This is a Bill that seeks to establish the means of attaining certain community objectives in regard to higher education. In winding up for my party on this measure I want to discuss this under a number of headings. Firstly, I should like to consider the need for An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas. Secondly, I should like to discuss the status of An tÚdarás, thirdly, its functions, and, fourthly, more briefly, some matters in regard to its procedure so far as that is circumscribed by the Bill before us.
We are dealing here, as has been said by many speakers in this debate, with a most important measure. We are enacting legislation which brings on the Statute Book a new departure in regard to the organisation of third level education, a further important step in the carrying out of the duty that is laid on the State and the Oireachtas by the Constitution. The Constitution tells us that "the State shall provide free primary education... and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions". It is against that background that we must judge the provision of third level education. When the public good requires it, when the State, the Government and the Oireachtas are so convinced then there is a constitutional duty to provide it. The State, through the agency of the Government, and with the consent of the Oireachtas, have in recent years sought to extend widely the provision of education at different levels. That initiative of the Government and consent of the Oireachtas has been a reflection of a shared opinion that the public good now requires the various measures which have been brought into being.
In regard to some of these measures, for example the abolition of fees in post-primary education, it was easy to get agreement and consent from all that the time had come, and in the opinion of many of us had long passed, when this particular step should be taken. When we move into the sphere of higher education which, as has been said in the course of this debate, is first, for the relatively few and, secondly, involves far higher costs than education at primary or post-primary level, then indeed the whole situation becomes more complex. The decision as to whether to move in one particular direction or another necessarily involves so great an expenditure of public funds, that it is, I think, compellingly necessary that this should be done not by the ordinary method—discussion within the Minister's Department and debates in the Houses of the Oireachtas —but that there should be special provisions for the tendering of objective advice to the Minister and ensuring that there are adequate consultations before such advice is tendered. Therefore, we get the proposition which is before us today. It has been said by a number of Senators, Senator Nash and Senator Mrs. Robinson, that this Bill to establish a Higher Education Authority arises primarily from the suggested merger of UCD and TCD. To make such a suggestion is unfair to the Commission for Higher Education which recommend certainly not an identical body but a similar one. It is unfair to the Department to suggest that they would not have proposed the setting up of such a body were it not for the particular problem posed by the university situation in Dublin.
Senator McElgunn, who has just spoken, has commented on the fact that a great deal of the debate has been concerned not with third level education in general but more particularly in regard to third level education as represented by university education. He attributes this to the fact that there are many Members of this House who are concerned with university education, but I think there are other reasons. It is because there are more difficulties in regard to university education, some of them arising from the fact that there are a number of existing institutions in this field, but also others due to the fact that, of their nature, such bodies do give rise to peculiar problems of their own.
The central problem inevitably was touched on again and again in the debate. I am sorry that I find it necessary, as an a academic, to return to this problem of university autonomy. It has been mentioned repeatedly throughout the debate but still I do not think that it has been adequately discussed. The discussion in this debate in regard to university autonomy has at times been very simplistic in manner. There has been too little realisation that one cannot deal with this idea of university autonomy as a single item. There are many aspects of it and the varying aspects have to be taken into account. It is inevitable that such a discussion should arise in a debate of this type because the proposal which the Minister has put before us is one aimed at the solution of the crucial problem of the harmonisation of university autonomy and of university accountability. It is common cause that university autonomy is something that should be respected and continued if at all possible. It is also common cause that under our present conditions of high State support for university activity some university accountability is an absolute essential.
To follow the order which I indicated, I should like to talk first on the question of the need for An tÚdarás. There can be no doubt that there is a need for some new departure, some new structure. We would all agree that the present system in regard to the financial review of university expenditure is unsatisfactory. There are some very obvious defects: the historical and long-continued division of university financing between separate Government Departments, the fact that faculties, which are integral parts of University College, Cork and Dublin, are still financed separately through the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, whereas the remaining faculties are dealt with through the Department of Education. May I say they are financed rather more generously so that, for example, when I was in University College, Cork, if a book was not available in the Engineering Library, because we could not afford it, we were quite liable to find this expensive special book in the Library of the Faculty of Agriculture. However, these are defects which could be easily remedied without a wholesale reorganisation.
The real problem lies deeper. The problem is, I think, essentially the separation—the divorce—between financial control and the planning function in regard to higher education. Unless this is cured, and unless we can overcome the consequences of this divorce, we will continue to have serious anomalies and severe frustration in the operation of our system of higher education. I feel that the only possible solution—of course it is the solution which the Minister has proposed to us here this evening-is to unite many of the functions of financial control and of long-term overall planning in one body.
When we come to consider now this might be done there are only relatively few alternatives. The State now exercises financial control; it could be given the complete planning control at the cost of the loss of a good deal of their individual freedom by the universities. Alternatively—I am not suggesting that it is a serious possibility—the universities could be made completely independent financially. The third course open, and the one that the Minister suggests, the course that is agreed to by all the House, is that a great deal of the more important decisions with regard to these two functions which should be united, should be given to a body which would be a buffer between the Government and the university. Perhaps that is a bad image, a bad metaphor to use. It seems to indicate, perhaps, that the universities and the Department are a pair of warring dogs that have to be separated in some way. This, indeed, is not the truth.
Rather is it the position that if such an intermediate body is proposed it will be a body which is wholly devoted towards this particular problem. It will not have the further preoccupation of the Department regarding the remainder of its work, nor the further preoccupation of universities and other bodies of higher education in regard to the actual execution of their work. I say that to give financial control to the universities, in addition to the control of planning they have at the moment, is an alternative which I mention only to be dismissed. This is something which I do not think has ever been claimed for the universities. It has been suggested occasionally that some academics would wish to have this solution, would seek what, in effect, would be a right of taxation on behalf of the universities. Let us be clear that no responsible person is advocating this solution.
Let us consider the solution of passing the problem of the academic planning of the universities to the State. All we can say about this method is that in those countries where is has been tried—and examples can be given—it has had the most disastrous results. I think we can take the situation of France as being the typical example. Coming down from the Napoleonic reforms of education we have the great example of a centralised educational system. It has been said by French academics with a wry smile that so closely were the regulations laid down that, in fact, there is almost a regulation on the number of jokes per lecture appropriate to the various courses.
What has this led to in this particular system? First, it has led to an elitism of a kind which I think would not be acceptable to the people of this country. It has led to a fierceness of competition for entry to the Grande École and to the universities of higher reputation. It has led in the remaining universities and in the regional universities to a degree of specialisation which goes very far beyond the desire of anyone in this country for co-ordination and promotion of centers of excellence. Even if one can say that that is the elitism which gives rise to the polytechnician and the other products of the French schools, where one must study for two or three years after matriculation in order to gain entry, even if we accept that there are merits in this, we can see the danger in this approach when we remember that it was this system of higher education that finally erupted in the explosion that toppled the apparently untoppleable General de Gaulle. If we followed this particular route we would be doing something which is against our national characteristics.
If we look at the Report of the Commission on Higher Education we see a description of our existing position. It is worthwhile looking back at that if only briefly. In one sense things have moved rapidly, in another sense they have moved hardly at all in the sphere of higher education since the publication of that report. In chapter 3 of that report we can read an account and also a criticism of the situation which existed at the time when the commission reported and which still exists. I do not propose to quote from it further than to read the headings of the different paragraphs.
In paragraph 3.8 we have the heading "State not Planning Authority."
In paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 the headings "State and Institutions of Higher Education".
In paragraph 3.11 "Existing Consultation Insufficient".
In paragraph 3.12 "Under-development of Higher Education outside the University", and so on.
In paragraph 3.13 "Demands on the University".
This is the situation which we face.
In chapter 18 of this same report we have the views of the Commission on Higher Education on how this might be remedied. Here we get a clear rejection of the solution of State planning. If I could quote briefly here from paragraph 21 of chapter 18, we have here in the report of the commission what might well be the basis for what has to be done under this particular Bill. It says:
In chapter 3 which contains our assessment of the present position we have suggested the State cannot be regarded as a planning authority in higher education nor does the State so regard itself. The financial consultations which take place between the institutions and the State cannot be regarded as a planning process. The State must obviously be the ultimate authority for deciding the amount of public resources to be devoted to higher education. In our view, however, the State can, only to a limited extent, determine how these resources should be utilised.
At this stage of the debate I do not want to delay unduly on these particular points. By introducing this Bill, the Minister has acknowledged that the proper solution is one which will give us a body which will stand between the two parties involved—a two-headed Janus that will look both towards the Department and towards the institutions of higher education.
This solution, of course, is one which has cropped up again and again in discussion over the years. When it does so, we always look to the headline of the University Grants Committee. This was set up in Britain in order to co-ordinate university finance. When founded, the University Grants Committee was a fine old British compromise. It is interesting, when we are now discussing this particular Bill, to realise that that particular fine old British compromise has crumbled somewhat in the last few years.
The University Grants Committee in Britain operated with the Treasury under a sort of gentleman's agreement. We know that in respect of such gentlemen's agreements and even economics agreements like the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, that when they are in trouble gentlemen do not always keep their agreements. Since its inception, this compromise, the formation of a University Grants Committee, became a headline throughout the world, but has itself now fallen on somewhat evil days in the country of its origin.
On one occasion, I think it is some six years ago now, the British Government made a unilateral decision over the heads of the University Grants Committee that the fees of all foreign students in Britain should be raised by a considerable amount. There was there a crisis of confidence and the beginning of the decline of the University Grants Committee.
It is interesting that only four universities in Britain refused to accept that dictate from the Treasury. They were Oxford and Cambridge. who have long had the habit of saying they would rather have their freedom than the money. The third was the relatively new University of Bradford. It is perhaps significant for us that the fourth was the Queen's University of Belfast.
These institutions actually suffered financially because they considered it inappropriate to accept this particular dictate from a Government Department. This is interesting when we consider that the Commission on Higher Education recommended specifically in its report that what we wanted in this country was something more than a University Grants Committee.
What the Minister has brought in here—and he is to be commended for doing this—is something decidedly more than a University Grants Committee. He has given here, as was recommended by the Commission on Higher Education, an authority which, first, is statutory and, secondly, to a great extent, is executive as well as advisory in its functions. I should like to say that in doing so the Minister has done the right thing.
There is no doubt the day will come when the Minister or his successors will regret that this was done. In the short term the crisis will come, as it came in the British Treasury, when the Minister or his successors will have to stand up in public and say: "Even though there is this published recommendation of An tÚdarás um Ard Oideachais, I cannot meet the bill." I should like to say to the Minister that even though he may have created for himself, or for his successors, embarrassments in the short run, in making this body more substantial than the University Grants Committee, he has done something which will have real benefit in the long run, which year in and year out will give benefits which will more than compensate for the temporary and short-lived embarrassment.
This leads me on to the second point which I wanted to discuss, the question of the status of the authority which is now proposed to be set up. Here we come right into the question of autonomy and academic freedom which many Members, quite rightly, feel seems to be a favourable topic of conversation or of lecturing by academics of various sorts.
In the beginning I mentioned that this was a complex subject. There are a few points I should like to make in regard to it here because the status of An tÚdarás, as provided for in this Bill, is very relevant to this problem.
When we come to talk about academic freedom or autonomy I think we should straight away distinguish between two types of academic freedom. We will not get far in debate or have any great agreement in regard to it unless we recognise this distinction: first, individual academic freedom and, secondly, institutional academic freedom. Both of these have been discussed in the course of the present debate.
Individual academic freedom is something which is not as important as institutional autonomy in regard to what we are concerned with here in the setting up of this body but, nevertheless, it is well, just in passing, to mention what it entails. In this respect the academic looks firstly for certain rights that every citizen looks for: absence of discrimination in regard to his appointment, his retention in employment and the carrying out of his duties. There are some other freedoms which he claims as being essential to the proper carrying out of his duties: the right to teach according to his individual concept of what is true and what is relevant rather than an obligation to teach according to a formula or an ideology which is imposed upon him. He claims the right to publish the results of his study and research. He claims the right, subject to the other requirements of his employment, to pursue his personal studies and his research in the directions of his choice. Now the true academic does not include, in his claim to individual academic freedom, any claim to opt out of common burdens, whether those are the burdens of the community at large or the burdens of his academic community. Academic freedom does, however, include the right to some participation in the policy formation of his academic community.
If we turn to institutional academic freedom, the matter becomes more complex and more subject to misunderstanding. In this regard I would like to distinguish between two groups of issues in regard to institutional academic freedom. First, a group in regard to which academics will strive to the end to maintain their own control and, secondly, a group which academics feel should be under their control but which they would be happy to exercise in co-operation with others. In regard to institutional autonomy, academic institutions claim the right to control of appointments to their own institutions. They claim control over curricula and standards. Academics will struggle to the end to maintain control on these two issues. Many of us in academic life would leave it, or leave the country were this battle lost, rather than continue to operate under conditions which we would hold to be incompatible with our calling.
However, when we go beyond these two we come into areas where the academic community as a whole is not so rigid. It may be easy to point to individual academics who will take a rigid line on almost any subject, but taken by and large there are a number of issues on which the academic community feels it just would not be for their benefit but for the public benefit if control were largely within their hands. As I have mentioned before, these are issues over which most academics realise that it is not possible in this day and age for an individual academic institutions to have complete and untrammelled control.
I list four of these other issues here: first, the admission of students; secondly, the balance between teaching and research; thirdly, the freedom of development in regard to the size of the institution and in regard to its specialities. The fourth is in regard to questions of salaries and staffing. While there have been times in the past in which institutions have claimed that these matters are necessarily a matter of institutional autonomy which must not be tampered with, I think we would find today that most academics would not look on these matters as issues on which there can be no accommodation. In particular I feel that the various institutions which have autonomy in the country at the moment would be prepared to replace the autonomy of the individual institution in regard to these matters by a group autonomy which might be exercised through a body such as the conference of Irish Universities, whether this be on a statutory or an ad hoc basis.
While I say that these are issues which the academic would not consider crucial in the sense that he would consider if they were lost or shared that there would be and end to academic life as we know it, nevertheless they are important. What is the case for autonomy for bodies of higher education? The case is not that this is an inherited privilege which should not be removed, that it is a natural right which should not be interfered with. The case for individual academic fredom, the case for institutional autonomy, made by academics at this time in this country, is that autonomy in these matters is a prerequisite for the good performance of their function. It is not that they themselves as individuals would be better off or are better off because of these conditions but rather that their institutions are better institutions for these freedoms, that their contribution to the general good is a more valuable good because of such autonomy.
Autonomy of university institutions has varied from age to age and from place to place. If we look back we can see tremendous variations in this regard. When we come to discuss the whole future of third level education we may think that we are talking about something new but if we really look at the history of these institutions we will find there is little new indeed. We have talked in this debate and we will talk again on Committee Stage about student participation and democratisation. Yet in the University of Bologna in the 13th and 14th centuries the university was run by the students and not by the masters as were Oxford, Cambridge and Paris. The running of a university committee by a student majority, which Senator Keery talked about, is not a matter that belongs only to the 20th Century.
Also we may look at the question mentioned in section 3 of this Bill in regard to equality of opportunity. We can look back in history and see times and countries where there was a greater equality of opportunity in regard to university education than we have today. The Americans who adopted the idea of working your way through college in an effort to promote equality of opportunity, were following the path of those who worked their way through college in Elizabethan England. To return to this question of the case for autonomy, the case is that, given these particular conditions, a better job will be done.
Apart from a few short periods I have held only three jobs in my life for any considerable length of time. I worked for three years in the Civil Service. I worked for 12 years in a semi-State body and I have worked for 12 years in the university. The degree of autonomy was somewhat different in all three cases. I can say that I worked far harder when employed by a semi-State body than when I was employed in the Civil Service. I now work immeasurably harder as an academic than I did in the other two cases. The conditions of academic employment are such that if I wished it, or if any academic wished it, he could make this job one of the softest on earth. The fact of the matter is that they do not.
Academics, given this particular freedom, tend to work considerably harder than they would in the absence of such freedom. Senator Kelly said at an early stage in this debate that it is quite easy to point to individuals who take advantage of the system. I do not think it is quite so easy. I do not know of any in my own department and I do not know any in the School of Engineering in University College, Dublin. I am quite sure there may be, well hidden somewhere, individuals who take advantage of this situation.
If an academic has been chosen for his knowledge, ability and, above all, his enthusiasm for his particular subject, then the conditions of employment are such that he will devote all his time to his subject which is his job. When Senator Kelly was speaking in this debate about the quality of life Senator Ó Maoláin interjected to ask who worked in this country more than 60 hours per week. I think Senator Jessop will agree with me that many heads of university departments do. There is no question about this. The conditions are such that the job could be one of the softest but, because of the nature of the individuals who seek this particular life, who are appointed to it by their peers, the level of work is far higher than in comparable employment elsewhere.
I have noticed in a number of countries the contrast between the amount of work put in by those who work on research within the university and those who work on research in research institutes. The difference is sometimes startling. The fact that some may take advantage of the conditions in the universities is more than outweighed by those who respond to the particular system in the way I have described.
Perhaps I have spoken too long on this topic but I feel that there has been certain misunderstandings in the course of the debate. I will turn to the other side of the problem. I said that what we were concerned with here was harmonisation of university autonomy with university accountability. Let us be quite clear that the allocation of substantial funds from State sources to the universities involved the question of accountability and this is not challenged. We can read this in our own Commission on Higher Education or in the Robbins Report which I think express it rather well. I quote from paragraph 725:
It is recognised that subvention involves allocation and that allocation may involve co-ordination and certain controls. It is not felt that such measures need be an improper encroachment on legitimate academic freedoms.
Because I share the views expressed in the Robbins Report I am perfectly happy to support this Bill. It is the need for co-ordination which gives rise to this particular need and the body such as the Minister suggests here is an appropriate one. There is need for co-ordination on these areas which I mentioned which have traditionally been part of the institutional autonomy of the universities but which, in the conditions of our country and our time, need co-ordination. There is a need for co-ordination on admissions. There is a need for co-ordination on areas of research. There is need for co-ordination on areas of development. There is need for co-ordination on staffing. To a large extent this co-ordination could be done by the institutions themselves coming together either on an ad hoc basis or coming together in some form such as a conference of Irish universities. While this would go a great way towards solving the problem it would not go far enough. What we need is somebody who can complete this co-ordination, can examine the proposals of the institutions themselves, and present to the Minister the results of this co-ordination.
We come to the question of who should best do this? There is no doubt whatsoever that if the universities are asked who is the best judge of what should be done in regard to admissions, staffing and research in development areas, they will say: "Ourselves, of course." If the Minister's Department are asked who are the best judges of this, they too will answer: "Ourselves, of course." What we are setting up here is a body to whom we will entrust this task and of such a nature that it will have the confidence both of the universities and of those responsible for the ultimate provision of the moneys.
One of the difficulties in regard to this problem is the nature of education itself. Education is not a commodity. Senator McElgunn earlier made a comment on the fact that someone had mentioned that those undergoing higher education were consuming something. He took exception to this, and I think rightly so. Education is not a commodity. One of the difficulties about it is, in fact, that we cannot judge it like a commodity. I should like to quote here from a school-master—a schoolmaster who wrote some 100 years ago. I should like to quote from Dr. Arnold who said:
The mass of mankind know good butter from bad and tainted meat from fresh—and the principle of supply and demand may perhaps be relied on to give us sound meat and butter, but the mass of mankind do not so well know what distinguishes good teaching and training from bad. They do not here know what they ought to demand and, therefore, the demand cannot be relied upon to give the right supply.
I think we have been guilty in the past of relying on the market forces in education to give us the right equilibrium. I think most of what has been said in the course of this debate about the excesses and deficiencies in different areas of training arises from an undue reliance on the uncontrolled operation of supply and demand. It is necessary that there should be real planning. It is necessary that there must be somebody somewhere in the system which is given by the Department the power to plan to the extent necessary—but no more than what is required—in this respect. For such a body to be accepted by the institutions of higher education, who have previously done their own planning on a small scale, it is necessary that this body be of a particular type.
If An tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas were an academic body and a truly autonomous body, individual institutions would be very much less fearful of the effect on their autonomy of the institution of the authority. If, at the same time, there were established either statutorily or non-statutorily a conference or a council of Irish universities, I think many of the fears and the criticisms that have been heard might not have been so many or so loud, because even with the institution of An tÚdarás there still is some need for the co-ordination of the universities themselves. Such co-ordination as now exists—and it has been mentioned during the debate that there has been increased co-ordination—is on the basis of personal relationships and ad hoc meetings. I think that if in the future there was a co-ordination along the lines which the Commission on Higher Education recommended, in which there would be regular meetings but not necessarily of the same persons, which would be in each case not ad
hoc but ad rem, this would be a sound development.
I think it is clear from some remarks the Minister made in the Dáil that he is less than enchanted with the idea of a conference of Irish universities, particularly on a statutory basis. I must say one must sympathise with his attitude in this regard. Nevertheless, I would hope that there is nothing in this Bill which would prevent the universities acting in a co-ordinated manner. I should like to ask the Minister if he could give that assurance. The Bill is written in terms of An tÚdarás dealing all the time with individual institutions. I would ask the Minister if he could give us a guarantee that the drafting of the Bill is not such that it would preclude the dealings between An tÚdarás and a non-statutory body which would speak for some or all of our institutes of higher education.
I should now like to pass to the third topic which I mentioned, namely the functions of the Higher Education Authority. While we will be dealing with these in detail on the Committee Stage of the Bill, nevertheless there are some points that I should like to bring forward at this stage. Looking at section 3 it is interesting to note how inter-related the various general functions of An tÚdarás are. If we look at section 3 we find that the first general function is the furthering of the development of higher education. As we know, you will go no distance in the furthering of higher education under our present conditions without a substantial investment of moneys and a substantial increase in the current expenditure of the various institutions concerned. We are led immediately to the question of the amount of this investment and its co-ordination, which is the second general function which we have here in section 3.
As is already evident from the report of the Higher Education Authority, which we are discussing this evening, the amounts are going to be considerable. There is going to be a necessity for higher taxation in order to support this further development of higher education. If this is to be acceptable to the community in general there must be a promotion of the appreciation of the value of higher education and research from the point of view of the community.
As Senator Nash indicated, this particular general function has also the meaning of promoting the attainment and the appreciation of the value of higher education from the point of view of the individual.
Senator Desmond in the course of her contribution said that she thought that it would not be possible to promote an appreciation of the value of higher education until such time as there had been an attainment of a further degree of equality of opportunity and equality of participation. I am inclined to reverse these two. I am inclined to say that we will never get a participation from certain sectors of our community in higher education until there has been a furtherance of an appreciation of the value of higher education to the individual. There is no doubt whatsoever and all investigations have upheld the hypothesis that the major factor in determining career choice, in determining decisions about further education, comes not from school, not from television, not from career guidance but from the family itself. Even in the countries where career guidance is highly developed the family attitudes are the prime determinant in regard to choice of courses in school and choice of vocation. Until such appreciation becomes widespread we will not get equalisation of participation in higher education. It is quite obvious that in regard to this there is a long haul ahead of us.
The final general function in regard to democratisation has been the subject of comment and undoubtedly will be the subject of debate during the Committee Stage. I join with Senator Nash in thinking that the word is, perhaps, an unfortunate choice, particularly if we intend to interpret this as bringing into the university at every level some sort of idea such as "one man, one vote". What we are looking for in all of our educational system and in particular in many areas of higher education is a question of participation rather than any sense of voting rights or voting powers. It is this idea of participation that we require. In fairness to our institutions of higher education, they have started at the right level in dealing with this problem. Participation at departmental level and faculty level is far more important for the student body and staff than participation at governing body level or at Higher Education Authority level.
We have in sections 5 and 6 of the Bill the powers of this particular body to advise the Minister. It has been pointed out here repeatedly during the debate that there are disharmonies between the demand and supply of students. It is most appropriate that in section 6 An tÚdarás should be obliged to maintain a continuous review of the demand and need for higher education, because, as has been pointed out, these are not always the same thing under the conditions of higher education in this country at this time now. We have demands which come from individuals, demands arising from their wish for self-fulfilment. On the other hand we have certain need of the community and what we need above all here is some guidance which will attempt to bring the demand for education on the part of the individual and the need of the community more closely into harmony.
With regard to this question of the functions of An tÚdarás, I would like to advert to a point which was raised by Senator Jessop, and that was the position in regard to research. We have throughout this Bill a reference to higher education. We have in section 3 (a) the general function of An tÚdarás to further the development of higher education. Under 3 (c) it is to be concerned with the promoting of appreciation of the value of higher education and research. I should like to ask the Minister specifically for an assurance in this regard. Reading these two together, parts of the same section 3 of the Bill, one might be forgiven for saying that An tÚdarás should be concerned with promoting an appreciation of two things—higher education and research—but should be concerned only with the provision of one, higher education.
Whereas there are certain areas of research which are best done outside institutions of higher education, there are many types of research which are, firstly, most efficiently done within institutions of higher education and, secondly, whose presence within these institutions is necessary for the maintenance of an efficient level of teaching. It would be quite easy to justify the inclusion of pedagogical or didactic research such as occurs in the training of people in their immediate post-primary degree years. A person studying for a master's degree in arts and science is an apprentice in research and this should be counted part of education.
What about the further research? What about post-doctorate research and staff research? I would ask the Minister for an assurance that the unhappy wording of these paragraphs in section 3 could not be used in the future in order to remove from the universities such research as is there. I acknowledge that in regard to oriented research and applied research, there may be a need for co-ordination between the work of the universities and the work in other institutes. In regard to didactic research, basic research and non-oriented research these are the concern of the university.
We, in this country, have a bad record in this regard. It is this which gives rise to anxiety. We had in the past the removal from our universities of certain areas of research. I was sorry to hear Senator Jessop talk in this debate of fourth level education, because I am afraid that the fourth level education and the fourth level research might be removed from our third level institutions as it was in the case of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies many years ago. In regard to research in agriculture we also had a tendency to starve the universities of research opportunities and facilities in favour of An Foras Talúntais. I have a very definite anxiety in this particular regard.
Returning to higher education as such, it has many objectives: the advancement of learning itself; the formation of general skills; the formation of special skills and the final one of providing an intellectual witness in the community. We are in trouble here because the demand to be trained in special skills is, in some instances, greater than our special needs. If I may revert for a moment to my own particular concern in university education, I should like to rebut the suggestion made in the course of this debate that most engineers in this country are educated for export. In civil engineering the position has been, for many years past, that any graduate in civil engineering who wishes to obtain a job in Ireland has no difficulty in finding one. Nevertheless, many of them do seek their first jobs abroad. Of those who do virtually all of them return again and are able, having been abroad, with their greater experience to make a better contribution to their own country.
While speaking of this I should like to refer to the point which was mentioned by Senator Honan, and mentioned also by Senator Brugha, that the ratio, as they described it, of academic to vocational training as given in OECD statistics would indicate that we are out of line with other European countries. In this regard I might say that, while the ratio is out of line, let us be clear in regard to comparison of the figures themselves. The ratio is not out of line because we are producing too many professional engineers in this country, but rather is completely due to the fact that we are producing too few technicians. The number of professional engineers that we are producing in this country is in line with the number in relation to population which is produced in the other countries of Europe. Where we are completely and absolutely deficient is in regard to the provision of technicians at all levels.
Because Senator Honan spoke of professions that are able to look after themselves on graduation, I might say that the Institution of Engineers of Ireland, which is the professional body catering for the engineers, has cooperated with the Department of Education to the best of its ability in regard to technician training. The prime problem in regard to technicians in this country is not only the question of training them but it is a question of social status. Until the whole community in this country recognises that the technician has a very real and special contribution to make to the development of the country we will not be able to afford such people the social status that is their due and we will not be able to attract young people into this type of work.
I might say that the Institution of Engineers of Ireland has for the past ten years been endeavouring to correct this, making its views known where appropriate. It has done more than that: the Institution of Engineers has admitted to membership of the institution those who are fully trained as technicians according to modern standards. The position is that those who now graduate from the new technician courses in Bolton Street and Kevin Street, which are approved of by the Department and monitored by extern examiners appointed by the Institution of Engineers of Ireland, receive their diplomas from the president of that Institution. The profession here is conscious of what is required and there is certainly no attempt on the part of the professional engineers to promote their own interests as against those of technicians.
The lack of harmony between supply and demand was mentioned by a large number of Senators. Senator Kelly mentioned that the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary had, a few weeks ago, talked of the large numbers of those who came out with the higher diploma last year. It was mentioned in the debate that of course these were people who had come into the university several years before. Deputy Michael O'Kennedy as Parliamentary Secretary worried about this particular point, but Senator Michael O'Kennedy, speaking in the Seanad in January, 1968, when these people of whom he is now talking were already in the university, had this to say, and I quote from column 634 of Volume 64 of the Seanad Debates:
The increase which we note in the numbers who are attending universities, and which it is anticipated will continue, is very encouraging.
Here we have the dilemma that we all —and I do not wish to pick on the Parliamentary Secretary in this instance —were glad to see the increasing numbers coming into the universities. We failed to anticipate the extent of the problem to which this would give rise.
This is a peculiarly difficult problem. We are going to graduate large numbers this June. Many of them are going to find it difficult to get jobs. What are many of them going to do? They are going to do what the Americans did during the depression. The first great rise in post-graduate education in America occurred during the depression because people could not get jobs. We are going to find more people coming back to do post-graduate courses in the universities because of the difficulty of getting employment. Next year we are going to have people still more highly trained, and let us hope that they manage to get more employment of some type then.
Senator Nash did not seem to be worried about this particular problem and he said that the people who went to the university were going there, I think his words were "for a way of life rather than a living". I do not think this is true, and I do not think it has ever been true. I should like in rebuttal of this to quote from a person who certainly can be described as intellectual, but he was an intellectual who lived so long ago that I think there is no harm in quoting him. His aphorisms have come down and been quoted through the centuries as examples of wisdom. So I quote from the Analects of Confucius that he doubted if any man had ever studied for three years without the hope of financial reward. That was apparently true in the days of Confucius and I think it is still true today. I do not believe our students go to university for love of learning. We hope that some of it may rub off on them during that period, but the position is that our students go to the university in order to make a better career for themselves. The vast majority of students have done this down through the centuries and will continue to do so.
There are many points in regard to the functions of the Authority in regard to its procedures, but at this stage of the debate these are better left for a later discussion. I should like, before concluding, to refer to a few of them because they are ones which I think will come up for substantial debate during the Committee Stage. Firstly, there is this question of equality of opportunity. I should like to say in regard to this that here again we have a word that can mean so many different things. In one sense we have always had equality of opportunity and in another we will never have equality of opportunity.
Let me explain what I mean by this. In the old system, under which many of us went to the university, there was equality of opportunity in the sense that many of us went to the university on open scholarships. But we had here open competition and this was equality of opportunity in a sense. This indeed managed to bring many people to university who would not otherwise have gone there. This is true of other institutions of higher education like our colleges of technology.
We now have a new meaning of equality of opportunity where anybody who gets two or three honours, depending on the institution, is admitted to the institution and anybody who gets four honours is supported by the Department. This is a move towards greater equality of opportunity. But already we have people talking in other countries that equality of opportunity is not met by this. If you start talking, as some people have talked in this debate, about the right of the individual to the realisation of his potential, then you get to the position of saying that equality of opportunity is only fully met when every individual in the community has been developed in some particular institution of higher level education to the absolute limit of his ability.
There is no doubt about it that we are not at the stage when we can afford or nearly afford equality of opportunity of this particular type. But there is one particular matter in regard to equality of opportunity and this is a distortion of the distribution of students in regard to family origin. We have all read accounts of this whereby the middle class in particular are over-represented in the university compared with the community itself. We tend to feel that this is something we should be ashamed of in this country.
It is a world wide phenomenon. In Britain, which now has had 25 years since the Butler Education Act, the position is still the same. The position is that partly because of economic factors, but more largely because of parental attitude, education at the university is not as valued among certain families as others. This will continue to be a factor down through the years.
In regard to the Authority itself, there are just a few points that I would like to raise at this stage and ask the Minister if he could perhaps answer a few questions. There has been some discussion about the position of the chairman but I would like to ask the Minister whether it is the intention that the chairman of An tÚdaras should be full-time or should be part-time or whether this is being left completely open. I would like to ask him if in the event of the chairman being on a full-time or substantially full-time basis, whether it might not be more appropriate that he should have a salary rather than allowances. Thirdly, I would like to ask him if, in the event of at any time the chairman of An tÚdarás being full-time, any provision can be made under this Act for transfer of pension rights and the granting of pension rights or whether this would have to be the subject of special personal legislation.
In regard to the question of the members, there are a number of points that will certainly arise. Senator Nash, in the course of this debate, was rather critical of those Senators who were unhappy about the question of the removal of a member. He seems to feel that it is perfectly proper that the Minister should remove a member who has shown himself continually to be non-objective, continually unreasonable or who showed himself to be unbalanced. If the Minister is foolish enough to appoint to the Authority a person who, within five years, becomes so non-objective, so unreasonable, and so unbalanced as to be a hindrance to the operation of the Authority, indeed it is the power of the Minister's appointment rather than the power of removal which should be called into question.
In regard to the question of the definition of academic member, Senator Nash seemed to think that this was a niggling thought but I am not sure that there is not a point here which is worthy of debate. As drafted, it would appear that so long as a person spends any part of his time in an academic position this is sufficient to qualify him as an academic member. Now there are many person who hold part-time positions in the universities. I would like to suggest that there are some of these people—I stress some and not all—who are quite unsuited to represent, even indirectly, the academic community in this Authority. There is a grave misunderstanding about the function of academics and it is reflected here. A person who walks into the university and gives a certain number of lectures and walks out again does not know what goes on inside a university in the same way as a full-time staff member.
The duty of those of us who hold full-time positions in the university is not merely to lecture and to examine at the end of the year. Our job is also to consult with students, to advise students, and much of the misunderstanding in regard to the amount of work which is done by academics is due to neglect of the fact that the informal relation with students is equally as important as the throwing of words at them in a lecture theatre. So I think that in a very real sense the person who holds a part-time appointment, who walks into an institution and gives his lectures and goes away again to pursue his main avocation is not a suitable person. He certainly is not a person whose understanding of the work of an institution of higher education is comparable to that of a full-time academic.
There is another matter which I would like to raise because it may not be relevant on the Bill itself although it is relevant now when we are discussing the motion on the report of the authority. This is the question of the estimation of the finance required. We have been quoted, in the course of this debate, a figure of £24 million as a five year requirement by the HEA. The Minister said in the Dáil that the same job could be done for £15 million. I hope I do not misquote the Minister or misrepresent him in that regard. But if this is what the Minister said I would suggest this cannot be sustained because, while it might be true to say that a sufficient job could be done for £15 million, it is not true to say that the same job can be done. It might be possible to reduce amounts but this must always be done at the cost in some respect.
For example, universities have particular problems which arise from the nature of the work in them. If you are designing a block to be an office block in which people will be moving through continuously you need a certain amount of circulation space, but if you are designing a university teaching block where everybody moves around for ten minutes of the hour and remains fairly stationary for the other 50 minutes of the hour the amount of circulation space required is quite different. There is danger here that we could economise too far in regard to allowances for matters such as this.
Another factor on which there can be very false economies—one has seen it in many buildings—is economy in regard to the matter of lifts. A certain amount of money can be saved at the time of the installation of the building at a cost of a greatly increased outage in regard to the working of the lifts.
I should like to suggest to the Minister that he and his Department should be careful in the future in regard to this. It is due to the Authority and the public that the Minister should be clear on his point as to exactly what economies were possible that could reduce a figure of £24 million to £15 million.
As I said at the outset, this Bill is an attempt to harmonise university accountability and the accountability of other institutions of higher education with the idea of the autonomy of such bodies. As such, the solution that the Minister has proposed is a worthy one. If this solution is adopted, we will have a system of third level education which will manage to carry on the job that is being carried on under difficult conditions. Our universities, in particular, but to a large extent other higher education institutions also, labour under the difficulty that they are playing in an international league. If they once drop below international standards they are finished.
We, in our institutions of higher education in this country, have been hanging on by our finger nails in the past few years. Unless relief comes quickly there is the real danger that one or other of the sections of these institutions will have to let go and fall to the bottom of the ravine. If this scheme goes through and if the universities and Department trust An tÚdarás we can have a great improvement.
I should like before concluding to quote and comment briefly on a remark made in another place by a British Prime Minister. I think it is safe to quote him since he is 90 years dead. Benjamin Disraeli, in a debate in the House of Commons in 1863, said:
A university should be a place of light, of liberty and of learning.
In the past our universities have done their best in this regard. In regard to light, to liberty and to learning they have done their best. But all we have done is in each respect to shine in some places and be somewhat dim in others. It may well be that, under the new Authority, we may decide that there are only certain places in which we can shine. But we can, at least, look forward under An tÚdarás to higher education institutions which truly will be places of light for the student, of learning for the staff and, I hope, of liberty for all.
My final remark is that the aphorism is frequently made that there must be greater control of what is done in these institutions because he who pays the piper calls the tune.
