Before Committee Stage commences I wish to inform the House that amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge upon the Revenue. I would also remind the House that amendments to both Bills are being discussed together.
University of Limerick Bill, 1989: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 4, to insert a new section as follows:
"4.—In performing its functions, the University shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture, and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims."
I would like to say in the first instance with regard to the Minister's words of caution a moment ago, first of all they seem to me to be pre-empting the issue. Second, it is the Government's fault if they order legislation like this that is not duly processed through both Houses in proper order. I must say it touches very closely on the dignity of this House and on the proper function of this House that it should not be deterred by the consequences of certain amendments being passed by this House. It should not be deterred by whatever consequences follow. On the Government's head be it. The consequence of what the Minister has been suggesting is simply that this House is a rubber stamp and that we are expected to endorse the Bills as passed by Dáil Éireann. That is not the proper function of this House. I want to make that clear and I know I have the support of my fellow Senators in that regard.
Acting Chairman
The Chair will give the Senator ample opportunity to debate his amendment.
Maidir leis an leasú atá agam ar pháipéar na leasuithe, beidh daoine ag iarraidh b'fhéidir cad tá i gceist agam nó an bhfuil aon rud i gceist agam seachas cur i gcéill. Tá mé lán-dáiríre faoi seo, agus is mithid dúinn bheith dáiríre ar cheist na teanga. Tá dualgas ar an Rialtas agus orainn go léir maidir leis an teanga agus an chultúr. Tar éis an tsaoil is í an aidhm náisiúnta í. Is í aidhm náisiúnta pháirtí an Rialtais í, agus caithfear bheith i ndáiríre fuithi nó droim láimhe a thabhairt leithi ar fad. Mar sin, déanaim amach go bhfuil, sa chomhthéacs sin, dualgas ar gach leibhéal oideachais an teanga a chothú agus a chur ar aghaidh, agus dualgas ar an Rialtas féachaint chuige go mbeidh alt mar seo sa Bhille. Tá tábhacht faoi leith ag baint leis an teanga ag an tríú leibhéal. Ag an tríú leibhéal tá an teanga agus an cultúr i dteideal go mbeadh stádas agus ceartanna faoi leith acu. Tá rud eile fós i gceist anseo: tá an-bhéim ar fad sa díospóireacht ar chomhthéacs na hEorpa agus tábhacht na n-ollscoileanna nua sa chomhthéacs sin. Tá dualgas Eorpach orainne, Éireannaigh, an teanga a chothú agus í a chur ar fáil do mhuintir na hEorpa. Ar an-chuid leibhéil, mar sin, tá an leasú seo atá á mholadh agam antábhachtach.
In moving this amendment I am not concerned with paying lip service to the Irish language. Anyone who has any acquaintance with my views will know that I would not be bothered putting down something that was meant only to be lip service. A clause compelling the new universities to have proper regard to the Irish language and to the national aims should impose obligations on them on the campus to set up something like Bord na Gaeilge which we have in UCC, a statutory board within the university which ensures that the university will take seriously the Irish language and promote activities associated with it on campus. I would modestly suggest that this is something we do very well in UCC.
I am serious about this amendment. The demands the amendment would impose are not onerous. We are not suggesting that the new universities should require Irish in the matriculation or that Irish should be a condition of entrance. Of course not. We are suggesting that the universities should have a statutory obligation to promote the Irish language. That is why this amendment is very important.
Daniel Corkery in his book, The Fortunes of the Irish Language, said that the language now has the State behind it and therefore everything has changed for it. I only wish that were true. It is true to the extent that the Government say they are committed to the Irish language and therefore in whatever legislation is appropriate they should have due care to the promotion of the national aim. They have failed entirely in this case, whether through negligence or hypocrisy or a combination of both. The drafters of these Bills have totally neglected the dimension of the Irish language.
These are the first universities to be created in the history of the State, the first since 1908. One would imagine at that level of education that given the overwhelming importance the Constitution attaches to the Irish language concern for Irish would be an integral part of the legislation, particularly since the Fianna Fáil Party's commitment to the Irish language has been frequently stated, mostly in English and they still have it as their first or second national aim.
I would point out that when the National University of Ireland was set up and debate was raging about whether Irish should be a compulsory subject, Limerick Corporation said they would not give scholarships to any qualifiers unless they would matriculate competently through Irish to the National University. Historically Limerick had this commitment to the national culture which is not apparent in this Bill.
I am asking that the new universities should share the responsibility and the honour which other third level institutions have of paying their level proper part in the promotion of the national language and culture. We are constantly being told that these are full universities, not just technical institutes, with apologies to my colleague, Senator Ryan. They are full universities, which suggests a full participation in all the branches of culture. What is the point of having such a definition of "university" in Ireland unless its definition of culture extends to a full promotion of the Irish language?
One of the great dangers of this century in the world of learning has been the fear of a dichotomy between science and the humanities, the two cultures, the suggestion that somehow you leave the high technology to one area and another area will take care of the humanities. That idea is discredited and, being discredited, these new universities which are styled proper universities should ensure that their culture extends beyond the merely scientific and that they avoid this classic cultural dichotomy.
In looking at the prospectus of the calendars in NIHE Limerick and NIHE Dublin in the past few days I was struck by the fact that there is not a single syllable of Irish in the NIHE Limerick calendar, that colourful and impressive brochure which I held up this morning. There is not a single phrase of Irish except the stylised phrase in the motto of the university, eagna chun ghnímh. The NIHE Dublin prospectus has a quite lengthy réamhrá over the signature of its distinguished director. I want to correct that kind of imbalance.
All I am asking is that we put into the Bill the clause contained in my amendment, a clause which is already contained in the 1971 HEA Act and in the 1979 NCEA Act. These two Acts have this commitment. Surely it is only proper now that the two institutes are being removed from the supervision of the NCEA and set free that this commitment should also be enshrined in their legislation. Since there is a special ethos in these two universities and since they will have a special approach to language teaching and language study, a commitment to Irish in their case could give an additional enrichment to the study of the Irish language and to linguistic methods. There are ways in which these two universities could serve the Irish language by means other than the traditional methods of study. They can apply their technical expertise to the promotion of Irish which would be extremely valuable.
More generally, the context in which I am placing this amendment is both an old one and a new one. The objective of language revival has been with us for a long time but, as I said in the Minister's presence last week when talking on an Adjournment matter in regard to the junior certificate, in the last few years it seems to me that in Irish language circles there is a rejuvenation, a new renaissance of interest in the language for its own sake, for what it does for our personality, for the enrichment of our national culture, without any reference to political nationalism. In fact, what is taking place is probably a reaction against the excesses of political nationalism. Language is beginning to live, as Douglas Hyde wanted it to, because of its own personality and the excellence of its own culture and legacy, and that is a marvellous thing. I hope I am not deceiving myself but I see evidence of that all around me. The present, therefore, from that point of view, is a very important time not to let the language go in a context like this.
Then there is the European context. the whole emphasis, in the genesis of these Bills, is Europe and the Community and how best we can gear ourselves educationally for the new Europe. Too often we are taken to task by various public people for saying that all we want out of Europe is to fill the begging bowl and not to think about what we can give to Europe. I am telling this House that one of the things we can give to Europe is the Irish language and the culture associated with it, and this is what Europeans deserve from us. The obligation to restore the Irish language is no longer simply a national obligation or a cultural imperative here in Ireland. It is a European obligation. Europe will eventually call us to account if we let the language die. We have a European obligation to cherish the language. We are the only State which is in a position to cherish one of the ancient languages of Europe, the descendant of the mainstream Celtic languages of Europe.
Therefore, I think this clause that I am proposing here is of vital importance. Since it coincides happily with one of the main objectives of the Fianna Fáil party and of this Government, to which they are deeply committed, I have no doubt whatsoever but that they will accept my amendment enthusiastically, especially people like Senator Bromell, who indicated as much earlier on.
While I am also disappointed at the lack of reference to our first and national language in these Bills, I do hope that something can be done about this. As I assume that both universities will be receiving public funds through the HEA and in view of the strong wording in section 4 of the Higher Education Authority Act of 1971, will it be legal for the HEA to allocate funds to these institutions at all? Unless these institutions deal seriously with the question of the national language it is a serious matter. It is not at all right in this day and age, or in any day and age, to establish new and important educational institutions that virtually, at least on paper, ignore our national language. It is unacceptable to me.
I believe there is some way around this. I believe the governing bodies will have to institute new courses. I in no way wish to tell these universities what to do because it would be entirely wrong and against my general principles of dealing with universities, but I would encourage them to establish a department of Irish language and literature so that we can integrate our culture into the wider culture. Indeed modern technology is now part of our wider culture, so the whole thing will mesh. I see no conflict whatsoever. I trust that something can be done in a serious way to integrate Irish studies and the Irish language into the universities.
Already today we have heard a certain amount about the role of universities in the community and their place in the community. We all agree with this. Universities cannot be detached from the community but unfortunately when it comes to dealing with the Irish language they are totally and completely detached as things stand. I would ask the Minister to find some way around the problem which is a very real one and, if I may say so, verging on a sort of anti-nationalism with regard to culture.
Tá cuid mhaith gur féidir a rá ar son na leasuithe seo agus deirim i dtús báire go dtugaim lán-tacaíocht don Seanadóir Murphy faoin méid atá ráite aige agus cé chomh spridiúil agus chomh bríomhar a ndúirt sé é. Tá coimhlint nach bhfuil réadúil curtha timpeall faoi cheisteanna cultúrtha. Tá coimhlint idir an enterprise spirit, mar a dtabharfá air, agus ceisteanna cultúrtha, ceisteanna teanga agus ceisteanna fealsúnachta, agus nach féidir bheith ag súil go mbeadh eolas domhain ar na neithe sin ag daoine atá ag dul amach ag obair, ag cruthú rudaí nua agus ag caitheamh amach tuairimí nua. Ní ghlacaim leis sin ach tá eagla orm go bhfuil fealsúnacht aon-taobhach dá leithéid á glacadh ag cuid mhaith de chóras oideachais na tíre seo, go bhfuil daoine i gcomhacht agus go bhfuil tionchar mór acu ar fhealsúnacht oideachais, agus ár ndíriú i slí a dtógfadh uainn na rudaí a shábhálann sinn ó bheith cosúil le gach éinne eile.
There is, as I have said, a very fundamental question involved here. It is not just the question of a ritual genuflection before the Irish language. It is a question of an assertion of our right to be ourselves and our right to say that this is not something quaint or old fashioned but it is the most critical thing if we are to be a success in the world economically, culturally and any other way. We will do it not by aping other people but by being ourselves. It is an extraordinary fact that in a recent survey on tourist attitudes on continental Europe one of the negative characteristics of this country that people identified was that we were found to be bland and uninteresting.
Shame.
Mr. O'Toole
They were not in Kerry, obviously.
They were not in Dublin either.
What is unique about this country is neither bland nor uninteresting; but what many people would turn us into is bland and uninteresting. In other words, we would become a poor copy of other countries and other views instead of building ourselves on what we stand for.
The second thing that needs to be said — and I said this already in Irish — is that there is an increasing tendency to portray the image of the new Ireland as a successful trusting entrepreneur. Much has been written about this trusting entrepreneur. I have written some, I hope adequately scurillous stuff, about the image of the new entrepreneur. I believe in enterprise but I do not believe in some sort of glorified, boorish hick who does not understand anything except 24 hour a day devotion to one single-minded, self-centred task. We have this image of people who have no time for family, no time for home, no time for anything except the pursuit of enterprise. I reject that image and I reject the implication that all other things are somehow peripheral.
We want people who are assured of their position in society, who are confident that they are capable of matching the best in Europe and are also part of a very unique and distinctive society with a whole range of cultural characteristics, one of which, the most of important of which, is the Irish language. We have a way of life, a set of values which highlight the importance of things other than work. We have values relating to what we want to do, to what we like doing and how we like to organise ourselves. These values are uniquely our own, grounded in our history and in our culture, and at the centre of our history and culture is our language. I do not understand why these universities which are not technological universities should not have an obligation, however carefully worded, to ensure that those who graduate from them have a sense of where they came from, of where they fit in the world and a confidence, distinct from a nationalistic jingoistic pride, in their roots in a society and culture which has a lot to be proud of.
Many of the things that have happened in this country over the past 20 years have caused us considerable pain and they have created a tendency in us to apologise for anything that is distinctive about us. There is an enormous amount that is distinctive about this country which is positive. I do not understand how we could possibly develop two new universities without imposing an obligation to recognise that they are educating not technological functionaries to fit into a sort of 1984 vision of a technological world, but people who will work in this country and not in some sort of an imaginative half-way house between here and the United States of Germany, or somewhere mythological that does not really exist. The people to be educated will live in this country, will have come from this country and they are imbued, consciously or otherwise, with a lot of what is the best in this country. It is extremely important that no area of education should somehow drift off into some sort of intermediate culture separate from the realities of Irish life.
That is why Senator Murphy's amendment is extremely important. It states the position about the philosophical base of the education that is to be given in these two universities. It states that these are universities based on what is unique about this country, on what is unique in our history, and that these two universities will educate people who are products not of an American or British culture but of what is uniquely our own small, tightly-knit and positive community. No institution should be allowed to separate itself for some reasons to do with its image or materialistic philosophy from that society or that culture. The things that will make this country successful in the greater world are not the things we pick up from that world but the things that are uniquely our own. If we start backing away from what is uniquely our own, we will try to copy other people doing in their own way what they can do best. If we do not choose to do what we can do best in our way, we will never be as successful as them, we will simply be following in their wake, copying them. Part of what is best in this country is our history, our culture and our language and these things deserve to be part of the basic principles under which our new universities will operate.
Therefore, I enthusiastically support the amendment. Like Senator Murphy I cannot understand why it will not be accepted. Must members of Fianna Fáil who have such a commitment, historically and in writing to the Irish language, have no option but to accept it.
Mar a dúirt an Seanadóir, Ryan, tá fealsúnacht, meon agus dearcadh ag baint leis seo. An taithí a bhí agam féin ag dul trí scoil, sa mheán scoil, mar shampla, ná gur fhoghlaim mé mo chuid Laidne trí Ghaeilge le téacsleabhair Béarla agus ní haon ionadh go bhfuil sórt mearú críochnaithe orm in a thaobh sin. Mar sin féin, is é atá i gceist ag an Seanadóir Murphy ná gur cóir do na hollscoileanna in a mbunreacht tábhacht agus stádas faoi leith a thabhairt don Ghaeilge. Tá sé sin thar a bheith tábhachtách, mar is é mo thaithí féin ar an rud seo ná go ndearnamar suirbhé san INTO cúpla bliain ó shin ar an dearcadh a bhí ag muintir na hÉireann i leith na teanga. Tá formhór muintir na hÉireann fábhrach do athbheochan agus úsáid na teanga. Mar sin, tá sé de dhualgas orainn uile gach tacaíocht a thabhairt di sin ionas go dtíocfaidh sí faoi bhláth.
Labhair mé anseo cúpla mí ó shin ar an tábhacht atá ag baint le Raidió na Gaeltachta agus leis na ceadúnais nua go dtabharfaí ceadúnais dóibh siúd a bheadh sásta craoladh trí Ghaeilge do na Gaeltachtaí. Mhol mé níos luaithe ná sin an tábhacht a bhain le teilifís na Gaeltachta. Is é an rud céanna atá i gceist againn anseo inniu. Ní féidir in aon chor teanga a bheith againn i dtéacsleabhair amháin. Caithfimid gach seans a thabhairt don teanga agus gach tacaíocht a thabhairt di. Tá an-seans againn anois chun tá bhacht faoi leith a thabhairt dí i mbunreacht na n-ollscoileanna seo.
It is not enough to have a pious aspiration. There is too much by way of aspirations in the attitude to the Irish language. It is vitally important that we give the language its proper place. If we are serious about a greater use of the language, we should support this amendment. The Irish language is not something that we should just see in textbooks. It should not be just confined to the primary schools. It should be used at every stage of our life. It should be part of the academic life of all institutes of education. This is a good opportunity for us to give it a certain position of honour and of importance in the new universities. I support the amendment.
Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis an leasú seo ach tuigim go bhfuil deacracht ann freisin, mar tá seisiún seo na Dála críochnaithe. That need not necessarily be an overwhemlingly objection because although this session of the Dáil has concluded I understand the Seanad will almost definitely be recalled in July when a new Dáil has been formed. There is no insuperable difficulty in the Minister accepting amendments at this stage because both the Seanad and the new Dáil will be in operation by July. The amendments could be accepted without any immediate danger to the Bill.
I do not want to exhaust the patience of the House but my approach is slightly different from the approach taken by Senator O'Toole, although I appreciate his reasons for taking the line he took. I give a qualified support to this amendment, precisely because it is aspirational. It is important that it is there as an aspiration. If it is not an aspiration, what is it? Will it be mandatory, as Senator O'Toole said in his speech, to teach Latin through Irish? That would be foolish and would impede the progress of learning through the university. I would not support anything that contained that kind of coercive or compulsive element but I support this amendment because it is aspirational and is an encouragment to third level institutions to live up to the reality of those aspirations in whatever way they find appropriate, and also because it would be a shame if there was no reference to what is described as the first national language, although in terms of usage it plainly is nothing of the kind.
I thank the Senators for their contributions on this amendment. I would like to clear up any disparities that may have arisen. Some Senators made reference to both the NCEA Act and the Higher Education Authority Act. This institution is no longer under the aegis of the NCEA. I am now referring to the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971. As the House is aware the HEA have an overall co-ordinating role in relation to the universities and designated institutions. In fact, the NIHEs soon to be the new universities are designated institutions under the aegis of the HEA. Therefore, they are subject to the rules and provisions of the HEA Act. As I said, the National Council for Education Awards have a similar role.
The Act setting up the HEA includes the exact provision being proposed by Senator Murphy. It was not felt necessary therefore to include such a provision in the legislation setting up the institutions under the aegis of the NCEA or the HEA. The new universities will therefore automatically be under the aegis of the Higher Education Authority. During the years this authority have been very conscious of their statutory duties in relation to the restoration of the Irish language and the preservation and development of national culture. They liaise constantly with Bord na Gaeilge and the institutions with which the authority deal in relation to those matters. I have no doubt that the new universities, like the existing ones, will have due regard for Government policy in relation to the preservation and restoration of the Irish language and culture without the necessity for a statutory provision. We should bear in mind that there is already a statutory provision in place. Therefore, we do not need to insert a fresh statutory provision.
Members of the House will note that under section 3 (b) of the Bill before us I would have authority on the recommendation of the governing bodies and after consultation with the HEA to assign by order to either or both of the new universities such additional functions as I think fit. If Senators feel that the HEA will not see through their statutory duties to oversee any institutions under their aegis — I have no reason to believe they will not do so — I could, on the recommendation of the governing bodies and after consultation with the HEA, assign by order to either or both of the new universities such additional functions as I think fit.
In order to allay any fears which Senator Murphy and other Senators may have I undertake following the passage of this legislation to take this matter up directly with the governing bodies and the HEA. My purpose in doing so would be to spell out once again — I do not think this would be necessary — that they must bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and to endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims. I would have to point out that all designated institutions under the aegis of the HEA have to comply with the provisions of the HEA Act.
I have to come to the defence of the HEA. In my dealings with them during the past two years and three months they have at all times scrupulously adhered to the provisions of the HEA Act. The chairman and members of the HEA have been very punctilious in fulfilling their statutory duties. Very often I felt they were too punctilious and too careful in fulfilling those duties and on occasion I had to cavil with the way in which they interpreted their statutory role but be that as it may, they have fulfilled their role very punctiliously. It would be a slight on them if one were to say that they would not carry out their duties as laid down in the Act.
The Act states that An tÚdarás shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims. The aims of the HEA automatically become the aims of each authority designated. They are my aims and the aims of the Government as well as of everybody in education. The failure of the HEA to see through their duties would have enormous implications.
I am satisfied that the provisions of section 4 of the HEA Act concur with those proposed by Senator Murphy. His amendment was seconded by Senator Ryan and Senators Norris and O'Toole spoke on it. If the Senator would still want the Minister to meet with the two bodies to highlight the provisions contained in section 3 (b) and to bear in mind what has been said in the House this could be done but I would have to put on the record that the institutions under the aegis of the HEA have to comply with the provisions of the 1971 Act. It is clearly laid out that the two new universities would have a statutory role to fulfil.
I find what the Minister has just said very plausible. I am not so sure whether it was in her mind all of the time or whether it was prompted by my amendment. If so, I am glad. Was it Cassius who said, "my weak show of words has struck such fire"? I am not entirely convinced that this belated interpretation of the HEAs' obligations extends specifically to the institutions under their aegis. What is the status of the Irish language, for example, in the existing institutes? I instanced the calender of the Limerick NIHE as being entirely monolingual. My colleague, Senator Ryan, raised the question a few moments ago as to what status the Irish language has in the existing institutes.
I am reluctant to force a division on this matter. It could have the dramatic effect of Fianna Fáil marching into the lobbies against this first national aim. Although that would afford me a certain sardonic pleasure it would be shortsighted of me because what we are at here is constructively trying to bring this matter to a close. I do not want to do anything which would make this less than a happy occasion. I also do not want to do anything which might start off these two institutions with less than a warm attitude towards the Irish language.
For all these reasons I am inclined to accept what the Minister has said. I would like to refer to Senator Norris's concerns and I can assure him that we do not seek the imposition of some kind of a replacement policy of forcing Irish down people's throats. Let me say again that what I am at arises out of our own situation at UCC where we have Bord na Gaeilge, established as a statutory board under the aegis of the governing body, which compels the college to take proper notice of the place of the Irish language in the life of the college. It does so to some considerable effect. They meet regularly and the students are aware of the place of the Irish language in the college and so on, apart from actual courses taught in the Irish language.
At the moment, for example, in NIHE, Limerick there are people of goodwill in important positions on the staff, including a former colleague of ours in this House, Senator Noel Mulcahy, who I understand is Dean of Engineering. Former colleagues will recall his commitment to the language and his frequent contributions through the language in this House. It is obviously a very good thing that somebody like him and other colleagues with whom I am not closely acquainted in Limerick would be enthusiastic in these matters, but it is not enough. There must be some kind of formal and statutory provision available. If I thought that the Minister would be in a position to monitor the effects of the intent of this motion and that she was satisfied that the HEA injunction would apply specifically to the two new institutes and if I thought that the powers that be in the new universities were equally serious in this matter and would accept the spirit of this amendment without my forcing it to a division, I would be glad to withdraw the amendment.
I thank Senator Murphy for the generosity with which he has approached this matter while keeping the principle of his amendment intact. I can assure him that the provisions of the HEA Act would apply in all its manifestations to the institutions under their care. Otherwise, they have the ultimate weapon, which is the allocation of finance to such institutions. Each of the institutions receives its finance from the HEA.
On the other point raised of a monitoring role for the Minister of the day on the implementation of these principles bearing in mind that I fully believe that the HEA Act would apply to this, as a further manifestation of the importance that I put on what the Deputy has said, if this legislation is passed, I would undertake to take up this matter personally at a meeting with the two bodies, the governing body and the HEA. My purpose in so doing would be to include, as one item on the agenda, the proposed amendment. I would stress that discussion of the amendment had taken up quite an important part of this debate today and that we were prepared to see that such implementation would take place.
Limerick NIHE has been in existence for 16 years. Does the Minister have any information on how the HEA have fulfilled their obligation to national culture in terms of how they have dealt with the NIHE in Limerick over those last 16 years?
I have not such detailed information with me. It would be a matter of records of various meetings. This also will be on the agenda of meetings with the governing body and with the HEA.
I did not mean to be in any way unhelpful. The Minister has been most forthcoming. I am quite happy to agree with Senator Murphy that this amendment is not something that we would want to press.
Just for clarification, having spoken about the need for monitoring and the extent to which the new universities would implement the spirit of my amendment, I realise that any talk about monitoring runs totally counter to my earlier statements about the philosophy of these universities, that they should not be subject to ministerial monitoring. What I really wanted was to ensure that the heads of the new universities — this is so important that I would appreciate the Minister's attention — would be made aware of the significance of this amendment and should take it on board and that the Minister would see to that. I would not want continual monitoring in that sense. I am a little worried about the implications. Senator Ryan has mentioned this also. Is there evidence that the HEA have ever withheld money, to put it crudely, have ever closed the purse against those who are not fulfilling the national philosophy? Is it far-fetched of us to think that the HEA would do that?
What I am saying is that they have the right so to do, if the statutory duties of the institutions under their aegis are not being fulfilled. That is the ultimate weapon at their disposal. I would not have any details of any specific comments or interactions in that regard, but I am quite sure that both bodies will be paying careful attention to what has been said here today. Under section 3 (b) of those Bills, I shall have authority if need be, to strengthen the existing legislative enactment by ministerial order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:
"(2) Any President appointed after the term of office of the President who holds office at the time of coming into operation of this Act shall be appointed for a fixed term of office to be decided by the Governing Body from time to time.".
This amendment if self-explanatory. It is normal practice for presidents of universities as regards terms of office. There is a seven year term of office in UCD and similar terms in other universities. The objection here is not to people repeating their terms of office. It is clearly stated that this does not refer to the presidents appointed at the time of coming into operation of the new legislation. It does not refer to the present incumbents — I should like to make that quite clear. It refers to future appointees to the presidency. It is only right that the governing bodies should have the authority to make that kind of regulation. I do not intend going any further. I am being very brief — I am the only one being brief here today.
I am brief enough myself. The proposed amendment reflects the position adopted voluntarily by some institutions in making presidential appointments for fixed periods. Section 9 (2) of the 1980 Act leaves the governing body free to do this if they so wish. I reflected on this in the Dáil where the same amendment was put up. I thought about it quite a lot. Sometimes one is accused of being too interventionist and sometimes one is accused of not intervening sufficiently. It is difficult; it is like the humanity-science argument, how to find the correct balance. I would prefer, on balance, to leave the matter to the discretion of the governing body. After all, we are setting them up. One has to give them a measure of autonomy. They have all chosen their own routes in wisdom and with experience. Having done so, matters have worked out very satisfactorily. I have no doubt whatever that were any of the incumbents in the office to prove in some way unsuitable in the future, the governing bodies would not be long about giving them the boot.
I also aim at being brief. I should just like to place on the record the fact that my own university has altered its Statute. At the beginning of the century, the provost could more or less go on forever. I think that it was during my period as a junior lecturer that this was altered. There is now a fixed term, even for the provost of Trinity College, a position which was at one stage almost monarchical.
It is important that there should be a fixed term of office and that does not preclude the fact that a particularly excellent president of a university could be reappointed or re-elected for a second term. However, it does mean that there is a fixed term and sometimes people have a time during which they are particularly good and their hour then passes — although they may not be as aware of it as other members of the academic community — and this provides a situation where they can be extracted from the post without the painful process of impeachment.
It is of interest to point out that in the National University each of the colleges has come individually to the conclusion that there should be a fixed term president. We have done so most recently and our new president will hold the office for only ten years.
Did that apply from just then?
Yes, Professor Mortell is the first to be a fixed term president. The associated college, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, does not come under this particular rubric since their president functions as it were, sub specie aeternatis and goes on, presumably, to be president in the next life as well. Thinking about this since seeing the amendment in print and about the way in which each of the colleges in turn adopted this rule, it seems wiser to leave it to the particular circumstances of each college to come to this conclusion in its own right and, therefore, to leave it specially to the governing body. I take it that the governing body has the power under the legislation to have a fixed term president?
The governing body has the right to decide on that matter and section 9 (2) leaves the governing body free to do so if they wish. Senator Murphy said that they had come to that conclusion in Cork this time. It is better to allow each institution to do this themselves rather than feeling there is a heavy hand upon them telling them how to do it.
It is hard to take the comments about the heavy hand, the need for freedom and freedom of the spirit. I could accept the remarks if they applied to the Bill but it is totally illogical to say on the one hand that a professor can be appointed if the Minister agrees but on the other to say that there should be a fixed term of office in regard to the president. Is it true that the Minister can block an appointment?
I do not think Senator O'Toole was here when I answered that question previously. I do not have that right under the Bill, nor does any other Minister. I cleared that question by referring to the previous Act, no Minister for Education has the right to appoint anyone to a professorship, lectureship or whatever. A Minister may, in consultation with the Department of Finance, create a number of posts but not appoint the personnel.
My understanding is that in appointing a person to a position finance has to be made available by ministerial sanction to pay for it and that the Minister has control over appointments. Having said that, I see nothing interventionist about deciding that there should be a fixed term of office for the position of president which would be a very normal provision in the constitution of most bodies. The NIHE Act, 1980, provides that the first members of the governing body shall hold office for a period of one year. There is nothing unusual about this kind of provision and we will certainly give the Minister guidance in regard to what is too interventionist. We are merely saying that it is appropriate that there should be a fixed term of office for the future presidents of the new universities. I have heard no reason so far for not doing that.
I should like to make three brief points. The Presidency of Ireland is limited by a statutory period of appointmen by election and what is good enough for the President should surely be good enough for — what I suppose I can best describe as — lesser mortals.
It seems to go on forever.
It seems so but that is an illusion. I am aware, from my own situation in Dublin University, that, for example, the present Provost has worked very hard in regard to the 400th anniversary celebrations of the college and, ironically, his term of office will cease just short of that triumphant event. However, he does have the opportunity to present himself for re-election and this is not precluded by the amendment under consideration. My final point is one I made earlier but it is illustrated beautifully by the presence of the persons who will be heads of these distinguished universities. If we had a committee system working in this House it would be possible to seek their views directly at present. I will not labour that point but perhaps the House might like to consider that this very clearly shows the value of a committee system although I do not want to open up a debate — and I am sure the Cathaoirleach would allow me to do so——
You will not be allowed to open up a debate, Senator.
If we had a properly stocked library Senator Murphy and Senator Ryan would, no doubt, draw the attention of the House to the disadvantages of modelling ourselves exclusively on the American system.
I am not entirely clear as to why there could be any objection to this. It is useful for us in the Oireachtas to learn from and to monitor the experience of other bodies. We have watched, as Senator Murphy pointed out, the three constituent colleges of the National University come to a conclusion about which way matters should go in terms of a fixed term appointment of a president. We have watched Dublin University coming to a similar conclusion and we are entitled to say that there is now a consensus among the existing universities that it is preferable to have a fixed term appointment for the president on the basis of long years of experience. Do we have to go through a process of rediscovering the wheel? In other words, will these two new universities, who want to be universities because they like what universities are and believe that this gives them a particular role and position in education, have to go through the same process of rediscovery? Should we not nudge them in the direction of what appears to be a consensus? That is what the amendment means as it says that the present incumbents will hold them under their present contract but that their successors ought to be appointed under similar — not identical — conditions to those held by the president of all the other universities.
With all due respects, is Senator Ryan not denying to the two new institutions the very process of discovery which was given to the other institutions, whereby they came to their own decision voluntarily and out of their own wisdom to limit the tenureship of the president of their college? They were allowed their own voyage of discovery and that applied to Cork on the last occasion they elected a president. There is no reason to assume that the two new universities will not come to the same conclusion.
The difficulty is, of course, the one which the Minister articulated in regard to intervention. For instance, the Bill specifically requires that membership of the academic council be available to three students of the two universities. I have already expressed my embarrassment and tried to get myself off the hook in regard to a subsequent amendment because of that. When I was a student that was almost unheard of but we have learned and made progress. Other bodies have come to the conclusion that they are not going to wait and discover this for themselves; they have decided that this is now an established plateau of decision about what is acceptable. We have come to a similar position in regard to this.
I would wish, and this is no reflection on the principal of my own institution, that the principalships of RTCs should be fixed term appointments. That would create a considerable dynamic within those institutions and it would help them. However, that is another day's work. The case has been eloquently made for the proposal before us by the decisions of the other universities and we ought not to wait until these two universities come around to that way of thinking but should nudge them in the direction that the other universities have chosen to go.
There are two points of major importance in regard to this. Should the universities discover a method or sit back and wait for something to happen? Do we ask the new institutions to re-invent the wheel or do we tell them about the wheel? Do we tell them that they will find themselves in this position in 20 years time or do we help them along now? Do we give them the accepted wisdom of the existing institutions who agree on a term of office? The proposal before us is that we should do that.
I should like to ask the Minister for clarification in regard to the other issue that was raised. The 1980 Act states that the institute shall remove or suspend any of its officers from office but may not do so without the consent of the Minister. It states that the institute may make certain appointments subject to the approval of the Minister and with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. The Minister is not proposing to amend that provision. I put forward an amendment but I was told that as it had financial implications it could not be accepted. There is a hands on interventionist position outlined in the 1980 Act in that appointments have to be approved by the Minister. I do not disagree with that; it is a good idea but I do not think it is an argument for the Minister to say that she would be interfering too much if she required that future presidents should hold office for a fixed term.
The Cathaoirleach ruled out the Deputy's amendment because of its financial implications. I should like to reiterate that the Minister of the day does not vet a person appointed to a post. The Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, decides on the amount of money allocated for staff positions and on the number of positions. Obviously, and correctly, it should not be open to a Minister to appoint a person to a particular position. That is not the job of the Minister. However, the financial implications of the number of positions in an institution or a university remains the prerogative of the person who holds the purse strings and the person who distributes the money.
On the question of the appointment of the president I should like to say that the new universities should be allowed to make their own decisions. It took Cork a long time to come to their own conclusions — I do not know how long it took the other universities to do so — and the new universities should be given time to do so. I am sure they will make a speedy decision on this issue. To deny them the right to consider this would not be correct. I am sure the new universities will reach a decision quickly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
‘(1) There shall be an Academic Council to assist the Governing Body in the planning, co-ordination, development and overseeing of the educational work of the Institute.'".
I would wish to have an academic council that is not set up by a decision of the governing body. It should have its own life and not be a creature of the governing body. That is the motive behind the first amendment. In amendment No. 4 we deal with the membership of the academic council. In our view the membership should consist of the president and not fewer than 20 members. The president is subject to a specific term of office under the main legislation. Our amendment suggests that the governing body should make regulations from time to time to determine the methods by which the academic members of the academic council are selected. In other words, we want the academic council to be given a life of its own. We want them to be allowed operate without being creatures of the governing body. I recognise that some people have basic objections to some aspects of our amendment. Being a pragmatist that is as far as I wish to go at this stage.
I should like to support the general principle that it is imperative in a university for the academic council to have its own autonomy on academic matters. I have the honour to be a member of the academic council and of the governing body of University College, Cork. On occasions points of tension arise between those two bodies. Sometimes, when sitting on the governing body, I have to speak for the academic council and respectfully remind the governing body that it has no business interfering in purely academic matters. I support the general principle that the academic council should not be a creature of the governing body but should be supreme in its own academic sphere.
Section 5 reflects the reality of the situation in the two institutions. The majority of the members of the academic council are holders of academic appointments. They are appointed under regulations made by the governing bodies for a period of three years and may be re-appointed. The director, soon to be president, under Schedule II of the 1980 Act is an ex-officio member of the academic council and, therefore, it is not necessary to specify that he or she should be a member of the council. The regulations in the institutions under which the academic council is appointed provide for a membership in excess of 20. The Bills already provide that the majority of the members of the academic council must be the holders of academic appointments at the particular university.
I do not wish to remove from the governing bodies the power to appoint the academic council. The legislation allows for the majority of the members to be members of the academic body. Surely the governing body, in their wisdom, will see to it that some nonacademic members are appointed. I am satisfied that the Bills provide adequate safeguards in relation to the representation on the council of the academic staff.
My name was attached to amendment No. 4 but I have withdrawn it because of the absence of provision for student members. Will the Minister explain why she has retained section 5 of the 1980 Act which states that there shall be a governing body of the institute but goes on to say that the governing body shall appoint a body of persons which will be known as the academic council? Section 5 (a) of the Bill states "The Governing Body may by regulations made...". The Minister has said there shall be an academic council, that is contained in the existing Act, but I do not understand why the composition of the academic council should not be a matter of statute as well. The Minister's amendment to section 8 of the 1980 Act provides that "The Governing Body may by regulations made under this section provide for the membership, of which a majority shall be holders of academic appointments...". Why does the Minister not say "shall" instead of "may" in the amendment? I believe that is the biggest crux in the Bill.
Perhaps it is a crux of different interpretations of a particular word. With respect to Senator Ryan, how often does one say "shall" and how often does one say "may"? If we use too many "shalls" it will be likened to a dictate but if we use the word "may" it can be used in other ways. I am satisfied that the Bill already provides that the majority of the members must be the holders of academic appointments and that in so doing the wishes of the legislation will be carried through. I thank the Senators for removing the reference to the non-appointment of students. I am satisfied that the components of the various proportions will be adequately addressed by the governing body in making appointments to the academic council.
I want to make a point about the nature of the academic council. There is something very analogous to this at primary level. At primary level there is always a difficulty with the board of management of a school getting involved in curricular matters. That is the clearest analogy I can make. Similarly in this case the duties of the academic council are outlined in great detail in the original legislation, and it is work which is appropriate to an academic council as opposed to a governing body. It is a fact that under this legislation an academic council may not be appointed if the governing body so decide and they may not exist at all. That is the first point I want to make. As Senator Ryan said, the original legislation provided that the governing body "shall" appoint an academic council. So far as I am concerned we have gone two steps backwards. First, it is no longer a requirement to have an academic council. This cannot be acceptable. There should be an academic council to fulfil the functions which are outlined in almost a full page of the text of the 1980 Act. Therefore, it seems we will be very remiss in carrying out our duties if we do not insist that an academic council be set up.
My second point is that in the setting up of an academic council we believe they should not be appointed only by dictate of the governing body but by the process outlined. I regret that the student representation is not included but I will deal with that in another way.
I want to reiterate that we are dealing with section 8 (1) of the 1980 Act. This section provides that the governing body shall — and this is the point which was raised by Senator Ryan — appoint a body to be known as the academic council. Obviously this provision still stands. I want to put it to the Senators that their amendment provides only for the selection of the academic members. It is not stated how the nonacademic members should be appointed or selected. It is concerned only with the academic members which I suppose, if we really want to go into it, is discriminatory in its own way. Section 8 (1) of the 1980 Act provides that the governing body shall appoint a body to be known as the academic council, and the provision in that section still stands.
I understand how this provision has led to a debate here, it led to a debate in the Dáil also. As I said at the outset we are dealing with legislation of a minimalist nature. That was accepted by me and put forward in the legislation as such. It was accepted in spirit, and sometimes stated, by most of the Senators who contributed to the debate today that we are dealing with legislation, regardless of whether we like it now, of a minimalist nature which is a forerunner to what I hope will be wider, deeper and more comprehensive legislation dealing with third level education, legislation to be brought forward at a later date — I hope, not at a far later date. Therefore, we are governed in the main by the provisions of the 1980 Act which provide that the governing body shall appoint a body to be known as the academic council. We should let the governing body carry out their duties. We are giving them powers and setting them up as autonomous universities and we should not fetter every step they take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, before section 6, to insert a new section as follows:
"6.—Paragraph 6 (a) and (b) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1980 is hereby amended by the deletion of subparagraph (i) respectively".
This amendment should not take too much time. I should like to know why Members of the Oireachtas can be members of the governing body of UCC, UCD, UCG, the boards of management of the RTCs, the board of the Dublin Institute of Technology but not members of the governing bodies of the two universities. My amendment simply attempts to delete the provision in the First Schedule of the 1980 Act which says that members of the governing body of two institutes who become Members of the Oireachtas should cease to be members of the governing body or vice versa. Senator Murphy is a distinguished member of the governing body of UCC and Senator Fitzgerald of Fianna Fáil is a member of the governing body of UCD. During my time as a Member of this House I have been a member of the board of management of an RTC. This strikes me as an anomaly, and perhaps it was an oversight, which ought to be rectified. I left out members of the European Parliament from my amendment partly because of my view of the European Parliament and also because of the inevitable absences which result from membership of the European Parliament. We ought not to have two ways of dealing with Members of the Oireachtas and governing bodies of similar institutions.
I should like to support Senator Ryan's amendment. The records of this House will show that over a number of years I have protested again and again against the blanket prohibition of Members of the Oireachtas not being members of certain statutory bodies and vice versa. There are, of course, cases where there would be an obvious conflict of interest and in such cases specific prohibitions should certainly be enjoined but there are many cases where the services of somebody are unnecessarily lost by this kind of blanket prohibition. As Senator Ryan said, I am a member of the governing body of University College, Cork. If there was a prohibition on me under this section, that governing body would be deprived of my sage counsel on many matters, or, conversely, Seanad Éireann and the wider nation would be deprived of my inestimable services. I do not think that situation should obtain.
I have no doubt at all but that we would be lost without the Senator's sagacious counsel on many matters, be they academic or otherwise.
Did the Minister say salacious or sagacious?
I want to point out to Senator Ryan that I, too, was chairperson of the board of management of a regional colleges and also a Member of this House. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Senator's point of view but bearing in mind what I said on the last amendment the provisions in the Bill are the minimum necessary to amend the 1980 Act to allow the institutions to take up their functions as universities.
On the other hand, the present governing bodies were appointed in June 1987 for a five year period up to June 1992. That is their tenureship of office. I take Senator Murphy's and Senator Ryan's point that Members of the Dáil or Seanad should be eligible to be members of the governing body. Bearing in mind that the governing bodies were set up for five years there is adequate time between now and then to amend the provision in the First Schedule, and I undertake to do that.
I could not have expected a better response than that. In the light of the Minister's response, I am quite happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.