Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Jul 1971

Vol. 70 No. 15

Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 11 (Resumed)

Dr. Belton

I move amendment No. 14:

To add to the section the following new subsection:

"( ) That an tÚdarás send annually to the principals of secondary schools such information as may be deemed necessary and should include inter alia the state of overcrowding in the various faculties and the numbers rejected in that year."

This amendment was put down to enable the principals of secondary schools to have some information as to conditions in the various institutions of higher education, especially overcrowding or lack of overcrowding in the various faculties and disciplines.

Senator Kelly's amendment No. 8 has a somewhat similar intent. I have left out of it the two words "publishing" and "forecasts" which were discussed at length on amendment No. 8. The Minister did not feel that "publishing" would be correct and the ability to forecast was not something that he would like to accept.

I want to refer to the words "principals of secondary schools". If this amendment is passed and if it is agreed that the Higher Education Authority should substitute "supply of the information" that is suggested in this amendment the proper people to send this information to would be the principals of the secondary schools.

It is evident to everybody here that the principal of a secondary school may not necessarily be the principal teacher. I am assuming, in this amendment, that when the principals of secondary schools get the information that I am seeking here they will hand it over to the principal teacher of that school.

The principle behind this amendment is that there should be available through the principals or the principal teachers of secondary schools such information as will enable pupils of secondary schools, and maybe their parents, to have some guidance as to what they should do in the post-secondary years.

It is true that some pupils will have made up their minds what career they will follow when they leave secondary school, but there will be quite a large number who will not have made up their minds, and either the pupil or their parents will seek guidance from the principal teacher or principal of the secondary school. The information I suggest, which should be given through the principals down to the principal teacher of secondary schools, should guide them as to which faculty the pupil should enter or, if necessary, guide them to a different institution. Take, for instance, people living in the midlands who find that in Dublin there is overcrowding in the profession they wish to follow. The Authority could say to them, not necessarily direct them, that another institution of higher education somewhere else in the country may have vacancies.

A choice of subjects for a pupil has to be determined in the penultimate year. By penultimate year I mean the fifth and sixth year in a secondary school. After the fourth year they have to make a decision and drop some subjects because on entering the fifth year they have to determine their course. In that year information such as I am seeking here, which should be provided to the principals or principal teachers of secondary schools, would be of some advantage.

Again, I repeat that the pupil or the parents may have to make up their minds as to which course they will follow after leaving the secondary school. Quite a large number, however, would like some direction from their teacher.

I have worded this amendment carefully and have not included the word "forecast". I have only said that information should be given; I do not suggest for a moment that any forecast should be given. I also included the phrase "as may be deemed necessary". In other words, I do not intend that all the information at the disposal of the Higher Education Authority should be given to the principals of the secondary schools, but only that which pertains to the guidance of pupils after leaving secondary schools.

It appears to me to be a reasonable amendment. It is asking An tÚdarás to supply some information in a particular year. It would then be up to the principals or principal teachers of secondary schools to impart that information to the pupils or their parents so that it may be a guide-line as to what subjects they will take up during their last two years at that school and especially what they intend doing when they leave secondary school.

The Minister, in replying to Senator Kelly's amendment No. 8, mentioned the question of career guidance agencies. I do not think this completely covers the situation. Career guidance, as I know it, explains what a career really means and what subjects would be necessary for a particular career. It means that when a pupil has made his decision as to what career he might take up, career guidance will explain to him what it entails; but it does not tell him anything about the availability of places in the institutions of higher education. The Higher Education Authority, in my opinion, should be the body which would co-ordinate the information that would be available from the institutions of higher education, especially in regard to the placing of pupils in the various institutions or in special faculties in any particular institution.

I should like the Minister to consider this because it is a reasonable amendment and non-contentious. The relationship between the Higher Education Authority and secondary education would be improved by such liaison. The principals of secondary schools may wish to discuss from time to time certain aspects of the curriculum in secondary schools with the Higher Education Authority, and by implication this might also apply here. Because a lot depends upon the trends in education over a period of a few years, overcrowding cannot be forecasted exactly, but certain trends can be forecasted. Therefore, if the principals of the secondary schools decide to consult the Higher Education Authority, the Authority may be able to give information of value regarding the curriculum for the last two years at school. I commend this amendment to the House and I hope it will be considered favourably by the Minister.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

I think we have discussed this matter on amendment No. 8, but I should like to ask Senator Belton a question. Why did he not refer to the other post-primary schools? Why did he refer only to secondary schools and why did he refer only to faculties in our universities? There are schools of technology, comprehensive schools and post-primary schools. Nobody considers these schools. The leaving certificate is done in the vocational schools as well as in the secondary schools.

Dr. Belton

I accept what Senator Ahearne has stated. I have said the same thing as she has just said. It may be of advantage to the principals of secondary schools to indicate that there are openings in some fields other than those I have suggested. It was implicit in this amendment that some pupil's aptitude may be such to render him unsuitable for a university education; his talents may lie somewhere else.

Professor Kelly

I think that Senator Uí Eachthéirn is perfectly right in saying that the question of career guidance is equally important for people at junior levels. The point behind Senator Belton's amendment and my amendment yesterday is that so far as the functions of the Higher Education Authority are concerned—which, after all, deals only with institutions of higher education; if the Minister in due course designates a college of technology as such then that would be automatically included—it would be appropriate for such an Authority to concern itself with the national problem of directing large masses of children into the right sphere or at least preventing them from going into the wrong one in so far as they can. I do not wish to go over all the arguments which I advanced here yesterday with my own amendment. All I wish to do is to express the hope that the Minister, having slept on this problem as well as on his other problems, will be more disposed to accept Senator Belton's amendment than he was in regard to mine.

Minister for Education (Mr. Faulkner)

While I can agree with many of the things said by Senator Belton here this morning I do not accept that it should be the duty of An tÚdarás. The point raised by Senator Uí Eachthéirn did strike me in relation to the fact that only principals of secondary schools were mentioned. However, I am not making any point of that. I feel that the arguments which I put forward here yesterday against accepting amendment No. 8 apply with perhaps even greater force in the case of this amendment.

As I have already pointed out, it would be for An tÚdarás, under section 6 to assess the demand and need for higher education. Assessing need, as I think everybody agreed here yesterday, is a highly sophisticated task. An tÚdarás will have to rely largely, as I said yesterday, on other agencies connected with manpower forecasting to help them in making their assessments. Agencies like AnCO will be involved in this, as will my Department, for example, in the matter of forecasting teacher requirements. The demand springs from the number of qualified potential higher education students leaving the post-primary sector. It is inevitable that there will be a central agency for processing applications for entry to institutions of higher education. I believe that it is an agency of this kind rather than An tÚdarás that would be in a position to inform post-primary schools as to the demand for places on the one hand and in regard to the availability of places on the other.

I think that another effect of the establishment of such an agency would be that prospective students would not be applying for admission to three or four different institutions. Last year, for example, we had a position where students were being offered places in more than one institution and in more than one faculty while at the same time the other students were, as a result of this, being needlessly refused places. Furthermore, I would say that a central agency could channel students into the technological and technical institutes. It is no secret that the demands for the products of these institutions is very great. I feel, then, that it would be for the career guidance teachers in the post-primary schools to obtain from this central agency and from other sources information which would help them in offering guidance to the pupils in post-primary schools.

I did mention yesterday that I was speaking to a member of a university authority who informed me that his college was having discussions this year with guidance teachers from not only the south but also from the north. I feel that what they are doing as an individual effort could, with very considerable advantage, be done by a combined effort of the various institutions. For all these reasons I feel that the compilation and the dissemination of information of the nature referred to in this amendment would not be a task which should be assigned to an tÚdarás or which, in fact, in my belief they could perform. Therefore, at I say, while I agree with a lot of what the Senator has said, I have put forward yesterday and today my own suggestion as to the way in which this should be met.

Dr. Belton

The Minister has made a few statements which I do not understand. He mentioned about this being a function. I do not mean it to be a function. All that is entailed in this amendment is that they would inform the principals of secondary schools in regard to overcrowding in the various faculties and the numbers rejected in that year. I cannot understand that it would entail any extra work. Surely the assessing of the conditions and numbers in institutions of higher education would already be available to them. All they would have to do would be to send this relevant information to the principals of secondary schools. It would not entail any extra work and would not entail any forecasting or direction. My amendment refers only to plain information, and the principals of the schools themselves can seek further information from any source they like after that. This entails no extra work on the part of an tÚdarás except sending out letters. That is all it means.

I fail to see why the Minister does not accept this amendment. In his reply he envisages the setting up of another type of agency, a central agency, to disseminate information of this nature, including information concerning any institution of higher education or even information at the post-primary level. Are we going to have another agency to do this when we can use the Higher Education Authority for the purpose? If the Minister is going to have another agency to do what is suggested here and what Senator Kelly suggested in amendment No. 8, it is going to cost a lot more money. I cannot see why we cannot use an tÚdarás to disseminate the information we seek here.

Professor Kelly

I want to repeat what Senator Belton has said in his closing remarks and to do so with even greater force. We have been debating this Bill now for something like 12 or 13 hours and, unless I missed something the Minister said momentarily when I was out of the House, this is the first I heard of a new central agency. I do not remember the Minister saying before—and I do not mind his contradicting me at once if I am wrong about this—that we were inevitably to have what he described as a central agency, if I have got him accurately, for processing entries to institutions of higher education.

Does the Minister realise what he is telling the House now? Does he envisage a separate central agency for processing, whatever that means, entries to institutions of higher education? Surely the House ought to have been told about this? This is something quite different from the Higher Education Authority. Does he envisage that this is going to be an ad hoc body? Is he going to introduce legislation to set this thing up? Is it going to mean that the existing colleges are not going to be able to accept whatever students they like and that their freedom in regard to accepting or rejecting students for particular faculties is going to be curtailed? What does it mean? I am anxious to press the Minister on this. I do not think it should be left hanging in the air. It is a matter of extreme importance to the institutions of higher education and I do not think it would be good enough for them to be told when the thing comes to pass that the Minister adverted to it in this debate in this oblique way on the Committee Stage in reply to an amendment which did not bear on this thing at all.

I am not concerned so much with the question Senator Belton argued about disseminating information. Senator Belton is perfectly right, and I think the Minister is entirely wrong. I see no reason why An tÚdarás should not pass on, in some simple easily understood form, to the schools and parents the information which it has which would enable them to form a judgment on which way to advise their children. We have been over that ground and I realise that the Minister's mind is made up and that nothing Senator Belton or I can say will make him change it. But I would like the Minister to say something more about the new concept which he has introduced here out of a hat within the last five minutes of a central agency for processing entrants to institutions. Does he envisage that this agency is going to have some controlling force or merely some persuasive force? Does he envisage that it is going to have some actual powers in regard to controlling entry to these various institutions?

Mr. Faulkner

What I did say here today and yesterday was in regard to a body of this kind—ad hoc or otherwise; probably ad hoc—in which all the universities would be involved. The initiative for something of this kind has already come from one particular quarter where the suggestion was made that they would come together with the authorities in the institutes of higher education and that they would concern themselves in this matter. I did not say that we were setting it up. I simply said that I would envisage that in my belief this would be a much more reasonable and sensible way in which the matter which Senator Belton has mentioned could be dealt with.

Professor Kelly

Would the Minister say from which quarter this initiative has come?

Mr. Faulkner

It has come from the President of University College, Cork.

Professor Kelly

I do not want to press the Minister on what I suppose is a private correspondence or something of that nature, but could the Minister tell the House whether it is envisaged that this agency, in which I can see some advantages, is going to supersede the present freedom of the colleges to take and refuse whom they wish.

Mr. Faulkner

No. I cannot see where it will. An tÚdarás, of course, will have some concern here; but in so far as this matter is concerned it is something that I suggested would be a much better means of dealing with what Senator Belton has in mind than An tÚdarás itself.

Professor Kelly

I can certainly see some advantages in having an agency like this but I think it is not right for the Minister to mention this thing for the first time in this offhand way. If we are going to have an agency of this kind—the Minister says it may be an ad hoc agency—the House and the Dáil and the people should be told who is going to control this agency, who is going to set it up, who is going to run it, what are the criteria it is going to use in processing students as he puts it. Is it going to have the effect that it is going to make the students minds up for them whether they should be admitted to a particular course or not?

These are all matters that are of great importance and interest to the people who work in institutions of higher education. They are far more important than some of the matters which we have been discussing here in the abstract yesterday and this morning. If the Minister is serious about this he should make some kind of public statement, either here or at a press conference, about his intention in this regard. This is one of the most important things that has been mentioned here since we started yesterday morning and I am most unhappy that it should be left hanging in the air in reply to a Committee Stage amendment.

Ruairí Brugha

I do not think the Minister is proposing the setting up of any agency. What he is trying to say is that this is a matter which concerns the universities and the institutions of higher education and probably involves a discussion with An tÚdarás. The upshot of it might be that the different universities might say to An tÚdarás: "This is how we would like it done." I agree with Senator Belton that information should be available, but I do not think that one should be putting the onus in a specific way on An tÚdarás because, in the working of it, it should be a matter between the different institutes and An tÚdarás itself.

Professor Dooge

There are three elements in this particular situation and there is a danger of getting confused between these three elements. First, in the years to come undoubtedly university applications will have to be made even before the results of examinations are known, even before the examinations have been sat for. In regard to this it would be necessary in the future for any intending student of higher education to indicate a range of preferences in regard to institutions and in regard to faculties within those institutions. The pressures will be such that all the people will not be able to get a place in the faculty of their first choice. Senator Belton's amendment is concerned with assisting children and their parents to make out this particular application in a way that will be in the best interests of the child. That is what is the concern of this amendment.

The Minister is wrong when he says that the existence of a central body for processing replaces in any way the function of Senator Belton's amendment. All a certain agency can do, leaving aside for the moment its nature, is to process these applications—to co-ordinate the application which has been made and which indicates the choices and the preferences of the child made in consultation with the parents and the teachers. There is room for co-ordination in this particular regard. It is being discussed in all the universities at the moment. It is extremely likely that the universities, of their own initiative, will work out between them a satisfactory system here.

But these are only two of the three elements. The third one is the actual admission of a student to a particular faculty. It is highly likely that the universities, although co-operating on the exchange of information, having perhaps a high degree of harmonisation of entry requirements and of ranking procedures in regard to the merits of intending students, will wish to remain master in their own house in regard to the final acceptance of students. Therefore we have these three elements —the making of a choice; a list of preferences by the intending applicants and the processing of these, which will be facilitated by harmonisation; and finally the actual acceptance into a faculty. We have been in danger, in this debate, of confusing the three. Senator Belton's amendment is concerned with assisting the child. Anything that is done in regard to the processing of applications is to my mind far too late to be of any assistance in this regard.

Mr. Horgan

Might I ask the Minister whether the agency which he has in mind would eventually aspire to the same kind of powers that similar agencies in existence in Britain at the moment have?

Mr. Faulkner

Quite possibly. It is in operation in Britain because of a very large multiplicity of institutions. I have been wondering from the very beginning, if in our circumstances, where we have not got so many institutions, it would be necessary; but, if we take into consideration the other institutions of higher education which will be designated as well as the universities, we will have a considerable number of these institutions. It might possibly happen that an agency or something of this sort might be established. Senator Kelly read into what I said much more than that I intended when I said that it was inevitable that such an agency would ultimately process applications for entry to institutes of higher education.

Senator Dooge said he believed that it would be likely that the universities would work out some sort of suitable system, which is exactly what I was saying, except that I would include the other institutions of higher education as well as the universities in this. It is equally important that our young people in all our post-primary schools, both secondary and vocational, should have the information available to them. The only grounds on which I disagree with the arguments put forward is on the basis that I do not believe that An tÚdarás is the proper body to deal with it. I think I put very cogent arguments forward as to why it should be done in the manner which I have suggested.

Professor Kelly

I do not wish to take up the time of the House with this. I do not think that I read in the Minister's words anything more than he actually said. I took them down as well as I could and the impression he left with me was that he thought it would be inevitable that we would have a central agency. I took that to mean that this would be something proceeding from the Minister or from the Government. If the Minister assures us now that what he has got in mind is simply the likelihood that the universities or the institutions of higher education will themselves voluntarily set up such an agency, that is quite a different matter. I want to be clear, and I think the House should ask the Minister to make it clear that he has not got at the back of his mind any form of compulsion imposed from the top on these institutions.

Mr. Faulkner

As I said, all the time I had hoped that this would be done. I want to stress that I hope that it will be done and I think that the universities themselves see the reality of it.

Dr. Belton

I am, to some extent, disappointed that the Minister is not accepting this. This is non-contentious amendment in every way. It is in no sense trying to undermine the Minister, and I am sure he will accept that this was a constructive idea.

I have accepted the point made by Senator Ahearne. I thought that would be implicit. All I was asking was that the information be sent to the heads, whether they be principals or principal teachers, of secondary schools and from the information they would get from An tÚdarás they could advise students whether they should go to a university or not, to another institution of higher education, or maybe not an institution of higher education at all. Maybe their interests would lie in craftmanship or something else. Such advise could then be given on the basis of the information got from An tÚdarás.

I fail to see why the Minister should suggest that An tÚdarás should not get itself involved in anything of that nature. The involvement is simple: An tÚdarás would merely send information. There is no question of a directive or anything of that nature. I still think An tÚdarás is the body that will be in existence to deal with this. What the Minister means by "another agency" is not clear to me, but it has been pointed out to Senator Dooge that such an agency will process applications. It will not deal with the parents or the pupils at the stage at which it is necessary to do so: that is when the children are trying to form an idea as to what their future will be. If this information from An tÚdarás were available to the principals of secondary schools it might help in those cases where the pupils or the parents have not made up their minds as to what the pupils should do. It would help at that stage, and it would help them also to decide on the various subjects to take in the fifth and sixth years.

However, as I have accepted the point made by Senator Mrs. Ahearne, if I would be allowed to put down an amendment on Report Stage clarifying what is in this by implication and what Senator Ahearne said, and incorporate it with this amendment, I would be willing to withdraw this.

Mr. Faulkner

I am afraid I cannot accept that. I did not take the point that Senator Ahearne made, but I did not make an argument of it. I put forward all the reasons why I felt An tÚdarás was not the proper body to deal with this. It is a body which is in no sense geared to perform this type of work. I accept that the Senator put down his amendment in good faith. I never questioned that. I simply say that we differ on a fundamental issue in so far as I do not accept that An tÚdarás is the proper body. I have given all the reasons why I do not accept it. In relation to the schools getting information, I would foresee it being done by a particular institution as a joint effort. A somewhat similar type of business could be operated by an agency such as we have already discussed. They could have discussions with the guidance teachers and they would get very much more direct information in that sense.

I would not be willing to accept an amendment simply because it included the vocational aspect of it. While I felt that the discussion was orientated towards university education, nevertheless I did not make a point of that. I made my own arguments as to why I did not feel that I could accept the amendment.

Dr. Belton

The Minister uses a phrase there which I fail to understand. He said An tÚdarás was not "geared" for this. Any competent higher education authority is surely geared for what is contained in this amendment. All that is asked for in this amendment is that certain information should be given, and this information should be to hand to an education authority. This information could be collected from the different institutions, including what Senator Ahearne mentioned. It should be available at any time to the Higher Education Authority and all they have to do is to transfer this information to the principal teachers of secondary schools. I do not understand the Minister's phrase that An tÚdarás would not be geared to it.

Mr. Crinion

The amendment is like the one that was turned down earlier yesterday forecasting——

Dr. Belton

I did not use the word "forecasting" at all.

Mr. Crinion

It was used in the other amendment.

Professor Dooge

It is hind-casting; it is giving what happened.

Mr. Crinion

It refers to such information as may be deemed necessary. There is very little difference between that and forecasting. Senator Belton says pupils would then know which faculties to enter or not to enter. That to my mind is forecasting and is a dangerous thing to do. In my opinion it would bind An tÚdarás to giving out information and might change the outlook in some faculties. We heard Senator Quinlan say yesterday that five years ago he told his pupils to go forward for BAs in order to obtain teaching posts. Look at the situation we have today.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

It is under the Redundancy Payments Act they would be coming.

Mr. Crinion

With the teacher guidance we have today those people should be able to get better information. The onus should be on the parents to get whatever information they need as regards job opportunities. A boy may have an aptitude for one particular subject or profession and he should be encouraged to go forward for it. If he is among the top pupils in his school he will make a success of such a career. If a boy is interested in a particular subject I would not like to be the person or board that would change him to another profession that he might not make a success of.

We in public life are all aware of many people who are not suited for the professions they have. There was a notorious situation in the teaching profession long ago in which people went forward for jobs as national school teachers just because the salary was attractive and without having any regard for their ability to do such a job. I once knew of a girl who, when asked at an interview for a teacher post why she wanted to become a teacher, said: "My mother wants me to become a teacher." We all know what difficulties that type of person could create if she were given such a post. If this amendment were accepted it might affect the children's outlook. I believe the information will be readily available.

Mícheál Cranitch

At the centre of the debate on this amendment there seems to be the question of career guidance. An tÚdarás has, and will continue to have, more than enough on its hands besides entering into a very specialised area such as career guidance. The question of career guidance is a very dicey business. By nature, and by our natural characteristics, we are very often loath to take advice from anybody. Those of us who have experience in this field can bear me out on that. We have often given good advice to find that the wise have taken it but the majority have not. We seem to love our freedom so intensely that we want our complete freedom of choice in everything we do.

As far as career guidance here is concerned it seems to be a matter that will have to grow in the passing of time. We cannot make it by instant regulation or legislation. The oldest form of career guidance is that of the parents themselves who decide on what they feel is best for their child. In latter years primary and post-primary schools have made it their business—it is good educational and social practice—to acquaint themselves with all the openings in careers and have informed their pupils accordingly.

I take it that Senator Belton had the highest motives in mind when he put down this amendment. Under it he intends to include all post-primary schools——

Dr. Belton

I have accepted that.

Mícheál Cranitch

—and institutions other than universities, although the word "faculties" would seem to suggest that the only institutions he had in mind at the time were the universities. A propos of that there seems to be an overtone, since this debate on Committee Stage started, that there is no third-level institution but the universities and to a lesser extent that there are no post-primary schools but secondary schools. This is an alarming tendency. I take it that it is not deliberate and just occurred by way of accident because of the preponderance of university men here. It is something of which we should be very wary.

There are more than universities involved in third-level institutions. There are colleges of technology, schools and colleges of music, colleges of art, training colleges for national teachers and so on, and they must be taken into consideration also. We should rid our minds of the idea that there can be nothing outside of a university. The question of status probably comes in here and, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for overcrowding is the fact that so many people regard attendance at a university as a status symbol and are inclined to send their children to a university whether or not those children are fitted for it. As I listened to the debate yesterday and this morning the Latin phrase odi profanum vulgus kept running through my mind. Maybe that attitude of mind is still with us today.

Following all the suggestions that have been put forward I take it that by now we are of the opinion that An tÚdarás has more than enough on its plate in getting properly established. I wish to make no suggestion as to what form a central agency for career guidance should take. My opinion is that it must develop slowly over the years. It will have to grow of its own volition. Parents and schools at all levels will have to have a say in it and the industrial arm of the country will have to have a say in it. At this stage it would be disastrous to think of the formation, by regulation or otherwise, of a central agency to deal with this very vexed question of career guidance.

Dr. Belton

I consider what Senator Crinion has said to be quite irrelevant to the amendment before us. He said that parents should tell their children what career to choose, but this in a way has been contradicted by Senator Cranitch himself. There are quite a number of points on which I agree with Senator Cranitch. There are other types of education than university education. Senator Uí Eachthéirn brought this point out at the outset and I accept what she said. The Minister and Senator Cranitch implied that this would entail extra work. What extra work does it entail on the Higher Education Authority? None whatever, except sending out a few letters. All this information must be available to the Higher Education Authority already, and all they have to do is send it to the principals of secondary schools. By implication, this amendment accepts that there are forms of higher education other than the ones that have been discussed by the academics in this House.

The Higher Education Authority which the Minister proposes to set up very quickly will be the body that will be in existence long before any body that he has suggested, such as the central agency, which he mentioned for the first time today. It may be years before this agency is set up. If he does set it up and it proves to be a better source of information, let us examine it and transfer the function to it. I am trying to elicit information from the Higher Education Authority in favour of the people I have mentioned. However, we have no such agency at the moment, and we have proposed legislation here.

In the meantime I suggest that the Minister accept this amendment with the addition of something that could be produced at Report Stage. There is no suggestion in this amendment that the Authority should publish or forecast anything but merely issue information without any comment. It is up to the principals of secondary schools, in consultation with pupils and parents, to assess the information that is before them. I am not suggesting that there should be a directive from the Higher Education Authority to the principals of secondary schools but it should make available to the principals of secondary schools information that may be of some value to them in their discussions with their pupils and with the parents of pupils. I cannot see how this can be contentious. I should have thought that the Minister would accept this; it would not prejudice in any way any central agency that might be set up. He could set up a central agency afterwards and make provision for transferring what I suggest here to that agency.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

As one who has not had the benefit of either secondary or third level education, I hesitate to become involved in a debate of this kind. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, as proposed by Senator Belton, at least he should give an assurance that some effort will be made to prevent turning out, year after year, graduates from our universities who perhaps find that they are marked for export We should make some effort to ensure that students who have had the benefit of university education and who acquire degrees will be utilised in this country, and that some country across the water will not have the advantage of those students. It takes a lot of money to keep a student in a university, and a big proportion of it is paid by the taxpayer. We should therefore ensure that the taxpayer gets value for the products of our universities.

I can accept the Minister's plea that it is difficult and that, perhaps, it is unfair to impose this task on An tÚdarás, that it would be outside their terms of reference. However, a body should be set up to ensure that parents and pupils get career guidance and are informed what the prospects are of procuring employment in Ireland. In this rapidly changing world, it will be a difficult task for any agency. It should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to give a reasonably accurate guess at what the position is likely to be three, four or five years' hence, when a particular student graduates and prepares to take up a position in life.

I should like to see, and I am sure the taxpayers would also like to see, that our country and not a foreign one benefits from the talents of the graduates of our universities, who are being heavily subsidised.

Mr. Nash

This amendment reads:

An tÚdarás shall send annually to the principals of secondary schools such information as may be deemed necessary...

That may be anything, it may be nothing; it may be an enormous amount or it may be a detail, but that is the actual wording of the amendment. It goes on:

...it should include inter alia the state of overcrowding in the various faculties and the numbers rejected in that year.

That is suggested as an amendment to this Bill. The Bill sets out the functions of An tÚdarás, and sets out special functions under section 5: "...it shall advise the Minister on the need or otherwise for the establishment of new institutions." That is one specific function of the Authority. "That it shall recommend to the Minister the overall provision of student places to be made within the higher education system having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable balance in the distribution of the total number of students." That is another specific function. "That it shall assess the amounts of State financial provision, both current and capital, which it recommends for higher education." That is its third specific provision.

Those are the specific functions of An tÚdarás. In addition to that, it has a further specific function: "To bear constantly in mind the national aim of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture." Then it has general functions under section 3:

(a) furthering the development of higher education,

(b) assisting in the co-ordination of State investment in higher education and preparing proposals for such investment,

(c) promoting an appreciation of the value of higher education and research, ...

Two other functions are to promote the attainment of equality of opportunity in higher education and the democratisation of the structure. This amendment does not appear to fit in anywhere in the specific functions of An tÚdarás or even within its general functions. If there is an amendment to a Bill, it must fit into the general framework of the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what Senator Fitzgerald has said. I agree with the idea behind it, but I do not think this is the place for that.

Consider this amendment in greater detail to see where it could possibly fit in. An tÚdarás, according to this, is supposed to be able to tell the principal of any secondary school how many pupils failed, say, in Bolton Street in doing a course in electronics and how many were rejected; how many pupils failed in doing a course in domestic economy in some third level school; how many law students failed to pass their exams for the Incorporated Law Society; likewise, how many law students failed the Bar; how many students failed in the College of Surgeons in third medicine and so on. This is all statistical data which An tÚdarás would not have. They could get this statistical data but it would require a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of money. It would detract from their main functions and their main purposes.

As Senator Fitzgerald said, there is no use in spending a vast amount of the taxpayers' money in educating third level students for export. I am not sure that it comes within the function of the Minister for Education. This is something that should be included in a Bill coming under the control of the Minister for Labour, something in relation to manpower policy.

I think that where Senator Belton has gone wrong in his argument is that he has assumed that An tÚdarás would have all this statistical information, when they would not have one iota of it. If they wanted to find out from the Bar Council how many rejects they had in the year and how many entrants they had in the year and so on they would have to write to them to find out. They would have to do likewise if they wanted to find out the same information from Bolton Street, from the college in Limerick, from the new college that is being set up in Sligo, from the College of Surgeons or from anywhere else.

If the principal of a secondary school wanted this information he could write to these schools himself and get it. Then he would be able to give that information. One must realise the immense responsibility that we are throwing upon An tÚdarás. If they made one single slip in any of this vast statistical information they could be held up to odium. That is my opinion, despite the fact that I agree wholeheartedly with what Senator Fitzgerald has said. I would agree with what Senator Belton has said if the statistical information were available but it would not be there. It is something that would have to be searched for.

All An tÚdarás can do, if it can deal with the overall provision of student places in the totality of our institutions of higher education, is to recommend to the Minister if further schools are needed for any purposes such as business guidance, management training or for anything else that is necessary. It would not have this statistical information, and it would not come within its purview at all. It would be a complete misplacement of functions if this were to be placed under the control of the Minister for Education. It is something for the Minister for Labour who has the responsibility for manpower policy and for the programming of manpower policy for the years ahead.

Professor Kelly

I do not want to offend Senator Nash, but I sometimes wonder when I hear arguments from the other side of the House on a point like this if he would be saying the same thing if the amendment had come from a Fianna Fáil Senator to a proposal by a Fine Gael Minister. The people on the far side of the House seem to jump in automatically when they could quite easily remain silent—and no doubt would be facilitating their Minister by doing so—to support a point of view which I am sure they would not necessarily be supporting if it were the other way around.

Senator Nash has gone over ground that was thrashed out here yesterday. He has told the House at great length that the Authority would not have statistical information at its disposal. If Senator Nash would look at section 6 he will find that the Authority is required to get statistical information and keep it at its disposal. It is required to maintain a continuous review of the demand and need for higher education. I am damned if I can see how it can do that unless it gathers the kind of information that Senator Nash was talking about.

If it is in the state of childish ignorance which Senator Nash assumes, with no knowledge of how many people are failing exams, with no knowledge of how many are being refused admission to institutions, it will not be able to do its job. Section 6 positively requires it to gather the necessary information so that it can do its job. Senator Nash's arguments completely fall to the ground. What Senator Belton and I have been pressing for in vain—I hope that the purpose of this is being understood by this House and those outside it—is for the Authority, in some shape or form, to make available whatever knowledge it has about the general pattern of employment for graduates to the people who need it, namely, parents of children entering higher education and the people who direct the schools in which these children are studying. I do not care if it is under Senator Belton's amendment or my amendment or under the amendment in section 6 that it is done. I do not care how it is done.

I also agree with what the Minister said a while ago that if we had such a thing as a central agency, this body which is conjured out of a hat, that agency might be able to do this job; but we have not got a central agency at the moment and when we have it is not clear what its functions will be. What we have got is a Bill before us creating an Authority which is directed by section 6 to do something which necessarily involves its gathering statistical information. I want that information to be made available to the people who need it. I cannot see why the Minister will not go an inch of the way to meet us on this, and it is not only "us". This is not a point on which Fine Gael will stump the country. It is not because I am in Fine Gael that I am making this point. I would be making it if I were on the other side as well. I am sure that in their heart of hearts, Senators Cranitch, Keery and Crinion know perfectly well that this is a sensible amendment.

Mr. Nash

I regret that I cannot allow the last remarks to pass without answering them. One way of countering an argument is to attribute to somebody insincere motives. It is a matter of regret to me that Senator Kelly has seen fit to attribute to me motives of that nature. He has told us that all this statistical information should be in the hands of An tÚdarás because of the provision in section 6(1):

An tÚdarás shall maintain a continuous review of the demand and need for higher education.

The demand and need for higher education is a very general thing. It is a very different thing from having, as required by this amendment, the state of overcrowding of the various faculties —not of the various universities, not of higher education in general even, but the various faculties—the numbers rejected in a year whether it is in law, medicine, engineering, science, electricity, plumbing, domestic economy or anything else. It would not need all that information to keep this continuous review. I do not care what Minister or what party is in power I should still feel the same about that amendment. It is something that should not be in this Bill. It is something that would hamper and interfere with what should be the proper functions of An tÚdarás. Furthermore, I should go so far as to say that this other function should not be under the control of the Minister for Education but under the control of the Minister for Labour who should have the overall picture regarding manpower policy.

Mr. A. O'Brien

I think we should look at this from the point of view of the great responsibility placed on the principals of secondary schools when they are consulted by the pupils or their parents as to which post-secondary institutions they should attend. It is a great responsibility for these people to advise students as to which faculty they should enter. In helping them to reach the right decision we should ensure they are supplied with the fullest possible information. Under the free education scheme there are large numbers of students attending secondary or other post-primary courses. This means there is overcrowding in some of the schools and colleges. The post-secondary institutions are unable to cater for the greatly increased numbers attending.

When the principal of a school is recommending a particular faculty to a pupil he must take into account the student's ability and also the accommodation available in that faculty. It often happens that numbers of students cannot go beyond the first year, not because they do not pass the first year examination but because there is no accommodation available. I think we could accept Senator Belton's amendment and have the information supplied by An tÚdarás, as there is no other authority. The information should be made available somehow.

There are, under the free educational system, large numbers of children attending post-primary schools whose parents have no educational background and who are not well-informed as to the different outlets for their children. That adds to the burden placed on the principals of these schools. I strongly support the effort to ensure that the principals of schools are supplied with the most up-to-date information by An tÚdarás or any other body to help them to advise the students which subjects suit them best. It is possible to visualise, in remote parts of the country where secondary education was not available to the same numbers of people heretofore as now, the frustration of parents whose children, having attended the secondary school, seek to attend the university and due to getting the wrong advice or, perhaps, no advice are turned down because of lack of accommodation. If Senator Belton's amendment prevents this happening it will serve a good purpose.

Dr. Belton

I am disappointed at the reception the Minister has given this amendment. It is in no sense an effort at being contentious. I would be willing to withdraw the amendment if I had permission to raise the matter on the Report Stage.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As I pointed out already, we have a very heavy programme. Since this has been adequately debated for the last hour, I do not see any point in having it repeated on the Report Stage when the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to accept it.

Question: "That leave be given to withdraw amendment No. 14" put and declared lost.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 15:

In subsection (1), line 43, to delete "such amounts for institutions of higher education" and substitute "such an amount for higher education and research".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and may be taken together.

Mr. Horgan

I believe these two amendments are, to some extent, independent of each other and I question the wisdom of treating them almost as one. They do refer to two different subsections.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is a matter for the House.

Agreed to take amendments Nos. 15 and 16 separately.

Mr. Horgan

The first point to be made in connection with this amendment is a terminological one. I believe —and I think perhaps the Minister is of the same opinion on this—that one of the ambiguities which the Bill still contains, and which should be rectified before it becomes an Act of the Oireachtas, is in connection with the alternate use of the phrase "higher education" and the phrase "higher education and research". There does not seem to be any pattern in the use of these phrases throughout the Bill and part of the motivation behind this amendment is to ask the Minister to standardise the wording. I think the wording should be the same in all cases and should be "higher education and research" in all cases rather than just "higher education", to avoid any misunderstanding.

The main burden of amendment No. 15 is related to the ambiguity in the wording of section 12(1) as it stands now. The Minister will, no doubt, heave a great sigh when he sees this coming up again, as he spent so much time on it in the other House. We believe that, while the section has been improved, this ambiguity remains in the text of the Bill.

In my Second Reading speech I referred to this and I asked the Minister to clarify what he had in mind. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the Minister, in my estimation, went further than he has gone at any stage to date in clarifying this and made it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, the Authority would have the power to vary the allocation of money as between different institutes of higher education and that the printing of projected allocations in the estimates would be solely for information.

It is true that, when he said this, the Minister seemed to be under the impression that the kind of situation in which this might arise was one in which some of the institutions of higher education might have more money than they needed for their requirements and in which the Authority might be anxious to spread the surplus around. The Minister can rest assured that in nine cases out of ten, if not in all cases, it will not be a question of spreading round a surplus but of sharing a deficit. If the Minister's reaction to the first report of the Authority is any guide, it will be a question of seeing where cuts can be made, not who is going to get any extra money.

If the Authority will have the power to vary the amounts available to the various institutions of higher education, depending on the amount of money that is made available to them by the Oireachtas through the Minister for Education, why should this not be in the Bill? It seems to me that the present wording of the Bill is still guilty of the original ambiguity and that the amendment which we propose would have the effect of removing it.

Again, I fail to see why the details of the amounts to be made available to various institutions should be published in the Book of Estimates. The simplest reason I can think of why the Minister has this in mind is that this is a legacy from a long period of direct funding of the universities. The amounts made available to the universities and, indeed, other institutions of higher education, from the Department of Finance through the Department of Education both as regards capital and current expenditure have always appeared in the Estimates. The only reason I can assume that the Minister desires to continue this practice is because of a sort of conservatism, an unwillingness to change the existing state of affairs. I believe that very many people in the area of higher education generally would agree with me that the proper place for this kind of information is in the annual report of An tÚdarás. It sounds a small change, but I think it is a psychologically important one. The Government, for instance, do not require publication in the Book of Estimates of the way in which sums of money made available to RTE under various Acts have been distributed.

In a country as small as ours, where relationships tend to be intense and hostilities can often break out and in which Parliament very often is used to attack people who are not there to defend themselves, I think it is important that this sort of information, which could lead to an unhappy debate in Parliament, should be removed from the Book of Estimates and put in the annual report of the Authority—which will, of course, ultimately be presented to Parliament itself. We have a fundamental difficulty here in that, while we want to make some inroads into the rather old-fashioned 19th century idea of university autonomy, we cannot at the same time go to the other extreme. We cannot go for the idea that, because the old idea of university autonomy was restrictive and in many ways reactionary, the only and obvious alternative to it is to have total State control. We have to set up a sort of balancing mechanism, and ideally this balancing mechanism should be located in An tÚdarás. The ambiguity of section 10, subsection (1) unbalances An tÚdarás psychologically, and I feel that our amendment would give them an extra degree of psychological independence which would be absolutely vital for the early years of their existence.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to support this amendment for the reasons given by Senator Horgan and some additional reasons that I will mention. First of all, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I have read the debate which took place in the Dáil on this matter and I realise that the subject is one with which the Minister must be familiar. I think it is important —and I say this bearing in mind what Senator Cranitch said a while ago— that higher education is receiving a very full debate in this House. It is important that the debate be full because the people taking part, apart from some Senators, are the representatives of the universities. This amendment is put forward by two Senators who represent universities, Senator Horgan represents the National University of Ireland and I represent Dublin University. We are putting forward this amendment out of our own conviction and also because it corresponds to the view of IFUT. I think this is not to be decried; I think this is speaking authoritatively from the point of view of the universities.

The second point that I should like to make is that I was rather chilled by the prevention of Senator Belton's attempt to withdraw the last amendment. He wanted to re-introduce it on Report Stage. I would not like to think that this was going to happen, if anybody else wanted to withdraw an amendment and re-introduce it on Report, on the grounds that the Minister does not wish to have a separate Report Stage but wants to steamroll the Bill through at this sitting. I would not like to think that that was the Minister's attitude.

This is a very important piece of legislation, one which is receiving thoughtful consideration in this House. We have had a number of amendments put forward and the Minister, to his credit, has listened with great attention to every amendment. He has dealt with them reasonably, but he has uniformly refused every amendment. I hope that this does not mean a closed mind, that the Minister is not just being patient with what we are saying with no intention, at any stage, of acceding to any of our requests. I think he will realise from the length of the debate in the Dáil and for the reasons put forward by Senator Horgan, that this is perhaps the most important amendment put forward on this Bill, and that it is put forward not for frivolous but for extremely serious reasons, reasons which relate to university autonomy but which also relate to an awareness by the community of the importance to the community of university funds being properly administered.

As Senator Horgan has said, there are really two aspects to this amendment. The first is to include the higher education and research in the amendment. The second is in relation to exchanging the words "amounts to institutions" for the words "such amount"—a total amount. If I might refer to what the Minister said on the Committee Stage in the Dáil in relation to efforts by Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Thornley to put down, a similar amendment, I quote from the Dáil Official Report of 1st April, 1971, in which the Minister said in relation to the question of the amounts:

When I refer here to amounts for institutions of higher education, I am referring to the two sums that will be voted annually by Dáil Éireann. There will be a global sum by way of grant-in-aid to An tÚdarás out of which An tÚdarás will pay the current grants to these institutions. There will be a second global sum also by way of grant-in-aid out of which An tÚdarás will recoup the institutions their expenditure on capital works for which approval will already have been given by An tÚdarás. Therefore, when I refer to amounts, I am not referring to specific amounts for various institutions as such but to global amounts, both current and capital.

Then the Minister went on:

These are the amounts which will appear in the appropriate subheads in the Book of Estimates but as an appendix to the relevant vote there will be shown the sums proposed for each institution and which, in total, add up to the sums provided in the subheads.

Therefore, the Minister concedes that the amounts will be global amounts and then says that these will be particularised in an appendix to the Book of Estimates. In the debate in the Dáil it was pointed out that this was a very novel idea—an appendix to the Book of Estimates. As Senator Horgan has said, there is no itemisation of this sort in grants to other bodies such as RTE which he mentioned. I would mention, even more relevantly in this context, Bord Fáilte, which gets grants-in-aid which are not broken down in this way. The proper place for a detailed account of expenditure is surely in the report of An tÚdarás.

It has been pointed out in the Dáil— and I agree with this—that, if the method of financial control is what it appears to be on the reading of this, then what has happened as a result of setting up the Higher Education Authority is to make the machinery more cumbersome without solving any of the problems which it was supposed to solve. I am reinforced in this view by the Minister's further statement in col. 2014 of the Dáil Report where he says, in regard to the method of distributing the amount:

The various institutions would make an application for finance and An tÚdarás would consult with each of them before making recommendations to the Minister. Then the Minister could, if he felt it necessary, have consultations with An tÚdarás and then, when the total amount available had been determined, it would be for An tÚdarás and the Minister to agree generally in relation to its apportionment and it would be open to An tÚdarás in regard to such apportionment to carry out any consultation with any institution which they might consider necessary. This would be done prior to the production of the Book of Estimates and the amounts in the Appendix would then be agreed on.

This seems to me to mean that the institutions would come to An tÚdarás. They would work out an agreement with An tÚdarás in regard to the amount that would be paid. An tÚdarás would then go to the Government. The Government, if it was not prepared to give the total sum, would give a lesser sum and would work out with An tÚdarás where the cutbacks would be. Then An tÚdarás would go back and explain to the institutions where the cutbacks would be. In other words, you would have a further complication in the process of bargaining. The Department would have direct control of cutbacks in both capital and terms of expenditure and An tÚdarás would not be autonomous in any sense. There would be more direct interference by the Department, but in a more cumbersome form than hitherto.

There is great apprehension in the universities about the wording of this amendment. Senator Horgan, myself and others who spoke to this amendment do not wish to either disguise or minimise the role of the university and the Government's relationship to the universities in regard to the funding of university activity. But there is an important principle involved, which is, that the Higher Education Authority is the proper body, if there has to be any cutback in the total amount granted to the universities, to decide how this cutback will take effect and to report on the current expenditure of the university. That is the proper function of An tÚdarás, and unless it has this function it is not an autonomous body, it is not a proper body, and it will not have respect from the institution who are trying to bargain direct with the Minister because they will know it is the Minister who will finally call the tune. That would defeat the purpose of setting up a Higher Education Authority.

I would urge the Minister to have an open mind on this and to consider how strongly it has been pressed in the Dáil and how strongly it has been pressed here by representatives of the two universities. If the Minister wants to give authority and credibility to the Higher Education Authority, he might at least consider accepting this amendment to section 12, even if he is not prepared to accept any other amendment.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

Section 3, paragraph (c) spells out very clearly that one of the functions of the institutions of higher education is to promote research. It is very clear to me that those institutions will spend some of the money which they get on research when they deem that research is necessary. I think it is as simple as that.

Ruairí Brugha

Senator Robinson has been quoting from the Minister's speech in the Dáil. I have read the Dáil Reports exhaustively and I want to say that I agree with Senator Horgan that this particular section is crucial. But I would like the Minister to clarify what Senator Robinson quoted him on there, because I do not want to misinterpret the Minister. Perhaps Senator Robinson may have, I am not quite sure. Dealing with section 12, subsection (1), would the Minister enlighten me on it?

Mr. Faulkner

The problem I find here is that, although it was decided not to deal with the two amendments together, we do appear to be dealing with them together, and whether or not we would continue on this particular basis and whether I will make my reply on that basis is the question.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is conscious of the difficulty. The House has, however, agreed to discuss them separately. It may be unavoidable that reference be made to amendment No. 16 while discussing amendment No. 15. That may be permissible, but there will be an occasion to discuss matters not already raised when amendment No. 16 is moved.

Mr. Faulkner

First of all, let me say in relation to what Senator Robinson has said about the question of accepting amendments that I am sure the Senator will agree that I have given very considerable study to this whole Bill, both in its formulation and later in relation to the discussion in the Dáil and again in the discussion in the Seanad. Therefore I do not take any decision lightly. If I feel that an amendment will improve the Bill in any way then I accept it, but if I feel that its effect would, in my view, not help the Bill then of course I could not possibly accept it.

I will repeat again what I said in the Dáil in relation to this question of amounts rather than amount. Firstly, the amounts for institutes of higher education which will be paid to An tÚdarás will be two sums that will be voted annually by Dáil Éireann. One is a global sum by way of grant-in-aid to An tÚdarás, out of which An tÚdarás will pay recurrent grants and the second will be a global sum by way of grant-in-aid out of which An tÚdarás will recoup to institutions the expenditure on capital works to which it has already given approval. The Book of Estimates will also contain in an appendix, for the information of the House and for the information of anybody concerned, particulars of the recurrent grants and the capital grants which An tÚdarás would propose to make to the individual institution should the global sums be voted.

Senator Horgan suggests that this is simply because we do not want to make a change. First of all I might say that we do not always follow the British example, but in this particular case this is the manner in which these sums are dealt with in Britain. There are separate global amounts for current and capital. I think that in any democratic State it is only right that the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas should have knowledge of the individual amount allocated by An tÚdarás to the various institutions of higher education.

I may be dealing in a sense with the second amendment, but Senator Brugha has asked me again to repeat the manner in which An tÚdarás and the various institutions and the Minister for Education and the Government will deal with the allocation of the moneys. I shall repeat more or less what I said in the Dáil in relation to this. Firstly, all of the institutions concerned will submit their demands to An tÚdarás in an agreed form. I do not have to explain that aspect of it. An tÚdarás will then have any discussions it deems necessary with the various institutions. It is inevitable that an tÚdarás will have discussions with the various institutions. In fact, it would be very difficult for them to carry out their functions properly unless they had discussions in some detail in relation to the demands made on them.

An tÚdarás will then present to the Department of Education the total amount of the sums it feels should be made available. Discussions may or may not ensure between the Higher Education Authority and the Department on this, but I have no doubt that in normal circumstances this will happen, because it would be a rare occasion on which any Government would be able to provide the total that would be demanded of them. After consideration had been made of the demands from An tÚdarás by the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and, quite possibly, by the Government, An tÚdarás will then be informed as to the sums it was proposed to make available for current and capital expenditure.

It will then be for the Higher Education Authority, in the light of the money being made available, to have whatever discussions it might think necessary with the various institutions, with a view to determining the amount which it will propose to allocate to each institution. This will not be referred in any way to the Minister. I want to make that clear. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in my reply in the Dáil, but when the Higher Education Authority are informed of the money that will be made available to them they will have the discussions with the institutions and they will determine the amount which it is proposed to allocate to each.

An tÚdarás will then inform the Minister as to the allocation it proposes to make to each institution and this is the information which will be in the appendix to the Estimate. It is not for any other purpose; it is simply so that it will be possible for the Minister to include in an appendix to the Estimates the various sums being allocated to each institution. In any democratic country it would not be accepted that very considerable sums were being allocated to institutions and that the Houses of the Oireachtas would know nothing about it.

Mr. Horgan

I am grateful for the Minister's further information. I still do not understand why we should be doing something in this matter of the appendices, despite the fact that the Government has consistently refused, I think rightly, to make the same kind of information available in respect of funds which are disposed of by other Government Departments in an almost identical way to State-sponsored bodies. This seems to be a basic contradiction in the Government's policy. If there is not, we should be grateful for an explanation of it.

I should like to ask the Minister if it is absolutely necessary, and if it is actually impossible to have it in any other way, to have two Votes in the Oireachtas for capital and current expenditure to the institutions of higher education. It seems to me that the question of whether one uses the words "amount" or "amounts" is bound up with this. While I appreciate that the procedure involved in the appendices is as obtains in Britain, I would urge on the Minister the difference between the two countries. In Britain there is a much greater multiplicity of institutions than there is in this country and things are rarely debated in Parliament at the same level of personal intensity that they tend to be here. I feel that adopting the British practice here might make it more difficult for the Authority and for the Minister to plan the development of higher education on the national basis that they hope to. It might make the Authority and the Minister more susceptible to local pressures of a kind that cannot be easily reconciled with the national interest.

Ruairí Brugha

As I said earlier, I agree with Senator Horgan that this section is crucial. Anybody who has read the Dáil debates will understand that. Almost the whole discussion of higher education hinged on this situation regarding money. As I understand it, the whole idea in setting up the Higher Education Authority is to take education out of the hands of the Minister, to take the ordering of it from him and to hand it over to a completely responsible independent authority, so that you would avoid the situation where one institution is looking for this and another would say "You gave so much to so-and-so" and so on.

This is a principle of which I approve, as I think it is very necessary. It is very difficult to deal with the first amendment without overlapping. The first amendment refers more to the difference between "amount" and "amounts". You have to leave it in the plural because you are dealing with capital and current allocations, the two global amounts to which the Minister referred.

Senator Horgan referred to the 19th century approach, but I am sure the Senator understands just as well as I do that the whole situation regarding institutions of education, universities and so on, has changed since the 19th century. We heard Senator Jack Fitzgerald referring to the cost to the taxpayer and this is what we have to answer for as legislators. I agree that Senator Robinson and Senator Horgan represent particular institutions and it is their function to argue on behalf of those institutions. However, those of us who approach this from the point of view of what is happening to the taxpayers' money must, naturally, look at it in a different light.

The minimum cost per student is around £460 to £480 to the taxpayers; that is in the case of fee-paying students. The cost in the case of grant or scholarship students is in the area of £650 to £700 per annum. The Minister said earlier that no democratic society can be left in ignorance of what is happening to its money and what results we are getting from such expenditure. Senator Horgan has, in some detail, referred to RTE and Bord Failte. I agree with him to some extent in relation to Bord Fáilte but not in relation to RTE. RTE does not have to account, although it does give an account, for its revenue. Its revenue is derived from two different areas: one from licences and the other from advertising. It does, however, account for specific grants when they are made by the Exchequer.

Mr. Horgan

In its annual report, but not in the Book of Estimates.

Ruairí Brugha

Perhaps I am wrong there. It is quite some time since I read them. I am not altogether happy about the manner in which any of the semi-State bodies are producing their accounts. As I see it in relation to our higher education institution situation, the idea of the appendix is a very good one. It gets around a difficulty here where if you were to insert specific amounts into the Estimates you would be trying the hands of each institution and of the Higher Education Authority itself. Am I going over the——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators only make the Chair's task more difficult if they signal the fact that they are crossing the border line.

Ruairí Brugha

I can take the point up on subsection (2) when it comes up for discussion. However, I believe the appendix will provide information without necessarily tying the different allocations of expenditure rigidly, particularly on the capital side, as they would have to be in the Book of Estimates. An appendix would provide the information to which the taxpayers would be entitled and yet leave flexibility to the Higher Education Authority. As the Minister has pointed out— and it was a point I wanted to draw from him—once the two global amounts have been decided upon and handed over to the Authority that is the end of the matter so far as the Minister is concerned. It will then be a matter between the Higher Education Authority and all the institutions concerned. As I understand from earlier discussions what can happen is that on the capital side the Higher Education Authority can reallocate capital where it has not been used to an area where it is needed. This is a very useful and flexible situation to have.

Returning to the amendment, I do not think the point made by Senator Horgan is strong enough to make a fundamental change. By "such amounts" is meant two double amounts. It is not amounts to each institution, as I understand it. If you put this in the singular you are going to create a further difficulty.

Mrs. Robinson

With reference to some of the points mentioned by Senator Brugha, although we represent the universities we would go all the way with him because universities must account for every penny they spend. It is a matter of great interest and concern to the community how the universities spend their funds. Having a subhead with two global amounts, as the Minister has mentioned, and then a breakdown in the Book of Estimates would impose enormous practical difficulties. The argument was very well put by Deputy FitzGerald in the Dáil Official Report of 1st April, 1971, column 2110, where he says:—

Quite apart from the question of principle involved, there is the practical question. The procedure the Minister proposes is one which, working backwards from the date on which the money has to be paid out, would involve so many stages that it would be necessary for the universities to state their requirements so far in advance of the year to which the requirements related that the chances of their making an accurate estimate would be greatly diminished. Already we are being pushed back and back to an earlier date because of the inability of the public administration to do its job speedily enough.

As it is, we are asked in June, I think, to submit our requirements for a year beginning nine months later. With the procedure the Minister is suggesting just when does he think this process would have to start?

That is another reason why it seems to me very difficult to have the appendix to the Book of Estimates and why it would be all the more appropriate that a very detailed and thorough breakdown would be in the report of An tÚdarás

In putting forward this amendment, I do not think it is suggested that there would be any attempt to disguise the way in which the money would be spent by the universities. It would be the proper function of An tÚdarás to allot the amount, depending on the total amount which the Government, having regard for other community interests, could see would be available for university expenditure. An tÚdarás would put in a detailed report of this. I agree that there is some problem in dealing with these amendments separately.

I have here the Book of Estimates and it is significant, particularly in relation to Bord Fáilte, that there is no attempt to break down the grants-in-aid. I shall read briefly from the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power in relation to Bord Fáilte. There is a grant under section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act of £4,080,000, a resort development grant-in-aid of £250,000 —no attempt to particularise the resorts; development of holiday accommodation grant-in-aid £1,800,000; development of supplementary holiday accommodation in western counties grant-in-aid £100,000, with no attempt to particularise the counties concerned. I think it would be very difficult for Bord Fáilte, at the stage of the Estimates, to particularise. I also think it would be extremely difficult and unrealistic for the universities to have credible estimates at the stage where all this complicated process would go on. As well as the two global amounts, the breakdown of these grants-in-aid would be in the Book of Estimates. In relation to the final point raised by Senator Brugha, it would be possible for the total amount to be broken in two. It could be (a) for capital expenditure and (b) for current expenditure and could be done easily.

Ruairí Brugha

That is being done.

Mr. Crinion

I wish to refer to what Senator Robinson has just mentioned about Bord Fáilte. To my mind they are all capital grants. They are not current expenditure and that is the reason why Bord Fáilte has not broken down the amounts the Senator has mentioned. In relation to including research in the amendment, in my opinion one cannot have higher education without research, so it is superfluous to include it.

Mrs. Robinson

Research might be separate from the institutions of higher education.

Mr. Crinion

I do not agree. It is unnecessary to include it. They both go together.

With regard to the amounts, any business always has a capital allocation as well as a current one. The universities should be treated in the same manner because there is always a large amount of capital expenditure laid out in connection with universities, involving new buildings, equipment, and so on. Therefore, it would be necessary to have a capital allocation as well as a current one for ordinary expenditure. If the current allocation became exhausted, money could be taken from the capital in order to keep going. Because of that, it would be dangerous not to separate the two allocations.

Regarding the Book of Estimates, the Oireachtas, which provides the amount of money that will be required for education, should be able to see, in some form, what way the money has been spent. The Minister is in duty bound to get that information. It should be shown in the appendix of the Book of Estimates how the money has been allocated to An tÚdarás.

Professor Jessop

Not wishing to dissociate myself from my university colleagues, I wish to state that I am quite satisfied with what the Minister has said in justifying the word "amounts" as distinct from the word "amount" in this Bill. I can see the reason why the Minister wants to have a separate capital and current allocation, and to see that these are separated from each other so that An tÚdarás can make its allocations accordingly, and that there can be no pressure back on the universities for varying the amounts that go to make up this total sum.

At the same time I am at one with Senator Horgan and Senator Robinson about the inclusion of the word "research" here. As was mentioned yesterday, I find it difficult to see why this word was put in in some sections of the Bill—three in all, I think—and left out in others, where it is equally relevant. I agree that there are many institutions which are concerned entirely with research and do no teaching at all. There are others in which the emphasis is almost entirely on teaching and in which the amount of research done is very small indeed. There is very close co-ordination between research and higher education, obviously, and one should not be separated from the other. However, research can be done in institutions that are not involved in teaching. I should like the obligation of this Higher Education Authority in relation to research to be emphasised a bit more, and I should therefore like to see this word "research" included, wherever possible.

Mr. Nash

I am sorry that I did not intervene before Senator Robinson, because I have great regard for her as a lawyer. I am wondering—and am subject to correction by her—if she has not been guilty of somewhat of an oversight.

The first amendment is that "such amounts for institutions of higher education" should be omitted, and include instead "such an amount for higher education and research". It will be noted that throughout the Bill there is no definition whatsoever of "higher education and research". Money cannot be paid, especially where large amounts are involved, unless there is a definition. There is a definition of "institutions of higher education." It is defined in subsection (1) of section 1 as:

(a) a university,

(b) a college of a university, or

(c) an institution which the Minister, after consultation with An tÚdarás, designates by regulations as an institution of higher education for the purposes of this Act.

There is a clear definition.

I was listening to the debate yesterday and it was made quite clear that such institutions include institutions of research, where research would be carried out. As has already been pointed out, you can have an institution that is doing research only and no teaching. However, that does not preclude it from being designated as an institution for higher education and coming within this definition. It is for the benefit of institutions such as are defined here that this money may be expended. This is where I differ from Senator Robinson. I should like her to correct me, if I am wrong. In my view, there must be an explicit definition clause before large amounts of money can be applied. The mere fact that the definition clause does not say "institutions of higher education and research means such-and such", and simply says "institutions of higher education", does not exclude institutions of research as well. The definition clause includes every university, every college of the university, and also all institutions which the Minister, after consultation with An tÚdarás, designates by regulations as an institution of higher education for the purposes of this Act. I am afraid that Senator Robinson is under a misapprehension there.

In the next amendment—and also in this amendment to some extent—the objection is to the breaking down of payments into capital payments and current payments.

I feel that unless all payments are broken down into capital payments and current payments nobody can know where they are going. After all, the Government are probably the biggest money expender in so far as this State is concerned. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. No business could carry on unless they could break down their expenditure between capital expenditure and current expenditure or, as is sometimes denoted, capital and revenue expenditure. What is expended in capital is expended in buildings, something that stays permanently, or on machinery as in the case of ESB. It is something to which the taxpayer perhaps would not take exception, just as it is something in ordinary business to which the shareholder would not take exception. It is not a wasting asset because it is something that is always there. For that reason, the running of the universities is a very big business in itself, there must be some discrimination between capital expenditure and current expenditure. Current expenditure can be a wasting asset. It is something that if spent may not give any return.

I appreciate that it may put a certain burden on the universities to prepare their proposed capital and current expenditures in advance, but this is a problem that every business has. Many a county council would expend as much money in the year as one of our universities. They have to prepare well in advance their capital expenditure and their current expenditure. They must know nearly 12 months in advance the amount which they will expend on roads, housing and so on. They cannot wait until they are striking the rates.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is a little worried that the Senator is moving back to section 8 which deals with the form in which requests should be submitted.

Mr. Nash

Correct me if I am wrong. I was dealing with the second amendment which requires that:

"() Any payment to an institution which An tÚdarás makes out of the amount it receives under the foregoing subsection shall, with respect to capital grants, be made in such manner and subject to such conditions as An tÚdarás thinks fit. Any payment for current expenditure shall be made in the form of block grants."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator appreciates that the House is discussing the two amendments separately and it is only in order to discuss aspects of amendment No. 16 which cannot be disentangled from amendment No. 15.

Mr. Nash

I was not aware of that. I thank you very much.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There will be an opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Nash

I apologise if I have been trespassing.

Mr. Faulkner

I cannot understand why there is so much discussion about the question of the division of the two global sums into capital and current. If I might hazard a guess, it is simply that those who are interested from outside these Houses originally thought that when we mentioned amounts we were referring to specific amounts for individual institutions. I explained very clearly not only here but in the other House, what was involved. I have gone into that again today.

Many worthwhile arguments are being put forward in relation to the fact that capital must be segregated from current. I think it is only right that An tÚdarás should be in a position to show that they have nothing to hide from any institution and they are not afraid to justify their allocation to one institution vis-à-vis another.

Senator Robinson quoted Deputy FitzGerald in relation to the manner in which it would be possible to have discussions between An tÚdarás, the Department and the various institutions. My view is that these discussions must start considerably earlier. I should say that nine months would give ample time as most of the information required would be gathered beforehand by An tÚdarás. Furthermore, forward budgeting and forecasting will be a feature of Estimates in the future. The universities have already accepted and acted on the fact that they will have to furnish their own estimates much earlier than heretofore.

One matter which Senator Nash dealt with is that it is suggested we delete "such amounts for institutions of higher education" and substitute "such an amount for higher education and research". What is involved here is the amount for institutions of higher education. These institutions will engage in higher education in its various aspects which will include research. That goes without question.

The reference to institutions in this section is absolutely necessary so as to ensure that An tÚdarás carries out its functions which relate only to institutions of higher education. If the Bill is studied carefully it will be found that this is so. It would not be possible to accept this amendment in the circumstances.

Professor Quinlan

We can accept the necessity for the breakdown of the total amount of capital and current. I am still very worried about the means by which the Minister gets back from An tÚdarás its apportionment of these individual sums or the sums to the individual institutions under its control, and if these are then to be entered in the Book of Estimates. If it is the case that they will appear—so much for University College, Galway, so much for University College, Cork and so on—these figures will be in a unique position in the Book of Estimates because they will be the only single figure in the whole Book of Estimates for which a Department have not the responsibility and for which a Department cannot answer a parliamentary question. The Minister can be queried as to why the grant to Bord Fáilte has changed from last year and any other item, even a subhead, could be the subject of a query and indeed would have to be justified to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Why this departure? As I read the Bill there is nothing in it that makes legal what the Minister stated his intentions are. Once the Bill leaves this House and has become an Act, then what the Minister has said regarding the intentions of his Department or what we have said in the House will not matter. All that matters is what is in the Bill itself. Accordingly, if the Minister is to make this radical departure by which he wants these sums recorded in the Book of Estimates, there should be an amendment written into section 12 on Report Stage.

Ruairí Brugha

This matter was clarified before the Senator came in.

Professor Quinlan

I am sorry. I was engaged at another important meeting. Why not make the Bill carry the actual procedure? In other words, after "amounts" state "and these then will be allocated by An tÚdarás and the decisions recorded in the Book of Estimates". Otherwise we have no protection against the Government at some future date pointing out that what is stated here is the total amount and accepting that every figure in the Book of Estimates and every sub-total is the responsibility of the Department under which it is given.

Mr. Horgan

We are all very impressed by the Minister's obvious sincerity in this. We are merely asking that he should write his sincerity into the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

Yes. We have no objection to the procedure.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.