Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Apr 1991

Vol. 407 No. 2

Educational Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Bill, 1991: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to an Agreement between the Government and the Government of the United States of America establishing a scholarship exchange scheme and to further expand the programme of academic exchanges between the two countries.

In order to avoid duplicating the work of the House it is proposed to deal with the detailed provisions of the Agreement in conjunction with the Committee Stage of this Bill, and a motion for the approval of the terms of the Agreement will be tabled at that time.

The new Agreement, which was signed in Dublin on 27 October 1988, arose from a commitment by former President Reagan during his visit to Ireland in 1984 to increase the level of academic exchanges between Ireland and the United States and to allocate additional American funding for this purpose under the Fulbright-Hays Act of the United States Congress.

At present, academic exchanges between the United States and Ireland are administered by the Scholarship Exchange Board and financed by income from the Scholarship Exchange Fund, both of which were set up under the Scholarship Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Act, 1957.

The Scholarship Exchange Board have performed their task excellently and I should like to take this opportunity to thank and to pay a warm tribute to its members — American and Irish, past and present — for their work over the years.

However, in order to avail of the additional Fulbright funds now offered by the United States, it is necessary to replace the Scholarship Exchange Board and Fund by, respectively, a new Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange and a new Ireland-United States Educational Fund, along the lines of the bi-national Fulbright structures which operate in other countries.

The Agreement of 1988 states that a commission to be known as the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange shall be established to replace An Bord Scoláireachtaí Comhalairte, the Scholarship Exchange Board, which was appointed pursuant to section 2 of the Scholarship Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Act, 1957. Section 2 (ii) of the Bill before the House provides for the establishment of this new commission.

The purpose of the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange will be to increase educational exchanges, which are such important agents of cultural interchange, between our countries. The functions of the new commission will be to encourage studies, research, instruction and other educational activities for the benefit of citizens of both countries; to develop and encourage exchanges of students, research scholars and teachers; and to encourage other related educational and cultural programmes and activities.

The commission will be larger and more autonomous in management and administration than the Scholarship Exchange Board. The board consists of seven members, four appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and three by the United States Ambassador to Ireland. The chairman of the board is appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs who also provides the board's secretariat and accommodation.

The new commission will have eight members, four appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and four by the United States Ambassador. The present chairman of the Scholarship Exchange Board will serve as the first chairman of the commission for a two year term of office. Thereafter the chairman will be elected by commission members. Other office holders such as the deputy chairman, treasurer and assistant treasurer will be elected at the first meeting of the new commission from among its members. The commission will be empowered to provide their own accommodation and secretariat, by acquiring property and engaging an executive director and administrative staff.

Detailed provisions are set out in sections 8 to 14 of the Bill before the House with regard to the new commission's obligations, commitments and expenditure as well as meetings and procedures, staff and expenses.

The activities of the Ireland-United States Commission for Educational Exchange will be financed by income from the Ireland-United States Educational Fund. This new fund will replace the scholarship exchange fund established under section 6 (2) of the 1957 Act. The scholarship exchange fund was set up with a capital sum of £500,000 from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account established pursuant to the 1948 Economic Co-operation Agreement between Ireland and the United States. Upon the winding up of the scholarship exchange fund the moneys available will be transferred to the credit of the Ireland-United States Educational Fund. In addition, the commission will receive direct funding from the United States. In this regard, since the 1984 announcement, and pending the establishment of the new commission, an annual sum in the region of US$127,000 has been provided by the United States and administered on an ad hoc basis by the Scholarship Exchange Board. This allocation is expected to be increased once the commission has been established.

In commending this Bill to the House I am conscious of the invaluable opportunities which the scholarship exchange scheme with the United States has provided our brightest and most creative scholars in a wide variety of academic disciplines over the years by assisting them to further develop and extend their expertise in their chosen fields. However, beyond the considerable professional and personal benefit that a Fulbright award brings to the individual, the facilities accorded some of our most gifted young scholars to enable them to undertake research work in universities in the United States has been of substantial benefit to Ireland. A significant number of those awarded Fulbright fellowships have returned to our universities, to industry or to the public service with horizons broadened and experiences gained that have redounded to the overall benefit of the country down through the years. In addition, the work of our own universities and third level institutions has been immensely enriched by incoming American scholars who have taught and carried out research in Ireland in a broad range of fields.

The Fulbright programme, under which the scholarship exchange scheme was organised and within which it is now planned to further develop academic exchanges, was perhaps one of the most enlightened initiatives undertaken with the aim of fostering international relations. Today, some 45 years after its introduction, this programme of binational educational links between the United States and approximately 120 countries has produced a unique international network of intellectual co-operation based on academic exchange. More than 160,000 leading figures in Government, the information media, the arts and the academic community from all over the world have shared the experience of having been "Fulbrighters" and the resulting benefits to educational and public life around the globe are difficult to measure.

Ireland is privileged to have been able to participate in this programme from an early date, and to have the possibility now by virtue of the additional funding being provided by the United States, to further develop academic exchanges between our two countries. I am confident that, by enabling Ireland to avail of the opportunity for increased co-operation and exchanges in this area, the Bill before the House will not only be of immense benefit to individual scholars but will make a significant and positive contribution to the development of our universities and to the country as a whole in the years ahead.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

On behalf of Fine Gael, I warmly welcome the introduction of this Bill with one small criticism, that it has taken since October 1988 until now to bring it before the House. Following President Reagan's visit here in 1984, a further commitment was given to extend this scholarship exchange programme between Ireland and the United States, with the additional possibility of money being given by the United States. Discussions were entered into and agreement was finally reached in October 1988. The Bill should probably have been here before this. It has not held up the work of the exchange programme but the exchange programme needed this statutory move to formalise the informal agreements that existed.

This whole programme originated when I was a small child in 1948, post-World War II. The American Government donated to this country approximately US$18 million or £6 million sterling, at that time to help build Ireland and give us an opportunity to develop infrastructure and so on. Around 1957 or a little earlier it was decided that out of this American Grant Counterpart Fund, which was the name of this fund, £500,000 would be taken and invested and allocated especially to create this kind of scholarship exchange to allow a flow of Irish academics and post-graduate students to go to the US and learn and to allow similar qualified people to come to Ireland from the US and to develop our structures and to learn. There is a great deal we can learn from each other's cultures — the American more modern culture which is perhaps more technology oriented and the rich Irish culture in literature and the arts. So started this Ireland-United States Scholarship Exchange Fund. Over the years a great number of our best and brightest have benefited from this. It is not an elitist thing, although one must have a first class degree to qualify. Perhaps in our midst we may have a "Fulbrighter". We certainly have some of our brightest academics in this House. Unfortunately, I cannot include myself in that list.

Since 1957 the money has been invested by successive Ministers for Finance and the interest from that first investment has been used over the years to fund the students and academics. In the original Act the board was very much an animal of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I pay tribute here to the secretariat of the Department of Foreign Affairs who ran the operations of this board over the years. There was not much autonomy attached to the operations of the board. They were not allowed have their own secretariat or their own property or offices. It was through the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs that the exchange programme operated although an independent board with four members from Ireland and three from the US were appointed. I did not manage in my research to find out why there were four from Ireland and three from the US, seeing that the lion's share of the money came from the US. I am glad to see that this Bill has restored the balance and that there are now four members from the US and four from Ireland.

Although the operation of the exchange programme has not impinged on my life, I know of it and that the current chairman, Mr. Joe Lee, is a very eminent academic here. I pay tribute to him and to his chairmanship of the board. It is not often that a situation like this persists for so long without a major problem or a scandal. When one considers that this has been going now for over 30 years it is a tribute to the people involved that it has been operating as well as it can.

The changes that brought about the need for this Bill happened shortly after President Reagan's visit, when for the first time the US decided to top up the money that was coming from the interest payments of the fund. They were willing to do this without any great quid pro quo from our side. This is to be warmly welcomed. We should pay tribute to the US for their wish to increase the fund that was available so that more people could benefit from this fund. I understand that the amount of money available in 1987 on the Irish side was US$85,732, mainly interest payments, and US$123,441 on the United States side. No provision was made in the original Bill in 1957 for either side to increase the amount of money available. Therefore, I welcome the proposed change.

The proposal in the Bill to give this body greater autonomy is to be welcomed as it will allow for a wider examination of the areas and academic qualifications covered. It is important that no element of influence can be attributed to any board. When a commission or board are under the direct control of a Department there is always a suspicion that one has to be well in with that Department to get a hearing. I do not believe that has been the case in this instance but, at the same time, an independent commission will be welcome.

Section 12 states that the commission may accept and use, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, such other funds, goods or services as may be made available to the commission by the contribution from any source, public or private. I assume that the purpose of the section is to allow the Government and private industry or individuals to participate in the commission in some way either by increasing the funds or broadening the scope of the academic or educational spheres being followed. While the section states that the commission may use funding — someone may will money to them or an industry might decide to offer a bursary — but will it give the commission some leeway to seek funding? The climate at this time may not be conducive to fund raising but it is important that we clarify that matter. I understand the position in Spain, which also has a bilateral arrangement with the United States, is that approximately half the money used comes from joint Spanish-US funding, while the remainder comes from fund raising, donations, bursaries, bequests and so on. It is possible that someone who has benefited from one of these exchange scholarships may leave the commission money in their will so that other students may benefit or may find themselves in a position to give a gift or donation.

When the original Bill was debated back in 1957 the then leader of my party, Mr. James Dillon, and Mr. Declan Costello contributed. Mr. Dillon stated that he was fearful that there would only be cultural exchanges in the Humanities and the areas of medicine and engineering while the area of agricultural science, which was most applicable to Ireland, would not get its fair share. Perhaps the Minister of State when replying will reassure me that the wise words spoken by Mr. Dillon on 27 November 1957 were taken on board by the then Minister, Mr. Aiken, and exchanges have taken place in the agricultural sciences.

The proposed improvements to the scheme should not present the House with any great difficulties. It is non controversial and has been of great benefit to the country. Obviously, at times some universities may feel they do not receive full benefit from it. The commission decide which universities will participate in the scheme. For example, the University of Limerick, may apply to the commission for permission to have, say, a Professor of Applied Mathematics from the United States to teach in the college for one year and the commission, in turn, seek applicants from universities in the United States. As I have not been able in the short time available to me to obtain full details, perhaps the Minister of State will outline the way the universities are chosen. It is important that selected universities do not get their foot in the door and always end up as the institutions chosen.

We are often critical of the United States in this House but this exchange scheme represents another close and warm link our people have with that country. All too often we do not pay tribute to it for the generosity it has shown to our students and young people who have obtained work there. The United States has been subjected to much criticism in recent months — I joined in it — but we must give credit where it is due and commend and thank the United States not only for starting the scheme, with a generous donation of £500,000, back in 1957 but for broadening the scope of the scheme to ensure that it is in keeping with the Fulbright scheme.

It is interesting to note that today we are talking about a fund which was established soon after the Marshal Plan was set up following the Second World War. Something along the lines of that plan is needed to assist the emerging nations of Eastern Europe. I warmly welcome the Bill. I ask the Minister of State when replying to set my mind at rest on some of the points I raised today.

The Labour Party broadly welcome this Bill but there are a number of points which would enhance the legislation. I am very glad that the Minister of State began by paying tribute to An Bord Scoláireachtaí Comhalairte who have over the years provided assistance to people to travel to the United States, both for short and long visits. I was very interested in their work. I visited the United States as a post graduate student in the sixties and again in the seventies when I went back to the mid-west as a teacher. Only two years ago I visited Berkeley University among others as a visiting scholar. I have to say that the exchanges facilitated by the board have proved to be of enormous benefit.

It is interesting to reflect on the changes which have taken place between my visits in the sixties and more recent visits in the eighties. The people who benefited in the sixties were very often underfunded at home. It was only, for example, in the second half of the sixties that people began to talk about science, but bureaucratic opinion in this country refused adamantly to regard psychological, social or legal sciences as sciences at all. The crude definition in the academic world was that anything for which you wore a white coat during the day was a science and anything for which you did not wear a white coat was not a science at all. The National Science Council held their obdurate opinion about this rather limited view of the sciences and were replaced by other bodies, which had the practical effect in the seventies that an honours student with first or second honours grade I in any one of the sciences could proceed automatically to post-graduate work, whereas an honours student in one of the psychological or social sciences or economic sciences had no grant funding or aid whatsoever.

This indication of the limited thinking in the academic world and the paucity of philosophical training which did not understand the debate between the physical and human sciences and any of the philosophical assumptions involved, unfortunately was rampant throughout the Department of Education and occasionally, by extension, the Department of Foreign Affairs. In this atmosphere of the sixties, the first grants become available, usually through fellowships, straightforward grants or teaching assistantships in the US universities. People found the procedure cumbersome.

If I have a criticism about the operations of An Bord Scoláireachtaí Comhalairte it is that at times their requirements were often difficult to fulfil. You had to apply early in the year for qualification late in the autumn. This had further conditions attached to it. You had to have been accepted in an American university to benefit, and to meet this condition you would, of course, have to assure the people towards whom you were directed that you would arrive and you would have to do this without knowing whether you would have your ticket.

Many of us are survivors of those times of under-funding in Irish education which it is to be hoped will gradually dribble to an end over time until education will be properly funded, but I recall those times very well. The distinguished contributors now to the social and economic sciences — one of the luminaries being Professor Damien Hannon of the ESRI — went at that time to the mid-west of the US and the grants given by the board were of immense assistance.

At this stage let me reflect on one of the strengths of the board, the qualifications of the people who made the decisions. They were made with an assurance of academic independence and integrity and I had never any doubt that the people who went were of the first order. They not only benefited but as the Minister said correctly, made valuable contributions later. I wish the Minister had said a little more about the qualifications of the people who will sit on the new board. I would like some assurance in this regard. However, I always thought this is effectively an educational matter, a rather rare outcome in the Department of Foreign Affairs. There is some confusion even today about whether this is an educational matter or a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. Anyhow, it is introduced by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, we need an assurance about the qualifications now suggested. There is quite a difference between a board of academics, for example, as I understand prevailed in the days of An Bord Scoláireachtaí Comhalairte and a board composed jointly of ministerial nominations on the one hand and by representatives of the embassy on the other. I would like assurances on the academic content of the ministerial component — which I might readily receive — but also about the appointees from the embassy.

There are those of us who went to the US. I did not avail of this scheme because I was always acting in a slightly different realm and often had to move more quickly. However, I knew all the people involved and I think it would be very useful that we be given absolute assurances that academic criteria alone will govern the issue of awards. We need that on all sides of the House.

There is no explicit commitment to additional funding in this Bill. There is a suggestion — more than that, a statement — that the funding will increase, but there is no clear commitment to the provision of any definite sum of money.

I want assurances on one very important point. The scheme as outlined in the explanatory memorandum and in the Bill itself seems inadequate when it deals with the position of artists. The explanatory memorandum refers to "other related educational and cultural programmes and activities". That requires elaboration and perhaps slight amendment. Because of the exchanges that took place in the eighties, and which will prevail in the nineties, there will be a number of individual artists who will not be part of a general cultural programme. I am talking about individual painters, sculptors, actors, writers, poets, performers and so forth. I need an absolute assurance that none of these forms of the arts is excluded by the wording at 2 (ii) (c) in the explanatory memorandum. Because of the nature of the work of many of these artists, and their contributions, they are not caught in a programme. A cultural programme is something that consists of exchanges. It is built up over time. It may have many different components. It may move from one phase to another, but the kind of people going in both directions very often are operating for short terms within the confines of their own work, perhaps invited by a major institution if going from Ireland to the US, or invited here by a significant group who are interested in the arts. That should be looked at.

I should say a word about the construction of this scheme that has grown out of the fifties. Certainly in the sixties the people who took advantage of the availability of funds to travel to or to stay for periods in the US if going from Ireland were much geared towards technical and applied instruction and they were, so to speak, in the first decade of the postclerical period in Irish social science. They found we went from a clerically dominated social science to a kind of crude empiricism and those of us who were then young had our first exposure to computers, statistical applications and large scale surveys in the US. There we joined many of the other people who had come from different parts of the world, the Latin world and the African world. Then, about the end of the sixties, we were all over our empirical positivistic excess and had moved on to broader and more theoretical concerns. In the seventies, the kind of people going were wider in terms of their orientation in drawing on what had happened in the European academic world and all over the world. In the eighties, the people who came from the other side, from the US, have made distinguished contributions and have moved from specialisms to broader concerns.

This is a very valuable point. For example, in that earlier period some of our very finest people now in the Department of Agriculture studied seed research and animal husbandry in Illinois and places like that and are now all over the place. It is very important that the new board acknowledge that the world of intellectual concern is now much more multidisciplinary rather than specialist. It has also drawn on several different traditions. UCG has received many Fulbright scholars in subjects ranging from law to history, including political science, sociology and so forth. It has always found them very valuable. The fundamental point is that the definition of qualification for receipt of funding must be broad and it also must be flexible. When seeking to match a scholar in a university departments in Ireland with a university in the United States, the titles of the departments will be quite different. A student may come from a department of government in the United States to a department of law in Ireland. The operation must be flexible in every way.

Educational exchanges would be extraordinarily narrow if they were in any sense confined to third level exchanges. Some of the very best value is to be gained from exchanging teachers at primary and secondary levels. If we want to exchange the benefits and the down side of our educational systems — and there are many defects in both our systems — to try to draw from the ethos beneficially and see the negative side, it is useful to look at the totality of the educational system by exchanges at primary and secondary level as well as at third level. Why do people go to the United States in many cases? In the sixties, seventies and eighties one of the main reasons was the very large libraries. Irish libraries were totally under-funded. Unfortunately, because of university budgeting cuts, many Irish universities are cutting back on their contributions to journals. It is no longer possible to keep a complete series of the major journals in any scientific field. The cost of a journal in biochemistry could run to a subscription of perhaps £2,000 or £3,000 per annum. Irish scholars went to America because of the quality of teaching, the capacity for research and the good libraries which were available, with quick and easy access to what was being published in one's field. One could also publish very easily. It is very important that we should not use capacities like this, which are very small, as an excuse for the under-funding of any of our research institutions or third level institutions.

It is at the post-graduate level that the Americans come into their own. They have some physical advantages there. At under-graduate level I have found that the performance of the Irish student is higher on average, at least in my subject. An interface of exchanges which will benefit us both is valuable if it covers the full educational spectrum. It should not cover just the full pedagogic programme but should include the research programme and should go beyond that to include cultural matters. It should not be limited in cultural matters to people who are part of the programme but should include individual artists. That would be a fair summary of my definition of its scope.

It is a limitation to have too strict an institution-to-institution contract forming the basis of the exchange. If one academic institution exhausts its quota it may have to choose between a legal scholar and an agricultural scientist or a poet. It might have used them up for those few years. If it is limited to institution-to-institution relationships we are narrowing it. It may be that a community group altogether separate from an academic institution may want to invite an American writer in residence. Recently a number of them have come for a year to compose music or to write epic poems at the heart of Irish rural communities. It may be that there is not an institution and a department within it which has made the necessary application for such an exchange and the community in the hinterland would lose that opportunity. That is what I mean by flexibility. We must get away from the narrow confines of matched institution-to-institution exchanges.

There is also need for flexibility in relation to time. The idea that one could not make an exchange within so many years of a previous exchange is important. In the sixties and seventies the dominating thinking behind the generosity was that the relationship was one between a developed country which had become urban, industrial and technologically sophisticated and an undeveloped country which was agricultural and rural. Many of the people who went to America went to MIT, for example. The world of the 120 who are the other side of the Fulbright relationship has qualitatively changed. There is no longer a hegemonic economic model towards which all these 120 countries are aiming. There is no longer any kind of hegemonic moral system. The relationship has become at the level of intellect and at the level of work, research and arts more a negotiated relationship of equals, in which people clearly benefit from moving within a wider cultural pool where one hopes that the aspiration is that every country in the world should have the right to tell its own story, when women can participate as well as men and when cultures are regarded as having components which are equal, when religious systems are seen as various paths to truth which have emerged in the history of ideas and of feeling. That is a warm and generous kind of world, even if it is idealistic in many ways, and one towards which we would aspire. That world is very different from a world of utilitarianism. I would hope that that kind of philosophical thrust and understanding and the experience of being in another culture is a valuable thing, maybe even more valuable than the narrow utilitarian focus of the late fifties or early sixties. I hope that will prevail in the thinking of the new board.

We must eliminate as much bureaucracy as we can. It would be very valuable if we were energetic about this, in terms of not leaving it to the individual student to apply. What has happened in practice is that university teachers — I have been one for a long time — have had a certain amount of contact with different departments abroad. When their own students are coming up they introduce them on. One puts oneself in the position of the student coming up to graduate and one has to write all these letters to different institutions elsewhere. One can put oneself in the position of the person receiving all these letters and adjudicating or the person allocated to make awards. It would be very much better to create a relationship with departments and institutions in which there would be an easier way of organising matters so that people would not be so uncertain as to what was happening.

I am happy that thousands of United States students are coming to Ireland, not only for short courses in the summer but participating for entire semesters within our universities and colleges. There are more academics coming. They all realise what a very singularly stupid and offensive suggestion it is to say that those of us, such as myself, who have been morally prepared, and politically felt it necessary, to oppose aspects of the United States foreign policy in one regime or another, are in some way, in the crude ignorant remark, "anti-American". Many of us have been at the heart of America and many of us know and respect the warmth and generosity of the average citizen of the United States who is as appalled as we are when militarism or some kind of hegemonic purpose is used as a substitute for a humanistic foreign policy.

I have made some suggestions with which the Minister may deal in his Second Stage reply.

As the man says, "follow that". It is rather difficult to follow Deputy Higgins on this issue. He has given a magnificent philosophical dissertation on the role and need for student exchange and the benefits that flow from it. Both Deputy Owen and Deputy Higgins have made a far better case for this Bill than the Minister has. The Minister's speech was wanting, it was a lot of waffle stitched up with extracts from the explanatory memorandum and had little or no information. Deputy Owen outlined the background and the development of the idea of the Scholarship Exchange Board.

I fully support the Bill and the benefits that will arise from the educational exchange programme. I would agree with the point made by Deputy Higgins that it is absolutely crazy that scholarship exchange is still a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the Minister for Education has no hand, act or part in it and that she is probably not informed of the exchanges unless she goes out of her way to find out about them. I do not know if there are procedures in place to involve the Department of Education. This programme is a fabulous development of education.

It is only the ubiquitous Minister for Finance who has a say.

The Minister for Finance has his hand in everybody's books. He is only a drawback as far as every Department is concerned.

I presume the Deputy's remarks are referring to the Minister in bureaucratic terms.

Yes, they are in no way personal remarks.

I fully support scholarship exchange which is a good scheme but like all good things, it is just set up and left there. I would like to ask some questions about An Bord Scoláireachtaí Comhalairte which has a statutory duty to make an annual report. It is my information that this board have not produced an annual report since 1983. I have the 1982 annual report in front of me which gives the composition of the board. The Irish members on the board are excellent — Professor Lee, Colm Ó hEocha, Professor Watts and Sarah Nagle. There can be no doubt about their competence. Twelve awards in all were made by the board in 1982 — nine Irish citizens were selected for awards and three awards were made to US citizens for research and lecturing in Irish universities. Travel grants were also awarded. The payments made to 31 March 1982 in respect of these awards, and the balance in respect of awards from a previous year, amounted to £12,900 for Irish citizens and £28,400 for US citizens, a total of approximately £40,000.

In his speech the Minister said the scholarship exchange fund was set up with a capital sum of £500,000 from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account. There is no mention of Ireland having contributed a penny. I take it that they must have been confined to using only the interest on this amount as they spent only £40,000 in 1982. The Minister also said that on the winding up of the Scholarship Exchange Board, the moneys available will be transferred to the credit of the Ireland-United States Educational Fund. What funds are available? Are we not entitled to be told how much of the £500,000 is left? If the interest on this money was used over the years, the original £500,000 could still be intact.

The Minister should also tell us why annual reports were not provided since 1983. Did the Scholarship Exchange Board become defunct through lack of funds and die peacefully? Why did the Minister not give us a full report on their work over the years on the winding up of the board? Have there been financial reports by the board over the years? These are just a few questions that come to mind and I would like the Minister to reply to them.

We are now setting up a new fund. The US are providing $127,000 annually. I cannot say off-hand how much that will come to in punts, perhaps around £80,000, which is not much greater in real terms than the £40,000 spent in 1982. We have not seen a great increase in funding; however, there does not appear to be a penny provided by the Irish Government. Have the Irish Government given a penny since 1957 when the scholarship exchange scheme was set up? Do they intend to give any money now? The Minister pointed out the great benefits of this scheme. There are benefits for the Irish people who go abroad and the American scholars who carry out research in Ireland. If there are such great advantages in this scheme, why do the Government not put money into the programme? Any board will be as good as the amount of money provided to keep it going. That is the bottom line. If money is not provided and if people are constrained at every move, benefits will not accrue.

I would like to have a lot more information from the Minister. Certainly on Committee Stage we would hope to be furnished with information in regard to funding, reporting, annual reports and on the whole issue I mentioned at the beginning, that of the correlation and interdependence between the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Education in this matter.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share