is the first occasion in this debate where the arguments of the Opposition have not been answered. The Minister spoke for about five minutes but he did not really reply to the points I made. I find that is a test of whether I have a good case or not, because if I put up a bad case I get a very quick answer from the Minister. When I put up a good case and the Minister talks for five minutes on something else, I know that I have a good point and that the Minister has no answer to it. I press the Minister to reconsider the position here unless he can give a reason for not including these amendments. If the Minister cannot say why they are putting in these two criteria and why this reason does not apply to other criteria he is bound in logic, common sense and common decency to accept the amendment.

Mr. Faulkner

One of the reasons why this provision is put in as it is is that, first of all, one must make available accommodation for students. If accommodation is not available there cannot be students there, or staff. There is no good having staff without accommodation. The first necessity is accommodation. I have dealt as fairly with Deputy FitzGerald as he has dealt with me.

Dr. FitzGerald

Up to a point.

Mr. Faulkner

I do not agree with the Deputy in relation to this matter.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister did not give reasons for his disagreement.

Mr. Faulkner

I have clearly pointed out that the first need is for the provision of accommodation. This carries with it the connotation that the staff will also be provided. The growth in current expenditure has been commensurate, by and large, with the growth in capital expenditure. This has gone towards the provision of staff and facilities. It may be true that the number of staff has not been large enough in relation to the number of students. Extra staff has been provided. It is important we should not put too many details into this section. The provision of accommodation implies the provision of staff and An tÚdarás would be neglectful of their duties if they were not to take into consideration the question of the staff/student ratio. There are many other things which could also be put into this section if we were to have a complete, detailed description of everything they might do. In this particular instance, I feel that the section is sufficiently broad.

Dr. Thornley

I would like to support Deputy Dr. FitzGerald here for reasons which he himself will not approve of. This amendment seeks to put teeth into the HEA. This is a line of reasoning which I have consistently supported in this discussion. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald would agree that he has not always supported this line of reasoning. If the Minister thinks about it very carefully he will see that this amendment tends to assist the line of thinking which underlies the view of the Authority in this Bill.

Dr. FitzGerald

I listened carefully to the Minister's further reply and he has not answered my points. I assert that the accommodation capacity per student has increased substantially in the past five or seven years. I assert equally that there has been no equivalent improvement in the staff/student ratio. In some important faculties this has disimproved. To say that increased accommodation capacity implies an increase in staff and an improvement in staff/student ratio, or that it carries with it the connotation of improved staff/student ratio is simply, historically and factually, incorrect as an argument. If the Minister wants to produce facts and figures to refute my arguments he is welcome to do so. His use of the words "implies" and "connotation" is meaningless in the face of the fact that the opposite has happened. The Minister says that the accommodation must come first. There is a "hen-egg" situation here. You cannot have a university here without both accommodation and students. It is irrelevant whether the accommodation is built first and then the staff employed, or whether both happen simultaneously, or whether some staff are employed, at the beginning to prepare the groundwork for the courses, and then more accommodation is built. A university cannot exist without accommodation and staff. We know of the neglect to increase staff. If we had to opt for particular things, I would be happy to opt for the staff and not the accommodation. There has been failure to provide extra staff. Attention must be directed to this point. The accommodation capacity is the least sensitive point. In some cases the Minister has accepted amendments freely and in some cases he has given me good arguments which we have immediately accepted without wasting time. The Minister on this particular issue of staff/student ratio should reconsider the situation. If the Minister gives me grounds for hope I will withdraw this amendment until Report Stage. Otherwise I will have to press it.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy mentions that the accommodation question is the least sensitive one. In all probability the reason why it is the least sensitive is that the accommodation has been made available. I want to assert, as I have done before, that the growth in current expenditure has been, by and large, commensurate with the growth in capital expenditure.

Dr. FitzGerald

What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Faulkner

I have no doubt that the extra current expenditure was utilised in providing facilities and additional professors and lecturers.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Minister thinks that he must know extraordinarily little about the financing of the university. Over the recent period, the very fact of providing accommodation itself involves enormous increases in current costs, even if there is no more staff. One of the biggest problems that UCD has had is that the move to Belfield has enormously increased its current expenditure for an existing staff. There has been an inflation in current costs and in salaries and wages generally from which university staffs have not been immune. There has been a proportionate increase in salaries. Because of these factors the increase in staff which we have had has not been commensurate with the growth of students. The increase in capacity has been more than commensurate with the growth in students. We now have a better ratio of space to students. The Minister does not deny these facts. He talks about current and capital expenditure going up as if that relationship meant anything. I would press the Minister to apply his mind to the issue as to whether the ratio of staff and students has been improving at the same rate as capacity to students. If any criterion is to be put in here, it should be the sensitive one of staff. Perhaps the Minister would reconsider this matter. In the light of the arguments would he not agree to have another look at this between now and Report Stage?

Mr. Faulkner

I feel that the important thing is to provide the physical accommodation first. The implication in these amendments is that An tÚdarás would operate in a "blinkered" fashion unless everything is spelt out for them in the Bill. We must accept that An tÚdarás will act in a sensible manner. As I have already mentioned, the matters which the Deputy has dealt with in his amendments would be matters which they would have to take into consideration. I do not think we should spell out every detail for the authority.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would the Minister answer one question? Why spell out accommodation capacity and not spell out the staff/student ratio? Why is the authority going to be reasonable on one and not on the other?

Mr. Faulkner

I think I said on about four occasions——

Dr. FitzGerald

——that the accommodation comes first in time.

Mr. Faulkner

The accommodation, yes.

Dr. FitzGerald

What has that to do with it? Would the Minister explain the relevance of that remark?

Mr. Faulkner

Surely, when the accommodation is made available, everything else that goes with it must follow?

Dr. FitzGerald

I have said repeatedly that the other things do not follow and have not done so. The whole point is that the Minister has not provided funds for the staff and in that respect the position has not improved. The Minister cannot deny that his remarks are not very relevant.

Mr. Faulkner

I do not think so.

Dr. Thornley

Earlier in this debate I appealed to all contributing to it to remember that they were Dáil Deputies and not university Deputies. In a sense here, Deputy FitzGerald is arguing against the pattern of explosion at his own university in the last ten years.

Dr. FitzGerald

No, with respect, I think this is general. I think the provision of accommodation comes first generally and then you provide the staff.

Dr. Thornley

I agree with that but the point I am making is that the argument that there should be an acceptable ultimate size for each institution and an acceptable staff/student ratio comes most quickly to the defence of the smaller and more beleaguered institutions in some ways than it does to the obviously rich conurbations——

Dr. O'Donovan

Come off it. The rich conurbation of Belfield. The income per student is the lowest in the country.

Dr. Thornley

Anyway, I agree with this amendment completely and I think Deputy FitzGerald is quite right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish the amendment put?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Desmond, Barry.
• McMahon, Lawrence.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Connell, John F.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Paddy.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Tully, James.

Níl

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

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Dr. Byrne and Desmond; Níl: Deputies Andrews and Meaney.

Amendment declared lost.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 19:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Before making any assessment under this section An tÚdarás shall first consult with each institution of higher education regarding its financial and other needs."

This amendment was put down to ensure that there is adequate consultation between An tÚdarás and the various institutions before the assessment is made. I am not clear from the wording in the Bill whether the Minister visualises that the Bill in its present form will have such a process of consultation. I can see from the Bill that the different bodies would submit their requirements but whether in fact there are to be consultations with the institution about its written submissions or whether an tÚdarás is entitled to go ahead without even telling the institution concerned and to make certain recommendations at variance with the submissions of the different universities and other institutions without any discussions on them is something I am not clear on. Therefore, before pressing the amendment at all I would like to hear from the Minister how he visualises this whole scheme operating and whether, as he sees it, there is adequate provision in the Bill already to ensure consultation. If he can show me that and the amendment is superfluous I will of course withdraw it; otherwise it may be worth pressing.

Mr. Faulkner

I can assure Deputy FitzGerald there will be consultations between An tÚdarás and the various institutions concerned. There cannot be any question of An tÚdarás making an assessment without getting the full statement from the institution concerned of their financial and other needs. In practice it is certain that An tÚdarás will afford each institution an opportunity of supplementing its submissions by oral representations if this is requested.

Dr. FitzGerald

When I ask the Minister if there is legal provision in the Bill to require consultation—it does not seem to me there is but I was open to conviction—his reply is that there is and then he proceeds to point out there is not. Let us be clear about this. There are two considerations. First of all, there is the requirement that there must be a submission from the institution concerned. The question I asked was: is there anything to require An tÚdarás to consult with the institutions concerned before passing on to the Minister this assessment of needs based on the submissions? The Minister says in practice there will be an opportunity for consultation. When he says "in practice", this I take it means there is no legal requirement. Am I right in interpreting the Minister, when he says "yes" he means "no"?

Mr. Faulkner

No. What I am saying is that the interpretation I am giving is that there will be consultations. The Deputy can take it that it would not be possible for An tÚdarás to act at all unless it had consultations with the institutions of higher education.

Dr. Thornley

I support Deputy FitzGerald. It seems the Minister is using an argument he has used several times in this discussion in which he is saying: "This is an institution of reasonable men. It may therefore be expected to behave reasonably; ergo an amendment which requires it to behave reasonably is supererogatory. The Minister is going round in circles and I do not see why he should not accept the amendment.

Mr. Faulkner

I am saying very much more than that. I am saying that from any practical person's point of view it would not be possible for An tÚdarás to make a proper assessment or to carry out their functions unless they had consultations with the institutions of higher education. I do not see any reason why we should insert the amendment. It would be rather an insult to the intelligence of An tÚdarás to suggest that we would have to tell them in a section of this Bill that they must consult when it would be nonsensical to suggest that they could carry out their functions without this type of consultation.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is no great harm that we should insult An tÚdarás in one subsection of the Bill considering that the whole Bill is an insult to our university institutions.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is taking an extreme view of the Bill. I find the Minister somewhat unconvincing on this point. If he interprets this as an insult, what about the insults contained in sections 3, 4, 6, 8 and all the other sections in the Bill? The Bill sets up An tÚdarás and the rest of the Bill deals with how An tÚdarás are to act. Such an insulting Bill would not be damaged by one final insult.

Mr. Faulkner

There could be instances in which relatively small matters are involved and it would not be necessary for them to consult. If we were to insert a subsection here we could compel them to consult on every occasion and they would be running backwards and forwards all the time. I do not think it is necessary to specify this. The authority will have requests from the various institutions for finance and will be supplied with statistical information as required under sections 7 and 11 of the Bill, and I cannot see why it should be necessary to insert this amendment. I want to underline the fact that I cannot imagine this authority operating without consultation. I would say that a basic consideration here in relation to the authority generally is that consultation must take place all the time. They cannot operate in a vacuum.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister is entitled to one of two arguments against the amendment but he is not entitled to both. One is that the amendment is unnecessary because the body concerned must consult, that consultation is inevitable and that there is no point in providing for it in the Bill. The other is that you cannot have the amendment because the amendment would require the authority to consult when consultation is unnecessary.

Mr. Faulkner

In minor matters.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Minister were defending a libel action he could use the two arguments simultaneously but he cannot do so here. I am not persuaded by his reply but I might have been persuaded by either argument if it had been cogently presented.

Mr. Faulkner

I think the Deputy is misinterpreting my reply. I said they would always consult in major matters, of necessity in major matters and relatively major matters.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is a new qualification.

Mr. Faulkner

There can be many minor matters, day to day small matters in which this amendment would compel them to consult.

Dr. O'Donovan

I hope not.

Mr. Tunney

There is one piece of information I should like to get from Deputy FitzGerald and here I am looking at Deputy FitzGerald as an economist, as a Deputy whom I have heard on several occasions speak against the undesirability of duplication of any form of exercise. I would ask him to bear in mind section 7 which requires the submission of a financial statement and adds:

and it shall be the duty of every institution of higher education to comply with any requirements which are imposed on it under this section.

What actually does he think is the benefit of his amendment as against the information and the consultation which will already have taken place under section 7?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am happy to explain that and I am prepared to change hats for the purpose. Deputy Thornley referred to the fact that he had worn different hats.

Dr. Thornley

I referred to the fact that I was not wearing different hats.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy was wearing different hats for some purpose and I thought that had I the power of draughtsmanship of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I would have liked to have done a little sketch of Deputy Thornley in a cleft stick wearing two hats and falling between two stools.

Dr. Thornley

At least I am not falling between two absolutes which the Deputy is in danger of doing.

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept the correction. The point I am making is that while other sections of the Bill, section 8 in particular, require the authority to operate by getting requests for finance, it would be possible in the absence of this amendment for the authority, having got such a request, simply to say: "We do not recognise this at all." The submissions made by the authority are not alone based on the requests of the institutions. This is very important from the point of view that at the moment the universities make direct submissions to the Department.

One feature of the present system —I do not think it is a good system—is that they can put forward their claim and argue it out and often there is lengthy correspondence between the university concerned and the Department, with a lot of arguing backwards and forwards, all concerned with persuading the Department that the claim is reasonable and with counteracting any counter arguments that may be made. If you interpolate the authority here, you are cutting out the universities from their sources of money and it is necessary to have some safeguard so that the universities are in a position to argue backwards and forwards with the HEA. It is with a view to giving the universities the benefit of this buffer without any significant deterioration of the present system that I put down the amendment.

Mr. Faulkner

Let me point out again that I think anybody looking at this section in a practical way will have to realise that An tÚdarás cannot carry out their functions unless they have consultation and that they could not come to a decision without having consultations with the institutions concerned. On the other hand, An tÚdarás could be tied by an amendment like this by requiring them to have consultations on relatively minor matters which An tÚdarás could deal with quite easily on their own. Again, I want to underline the fact that in my view it would not be possible for An tÚdarás to carry out their function if they did not have consultations with the institutions of higher education.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.