I should like to ask the Minister to clarify a pedantic point, maybe, the Irish version of the title of the college. It appears that there is some embarrassing discrepancy between the Irish form already in use in Thomond and for which some professional sanction is claimed, in that it appears to have the OK of the Place Names Commission, and the form used in the Bill. No matter how the shortened spelling might be canvassed, which I understand is Thuamhan, ostensibly one would like to see some of these superfluous "hs" removed but if one does it one interferes violently not only with the sound but with the meaning. I am glad that the form herein is preserved. To incorporate the shorter form would be to perpetrate a barbarism, but I should like to know what the Minister thinks of that.
Thomond College of Education, Limerick, Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.
This matter was raised in the Dáil also. I am in total agreement with what Senator Murphy said. The provenance of the word is North Munster, Tuadh and Mumhan into one word. The shortened version does violence to that. The college is using the shorter version at the moment but ní fál go haer é and I think that they will adopt. It means that some of their stationery will be carrying the shorter version for some time but I do not suppose they have ordered enough to do them to the end of the century. I hope they have not. This is the version indicating the origin of the word as North Munster or Tuadh Mumhan, the form finally agreed upon.
I was not convinced by the Minister's case that the paragraphs (a) and (d) could be said to provide in some way for post-graduate studies, because the normal interpretation of a degree level course is an undergraduate course. As for the term research used in subsection (d), the normal meaning of research is research which is carried out by members of the staff, not necessarily schools of post-graduate studies.
It is a pity that the college, apparently, will have to negotiate each single proposed post-graduate diploma course with the Minister. For obvious reasons this is undesirable. I understand that this is the process already used in the case of a post-graduate diploma course in business studies. It seems a pity that a more general provision was not put into the Bill.
I do not want to be seen as pettifogging. The section states: "(a) to provide suitable degree level courses for the purpose of the training of teachers ..." I agree with Senator Murphy that that is the normal interpretation of the words. What I said was that from the wording the college would be entitled to interpret that as giving them power to develop. We talk about an M.Ed. degree, about an M.A. degree and a Ph.D degree. Under the wording I would think that the college would be entitled to put on those courses and give the widest possible interpretation of the word "degree" in section 4(1)(a). That was the first point I made. With regard to research, loosely it is quite common for people who are doing an M.Sc to say they are doing research, research being crowned by the award of a doctorate or a master's degree at the end of the year. I am talking of the universities courses. They use those terms in that kind of way. They would be justified in making that interpretation both at subsection (1)(a) and (d).
Not to delay the House I will just make one extra point on section 5. I respectfully ask the Minister to keep in mind a little additional university representation when he is engaged in fleshing out the whole governing body appointment. The Minister knows, because I said it often enough, that I am totally for the proper division of power between universities and these new institutions. I do not believe in the universities playing nanny in any way. At the same time, one can go too far with that in a small country like ours where it is desirable to have cross-fertilisation and a proper leavening of traditional academics in such a body.
I will keep what the Senator suggests in mind. The National Council for Education Awards, as the Senator knows, have boards of studies and on the specific boards which cover the various areas of study of which the NCEA approve we have a very strong representation from universities, business, industry, unions and so on.
I should like to refer briefly to subsections (2) and (5) which deal with pay, terms and conditions of employment and the approval of the Minister. What type of machinery does the Minister envisage for this approval, and does it mean that every time remuneration and terms and conditions of employment are changed this will require the approval of the Minister? How will this be processed to avoid practical delays and difficulties?
This is the section dealing with appointments to the academic staff of the college. I did not intervene on the Second Reading because I saw no advantage in making, for a third time, a case I had made unavailingly on the two NIHE Bills in favour of an express provision in this particular section for an appointments system aimed at ensuring excellence and impartiality in appointments. I have to be content to cherish the indications that the Minister gave here last week that he will not be following the NIHE or the Thomond models in the new university legislation in this respect, but will give consideration in that context to both matters of concern to me, the appointments procedure and the ensuring of adequacy of degree standards.
Perhaps, however, I may repeat on this section a comment I have made on its counterpart on the two NIHE Bills, and ask the Minister an explicit question. I have criticised as being over-restrictive the provision for approval of two Ministers before any appointment can be made. I see this as interfering with a prerogative which should rest with the governing body of any institution or enterprise set up to perform a public service, namely the prerogative of deciding initially how many and what kinds of staff they need in order to carry out their work.
I am, of course, in favour of some control in the public interest in relation to staffing but, as I said on at least two previous occasions, there is already the control which is inherent in the body having to seek finance from the Higher Education Authority for new appointments. I was also prepared to add a further control, a post factum review by the Department of the Public Service of the staff complements and grades in institutions of this kind.
The explicit question I should like to put to the Minister is this: the prerogative I mentioned has been observed in at least three other pieces of legislation and in doing so the Government was proceeding in a very enlightened way. In the legislation dealing with the National Board for Science and Technology, Bord na Gaeilge and An Chomhairle Oiliúna Talmhaiochta the various governing bodies are allowed make appointments and decide, without reference to Minister or Ministers, the number of staff they need and the grades of staff. They are rightly, and I have no objection to this, subject to ministerial approval about what they pay and the conditions of employment of staff, but I wonder why the Minister has not followed the more liberal legislative precedents in relation to all these institutions?
I crave the House's indulgence because I seem to have lost the notes that I made. I would be very grateful if Senator McGuinness would repeat her question.
It was merely to ask the Minister what kind of machinery would be set up in the Department to deal with approval of terms and conditions and of pay. I can well understand that there has to be some public control over the way in which money is spent but generally speaking, all these bodies have an overall budget within which they must function. If one has a position where every change in wages and conditions of employment has to have the approval of two Ministers there must be a set way in which this is to be dealt with if it is not to involve undue delay. I just wanted to know whether that is being done.
Such item would be a matter for conciliation and negotiation between the college authorities, the unions representing employees, the Higher Education Authority and the Departments. The Ministers will not enter into that at all, as far as my interpretation of the section is concerned.
In regard to Senator Whitaker, he made two points — one about appointments and one about guaranteeing the adequacy of degrees. He has been pursuing these points with commendable consistency right through the debates on all third level Bills. He again has thrown out a bait to the pond of the future in regard to universities.
Hopefully it is not a red herring.
I will not present the Senator with a red herring. I would see the statutes of the universities dealing adequately with a number of the points Senator Whitaker made. The whole question of the internationally recognised quality of certificate, diploma and degree is something to which I have given a lot of thought and a very strong brief upon to the National Council for Education Awards. I had the privilege of addressing them at a very short lunch break today. Their boards of studies are of a very high quality indeed, covering all areas with top experts. They also have an obligation, as the House knows because the Bill went through this House, to ensure and promote the acceptance of these certificates, diplomas and degrees by international bodies.
The whole quality of the degree is the central issue, and if any international body in a specific field is not satisfied with the quality of the award that is a red light for the council. They have been singularly successful so far in this. I accept totally the need for the Senator's concern in this regard. It was always important and our traditional universities attach great importance to it. It is significantly more important nowadays seeing that we are part of a nine, and soon a ten, and soon after that posibly a 12, nation economic community. We are not taking in our own washing. We are living on that size of stage, and time spent in the house with concern for the quality of our appointments and the quality and acceptability of our awards is time well spent.
In regard to university legislation the Senator can be assured that this will be taken care of.
In relation to the first schedule I should like to make a point with reference to section 6. Since being elected to this House I have noticed that there is a stock piece in a lot of legislation that membership of the Oireachtas debars one from being a member of such and such a statutory body. I am mystified about this because I cannot see why, for example, my membership of Seanad Éireann should debar me from being a member of the governing body of Thomond College and, absit omen perhaps, perish the thought, from being a member of the future Cork university. In what possible way could I compromise the public good by being a member of a university governing body, and at the same time, being a member of this House? It does not make any sense to me.
The second point I want to make is in relation to section 7 which provides safeguards against vested interests, either in respect of appointments or contracts, on the part of governors by ensuring that they do not have any part in the proceedings where perhaps a relation is involved in appointments or where they themselves have a business interest in contracts. In passing I may remark that no such tender concern for integrity is forthcoming in a lot of bodies. How do we know that there are not all kinds of people in this House and in the other House who have the most devious and malign vested interests in legislation going through the House that nobody ever knows? I approve totally of Section 7. I should like to ask the Minister if there are any sanctions in this regard? Suppose there is a blackguard on the governing body who brazenly participates in the appointment of his nephew or furthers his own business interest in respect of a building contract, are there legal sanctions to punish this or to take action post factum or even pre factum?
One of the points raised by Senator Murphy was about membership of Seanad Éireann. I have to confess, as I did in the other House, that I made the same speech about this when I was on the Opposition benches as Senator Murphy has made now. I did not see the reason, but I have been convinced that it could cause some trouble to a governing body. I have been convinced, but only just, with regard to it. I gave the benefit of the doubt to including it. I can see why Senator Murphy regards it as strange. It is in all the Bills. That is not a reason for saying it should be in this one. The political complications could be destructive, but not necessarily so. I came down, but just barely, on the side of including it.
On the other point, I am not a legal expert. There is no specific sanction mentioned in the Bill but if the provision is here and is not acted upon, and if interest is not declared, there would be a possibility of charging the person concerned with corrupt practices. However, the fact that it is part of a statute that the interest must be declared, if it is not declared it would seem to me to leave the person liable to prosecution, but as I said I speak as one less wise in this matter.
I am not at all convinced by the Minister's reply on the first point about membership of the governing bodies. It stands to reason that if my colleagues or my graduates to the governing body of University College, Cork, of which I am not a member at present, deemed fit to elect me surely nothing but good could ensue from my membership at once of the UCC governing body and of Seanad Éireann? There is no loot to be gained but a lot of disinterested good to be achieved.
Might I remind the Minister that this has been the unquestioned practice of our governing bodies of constituent colleges of the NUI? For example, if one looks at the membership list of UCD or UCC at present one would probably find that the relevant lord mayor is ex officio represented. More often than not he is a TD. He does not happen to be in Cork at present. The members representing county councils are as often as not Deputies. Yet we have introduced here a mystifying principle which I suggest demands keener analysis than the Minister seems to be prepared to give it.
In regard to membership by a lord mayor and councillors the 1908 Act included them because at that time the only source of finance for scholarships was the local authority. It was felt that, as they were the awarding bodies of scholarships, it was important to have them represented on the respective governing bodies in university towns. One could broaden the argument and say that as first citizens of the various cities they should represent the town in the territory of the gown. That is not actually what we are about here. I realise there is a grain of truth in the submission made by the Senator. I have confessed to my own weakness in regard to it. After having considered it I simply said "stet".
The Minister having just said "stet" I suppose I may try to transfer this plea to the universities legislation. I should like to win the Minister back, in that context at least, to his original sympathies. For example, quite recently he very graciously proposed to the Government, and the Government advised the President, to appoint me, a Member of this House, to be chairman of the council of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. In other words, I am put on the governing body of that institution without any obvious deficiency arising solely from my membership of this House. Similarly I have been elected Chancellor of the National University and, therefore, preside over the senate of that university which, in the federal institution, is in effect the governing body. I join with my colleague Professor Murphy in hoping that the Minister will perhaps have second thoughts about this in the universities context at least.
I would be hard put to find activities in the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies which would cause turmoil or stasis in the market place, and the study of ionization of the stratosphere is unlikely to find an echo in the county council chamber. I commended Senator Whitaker to the Government as a suitable chairman of the institute because of his undoubted contributions in many spheres to our national life. I take his point. He is a Senator, and it is the point Senator Murphy was making.