I am glad of Deputy Thornley's support. It may be that on this particular point the best way of handling this from a practical point of view may be to press it on the Report Stage because it seems, on reflection, a neater method of coping with the problem to accept the Minister's amendment which goes some little distance and meets part of the objection to the HEA itself on this subject and then seek to amend the Minister's amendment by the addition of these words rather than to press my own amendment which may not be as well drafted as the Minister's. Probably the best solution is to accept the Minister's amendment and seek to amend it on Report Stage. I should like Deputy Thornley and the Minister to give further consideration to amendment No. 22 or to some amendment to subsection (1).
As we now see the picture emerging it is more disturbing than I thought. I and other Deputies thought the Minister would come in and give a variety of assurances that nothing of the kind was intended. He might or might not accept the amendment as is the way of Ministers but at least I expected to get forthright assurances. What I have got instead is an increasingly explicit account of the method of control which would, as Deputy Thornley said, duplicate the existing mechanism and involve a degree of interference with the autonomy of both the authority and the universities which I find totally unacceptable. As I see it, it will work as follows: universities or institutions of higher education put forward proposals to the authority; the authority considers these, "vets" them, cuts them possibly, co-ordinates them and sends them forward to the Minister. The Minister on some occasions, at least in the light of the stringency we now face, may be unable to provide the full sum and instead of going back at that stage and saying to the authority:
"Instead of £4,900,000, we can give you £4,200,000" and leaving it at that, the Minister now clearly proposes— and he has perhaps inadvertently come rather clean on this one—a haggling process. He goes back to the authority and says "We do not think we can agree on this. Come back to us and tell us what you propose to do." Instead of the authority being left free to determine this matter when the Minister has taken his decision as to the total sum he can afford, each individual item is to be haggled over so that in the Book of Estimates the figure can be put down and they are tied down to that. The Minister says it will only go in when agreed with the HEA but we have no assurance that if the HEA refuse to accept the Minister's proposed distribution of the total sum he is going to give that he will not still put it in the Book of Estimates and tie their hands. That process is completely objectionable.
I was clear originally that the intention was to give this body the authority to determine how the money should be allocated, and it is an evasion for the Minister to say "Yes, they have the authority but they must come back and tell me so that I can put it in the Book of Estimates." It may well be that agreement will not be reached on the matter and that the authority, in the time available, which may not be adequate for all the consultation required, may be unable to make up its mind. What happens then? Will the Minister put something into the Book of Estimates regardless of the authority? What guarantee have we that he will not? I think that whole process is quite wrong. I should like the Minister to reconsider that and assure us that what is intended—indeed if he cannot he will have to find some way of rewording the whole section to cover this—is that the authority will make a submission to him indicating the reasons why they want this sum of money, indicating the amount required for each institution and the reasons for it and the Minister will then say whether he can or cannot give it. If he cannot give it the authority will have to sit down and think out with the university—not with the Minister who has no further function in the matter—what it is going to do.
There is no point in having an authority if the Minister is going to argue with the authority as to how much is to go to each body. The whole purpose of the authority is to take this out of the Minister's Department. It seems that the Minister's Department have not understood at all the intentions of the recommendation made on this matter or, perhaps, they have understood them too well and are trying in this way to take control? Why burden us with an authority at this stage if it is to be done this way? If the Minister's Department is to remain involved in the allocation of sums to individual bodies as at present there is no point in having the authority. This is the nub of the matter.
It is not confined to that because the Minister visualises a further stage of control. Having insisted that the authority must clearly specify the amount for each body so that he can put it in the Book of Estimates and this must be agreed with the Department first, then he expects the authority to go back to the university and earmark grants to them for specific purposes. If there is one principle that we must stand by it is that there shall not be earmarking of grants for current purposes. The autonomy of the university or the institution depends on its ability to run its own internal affairs within the limits of finance that the Government can make available. It makes its case, it explains what it spent last year, why costs have gone up, why it needs more staff, why running costs have increased and puts in its claim for more money. If the Government cannot give it the full amount and it has to make economies, it is for it to decide where the economies are to be made. If the Government do give it the money and it finds that its needs are marginally different in some areas, more staff are required in one area and less in another in the course of a year, it must be entitled to the flexibility which it enjoys in most respects at the moment. What the Minister envisages is something that goes far beyond anything we have now. There is at present in that sense virtually no earmarking. Except for the segregating of agriculture, veterinary medicine and a grant of a couple of thousand pounds for the teaching of Irish, the great bulk of university expenditure is not earmarked at present.
Even though a case is made by the university authority for money they may not get the full amount. The Minister may indicate, although he often does not do so, the reasons why he has not given the full amount which would indicate what expenditure he thought was less desirable. Even when he does that, it in no way binds the university or college; they are free to use the money they have as they think best. What is now proposed, according to the Minister, is a much tighter control in which ear-marking which arises at the moment for historical reasons in agriculture, veterinary medicine and the teaching of Irish is going to be wiped out in those areas, but is going to be reintroduced for some other unspecified purpose.
The Minister has not given any indication why this is to be done.
If there is to be one global grant as he has told us, and we are glad of his assurance, where does this earmarking come in? What kind of earmarking of current expenditure has the Minister in mind? What new developments has he in mind? The most that happens at present is that the college may apply for additional money for, among other purposes, salary increases. The Minister may say he does not accept the need for the salary increase, in which event the college will, if it does not get the money and it cannot afford to give it, have to give it out of its own fee resources. In one instance the fees of one college were raised for the specific purpose of making such an adjustment which the Minister was not prepared to provide money for. This was an assertion of the autonomy of the college, which was both valuable and salutary in the circumstances. That is the nearest to earmarking we get at present, apart from the special historical cases I have mentioned.
What has the Minister in mind? This is a most sinister development and it is something which I had no idea was intended. I thought it was an oversight not to have realised the desirability of excluding current expenditure from the process of earmarking. I am disturbed to find far from being an oversight it is intended. I am doubly disturbed to find that not only has the authority been given the power and is to be expected to earmark current grants, but that the Department itself is to negotiate with the HEA over the question of where they are to cut back and this is to be incorporated quite improperly in the Book of Estimates.
In the light of what I have said I should like the Minister to reconsider the position. I would ask the House to forgive me if I have spoken with some warmth on this subject. I am disturbed about the revelations in the debate. I had thought a different intention was here. Indeed I had tried to allay misgivings on the part of my colleagues in university by suggesting to them that the Minister did not have these intentitons. I am a little disconcerted to find I was wrong. He appears to have some intentions of a kind I had not anticipated.
