University College Dublin Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Professor Hayes

Yesterday evening, I had just been saying on this Bill that this was not the first report of a Board of Visitors in connection with the National University of Ireland. There was a report last year of a visitation sent to inquire into a point raised by Professor Henchy in the National University itself with regard to a Faculty of Law. That visitation has reported and from the point of view of form and content and approach, I was about to compare these two reports. The two reports I shall call by the name of the chairman in each case.

The report which we are considering now, which I call the Murnaghan Report, does not contain a copy of the Petition which it was considering. It does contain a sentence from Mr. Kenny's Petition but although it does give a number of other quotations, does not give his statement before the Visitors that if the titles were changed, that is, if the words "College Lecturer" were dropped, he would be content. The Report signed by Mr. Justice Ó Dálaigh gives the Petition with which it was dealing in extenso.

There is no acknowledgment in the present Report of a legal case presented in writing to the Visitors on behalf of the College but a number of findings are given which are not supported by any legal argument. The Ó Dálaigh Report contains 13 pages of an appendix which I have before me, 13 pages of closely reasoned arguments on the law, which is headed, "Reasons for the Board's Opinions".

The Report which we are considering here does not give at any point any legal reason for the decisions arrived at.

There are other contrasts between the procedure of the two visitations and between the two Reports. The Ó Dálaigh Report notes that an informal meeting was held with the University authorities before formal proceedings could be begun. That was in accordance with all precedent, the precedent, as I have said before, that these visitations come from the person who granted the Charter and are generally of a friendly character. The Visitors to University College, Dublin, were asked by the authorities of the College to discuss informally the method and scope of the inquiry at a preliminary hearing. They refused to do that.

Having so refused, they circularised certain members of the staff, all the College Lecturers and Assistant College Lecturers, inviting submissions from them. They wrote also to the National University of Ireland, to University College, Cork, University College, Galway and to Saint Patrick's College, Maynooth. None of these bodies shared the view of the Visitors that the visitation to University College, Dublin, was any concern of theirs. Perhaps I could be allowed to say. Sir, that the Visitors threw their nets very wide but that the catch was small. University College, Cork and University College, Galway made no submissions. No College Lecturer and no Assistant Lecturer came forward to make any submission or give any evidence and the Senate of the University replied, as is made clear in the Report and made a little bit unclear as well in page 9 of the Report, by sending a copy of a Resolution passed by the Senate which refused to concede that there had been any irregularities at University College, Dublin.

One professor and one University lecturer made submissions in favour of the Petition but did not appear before the Visitors to give any oral evidence. The only persons who appeared in favour of the Petition were the Petitioner himself, Mr. Kenny, and Professor Henchy, who had made the Petition in connection with the National University of Ireland and who, during the course of the recent hearings, raised a further legal point with regard to University College, Dublin, and raised this point to the National University.

That illustrates the point I was making about the application of a legal magnifying glass to our Charters. We have had two visitations and the threat of a third. If the lawyers want to examine our Charters very carefully, they presumably can have any number of petitions and have any amount of difficulty raised in deciding what is the precise meaning of particular words in particular enactments.

Let me come now to the specific matter upon which the Visitation were appointed. Mr. John Kenny presented a Petition, the point of which was that the College has no power to bestow the title of College Lecturer upon persons who had been employed as Assistants in the main and who had given long service in that capacity in the College. There can be no doubt that the College has power to appoint Assistants. Assistants, who had given approved service, have been appointed and called College Lecturers which gives them higher salaries, increments and pensions and gives them a title which they prefer.

May I say that the title "Assistant" has, I think, disappeared from most Universities in Britain and the title "Lecturer" has been substituted? The net point in the Petition, therefore, was assumed to be a matter of titles, whether Assistants could be called College Lecturers after years of service. That and no more, was what was referred to the Visitors for determination by them.

The Report of the Visitors on that point, which I shall quote later, is not particularly clear but it is accepted by the Minister and all of us as meaning that the College has not the power to give the title "College Lecturer", to Assistants. The Visitors, however, go far beyond that particular matter of legal interpretation—this is my point about irrelevancy—and set down verdicts against the Governing Body of University College, Dublin—in general they talk about the policy of the Governing Body—and against the President of University College, Dublin, in particular. These verdicts read more like the factual findings of a jury than the reasoned decisions of judges.

Inferentially, the Visitors condemned the Senate of the University and the General Council of County Councils. It is worthy of note that when the 1908 Act was being passed, the local representatives in Cork and Galway were confined to the local bodies, in the one case, in Munster and in the other, in Connaught. The local representatives for the Dublin College Governing Body were selected—the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a representative of the County Council of Dublin and eight representatives of the General Council of County Councils. Perhaps, the people who framed the 1908 Act had an idea that the Dublin College would, as has been proved to be the case, find students from all over the country.

The Senate of the University, as I shall explain later on, also comes in for criticism from the Visitors. The Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly, who for a number of years was in University College, Cork, and President of that College, stated in an article which appeared in the Irish Independent on May 10th that the Report contains irrelevancies, inaccuracies and insinuations. These, it seems to me, are mild and charitable words in which to describe this document.

The Petitioner, in the course of his evidence, said that if the titles were changed, he would be content but the Visitors were not content. There are many quotations in the Report but this particular quotation from Mr. Kenny does not appear and is not quoted. The Visitors travelled far beyond the question of titles and they insinuated in the Report, in the last paragraph, that a change had been made in the method of appointment which could lend itself to patronage. The Report is explicitly confined by the Visitors to the past 10 years. Therefore, one must assume that that word "patronage" was used to imply that there was a change in the method of appointment and that the present President and the Governing Body are guilty of patronage.

The system of making appointments has not been changed. Mr. John Kenny, the Petitioner in this case, was appointed a couple of years ago as an Assistant to the Law Faculty on the nomination of Professor Patrick McGilligan after his name had gone to the Academic Council and the Governing Body. I was appointed in January, 1912, quite a long time ago, on the nomination of a Professor of French and by exactly the same process as that under which Mr. Kenny became an assistant in University College, Dublin, a couple of years ago. The President, it has been alleged, has power to appoint people on the academic staff. That is not so.

In order that there will be no question of being invidious, let me take my own case. If I wanted, as I did want since I became Professor, an Assistant, I would have to find out first whether money would be provided. I wanted an Assistant to deal with Scottish Gaelic. I did not want to appoint a University Lecturer and be saddled for years with somebody whom I had not seen at work. I wanted to get somebody who would come here and work as an assistant, and be promoted, perhaps, later. I established first whether money would be forthcoming. Then, not by advertisement, but by writing to the Professor in Glasgow and the Professor in Edinburgh and to the only person alive, as far as I know, Mr. Calum MacLean, who is a native speaker of Scottish Gaelic and a first-class speaker of Irish and who knew something about our circumstances, we got a man and paid his expenses over here. The Lecturer in Modern Irish and I saw him. He said he would come but, unfortunately, instead of coming to Dublin, he went to Cyprus in the British Army as a conscript. The man we got a couple of years afterwards wrote in September to say that he had got a far bigger salary in Glasgow. Our choice must have been very good. We finally got somebody who is an Irish speaker because he is married to a native Irish speaker. Because of that, he will presumably be anxious to stay in this country. Native speakers of Scotch Gaelic with a University education are very often students for the Presbyterian ministry and naturally do not desire to come here.

That has to go to the Celtic Faculty. The Celtic Faculty contains people who know Irish extremely well and are good judges. It goes to the Academic Council and the Academic Council contains other people who know Irish well. It then goes to the Finance Committee and then to the Governing Body. All that would dispose of the charge of patronage. I think that in the Report of this body, which was not asked to deal with this matter, the introduction of a word charged with a certain amount of emotion and atmosphere like patronage is quite unworthy of three gentlemen of judicial standing.

On page 4, the Board finds—

1. That the College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are not Assistants whom the College is empowered to appoint and remove by virtue of the College Charter, Clause III (5).

It therefore appears that College Lecturers are not Assistants. On the other hand, on page 7 of the Report, the Board states that "it is satisfied that the members of the staff involved are in fact Lecturers". To the reader, therefore, it would appear that Lecturers under the provisions of certain documents are not Assistants but that Assistants in truth and in fact are Lecturers. Nowhere in the Report is there any definition of the word "Lecturer". It would be interesting to have such a definition and to a layman it would appear that such a definition is necessary. The Visitors make no suggestion as to how this difficulty of their own creation is to be got over. Perhaps this peculiar situation could be more adequately dealt with in Irish where there are two verbs "to be", one of identity and the other of being or essence. A member of the Staff of University College, Dublin, could say: "Nílim im léachtóir feasta, ach cé déarfadh ná. gur léachtóir mé?"—"I can't be called a Lecturer for the future but who will deny that I am a Lecturer?"

Page 9 of the Report is a further excellent example of the state of mind of the person who drafted this Report. The statement is made on page 9 that the course adopted by University College, Dublin, "might affect not only the University but the other Constituent Colleges." None of these bodies, however, appeared before the Board and, in the words of Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly, the Visitors have "sorrowfully" to admit that the Senate of the University also refused to adopt the Board's interpretation.

On page 9 of the Report we read: "A special meeting of the Senate was held on the 13th February, 1958, to consider the Committee's report. It was agreed by a majority of 15 to 5 (there were 28 members recorded as being present) ‘That the Senate take no further action, not being convinced that there has been irregularity in the proceedings of University College, Dublin.' As far as the Board is aware, the Senate did not obtain the legal opinion suggested by this Committee." The 28 members are put in juxtaposition with the vote so as to convey the impression that 20 people voted but that 28 people were present.

That statement is untrue and the visitors must surely have known it was untrue. It must surely be an example of wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of the Senate of the National University of Ireland. There is only one way of finding out how many people are present. The minutes are given with the list of people present. As you go in, you sign your name in a book. The writer of this Report must have totted up the names. I accept his tot—he is probably right. Twenty-eight is the number. But he says "there were 28 members recorded as being present." He omits "at the meeting" for the purpose of giving a particular colour to what happened when the vote was taken.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

He states the fact.

Professor Hayes

He does not state the fact. Let me get this clear. Everybody here and everybody who has ever attended a county council meeting or any other meeting knows that the number of people recorded as present at a meeting and the number of people present for a vote are two completely different things.

Let me repeat, because apparently I have not made myself clear to some of my friends opposite. The vote is stated. The motion is carried by 15 votes to 5. On page 9 of the Report, we read:

It was agreed by a majority of 15 to 5 (there were 28 members recorded as being present) ...

The words "at the meeting" are omitted to convey the impression to the reader that 20 people voted and that eight other people present did not vote. That interpretation is not true.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

You put that interpretation on it.

Professor Hayes

In this view, I am apparently supported by the Reverend Dr. O'Rahilly who says that the Visitors have "sorrowfully" to admit that the Senate of the University also refused to adopt the board's interpretation. The Visitors are at pains to convey that there were eight people present who did not vote. All of us who have experience of general elections, by-elections and Seanad elections, know the old story about the people who did not vote. They were always on my side, were they not? It is not always true but that is the argument and that is what is meant to be conveyed here—that eight people who were present did not vote.

Nothing in the minutes of the Senate of the National University can justify such a conclusion. I was present and I know the conclusion is not true. Though the conclusion is untrue and indeed misleading, it does show the state of mind of the person who drafted the Report. He regrets that the Senate passed such a Resolution because his own mind is made up in another direction. It is the mind of an anxious advocate rather than a detached investigator.

On page 4 of the Report, there are two findings, one dealing with the present policy of the Governing Body about which the Report gives no details, no explanations and no reasons. The second finding is with regard to the President of University College, Dublin. On that finding, an immense outpouring of filth has resulted.

What is said is that "the failure to take the proper and necessary steps to fill vacancies in these ‘statutory offices' is a breach of the duties imposed on the President of the College by Statute I, chapter iv, section 17 and chapter xiv, section I." Not a single word or argument is stated to prove that. No summary evidence in support of that charge is given. That is simply left there and the board passes on. In other words, they take the head of our most important educational institution, accuse him of a breach of duty and pass gaily on to give us disquisitions about whether Professors should be in control of their departments.

The clear intention here is to imply that when a Professor dies or resigns, his post must be filled and that somewhere in the Statutes there is placed upon the President the duty of taking "the proper and necessary steps to fill vacancies in statutory offices." No such words as the words used in the Report are to be found in the Charter, statute or anywhere else. They are words invented by the writer of the Report. One would imagine that, in a matter so important as this, words would have been carefully weighed and that the words used would have been the words in the statute but that is not so.

No such words as these used by the Visitors occur anywhere except in the Report. As the words stand in the Report, they are incorrect, inaccurate and misleading. They are certainly unfortunate and far from what one would expect from judicial personages. The Visitors should surely have adverted to the fact that when a Professor or a University Lecturer dies or resigns, there are four different courses open to the College: The first is that the Governing Body may go ahead and fill the vacancy; the second is that they may alter the Statute governing the office and create new conditions; the third is—and it is not stated at all here—they may "extinguish the office"; and they may adjourn or postpone consideration of the vacancy for any period they please. One would imagine that the Board of Visitors would have adverted to these four choices. In the light of these provisions, showing that the office could be entirely abolished or extinguished, the implication that the President of the College has the duty to take steps to fill a vacancy must surely be considered to be wrong. How does anybody have a duty to take proper steps to fill a vacancy when in fact somebody else has a right to keep the vacancy from being filled at all? That is the position. It is a well-known position and anybody could have told the Visitors.

The Visitors, when dealing with the President of our largest and most important educational institution, should surely have sought some evidence from both sides. They should have inquired and revealed whether the failure was substantial or merely formal. Everybody has a number of duties imposed on him. Some are substantial and some are merely formal. For my own part, I have substantial duties, such as the duties of an examiner, and I have formal duties such as notifying a colleague, perhaps in Cork, of something. If in a week when I have examinations, as I had last week for four days, I do not write a letter to somebody which I should, that surely could be regarded as a formal breach of duty. It is quite a different thing from not performing my substantial duties.

If they concluded after inquiry that there had been failure, surely the Visitors might have found out what was the practice of former Presidents of University College, Dublin, before Dr. Michael Tierney took office, and they surely might have found out what the present practice is in the other Colleges and what it has been in the other Colleges.

Another point arises on this charge regarding the President of University College, Dublin. No notice was ever given to the President of University College, Dublin, of this accusation. No effort was made by the Visitors to hear what the President or any other officer had to say about this accusation. There is no indication on the face of the Report that any evidence was obtained by the Visitors to support the accusation or the finding. The finding carefully omits to state what precise duty it is in which they find the President has failed. There is a reference to a College Statute which is not quoted. It states "He shall report without delay to the Vice-Chancellor the occurrence of a vacancy in any Professorship or Lectureship of the College to which the University is entitled to appoint." The Visitors do not advert to the fact, surely a very interesting fact, that for four of the ten years in question the President was himself Vice-Chancellor. Did he fail in his duty by not notifying Vice-Chancellor Michael Tierney of the existence of a vacancy in the College presided over by President Michael Tierney? Was he expected to make reports to himself or is there evidence available that he did not give reports to himself? Is there any evidence from any other Vice-Chancellor? There is no Vice-Chancellor referred to as giving evidence.

The second reference is to Chapter XIV, section 1, where it is disclosed— and it is presumed the Visitors have read that—that the Governing Body can alter the Statute dealing with the office or can extinguish the office altogether. I find it difficult to understand how three judicial personages are able to make a finding of this character. If a schoolboy were accused of not having a light on his bicycle he would get a summons stating what Section of what Act he had contravened. He could appear before a Court either himself, or his father or solicitor or barrister could represent him. Evidence would be heard about him but here the President of University College, Dublin, is condemned without any evidence, without notice being given to him, without any evidence being heard from him or on his behalf. The public position and the personal reputation of the President of University College, Dublin, are as important as those of any Judge in any Court of the land. He has been condemned and held up to public odium without notice to him, without being heard and as far as this document shows without any evidence of any kind. He has been so condemned not by a Court or by any finding which has legal force or effect. These people were not a Court and their finding unsupportable by evidence and unsupported by any form of justification has been to vilify Dr. Michael Tierney and to decry everyone, whether Professor or County Councillor who has been concerned in the government of University College, Dublin.

There are other things one could say in regard to notice to the Vice-Chancellor. When a Professor dies, they pass a vote of sympathy in the Academic Council. Is that notice to the Vice-Chancellor? One could imagine this President in some rather occult and devious manner preventing University College, Dublin, from knowing there were statutory vacancies. How could he do that? When a Professor dies a vote of sympathy is passed at the Governing Body. When a Professor resigns, when he has passed the statutory period and is going out on pension the Governing Body fixes his pension and gratuity. Perhaps that is not notice. Mark you, I have never heard of a statutory vacancy about which everybody did not know but yet these people made this accusation lightheartedly and then passed on. It is a matter of great importance and their behaviour in that matter is entirely unworthy of any person holding a judicial position.

Before I come to the Bill—and I am sure. Sir, you are wondering if I am coming to the Bill—may I make a few other remarks about this Report? On Page 4 of the Report, the third finding is that "The College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are paid out of public funds". Again, there is the suppression of certain information. The funds of the College out of which everybody is paid are a single fund. It is made up of students' fees and Government grants and a very small amount of income comes from bequests of one kind or another. The Government grants at the moment are higher than the students' fees but there is not much difference and it is about fifty-fifty. One would imagine that the Visitors, if they were to be accurate, would have stated that they were paid out of a mixed fund which consists, for more than half of its income, of an amount from Government grants but they do not say that.

On page 7—I have said that they did not grasp some of these things—there is a paragraph at the end of the page which discusses certain principles of University organisation. One of them is a principle which I never heard of, but that perhaps is not important. Quite clearly, the Visitors are unaware of the difference between a Department and a Faculty. I think most educated people know the difference between a Faculty and a Department.

The paragraph reads: "In the third place it was put forward that from the purely administrative point of view"— I am not quite clear what that means here—"it was preferable to have a Faculty or Department headed by a Professor..."

The Minister of course knows that there is a difference between the Medical Faculty and a Department of anatomy or physiology or any of these things. Perhaps it is a small point but the people who wrote this report and made grave charges and who spent a long time reading documents and hearing evidence—at the end of all their labours they are unable to distinguish the elementary difference between a Faculty and a Department. They go on to say:

As against this view it was submitted that it was a bad University principle to have a Professor in absolute charge of his Faculty or Department.

I do not understand that. The National University of Ireland is depending on an Act of Parliament, on a Charter and Statutes. We happen to be bound, as, for example, Trinity College is not bound, to give lectures, to hold examinations and only to give decrees to people who attend a suitable course of lectures and who have passed examinations. To carry out these duties, we need an organisation and surely organisation implies authority. Surely the notion that a Professor should not be in charge of his department is a very difficult one to grasp. I do not understand what it means. It may be a University principle very much discussed but I do not remember reading of a discussion of it in anything I ever came across.

And they are quite right. But what is the question of principle? I never heard of the principle that the Professor was not to be in charge of his department. I never heard that and I do not know how it is to be argued. They had time to tell us that; they had time and room to tell us that they were not going to express any opinion about it but they had no room to tell us what evidence they had against the President of University College, Dublin.

I know what is wrong about it. The word "control" is confused. They think that the control of staff means that you tell the staff what to do and also tell them, when you are a Professor, what to say. That is also something I never came across. I never heard of it. The first thing I ever did as far back as 1912 was when a Frenchman handed me a syllabus for First Year and said: "Go into that class and do that." And I was never told what to say ever since. I never told anybody since. I have been Assistant, Acting Professor, University Lecturer and Professor in charge of a big department and I certainly have never dictated to anybody what they should say and I never heard of anybody in University College, Dublin, giving such dictation.

As a matter of fact, we had a particular case of a controversy recently in the new spelling of Irish and when a particular assistant of mine expressed the view to me that he had certain opinions about it, all I said was: "Well, you go in and tell the Third Year Honours Class your own opinion." And he did. That is my idea of University education. Evidently the Board of Visitors think freedom of expression does not operate in University College, Dublin. They are quite wrong.

A final word on this. This whole arrangement was made or was intended to improve the conditions of the staff concerned. University Professors and University Lecturers. They have received increments, pensions and titles as indicated and, as indicated in this report, a five-year contract was offered to a certain number of them recently. It might very well have been that the time spent by the College officers on this visitation might have been more profitably devoted to further improving the general position of the staff.

University College, Dublin, is carrying out a very important piece of work under appallingly bad conditions and with a chronic shortage of money. The Governing Body, various Governing Bodies and various Presidents—Governing Bodies for the past 12 years and President Michael Tierney—have worked what must be called literally miracles in the circumstances. Is it to be expected that we should do our work as a Chartered Body with a lawyer looking over our shoulder parsing and construing the Charter and Statutes and insisting on that construction without any regard to the facts for needs of development? Such a situation would be intolerable.

Yesterday, in the Dáil, a very good example of it occurred and I intend to advert to that. We were threatened with that kind of situation and we did not accept it in the Governing Body of University College, Dublin. We were told of a legal opinion which declared that we had not power to call certain persons on the staff Lecturers. We refused to get legal opinion on that and the non-academic members from county councils were most strongly against getting any further legal opinion. As a matter of fact, as a member of the Governing Body myself, I got a legal opinion through a solicitor from a very eminent counsel and I found that it fortified the view which the Governing Body had.

But see how futile it would be for us to get legal opinion. Yesterday we had proceedings in the Dáil and there was a very clear statement from the Taoiseach which illustrates how right University College, Dublin, was not to get entangled in this business of legal opinions. It was made clear by the Taoiseach, as he said, that over many years a certain meaning had been given by the State, by the officers of State, by various Attorneys General and by the Courts to the words "term" and "sitting". Now, it appears by a Court decision that the law has been declared to be otherwise. That is a very interesting commentary on the common-sense displayed by University College, Dublin.

Three High Court Judges, the Taoiseach said, including the President of the High Court, held that the words "term" and "sitting" had always been properly construed. The Chief Justice and one Supreme Court Judge agreed that the position existing over many years was correct. Three Supreme Court Judges—two of whom had been Attorneys General, by the way—held otherwise and since they constituted a majority of the Supreme Court, that settled the interpretation of the law in 1960. Five out of eight Superior Judges held one opinion and three others another, so that University College, Dublin, might have got five opinions in favour of what it was doing and three against and still find that, on judicial interpretation, they were wrong.

As a matter of fact, if these three gentlemen who were Visitors had been acting in fact as a court and making a judicial decision on this matter they might still have been wrong—their opinion might be reversed. In the words of the well-known medieval Irish character Mac Conglinne "Is caol an rud an dlí". That is very hard to translate but it means the law is a difficult, subtle and unpredictable thing. It is all said in one word in Irish. "Is caol an rud an dlí". Thus U.C.D. could have got any number of legal opinions, and we might still in the long run, be proved not to be right according to the letter of the law. What we were doing was giving better conditions to our staff, and what the Department and the State have been doing is keeping people in jail contrary to what is now declared to be the law. That is very interesting. Is it to be said that they have been acting illegally over all those years? Speaking for myself, I hope not.

Is it to be assumed as some overenthusiastic Professor of law stated at Convocation that the Government and those Attorneys General were failing to recognise the rule of law because the Supreme Court decided a few days ago that views held for years were wrong? Surely not. Yet all these accusations have been made against University College, Dublin. I think there was even a photograph in the papers of Doctor Michael Tierney as the lawbreaker. They can add to that photograph now, a photograph of a few ex-Attorneys General and various judges. There would be a great gallery. All this abuse that has been cast upon us is quite without foundation.

Charters are not meant to be strait-jackets and have rarely been so interpreted. Very few bodies can work to rule. As a matter of fact, when busmen start working to rule, is not that the same as a strike? Is not working to rule something near to chaos? Does it not mean that people are late for work, for meals and for everything? I wonder if a careful examination of the rules of court would not disclose that the judges, in the interests of justice and in the interest of the speedy transaction of business, do not always carry out the letter of the rule. In this House, if all the work were carried out to the letter of the Standing Orders, business would be very considerably slowed up. Certainly in the Dáil, in my experience, if the letter of the law of Standing Orders were carried out, a great many amendments would never appear on the Order Paper in so far as you have to give, or send to Leinster House, the whole matter in writing signed by two Deputies. Think of what that would mean if it were proposed that the Standing Orders should be rigidly enforced. It is not done.

In the Dáil, on the conclusion of the Second Reading of a Bill, the rule is that the Ceann Comhairle puts the question at once. He does not always do that. If there is a Bill—and there are a great many such Bills—on which no political passion has been engendered, the Ceann Comhairle allows people to ask rather elaborate questions because by doing so, the next stage is shortened and he allows the Minister to answer those questions. I remember shocking a very eminent front bench member of the Opposition in Leinster House when I was in the Chair. He asked would the Ceann Comhairle read a Standing Order and I said: "The Ceann Comhairle has not read the Standing Orders for years." He was very shocked.

With regard to the Bill itself which is based on the acceptance of the Report, it seems to me that Section 3 is unnecessary. On the argument I have made and which was made to the Visitors, the acts done by University College, Dublin, were not invalid because they were all done in good faith under the Charter for the furtherance of the objects of the Charter. Assistants who had given good service were classified as College Lecturers, as a form of promotion, carrying a higher salary scale and a more acceptable title. That was done in good faith, with the consent and approval of the Governing Body, for the better performance of the teaching functions of the college. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Report carefully avoided saying that the appointments were invalid or that any illegalities were involved. In our view, they were legal and valid. The Minister, however, presumably after taking advice, has come to the conclusion that this Bill is necessary and that it is for the benefit of University College, and I accept that view.

Section 2 of the Bill, to which I made some allusion last night, on its face appears to give the College power to appoint college lecturers for limited periods, until such time as a University Commission shall have reported. The Minister, however, has given a different construction. It seems to him that the College will have power to appoint College Lecturers but not power to create the office of College Lecturer. I think I am correct in that. He has now brought the University Senate into the picture.

I do not know whether he has examined the University Charter and the practice of the Senate, but it appears to me that the scheme outlined by the Minister would be difficult to work. I cannot speak for University College, Dublin, but I presume they will do their best to work it. It gives to the Senate of the University powers which it has never heretofore enjoyed. I wonder is it worth the Minister's while to examine the Charter of the University and see whether in fact the Senate of the University has the powers already or whether the section needs to give the powers. At the same time, I should like to go on record as not being enthusiastic, to put it in its mildest form, about the notion that the Charter should be amended by a public Bill.

The Senate of the University has no machinery available to it to make some of the decisions on which the Minister has spoken. If a college decides it needs a lecturer in a particular subject, the Senate of the University, I think, has no machinery to enable it to decide whether it should be a College Lecturer or a University Lecturer. However, we can go into all that on Committee Stage.

The real lesson from all these proceedings is that the Colleges of the National University and the University itself should have power to suggest to the Government amendments to the various Charters. It was by the exercise of the Royal prerogative that the Government appointed visitors to the College. Would it not be possible to exercise the same prerogative to alter or amend the Charters which were framed more than 50 years ago?

This is the position which obtains in Queen's University, Belfast, and in Dublin University, or Trinity College. Trinity College is a private University which has a Charter and it receives grants from public funds. The visitors to Trinity College are their own Chancellor and Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore. But Trinity College has the right, presumably after certain internal processes, to suggest to the Government an amendment to its Charter and the Government, after consideration, are enabled to make such amendments. That surely is what should be done in the case of University College, Dublin, and its sister colleges. We should not be put in an inferior position to another College in Dublin city with regard to the amending of our Charter.

The Bill and the Report have been made an occasion of gross misrepresentation and venomous personal attacks upon University College, Dublin, as an institution and upon its principal officers.

The reason for that is not far to seek. University College, Dublin, is a success. Under the guidance of successive Presidents and Governing Bodies and particularly in the past 12 years, with different Governing Bodies and under Dr. Michael Tierney, it has overcome enormous difficulties. Lack of space is one—it is as difficult to get a room in University College, Dublin at 7 o'clock in the evening as it is at 10 o'clock in the morning. That is a fact. Lack of money; a steadily increasing student body; an ever-changing and widening scope for University work—as every University man knows, the whole scope of University work is increasing; and the need to fit University College to fill the needs of a modern State.

When University College was established in 1909, when it came into the National University, there was one Professor of Engineering, Professor Pierce Purcell, who is happily still with us. Then a Professorship of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering was created. Then electrical engineering was separated and a Professor of Electrical Engineering was appointed. Then a few years ago, a Professor of Chemical Engineering was appointed. Not being in that particular Faculty and not pretending to special knowledge, I am not sure whether they are finished.

Obviously there are things which, if we had the money and the space, we ought to do. For example, there ought to be a Chair of Russian History and there ought to be a Chair of American History. We are at the present moment teaching a considerable amount of Russian but we have no Lectureship in that subject yet. May I say that there were proceedings, not the same, but similar to this, a long time ago, in 1917, when a far-seeing President of University College, Cork, thought he would like to have a Lectureship in Russian in University College, Cork? That shows how go ahead they are there.

Similarly, in the present atomic age, there are all kinds of things we ought to have which we have not got the money to get. But, in the light of its achievements. University College has every reason to be proud. With the consent and assistance of various Governments, it has acquired a very fine site for its buildings adjacent to the city. It has received from the Dáil, on the motion of the present Minister for Education, overwhelming approval for the moving of the College to an adequate site and for the beginning of the provision of adequate buildings. It is grateful to those who have helped it. I think, Sir, it will survive its critics and play an increasingly important rôle in the future.

Mr. Ryan

Before I deal with some of the matters in the Bill, I should like to compliment Senator Hayes on the very spirited defence he has made of the College authorities. It is a pity in a way that he did not come to the legal profession because he has used with great skill two devices well known to the legal profession. It is well known that if you have a really bad case, you do two things: you get into a row with the judge, if you can, and, secondly, you put forward submissions which are as irrelevant as possible. Senator Hayes has done both these things very skilfully but I am confident that when the dust has settled, the facts concerning this matter will be just as clear as they were before Senator Hayes started.

The Bill before the Seanad is one which must be of considerable interest to every member here but I have no doubt that it is of special interest to any graduate of the University. U.C.D. is entitled to the loyalty of its graduates. It is entitled to the loyalty of anyone in this country who appreciates the very valuable work which it has done in the building of the nation during the past 50 years. It has many achievements to its credit. It has many outstanding graduates. It has many eminent men on its staff. But those who have the interests of U.C.D. at heart cannot overlook the situation which has been disclosed by the report of the Visitors appointed by the Government. It would, be of no service, in my view, to U.C.D. to pretend that nothing was wrong. The aim of anybody who has the interests of the College at heart should be, not to try to hide what has happened, but to try as far as possible to put the position in order.

It has been suggested that nothing is really wrong at all. Senator Hayes does not admit that anything was wrong. The suggestion in letters to the paper, and so on, is that all this has been a storm in a teacup and that it was only a quibble about titles. Anyone accepting the report of the Visitors cannot agree that the controversial situation that has been disclosed is merely a matter of titles.

It is noteworthy that, practically without exception, those who have defended the position that has been disclosed in U.C.D. are people connected with the University. Many of these people, indeed, have a personal interest in the existing system in the College.

Professor Hayes

I have none, Sir. I am too old. It is very sad.

Mr. Ryan

Consequently, when we are considering whether or not there is anything wrong in U.C.D., we have to decide for ourselves whether we shall get a picture which is more likely to be a correct picture of the situation there from the Visitors who were sent there by the Government or from these interested parties.

The Board of Visitors consisted of three distinguished and disinterested judges. They made a report which sets out their findings. They had no axe to grind in this. They had no interest. They can be regarded as detached observers who went in and reported on matters as they found them. Any reasonable person must take the view that we are more likely to get a true picture of the situation which has existed in the College from these three Visitors than from the people who have been defending the practices who, in almost all cases, are interested parties or, at least, parties connected with the University College.

Consequently, I have no hesitation whatever in accepting the Visitors' report and their findings and in considering this Bill and in considering the situation which has arisen, in any statements I make and any decisions I come to, I am going on the basis that I accept the Visitors' report.

I believe that the Visitors deserve the thanks of the Government who appointed them and of this House for the very clear and very objective report which they gave on the situation they found during their visitation. Not only do they deserve our thanks but they deserve to be defended against the very clumsy and irrelevant attacks which have been made upon them in the Dáil and in this House and in various other quarters. They deserve to be defended and they have not been defended up to now. Anybody in this House who accepts their Report should say, when they are accepting the Report, that the judges are worthy of thanks and of defence.

I should like to ask Senator Hayes whether he proposes to vote for this Bill or not. For nine-tenths of his speech, his case seemed to be that there was no reason or no necessity whatever for this Bill. Consequently, if he is sincere and consistent in his view that this Report is all wrong, that there is no necessity to validate what has happened, that there have been no illegalities or irregularities, he should vote against this Bill. Anyone who is in favour of the Bill cannot, to my mind, consistently reject the Report. If you are for the Report, you are for the Bill, but if you are not for the Report and if you do not accept it, then, to be consistent, you must also be against the Bill because if the Report is wrong, if the findings of the Report are wrong, if there are no irregularities, then there is no need for this Bill, or to put it another way: it is only because the Report is right that the Bill is necessary. I accept the Report and, consequently, I believe the Bill is necessary.

I believe it is necessary, in the first place, to validate certain appointments which have been made because otherwise a number of innocent parties might suffer. If a number of people who were appointed were suddenly to discover that their appointments were invalid, I think it would be quite unfair to them. For their sake, I think the second part of the Bill is necessary.

I think it is also necessary because there were certain members of the Governing Body who voted for these appointments and if the appointments were invalid and if public moneys were wrongly used in paying these people, then it is possible that the members of the Governing Body could be surcharged. There are some members of the Governing Body who can be described as innocent parties. They were probably given the impression that what was happening was quite all right and that they need not worry about it. They are all adult people who should have made it their business to make sure that what they were doing was correct. I am describing them in a loose way as innocent parties in this. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and be protected by the portion of the Bill which validates what has happened.

The first part of the Bill deals with appointments for a temporary period in the future. I think that also is necessary, but I also think they should be for a very short time. The Bill gives power to make certain appointments for two years and possibly for a further two. Personally, I think that it a bit too long, but I do agree that it is necessary. While the situation is being remedied and while the Commission on Higher Education is sitting, it is necessary to allow a certain system of appointments to carry on for the moment.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Why not let the Senator make his case?

Mr. Ryan

Most of what has happened is merely a breach of the Charters but some of what has happened is also an illegal act. In this sense, it is illegal. The 1908 University Act laid down in Section 7 that any sums paid under the section shall be applied by the Governing Body in accordance with the Charter or the Statutes. Accordingly, any appointments which were made and any College Lecturers who were appointed in breach of Charter and were subsequently paid, were paid partly out of public funds. That was clearly in defiance of the Act of 1908 and clearly an illegal action.

It has been suggested, as I said earlier, that it was only a question of title that was involved in this matter, but let us take, for instance, the attempt some years ago to appoint a Professor of Econometrics. It was proposed to appoint Mr. Geary. It is quite clear in that case that that was more than a question of title. It cannot be suggested—I do not think anybody would attempt to suggest—that Mr. Geary whom it was proposed to appoint would be merely an Assistant and that he was going to be called Professor. In that case, there was clearly an attempt to appoint somebody, to call him something which was clearly in breach of the Charter. That was not by any stretch of the imagination merely a question of title because I am quite sure that if he had been appointed, the salary which he would have been paid would be the same as that of any other Professor and not the same as an Assistant.

Professor Hayes

That was not so. That was never contemplated.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Why not let the Senator make his case?

Mr. Ryan

It is a matter of fact. Let me quote from page 5 of the Board of Visitors' Report in relation to the appointment of Mr. Geary as College Professor in 1956:—

(1) "That the Governing Body is of opinion that legal advice in writing be obtained as to the legality of the proposed College Professorship of Econometrics in University College, Dublin in relation to the Charters of the National University of Ireland and University College, Dublin as a Constituent College, respectively;"

(2) that the proposer told the meeting that he had obtained legal opinion to the effect that the Governing Body would not be legally entitled to make such an appointment, and

(3) that after discussion the motion was defeated.

The Minutes of 26th June, 1956, record:—

(1) that the proposer of the resolution at the earlier meeting stated that a legal opinion by Senior and Junior Counsel had been circulated to all members of the Governing Body and that on the basis thereof he opposed the appointment of Dr. Geary, and

(2) that Dr. Geary was appointed by a large majority.

That was an appointment, or an attempted appointment, which was clearly going far beyond the question of title. It was an appointment that was made, in spite of the fact that legal opinion had been given that the College was not entitled to make it.

Of course, legal opinion can be wrong but the Governing Body made no attempt to get any legal opinion or to investigate the matter. The attitude was that they wanted to make the appointment and, regardless of whether or not they were entitled to make the appointment, they proposed to do it.

It has been said, as far as the College authorities are concerned, that legal opinions are like impure thoughts: they are things that are no harm to have but you must not entertain them. It seems clear that the other appointments. Lectureships, were made in the same spirit as the appointment or purported appointment of Professor Geary. I do not think there was any difference in the attitude. I think both were made in breach of Charter. In neither case was it merely a question of title.

The Visitors expressly found in connection with the appointment not only of Professors but of Lecturers:

(1) That the College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are not Assistants whom the College is empowered to appoint and remove by virtue of the College Charter Clause III (5);

(2) That the College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are appointed by the Governing Body to offices so described;

(3) That the College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are paid out of public funds.

The Visitors also found, in connection with these appointments, as reported on Page 8 of the Report:

The question whether or not the College has the power to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers depends on the terms of the College Charter. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the arguments advanced in support of the claim of the College that it has power to appoint not only College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers but also College Professors, but having given careful consideration to the submissions of Counsel the Board has no doubt but that on the true construction of the College Charter and, in particular, of Clauses III and XII thereof the claim is misconceived.

In addition to the fact that appointments were made which were in breach of Charter, which is the principal objection raised in this matter, there is also the fact that appointments should have been made which were not made. The Governing Body failed to take the necessary steps to have the statutory appointments made.

We learn from the Report that at present there are ten vacant Professorships and 29 vacant Lectureships in the College and that this represents more than half the total of such appointments. That is quite true. What the Report exactly says is this:

The Board finds:

1. That it is part of the present policy of the Governing Body to leave unfilled many "statutory" Lectureships (approximately 53% are at present unfilled).

2. That the failure to take the proper and necessary steps to fill vacancies in these "statutory offices" is a breach of the duties imposed on the President of the College by Statute I, chapter iv, section 17, and chapter xiv, section 1.

It may be said, as it has been said, that the College is not obliged to fill these positions. Without going into the matter very fully, I am prepared to accept that it is not obligatory immediately to fill every vacancy that takes place. When we find that more than half of these statutory positions are vacant, it cannot be denied that this is out of all proportion to the true and proper position. Although some leniency and some reasonable time may be allowed to fill these posts, it is quite unreasonable and beyond all proportion, when the position has been reached that more than half of these posts are vacant and have been vacant for some considerable time.

One must ask, one must inquire, one must try to find out for oneself, why this situation has been allowed to develop, why these irregular appointments were made and why the regular and statutory appointments were not made. There must be some reason for this position. Whether it is a good one or not is another matter but there must be a reason why this situation has developed. It is not one which suddenly happened. It is one which apparently has been deliberately allowed to happen.

On Page 6 of the Report, the Visitors say:

Counsel appearing on behalf of the College declined to give any reason for the decision to appoint College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers, and did not attempt to justify these appointments on any meritorious basis. It was left to individual members of the staff of the College to give to the Board their own personal reasons for supporting and approving of the actions of the Governing Body in this regard.

The reasons given were four in number. One reason was that it was difficult to get staff unless they were allowed to call themselves "Lecturers". They felt that the title of "Assistant" did not sound important enough. Secondly, it was said that the method of appointment was unwieldy. In that regard the Visitors say:

The Board is not satisfied, as at present advised, that the method of appointment laid down by Charter, divorced from the practice referred to is of itself unwieldy.

They agree the practice which has grown up for statutory appointments is unwieldy but they suggest it is not the fault of the Charter but of the practice which has grown up.

The third reason given for this system of appointment is that the College authorities have the advantage of being able to offer a job to a suitable person. If it is a job which they may have some difficulty in filling, they can offer a suitable person the job on the spot and get him in that way, when they might otherwise have difficulty in getting somebody. That is an understandable reason for appointing people in that way but whether or not it is justified is another matter.

The fourth reason given was that from an administrative point of view it is better to have staff under the Professor; it is better for discipline and administration. This reason has many ramifications to which I shall refer later.

What is clear about all these arguments in favour of the present system of appointment is that they are all based on expediency. It may be a very much simpler system; it may be a much more workable system to be able to tap a person on the shoulder and say: "We want you," and that is the end of it, with no bother about advertising, or competitions, or anything else. There is a lot to be said for it on the grounds of expediency. But you cannot ignore laws, statutes, charters and so on, merely on the grounds of expediency. If the system of appointment that existed under the Charter was quite impossible, if it was unwieldy or impracticable, then there were other courses open to the College authorities. They could have taken the necessary steps to have the necessary professorships or lectureships established and have the vacancy filled in the University by the manner prescribed in the Charter of the University or they could have, as found by the Board, made representations to the Government that the College Charter was outmoded and unsuitable to meet the demands of the new situation and have sought to have the Charter suitably amended. There were these courses open to the authorities, if they genuinely found that the Charter system of appointments was unworkable, but instead of adopting one or other of these courses, they merely ignored the Charter and made appointments as it suited them.

I should like to get back for a moment to the last of the four reasons which were given as to why the present system of appointment was adopted, that it was on the basis of better administration, that it was better to have certain powers for the professor over his Assistants or Lecturers. Senator Hayes did not understand what the Board meant by this. He said he thought that it meant that the Lecturer, if he did not feel like giving a lecture, could tell the Professor that he intended going home and would not bother to give a lecture. The Senator is being naive in that because I am sure he knows very well what is intended is that the Lecturer should be free to express opinions about matters of College administration, and not necessarily pertaining to College administration, without the feeling that if he said something of which the Professor disapproved, he would find his appointment as Lecturer terminated at the end of the year. That certainly leads to very good discipline. It leads to very great power in the hands of the Professors and in the hands of the Governing Body, because if the staff are in the position that they know they can be dropped if they step out of line for saying things which are not approved of officially——

Professor Hayes

Good Heavens.

Mr. Ryan

——then they are going to be much more careful about what they say. That is exactly what the College authorities are doing. For instance, when one Assistant Lecturer raised a matter which he was quite entitled to raise—that is, the petitioner in this case—he got back a letter from the College authorities which quite bluntly told him that he should mind his own business. It is a most undesirable position that the majority of the staff—as is now the position in University College, Dublin—can be told they should mind their own business and that they may be allowed to mind their own business entirely at the end of the year, unless they stop doing things which are not popular with the College authorities.

Hibernia of 6th May, 1960, has something to say on that subject in a leading article. It says:

It is high time, too, for the authorities of U.C.D. to learn that academic freedom cuts both ways. It means freedom for the University to go its own way free from State intervention in ordinary matters, though substantially supported by the State. But within the College it should also mean toleration of divergent views of College policy and freedom for the academic staff from the least hint of a threat of penalisation.

That is what is meant by the Board when they talk about the danger of the fourth reason given for the personal appointments. It is not a question of merely giving freedom to the Lecturer to say that he will not give a lecture if he does not feel like it.

The disregard by the authorities of University College, Dublin, of their duties and responsibilities has, to my mind, given rise to grave public disquiet. The public expect reputable bodies to behave in a reputable way. The public have a very high respect —had, anyway, and, I hope, will have again—for the National University and for University College, Dublin, but they expect reputable bodies for whom they have a high opinion to behave in accordance with their position. I believe that at the moment the people are disappointed by what has happened in College circles. I believe that this is something which approaches a public scandal, possibly not a public scandal of alarming proportions, but certainly in its small way it is what possibly can be described as a public scandal.

Apart from the public, one must consider the effect of what has happened on the students of University College, Dublin. What is the effect on students who find that the authorities of the College—the College at which they are being educated, the College which is supposed to inculcate in them the virtues of good citizens, respect for the law and so on—are disregarding the Charter under which they operate? I believe that both from the point of view of the public and from the point of view of the students of the College, this is a matter which has caused a great deal of concern and a great deal of disquiet.

Forgetting for a moment the fact that it is in breach of Charter, the system, as I have already admitted, has some advantages, but on the other hand, it has a number of very serious disadvantages. It is open to very severe criticism. The statutory system has been more or less rejected by the College because it is clumsy and took too long to operate. We are told it took more than a year to appoint a person as a Statutory Professor or Lecturer, but in spite of that, it has advantages. The statutory system would at least ensure that every person qualified for a post would have a chance to apply for it and a chance to have his credentials and qualifications examined. The system adopted for some years past errs in the opposite direction: it is too quick, too restricted, and much too smooth.

Although good men and women probably have been appointed under the College Lecturer system—I have no doubt a number of them are good people—it is doubtful that the best possible people were in every case appointed. It is doubtful in fact whether the best possible persons on many occasions even knew there was a vacancy or an appointment about to be made as Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer. Consequently, the system, although it has some recommendations on the grounds of expediency, has disadvantages that far outweigh the advantages and although you may get some short-term benefit by getting people quickly, it is extremely doubtful in the end whether you will get the best possible staff of Professors and Lecturers.

The Visitors made two comments on the question of the present system of appointments. They say on page 3:

In no instance of the appointment of a College Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer has more than one name been before the Academic Council or the Governing Body. In the majority of instances the post was not advertised, and in some instances the appointment was made by the Governing Body without any recommendation by the Academic Council

And on page 9, they say:

We must watch for the votes of confidence by the Fianna Fáil Comhairlí ceanntair—confidence has been restored, and all the rest.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Where?

Mr. Ryan

It has been suggested in the Dáil that the Government, by introducing this Bill, showed that they condoned the practices which have been carried on in University College. As I have already said, I take the very opposite view. I take the view that the Bill shows quite clearly that the Government accept the Report, accept the findings of the Visitors, and that it is only because they accept that Report that they thought it necessary to bring in a Bill to deal with these irregularities. In case there is any doubt about that position, I believe the Minister should take the opportunity which presents itself to him here, to make the Government's attitude quite clear. If the Government approve of and condone the practices which have taken place, then, by all means, I believe the Minister should say so and give the Governing Body the moral support of which they so badly stand in need. If the Government, on the other hand, do not condone what has happened I can think of no good reason why the Minister should not say so.

Finally, I agree that the University, and Universities in general, should be as free as possible from Government interference. I deliberately qualify that statement by saying "as free as possible", because any body depending for more than 50 per cent. of its funds on the public and on the Government, must have some regard for the views of the public and the Government, at least, to the extent of complying with the terms of the Charter under which they were established. They should also have regard to any strong views expressed by the Government or the public as to the manner in which the University is run.

Interference in this case was brought on by the action of the College authorities themselves, in disregarding the Charter which gave them that very freedom they would now like to have. This question of University freedom has been well summed up in the same issue of Hibernia, of Friday, 6th May, 1960, which says:

For the future this sad story should serve to remind those in authority in the National University that laws, rules and regulations must be either obeyed or amended. A chartered corporation using public funds ought to be scrupulous in respecting its own charter. If, as a result of what has happened, the gates are opened to bureaucratic interference in the life of the University, all parties in it will have much to regret; but no one will be so much to blame as the College which, in the words of the Visitors, "adopted the course of expediency, and, in doing so, seemed to the Board, to overlook the fact that its action might affect not only the University but the other Constituent Colleges."

The Minister is, I understand, to ask the Commission on Higher Education to consider the system of appointment of staff in University College. I hope the Commission will be able to recommend a satisfactory system, and if a system is established, I sincerely hope University College will conform to it, and avoid a repetition of the present controversy which has undoubtedly been brought on themselves by themselves.

Professor O'Brien

I intend to confine my remarks in this debate to a rather narrow part of the very wide subject which has developed in the course of the discussions in the Dáil and in this House. I wish to refer particularly to the issue of academic freedom which has been raised by Senator Ryan and raised in the other House. I want to deal particularly with that matter because in one speech in the other House, my department was singled out by name, as one of the departments where the principle of academic freedom was liable to be violated because of the insecurity of tenure of members of the staff. I think that is a slur on my department, and on my behaviour as a Professor in the College. When remarks of that kind are made in the Dáil under the shelter of Parliamentary privilege, I am entitled to reply to them in this House.

I shall not go over the wider issues which have been raised in this debate. They have, I think, been discussed in the other House and will be discussed again in this House before the debate closes. I do not think I could add anything very new to what has been said. The legal situation has been described by Senator Hayes, and also with a certain amount of disagreement, by Senator Ryan. I am prepared to leave discussion on the legal aspect of the Report of the Board of Visitors on the College Charter to the legal members of the Seanad, who are more qualified to discuss the matter than I.

The impression made on my mind by the debate so far on the Bill, and by the Minister's opening statement, is that confusion will be further confounded and that confusion will continue under this Bill when it becomes an Act, that there will be scope for ample differences of opinion, ample litigation, ample delay and, even possibly, if we are unlucky enough, another visitation. The new situation arising from the Bill is, to my limited intelligence, decidedly obscure. As I said, I shall not enter into the general legal question raised by the visitation. There are other members of the Seanad more qualified to do so than I. I also do not intend to be dragged into the general fracas which surrounds this Bill here and outside.

Many of the issues which have been raised in this discussion seem to me, at any rate, to be irrelevant to the Bill. I am not very clear what the reference to the Palles Library this evening had to do with the debate. However, perhaps we shall learn more in the course of the discussion. There were also various references to Belfield in the discussions on the Bill. I should have thought that the issue of the Assistant Lecturers and the issue of the location of the College were rather different issues and might possibly be kept apart.

Many of the statements made in the Dáil in the course of the debate on this Bill, were quite irrelevant to the subject of the debate. Many were definitely malicious. Many of them consisted of personal attacks on individuals. There was a very generous amount of attribution of ungenerous motives all round and a certain amount of mud-slinging and a certain amount of mud was slung in my direction. I now propose to try to clean some of it off if, with your permission, Sir I am allowed to refer to the debate in the Dáil, column 355 of 28th April. I wish to quote from the speech made by Deputy Ryan on the subject of academic freedom. I wish to quote the better part of a column if it is in order because my department, as you will see, has been dragged into this discussion by name. Deputy Ryan stated:

The essence of a University system is freedom of thought and action. That is the very reason for my condemnation of the system which has been in operation for the past ten years and which it is sought to continue for another four years under this Bill. Statutory professors and statutory lecturers had permanency in their time. Therefore, they were free to think and advise as they thought fit. The persons appointed to College lectureships, improperly appointed—in case the word "improperly" offends, I shall say "appointed"—to College lectureships in breach of duty, were appointed from year to year and their reappointment depended on the goodwill of the head of the College and perhaps ultimately on the goodwill of the professor who was the person, in the first instance, who selected him for the position.

So far, we have been dealing with generalities. The next paragraph comes nearer home:

How could you have freedom of thought or freedom of action in such a situation? You could not possibly have it. In the first instance, it was almost certain that no person would be appointed unless he and his potential professor were ad idem, unless he and his prospective professor were going to agree on all-points. Take certain subjects like Economics and Politics. There are many different trends in such sciences in a changing world, and according to one's outlook on affairs and perhaps according to one's generation, there—will be different views on these subjects. A lecturer with progressive views who wished to instruct his class on a certain line could be restricted by a conservative professor from proceeding on those lines.

I should like this Seanad to listen with particular attention to the last sentence I am going to quote:

That is the kind of thing which could, and I suspect, did happen under the system which has been condemned in the report of the Board of Visitors.

I just end up by saying that in the Budget debate, I think, two years ago, the Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, stated that it must be a very exciting experience to study Economics in University College, Dublin, because the students are told diametrically opposite things by different members of the staff. That does not seem to me to suggest control of academic freedom by the Professor and all I can say is that it is very interesting to see Senator Ryan sum up on one side in this debate and Dr. Ryan on the other.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Freedom.

Mr. Barry

It was completely unnecessary for Senator O'Brien to say what he has just said about himself. I think the whole House is quite sure in regard to him that no such thoughts could be entertained. We have had two Professors of the University and a barrister-at-law and now perhaps a representative of that great and amorphous body, the laymen, could say something about this. I do think somebody should speak for the somewhat mystified public in this matter.

That mystified public instinctively feels—I have known it from talking to members of the public—that some of the considerable exaggeration in some of the charges made in the other House must be discounted but they also feel that there is something wrong. It is idle to discount the disquiet that has been caused by this matter, although I agree, as most people will agree, that much of the critical comment was ill-informed and in many cases was quite malicious and had taken no survey of the conditions that must obtain in University College, Dublin, when we remember and take note of the extraordinary expansion in student membership there in our lifetime.

I am, indeed, very reluctant to comment because of the muddy water stirred up elsewhere, stirred up, I am afraid, for the wrong reasons. I am proud of the eminent position of University College, Dublin, and my reaction to this is irritation, irritation that the College should be injured by this wholly unpleasant controversy. I realise there are eminent figures from University College, Dublin, in this House and I am sure there is nothing so infuriating as amateur comment in a matter like this. I must risk the amateur point of view.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We have it on everything.

Mr. Barry

If I say that University College, Dublin, appears to have handled this thing badly, I am only reflecting general public comment. It is not enough that essentials should be all right—they should appear to be so. Running a great organisation like this requires all sorts of abilities and not the least is the ability to maintain good public relations and University College, Dublin, has failed here, I think. Injury has been done to University College, Dublin, and not only by its critics. It has, I think, been done by those who profess—and I do not doubt possess— devotion to its interests. I believe it amounts to a kind of incompetence, not a very serious kind of incompetence, and it may injure the proposal that is being made now to expend quite a large sum of money on transferring and rehousing this University.

Before I come to my main points, I should like to say that I have no time whatever for the despicable washing of dirty linen that took place in the Dáil and still less for any of the suave piety that marked other contributions but I am irritated that an institution of such importance should have to be uneasily defended by those of us who are proud of University education here.

I should like to examine the implications of this legislation and I submit the following points. If the Bill goes through without consultation with the Senate of the University, then, in effect, are we not overriding the University Charter? Would not a precedent be created whereby at any time in the future the Government may peremptorily enact legislation prejudicial to the University and encroaching on its academic autonomy and independence? Indeed, education at the University level should, as far as is reasonably possible, be free from State and political intervention. The result of all this legislation is that University College, Dublin, will be in the privileged position of making appointments independent of the Senate of the University, a privilege which will not be enjoyed by the other constituent Colleges. I should like the Minister to satisfy me on those three points.

There have been irregularities. The Visitors found so and said so and the future should ensure that these kind of irregularities be abandoned. I believe that probably the best staff has been obtained and no better would have been obtained if the irregularities were regularised, but—and let us not brush this aside—the appearance of doing things properly is as important as doing them. If this had been attended to, this opportunity to injure a great Catholic University and thus provide a field day for many shadowy, sheltered attackers, this opportunity for the mud-slingers, would have been denied them.

The main case for the defence, if I gather it rightly from Senator Hayes, is that the irregularities were small and unimportant. That may well be but they have paid a very high price for these minor transgressions, if they are minor. The University has suffered a real injury by the horrible controversy that has arisen. This is what I find almost inexcusable—that the punishment the University has suffered greatly exceeds, the offence. I want to know were the misdemeanours indicated in clauses 1 and 2 of the Board of Visitors' findings worth running into all this trouble for?

If the Minister is quite satisfied that the passing of this legislation will not create a precedent that will injure the other constituent Colleges, he should ensure by conversations with the University that something like this never happens again. He should ensure that the machinery of this great University is perfected and used—I stress the word "used"—with full regard for high standards, staff rights, student rights and, above all, the rights of the people who actually pay 100 per cent. of the bill. We should devise a future in which University matters will never again become a field day for all those inside and outside Parliament who would injure the cause of a Catholic University in this country.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

This debate is tending to cover a very wide field which was not indicated, I think, at the start. We are repeating the discussions that took place in the Dáil. I have before me the report of the Board of Visitors consisting of three members of the judiciary. Partial quotations pro and con were given in both Houses. In this House, Senator Hayes applied many references of a despicable nature to the three Visitors who were acting on this Board.

I should like to read the Report from beginning to end and have it inserted on the records of this House in its entirety. If that would be within the rules of order, I would propose having it done. If there is any means of inserting the Report of the three Visitors in the records of this House without my having to read it from beginning to end, I should be glad to know of it. If that cannot be done, I would ask permission of the Chair to read the Report from beginning to end. Before I make any further comment, can I get this Report inserted in the Official Report of this House by means other than reading it out? I should be very glad that the Report would be inserted in toto on the record of this House because we would not have this confusion among the public.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The rule is that reports cannot be read in extenso. Strictly speaking, Senators are not allowed to read their speeches or to quote at length from documents. That rule—I must admit—appears sometimes to be more honoured in the breach than the observance in so far as it is interpreted in a liberal way.

There is no provision for the putting of a complete document into the proceedings of the House.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I accept that ruling, naturally. I must express regret that the public have no means of getting the complete information which we as members of this House have available to us.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think that is altogether correct. It is published by the Stationery Office for 1/-. It is Paper No. 5499.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Irish Independent printed it in extenso.

Mr. O'Quigley

When there was talk about the secrecy of the Report the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that it was available to the public.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I inquired at the Dáil Office and I got a copy. That was after considerable publicity was given to the contents of the Report. I had heard contradictory statements as to what was in the Report. I got my copy but I am a privileged person——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator does not appear to have heard correctly what I said to him. This Report has now been published by the Stationery Office, Dublin, for 1/-

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I know that. I was about to say that in my next statement. I am a privileged member of the community because I got it free in the Dáil Office. Interested people can get it by paying 1/- at the Government Publications Sale Office in the G.P.O. Arcade. Well and good. However, what about the mass of the people? There are members of the public whose opinions are of consequence who will not read the contents of the Report in extenso. I was hoping that the Report, in its entirety would be available for reference some years hence. The Leas-Chathaoirleach has ruled that that cannot be done now and therefore I close on that point. The fact that it is on sale at the Government Publications Sale Office or from a newsagent—I do not know if its sale is confined to the Government Publications Sale Office in the G.P.O. Arcade—is a very limited facility to the public.

My reason for making the request was that, listening to this debate and hearing the statements made by Senator Hayes, many of which were so ably contradicted by Senator Ryan, it is clear that, without the Report, a person would not realise how a wrong impression was being conveyed. In one instance, I could not but resent what Senator Hayes was saying. He quoted part of a statement and stopped without completing the paragraph. I shall now read from page 7 of the Report of the Board of Visitors, University College, Dublin. Senator Hayes quoted from the last paragraph on the page, which reads as follows:

In the third place, it was put forward that from the purely administrative point of view, it was preferable to have a Faculty or Department headed by a Professor with all the teaching staff under him subject to his direction, than to have a Professor with a teaching staff which included one or more Lecturers who were independent of the Professor. It is indisputable that purely from the point of view of administration a Professor would wish to have complete control of the staff under him. As against this view it was submitted that was a bad University principle to have a Professor in absolute charge of his Faculty or Department. A very big question of principle arises at this point on which the Board does not propose to venture an opinion.

Senator Hayes stopped at about that point. However, the paragraph continues as follows:

The appointment of College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers effected in the College a difference in the status of part of the teaching staff of the grade of Lecturer. Lecturers (who are appointed by the University) are independent of the Professor. On the other hand, College Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers are, by the terms of their appointment, subject to the Professor. At no time was the possible question of principle involved in the new classification of the teaching staff debated in the Governing Body.

Senator Hayes left out the really important part of that paragraph. Anybody reading the Official Report, a newspaper account or listening to a report of the debate on the radio would take what Senator Hayes mentioned as being the complete paragraph. I was not at all impressed by his remarks. They were out of his usual mood altogether. Senator Hayes indulged in a considerable amount of animosity and muck-raking which he attributes to people outside this House. It is very unfortunate that this has occurred.

I think the Leas-Chathaoirleach will not rule me out of order for one statement in connection with the discussion in the Dáil about the siting of University College, Dublin. If the Government and the Minister had waited until this unfortunate matter was fixed up, the question of the siting of the College as well as the rectification of the errors of one of the colleges of the National University could comprehensively have been examined. We would probably have found that this matter as well as the siting of the College could be fixed up by the commission which it is now suggested should be appointed to deal with higher education. It is unfortunate that two separate questions in connection with University College, Dublin, should come up in sequence rather than simultaneously.

Senator Hayes mentioned that the Visitors sought information from the other Colleges of the National University of Ireland—from Cork and Galway —and that they got no co-operation. He said the catch was small. Evidently, then, there was nothing wrong in Cork or Galway.

The Government bring a Bill to the Oireachtas with the Long Title of "An Act to authorise the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, to make, during a limited period, appointments to certain offices and to validate appointments which that Body has made to those offices". If we indict the Visitors who reported to the Government that invalid decisions had been made, we must equally bear in mind that the Government in consequence brought before the Dáil and Seanad a Bill to validate the appointments. If we must validate appointments something must have been invalid which necessitated this legislation.

Tremendous play has been made with the question of these statutes. Senator Hayes pointed out that charters are not straitjackets. If a breach of a Charter is not an invalid act, I do not know what is meant by law or how lawyers can discuss matters. There used to be Royal Charters which were promulgated by royalty. Now, necessarily, they are promulgated by the Government. An amendment of a Charter must, I assume, be executed by the Government. If the Government institute a new Charter or amend an existing Charter, surely it is a legal document and law? Legislation is a straitjacket for every member of the community who tries to abide by the law. We all break the law sometimes. Even in crossing the street, we may break the law. But if there is a Charter, it has got to be obeyed.

I was surprised at Senator Hayes's attitude. I could understand his defending the Governing Body of University College, Dublin, or the President of University College, Dublin, for the action taken and the argument put up in regard to pressure of circumstances, the increasing number of students, and that such a line of action had to be taken, but the findings of the Board of Visitors are signed by three judges and accepted by the Government who are asking us to validate previously illegal acts. I do not see why Senator Hayes should have used such vicious language to attack three members of a profession of which he himself, as a barrister, is a member. He said many ugly things about them. On a previous occasion, the Leader of his Party in the other House referred to a member of the Judiciary, whom the Government proposed to elect chairman of a board, as a lickspittle of the Government. These remarks are unworthy of the dignity of this House. How a distinguished senior counsel and leader of a political Party could call a fellow professional man, and a judge of the courts, a lickspittle I do not know, but I think it is a terrible thing.

Unfortunately the name of the President of the College has been brought in to public disrepute but I fancy it is the protagonists rather than the antagonists who have been the cause of it to a great extent. I have had experience quite recently in connection with the transfer of the veterinary service from the Department of Agriculture over to the Universities. Professors who functioned under the State have been appointed, some by Trinity College and some by National University and those appointments went through in something less than two months. It was amazingly quick, possibly because of the circumstances which existed and possibly again because it was more of a transfer of existing officers than appointment of new applicants. It took place very quickly and I cannot understand, even with the crowding of University College, Dublin, why they should depart from the strait-jacket of the Charter and adopt on their own a procedure which did not apply at all. The disastrous thing is that these appointments were never advertised.

A lot of the invective has been caused by this over-enthusiastic defence of the Governing Body of University College, Dublin. The Governing Body consists of something like 30 members —ten or 12 of whom are appointed by the General Council of County Councils—having a democratic interest in the governing of the University, but many of the things put up at a meeting would be taken as the considered opinion of the bodies reporting to it.

I understand that in the case of an appointment of a person to a Statutory Lectureship, a name is put up by the Faculty. The Faculty recommends that name to the Academic Council. That is the second step. The Academic Council recommends it to the Governing Body of the College, which is the third step and the final step is that the ratification and selection of the Lecturer or Professor is in the hands of the Senate and he must be elected by the Senate to the appointment. Therefore he has four fences to clear and it is amazing to me that those four fences could be cleared so quickly when the occasion arises. This hold-up should not be of such a nature that people will say it will take two years to establish a new lectureship, or something less than two years for the ordinary routine appointment.

The argument has been put up that a Lecturer has to present 150 odd copies of his application form and testimonials to the various members of the Academic Council, the Governing Body and the Senate. It is not such a terrible imposition on them. Under the statutory position of the Universities at present, the members of the Senate have not much connection with the Colleges—Dublin, Cork and Galway—and they must have some knowledge of the person they intend to support. That is why this visitation and canvassing has come about and why the air of place hunting attaches to it.

I only wish there could be some less ambiguous, less difficult, procedure than having these four fences to surmount. It could be a body comparable with the Civil Service Appointments Commission. It is a difficult problem but I repeat that it is a pity that these two questions, the siting of the College and the rectification and validating now of the invalid acts of the past ten years, did not come together. The Commission to be appointed by the Minister could then deal with both of them. This matter could be settled in five years—the validating of the invalid acts—but what has been done in connection with the siting of the College will last 500 or 1,000 years, if atomic energy or nuclear fission does not kill us in the meantime. It is legislation for 500 years and even if there were only one voice in the Dáil against it, I would probably join in. It is a pity that the Government did it, a pity that Labour and the Opposition supported them. It is a pity that the whole thing was not reviewed collectively by the-new Commission which to a great extent must review what has been done.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will realise that it was quite in order to refer to this matter once but twice is once too often.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I shall conclude by saying that the whole matter of higher education, the money that will be spent on technological institutions and colleges, the siting of them, the pupils, the whole comprehensive field, the teaching requirements and the money to supply them require to be reviewed.

Professor Quinlan

I find myself very much in agreement with the sentiments so well expressed by Senator Barry, especially as regards our abhorrence of the grossly unfair personal attacks that have been made, particularly in the other House and in the public Press, on the President of U.C.D. and many of the senior members of the Faculties. I think we should all condemn these attacks. We should all endeavour to segregate those who are muckraking from those who have a genuine interest in the University and its problems or, I might say, in the nation and its problems because undoubtedly some of the mud that has been thrown will stick. It is unfortunate that in the case of an institution which has meant so much in this country and for which our forefathers fought so hard and long the public should grasp at an opportunity of belittling and throwing mud.

Like many other members of our Faculty in Cork, I was shocked by the action of a couple of our members in coming up to lend further support to that campaign last week. I think I am speaking for the vast majority of my colleagues in Cork when I say that we disassociate ourselves, one and all, from such actions.

To come to the matters at issue, despite all the unpleasantness, I think it will be worth while if we seriously begin to think of University education and begin to grasp its problems. Personally I am not happy about the approach made by the Government to this problem. I think there is a fundamental error there of which we should all take cognisance, that is in regard to the position of chartered bodies in this country.

We have taken over many Charters from the British Government but we do not seem to have a clear-cut policy on how these Charters are to be handled or, in particular, on their amendment. I should have thought that in the present case surely the chartered bodies concerned, U.C.D. and the National University of Ireland, should both have been consulted first. They should have been given the Report of the Board of Visitors and allowed to decide what action should be taken in the light of that Report. They could then petition the Government if they thought some change in the Charter was necessary, because it is highly conceiveable that the Senate of the National University. after reading that Report, if it agreed that there were irregularities, could easily have put them right.

It does not require any great stretch of the imagination to see how that could be done. In fact, the Petitioner himself in his Petition gave the answer because he said that if the Governing Body were prepared to give up making those appointments and calling them Assistants, he would be satisfied or, in other words, that a change of name was all he was asking. At least, he brought the difference down that much. Alternatively, the Senate of the National University of Ireland might have seen that some changes in the Charter were necessary and as a chartered body, if a Charter means anything, it had the right to take the initiative in asking the Government who have taken over as successor of His Majesty in this respect, to carry through whatever change was necessary.

We have been a little too hesitant in our approach to the Charter in that it seems as though all responsible national opinion was so delighted with the very excellent settlement that was given to the problem of higher education for Catholics in 1908 that they have been loath to change that Charter in any way ever since or even to open the Charter so that other bodies in other times might make changes which might introduce more State control and less University autonomy. That is a legitimate point of view that has been championed down the years, especially by Reverend Dr. O'Rahilly who, perhaps, would rank as the foremost of the University leaders in the past 25 years.

It was a rather negative approach because times change and Charters, like other legislation, should, on the initiative of the bodies concerned, be reviewed at long intervals and fitted for the next period. I think it is one of the real regrets of the present situation that, shortly after the war, I would say, it was not recognised that we had moved into a new era, that there was a great expansion resulting from the war in technological and scientific demands on University training and that consequently the time had come to see whether we needed changes for the future.

If we take the analogue of Queen's University, Belfast—which got an almost identical Charter to that which the National University got in 1908 —they have moved ahead very far since then in making changes and they have the right of initiative which is not explicitly given to the National University but which I presume the Government, nevertheless, would be quite willing to concede in practice.

Actually, much of our present difficulty arises from an omission in the Charter in failing to define the term "Lecturer." Many other much less important terms are defined, but not the word "Lecturer". While perhaps College Lecturers should move up towards the other end of the scale, they would undoubtedly come into the classification that was in the mind of those who created the Charter in 1908. I do not for one moment think that Assistant Lecturers would do so.

Actually, that is how it has developed in Queen's University, where the Assistant Lecturers are appointed on a year to year basis for a maximum of three years. After that period, they either leave the University or become Lecturers. They then continue on with security of tenure, and with annual increments, for about six years. At the end of that six-year period, there is an efficiency barrier, that is, unless the Professors in their departments, certify that they have been satisfactory, that their output of research work has been what was expected from young scientists, no further increments are granted, which is another way of saying: "You are not wanted; move on somewhere else."

On passing the efficiency barrier, a Lecturer then continues on to the end of the scale. Above, there are the Senior Lecturers which are separate posts, and above that to Professors, so that the whole spectrum is widened considerably. Consequently, that is one of the many problems that will be present to the minds of the new Commission when it holds its sittings.

In the American University system, they have gone so far as to create three grades of Professors: Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors; followed by Lecturers, Instructors, Assistants, and so on. In modem times, modern needs call for a new appraisal of our system.

Senator Ryan and others have commented very heavily on the four bodies concerned, on the various work such as interviewing, or whatever other name you wish to call it, and the hardship that imposes. I admit it is a most cumbersome system, but, on the other hand, I should like to go on the records of this House as saying that I do not believe there is any other system which we shall evolve that will succeed in giving better results, so far as the personnel appointed, the maintenance of a high level of intellectual activity, and of a high academic standard in our staff are concerned.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is the system operated in University College, Dublin?

Professor Quinlan

I said the system of appointment by the National University involving four bodies. It is much too cumbersome at present, and I have the doubtful privilege of having been on the four bodies at various times, including the Senate of National University. We are called on to put far too much of our time into making those appointments, in our anxiety to get the best possible staff for the university. There is no other consideration motivating us and those who disagree with us will fully concede that our motives are the best. You get people of equal standards going for a position, and then it is very easy to see how different people can arrive at a different conclusion—that A is better than B. You have to try to judge a candidate's past, and also his future, how he will develop and expand, the leadership he will give to the department, and the research output he can produce. All these are imponderables in the future. Whatever other charge may be levelled against the present system, it should not be inferred that the persons concerned are motivated by patronage or any other consideration.

Of course, the same obstacles hold in many other Universities where there are three or four appointing Bodies. The only difference is that, at the very start, you have what are called the Board of curators, or a selection committee, who go through the candidates and select the one they consider best fitted for the appointment. Only one name is sent up to the other bodies. They have only one choice. They have the choice only of saying they accept this nomination or will refer it back to the original body if they want to get some better nomination. That is the system actually prevailing in Queen's University at the present and in most Universities. I hope it is one of the problems we may be able to tackle and solve in the forthcoming Commission. I must congratulate the Minister on the fact that it is one of the major items listed in the terms of reference.

In connection with that Commission, I must ask the Minister and the Government, before proceeding with this matter which may eventually involve amendment of the Charter, to have full consultation with the Charter body concerned. Otherwise, the Charter is not worth the paper on which it is written. I feel confident the Minister will take that approach and that the final headings and terms of reference of the Commission will not be drawn up until full discussions have taken place. There is a very grave fear, which has been expressed by Senator Barry and others, that the Bill now before the House does, in effect, amend the Charter, that it does, in effect, make a compulsory amendment, without in any way being either initiated by the body concerned or even in consultation with the body concerned. I should like to feel that the Government do not share our apprehension in that respect.

Of all the charges that have been levelled, the charge of patronage is by far the worst. Certainly any University professor who is worth his place in the University would not, for one moment, think of patronage. If he appoints a staff member, who is not able to pull his weight, he is penalising his Department and himself, and no professor worthy of the name would subscribe to that. I was a little amused by the reference to patronage which was so ably put by Senator Ryan and I hope that Senator Ryan and others will now join with us in eliminating the greatest source of patronage in this country at present, the political appointment of judges. That is a "must".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Will the Senator admit that he did not know what he was talking about on the Broadcasting Authority Bill when he said that positions were filled in University College, Dublin, by advertisement?

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 2 Jun 1960