Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 9

Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 2, line 21, to delete "after consultation with" and substitute "with the consent of".

First of all, I should like to thank you, and indeed, through you, the Minister for taking these amendments at short notice. I was away and only came back this morning and did not get them down in time.

The Deputy will excuse me. What is this amendment? I did not receive this amendment.

We have not come to the amendment yet. The Deputy is prefacing his remarks on the amendment.

But I have got no copy of the amendment.

Could the Deputy be given a copy?

There should be some order in the way business is done in the House.

The amendments, I understand, were put in the Deputy's envelope as they were put in other envelopes.

They were not. I do not understand why the Chair says this kind of thing in the House.

I apologise to the Deputy.

I am not blaming the Deputy at all.

But the Deputy should.

I should not blame the Deputy. The amendments should have been distributed to us before this went on.

The amendments were distributed at lunch hour.

Thanks very much. Where was I at lunch hour? I was not supposed to be here officially at lunch hour. I do not understand why the Chair reacts like this.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, that this difficulty has arisen because, owing to my absence from the country, I had not put the amendments down until today and it is because of this that Deputy O'Donovan did not get them until now. The fault is really mine and his animadversion should be directed towards me rather than the Chair.

A Cheann Comhairle, the Labour spokesman on Education has got no copy of these amendments. He and I cannot work from one copy since we are both seriously concerned about the Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy FitzGerald and the Minister can get together and facilitate each other. If both of them could see their way to get together and facilitate the Labour Party we would be very grateful.

We have some interest in the Bill, you know.

May I point out that I did not get together with anybody? Deputy FitzGerald put down the amendments. They came to me and I accepted them even though they were late. That is all that was involved.

That is a form of getting together. I do not think this kind of thing should be done behind the backs of Deputies of the House.

I should like to point out at this stage that it was with reluctance I accepted the Deputy's amendments because they arrived so late and I wish to make it clear that I am not establishing a precedent in this particular matter.

I accept that.

It is a bit late in the day.

My amendments arise out of the debate and I think that both Deputy Thornley and Deputy O'Donovan will find them familiar territory as we come to them. The first one arises out of the discussion on an amendment on Committee Stage. The Minister was reluctant to accept the amendment put down because it would have altered the order of action and the burden of responsibility as between An tÚdarás and the Minister. He indicated that it was not his intention to act, to designate institutions, against the wishes of An tÚdarás but that because of the fact that in many cases the institutions that would be designated would be ones of which he would have had some prior knowledge as Minister for Education and of which An tÚdarás would not necessarily have had any prior knowledge he felt that the initiative for suggesting that these institutions be brought within the framework of the Bill should rest with him. The amendment I had put down was not acceptable because it would have shifted the initiative and left it to An tÚdarás to do this. I think one could argue on the merits of this. We did argue on the merits of it but the Minister made his point.

On Committee Stage I suggested that we could come back to this again and I put down this amendment to meet the Minister's point in that it is the Minister who will designate the body in accordance with the line taken by him at that time and because of the practical considerations to which he referred. In accordance with his stated intention in that debate the wording, as now put forward, would make it impossible for him to designate a body if An tÚdarás, having examined the situation, decided that such a body should not be brought within their framework. Therefore, I commend this amendment to the House.

As I pointed out on Committee Stage and as Deputy FitzGerald has remarked again. An tÚdarás would have no specific knowledge of the institutions which would not fall within their ambit but the Minister, because of State assistance being made available to these institutions, would have a considerable knowledge of them and would know the institutions that were likely to be acceptable to An tÚdarás for designation. Therefore, the common-sense approach would be that the Minister would consult with An tÚdarás and, having consulted with them, then make up his own mind. However, to meet the points made by the Deputy on the previous occasion, I am providing the safeguard now of making the provision that the designation of an institution to be an institution of higher education can be done only by way of statutory order which would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am almost at a loss for words because I do not see how this meets the point. That provision would enable this House to reject the regulation. It does not in any way enable An tÚdarás to do so. The whole purpose of the discussion the last day was the undesirability of An tÚdarás finding themselves saddled with institutions which they believed did not come within their ambit.

During the debate the Minister accepted that he would not so nominate anybody. My amendment is designed to meet that point. The general amendment proposed by the Minister—No. 8—which applies to regulations made under this Bill, is welcome in itself and we shall deal with it when we come to it, but it does not answer the point that I raised at the time and on which, I think, Deputy Thornley agreed with me. While speaking on Committee Stage the Minister, in speaking of the reason why the initiative must lie with the Minister, said, as reported at column 263 of the Dáil Debates for the 3rd March, 1971:

The Minister would suggest to An tÚdarás what institutions should be designated and, after consultation with them, would then make up his mind. I do not think it could happen in a matter such as this that, for local political reasons, as suggested, a Minister would decide on some institution which obviously should not be designated, and I can imagine that if he were to do that, there would be very strong opposition from An tÚdarás. For that reason I believe that in any instance in which An tÚdarás, having examined the situation in relation to the institution suggested to them by the Minister, decided that this was not a suitable institution, I could not imagine the Minister going ahead and designating it.

Further on the Minister said:

If he were to attempt to do what the Deputy suggested might be done —designate an institution which quite obviously should not be designated—then the opposition of An tÚdarás would be such that he could not possibly go ahead with it. For that reason, I could not imagine any Minister trying to do that.

The Minister spoke plainly about this and his objection to the amendment as put on Committee Stage was not to the principle of An tÚdarás having a say in the matter but rather to the method by which this was to be achieved. The Minister believed that for some reason the initiative should remain with him but he did accept in the plainest possible language that there could be no question, if An tÚdarás objected to an institution being named as coming within the framework of the Bill, of the Minister going ahead. My amendment is designed precisely to give effect to what the Minister said on Committee Stage. Therefore, I am rather taken aback that, by implication, he should appear now not to accept that and that he should suggest that a totally different provision be put down for discussion elsewhere on Report Stage dealing with the powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas which are no substitute in any way for the rights of An tÚdarás in this matter.

In these circumstances I urge the Minister to think again about what he has just said and to stand by the position he adopted on Committee Stage and accept that he should not attempt to designate a body if An tÚdarás do not accept that that body is a suitable one. I do not know if I have ever heard stronger language used in a matter of this kind than that used by the Minister in relation to this matter because the Minister said "in any instance..." and not in any particular instance where there has been a particular kind of problem. The only objection the Minister made in his speech was not to the principle that is incorporated in the amendment now before the House but only to the order of events proposed in my original amendment. In these circumstances I suggest that he accept my amendment which is in line with his own argument.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, to delete lines 36 and 37 and to insert after line 44 the following paragraph:

"( ) promoting the democratisation of the structure of higher education."

On Committee Stage I accepted two amendments, both of which were moved by Deputy Thornley and which were for the purpose of extending the list of the general functions of An tÚdarás by the addition of two general functions further to those set out in the Bill at that stage. These additional functions appear at (a) and (e) of section 3 of the Bill as it is now before the House. This amendment, No. 1, is designed to rearrange the order in which the general functions are set out —to, as it were, state the functions in what appear to me to be a more logical sequence.

I should like to point out that the order in which these general functions appear does not establish any one of them as being in any way more important than any of the others, but the function which now appears at (b) of section 3 is, as it were, the overall general function. The other general functions set out in section 3 are more or less indications of particular considerations that An tÚdarás should take into account when applying themselves to the fulfilment of this function of the furthering of the development of higher education.

I agree with the Minister that this should be transferred from the top to the bottom. I object to this kind of legislation because there is a suggestion in it that the structure of higher education is not democratic at present. It certainly is extremely democratic in the three university colleges of the National University of Ireland, as I understand the word though I wonder when I hear words being tossed about nowadays whether the English language has been changed completely. This seems to me to be a criticism of bodies which are, in fact, democratically elected. I speak of the governing bodies of the National University of Ireland. They are put together in an extremely democratic manner. If they are not the structure of the main institutions of higher education in this country, I do not know what the structure is. I agree in furthering the development of higher education. There is an inference of a similar kind in what the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Kennedy, has been saying over the past few days. I was asked whether the Parliamentary Secretary had ever been at a university.

I spent seven years at a university.

I cannot feel that it matters very much where this item comes in this particular list. I can quite understand that people would feel that this item is not the most important thing. It is important that the structure of higher education should be democratic but this is a subordinate issue when compared with such matters as the development of higher education and the promoting of appreciation of the value of higher education and research. In my mind it will take second place after the promoting of equality of opportunity in obtaining higher education. Having said that, I must protest against Deputy O'Donovan's statement about the extraordinarily democratic method of election of the governing bodies of the university colleges. There is a system of election under which 70 per cent of the staff are deprived of any direct voice in electing members of the governing body unless they happen to be graduates and have a diluted vote of 127,000. That is not a democratic system. The students have no voice. It would be hard to devise a less democratic system.

That is not a good argument because there are 30 people on the governing body and the Deputy is pinpointing a small group of them.

I am pinpointing the ones who are not there. Seventy per cent of the staff in UCD have no direct say and a smaller proportion in the other colleges. Many members of the staff are not graduates of the college. We are not as inbred as Deputy O'Donovan suggests. Many of the staff have no vote. The students by definition are not graduates and they have no votes. The only kind of vote which exists for 70 per cent of the staff is the one which they have because they happen to be graduates. They can exercise their votes as graduates on an equal footing with other graduates whose interest in the college is somewhat remote. It is incorrect to suggest that this is democratic. It would be wrong to allow that assertion to pass without being commented on.

We are engaged in semantics again.

I have no intention of following Deputy O'Donovan and speaking on the comparative levels of democracy in the different institutions of higher learning. In Trinity College, Dublin, the extension of the fellowship body to the numerous proportion of its staff, plus the provision of representative facilities for non-fellow members of the staff, has brought at least comparable democracy to the college as compared with that in which Deputy O'Donovan teaches. Deputy O'Donovan is missing a point here. I agree more with Deputy FitzGerald than with Deputy O'Donovan. There is a point I would like to make on democratisation. Even our relatively democratic colleges think of the democratic structure of higher education as being totally equatable with internal democracy amongst the staff. While I agree with Deputy FitzGerald that there is much ground to be made up in achieving this, I should also like to make the point, speaking here more in accordance with Labour Party policy, that I am looking forward to the day when the universities will become democratic not merely in the sense that the governing bodies would be elected by the staff and the students but also where community representation would be more real and where the pupils would ultimately have a greater say in the functioning of the university, and where the taxpayers who provide the money which permits universities to exist would have a greater say in their functioning also. This is basically an amendment of detail and I agree with the Minister's proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 3, line 18, after "higher education" to insert "in receipt of moneys from An tÚdarás" and in lines 18 and 19 to delete "a statement of its financial position" and substitute "financial information".

There are two points here. I had intended them as separate amendments but if they are agreed together there is no problem. If they are not agreed together we can take them separately. The first amendment limits the activities of An tÚdarás as regards requiring statements of the financial position in those institutions which are in receipt of moneys from An tÚdarás. On Committee Stage it became clear that this was the intention but there was some defect in the wording of the amendment designed to achieve this aim. The wording here has been prepared in the light of Committee Stage debate. I think that it meets whatever criticism the Minister had of the amendment put forward on Committee Stage. It is the clear intention that An tÚdarás should require such statements only from bodies which it is, in fact, financing. It would be curious if its powers were extended to the financing of other bodies to which it gave no financial assistance. I would hope that this amendment, being one of clarification and in accordance with what the Minister said, would be accepted.

The other part of the amendment arises from what was said on Committee Stage. There was some disagreement as to the best way of defining the kind of information sought. The Minister's wording—"statement of the financial position"—was queried and an alternative was proposed. It was also criticised. The wording here is "financial information". It meets the criticism from both sides of the House. I hope that this alternative wording will be accepted. The "statement of the financial position" was criticised from various points of view. "Financial information" covers anything that An tÚdarás could reasonably want. It does not tie An tÚdarás down to an annual statement. It means that information can be received whenever it is needed, annually, quinquennially or in the course of a year.

I am afraid that the first part of this amendment has all the appearance of having been prepared in a hurry. The fact is that An tÚdarás has no moneys of its own. This is an example of circumlocution. Section 12 of the Bill reads:

(1) There shall be paid to An tÚdarás, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such amount for institutions of higher education as may be approved of by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

This means that there is circumlocution here.

Will the Deputy read subsection (2) of section 12? It reads:

(2) Any payment to an institution which An tÚdarás makes out of the amounts that it receives under the foregoing subsection shall be made in such manner and subject to such conditions as An tÚdarás thinks fit.

The Deputy can only speak once.

I am making the point that the whole way of drafting this amendment is askew. The Deputy is adding "in receipt of moneys from An tÚdarás". The reality of the situation is that it is this House that provides the money for everybody. Logically the Deputy is quite right; this amendment ties up with section 12, but, of course, it is section 12 that is all wrong, as Deputy FitzGerald will realise if he thinks it over. As regards the second part of the amendment:

"a statement of its financial position" and substitute "financial information".

I have no particular feelings about that, but I have very strong feelings about the opening part of the section:

"may annually or at such other intervals as it may determine".

In other words, if some institute started squabbling with An tÚdarás. An tÚdarás could determine that it wanted accounts from it every month, every week or every day. The Minister may say: "they would not do that. This kind of thing could not happen." Of course, it could—and it has happened frequently—once a situation has been created where strains are likely to arise between these institutions which have been used to doing their own business in their own way and have a long tradition of doing their own business. The whole thing is absurd from start to finish.

In relation to the first amendment by Deputy FitzGerald, the point is that the definition of "an institution of higher education" is already in the Bill. It would be a designated institution of higher education and there will be no designated institution of higher education which will not be in receipt of money from An tÚdarás. In regard to the second amendment, as I have stressed previously, An tÚdarás must have full information on the financial position of each institution with which it is concerned if it is to make an objective assessment of the amount of State aid which might be provided for the institution. This will entail the submission to An tÚdarás of full particulars of its expenditure and of its financial resources. I feel strongly that this is something which is basic to the operations of An tÚdarás and I cannot see any reason why it should be watered down in any way.

The use of the word "any" institution of higher education carried to me not just the meaning of the words "institution of higher education" as used in the definition section but a widening of it to include any such institution. I would be happy if the wording were "an" institution of higher education. Would that not make the point clearer?

It is clearly defined in the Bill itself. I know there may have been a problem in the Deputy's mind in regard to "any", but "institution of higher education" means a specific thing.

But when the word "any" is used, this would seem to imply something going beyond the definition of the section. That is what bothers me, and that is why I put down the amendment.

I appreciate that, but I do not think it makes any difference.

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Not as long as "any" is there. If the Minister would change "any" to "an" I would withdraw it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 1b:

In page 3, line 38, after "students" to insert "and staffing".

On Committee Stage debate there was an amendment attempting to deal with the problem which I saw here. It did not meet the approval of the Minister, and, therefore, of the House. It used the words "staff-student ratio" and I could see some arguments against introducing that particular concept as a legal requirement into the Bill. On reflection, it seemed to me that a better way of making the point I was making, which seemed to me to be a valid point, was to use the word "staffing", so that, as I now propose it, An tÚdarás should have regard to the accommodation capacity for students and staffing of each institution. In all logic, if it is to be ensured that each institution does its job, it must have the necessary capacity and staff for that purpose. If either the capacity or the staff are lacking, then it is not in a position to provide the standard of education required.

I should like to support Deputy FitzGerald on this amendment. It is a small point but, in its way, quite an important one. The problem of providing space and operational facilities for staff is a growing one. It is not realised by the man-in-the-street just how much this costs. To many people the provision of staff is, first, not a very important thing and, secondly, one related solely to the payment of their salaries. Increasingly it has got to be seen that the costing of staff provision takes into consideration office facilities, library facilities and administrative services to sustain the staff in question. To insert this amendment into the Bill would establish a valid and useful principle.

In the belief that we shall not get very much from the Minister I should be prepared to accept this amendment. The reason is quite simple. There are parts of the different universities which are grossly over-staffed and there are parts of them which are disgracefully under-staffed. The staff-student ratio in the faculty of commerce in University College, Dublin, is one head of staff for every 60 students. Then the Minister tells me certain faculties are more expensive than others. I have re-read the debate on Committee Stage and I find, as I pointed out to him, that in the University of Oxford the most expensive part of the university is the faculty of arts, but the Minister spoke ex cathedra and gave the impression that everybody knows that engineering is more expensive than arts. Everybody does not know it; I do not know it. As I said in that discussion, every faculty is as expensive as a particular university wants to make it and every section of every faculty is as expensive as the particular university wants to make it. For example, I could put forward the view, and I think there is a great deal of truth in it, that the social sciences are grievously neglected in universities here in Dublin by comparison with languages, if you compare the staffing and the number of students. There is no comparison whatever between the amount of work that has to be done by people engaged in the social sciences and indeed in philosophy in UCD, and the amount of work that certain of the people in languages have to do. The staff-student ratios are completely askew. This amendment would go part of the way. You would be unlikely to have one head of staff for every 60 students anywhere in the universities if this amendment were accepted.

As Deputies are aware, we discussed a similar type of amendment to this at length on Committee Stage. My view here is that the number of students to be catered for is the basic consideration. If you start listing other considerations after that where do you stop? We must take it that in making the assessments An tÚdarás, starting with the number of students to be catered for, will take every other relevant factor into account. I do not think that any of these factors should be laid down in the Bill. The basic consideration here is the number of students and everything else follows from that. As I said a moment ago, if we start adding all sorts of other matters which could be relevant in some circumstances, I do not know where we would stop.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 40, to delete "all".

This matter was debated at great length on Committee Stage. Although there was no amendment down at the time, the use of this phraseology in the section was the subject of a good deal of comment. The fact is that it is extremely bad drafting, unless one is some kind of neo-Fascist, to use this kind of language: "An institution of higher education shall supply to An tÚdarás all such information relative to the institution as An tÚdarás may require..." As was said before, are we supposed to supply them with information on the number of toilets per student if An tÚdarás considers that is necessary for the purpose of performing its functions? It may be said that this is being amusing or that this is not discussing the matter properly, but in actual fact these things happen. As I said already this evening, the most extraordinary things happen. There is every likelihood of a collision at some stage, if this word "all" remains in the Bill, between one of the institutions and An tÚdarás, this existing body, because it does exist. In spite of this legislation which is going through, it is, in fact, in existence. It would be very much better if the Minister would accept this amendment and delete the word "all". It would improve the Bill very much.

Did I hear the Deputy talking about semantics a while ago?

This is not semantics—"all such".

As Deputy O'Donovan said, this matter was discussed at very considerable length on Committee Stage. At that time Deputy FitzGerald agreed that it did not make much difference whether the word was in or out. My attitude towards it was that the word "all" indicated the comprehensiveness of the information which must necessarily be supplied by each institution to An tÚdarás. As I said at the time, I considered that, from a legal point of view, the retention of the word "all" or its deletion did not make very much difference and that being so, I was just as disposed to leaving it in as to taking it out.

This reminds me of the Minister's colleague who was not prepared to accept any amendment on Committee Stage and then put in a whole shoal of them on Report Stage but he had had a bit of a shock in the interval.

That cannot be said about the Minister. The Minister accepted many amendments on Committee Stage.

Two, I think.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2a:

In page 3, line 43, to delete "amounts" and substitute "amount".

Section 12 is the most contentious and the most important section in the Bill. As it is drafted at the moment, the Bill still leaves open the degree of earmarking of the money by the Government and this is totally incompatible with the function of An tÚdarás as envisaged ever since the first idea of such a body was put forward in evidence given to the Commission on Higher Education almost ten years ago. In proposing that the plural "amounts" be substituted by the singular "amount", I would hope to get away from this and make it clear that the Oireachtas will vote a total sum to An tÚdarás which will then allocate it to the different bodies at its discretion and that the Minister's Department will not have a function in its allocation. That is the purpose of the amendment. I suspect that we face a frontal clash on this issue, but it is an important one and it would be wrong of us, having failed to persuade the Minister on Committee Stage, not to re-pose the issue here today and give him, shall we say, another chance to rethink this vital issue.

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of this debate — much of which has been heartening and some of which has been disappointing — has been the Minister's insistence on Committee Stage and on Second Stage on this principle of his Department continuing to play a role in the allocation of funds between institutions. The whole point, the whole purpose in the setting up of this body is to get away from that. I simply cannot understand why the Minister should seek to duplicate the work of his Department in the form of An tÚdarás while continuing to have the Department playing a role in the matter. We are setting up this body and financing it and giving it the necessary authority. We have spent many laborious hours in this House establishing this body with a view to transferring to it this very function which the Minister, by virtue of the wording he is proposing and by virtue of his stated intention in this House, intends to continue to duplicate in his Department. There can be no justification for this and I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage in the game to reconsider his attitude to this and to have regard to the cogent and compelling arguments put forward on this issue in the earlier stages.

I know that many of the issues which are brought up for debate by way of amendment by the Opposition are ones on which two opinions are possible. Indeed, I have been persuaded by some of the Minister's remarks to withdraw some of my amendments on Committee Stage when I heard the weight of the arguments against them. In other cases, although I pressed the amendment, I recognised that the Minister had a point in the particular instance. Here there is a very great difference of view and the Minister has failed to persuade me, and the Opposition generally, I think, that there is any case for wasting time and money in establishing this body if, in fact, the question of how much is to be allocated to the different institutions is still to be a matter concerning his Department.

The function of his Department as envisaged, and as it was envisaged by the Commission on Higher Education in the evidence given and the report put forward, and in the discussions which have taken place since on this subject, would be to decide whether the total sum sought by An tÚdarás after consultation with the universities was reasonable in relation to the requirements of the universities as put forward to An tÚdarás and as interpreted by it. If the total sum was thought to be reasonable it would be up to the Department to get the money from the Department of Finance, to get it voted and the question of how then it was to be used was a matter for An tÚdarás. If his Department takes the view that An tÚdarás has not made a good case, that the total sum required by An tÚdarás is more than is necessary to maintain and expand university education to the standard required in this country, then the Minister would be perfectly entitled to recommend a smaller sum to the Department of Finance and An tÚdarás would have to decide how to make do with that and where to impose the cuts necessitated by his failure and the failure of his successor to recommend the total sum required.

There is in that approach no room for the Department playing a role in deciding how much is to go to which institution. It is precisely because of the undesirability of that, because of the unhappy situation that has arisen through the exercise of that power by the Minister's Department that this Bill is here. The only function of this Bill is to get away from this earmarking to different institutions by his Department and it is inconceivable that having gone to the trouble of introducing this Bill and putting so much time into it, the time should turn out to be wasted by virtue of the Minister's insistence on this provision which makes nonsense of the Bill and really does make me feel that we have been wasting a lot of time if this goes through in this form.

I can see that An tÚdarás may still perform some kind of useful semi-buffer function. The more buffers you have I suppose the better the autonomy will be protected but whether, in fact, the amount of buffering An tÚdarás will be able to perform in the situation the Minister envisages by the provision we are talking about now will really warrant the time and trouble involved in setting up this body may even be doubted once this whole question of the allocation of funds to different institutions remains with the Department. The Minister should have been firm. He should not have allowed himself to be persuaded by his advisers to leave this power in their hands. He has in this respect on this issue to date — one hopes for reform even at this late hour — not shown the grasp of the basic concept behind the Bill or the kind of firm attitude to any attempts by his advisers to hang on to power that a Minister should show in circumstances like these.

I am extremely unhappy about the provision as drafted and I would recommend to the Minister even at this stage to accept the amendment and get away from the concept of earmarking by his Department and leave An tÚdarás when set up to carry out this function.

I beg leave to disagree with my colleague, as he will gather from the amendment I have put down.

Permission granted.

The fact is this— and the Deputy does not appear to appreciate it — that when you set up a body like this which in essence has to decide between different institutions the question always arises: "Who is afraid of the big, bad wolf?". The answer is that everybody is afraid of the big, bad wolf and everybody gangs up on the big, bad wolf. Therefore, I would much rather leave the power with the Department of Education. It would be better, of course, if it were left to the Department of Finance. The circumstances in which it was taken away from the Department of Finance were peculiar. I happen to know them.

Would the Deputy expand on that?

Certainly. I will. An unduly large grant was given by a Minister for Finance to Trinity College, Dublin and then because he thought there was going to be an unholy uproar about it he shifted the Universities and Colleges Vote to the Department of Education a couple of days later. It was quite simple and straightforward. I could give the Deputy the year.

Most interesting.

Let me be precise about it. The Department of Finance was responsible for universities and colleges until the year 1955 and in that year a quite abnormal grant relative to the number of students in the place was given to Trinity College, Dublin and in the belief, the fond belief, that there was going to be an unholy row, the Minister shifted the Estimate to the Department of Education. As I say, the more remote the place would be which would assign the moneys to the different institutions the more satisfied I would be and, therefore, I have not bothered to look at the composition of this body at the moment. Since the present chairman is going to determine, I presume, who the members of this statutory body will be, I take it he is not going to pick between one college and another and I assume that there are about twice as many representatives on this body at the moment from University College, Cork, University College, Galway, Trinity College, Dublin as there are from University College, Dublin. But, who is the big, bad wolf? The big, bad wolf is University College, Dublin. Therefore, a gang-up is an absolute certainty. There is not the slightest doubt about it.

I would suggest to the Minister that he would stick to this and accept the next amendment which I will be proposing so as to make sure, in fact, of the exact opposite of what Deputy FitzGerald wants but I was pleased with one aspect of what Deputy FitzGerald said. Deputy FitzGerald is now beginning to wonder is this whole blooming thing worth the candle at all. That certainly gave me pleasure. All I can say is I hope it blows up like some kind of bullfrog and bursts.

I cannot agree with Deputy FitzGerald's line of argument or with the fears he has expressed in relation to it because so far as I can see the only difference between us is that he wants the word "amount" inserted where the word in the subsection is "amounts". I have already explained on many occasions that "amounts" in the subsection are two global amounts which will be shown in the Book of Estimates by way of Grants-in-Aid, one on current expenditure and one for capital expenditure.

Earmarked to each institution in the Appendix.

Mentioned in the Appendix, yes.

They could not be mentioned if it was one amount.

Why could they not?

The Chair must point out that we are not in Committee; we are on Report.

Is the amendment withdrawn.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 43, before "institutions" to insert "particular".

I was pleased with the result of the last discussion — the first occasion that I have been pleased in the discussion on this Bill.

Wait for this one.

I have already stated roughly my reasons for putting down this amendment. These are serious reasons. Members of the House may smile and look on this as a form of argumentation over something that is of no significance but I personally believe — and I was glad to gather from what the Minister said that, in fact, it is the intention—essentially when you have done with it, the buck stops here. Where is "here"? "Here" in this context is the council table over in Government Buildings. That is where "here" is. That is where the buck stops when it comes to this kind of thing. I must say personally I am glad of that. To make clear what I think of this, I cannot say "proposed institution" but if I said it is very quiet at present, it is all the more likely that it will behave extremely badly when it gets this kind of legislation under its feet to hold it up and the very fact that it is behaving like a mouse up to the present means that it will behave like a lion once it starts this kind of thing.

Let us look at it in another way. What is the use of our pretending that this body is going to control the money? When it put up £24 million and when I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that it was cut to £14 million in the Department of Education, what did the Minister say to me? He said he had experts there who were much better than these fellows and when I asked: "Are these the chaps to whom we are supposed to turn over control of the whole of higher education in this country?" The Minister said: "calm yourself". I do not mind admitting that this kind of remark rolls off me. The Minister told me to calm myself and I pointed out to him that I was perfectly calm. Here we have proof that those bodies by the nature of their work should be independent. That is the reason they have been so successful in western Europe in the past centuries. This is what I meant when I made this remark previously but apparently various Deputies thought I was talking about the periods of the Fascist regime in Italy, the Nazi regime in Germany and the present regime in France, although I do not know very much about universities in France at the moment. When this kind of thing is started it does not matter what name you give it, there will be the usual discussions behind closed doors and so on and the independence of the institutions of higher education will be destroyed.

This amendment is the opposite to that proposed a short time ago by Deputy FitzGerald. Not alone should the word "amounts" be left in but "such amounts for particular institutions of higher education as may be approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance" should be included. Apart from my catching the Minister on a slight error in the Bill at one stage, he has not listened to anything I said. The Minister has not heard anything I have said. I hope he will accept this amendment.

I have listened carefully to Deputy O'Donovan during the debate. He has mentioned that this amendment is the opposite to that put forward by Deputy FitzGerald. When I say I cannot accept the amendment I consider I must be pretty well on the right road.

The Minister said that already.

It is an old fallacy.

The object of this amendment would appear to be to compel An tÚdarás to fix rigidly before the commencement of any financial year the allocation to be made to each institution and, presumably, to have the Estimate framed on that basis.

No, that is not so.

This is what appears to me to be the case. It would mean if it were found after the Estimate had been passed that for some reason the allocation proposed for a particular institution would not be required in full by that institution in the year in question An tÚdarás would not have any authority to transfer the surplus amount to another institution where circumstances might have made the original allocation inadequate. This could be done only by way of a Supplementary Estimate. Under the terms of the Bill, the financial provision in the Estimate would be in two global sums; one in regard to capital grants and one in regard to recurrent grants. As has been mentioned already, an addendum to the Estimate would give a list of the institutions, with particulars of the grants — capital and recurrent — which it is proposed to pay each institution. It should be emphasised that this addendum would not form part of the Estimate proper; it would be a statement for the information of the House and others who might be interested. If An tÚdarás found it necessary to make some changes or adjustments in the grants proposed to be paid as between one institution and another they would be free to do so provided they did not exceed the global allocation for capital and recurrent grants contained in the Estimate.

It appears that this is a matter of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, in view of what the Minister has said. It is usual that statements by Ministers in the House are regarded as binding not alone on themselves but on successive Governments. The Minister said that the present system will be continued subject to changing the detail from part 2 of the Estimate — where it is now — into an appendix.

It is not so. I went into great detail on this matter on Committee Stage.

Words must mean something. What each institution should get will be set out in an addendum or appendix to the Estimate and I think it should be so set out. This will be discussed in very many quarters in the most appalling circumlocutiom for months beforehand, with a resultant increase in paperwork and wasteful administration. The result will be that we shall have three bodies where one would suffice. Instead of having one decisive voice, as happened when it was in the Department of Finance, we will have the Department of Finance, the Department of Education and An tÚdarás. If that is an improvement at present when the Government are scraping the bottom of the barrel — not only in this country but all around the world — I have very different ideas about efficient administration than have the Government.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3a:

In page 3, line 46, after "payment" to insert "for capital purposes".

We turn from the autonomy of An tÚdarás which has been effectively sapped by the Minister's attitude on the previous amendment——

Not nearly enough.

——and on a number of other amendments which also affected the autonomy of An tÚdarás. We now turn to the autonomy of the universities. The amendment is designed to limit the power of An tÚdarás to make conditions as to the manner in which the money given to the universities and the institutions of higher education should be spent. We had much discussion on this matter on Committee Stage but it was not a satisfactory discussion. Whereas on most issues the net differences between the two viewpoints emerge and clearcut issues come before us during the course of the debate, in this case this has not happened. The Minister has not given any sensible reason which carries conviction for including this power to impose conditions in respect of non-capital sums. We are all agreed that where sums are provided for capital purposes they must be used for those specific purposes and must not be used for something else. However, in the running of any institution the money needed has to be sought on a certain basis. That basis is put forward. Under this particular section, as at present worded, it will be possible for An tÚdarás to insist that the money be spent precisely in the way set out. This could destroy completely the autonomy of universities and institutes of higher education. Their power to adjust their spending marginally within the course of the year to meet the kind of situations that arise could be destroyed by these provisions here.

I cannot understand how the Minister could think of changing the present system. As things stand, the university or college put forward their request to the Department. The request is couched in the form of a request for the same amount of money as in the previous year, with certain additions arising out of needs for certain purposes, which may be listed — higher salaries, more staff, an improvement in staff-student ratio, higher administration costs, and so forth; the total amount required is put forward and the Minister's Department then send back a letter giving half, or one-third, of the amount requested, saying the amount is to meet all needs. This is unsatisfactory in that the total sum provided is clearly quite incapable of meeting all the needs listed but, at least, when the money comes back the university are free to decide how they will spend the money. Given that they have got only a proportion of what they looked for — the proportion in recent years in the case of the largest college has been less than half — they have then to make up their minds, and they are quite free to do so, how they will spend the money. They may decide to raise salaries and, therefore, cannot increase staff; they may decide to cut back on current spending on a department, or departments, in order to improve the staff-student ratio in others. They are free to decide what they will do with the money. This is the present situation. It is unsatisfactory in that the sums voted may be quite inadequate, but that is a hazard of the financial situation of any democratic country, and no doubt also of undemocratic countries. That is something we cannot cope with, but what we can try to do is to ensure that the introduction of An tÚdarás does not bring a serious reduction in the autonomy of the universities, remembering that the intention in introducing this body was to increase the autonomy of the universities and get them away from possible pressures by Government Departments so that they could run their affairs in a particular way. That is what this body were recommended for and that is why they were set up. That was the intention behind it. Not alone is the autonomy of An tÚdarás being vitiated by the provisions of section 12, subsection (1), with their value greatly diminished, but the Minister is now, by virtue of the wording of subsection (2), taking away the autonomy of the universities with regard to the method by which they spend the inadequate sums given to them and is vesting in An tÚdarás the power to lay down conditions that the money must be spent in accordance with the conditions they may seek to impose, conditions which can be of any degree of detail. There is nothing to inhibit An tÚdarás in any way. The moneys must be spent in accordance with the conditions they lay down. This is clearly objectionable and the Minister must see that it is objectionable.

The value of this legislation, if it had value when first thought of, would be removed completely if the existing autonomy of these institutions were removed by giving to An tÚdarás the power to impose conditions in respect of non-capital sums, a power which does not exist at present and is not exercised by the Department of Education. Frankly, the Minister has given us no reason whatever for giving this power to An tÚdarás and no reason why we should decide to take away from the universities autonomy in the matter of non-capital spending; their power, in other words, to change their plans in the course of the year in the light of the immediate pressures on them. The university may be seeking money for the purpose of increasing staff in different departments. They may be induced by the demands of An tÚdarás for information to set out these requirements in some detail in order to make their case. Under this subsection An tÚdarás are then entitled to say: "Yes, you may have the money, but you must spend it in precisely this way." If, in the course of the year, it transpired that an extra French lecturer was required because the number of students in that particular subject had greatly increased and it had not been found possible to get a lecturer in Italian, as it was originally hoped to do, then the university would have to go back to An tÚdarás in order to make this small change and employ one lecturer rather than another. This is a diminution in the autonomy, a diminution which did not exist until the introduction of this Bill. The Minister has given us no grounds for this. The university will need a good deal of flexibility in deciding how to allocate the inadequate sums they get as between the various needs put forward. Any system under which the details of what they spend the money for current expenses on are laid down by An tÚdarás will completely destroy their autonomy. I cannot see why the Minister could want to do this now. His Department have allocated money to the universities and they have not felt up to now that there was any particular problem. The universities have a system with regard to the spending of current sums. The authority of the Minister for Finance and the Department has been felt to be sufficient because of the power to withold or vary amounts in subsequent years. The Department did not need the right to impose conditions on the spending of non-capital sums and I do not see why An tÚdarás should now be given this power. I doubt if An tÚdarás looked for it and I do not know why the Minister is giving it to that body.

I should like to give my strongest support to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald. This particular subject was extensively discussed on both the Second and the Committee Stages. We are wasting our time in seeking to get the Minister to change his mind in this. For the purpose of the record, I want to assert my total agreement with Deputy Dr. FitzGerald on this point. I listened with great attention to the Minister's remarks on both the Second and Committee Stages on this subject and, like Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, I remained totally unconvinced. I read with considerable attention — it may be in order to mention this because it touches on the point— the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the seminar of the Irish Federation of University Teachers last Saturday. These remarks seemed to provide a sort of view of the State's role in education and may I say — the Minister knows this — I am probably more in sympathy with his thinking and the thinking of the Parliamentary Secretary than perhaps either Deputy Dr. O'Donovan or Deputy Dr. FitzGerald is. Unquestionably the Cabinet are the spokesmen of the citizens and it is the citizens who will pay for these institutions. Unquestionably they retain some residual right therefore to control these institutions, a right against which autonomy is rather vague. Indeed, it is a concept of autonomy that cannot stand. Clearly a university cannot be made a capital grant of £500,000 for a computer and spend it on library facilities. This could not be permitted. If the Minister were to accept Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's amendment he would still retain in his hands and in the hands of An tÚdarás perfectly adequate powers of community control through him and through them. The powers he is seeking in this Bill seem to me to be potentially excessive to a very high degree. I say "potentially" because I do not envisage the present Minister for Education or the Minister for Finance utilising these powers in a wrong manner. A situation in which a reserve power remains with the authority and, through it, with the Minister to vet current expenditure in every point of detail — salary, status and conditions of a particular lecturer, the strength of a particular teaching area in the college—is a dangerous situation because it contains a potentially dangerous power.

I accept what the Minister said and, broadly speaking, what the Parliamentary Secretary argued the other day, that an institution of higher learning cannot be permitted indefinitely to continue to produce vastly excessive numbers of graduates in one field in which there is no social need and insufficient numbers in another field where there is such need. I agree that to some extent this does take place at present. This is wasteful of public money but if one has to choose between a situation where public money is wasted because academic fashions change slowly or, on the other hand, a situation where the authority by instant directive can boost up or run down a particular teaching area by control of current expenditure, then I would accept the element of social waste in the first instance and the slowness of change which derived from it. The second possibility is to me a frightening one and, little as I care for some of the more extreme academic claims for autonomy, in this instance I think the academics in their suspicious reaction to section 12 (2) of the Bill are perfectly correct. This particular proposal has provoked more fear in the hearts of academics than any other in the Bill. In this instance I think the academics are right; they are not always wrong: Deputy FitzGerald was right and I appeal — I am quite sure vainly — even at this late stage to the Minister to accept the amendment.

I derived a certain sour amusement from hearing Dr. FitzGerald on this amendment. He is in general agreement with this Bill and then when the consequences of that agreement are brought home to him he says: "No, not that." I think I am the more consistent: I object to this totally. There is quite sufficient control by the State of university education at present. As regards people who say that there are too many graduates in one faculty rather than another my reply is: "How do they know whether there will be too many next week or the week after, not to speak of next year or the year after?" This includes the Parliamentary Secretary. People who talk like this do not know what they are talking about. "There are too many graduates in Art"—so what? Where is the lack of university graduates at present? If we think of engineers, for example, I do not think their salaries, if we are to judge by the activities of professional engineers in recent weeks, are excessive. It is certain that nothing indicates more quickly whether a particular class of graduate is in short supply or not than the market price he obtains for his work.

We have not made the slightest impression on the Minister in this Bill. We did not make the slightest impression on the Minister for Labour either in his Bill until that Minister fell on the top of his head with the unemployment assistance business. He came back a very different man. I think the Minister for Education has fallen on the top of his head in recent weeks. His head must be more solid than that of the Minister for Labour. In other words, he has a strong head physically but not mentally. It is a pity that his sad experience in recent weeks over another matter has not made him see reason in connection with this Bill just as experience made his colleague, the Minister for Labour, see reason in connection with the Redundancy Payments Bill. Remarkable was the change in a few weeks. I commend the reaction of the Minister for Labour to the Minister for his serious consideration. I shall not delay the House any longer.

I have made my viewpoint clear on the Second Stage and the Committee Stage. Obviously, we shall not come to agreeing with one another. This subsection is essential to the Bill. For example, if an institution seek additional money for a specific purpose which might add up to recurring expenditure for a number of years, An tÚdarás should at least be entitled, if they make the money available, to see that the money is not spent on some other project. I made it very clear on each occasion that I spoke on this matter that there could be no question of An tÚdarás exercising day-to-day control over the normal, recurring expenditure in any college or institution but they must be entitled to ensure that if money is sought by a university or college of higher education for a specific purpose this money will not be spent on something else entirely unrelated to the purpose for which it was granted. It is quite common at present for the universities to seek specific sums for specific purposes and to have it definitely stated when grants are being allocated what sums are being provided for such purposes. I want to re-emphasise that there will not be and cannot be any question of An tÚdarás exercising day-to-day control over normal recurring expenditure in any college.

The Minister has not answered the question which is: why, if this power has not hitherto existed, or been exercised, it is suddenly needed now? The fact is that the vast bulk of the expenditure of the universities is sought as a general grant. Reasons are given for this, as I said already; the money is then given and the Department state that the money is given for the following purposes although, in fact, in some cases the amount given is not sufficient to fulfil all these purposes. They may say, for example, that the money is given in order to enable the 11th round to be paid, in order to enable the staff-pupil ratio to be improved, in order to enable other things of this kind to be done, some of which are vague and unquantifiable but some of which are quantifiable. It may well be that the total sum given is so much less than that sought that it may be less than is needed for what is quantified specifically, and leaves nothing, or less than nothing, for the unquantifiable items. That is the system, in any event.

There is no question of money being given in this general grant in such a way as to lay down conditions as to how it will be spent. The universities have resisted that. There have been attempts at inroads on that in recent years. Universities in some cases have succumbed to some small degree in seeking money. We had an instance recently of one college seeking money for a specific purpose, night courses. In other cases the format of negotiations has been such that some people might try to read into what has happened that there is an end to earmarking. On the whole, the universities have resisted the temptation and on the whole the Department have not attempted to lay down conditions as to how the money should be spent. Yet the Minister now feels it is necessary to depart from this and to provide a legal power to insist that money should be spent in accordance with the requirements of An tÚdarás. There is nothing in the present situation to require that; we have managed without it up to now. There are no grounds for introducing it at this stage. The Minister has failed completely to make his case on this; I think he knows that. He has been over-persuaded here by the Department as in one or two other cases. I can only regret that he has not stood up to them on this issue.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, at the end of line 49, to add:

"and shall have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in that institution".

On Committee Stage I promised to put down this amendment. Really it puts into words my thinking on the way universities should be financed. It used to be the case that if you had an institution like UCG with 500 students you could not get £500 a year per student but you could if you were an institution like UCD. This was unfair to the smaller institutions but, of course, it is no longer the case. I see that Galway now have 3,400 students, but it is still the smallest. However, it is much the same size as UCC and is not much smaller than the oldest institution in the country——

Which has 4,600.

There is not much difference when it comes to overheads. The point I want to continue to make is that if anybody cares to compare the figures per student, though UCD has the most expensive faculties, the grant per student to the biggest institution is very much lower, quite apart from the fact that it has 2,000 extra-mural students who needed are intra-mural. When I was giving my night lectures I used to be washed away at 7.15 p.m. by the crowd of people coming in.

Pinned to the wall.

One was not able to make one's way in or out, as the case might be. My amendment states:

and shall have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in that institution.

I am cutting out altogether the extra-mural people. Depending on who gives the lectures, with a small charge they should be self-sufficient and I think they possibly are. I will come back to my main point. I do not trust those people and there is no reason why I should. There is an old adage to the effect that you do not trust anybody and certainly our whole administrative system has been built up on that basis. Take a man like the Parliamentary Secretary who is much more acquainted with the ancient classics. He would have more knowledge of that.

Even the gods did not trust each other.

We had Mr. Joseph Brennan say on one occasion that in Greece they set up a number of spies on each other. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been set up to spy on the Departments. They are all spying on each other. If they ask for the files on which decisions are taken, there are ways around that too.

The Deputy is forgetting the Committee of Public Accounts.

Let us not digress from education.

I do not like to be hard on either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael on that committee. We shall leave it alone, but it is part of this system of setting up people to spy. You could use other words, I suppose. You could use "accountability". That is a great word nowadays — to ensure accountability. This amendment will improve the Bill. Before he finished, Deputy FitzGerald asked the Minister to stand up to his advisers. The fact is the Minister has shown no capacity for this. In connection with this Bill the Minister has not shown the slightest capacity. I have a great deal of experience of advising Ministers and when this kind of a debate occurred the Minister concerned invariably paid attention. When a Minister finds disparate people like Deputies Thornley, FitzGerald and myself, with completely different views, agreeing among ourselves, any sensible Minister would scratch his head, hold his head in his hands, and say: "How come these three fellows agree?" I regret the Minister has shown this incapacity. Who has tied him hand and foot? Is it the illegal An tÚdarás — illegal, non-legal, call it what you like? Or is it this peculiar section that has come into the Department that knows everything, especially how to cut £14 million down to £4 million?

I should like to see the Minister being a man instead of a mouse. Ever since we started this serious debate on this Bill in Committee the Minister has been a mouse, a nothing. You might as well be trying to stop a current for all the effect we have had on him. I am not talking about the do goodism he displayed in regard to section 3 when he accepted certain amendments, so to speak putting up what would appear to be good to the public. I am not interested in that. I am interested in the reality of the Bill and the Minister has not shown any evidence of having listened to any constructive suggestion. Although this has been a prolonged debate, I think the Minister has got away with murder because no Deputy said to the Minister what he thought about this kind of thing — until the last few minutes, that is, when I have been telling him to grow up and to be his own man. He will not get any respect from anybody for bringing in a Bill here, drafted by somebody else, and sticking absolutely on it. This amendment is plain enough.

Which amendment are we dealing with?

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle announced the amendment.

Some time ago.

Perhaps I will have to turn my attention to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his views as expressed during the week-end.

The Chair hopes the Deputy will come to the amendment.

I will return absolutely to the amendment. It states that when dishing out the money An tÚdarás will have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in the institution. What other method would sensible people use? I do not know any other method of doing the job and I do not know how sensible people would do it. Small institutions with fewer students wanted more money per student to cover their overheads and I agree with this but when these institutions became big they still wanted more money per student and this is entirely wrong; it is an incorrect way of approaching higher education. There are ludicrous staff student ratios at Belfield of 1:35 in the faculty of art and 1:60 in the faculty of commerce but the present Government is well used to that kind of thing because there are national schools in the city with classes of 60 students and in case anybody is in any doubt I can name a couple of them. I commend the amendment to the House on the basis that it is the only proper method of distributing Government moneys among institutions of higher learning.

I cannot allow this opportunity of agreeing with Deputy O'Donovan, which has occurred all too rarely during this debate, to pass without doing so. I support this amendment which seeks in a somewhat different form to do what I was seeking to do at an earlier stage; it is a matter of opinion which is the best way to do it but the things to be done should not be a matter of opinion; they should be self-evident. Although other considerations have to be taken into account, some faculties and some institutions being of a smaller size may require more favourable staff student ratios but obviously the number of students should be the principal criterion. I, therefore, support the amendment.

The permutations and combinations of Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy O'Donovan and myself must stagger the credibility of all three of us in the Minister's eyes but I regret to have to say that I cannot support Deputy O'Donovan on this amendment. For precisely some of the reasons he gave it seems to me there are many criteria for the extent of State funds which would apply to an institution besides that of sheer numbers. I am not thinking of the comparative method of funding of Trinity College or University College, Dublin, because if I may say so with respect unlike the two Deputies I have mentioned I have managed as a whole to keep out of my contributions to this debate an over-sensitivity to the interests of the particular institution of which I am a graduate and a staff member. I am thinking more specifically of colleges like University College, Galway, which could for a particular reason require more extensive funding than others for particular reasons. The educational merit is not always on the side of the big battalions and in this case it is not always on the side of either of the Dublin colleges. There are many social attractions, attractions of amenity and attractions of status, in some case wrongly conceded status, no doubt, which would cause a student to go to a Dublin college through preference if he could do so; this is quite wrong; it is a stupid snobbery which has no reflection upon the real standards of other colleges. I can certainly foresee circumstances in which to counteract these better staff student ratios, more expensive areas of excellence would have to be maintained in a small instituation than in a large one and I cannot, therefore, support this amendment.

Were it not for the fact that Deputy O'Donovan does it so nicely and I am, I think, a rather placid type of individual, I might take umbrage at some of his remarks.

Turn and turn about.

The Deputy used the old trick of making a personal attack on his opponent when he has no case and it would appear to me so far as the Deputy is concerned that my capacity is to be judged on the basis of whether or not I agree with him.

Not with me, with anybody.

On Committee Stage the Deputy asked me to consider amending the section in the manner now suggested in the amendment. I have explained on a number of occasions and at some length that the moneys available to An tÚdarás each year will come in the form of two global funds, one in respect of capital and the other for recurrent grants for these institutions. It will be for An tÚdarás to fix the allocation of these amounts as between the different institutions in accordance with the general functions given to it under section 3 of the Bill and having regard to all the relevant considerations. An tÚdarás must, of course, in relation to any institution have regard to the number of students following third level courses of various types but this would be only one of the matters to be considered. Whether Deputy O'Donovan accepts it or not there are some faculties, courses or branches of study which are more expensive than others——

If more money is spent on them.

——and this would be among the things which An tÚdarás would have to take into account when deciding its allocations.

Deputy O'Donovan to conclude.

It was not so very good of the Minister to take nicely my remarks. I let him off the hook on a number of occasions on Committee Stage.

I was being nice to the Deputy.

On the contrary, the Minister talked to me very much as I talked to him a while ago. If everything the Minister has said on this Bill about this matter were to be construed it would be found that at one moment he is suggesting that lump sums would be given to An tÚdarás, which An tÚdarás would then divide out to the institutions and on another occasion he is saying the way the moneys are to be divided out would be indicated in an addendum to the Estimate. Both these could be true because the Department could fix up with An tÚdarás beforehand how the money was to be divided and this is where the Department of Education comes into the picture.

I still believe this would be a much better Bill if these words were put in at the end of the section. The section would then read: "Any payment to an institution which An tÚdarás makes out of the amounts it receives under the foregoing subsection shall be made in such a manner subject to such conditions as An tÚdarás thinks fit and shall have regard primarily to the number of students pursuing studies leading to a degree in that institution." We no longer have small institutions. I see constant reference to the fact that University College, Galway is going to be built up to 7,500 students and University College, Cork to the same number. I used to consider the ideal size for a university, beyond which it became top heavy, was 4,000 to 5,000 students.

Hear, hear.

I have never really departed from that view.

Hear, hear.

Once these institutions become massive it would be much better to set up new institutions. There is no use my recommending this amendment to the Minister. He will not accept it; he is not his own man; he does not think for himself.

Too many academics agree with the Deputy, some very distinguished ones.

I am delighted to hear that. I did not know that because unlike the Parliamentary Secretary I have not been in collusion with IFUT of University College Dublin, the president of University College, Dublin, Deputy FitzGerald or Deputy Thornley. I have been speaking for myself.

Certainly not.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 3, to delete "at its discretion".

This is quite a simple amendment which should commend itself even to the Minister. The section states that An tÚdarás "may publish reports of such studies". The word "may" in legislation is mandatory, it really means "shall". Here in this section it clearly means it may or it may not. There is no reason why those words "at its discretion" should be put in. I know the Minister gave me a completely absurd explanation of this on Committee Stage when he said they might have a small little study and they would not want to publish it. Nobody expects, if some little administrative study is done inside this body, that it should be published. There is no compulsion on them to publish it so why do I want to take out the words "at its discretion"? I simply want to do it because there is an inference in it that they can publish if they like and if something comes to them as a result of an investigation which the members of the body do not like they can bury it, put it in a pigeon hole and forget about it. If those words were taken out the study could still be put in a pigeon hole. I fail to see why unnecessary words should be put into the section.

I should hate to end the debate on Fourth Stage without giving something to Deputy O'Donovan so I will accept the amendment.

Deputy Dr. Thornley and I will want something too.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 10, after "may" to insert "for cause stated and".

Deputy FitzGerald has a very similar amendment to this one. There is not a great deal of difference between them.

If the House is agreeable, we can take amendments Nos. 6 and 6(a) together.

They are similar.

We had a long discussion on this on Committee Stage. This is why I put the amendment down on Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister might accept the amendment straight away and I would not have to talk any more on it. Since he has got into a givish humour in the last few moments he might accept the amendment.

I am afraid not.

Once we come to anything serious the Minister digs in again. The reason for the amendment is quite simple. An tÚdarás cannot be allowed the power to dismiss its officers or servants without stating the cause why the person is being dismissed. It is elementary, my dear Watson, in all relations where there is a contract of service that a person must be given a reason for his or her dismissal. I put the words "for cause stated" purely in the singular as distinct from Deputy FitzGerald's amendment "for causes stated".

Mine is a misprint. I intended it to be in the singular.

Then we are completely ad idem and I commend the amendment to the House.

The difference between my amendment and that of Deputy O'Donovan is only in the placing of the words in the sentence. I should like to say, though it appears in the plural, my intention was to have it in the singular. In fact, on Committee Stage, it was in the plural. The reason I put it down in the singular now was that there were objections raised to the plural form. I was not sure that I understood the objections fully but in case they had any validity I decided to put it down on Report Stage in the singular form. I am completely ad idem with Deputy O'Donovan. The only question is where you put it in the sentence. I would urge the Minister to accept this. It would be intolerable to reject an amendment designed to give someone the right to know the reason why he is dismissed. That is a basic human right which should be given to everybody in public and in private employment. I cannot conceive that the Minister would want to reject that right here. I urge on him, therefore, to accept one or other of the amendments whichever he finds stylistically preferable.

I take a quite different view from the Deputies who spoke on this. To provide in this Bill that there must be cause stated for the removal by An tÚdarás of one of its officers or servants in my view would imply that the cause should be made public knowledge at least if that were requested.

I feel this is what the situation would be.

It would not.

I feel very strongly in relation to this and I feel it would be very undesirable that even that type of implication should be there and particularly so from the point of view of the individual concerned. If the amendment is aimed at protecting an individual against wrongful dismissal one must remember that the power of dismissal rests with An tÚdarás which, as I said on very many occasions during the course of the debate on this Bill, we must assume will be a body of reasonable people. They must exercise that power only with the consent of the Minister and, therefore, if a person were to be dismissed without sufficient cause it would require something which would be tantamount to a conspiracy between An tÚdarás and the Minister. Moreover, a person in such circumstances could also in the normal way have recourse to the courts if any action were taken in his case which was not in accordance with his conditions of service. I look on this from a completely different viewpoint from the Deputies who proposed the amendments, I have already, as I said, spoken on this particular aspect of the matter.

Deputy Dr. FitzGerald rose.

Deputy FitzGerald has spoken already.

May we not both reply?

Deputy Dr. Browne wishes to speak.

Sorry, I did not know that.

I think I have said everything I wanted to say. I will leave it to Deputy FitzGerald to conclude.

Before anybody concludes Deputy Dr. Browne must have an opportunity to speak.

This matter has been discussed on many occasions here on different Bills. There is merit in the Minister's point and there is merit in the amendment. On the one hand, there are occasions on which it would be better that the reasons for dismissal or removal from office were not made public. Equally, of course, the right of an individual to know why he is being dismissed is also particularly important. The Minister suggested there would need to be a conspiracy between the Minister and An tÚdarás. That is not outside the bounds of possibility I am afraid. However, leaving that aside, would the Minister permit a right of appeal to the Minister against a decision of An tÚdarás so that somebody who felt he or she had a grievance could appeal against the decision?

There are precedents for this type of mechanism so that one would have the virtue of both the Minister's attitude of attempting to protect somebody against something that person might not wish to be disclosed, which might not be one the person would be particularly proud of and, on the other hand, ensuring that the person should know and have stated the causes for his dismissal. I am afraid I do not take very seriously this suggestion about the right of appeal to the courts. The right to appeal to a court is really rather a fictional one in so far as there is great expense involved and if one takes on such a very powerful body as either An tÚdarás or the Minister they will have far greater resources than a private individual. I am afraid the safeguard of the courts simply is not a safeguard. The safeguard of the unlikelihood of the conspiracy between the Minister and An tÚdarás is not really a safeguard either unless there is a right of appeal to the Minister. On the other hand, of course, with the right of appeal to the Minister the Minister might simply use the power here to refuse to give a cause also.

I should like to support the general purpose of the amendments while I appreciate the difficulty which the Minister has put forward here. It is possible that an amendment could be framed which would allow both positions to prevail, where the person is given a reason which he can then pursue if he wants to in the courts, if he feels aggrieved, while An tÚdarás are precluded from making public, without the consent of the person aggrieved, the reason for which he had been dismissed by An tÚdarás?

I simply do not accept that the words "and for causes stated" mean that the cause has to be published. What that means in law, as I understand it, is that the person concerned must be told the reason. I think the interpretation the Minister has put on it and which Deputy Dr. Browne seems to share is incorrect, but if there is any doubt about that in anybody's mind to alleviate any such doubt I would be more than happy to modify my amendment to read that "An tÚdarás may for causes stated to the person concerned and with the consent of the Minister". There is no difficulty about that. We are quite capable of finding a form of words to meet this, I think, imaginary difficulty but in case there is anything in it I am quite prepared to propose that. This removes any objection that either the Minister or Deputy Dr. Browne have on that score.

The other reasons put forward by the Minister do not seem to me to bear on this issue particularly. Once the position is clear, that the person concerned must be told the reason, then his position is protected, he knows why he is being dismissed. If he feels that the reason is inadequate he can go to the courts to pursue his right of action for wrongful dismissal. If, on the other hand, the reason stated is one which he realises has some validity and which, if put forward in the court, would not reflect favourably on him he will not press the issue but he is entitled to know the reason. I, therefore, put to the Minister, to meet the objection he has made, if it has any validity, whether he will accept a modification of the amendment to read: "For causes stated to the person concerned".

As I said to the Deputy earlier I take a completely different view from the point of view put forward and I do not feel that I can accept the amendment.

I have met the Minister's point about non-publication.

There is more involved than non-publication.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 6(a) not moved.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, to delete "fees and" in line 13 and to insert "and, if he is not a member of An tÚdarás, fees" after "expenses" in line 14.

In the brief discussion on section 16 on Committee Stage Deputy Dr. O'Donovan questioned the propriety of fees being paid to a member of An tÚdarás in respect of his acting on a committee appointed under this section. I indicated that it was not the intention that a member of An tÚdarás would receive a fee in respect of his being a member of such a committee and at the request of Deputies O'Donovan and FitzGerald I undertook to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage to make this clear. This amendment is the fulfilment of that undertaking. If this amendment is passed fees in respect of membership of committees appointed under this section will be payable only to those committee members who are not members of An tÚdarás though allowances for expenses may be allowed to all members of the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendment No. 8 involves a matter of substance not arising from Committee proceedings recommital is necessary in respect of it.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 8:

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, to insert between lines 26 and 27 a new section as follows: 20. Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either House, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the regulation, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

This amendment is related to an amendment in section 1 subsection (1) put down by Deputy FitzGerald and discussed at some length on the Committee Stage. Deputy FitzGerald's amendment sought to ensure that the Minister could designate an institution as an institution of higher education for the purposes of this Bill only on the recommendation of An tÚdarás and by statutory authority. As far as I remember, Deputy FitzGerald was supported by Deputy Thornley on this amendment and they pressed the recommendation strongly in its two aspects, that is to say that the designation should be on the recommendation of An tÚdarás and that it should be by statutory authority. I did not yield on either of these points but I said that I would be willing to consider an amendment which I hoped might meet the requirements of the Deputies. The effect of amendment No. 8 would be to oblige the Minister to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas every regulation he makes under section 1 subsection (1) (c) designating an institution as an institution of higher education for the purposes of this Bill. It provides, therefore, the safeguard of a formal statutory authority in relation to such designation and I think this is what was sought by Deputies FitzGerald and Thornley.

The Minister says this is what we sought. It is not, in fact, what we sought in relation to this overall matter of how these bodies should be designated but it does help the situation somewhat and given that we have been defeated on our main objective earlier on for my part I can certainly accept this amendment as an improvement in the situation as it exists at this point in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, to insert ", after consultation with the chairman of An tÚdarás," after "Government" in line 15 and to delete "in consultation with the chairman of An tÚdarás" in line 16.

This is merely a drafting amendment. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule, as it at present stands, would seem to mean that consultation with the chairman of An tÚdarás about the removal of an ordinary member of An tÚdarás from office and his actual removal by the Government would have to take place simultaneously. The amendment is really a matter of rewording to provide that a member's removal by the Government would take place after consultation with the chairman.

Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Top
Share