I think a case has been made and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
SECTION 10.
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."
I have already explained on many occasions my reasons for not accepting this amendment. As Deputies are aware, the section is concerned with making assessments by An tÚdarás. I explained that on practically every occasion it would be necessary for An tÚdarás to have consultations with the various institutions. There will be some occasions on which quite small supplementary allocations may be made by An tÚdarás, so that available funds can be channelled to where they are most needed at a particular point of time. I do not see any reason why we should tie An tÚdarás to operate at all unless it consulted with the various institutions. We should remember that one of the functions of An tÚdarás is to co-ordinate State investment in higher education. How this could be done without consultation I do not know, but I do not think we should put An tÚdarás into a straightjacket in relation to many minor matters with which it will have to deal.
I do not understand the Minister's reference to "many minor matters". The matters we are talking about as defined in section 10 (1) refer to the assessment of "amounts of State financial provisions, both current and capital, which it recommends for higher education and re-rearch or for any part thereof". This is not a minor matter. The whole nub of this Bill is the function of An tÚdarás in doing just this and in so far as a recommendation or assessment relates to a particular institution it is clearly unacceptable that that institution should not even be consulted in relation to a decision that An tÚdarás makes as to what it will recommend or assess.
As I say, they are not minor matters. These financial assessments we are talking about are fundamental to any institution. If an institution is seeking financial assistance it is, of course, a matter for An tÚdarás to decide whether it merits it to the extent that it thinks. Quite frequently it could decide negatively but at least the institution concerned should be informed of the thinking of An tÚdarás before the assessment is made and given an opportunity of commenting on the view which An tÚdarás has formed. Otherwise there is a very unsatisfactory situation in which the institution puts forward its financial claims. It hears nothing from An tÚdarás. It does not know whether the case has been accepted or not. It does not know whether An tÚdarás could have misunderstood some aspect of it or have come to a conclusion which is not warranted by the full facts known to the institution concerned. The whole thing can go forward to the Government as an assessment, privately and secretly, without the institution knowing what assessment has been made of its needs or how it has been arrived at. It could very well be that at the end of it the amount the institution receives is a great deal less than it looked for and that could be due to a failure in communication, because a single, one-way communication of a document going from the institution to An tÚdarás and never discussed between the two is clearly open to confusion and doubt.
It seems essential therefore that when An tÚdarás has made up its mind as to what it thinks are the requirements put forward by a particular institution, it should inform the institution of that and receive any views the institution may have which may help to clarify its mind on the matter before proceeding to send in the assessment. The Minister seems to be adopting a contradictory line in saying he cannot conceive that it would not do this and, on the one hand, saying it is unnecessary to legislate and, on the other hand, we must not legislate because it cannot be forced to do it and it ought not to be forced to take such action in respect of minor matters. As I do not understand what the minor matters are, as every matter here is a financial assessment of the needs of a university or other institution of higher education, I cannot accept that argument. When the Minister says "of course they must consult". I agree with that and it should be given statutory form.
I am amazed that the Deputy should suggest that An tÚdarás not only would but could make an assessment of the needs of an institution without having consultations with the institution.
The Minister is suggestion this, not I. I am suggesting it should not.
What the Deputy has said is that an assessment could be made by An tÚdarás secretly without the knowledge of the institution concerned and that this assessment would be sent forward to the Minister without the institution concerned having any knowledge of it. This is splitting hairs. How could An tÚdarás possibly make an assessment of the needs of an institution without consultation with the institution? I have, on many occasions here, accepted amendments for a number of reasons and particularly where I felt an amendment strenthened the Bill; and also where I might not personally feel it made much difference but where at least I believed it would not do any harm. But where I feel amendments will water down the Bill I do not intend accepting them. This amendment would put An tÚdarás in a straitjacket. We could tie it up so that it could not move at all without consultation. As I say, there are certain minor matters which could arise in relation to which there would be no need for a further consultation.
Could the Minister give an example?
The assessment could be made at an early stage. It could be found afterwards that some minor change was necessary, perhaps the transfer of funds inside the institutions or between institutions, and if this were a relatively small matter I do not see why there should be consultation on it.
The Minister is being self-contradictory. He is amazed I should suggest that an assessment should be made without consultation. He then tells me it would be quite normal to make such an assessment without consultation if it involved a minor matter of the transfer of funds between one institution and another. If the Minister knows of any institution of higher education which would regard as minor the transfer of funds from it to another I would like to know the name of it. I have never come across such a phenomenon. The Minister says there is no question of this being done and then he proceeds to tell us the cases in which it will be done. He can hardly expect us to accept that attitude. Either in all cases there will be consultation—which is what the Minister appeared to be saying at first, in which case let us put it in the Bill—or there will not be consultation in all cases, in which case the Minister need not be so amazed at my suggestion that there would not be consultation in all cases. He cannot have it both ways.
Could I add my support to Deputy FitzGerald here? The Minister does seem to be trying to have it both ways, saying one minute that the process of consultation is inevitable, and the next minute that it is a watering down of the Bill and the placing of the HEA in a straitjacket. How one is in a straitjacket by being asked formally to do something which it is inevitable one would do in the first place I simply do not know.
Not to talk about a watered-down straitjacket.
That is right, the water torture. Would the Minister not accept that through no fault of its own the HEA started off with a certain degree of distrust among the academic community? This partly stemmed from the narrowness of mind of many of the senior academics and, I admit, partly from the circumstances in which the HEA was set up. However, an amendment of this kind, without in any way infringing the underlying principles of the Bill would, as the Minister has explicitly admitted in one part of his arguments, go a long way to reassure the academic community.
I think what I have said has been misinterpreted, perhaps not deliberately, but I spoke about minor changes. First of all, there must be consultation if an assessment is to be made. That is common sense. That is looking at it from a practical man's point of view. Once the assessment is made, if a minor change were necessary in the assessment An tÚdarás could not make this minor change in the assessment without going back to the institution concerned. This could concern a considerable number of institutions at various times and, perhaps because of the preparation of the Book of Estimates and so on, it would be necessary to get in touch with the Minister in a relatively short space of time. If there was to be a constant returning for the purpose of consulting on minor matters, everything would be held up. I am convinced that, first of all, from a practical point of view, there must be consultation and, for that reason, there is no need to put it in the Bill: secondly, if we did put it in the Bill, it would have the effect of forcing the authority to consult on any possible minor change that might be made in the original assessment.
The procedure that is being outlined by the Minister is one that I had not thought likely to take place. I had pictured the authority making an assessment in respect of the year or a longer period, particularly in the case of capital funds and the Minister and the Government deciding whether to give it. Certainly, I had not envisaged the kind of horse trading exercise which the Minister seems to envisage in that the Government would go back to the authority and say: "We are not very happy about this. We should give a little here and take a little from somewhere else." I am somewhat disturbed to hear that this is how the Minister envisages the authority working.
You are very innocent.
Not so innocent as the Deputy might think.
A debate on my innocence might be interesting but it is hardly relevant to the Bill.
Sorry, I thought Deputy Thornley was referring to the Minister.
The initial assessment of this, in so far as it will happen, will not stand and the Department will find themselves going back to the Higher Education Authority and arguing as to where a little extra or otherwise should be given. It is precisely in relation to these matters that consultation would be particularly important. There would be nothing more unsatisfactory than that a university or other institution of higher education should find themselves in the position of having been consulted as to the initial assessment, knowing what had been sent in by the Higher Education Authority and then to find, subsequently, that in some horse trading behind the scenes, the authority had sold the thing down the river and had handed over to some other institution funds which they understood the Higher Education Authority believed they ought to have. Because of this there could be a severe lack of confidence between the institutions of higher education and the Higher Education Authority. This is all the more reason why consultation is necessary. Therefore, I press this amendment.
Again, I am interested in this because the Deputies opposite have been pressing for a certain amount of latitude for the authority. Section 12 deals with this aspect. However, at this stage, if I am to interpret correctly what Deputy FitzGerald has said, they want to put them into a type of straitjacket whereby they could not make any change.
I never suggested that.
Lest there should be any misunderstanding in relation to what I have said about the transferring of money from one particular institution to another, I might refer to, for example, capital which is not spent and which in the original assessment was made available for one particular institution but which was not spent by that institution. If it was found necessary to use it in some other institution, An tÚdarás should be entitled to transfer the money, without being statutorily obliged to have consultations. In fact, this has been done on many occasions but the problem up to now has been that it was necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate in order to do so. In a situation such as the one I have instanced, it should not be necessary for An tÚdarás to consult with the institution concerned. It would have been obvious that the money was not needed in the institution for which it was originally allocated.
The Minister's idea that consultation is a straitjacket is revealing. I have heard various Fianna Fáil views on consultation at different times but none of them has ever conformed to what is my idea of consultation. This is a new one. If a situation should arise, such as envisaged by the Minister, the secretary of An tÚdarás has only to telephone the secretary of the institution concerned and tell him that since they have not made use of their full allocation and since it is necessary to complete a building in some other area, the money should be transferred. But, of course, this would not prejudice the claims of the institution for the next year. It would be merely an internal book-keeping transaction. I cannot understand how such a telephone call could be regarded as being a straitjacket except that the whole attitude of the Minister and his Department is that consultation is a straitjacket. We have seen this in so many cases. We have heard from the Minister and from previous Ministers proud references to the process of consultation which the Department have initiated in various places but I have never met anybody who has been engaged in consultation with the Department and who has been satisfied with the Department's concept of consultation. That is not to say that many people in particular cases have not been satisfied with the results of what they achieved but the basic idea held by the Department in so far as consultation is concerned is not the kind of open consultation which most people envisage by that word. Obviously, if a telephone call is to be regarded as a straitjacket, the kind of relations that the Department would have either with institutions or individuals would be very unsatisfactory. It is not surprising that relations between the Department and the various bodies connected with education have been unsatisfactory. That is not to say that much has not been achieved. Neither is it to say that many of these bodies have not very high respect for many aspects of the Department's work. However, regarding consultation there is a basic failure on the part of the Department to understand the meaning of that word.
The instance which the Minister cites is not a very happy one. My imagination boggles at the thought of an institute of higher education that would tell the Minister at the end of the year they had not used the grant that had been made to them. I cannot imagine anyone being so native. Like Deputy FitzGerald, I found the Minister's remarks slightly sinister. There seemed to be an indication that the authority would consult in the first instance with the universities and in the second, third, fourth and fifth instances in which the original grants were pruned or altered, with the Minister. Far from putting the authority in a straitjacket, this amendment would enhance their status as an initiator of university policy. I wish to place the warning on the record of the House that what I fear is that the authority would in practice be bypassed by the more astute academic politicians who will be consulted and who will get their way so that it will be only when the Book of Estimates appears, we will see the influence of certain individual academic politicians, if I may refer to them as such. This would downgrade the dignity of the authority and their whole purpose.
I am rather surprised that Deputy FitzGerald should regard as consultation a telephone call to tell somebody that one intends doing something.
In the particular instance mentioned by the Minister.
Certainly, I would not regard that particular type of attitude as being any different from what I am suggesting that the Higher Education Authority should be entitled to do. Deputy Thornley says that his mind boggles at the idea of any institution not spending all the money made available to them. Only yesterday we transferred a considerable sum of money—I think it was £190,000—to other institutions.
Capital?
Yes. We pointed out that £220,000 which had been made available as capital to Galway University had not been utilised. So far as my Department are concerned, we have had and will have as much consultation as possible not only in relation to this but in relation to all other aspects of education. In recent times in this House, as well as through other media, the charge has been made that the Department do not consult. I suppose if this is repeated often enough, it will be believed. But the facts are as I pointed out in relation to the Development Branch of my Department yesterday that as far as that particular aspect is concerned I know of no country in which so much consultation has taken place as has taken place here. The same of course applies to other sections of my Department. Indeed, one of the problems I have had personally is that I have to meet so many different deputations on different matters; I consult with them in relation to aspects of my Department in which they are interested; I take note of their suggestions and if I feel that they are worthwhile suggestions I make use of them in the development of policy. It is untrue to say that my Department do not consult——
That was not what I said.
Well, the Deputy went pretty close to it. In fact, this is a general charge which is so easily thrown around by those who would like to denigrate the work of the Department.
It is the Department's concept of consultation that I challenged.
It is quite obvious to everybody that the work of the Department has been exceptional in recent times. Indeed, I might add that were it not for the fact that a considerable number of changes were initiated in the Department itself I doubt if there would have been any changes at all. What I would like to see would be everybody involved in the development of our education system, but often we have been placed in the position in which, because changes have not been suggested from quarters from which one might expect them to be suggested, we have had to go ahead ourselves and in the process invariably involved ourselves in a considerable amount of controversy. Most groups involved in the educational scene tend to be conservative, they do not like change, but that is not to say that when change takes place they do not accept it if they find that it is worthwhile, but in general terms people—and this does not just apply to education—do not like to see the old ways changed. For that reason we have had to initiate various changes in the educational system which met with a considerable amount of initial opposition.
I want again to say that it is not a fact that consultations do not take place between outside interests and my Department. However, as far as I can see we are side-tracking this whole issue and splitting hairs. I am pointing out that in relation to the main aspect of this discussion it should be quite clear to everybody that consultations must take place but I am not going to tie down An tÚdarás to having to consult on various small matters. Again, referring to what Deputy FitzGerald said when speaking about the arrangement, it is not looking at this matter in a practical way to suggest that an assessment could be made by An tÚdarás, that An tÚdarás could then go to the Minister and say "this is our assessment" without having consulted the institution concerned.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Just to take up a point that the Minister made, I never of course said that the Department do not consult. I referred to extensive consultations but the concept of consultation remains one which is not that of other people because it is consultation, very often, when the Department have made up their minds what to do and are trying to sell it to the people and whether they accept it or not it will go through. The people who are being consulted know that is the attitude and that the thing is a waste of time. That kind of consultation has arisen frequently in this area and it is very unsatisfactory to people who want open discussions. The Department have not yet managed to devise a method of consultation before they come to decisions in many areas. I appreciate the difficulties involved in this, and indeed in another context I referred to this on the Estimate yesterday. We need to devise some new approach to these problems.
In recent years we have failed to maintain the kind of open contact that there ought to be between the Executive and the Administration on the one hand and the people on the other. It is very rare to have any consultative body in which the Minister himself plays a role. There have been one or two cases, for particular reasons, and in two of these cases the results were not very happy but the reasons were particular to those cases. I would like to think that we could have a situation in which, where major policy issues are being discussed, consultation would mean that the Minister would sit down with his administrators, his professional staff and the interests concerned for free and open discussion, even if it takes a couple of days on a major issue, to try to see what is the right answer. The present system is the formulation of proposals in the Department, acceptance by the Minister, and an attempt to sell them to the various interests concerned. This, indeed, can be very frustrating. I think we have to rethink this whole process.
The feeling of everybody who is dealing with the Department is that he is dealing with a machine and that he cannot get through. The Minister takes his advice from his administrators and it is not clear what direct access the professional people have to him. Many people in touch with him feel intensively frustrated because they have not got a direct policy-making role, that anything they put up is channelled through the administrators; the educationalists outside feel that they are up against a blank wall. There is no free and open discussion or consultation. That is what I meant and not that there is not consultation in the sense of endless discussions, but that the process of consultation does not mean the same thing in the Minister's Department as it does to people outside. Therefore there is great frustration.
The use of the word "straitjacket" in respect of consultation was perhaps an unconscious reflection of an attitude of mind which runs right through this business. On the issue itself I hope that the debate on the amendment will have some effect on the way the authority operate. I do not believe that the authority will wish to damage their relations with the bodies with which they will be dealing by making changes in assessment as originally put forward, and known to the bodies concerned, without consulting them. We, by not amending this Bill accordingly, are making it possible for them to do that and to damage their relations with these institutions by so doing. However, I would have enough confidence in the body as at present constituted, and indeed in any likely form, to think that because of their composition, because there will be a number of academic members anyway, who will be sensitive to opinion in the institutions in which they are, there will in fact be very close consultation, but I am not satisfied that we in this House are doing our duty when we leave open the possibility of inadequate consultations. Our job is to require that things be done by law in a satisfactory manner and not always to trust the good judgment of other people, whether they be Ministers or anybody else, that they will always, if not required to do so, act judiciously in matters of this kind.
One point about which I am not too clear is the relationship between this body and the National Science Council when we come to the question of financing research. Perhaps the Minister could explain the respective roles of these two bodies and in matters of research what co-ordination is proposed between them. The National Science Council have an important function in relation to the financing of research. This impinges on academic institutions and at the same time part at least of the funds with which this authority will provide universities will be used for research, including research in the scientific field. It seems to me that there is here a need for co-ordination. I would not claim to know what the right way to tackle this is but I am sure the Minister must have given it considerable thought and I should like to hear how this might best be done.
On the question of consultation which the Deputy has again raised I want to stress that I am personally most anxious to have consultation with all groups. In a sense there is contradiction in what the Deputy says and the attitude he adopted yesterday in relation to the community schools situation. What I pointed out then was that I had hoped to have full and frank discussions with the various groups closely concerned with the schools, for example, the Hierarchy, the IVEA, the heads of various religious orders, teachers or organisations and so on and that when we evolved a generally acceptable scheme we could then have it discussed publicly. I should be quite willing to have the views of any group sufficiently interested and to make changes if I found that the views put forward by the various groups concerned were worthwhile and warranted change. But we must have something to go on.
Some outsiders appear to view consultation as agreeing to what they want. They are very quick to make public the fact that they would like to have consultation but that the Department were not willing to have consultation with them, when what they really mean is that the Department having consulted them are not willing to accept their particular viewpoint.
As regards the straitjacket aspect, what I was concerned with here was that I was anxious not to tie down An tÚdarás in relatively minor matters. Once we put in the amendment suggested by the Deputy it would mean that they could not take any decision, even the most minor one, without having consultation. I thought this would not be in the best interests of the whole third level educational system. In regard to the liaison between the National Science Council and An tÚdarás, the fact is that the present chairman of the National Science Council is also a member of An tÚdarás.
That is an interesting fact but what process of co-ordination is proposed? That is a useful link to have but does the Minister propose to have something more formal than simply the fact that there is someone there who knows that there is something going on that requires co-ordination?
Apart from what I have already said the Department are also involved and we provide an information service between the two bodies. However, this is something I shall have to look into more closely.
I should have thought it would be desirable to have direct liaison between them rather than have them co-ordinated at departmental level.
I shall look into that.
In regard to consultation and community schools, the point I raised yesterday was a specific point. The Minister in response to a request received sent a document to one member of the Hierarchy and when that was communicated to the rest of the Hierarchy and it got out that it had been sent to the Hierarchy, the Minister did not clarify the position. While it was a perfectly innocent and appropriate response by the Minister to a request to send the document, when it was misrepresented and especially when the papers got the impression that the Minister had communicated with the Hierarchy as a whole on his own initiative and not with the secondary school managers he created a feeling of unease among secondary school managers and other educational bodies which was unnecessary. This should have been clarified at the time. I endeavoured myself to clarify it and the Minister confirmed my interpretation at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis but I think it is a mistake to allow such an impression to get around, because the Hierarchy's interest in education is only one of a number of interests and, in a sense, is a minority interest because the religious orders are responsible for far more schools than the Hierarchy in the secondary education sphere which is what we are talking about here, post-primary. There is also the vocational education side where there are other interests involved rather than the Hierarchy. It was unfortunate that in responding quite properly to a request for guidance as to what the thinking was, when this went wrong the Minister did not clarify it.
On the general question of consultation involved when the Minister got that request and responded by sending the document he should have covered himself at that stage by sending it to all interests concerned. Thirdly, on the question of consultation the Minister talks of consulting various bodies and then when he has made up his mind, communicating it to the public. I am not happy with this whole business being done behind closed doors. All these are interests but the people most concerned with education are the parents and the pupils and I did not hear the Minister mention consulting them until a decision had been taken by him in consultation with all the other interests concerned. In a matter as important as this, it is important that there should be public knowledge of the matter at issue and public discussion before the Government's mind is made up on the matter because, unfortunately, the whole system of government in every country seems to depend very largely on the government taking decisions and feeling that if they change these decisions they lose face. It is a human instinct that is as true in China as it is here or elsewhere. It is true at every level of society when there are institutions, whether ecclesiastical institutions, voluntary bodies, governments, or political parties. That being so, a system of consultation which is limited to particular interests when a decision is being formulated and then put forward for public discussion when it is too late for public discussion to influence it, is an unsatisfactory procedure. I should prefer a more open system of consultation on major issues of this kind. If it is a purely technical issue which involves the form of an examination paper or something like that, you do not need discussion in the correspondence columns of the Irish Times about it. That could be settled at a more technical level although in instances like that, there could be consultation with representatives of parents and teachers, but when you have major policy issues I do not think they can be settled in the way envisaged by the Minister.
I suppose we are going beyond the scope of the Bill but nevertheless I think I should say something in regard to what the Deputy has said. While it is true that this document was sent to one particular bishop, as I pointed out yesterday, there were other areas involved and this is public knowledge.
Areas of what?
In relation to community schools.
Places?
Yes. One of my principal reasons for having sent it to the Catholic Hierarchy is the fact that there were certain overall considerations with which they could deal in relation to Catholic schools. In the course of my local discussions I found there were certain overall problems that concerned all localities and could be dealt with at Hierarchy level. This was one of the reasons why I decided to send them the document.
Could the Minister say what are these things he is talking about? I find it difficult to imagine what kind of considerations concerning individual schools would concern the Hierarchy.
There were general considerations in relation to the whole policy which related to the Hierarchy as a body.
What kind of considerations? The Minister should be more explicit at this point.
I do not think so.
The Minister is going to leave in doubt many very serious issues.
The Deputy need not be one bit worried. I am consulting with all concerned and they know exactly what I have in mind. The Deputy mentioned public discussions. We know from experience what happens in relation to public discussions when they take place on an emotional basis: things tend to be polarised. Unless there is some firm basis for discussion I do not think we get from it the results we would like. In relation to the question of community schools I felt we should try to get as much agreement as possible with those concerned and then the public discussions would be on a much firmer basis and we would not have got anything like the same emotion introduced into the matter as we unfortunately did. With regard to the question of losing face the very fact that I have accepted a number of amendments here proves that I am not worried about losing face.
I appreciate that.
If the amendments are worthwhile we will accept them.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
In regard to amendment No. 21, the point was made on earlier amendments that the introduction of the word "reasonably" would ensure against an unreasonable requirement by the authority and as the Minister did not accept it there I am not expecting him to accept it here either.
I am afraid the same argument applies.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I do not intend to waste time by covering the same ground again but I feel there is a possible problem here. It is very hard to know what the right balance is because clearly An tÚdarás could require information of a degree of detail which would, of its nature, impinge on the reasonable autonomy of the institution and one has some fears on that score. On the other hand, I freely admit it is possible that institutions might unreasonably wish not to give information and it could therefore be important to An tÚdarás to have some power to get information. It is very difficult to hold the balance in this case but it is worthwhile alerting An tÚdarás to sensitivities in this area. I would not want to restrain An tÚdarás from looking for information which it really and genuinely needs and I feel there will be times when it seeks information which it ought to have to do its work but which the institutions may be reluctant to produce partly for practical reasons and I am not at all sure that something of the kind may not happen in the near future. An tÚdarás may require information on the costing of the system, to give some impression of the relative cost of the different areas within an educational institution, as a basis of formulating policy.
Clearly, if we are going to have a higher educational policy while cost cannot be the determining criterion it is a relevant criterion and would be relevant to such matters as the determination of the appropriate level of fees. It cannot however be the determining criterion because if that were the case areas of specialised knowledge would not be studied at all, not only in the sciences but also in the arts, because the degree of specialisation is such that the cost of teaching or research would be so high that to charge fees related to the cost would be to actively discourage studies from being carried on.
There can be no question of the rigid relationship between fees on the one hand and costs on the other. That having been accepted it is still legitimate for An tÚdarás to seek information of this kind and I can see why they need power in this matter. I hope they will exercise this power judiciously and I hope the universities and other institutions will co-operate freely with An tÚdarás and if An tÚdarás looks for information on costings in different areas that this information will be given. There may be practical difficulties to be overcome in some cases but I would hope a measure of close co-operation would be built up between the two bodies. It is an area of some delicacy because either An tÚdarás or the university or other institutes of higher education could adopt unreasonable attitudes on particular points. I hope that will not happen. I do not think it will, but it is worth airing the issue here.
I agree with the Deputy. I should like to see both An tÚdarás and the various institutions acting reasonably in relation to this but I think I can allay the Deputy's fears by informing him that the format in which this information will be sought is being worked out at the moment by An tÚdarás and the various institutions and if they come to agreement on this, it will ensure that there will be a reasonable attitude.
That is clearly the right approach.
I do not have exactly the same view of this Bill as Deputy FitzGerald. It is one thing for the Minister to tell us that a form is being worked, but what is to prevent a future Minister from saying, "I do not agree with my predecessor, I want all information reasonable or unreasonable"? Bureaucrats have one view about information especially about education and other people have a different view about what is "reasonable information". In legislation of this kind the word "or" is extremely objectionable and I do not think it should ever be used in a Bill.
As the State is spending so much money it must gather it in every way possible. If An tÚdarás had come into existence in a different way, I might have been more inclined to agree with this kind of thing but it is composed partly of quislings. The only people on genuine guard are the three registrars in the universities who, I take it, were put on ex officio. I cannot understand why the Registrar of University College, Galway, was not put on at the time even though he was about to retire, and I have not heard that his successor was put on either. If they are put on officially the Registrar of University College, Galway, should also be put on. I should like to know why he was not made a member of the authority because the Registrars of Trinity College, UCD and UCC and a number of other professors were put on. Their colleagues in the universities regard them as quislings and rightly so in my opinion. There were other people, but one man who was put on was extremely perturbed about being put on. For him I have a considerable regard and he, at least, brought some administrative expertise to this body, which is essentially an administrative body. This man brought considerable experience of administration to the body. Mark you, unless my information is incorrect, he was extremely perturbed about being put on this body.
I said earlier that this body removes the universities from the Department of Finance. Formerly they had to make their case for money to the Department of Finance; now they will have to make it to An tÚdarás. Of course, this is not the only authority. Only yesterday we were told about another new authority—an airports authority. We have all kinds of authorities. Governments believe in different things. This Government appear to believe in authorities.
And authority.
I will not say it is Fascist, but it is neo-Fascist all right. Fascists have to keep quiet nowadays.
Between Fascists and quislings, and all the rest of it, I wonder if the Deputy knows exactly what he is at.
I have a broad back. The Minister will not upset me one bit. I can take it all.
The Minister can take some of it, too.
I will lard him and spread it over his back. This Government believe in authorities of one sort or another. It also believes in that very expensive toy—Deputy FitzGerald would know more about this than I do—made up of the gentlemen who set themselves up to advise others in business and other matters. The Government employ these at very high rates indeed. They call themselves business consultants.
I will not suggest for a moment that this body is quite as bad as some of the business consultants are, but the idea is the same. The fact is this Government do not trust anybody and, above all, they do not trust University College, Dublin, the biggest and most important university institution by far in this country. They do not trust it. Of course a certain type of bureaucrat is very keen on having power; but there are other bureaucrats who, being a bit on in life perhaps, do not want any power at all; they want to avoid trouble as much as possible. But there is the other type, too.
In recent years there has been considerable evidence of a decided development in the Department of Education. I refer to the setting up of the so-called development branch. What interests me is, when you set up that kind of branch, from where do you get the staff to man it? From where do you pull them? Out of what hat? From under what stone do they crawl? It is no use thinking we are all idiots and that everybody is a fool. A body is set up choc-a-block with quislings, with the sole exception of the registrars, and then one proceeds to influence them through the medium of a development section of the Department of Education. I have only got to think back on the history of the Department of Education to puzzle over the sudden change of face, a complete and absolute change. One day the Department could do nothing at all and the next day it is able to do everything. We will have new systems of education, new mathematics, new methods of teaching languages.
The Deputy must admit it is doing wonderful work.
I do not know and I will not admit anything I do not know.
Then the Deputy is in a minority.
I wonder. Mark you, it is doing one thing: it has a good service to carry children to school. Is that fair? It is costing the Minister quite a bit of money.
The Deputy is moving in the right direction now.
I will have to move a long way to be anywhere near where the Minister is. If the Minister would stand up now and be counted in relation to education he might make a better fist of it. Perhaps the Minister would relate that to a particular matter; I do not mean it in that way necessarily but it could apply in relation to that matter. Ministers have to stand up and be counted occasionally. I have no objection to being counted in a matter of this sort. The Minister need not think he is solo from his colleagues and that he is the only person in connection with whom I object to this kind of legislation. I object absolutely to this kind of legislation.
An institution of higher education shall supply to An tÚdarás all such information...
What the mischief is the word "all" doing there? The word "all" is put in, of course, to make it all the more comprehensive; you engulf everything and embrace everything.
Suppose we left out the word "all" and just said "such information" would not that embrace everything?
Then why was it put in?
Is the Minister prepared to leave it out?
Why should it be left out?
Because it is bad legislation. I have already said that two or three times. How often do I have to repeat it? This kind of legislation is extremely bad. It is the same kind of legislation as that put into Finance Bills at present: "the Revenue Commissioners may make any order they like, and so on, under this section." We have had this time and time again. I see no reason at all for it. I have an interest in education and I see no reason why I should admit that this kind of legislation is good in an Education Bill when it is so blooming bad everywhere else. The Minister would not expect me to do that, would he? I do not think he would. Would the Minister like to answer me? Will the Minister explain why the word "all" was put in?
I think I should equally ask the Deputy why "all" should be left out.
That just will not do.
Let me say once more that I have already informed Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Thornley that, quite possibly, their fears would be allayed by the fact that a format through the medium of which this information will be sought is being worked out between An tÚdarás, the universities and other institutions of higher education. The Deputy suggests that some Minister who comes after me might, perhaps, change this. The fact is the Minister is not involved in this at all. It is an agreement which will be made between An tÚdarás and higher education institutions and, in so far as it is possible, it will be satisfactory to them and this, therefore, will ensure that a reasonable attitude will be adopted by both An tÚdarás and the higher education institutions in relation to information sought by An tÚdarás.
It was quite shocking of Deputy O'Donovan to describe the members of the Higher Education Authority as quislings. That was a shocking statement.
The Minister, of course, can say that kind of thing.
The members of the authority have proved themselves. They have acted objectively in relation to the problems which have come before them.
They have done just nothing.
They have done exceptionally good work.
They have done nothing.
They have done exceptionally good work and that is recognised by everybody except, possibly, Deputy O'Donovan. I should also like to point out that there are no ex officio members of An tÚdarás and I am not aware of any member of An tÚdarás who is perturbed because he was nominated. The Deputy ought to know, having been a Parliamentary Secretary in a previous Government, that you do not nominate people without first acquainting them of the fact that you would like them to become members of a particular organisation.
That is too simple.
You do not appoint them unless they agree to be appointed. The fact that I have said that a format is being worked out between the universities and An tÚdarás should allay any fears Deputies may have in regard to whether this matter will be approached in a reasonable manner. Deputy FitzGerald pointed out that is was equally true that the universities and other higher institutions could also act unreasonably. I do not think that adding the word "reasonably" would make very much difference except in so far as it would create a situation where there would be considerable contention as to what the interpretation of "reasonably" might be.
In spite of my threat I will not follow the Minister in his extremely offensive remark about me. What does the Minister mean by saying that I am alone in this? Does the Minister not read the newspapers? Does he pay attention to what anybody says? Does he not pay attention to what the Irish Federation of University Teachers say?
I was pointing out something in relation to the general educational system. This has no bearing on the Bill. This is quite a different matter.
I put a circle around the word "all". I did not do that today or yesterday. I did not do it for reasons of malice but because I think it should not be in the Bill.
The Deputy did not put that down as an amendment. It would be quite a good amendment. I would be in favour of it.
I did not think there was any use in putting down an amendment. I have a global objection to this authority. I have no use for it at all. I hope the next Government will abolish it.
The Deputy should consult the relevant shadow Minister.
There is no need to consult the shadow Minister because obviously the next Government will also be a Fianna Fáil Government.
Is the Minister telling us that democracy is dead in this country and that Fianna Fáil will be there for ever? He should go out and shout it from the house tops that democracy is dead. This is an example of the absence of democracy. I will take the Minister up on the battle ground he wants to be taken up on, that is, the proper system of education.
That is a rather broad subject.
How are moneys allocated to primary education? The National Teachers' Organisation negotiates for its own members. The moneys that are made available for the building of schools are obtained by direct negotiation with the managers. I see that the Minister is beginning to look tired but he will be much more tired before I finish to-day. Very often it takes a long time to conclude those negotiations. I will let the Minister off the hook again. Really I am being kind to him.
I am fully aware of the fact that the Deputy is being very kind and I appreciate it.
The Minister is looking for trouble continuously. These remarks remind me of a cross-examining counsel saying to a witness in court: "You are making things very difficult for me," and the witness replying: "It is not my business to make things easy for you." It is not my business to make things easy for the Minister. That is not what I was sent here for.
The Deputy is not supposed to make them difficult either.
If I object to some piece of legislation I am entitled to say so. I saw Deputy MacEntee behave most unreasonably for weeks, reading out large extracts from tomes on the Committee Stage of a Bill.
I hope the Deputy will help the Chair by coming back to section 11.
I will, indeed. I would not have got involved in this at all but for the Minister's remark that I was alone in my attitude to this so-called body, and that I was the only person who held these views about it. As I said on the last occasion when the universities want to do anything they will have to go to this body called An tÚdarás—I will not make the obvious comment on the last syllable of the word—and it will have to go to the Department of Education, and the Department of Education will have to go to the Department of Finance. Formerly when they wanted money— not so very long ago; about 15 years ago—they went directly to the Department of Finance. Granted that they did not get much money.
A minor difficulty.
That is all right for a man like Deputy FitzGerald who never really thought it out and who believes in GNP, a man who did not apply his mind to the realities. You can make the GNP as large as you like and have no real economic improvement for anybody. We have this pushing away at the universities and making small boys of them. Why did the universities develop best in Western Europe? I cannot speak for Russia. Their universities are exceptionally good technologically. I do not know about them otherwise. I read their main text book on economics on one occasion and it seemed to me that the opening part of it was full of ideology, and attacks on previous systems of education under which priests had influence, and so on. Despite all the talk we hear about the American universities, the place where universities developed was Western Europe. Why did they develop there?
My opinion of GNP may be regarded in this House as the ramblings of a fool. What about the many people who were laughed to scorn? Thank God we are no longer burned at the state if we do not bow to the ideological gods of the moment. The fact is that the queerest of individuals in universities have made the very finest discoveries. They were looked on by their colleagues as being odd. They said: "Look at him over in the corner in a small room messing around with something." We have all heard this about different people messing around with rabbits, or pieces of mechanism, or books, but they are the people who made the discoveries. How would they get through this type of sieve? How would they get any money? With four or five stages to be gone through they would not have any hope of getting any support. It is right and proper that we should knit the issue on this word "all". It is a global word. The section provides:—
as An tÚdarás may require for the purpose of performing its functions.
"May reasonably require"——
We are discussing the section?
Has the "reasonably" been accepted?
No. It has been rejected on earlier sections so it is not presented here on the Deputy's principle that there is no point in pressing something that is not accepted.
The word came in differently. It was wrong for want of accuracy. We are discussing the section. The only thing we are arguing about now is the word "all". Who is arguing? Is any university which depends for its moneys doing this? Is any university which depends on these moneys which in turn depend on the attitudes adopted towards the Higher Education Authority going to argue? Is any university going to knit the issue as to whether unreasonable demands are being made on it? I do not accept for one moment the answer given. It is a pretty slick answer in parliament—to use the word which was used by the Minister for Finance about three times in a couple of sentences on one occasion. It is a very slick answer to a serious democratic objection. The fact that it is a slick answer does not make it a better answer.
What word is this?
I will take it out altogether——
The Deputy suggested that a word was used about his party?
The word "slick" was used.
The Deputy is returning the compliment.
Exactly, but I am doing more than that. It was used about something this party were doing which is something far more important than what the party were saying. I am not very much interested, contrary to most Irishmen who believe that one can do what one likes in Ireland so long as one says the right thing, in what is said. I am interested in what people do. We have seen the rights not alone of individuals but of big bodies filched away by the State in recent times. The State cannot spend enormous amounts of money without intruding on people. They cannot spend sums like the increase of £100 million as they did last year on current expenditure without intruding. The section reads:
all such information relative to the institution as An tÚdarás may require for the purpose of performing its functions.
Suppose the institution in question wants to improve its sanitary accommodation or something like that, what kind of information will it have to give to this body? Suppose it wants to set up a new section, what special competence have these 12 or 14 people got to decide on the matter? Personally, I believe that there is a decided quisling element in it. So long as these quislings are there, I will object to the very existence of this body. I will continue to object as long as I live. The use of this kind of section means that all the authority have to do is say "we require such information". They need only quote the section. The fact that the Minister says that they are preparing the form is not sufficient. How long does the Minister guarantee it for? Suppose that inside the Fianna Fáil Party the Minister for Education were to be transferred to higher things——
I could not be transferred to higher things than the Department of Education.
I remember a Minister for Agriculture who regarded that Ministry as the greatest thing in the country. I have my own views about the relative importance of Ministries. There is a certain hierarchy in them also. I am not saying that the Minister wants a transfer. I am not making any institutions against the Minister, but I have not forgotten what he said about me. We are not here to swallow whatever is being put before us whether we like it or not. We are here to represent the people who sent us here. There is nowhere where one represents them more than in the House on the Committee Stage of a Bill. We are legislators. I know we engage in much nonsense. During the last week we pushed through a whole flotilla of Estimates. The Committee Stage of a Bill in the House is very important. The Minister has not satisfied me with his arguments. The Minister has not satisfied me as to the reason why the word "all" should be in this section.
I find it difficult to follow the arguments put forward by Deputy O'Donovan. Deputy O'Donovan appears to think that I have some objection to his expressing his views here. I have not. It is his prerogative to put forward any views he wishes.
Look at the record.
The Deputy stated that we were making small boys of the universities by having such an institution as An tÚdarás. I do not think that any university in Britain would consider that this is the position there through the existence of the University Grants Committee.
That is a very different kind of body.
The Deputy also referred to the developments in Western Europe. I thought that he meant just continental Europe in relation to the university system. I doubt if Deputy Dr. O'Donovan would like to serve in a continental university where he would be an employee of the State, in other words a civil servant.
I was talking historically.
I was not aware of that. The Deputy referred to the university system in Western Europe and to the wonderful developments there.
I was talking historically about the situation.
We do not need to argue about every little item. The word "all" indicates the comprehensiveness of the information which must necessarily be supplied. An tÚdarás and the university institutions are discussing the form in which information should be supplied. That should allay the Deputy's fears.
I must be very inarticulate indeed if the Minister did not understand from my description of the serious discoveries in science and learning that have been made during the century that I was speaking historically. The Minister and his Department seem to think that everything started yesterday and that there was no such thing as education until now. We are hearing from them as if they were saying "There was nothing before us except nonsense. Nobody knew anything about education or anything else until we came on the scene". This is the core of what the Minister has said. I was talking about something which has been in existence for a long time and that is the tradition in the European universities. This Bill is an intrusion. I do not care what way the Minister defends it. It is an intrusion on that tradition.
How is that?
Am I so inarticulate that the Deputy does not understand what I am saying? Of course he was not here when I dealt with the matter earlier. Is Deputy Healy aware that major discoveries of every sort in relation to education and indeed in relation to all progress were made in the West European universities? The Minister seemed to think when I spoke about Europe I was talking about the Continent of Europe. I include those two islands in the West European universities. Is Deputy Healy answered?
No.
Perhaps the Deputy will tell us why he is not answered?
Surely Deputy O'Donovan is not advocating the availability of whatever moneys they like to any university group?
Not at all but they could be more evenly divided.
The case the Deputy made earlier on for the exclusion of the word "all" did not appeal to me. Indeed, it was not a very educational point where the Deputy spoke about where some universities might be inhibited in the matter of the provision of toilets or something of that nature because of what the Deputy called this restrictive word. Again, in the matter of the university tradition it is time that we moved away from the old concept and tradition. We must provide for the newness of the day and get away from the day when the university was the preserve of the intellectual, educational aristocracy and minority. It is time that went.
Go back to medieval Europe.
There must be a questioning voice as to how the money of sections of people in this country, who are contributing to the financing of the universities, is to be spent. I would be utterly opposed to this continuance of autonomy that was given to the universities to spend money without having any regard to moneys that were required for the needs of the rest of the community. I agree entirely that there should be on them, as there is on primary schools and post-primary schools, the same restriction in the matter of how they would expend the people's money.
The universities are institutions which do not cater for the cross-section of our people as I would like to have them do. In the times in which we live perhaps there is greater need for the expenditure of money at post-primary level, at the level of institutes of technology, in places like Kevin Street.
Who wants to stop that?
We are getting away completely from the section.
Deputy O'Donovan was allowed to stray away considerably from it. I am not saying that I should copy what he did.
The Chair is not finding fault with the Deputy. The Chair is saying that we are generally moving away on all sides from the section.
I stuck on the word "all".
When the Deputy is advocating that it is an impediment to education to have the word "all" included in the Bill I think he is totally incorrect and very illogical.
I must say I share Deputy O'Donovan's nostalgia for medieval Europe although his reference to toilets makes me feel I might not have enjoyed the sanitation so much. I agree wholeheartedly that one wants to keep the State at bay in this sphere. There I am nearer in spirit to Deputy O'Donovan, though not in the letter, than I am perhaps to Deputy Tunney. In fact, one of the things we have to contribute when we go into Europe is this university autonomy we have here. Perhaps we will help Europe to retrieve the autonomy lost in Napoleonic times. However, that is, I am afraid, away from the section.
I want to say in regard to the word "all" that I think it is unnecessary. If you had not got the word "all" the same legal power would be there to get whatever information they wanted and in putting it in it has raised Deputy O'Donovan's hackles and it might raise other people's hackles too. I do not think it adds anything and it could be dropped. As we have not got an amendment to drop it perhaps we had better drop the discussion on it at this stage.
I have great sympathy with Deputy Tunney's line of argument. I wish somebody would tell me at what period in the history of the State the universities were given large sums of money without any impositions on how they would spend it. I am certainly quite unfamiliar with this in the case of Trinity College.
I am worried by Deputy Tunney's remarks because his constant insistence on getting universities under control and putting them on a par with other educational institutions is the kind of thing which arouses fears which I do not think are justified basically amongst academics. There should be in this House a willingness to accept that universities are centres of excellence, places where research is carried on. They are not simply teaching institutions. You cannot simply allocate grants of so much a head per student as if it were simply a school. If you do that, and if you rule out research, they cease to be universities and they will cease to do the job that is to be done. There is a danger of pursuing the line Deputy Tunney appears to be pursuing on each occasion here.
On a point of correction I did not at all make the point that I ruled out any research. I see in those institutions bodies that will continue to make a contribution to the life of the country. I make no apology to any academic here or elsewhere for repeating this. When you have a certain amount of money available for education I want the State to have some say in the amount that can be allocated to higher education primary and post-primary education. I do not wnat it established that because somebody is an academic or because we belong to academic groups, that we, more so than anybody else, should have the right to say: "We are academics; we say this amount of money is required; therefore you must give it to us."
All kinds of other bodies do that.
Deputy Tunney, without interruption.
When spending other people's money academics have not convinced me that they are any more prudent than any other human being. If Deputy O'Donovan or Deputy FitzGerald can show me the social consciousness and the concern of the academics at work then I shall accept it.
I agree with the Deputy for the first time.
I did not want it to go from this House, from what Deputy FitzGerald said, that I was opposed to the expenditure of money in the matter of research and things of this nature. I am not at all opposed to this but I am opposed to academics having a free hand in the expenditure of other people's money.
I think Deputy Tunney took me up wrong on this. Nobody has suggested the State should not decide what money is to be given. Of course it should but there is a difference between allocating sums of money to institutions that are purely teaching institutions and where it is possible to assess the amount of money required in simple terms in relation to the amount of teaching done, the number of pupils, the number of teachers, the size of the school and so on and assessing the requirements of an institution which is carrying on activities some of which do not, and must not, serve any immediate social purpose. There may be research going on into ancient Hebrew and if you ask me how that in the short run will serve the social interests of the people of this country or help the people in Ringsend I cannot tell you. I am quite clear that it is vital that universities should be free to undertake this kind of research and although this will involve some waste and although you cannot control it by any rigid system, there has to be some bit of leeway here and that is precisely why we are introducing this body as a buffer between the State and the universities.
On the one hand we cannot give universities whatever money they ask for. This would be lunatic. On the other hand we cannot have a situation where the Department are saying: "You cannot do a bit of research on this" or "You cannot have a professor of this particular subject with only two pupils because this is wasteful." There must be a middle course pursued. The Bill pursues the middle course. Our job is to make sure it does not veer too much one way or the other.
The Chair at this stage wonders whether we are anticipating section 12?
That could be but this is precisely why we are right to discuss such matters as how much information the universities should be required to give. There is no simple answer to this. On the one hand they must not be asked unreasonably for information and on the other hand they must be in a position that they can be required to give information if it is really needed. Our job is to get the right wording to achieve this balance.
The Minister conveyed to me an idea of accepting imported ideas. If we are wise we will think out our problems by ourselves. We certainly do not import ideas from a vast country such as Russia or America. From the practical point of view it is not possible to do this. Deputy Tunney made reference to a certain amount of money but I agree with the Chair that this may be dealt with on the next section. I suspect that the form that is being worked out is not that relating to section 12. The normal forms worked out by Government Departments for subsidiary bodies relate to section 12. I do not see how it would be possible to have any form that would cover all such information that An tÚdarás may require for performing its functions. No one, not even the development section of the Department of Education, knows what its functions will be. On the next section we can discuss in more detail the points raised by Deputy Tunney.
I would make a broad statement which relates to this section. From Deputy Tunney's remarks, one might imagine that there are no other bodies in this country that are not accountable. Does the Deputy not realise that we had a long discussion recently in Private Members' time and that the Minister for Finance agreed that this matter presented a serious problem? He was speaking about the accountability of other bodies which spend vast sums of money. I do not think they are accountable to anybody but I shall not refer to any particular bodies although I have a few pet targets.
Far be it from me to suggest that academics are reasonable people. In fact, the recent effort to amalgamate Trinity College and UCD, which would be of benefit to both institutions, seems to have faded away completely due to the fact that academics are not reasonable. The case I am making is that no body of men can determine what is the proper information that should be required from a university institution.
May I ask the Minister if he would be prepared to accept an amendment at Report Stage to delete the word "all"?
I do not know. We have had a long discussion here regarding the word "all"——
We will put it down at any rate.
I agree with Deputy FitzGerald when he says that from a legal point of view it does not make any difference and I said this earlier on to Deputy O'Donovan. Obviously it has provoked Deputy O'Donovan to a considerable extent. If it does not make any difference from a legal point of view——
It does make a difference legally.
I doubt that. If it does not make any difference legally, after this discussion. I am just as disposed to leave it in as to delete it.
We will have it on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 22:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 41, to delete "amounts" and to insert "a total amount", and to delete "institutions of", and after "education" to add "and research".
Perhaps it might facilitate the discussion if we took for discussion purposes amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together, with separate votes. Is this agreeable to the Minister and Deputy Thornley?
That is agreeable to me.
The House is agreed that amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 will be discussed together.
What we have here are two alternative approaches to improving this section. The Minister proposes to improve it by concentrating only on subsection (2) and by proposing an amendment to this subsection. We consider it is necessary to amend subsections (1) and (2). I should like to speak on amendments Nos. 22 and 24 jointly and shall revert to the Minister's amendment later.
In section 12 we propose to change the word "amounts" to "a total amount" and instead of "institutions of higher education" to state "for higher education and research". The exact wording is not very important. The Minister may have good reasons for suggesting that we modify it and I shall be prepared to listen to the Minister on this point. We thought it was important that research be included. It is included implicitly if we have institutions of higher education but we considered by including it explicitly and making provision for it it might give more flexibility. One could envisage a situation where the authority might wish to give a grant for some purpose which was to further higher education and research but which did not involve payment to an institution of higher education. We consider this should be opened up. One could envisage a case of some study being carried out which would be of assistance to the authority in doing its work—perhaps a research study on the whole question of the organisation and running of the university—where it should be entitled to give a grant. The wording we have suggested would give more leeway in that matter and I should like to hear the Minister on this point.
In substituting "a total amount" for the word "amounts" we are concerned to make it clear that it is a matter for An tÚdarás alone to allocate funds which it receives from the Government. As we envisage the procedure, the universities or institutions would submit their requirements to An tÚdarás who would examine them carefully. No doubt An tÚdarás would prune them and then put forward to the Government an assessment of the total requirements, giving a suitable breakdown. The Government would decide whether they could afford to give the total sum required, guided by the data furnished by An tÚdarás. The Government either would give the full sum or, if the financial position did not permit, they would give less than the full sum. The question of where the cuts were to be imposed as a result of the inability of the Government to furnish the full finances required would then be a matter for An tÚdarás alone. If An tÚdarás is to have any real meaning it should not be a matter for the Government to say to An tÚdarás: "We are accepting your proposal for universities X, Y and Z but we consider university W does not deserve as much and we are cutting them." The purpose of setting up this body is to prevent any such situation arising and to remove the Government from the area of allocating funds to institutions.
Therefore, the Government's job is to allocate a total amount to An tÚdarás determined, on the one hand, by the statement of requirements put to them by An tÚdarás and, on the other hand, by the availability of finance. The present wording "such amounts for institutions of higher education" carries with it the implication —which has not been clarified by the Minister's proposed amendment to subsection (2)—that the Government would allocate amounts to particular institutions. While I cannot claim to have understood fully the Minister's explanation on the Second Stage of the procedure he intends to adopt I did not like the sound of it. Perhaps if I hear more about it and understand it better I may be prepared to accept it. What I understood him to say was that while the Government would allocate a total sum there would be shown in the Book of Estimates the amount provided for each institution. I cannot understand this. I can quite see that, if the Government do allocate the precise sum which is sought by An tÚdarás, it would then be possible, without any conflict on the question of the autonomy of An tÚdarás or the university institutions, for the Government to say: "We have given the full amount asked for and this amount is the following in respect of the different institutions." There is no conflict there, but in the case in which—and it may well happen and happen quite frequently—the Government cannot give the full amount sought, how can the Government put into the Book of Estimates a breakdown of the amount it is providing except by showing cuts in the amounts for particular institutions requested by An tÚdarás, which would be immediately interfering with its autonomy? If the Minister is suggesting that despite that An tÚdarás would still have power to allocate the money differently, then the exercise of putting it in the Book of Estimates in the form of a footnote showing the amounts the Government intends for each institution would be pointless and misleading to the public. If the allocation to each particular institution, as in the Book of Estimates is binding then An tÚdarás loses its autonomy.
It may well be I have not understood what the Minister is saying. It did seem to me obscure but I shall not pursue that point further at the moment because I do not want to waste time chasing a hare if the hare is not there. The Minister may be able to satisfy me that what he intends is something different, but I merely want to explain at this stage why it was important that, whatever amendment is made to subsection (2), the wording in subsection (1) should indicate a total amount, that on each occasion when an assessment is made whether this is for a year or a period of years, a total amount would be allocated and paid to An tÚdarás in respect of that particular year or period of years on foot of that assessment.
So much for subsection (1). In subsection (2) the changes we have made are designed to get over the difficulty —which incidentally, is not by any means covered by the Minister's amendment—that it is clearly desirable that when capital grants are allocated to particular institutions they are used for the purposes for which they are allocated. If I were Minister I would be understandably irked if I allocated money for a restaurant and got a students union or vice versa. It is quite proper that An tÚdarás in allocating funds for capital purposes should lay down conditions as to how they are to be used. It is equally clear to me that it would be inappropriate for An tÚdarás, the Government or anyone else, in respect of a general grant for current purposes, to say how that should be spent. There is already an element of this in the present situation and it is extremely unsatisfactory. There is a certain breakdown, a separate provision for agriculture under a separate vote for a separate Department. We are hoping to get away from that. There is also a separate provision about the teaching of Irish.
Who is hoping to get away from it?
I am hoping.
Does the Deputy think the universities are hoping?
I am hoping the effect of this Bill will be to get away from this Department of Agriculture/ Department of Education separate provision allocated and earmarked for different purposes and to get to a situation where the provision made by An tÚdarás in a general grant for a college would be spent by that college for current purposes in that year at its own discretion, without earmarking.
I know how powerful individual Government Departments are. Does the Deputy really believe that the Department of Education would be able to take the grant for agricultural education and for veterinary medicine away from the Department of Agriculture? Not in a million years.
My understanding is that that is an essential element in the Bill.
It would have to be spelled out in the Bill if it was to be effective.
I am glad Deputy O'Donovan has raised this point. It may be that I am being native about the matter. I trust the Minister will give us an assurance that in future all the funds for universities from the Government will be channelled through An tÚdarás.
Perhaps my long years in Government Departments have taught me something.
Dr. O'Donovan has acquired great wisdom in that period. He must know from his experience of the Department of Finance that the Department of Agriculture has never really recognised the State whose foundation in ante-dated by 25 years. He is right to raise the question as to whether they are going to recognise An tÚdarás if it does not recognise the State to begin with. I hope the Minister will clarify the point.
However, I am concerned at the moment that the funds that do go through An tÚdarás for general purposes should be allocated generally and not earmarked and not be subject to conditions. It would be unacceptable to the universities or to any institutions of education that a sum having been allocated to them there should be no flexibility as to how they spend it. For instance, having made a case that they wanted to have two extra assistant lecturers in French and one in Italian it transpires that they have miscalculated and need two in Italian and cannot get one in French and that they cannot do that themselves without going back and clearing it with the authority, that would be totally unacceptable. There is a clear distinction to be made between the capital grant and the current grant. Our amendment makes this clear and I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept it and to integrate it with his own.
These are very important amendments and I support them unhesitatingly. This is one of the crucial points in the entire Bill. The Minister knows that quite sincerely I have not argued for autonomy of either the HEA or the universities to the extent that most of my academic colleagues have. However, if the HEA is not granted a more or less decisive role in this sphere, then all we will succeed in doing is creating an even more cumbersome and detailed structure of financing higher education than exists at the moment. You would nearly need a blackboard to illustrate this: you have the universities at the bottom with a channel of communication going up to the HEA to whom they make representations demanding certain sums of money. Thereafter they need not be consulted in certain instances. The HEA consults with the Minister.
The Minister and his Department transmit back their decisions to the HEA and the HEA, either with or without amendment—and this is one of the points Deputy FitzGerald is getting at—passes them back to the university. Therefore unless teeth are put into the HEA here all you are doing is making the machinery still more cumbersome than before. I am not in the least derogating the Department here but the Department must realise that the logic of setting up the HEA carries with it a readiness on its own part to surrender some of its previous functions. I do not share the nostalgia of my colleague, Deputy O'Donovan, for the principle of direct negotiation with the Department of Education, but I would ask the Minister to state just how much power the HEA will have.
Deputy FitzGerald has correctly asked the question: will the Minister set the individual amounts for each institution or will the HEA do so? I would repeat that question and underline it. The Minister's amendment to section 12 (2), which seems to be some sort of drafting amendment, does not seem to improve the substance of the Bill. The section seems clearly to imply, as Deputy FitzGerald has said, the earmarking of current grants. In the process of negotiation with the Higher Education Authority will the Minister or his Department have any say in the earmarking of specific current grants? Deputy FitzGerald has already asked will he and his Department settle this total sum to be paid in current grants to each university. I go still further and express the expectation that the Minister himself may feel he should have some say in the internal distribution of these moneys in a specific institution. If the Minister settles the amount and settles the internal distribution even of current expenditure, then you might as well not have a Higher Education Authority at all, because it is emasculated from the word "go". Furthermore, in regard to the principle of earmarking current grants, Deputy FitzGerald's amendment derives, broadly speaking, from a somewhat similar amendment from the Irish Federation of University Teachers.
The Minister knows that very often I describe academics as fearful, suspicious and conservative people but in this instance there is some ground for their fears. This has to be taken in the context of, for example, the Ministerial statement of the 6th July, 1968, a copy of which I have not got with me but perhaps Deputy FitzGerald will correct me if my memory is not correct. This statement contains phrases such as "lateral expansion will only be permitted in certain departments, in certain campuses". This seems clearly to carry a judgment as to what courses should be built up or otherwise in a particular area. The most obvious instance of course is there might be the rather dubious idea that you could have a biological emphasis in TCD in which chemistry plays a subordinate role and a physics-chemistry emphasis in UCD in which biology plays a subordinate role. This could be carried much further. I mentioned this point on Second Reading and I make no apologies for mentioning it again.
I agree fully with Deputy Tunney in that the university cannot simply be handed money and allowed to spend it as they so wish. At the same time, I would remind him that the whole principle of paying major grants to universities only dates from about the time of the second world war. I am on a balance here between what I might describe as Deputy Tunney's, in many ways correct and logical community-orientated approach to this measure and, on the other side, the slightly more traditional approach of my colleague, Deputy O'Donovan.
Deputy FitzGerald in his earlier discussion which was rather wide-ranging, made a very effective point when he said that a certain element of waste is logical in a university. It is not possible to programme a university in the same way as if one were programming, say, Bord Fáilte or Aer Lingus.
But I am not programming either Aer Lingus or Bord Fáilte. That is not what we were talking about the other day.
The point I am making is that, all over the world, academics face change. Again, to echo a point made by Deputy O'Donovan, we should not borrow all our fashions from abroad. As I said on Second Reading, it was believed ten years ago that too many economists or business study people could not be produced. Now we are picking up the technological thing as the British are beginning to realise they have overdone this. What I am saying is that one could never be absolutely certain at any point of time that a major running down of one area of teaching and a major expansion of another is wise. A considerable period of time must elapse before this is seen and, as Deputy FitzGerald said, research into ancient Hebrew might seem to have no functional utility whatsoever. It could be argued that the teaching of history has very little functional utility or the teaching of classics has no functional utility at all. I would not agree with those points of view but I agree that the major orientation of overall policy—building policy and development policy by a university—falls properly within the sphere of both this authority and the Minister.
I would be very nervous of a situation in which some person, be he an academic or a civil servant, got the idea into his head that a certain area of teaching should be developed and some other kind, mostly found in terms of the humanities, should be run down because it no longer had a direct manpower relationship to the country. Once a traditional form of teaching is destroyed, it cannot be built up again. If the impression is widely generated that certain areas of teaching in each of our universities are scheduled for building up in one place and running down in another—this is necessary to a degree and I accept it—we must consider the sense of gloom that this would cast over teachers in a particular university who would have seen the end of the road for the particular area of teaching in which they are involved.
If I were a chemist in TCD, I would not be very happy to know that I could not laterally expand or if I were a biochemist in UCD, I would not be very happy with the information that I could not expand my career and that, therefore, I would be stifled for the remainder of my career.
How, then, are we to reconcile these two points; necessary legitimate waste on one side and social need on the other side? This is where the distinction made by Deputy FitzGerald is correct. The major innovations in university development are deemed to be in the area of capital development. I am not saying that we do not spend a substantial sum on college development because we do nor am I arguing that the Minister and An tÚdarás should not be in a position to say to the universities: "Look, the Commission on Higher - Education said you were producing four times as many medical doctors as you ought to be producing. Therefore you should sit down and think about these chaps because we will not put up forever with the situation." I think this is perfectly correct but I would fear an area where they can actually say that the role of humanities departments should be run down. I would also hold the slight overall fear that this could be misused by some Government in relation to the popularity of a particular department or of its head, with the Minister of An tÚdarás. I am not for one moment suggesting that this might happen in the case of the present Minister or the present Government.
These are all the points I wish to make at this stage. I hope that I have not confused the Minister in the preparation of his reply to Deputy FitzGerald but the only reason I have spoken at such length on this is that it is the one matter about which I feel very strongly. I would like the Minister to tell me if he and his Department will play any role in the earmarking of current money if his original section, as amended, is passed. I hope it will not be. I express my total opposition to the earmarking of current expenditure.
It is quite possible that the amendments to section 12 were put down because of misapprehension as to how the section will operate. When I refer here to amounts for institutions of higher education, I am referring to the two sums that will be voted annually by Dáil Éireann. There will be a global sum by way of grant-in-aid to An tÚdarás out of which An tÚdarás will pay the current grants to these institutions. There will be a second global sum also by way of grant-in-aid out of which An tÚdarás will recoup the institutions their expenditure on capital works for which approval will already have been given by An tÚdarás. Therefore, when I refer to amounts, I am not referring to specific amounts for various institutions as such but to global amounts, both current and capital.
Will the Minister play any part in new-style subsection (2) of section 12?
Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to expand on this. These are the amounts which will appear in the appropriate subheads in the Book of Estimates but as an appendix to the relevant vote there will be shown the sums proposed for each institution and which, in total, add up to the sums provided in the subheads. This procedure is exactly the same as the procedure adopted in Britain by the Universities Grants Committee.
Deputy FitzGerald mentioned that while it would be possible to have these individual amounts shown in the Estimate, if the Government were willing to give all the money, he asked how it would be possible to operate, if the Government were to say to An tÚdarás that they could not provide all the money requested. Obviously, An tÚdarás would have to consult again and, eventually and prior to the publication of the Book of Estimates, they would come up with their final assessments. I shall go into that in a moment in more detail. It will be for An tÚdarás to make payments to the institutions and the amount paid to any institution will be varied by An tÚdarás by reference to any change in conditions obtaining when the matter was originally recommended. As Deputy FitzGerald mentioned it will be essential that when An tÚdarás recommend sums for specific purposes, such as for computers, they would be enabled to ensure that these sums are spent on computers and not on some other purpose for which they were not provided.
I should like also to point out that there could not be any question of An tÚdarás concerning themselves with the detailed expenditure of the day-to-day operations of institutions. In relation to capital grants what is proposed in section 12 does not change in any way the existing procedure which is that capital grants are paid only in respect of certain expenditure on approved projects or works. Reference was made to ear-marking in relation to recurring grants. Here again I can say that no change will be made in the present position. Both Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Thornley mentioned that there are already certain elements in the current moneys which are earmarked such as, for example, specific sums given for temporary buildings, for adaptation work, or for the equipment of laboratories, and some of these are paid only on the production of vouchers for expenditure incurred, but the great bulk of the moneys which are being paid in the recurring grant are for day-to-day expenses and these will continue to be paid in the manner in which they have been previously, in quarterly instalments.
Another matter which was raised was in relation to the running down of a particular area. We have to keep in mind that one of the functions of An tÚdarás is the need to eradicate needless duplication. Of course no decisions would be made in relation to interference with any particular area without full consultation taking place between An tÚdarás and the institution concerned. As I say, we have to keep in mind in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in relation to educational facilities, which include professors, lecturers, and so on, and in our financial circumstances, to ensure as far as possible, and as far as it would be correct to do so, that there is no needless duplication. A question was also raised in relation to agriculture and Deputy FitzGerald was correct in his assessment of the situation, that the money will be channelled through An tÚdarás and they will be dealing with the Department of Education.
It took 75 years to get that recommendation.
Will the money for veterinary medicine be voted for the Department rather than for the Department of Agriculture?
All the money for the third level institutions will be channelled through An tÚdarás and will be voted on the Vote for the Department of Education.
We will wait and see.
There is also the matter of the right of An tÚdarás to attach conditions to payment of the recurring grant. This is included so that An tÚdarás may, in consultation with an institution, agree to fund some new activity or area of study on an experimental basis. Such an arrangement might be associated with the development of a particular centre of excellence in the institution concerned. An tÚdarás and the institution could consult closely in such a case during a trial period of several years when the value and desirability of proceeding with the experiment could be assessed. In regard to the method by which An tÚdarás will deal with the institutions and with the Departments I would, generally speaking, agree with Deputy FitzGerald's assessment. The various institutions would make an application for finance and An tÚdarás would consult with each of them before making recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister could, if he felt it necessary, have consultations with An tÚdarás and then, when the total amount available had been determined, it would be for An tÚdarás and the Minister to agree generally in relation to its apportionment and it would be open to An tÚdarás in regard to such apportionment to carry out any consultation with any institution which they might consider necessary. This would be done prior to the production of the Book of Estimates and the amounts in the Appendix would then be agreed on. The amendment which I have put down to section 12 (2) makes it possible for An tÚdarás to make some changes either internally in an individual institution or between institutions.
Would that be with the Minister or independently?
I visualise that when An tÚdarás come to the Minister, and in consultation with the Ministers for Education and Finance, they will point out what their assessments were in relation to each institution, having consulted all institutions concerned, and the Minister may then have to say to them: "Well, I am afraid we have not got as much money as you suggest is required" and the Minister will then tell them how much money will be available and they will go back to the institutions and determine again what the situation may be in relation to priorities, and so on, within the context of the money available. Then, some time prior to the publication of the Book of Estimates, they will inform the Minister of their assessment of the situation and it will then be included in the Appendix to the Book of Estimates.
I should like to speak primarily about the Minister's amendment. I wonder would the Minister be prepared to consider inserting the following words at the end of his amendment: "and shall have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in that institution"?
Is this a new amendment?
It does not matter. I am putting up the words for consideration. Having raised it, I can put it down on the Report Stage. It is only a matter of putting up something for the Minister to consider. I am not suggesting a new amendment. I am suggesting that the Minister, since his amendment will, presumably, be carried should before the Report Stage consider these words. If the Minister will be good enough to take a note of them I shall repeat them: "and shall have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in that institution." I put in "degree" because there are things such as diplomas and also in UCD there are 2,500 students attending what are called extramural lectures which, in our typically Irish fashion, are given intramurally, inside the institution. This is typical of what we do with words. I do not think that the Minister or his officials will have any difficulty in understanding why I am suggesting these words and I am making this suggestion for an amendment on Report Stage.
We have raised the point about the amount of money voted for different purposes. I remember complaining some years ago to a high official in the Department of Education about the amount of money being made available to the Commerce Faculty in UCD which was the only faculty in UCD giving a full night degree. Actually, it was subsidising other facilities at that time and was not getting a penny from the Government. I do not see Deputy Tunney: I do not know if he did his degree in Commerce or Art but if he did it in Commerce he got no part of Government money. Now there may be some small amount for the Faculty of Commerce but it is very small. Here was one faculty in which the 400 or 500 students there at that stage were subsidising those being educated in other faculties to the extent of about £20,000 per year. Let me compare that with what we find, on looking up the figures for this year, is the amount of money in the Vote for agriculture, £850,000, without taking recent increases into account. That is for the Faculties of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture where there are less than 500 students and where the first year work is done entirely in the science faculties both in UCD and TCD. This represents an average of £1,700 per student.
The Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in TCD is an absurdity resulting from some kind of ecumenical thinking by the then Taoiseach. I reckon that every veterinary medical student in Trinity College costs up £2,500 per year in grants. These are the students in whose fees the Minister and his officials would not allow an increase this year. In UCD I suggest that every veterinary student costs the people of Ireland £2,000 per year. The only place where this is equalled is in institutions run by the Department of Education such as St. Angela's Training School of Domestic Economy in Sligo. I remember in the middle fifties when every student there was costing £1,000 per year and I should like to know what the cost is now. It is third level education, by courtesy, but this is the only place that is comparable. We have this complete absurdity, and worse, the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in UCD is now limiting the number of students. I know that is being done because, as in the case of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, if you keep down the numbers you can keep the income larger. Therefore, they say they cannot take more students, that they have no room for them and so on. This is nonsense.
A high official of the Department of Education to whom I spoke about this some years ago made a remark that galled me because of its ignorance. He said: "You know they are expensive faculties." In Oxford University considerable exception is taken by the scientists to the fact that moneys are still spent primarily on education in Latin and Greek in the first two years for the better students and then in classical philosophy, classical and modern philosophy, what is called the "Greats" degree, ancient classics for two years and then classical philosophy. They still produce most of the crack administrators in Britain. Many people, and particularly engineers and so on, maintain that is why England is falling behind. I am not convinced she is falling so much behind; I think the Minister for Finance will have a problem on hand in that connection this year.
My objection to the present position is a serious one. At one time University College, Galway, was extremely badly treated and has not yet quite come up in grants per student to UCC and TCD. Both UCC and TCD are getting an annual grant, leaving out the Faculty of Dairy Science in UCC, of approximately £400 per student. Except in numbers they are very similar to UCD and the average grant per student in UCD, leaving out all the people I have indicated, the extramural students and the diploma students and so on, is £250.
One final point I want to make is that judging by tradition the big fellow is always the bad wolf and since UCD is as big as all the other university institutions—I think that not so long ago it was as big as all the other university institutions in this island put together and it now certainly is as big as all the university institutions in the Republic of Ireland put together— on this body, there will be the usual, "who is afraid of the big bad wolf?" Everybody is afraid of the big bad wolf and it is only natural for smaller people to club together. It is outrageous that the only faculty in University College, Dublin, which gives a full night degree should have been treated in this way, except in one case mentioned by Deputy Thornley, Business Management. Someone recently said to me, "You know, systems analysis is just going out in America and we may expect it to arrive in Ireland any day", and he is absolutely right. I am not quite sure what "systems analysis" means, but I suspect we did them all as part of general administration at one time. These nice new words hoodwink the public. Who knows the meaning of the words "systems analysis"?
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.