Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 5

National University of Ireland Bill, 1969: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Keating

Previously I was making the point about the composition of the Senate of the National University of Ireland and suggesting that since in October next they will have been in office for five years and since efforts at University reform have been going on for more than two years they will have had the opportunity in those years to have dug themselves in. They will be in a position now to influence the outcome of the final settlement in regard to NUI and our whole university problem very much. They are, in fact, experts at digging in and resisting change and they will have been in office for five years. They will have had a great deal of warning of what is to come. In fact the inadequacies of the Senate of NUI have contributed in large part to the present university crisis that exists. They are inadequacies that cover the whole range of university education. I do not propose to detail them now but we will have an opportunity later to go into them. There have been inadequacies in the whole policy in regard to the number of graduates from various faculties and a failure in planning so that we turned out to quite an extraordinary degree doctors, and members of the other professions, for export.

We did not tailor our university output to our national needs and we have not been able to harness the university as a power house of ideas which would serve to solve many of the national problems which are not political but technical ones. If we think of the university as an area bounded by the sea, an extremely complicated area, and if the university by the origin of that word is something which, by the very word itself is meant to cater for every aspect of life, then the failure to bring together the different strands of the nation into a single university has damaged all the strands of the nation and made them less able to understand each other and to contribute the specific virtues they possess. We have not had the training to get these different bits of the nation to live together through a university. We have not had reforms in regard to the sort of professional graduate who would be much more responsive to his duties to the country as a whole. I would lay that particular charge before the medical and legal professions, and to some extent my own veterinary profession, because this is the failure of university training. Many of these professions are concerned only with the price for which they will sell their services and but little concerned with the contribution their expertise can make to the national well-being. This seems to me the great reason for not leaving the Senate intact.

Above all, there is the failure to make the universities in their own structure as democratic as they should be. The current cry is, of course, for democracy for students, participation by students in the running of the university. They have an unanswerable right to such participation and some of the foolish things they do they might be less inclined to do if they could contribute in a constructive way to the university. That right does not extend only to students. Perhaps it extends more profoundly to subordinate levels of staff. We have a structure which is stifling the younger, less senior members of staff and is not enabling them to contribute to the limit of their ability to the development of the university as a whole.

The essence of the argument for the rapid passing of this Bill is that since the thing is going to be drastically reorganised let us leave the Senate as it is for the moment prior to the reorganisation. But, that Senate is going to have a major influence on the sort of reorganisation that comes and, personally, although I do not wish to discuss the merger at this moment per se or any other way, I want to see the breaking up of the entrenched power blocs in both the universities in Dublin which are resisting change, very often in the interests of their own faculty or their own position inside their own faculty.

It seems to me that the opportunity of re-electing and also the use of the nominations, which is of 13 out of 35 people, should be taken to change the composition of the Senate now to bring it more into line with opinions now than they were five years ago. There have been five years of immense change. If we are to have the overdue university reform, then we might well start, rather than finish, by having the greatest possible change in the composition of the Senate itself and for that reason I think this request on the part of the Minister is ill-advised.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Deputy Dr. FitzGerald suggested in the course of his contribution that if this legislation goes through in its present form for the purpose which he attributed to the Minister the Senate will lose the authority it holds because, in fact, it will not then be holding office according to due process of law. This, I think, underlines the essential difference between my approach to this Bill and any such Bill that comes before us and Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's in that, as Deputy Dr. Thornley pointed out, the essential function of this House is that, in fact, the due process of law is created here and anything that is done by us is done with that responsibility and in that regard. I speak as somebody who did have the opportunity of going through university but other than that has no special association with a university at this time. I speak as somebody whose regard for the universities and the part they have in our community is influenced by the effectiveness of their contribution to the nation.

Our function here is to discharge that responsibility and, of course, in doing so, to have due regard to the university institutions themselves, to the staffs, to the students and to those who may be in a transient way more associated with them now than we are. This is a basic principle as far as the discussion of this Bill is concerned. We cannot, therefore, accept the thesis which Deputy Dr. FitzGerald has put forward that we would, in fact, in some way interfere with the autonomy of the university, would tread where we have no right to tread and would do better to let the developments within the university continue at their own pace and in their own time.

It is also suggested, in fact, that the Senate in their request to the Minister, were, in fact, attempting to legalise an illegality, an illegality which apparently they were guilty of by thinking that they could extend their own life by order. One does not wish to be picking on words in any debate in this House. None of us would like to be cross-examined too closely for anything we might have said if the general intent is clear but, when you couple that with the suggestion that we are not acting, to a certain extent, in due process of law here, it becomes clear that there must be a basic misunderstanding.

If the Senate of the National University applies to the Minister to extend the life of the present Senate, there is nothing inherently illegal in that, nothing in fact, that is in any way associated with an illegality and there is certainly nothing illegal in our giving them such extension as is in the interests of the university——

Dr. FitzGerald

Just to assist the Deputy at this point — I think he has misunderstood me. The suggestion I made, and it is open to correction by the Minister if I am wrong, is that having quite legally and properly sought an extension by order, the Senate, unaware that this could not be given, allowed time to elapse where they reached the point where it was impossible for them to have an election according to law and what they had requested as a matter of something that was a good idea became something they had to have because they got themselves into an illegal position. That is the point I was making. Perhaps, I did not make it sufficiently clear. On the question of due process of law——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make a second speech.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I accept that Deputy Dr. FitzGerald may not have had an opportunity just immediately of getting the correct reference but I do not think the Senate had got themselves into an illegal position. In any event, no illegality could have arisen before October of this year. So, there is no question of our trying to legalise an illegal situation. Suggestions of that sort would best be left outside the scope of the consideration of this Bill.

There is a fear expressed, not only by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, that we might undermine the moral authority of the universities and the governing bodies. All of us appreciate that our function is, in fact, not to undermine, but in many ways to supplement and assist them and their students in discharging their function. To suggest that we could undermine their authority by any legislation of this sort, which is, in fact, a temporary measure, goes beyond the bounds which the public are prepared to accept.

We had suggestions, in fact, that this was an attempt to perpetuate the Senate of the National University and, eventually, the Senate of the National University was being spoken of as a self-perpetuating body. I think Deputy Bruton used that expression. This is neither an attempt to perpetuate nor to give power of self-perpetuation. I am not aware of any definition of "perpetuation"— an expression which was very widely used in this debate — which could properly be applied to what the Minister is, in fact, doing, and that is, extending for a limited period, for as brief a period as may be feasible, the Senate of the National University so that the proposals which the Commission on Higher Education are at present considering and which will involve reorganisation of our universities, can be implemented. We must have regard to the reality of the situation. In this case in particular we must have regard to the reality of the situation existing, especially in Dublin, between the staffs of the various universities and the departments of the universities, who to some extent appear to have contrary interests.

These contrary interests may have emanated in some way from the proposals to affect the rationalisation and merger of the two universities in Dublin. The important thing to realise is that, unlike what Deputy FitzGerald says, there are developments occurring within the university which would indicate that we will have four separate universities in future rather than the proposal that emanated from the commission — a proposal which we hope and strongly believe the Government are committed to implementing— if not in its exact form at least in outline — a proposal that the Irish people are waiting to see implemented. If we are to be influenced by the developments occurring within the universities themselves we shall not be discharging our responsibilities. In UCD there would appear to be some doubt as to whether the faculties of law and medicine should be allowed to go to Trinity College in a merged university.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would point out to the Deputy that, while a relevant reference to the merger might be in order, a discussion on the merger is not in order. If there were any such proposals, they would have to come before this House before a change could take place and that would be the opportunity for a discussion on such a merger.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I accept with respect the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I would point out that my comments are related to the comments of Deputy FitzGerald, who went much further on the merger than I have done in my contribution. However, I also accept that the Chair had frequent difficulty with Deputy FitzGerald on that particular occasion.

Dr. FitzGerald

No, Deputy FitzGerald had difficulty with the Chair.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Perhaps he had the same difficulty as I am now experiencing. At any event, proposals for reform should to some extent emanate from the staff and students, but not entirely. What the Minister wishes to do is to give us an opportunity of extending the life of the Senate of the National University so that this House and all associated interests will be able to ensure that apparent developments within UCD — developments which are contrary to the essential interest of the nation — are in some way guarded against and that, perhaps, the gift of persuasion may prevail to ensure that those who are most opposed in that college will soften their opposition. We have been told that nothing will happen this side of Christmas, or indeed this side of the following Christmas. However, I hope what we are doing here will tend to expedite the developments so necessary in the university structure here in Dublin and, indeed, throughout the country.

I appreciate the difficulty that Deputy FitzGerald had on this Bill in trying to discuss this proposal without commenting in some way on the merger proposals but I trust that the Chair will show some degree of leniency and understanding provided one does not discuss it, to use a hallowed expression, per se.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, the Chair will point out to the Deputy that discussion on any proposed merger cannot be allowed at this stage. If there are any such proposals the matter would have to come before the House but, in any case, it is not appropriate to this Bill that a discussion should take place on them.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister said in introducing this Bill that the period of office of ths Senate will be comparatively short. It is the hope of all of us that it will be comparatively short. Each of us in this House and elsewhere will use his influence and good offices to ensure that the Senate, whose life we are now extending, will not be required to sit as a separate Senate of the National University for too long and that the reorganisation and re-structuring of the university system, which so many of us are waiting for, will be effected expeditiously.

I have some copious notes derived from the copious comments of Deputy FitzGerald. I now must discard them. Each of our universities has the obligation to expand, despite the fact that some Deputies seem to think that Trinity College has no such obligation. Each university has an obligation to cater for the community. I trust that any views that may be expressed in this House with regard to our universities will be expressed with that essential qualification.

Lawyers may be very much concerned with the structure and system of the courts, but they are not entitled to think that the courts are there for lawyers. Lawyers are there to help the functioning of the courts in implementing the administration of justice in precisely the same way as university staffs are there to implement the programme on higher education. They may be in some ways the instrument of this education but they are not and should never think that they are autonomous of the community. One view expressed here was that the university staffs are those who are basically concerned, but in fact this matter is the equal concern of each one of us.

One rather amusing suggestion was made — perhaps not seriously — which is quite contrary to anything that we understood of Fianna Fáil. It was suggested that this was an attempt to get the Hierarchy off the hook, to relieve them of the embarrassment of lifting the ban on Trinity College.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair wishes to point out that this is grossly irrelevant at this stage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have never been aware that Fianna Fáil could be credited with introducing any kind of legislation designed to relieve the Hierarchy of embarrassment: on the contrary, I thought that one of our abiding sins was the fact that we did not consult the Hierarchy sufficiently often. Without intending any offence to the Hierarchy, perhaps this was because their thinking was not in line with Fianna Fáil attitudes. At any rate, it is amusing to suggest that this may have been the purpose of the proposals which are in some way concerned with this legislation.

I trust I will be forgiven if, apparently, I am using Deputy FitzGerald's contribution as my text but in many ways it is a good basis on which to comment. Deputy FitzGerald suggests that there is a dangerous situation within the university and that if the life of the present senate is extended things will be very serious in the university next autumn. I recall Deputy FitzGerald making precisely the same observation in the other House during the course of the Local Authority (Higher Education) Grants Bill. He said that, if the students who were then in the university, did not also get the benefits of the new grants which first year or new students were entitled to, we would have as a direct result of that a dangerous situation, almost a revolution, in the university that autumn. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald has not proved to be too good a prophet in that connection.

Dr. FitzGerald

Thank God for that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I trust that his forebodings in this connection will be equally unrealised. Whatever else was the source of problems in UCD last autumn, I do not think it was related to that fact. It was related, as any person reasonably familiar with the situation will agree, to the internal situation of the university itself. I am glad to hear this matter has been attended to by those directly concerned, even at this late stage.

We have nowadays changing ideas of what a university represents and what representation various groups are entitled to. These are not changing ideas in the sense that they are new ideas, as has been suggested here. They are not new ideas of the meaning of a university. In this country particularly the basic conception of what universities represent has been forgotten. We are expected now to greet with applause and surprise the fact that we now have staff-student committees and very effective communication, so effective and delicate that we should do nothing here to upset this delicate communication. Surely this type of communication and these developments were always the essence of a university? If we are concerned here with upsetting what is long overdue in the universities, then we cannot discuss the first sentence of any proposal relating to the universities. I would hope that the universities would understand that this proposal here is an earnest of the Government's intention to ensure that the reorganisation of our university system will be effected as quickly as possible. This measure is being introduced because it did not seem worthwhile to have a new election of a body which would hold office for only a comparatively short time. This is the first step on what will be for us all a very exciting journey in the final realisation of the re-structuring of our universities, enabling them to fulfil their fundamental role in the community.

I wish to come back to the point made that we were casually perpetuating an ancient order. It is a gross misconception to suggest that this is being done casually or that we are doing so without the interests of the university and the interests of the community in our minds. This is anything but a casual perpetuation of an ancient order. It is a very considered extension of the present order with a view to an early introduction of the new order which all of us wait for so impatiently. As Deputy Dr. Thornley has said, education will be one of the most important topics of the Nineteenth Dáil. It, and other topics, particularly those concerned with social development, will be important. Those in universities should not be too sensitive to any suggestions from this House emanating from people who represent the community. They will understand that the suggestions are made by representatives of the community in that capacity.

The autonomy of universities, which is so often spoken about so loosely, is like any other autonomy. It is subject to the discipline of the society of which it is an essential part. No one in university, staff or student, belongs to a special class to whom special standards should apply. Lecturers and students belong to the community in a certain institution and the same standards of integrity of argument and of effectiveness in the discharge of their responsibilities will be applied to them as will be applied to every other member of society in any other job. If this Nineteenth Dáil opens the gates of all the universities and of all the institutes of learning, physically and mentally, and, as Deputy Keating has said, if it is able to rid these universities of the power-entrenched blocs and cliques, it would be benefiting the community and, ipso facto, the universities themselves. This will find a large measure of agreement in this House. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald is in the vanguard of this type of development. However, he appears to be far behind community thought on this subject if his views on this Bill can be taken as an adequate expression of his own views. I was glad to hear Deputy Dr. Thornley and Deputy Keating expressing their views, because both of them are associated with universities.

I am quite sure the Minister will resist the pressures that will arise in consultation, or otherwise, after this Bill has been passed. I am equally sure that the Minister will take every opportunity of consultation. The first place in which consultation should take place is in this Assembly, having regard, of course, to the fact that all those concerned at various stages should also be consulted. The pressures which Deputy Dr. Thornley referred to were the pressures of some entrenched interests of UCD particularly which Deputy Dr. FitzGerald in some way was endeavouring to protect. We will, I hope, accelerate the tempo of decision making.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was not protecting the bishops.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The bishops are undefended in this House. Apparently nobody here will defend them or protect them.

Dr. FitzGerald

Their protection will be left to the Labour Party.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Having heard some members of the Labour Party, I found a new form of affection for their Lordships, the Hierarchy, The Labour Party have been happy to advertise this new form of protection. Maybe its members are entitled to that after some of the questions raised about them. Deputy Dr. Thornley raised a question recently about the students themselves. The students may be conships cerned about this Bill. They may feel that we are perpetuating something and they may be wondering when they will know whether or not they will be doing their final examinations in a new University of Dublin or doing them in their existing universities. They may ask whether they will be subjected to examinations on the courses they are now studying or whether they will be expected to study new courses in a reorganised university structure. All of us could assure Deputy Dr. Thornley that, unless the Minister and his Department and even this House experience a mental blockage of a type unprecedented even in this House, whatever the outcome the students need have no fears that they will be compromised. I say this without consultation with the Minister, his Department or anyone else. If there is a reorganisation consequent on this Bill, the students can be assured that their interests will not be compromised, whatever other interests may be compromised in some small way along the line. It is almost certain that the structure in the National University is not adequate to meet present day demands, much less the future demands which a reorganised structure may involve. That is not to say that this is not the most effective and expeditious thing we can do at this time—to extend the life of the Senate for a limited period so that in its time there will be a new creation which will be more representative and which will commend itself to everybody in this House. Reforms may be desirable, and if they are, I am quite sure these reforms will get full support from all parties here.

Finally, I should like to reassure Deputy Thornley that the relevance of the University is something which is increasingly becoming part of the attitude of every Irishman and Irishwoman, particularly in relation to their children and their prospects. Deputy Thornley was worried that there are some children in Dublin at present for whom a university may never be relevant and that possibly the only association they will have with education after the primary level is in an overcrowded secondary school. The important thing for all of us to fix our determination on is that the university will be just relevant for those very people, that no longer will it be relevant for privileged people alone. The Local Authority (Higher Education) Grants Bill, to give it its full title, has gone a long way to ensure that it will be those young boys and girls, who are the very stuff of the nation, for whom the university will be relevant from now on and not for those who have long family associations with the various chairs and various departments. It no longer has relevance for those interests. It has a relevance for all the children of the nation. Because of that, I certainly commend this Bill to the House so that the Minister, the Government and this House can get on as quickly as possible with implementing the proposal for a reorganised university which all of us so impatiently wait for.

Dr. Browne

Let me say first how much I agree with so much of the previous speaker's contribution, in particular his reference to this sacred cow of the autonomy of the university. This has been built up meticulously over a long time, like the idea of the untouchability of the university, no matter what it does. One of the facilities which the university graduate has is to create words such as those. These people have become the mythmakers in our society because they dominate the society in all the professions—law, medicine, architecture, engineering, and particularly journalism. They make use of those words, words which most of us have to shy away from, with all their meaning, words and phrases such as the autonomy of the university, the right of freedom of the press, the wonderful work the voluntary hospitals do and the necessity of being very careful about the idea of the merger. All of those phrases, if they are carefully examined, do not really need to be regarded with such fear and circumspection as they would like us to regard them with.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is the Deputy including the freedom of the press in that list?

Dr. Browne

I have no special person in mind. I am talking about the general policy of the national newspapers in any community. They are the mythmakers. They constitute the postgraduate education of the primary and secondary schools in relation to our attitudes and ideas. Therefore, they are a particularly important group in our community. I am speaking about journalists in general. I am not talking about any special journalist at all. They form many ideas. That is their purpose in our kind of society.

I claim the right to speak on this issue because it has come before us and also because I have the honour, with Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Moore, of representing a constituency in which two universities, TCD and UCD, are situated. I also claim the right to speak because I have been a student in both colleges. I was in TCD 30 years ago—and I do not think it has changed very much since then —and I was in UCD five or six years ago. I would very much deprecate the perpetuation of the Senate as proposed in the Bill. The whole record of the governing control of University College is not very unlike that of TCD. There is very little to choose between them. Behind this cloak of autonomy they have really gone on as they please and done as they please without any criticism from anybody. Fortunately, they have now come to the Dáil and they must hear what we say. As Deputy O'Kennedy suggested, we can criticise them if we wish since they have come to us for support, sanction and help in their time of need.

I recall, as Minister, facing such a situation in relation to the voluntary hospitals, which I feel are run in a small way on similar lines. They needed help. I gave them help on my conditions. My conditions were a predominant position in relation to the board of the hospital, making it into a voluntary local authority hospital. I feel those people must learn to understand, if they are looking to us for any kind of help at any time, or if, in particular, they are spending money, that we have a perfect right here to criticise them. I make no apology at all as a politician for interfering, although perhaps that is too strong a word, but certainly for commenting and criticising their behaviour in relation to their responsibility in regard to their university, in regard to the functions and the use of the university and its record in relation to the community and the community needs in the 50 years since we have had control of those institutions.

I feel there is a very frightening similarly between the function of the university and the misuse of both universities in the last 50 years and the misuse of television in relation to the mass viewer in our society—these terribly powerful instruments of change in the community: the university and television. The university is grossly misused and now, as far as one can see, in the same way in creating attitudes and in creating outlook, television is following out much the same pattern in relation to the mass of the people. However, the discussion is about the universities and I will keep to that point.

One time I felt a great regret, where a person's education ended at 14 years in the primary school and 15 or 16 years in the secondary school, that they had lost the opportunity of going to the university and to that extent they had missed very much in the creation and moulding of their personalities, their outlook and so on. After a while, of course, I came to realise that, if a person goes through any of the universities, the chance of his surviving other than as a highly skilled technocrat with a very specific and narrow function to discharge his responsibility as doctor, engineer, architect, barrister, lawyer, or whatever it may be and of becoming fully rounded in his true education, in his philosophical outlook, in his approach to life and the purpose of living, in his role in society, in his attitude to the community and in his responsibilities to the community was in question. That is the boy from the primary school, the secondary school, the boy from Bolton Street, Kevin Street or any of these other places. Plumbers, carpenters, dentists, lawyers, architects, doctors, engineers—in the narrowest sense of the word, we are all equally technocrats. This is a failure of the primary schools, of the secondary schools and, above all, of the universities. They had us at a time when we had plenty of opportunity for thinking, meeting one another for discussions, inter-debate, for consideration of these important roles, our important roles in society. Instead of offering us this wonderful world of real higher knowledge, of full understanding of one's role as a human being in the community, we were merely converted into being this expert in a very narrow field, of being a doctor, or whatever it might be.

That is one of the truths which many young people are beginning to understand more fully than my generation understood them and they are beginning to resent that fact. They are beginning to resent the fact that, as professional people, they are being slotted into a particular role which will bring them, from the cradle through to the grave, in relative comfort and security from want, hunger, and all the rest of it. But they are finding that that is not enough from life, that they must get a lot more if they are to be really contented people in themselves. That I believe has been the great failure of our universities in our community. It was their responsibility to create the kind of person who as Deputy Keating said, would understand that he had a special role in our society; that whatever we were to do, in the fifty years when we have had our freedom, that was a unique and a special problem. The solution was unique and peculiar to the Irish people themselves. The universities have simply turned out people who have adopted a very narrow and selfish role in society and have perpetuated more or less the kind of society which we took over 50 years ago.

The general role of the university was to create individuals—professionals—who, in the British sense, would service a colonial empire at the time. As has already been mentioned we turned out a completely unnecessary number of doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects quite irrelevant to the special needs of our own community itself.

An Ceann Comhairle

I feel the Deputy is getting away from the Bill. We are not discussing the role of the universities.

Dr. Browne

In relation to the institution of the Senate, its record has been that it has governed this university in a particular way which has eventuated in the university's becoming a source of considerable trouble in recent years. It has a record in relation to its behaviour, documented extremely well in the Kenny Report, in which, for a number of years, it completely ignored its powers and its authority under its constitution. The House will probably recall the episode in its creation of a number of posts which it had no right to create at all—assistant lectureship posts and the lectureship posts, and so on.

Major de Valera

Is the Deputy confusing the Senate and the Governing Body? It was the Governing Body——

Dr. Browne

I am saying that the Senate has a responsibility to the Governing Body. The Governing Body also created professorships and assistant lectureships and the Senate made little or no attempt to supervise this kind of activity and allowed this kind of activity to continue. To that extent, in my view, it did not discharge its responsibilities to the community. As was pointed out at that time, considerable public money was involved. There was this extraordinary system of appointments. There were clear overtones or suggestions certainly of nepotism, of unfair practices, in relation to the making of appointments—putting forward one individual to the appointing board, and so on. Obviously, this was not the behaviour of people who had a true sense of their responsibility to the community which was providing the money to pay for the running of the university.

Therefore, this Senate has not discharged its responsibilities to the community in a responsible way and in my view does not deserve to be perpetuated. Certainly, on its record of refusal to recognise the statutes, the Constitution, the laws under which it should have governed its own actions, it certainly is in no position to lecture the students who recently showed a similar disregard for what they were told were their legal responsibilities and the rights of the university to be regarded as the final arbiter in matters of discipline and behaviour and practices and attendance at lectures and behaviour at lectures and so on. The Governing Body of UCD has lost any right to respect by the students and in my view they are simply not fit to govern. Looking at the matter in the broader sense, which the Ceann Comhairle asked me to leave and which I suppose we shall discuss at a later date, of the true purpose of the individual in the university, they have failed and even in the narrow sense of the administration of a university they have failed. For that reason, in my view, they do not deserve to be perpetuated as a responsible organisation.

The whole idea of the merger—I am not going to discuss it in any detail —seems to me a particularly superficial solution for problems which go very much more deeply than anybody appears to have given any consideration to—certainly, up to the present. It seems to me to be a business arrangement to rationalise the services in two universities rather like two businesses coming together in a merger in order to save personnel or save expense or to make things more efficient. However, it did not, it seemed to me, have the basic objective of creating a university which would discharge its true function to the community of turning out young men and women who would be prepared to serve the community, to make serious contributions to the very difficult social, economic and financial problems which we certainly have in the country.

The approach to the merger was simply that of two universities coming together to form one bigger university and to carry on much as before. In regard to the whole business of appointments, I do not think there is much to choose between the two of them—the Knights of Columbanus predominantly in University College and the Freemasons in Trinity College— and the two of them going on together presumably sharing out the different jobs to suit themselves.

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not arise on this Bill. The Dáil will, in due course, get an opportunity of discussing the merger.

Dr. Browne

I do not propose to develop the points beyond that. It seems that the whole question of the breakdown of this proposal resolves itself very much into any comparable type of breakdown which we often see referred to as the who does what disputes of the trade union movement —and little more than that.

As to the idea of student representation on the new governing body or the new organisation which will control the universities, I have not the same enthusiasm that most people seem to have or the same belief that if we get predominant student representation on any governing body we will thereby solve all the emotional conflicts and difficulties which exist in the universities. This is part of the mythology which is being built up about the true reasons for the dissatisfaction and dissent which we have found in recent months in Ireland. To a considerable extent I believe that much of the student unrest here was imitative, that it was not basically a serious conflict on social issues, a certain unrest, a certain discontent and that there is a failure to analyse in any great depth the reason for this unrest and discontent. The truth is that the student of today is the professional of tomorrow, the person who has accepted the status quo, who has accepted the standard, who has ceased to question social injustice in our society.

Ninety-five to 98 per cent of the products of universities end up in one or other of the two conservative parties, accepting the establishment as they find it and refusing to change it. I see no reason why the present generation of students, 95 per cent of them, will not do precisely the same thing. I feel it is to miss out the reality of the failure over the years in Ireland to democratise the universities and to open them to everybody who is intellectually capable of going into the universities. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald seemed to wish to disown the fact that there might not be a sort of bourgeoisie in University College which there is in Trinity College. Of course, there is in both colleges.

Dr. FitzGerald

In proportion.

Dr. Browne

The Nevin Report showed that the number of workingclass youngsters who get into our universities is minimal and that the students in the universities represent predominantly the bourgeois class in society.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot see, Deputy, how that arises on this Bill which is quite a simple Bill. Student unrest does not arise on it.

Dr. Browne

I am making the point that I do not think it will solve, as has been suggested by other Deputies, all our problems if we simply import a number of students in to become the governing body of our universities just as it will not solve our trouble to perpetuate a body such as the Senate. I think we have a right to say what we think will help and what we think will not help. I believe that the only thing which will solve the whole university crisis is when we have the student body in the university representative of the total community and not of a minority within the community. That can only be achieved by extending free education to the universities in the form of scholarships based on intellectual capacity and nothing else.

As to the governing body I believe that the junior staff have a right, naturally, to a say in these things but the junior staff of today is the senior staff of tomorrow and is likely to become just as involved in the exploitation of the inequities of university life as the others when they have the opportunity. Similarly in relation to the senior staff they obviously should have representation. I believe that the Dáil must have representation of some kind. I believe also that the trade union movement has a right to representation in any kind of university structure so that we have a very much broader representation of the community than this precious, private enclave of the universities, whether Trinity or University College, Galway, Dublin or Cork. I feel that they have failed in the job we gave them to do 50 years ago. They have had 40 to 50 years to create the true university which we wanted to see here and they have failed to do that. Now they have come to us for help and I believe the help should be given on our terms. It is not so important—certainly in the past it has not been so important—what Trinity College do in relation to their education. They gave us a narrow, technical education and nothing more but it is very important what happens in relation to UCD because it happens to supply the majority of professional and technical expertise in all aspects of our lives, the different professions including, if Deputy Dr. FitzGerald will forgive my saying so, the journalists, these people who shape opinions and, of course, the legal people who form such a high component of one of the Parties and, to a growing extent, the other party and, therefore, the people who make our laws and so decide whether society will continue on in its fixed monolithic unchanging pattern of life left to us by the British or whether we create a completely new one which is unique and peculiar to our needs.

I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the desirability of not perpetuating this Senate. If there is any way in which he can avoid doing it I sincerely hope he will because it certainly does not need to be perpetuated in this very responsible position.

Mr. Desmond

I wish to make one brief comment on this measure. In welcoming the new Minister we in the Labour Party can certainly give interim approval to the particular continuation of the Senate itself. My only comment is that the fact that we may not particularly oppose the measure proposed by the Minister does not necessarily give an indication that we would not wish him to go further and to recast the general setting of the Senate within the university structure. In particular we hope that this is a short term measure he has sought from the House and that he will utilise the breathing space now given to him to undertake a far more radical, perceptive and greater in depth review generally of the university system as a whole within the educational structure of the country.

It is a sad reflection on us that while we have a Senate of a university we do have also a growing multitude of educational structures in the country. We have a primary system, a vocational system, a secondary system, a secondary tops system. We have, in addition, comprehensive, tentatively proposed, schools throughout the country and superimposed on this at the university level we have more regional colleges of technology and then we have technical colleges themselves. In a nation of our size where it should be possible to manage our educational system in a far more rational and constructive manner one begins to haggle at the further imposition and superimposing of more forms of educational structures. Therefore, I hope the Minister will—I think it should be his first task—bring about in the educational structure more dramatic and general rationalisation measures than we have seen in this Bill. This can only be done by involving the universities in a far greater measure of public accountability. They have lived so far in their own relatively isolated and one might say isolationist attitude within the educational structure. They survive and they obtain from the taxpayers very substantial annual subventions and, nevertheless they seem by virtue of their senior position, their superior academic positions and so on, to wish to be of it in terms of taxpayers' subventions but not part of it in terms of public accountability so far as the State is concerned.

This is the particular attitude of my Party and I have no doubt the Senate will be getting some cold shivers, either in a reconstituted form or in a continued form as in this Bill, by the time we in the Opposition have fully conveyed our views to the Minister. Therefore, with this additional comment on our part in regard to education, it is our wish not to oppose this measure but there will have to be quite dramatic re-thinking particularly on the part of the academic staffs and the Senate of the universities in terms of future educational development. This is not very evident at present. The worst characteristics of academic life were shown in the reaction to the merger proposal. The continued equivocation of the previous Minister and his attempts to be all things to all men on all occasions in relation to the merger certainly did not give the academics much ground to be more constructive than they were. Nevertheless, the overall mess that emerged during the merger discussion reflected little credit on the previous Minister and on some of the staffs directly concerned.

I have no special love for the autocratic by-product of the national university system, the Senate as such, and I feel very strongly that the whole university system needs a considerable overhaul. It always amazes me that the ordinary Irish worker must work a 40-hour week and is paid so much per hour and that our universities are closed for 30 odd weeks of the year whereby one of the most costly and valuable national resources lies idle while the occupants, both staff and students, proceed on their conventional and rather lengthy withdrawal from academic life. I say this with due reference to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald because he has no difficulty in occupying his extra-university time.

I submit that the extent of academic research, subvented, authorised and encouraged by the university Senates has been, in many respects, quite marginal. I feel that when I have to face in my constituency in Dún Laoghaire an overcrowded class of 50 young children being taught by one national teacher or a great shortage of secondary school places and when one visits in the summer holidays the empty Irish universities one feels that the scales of social priority are a bit cock-eyed in the year 1969. Likewise, I urge the Minister to consult with the Senate in the hope that, perhaps, he would get the Senate itself and its members, most of whom have very little appreciation, in my opinion, of the growing industrialisation of the country and the need for a very different orientation of future education and development, to fuse in the near future and get into line with the development of the regional colleges of technology and the regional colleges themselves. It would be an absolute scandal and a total waste of national resources if we spent millions putting up nine regional colleges of technology while our universities sit on the sidelines developing a separate stream without direct involvement. This cannot be allowed even if we have a national budget of £400 million per year from which we spend an ever-increasing proportion on education.

The Minister must also encourage within his own Department more forthrightness on the part of many of his officers. I was very pleased to see Mr. O'Connell particularly coming out and making his views known without any reticence and standing over them as a public officer, giving public expression to his views as he thought fit and not being crucified except by the former Deputy Dillon who, of course, has "a thing" about public servants which may not necessarily be shared by all of us. I hope, therefore, that the Minister's development unit, his own planning unit, although sparsely staffed and not given as full a break as it should get in many areas of educational research, particularly research into what precisely happens in universities, will be enabled to function properly. He has my full sympathy as Minister in trying to find out what happens in the universities particularly in terms of expenditure. I hope he will get full backing from the Dáil on this occasion.

These are my personal views. I have no doubt that within three or four years the Minister will bring in many educational measures which I hope will transform our educational scene. I have no doubt that with Deputy FitzGerald on the Fine Gael side and Deputy Thornley on our side as Opposition spokesmen we shall have a constructive attitude from the Opposition. I hope, therefore, that the work which was begun and urged on by the Labour Party in 1963 when we published our educational policy document, "Challenge and Change" at a time when free education was not fashionable——

Mr. Corish

It was a sin to talk about it.

Mr. Desmond

It was almost obscene.

Mr. Corish

We were too far Left at that time.

Mr. Desmond

That is very true. I hope the aspirations we set out in that document to rationalise the whole structure of education will be teased out in an atmosphere of frankness and in a way that will be of benefit not only to the students but also to the staffs directly involved.

Minister for Education (Mr. Faulkner)

Nuair a tháinig mé isteach sa Dáil leis an mBille seo shíl mé go raibh Bille simplí agam ach sul a raibh lucht na nOllscoil réidh leis ní raibh a fhios agam an rabhamar ag caint faoin mBille céanna. Im bharúil féin is Bille simplí atá sa Bhille—Bille a thugann cead don Rialtais cead a thabhairt do Seanad hOllscoile a shaol a fhaidiú ar feadh bliana. Im bharúil-sa tá sé sin réasúnta nuair a smaoitíonn tú ar an dóigh ina bhfuil rudaí faoi láthair i gcúrsaí na n-ollscol.

What struck me very forcibly in the debate on this Bill is the ability of certain academics in the course of discussion to make relatively simple problems sound very complex. In fact, they make them appear as almost insoluble. That being so, I find myself in replying having to refer to matters to which I would not normally refer.

This, I would have thought, is a simple enabling Bill. It permits the Government to accede to the request of the Senate of the National University of Ireland to extend its period of office for one year. I have no doubt that in the circumstances it is a sensible and practical measure. I should like to clear the air for the Deputies opposite. This Bill has not been brought into the Dáil for the purpose of legalising the position in relation to the Senate election due to an oversight. In fact, the Senate has still got time, if it so wishes, to give the necessary three months notice. It is brought in because, as I said a moment ago, I feel it is a practical measure in the circumstances, particularly in view of the proposed dissolution of the National University of Ireland.

Dr. FitzGerald

Could I ask the Minister to clarify that point?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already spoken. The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. Faulkner

I might add that I am rather surprised that a number of Deputies should come in here armed to the teeth to discuss what is not in the Bill while, at the same time, not being au fait with the simple mechanics of the election of the Senate of the National University.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would I be in order in asking the Minister to clarify that point?

Mr. Faulkner

I have made a statement. Why does the Deputy want it clarified? I have said here that the Senate of the National University must give not less than three months notice of an election and they are still outside the limit of this three months. They could give notice even up to the present moment.

Dr. FitzGerald

The last date for initiating the procedure for nominations by mid-July has not passed?

Mr. Faulkner

No. I had hoped, and I say this very seriously, that Deputy FitzGerald would endeavour to get away from the Fine Gael mentality of running away from difficulties and latching on to what may appear for the moment to be a popular stand, but I find that this erstwhile protagonist of the merger who had, I may say, on many occasions pointed out the need for it in order to serve the real interests of higher education now tends to blow hot and cold whenever the whip is cracked, and I am not just referring to the Parliamentary Whip either.

Dr. FitzGerald

To what whip is the Minister referring?

Mr. Faulkner

It is in line with the Fine Gael policy on many aspects of education because I can remember not very long ago in this House when we introduced a new matter in relation to education the Fine Gael Party at that time claimed we had stolen the policy from them but, as soon as the sharp breezes began to blow, they scurried for cover and I am afraid education ran a rather poor second to political expediency.

Dr. FitzGerald

Could the Minister say to what whip he was referring?

Mr. Faulkner

I am sure the Deputy knows that. Deputy FitzGerald attacked the present structure of the National University of Ireland Senate in unequivocal terms as undemocratic, unrepresentative and unwieldy, and then proceeded to demand that a new election be held on the same structure.

Dr. FitzGerald

It would be better than no election.

Mr. Faulkner

Surely it would be more sensible and reasonable to cater for what appears to be in the Deputy's mind in relation to adequate staff and student representation on college councils, to wait for the introduction of omnibus legislation in this regard? I think myself that would be a justification for the present interim Bill. When queried by Deputy de Valera as to why he could possibly want a new Senate election to take place on the structure which he so roundly condemned, the only reason Deputy Fitzgerald could give was that there would be new faces in the new Senate, as if this were a justification in itself.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is it not a justification for all elections?

Mr. Faulkner

He also mentioned the fact that the governing body of UCD now intended holding elections and said that the reason why they had not held elections previously over the past two years, was that they believed when the merger was first announced that it would take place quickly and there would be no need for elections. I am sure the Deputy is not so naive as to believe that a responsible body so close to the government, as it were, of the university could at any time believe it was possible to have such a complex matter dealt with very quickly. I have no doubt that there are other reasons why the governing body may have decided to proceed with elections this year, and I am sure no doubt that Deputy FitzGerald is well aware of what they are. He suggested that the Senate would lose its authority if its life were extended and that all sorts of troubles would ensue. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that the fact that the life of the governing body was extended was responsible in any way for the troubles which took place this year?

Dr. FitzGerald

An important contributory factor.

Mr. Faulkner

It certainly was not and the Deputy is well aware of what the factors were.

Dr. FitzGerald

With respect, I know more about it than the Minister.

Mr. Faulkner

That may be. I will say that what disturbed me about the Deputy's speech on this aspect was that it appeared to me to invite trouble should the life of the Senate be extended. I hope I am wrong in that.

Mr. Corish

The Minister said it anyway.

Mr. Faulkner

That certainly would not be the role of a responsible Deputy.

Dr. FitzGerald

It can be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy referred to the creation of social divisions which would arise if certain faculties were to go to Trinity College. I would imagine that one of the benefits to be gained from the merger and from the university grants scheme is that a fair cross-section of Irish life would be represented in both colleges.

The Deputy's strongest argument against the merger related to what he termed the lopsided allocation of faculties. I will not anticipate the advice I may get from the Higher Education Authority but I will say this much—the allocation of faculties as proposed on 6th July, 1968, was largely in keeping with what less than three months previously had been proposed by the Irish Federation of University Teachers. This is a body with which I believe Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy Thornley are closely associated.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister is aware that is not true. Can the Minister say——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not interrupt any time he feels like it.

Mr. Faulkner

I listened quietly and patiently to the Deputy and I assume I have the right to reply. Arising from this, if, as Deputy FitzGerald said, there was such unanimity against the merger on the part of the staffs of UCD and TCD, why did the Irish Federation of University Teachers on 10th April, 1968, put forward submissions in relation to the allocation of disciplines and subjects which did not differ in any substantial way from the proposals announced subsequently by the Minister in July of the same year? I put it to Deputy FitzGerald that his opposition to the latter proposals is of comparatively recent growth and for reasons best known to himself.

Dr. FitzGerald

My lips are sealed.

Mr. Faulkner

Deputy FitzGerald also spoke about moves that are afoot which rule out the possibility of the merger going through in the foreseeable future. My information is that, apart from some vague talk on the part of individuals or groups, no practical alternative has been put forward by anyone to the proposals of 6th July, 1968. He also spoke of co-ordination of the facilities by the two independent universities. He may be an optimist, but I have considerable doubts as to whether this would function.

Deputy Thornley took the same line as Deputy FitzGerald of agreeing to the Bill because there was a legal necessity for it. I have already explained that is not so. The Deputy then went on to refer to our policy as one of delay and deferment. I believe in the democratic process of discussion and dialogue to solve problems. I wonder what would the Deputy have to say if we rushed the University Bill through without consultation. Perhaps I should not say I wonder, because in fact I know. He would call us arrogant, though that word seems to have gone out of vogue since the election.

Deputy Thornley then went on to make a number of statements, unaware perhaps of the facts but obviously not very concerned by them. He stated that the announcement of 6th July, 1968, was made without any consultation whereas, in fact, it was made only after months and months of discussion with representatives of UCD and TCD. He spoke of the Higher Education Authority and stated that nobody knew what their terms of reference were when, in fact, the terms of reference were published. I have here a copy of them which was published on 15th August, 1968.

As regards Deputy Thornley's reference to the Higher Education Authority, one of the reasons for the present Bill is the desire not to do anything which would anticipate the recommendations of the Authority. Until I have received them, I cannot tell what they will contain. Certainly, they will affect very much the university structure in Dublin.

I was interested—perhaps I may be excused if I say I was a little amused —by Deputy Keating's statement in regard to the Bill. He spent a considerable time trying to make the Fianna Fáil Government responsible for the Senate of the National University. Considering the fact that the Act under which the Senate of the National University is constituted was passed in 1908, and that the Government have the right to nominate only four members to that body, the Deputy will have considerable difficulty in proving his point.

One further point I should like to stress when dealing with accusations of delay. We are at the present time engaged on what is going to amount to a complete reorganisation of higher education in this State. Let there be no unnecessary delay but at the same time let us take all the steps that common prudence demands to ensure that our reorganised system will be the best that we can possibly make it. To that end we will require the assistance of every person in this House and outside it who has a contribution to make.

I should imagine if the particular suggestion made by the Deputy were discussed at a meeting of the Senate of the National University of Ireland, though I would not expect gales of laughter from such an august body, I have no doubt there would be considerable deep throated chuckles because, while the NUI Senate may have been criticised on many occasions for many things championing Fianna Fáil has not been one of them.

Mr. Keating

I must repeat I have never suggested that.

Mr. Cunningham

Of course, you did. I have sat here and listened to you.

Mr. Corish

Why does the Minister not quote from the Official Report? It is beside him.

Mr. Faulkner

On the question of the merger, or perhaps I should not use the word "merger" which is now an emotive word, but rather the formation of a unified University of Dublin, while it does not arise for discussion under this Bill it should not be assumed for a moment that it is dead. What is, in fact, happening as I mentioned earlier is that detailed recommendations from the Higher Education Authority in relation to its implementation are awaited. I favour the careful consideration of all the problems. They are many and varied, but I feel that it is clear to everybody that our first and basic aim must be to get the greatest possible return from our resources. We cannot afford, educationally or financially, to duplicate the very costly services now required.

I will be glad to have constructive advice from any quarter. The authority is, I know, anxious to have all points of view, particularly those that are constructive and capable of practical application. Those whose interests lie in the development and expansion of our educational system will have my full co-operation. There may be those who for selfish or other ulterior motives endeavour to hold on to what they have and in the process obstruct our efforts to provide a more rational and more efficient higher education service. I would ask these people to think well about that they are doing. In education, at all levels, it is not the Minister, the teachers or others associated with its administration who are the most important people. The really important people are the students. We must try, all of us, to approach this problem from a fully objective viewpoint, and not to allow our personal involvements to cloud our judgment because as I said earlier what we decide now will determine for many years to come the future of higher education.

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil níos mó le rá agam ar an mBille seo. Tá súil agam gur fhreagair mé na pointí a chuir Teachtaí os comhair an Tí.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 17th July, 1969.