I do not recall precisely what point we were at in regard to this but I shall just repeat that the purpose of the amendment is to limit disqualification from membership of the commission to major offences, so that minor offences indicating penalties of less than six months, the kind of penalties one can incur for certain types of contempt for example, would not disqualify one from membership of the authority. I think this is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept it.
Higher Education Authority Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
44. In paragraph 9, page 6, line 29, after "imprisonment" to insert "for a period in excess of six months".
—(Deputy FitzGerald).
I could not accept the amendment. This is an unprecedented suggestion. The provision in the section is a normal provision and I cannot see any reason why I should depart from it at this stage, particularly in relation to a body such as An tÚdarás.
Will the Minister not accept there are minor offences carrying with them penalties of less than six months which are of such a character and involve such a minimal amount of ignominy as not to warrant disqualification of somebody from membership? The origin of this amendment, as the Minister will know, was a suggestion from the students' organisation that a student who, because of his part in some demonstration is given a short sentence, could find himself disqualified from membership of the authority. That is not confined to students. Other persons could find themselves in conflict with the law on some minor account which would not warrant total disqualification from membership. Would the Minister not be prepared to reconsider it?
I am afraid I could not reconsider this. I have given my reasons. It is an unprecedented proposal. The provision in the Bill is a normal provision in relation to the operation of legislation of this type. I could not accept the amendment.
Why not?
I have given the reasons. I do not think the Deputy is really serious about this.
The Minister has only said it is unprecedented. That is the worst of all possible reasons for not doing something.
I have said very much more. This is a normal provision and I cannot see any reason at all why I should depart from it.
But the Minister says it is normal procedure; that is another way of saying to depart from it would be unprecedented. It is the same argument again. When the Minister says he does not see any argument in favour of it, that is not an argument against it. Has the Minister no argument whatever against it other than precedent?
I do not see why this amendment is in at all except in relation to one particular aspect the Deputy mentioned, and I simply could not accept that we should create in relation to this Bill a new type of situation.
So we are back to precedent. The Minister has no reason whatever for rejecting it other than precedent.
I have given the Deputy my reasons.
The Minister has given no reason.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 45:
In paragraph 10, page 6, line 31, to delete "seventy" and to substitute "sixty-five".
This amendment is designed to reduce the maximum age for holding office of members of the authority from 70 to 65. Sixty-five is the normal retirement age and there does not appear to be any particular reason for departing from it in this instance. It seems better, in view of the Minister's insistence on precedent, that we should stick to precedent in this matter.
Perhaps I should say that in this particular instance the amendement appears rather strange coming from a university man whose normal conditions of service allow him to continue to serve until he is 70.
I did not invent the conditions of service.
Perhaps the Deputy did not. Nevertheless, they are there and I find the suggestion rather strange, coming from the source from which it came and I am not just referring to the Deputy here. At the moment it is the right of people concerned in the university like professors and lecturers, to continue to serve up to 70 years of age and I find the suggestion that, on the other hand, we should prevent those who will be dealing very closely with university work from having the same right, very strange.
The Minister will be aware that in the university the power of extension to 70 is a power that must be specially exercised. I will, of course, admit that it normally is exercised. It is only in the case of the National University of Ireland where the President of the College takes the initiative of proposing the extension that that extension takes place. It is not the case, therefore, that a university professor is automatically entitled to continue to age 70 whereas what is proposed here would involve an entitlement to continue to age 70 automatically. Therefore, the Minister's analogy is far from being completely correct.
The fact that in the year 1908 it was thought appropriate in the case of university professors to give a power of extension to age 70, possibly at that time envisaging this as something to be exercised rarely in cases where somebody had a very particular contribution to make, does not mean that we should in 1971 feel obliged to give an automatic extension to age 70 to members of an authority concerned with university matters. The Minister's line of argument is a somewhat tenuous one and I cannot see that because something was thought desirable, perhaps as an exceptional measure, and in circumstances requiring a special initiative, in 1908, by a British parliament, a Liberal majority, that we must be bound in 1971 to introduce the same thing for another purpose.
Therefore, I would ask the Minister to reconsider this. It is far from certain that the pattern under which it is almost automatic for university staff to be extended to age 70 is necessarily a good one. There are, of course, cases where the person concerned has a continuing contribution to make in many cases long after the age of 70 but in so far as it applies to professors who in the normal way, though not always, but in most cases, are heads of departments it is far from certain that the present arrangement is a good one and that the most vital, energetic head of a department will be somebody in the age bracket 65 to 70. I think myself that this is something which needs to be looked at in the context of future university legislation with a view to ensuring that if any provision is made to enable somebody to continue teaching it certainly will not make him almost automatically the head of a department possibly holding up desirable changes in that department for a further five years.
I do not see that on any count the Minister's analogy is a valid one or that I should feel in any way precluded from putting this forward or indeed that the body which initially suggested this amendment, the Irish Federation of University Teachers, should feel inhibited in putting it forward. That federation may well feel that a reform is overdue in respect of its own members in this regard and no doubt may come forward with proposals of that kind later on. I am concerned at this stage with this Bill and in the context of this Bill the desirability of having a body of people fully active in mind and body to undertake this difficult task suggests the desirability of maintaining this age limit. If it is the case that in the public service who will be considering the recommendations of this body, who will be dealing generally with university matters, an age limit of 65 applies, there seems to be no reason for departing from it in regard to the body which will be formulating proposals to put before the Minister for consideration by him and members of his staff.
I do not want to protract this debate but lest silence be taken as acquiescence may I say that I agree with the Minister on this? I am at a loss to follow Deputy FitzGerald's argument. It would seem to me that experience in his own university suggests that selective continuance in employment to the age of 70 has led to an extreme degree of abuse. It seems to me the line should be drawn firmly either at 65 or 70 and if 70 is good enough for his college and good enough for my college and if 75 is good enough for the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, 70 is good enough for me.
Deputy Thornley is looking far ahead.
I have not, of course, said at any stage that individual Deputies or groups of people or individuals have no right to put forward proposals. Of course they have, but it does not mean that I should have to accept them.
Let me again return to the point I made. Deputy FitzGerald has ranged over a very wide field but I must come back to the point and that is that at the moment the situation in the universities is that professors and lecturers may continue——
Can be continued.
——to serve until they are 70 years of age. There does not seem to be any reason for assuming that members who are chosen for their knowledge and experience in the first place would lose their effectiveness as members of An tÚdarás when they reached the age of 65. We should also take into consideration the longer life expectancy and this should make us more inclined to leave the situation as it is, that is, that the Chairman of An tÚdarás should be entitled to act as such until he is 70.
For the first time on this deplorable Bill I am on the Minister's side.
I am beginning to get worried.
This Bill is an unfortunate example of Fascism of the worst sort. This body will either be a nominal body or it will pretend to do something. If it is to be a nominal body there is no reason why people should not stay on until they are 70. In fact, its primary functions are advisory and it is said that wisdom comes with age and people are living much longer and being kept much fitter now with the various drugs that have been invented. Therefore, for once I am with the Minister. I still wish he would withdraw the Bill.
In view of the almost Chinese respect and veneration of the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties for age I have not got the heart in me to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 7, paragraph 19 (3), line 19, to delete "the Schedule" and to substitute "this Schedule".
This is just a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 7, paragraph 21 (1), lines 38 and 41, to delete "quinquennium" and substitute "year".
This is not an amendment I feel very strongly about but the purpose behind it is to ensure that the authority at regular intervals makes quite clear what it has done, gives an account of its stewardship during the preceding relatively short time. I have no objection to quinquennial planning as such. Obviously in the case of grants, for instance, a quinquennium is a more suitable unit of time than a year but there could be a situation here where the authority would only report at the end of each quinquennium if a Minister did not direct it to do otherwise, if I understand this correctly. The desire of Deputy Desmond and myself was to have included in the statute that the authority should be in this way kept on its toes. I wonder if the Minister would consider the possible value of that suggestion.
Perhaps if I explained to the Deputy what I had in mind here it might help. Subsection (1) requires that An tÚdarás make a report of their proceedings at quinquennial intervals or at such other intervals as the Minister might direct. This provision has been included because of the intention to introduce as soon as possible a system of quinquennial planning and budgeting.
It is a bit far-fetched to hang this on such an absurd argument.
What I would envisage is that once the quinquennial planning and budgeting have been introduced reports would be submitted to the Minister in somewhat this form: first, a report outlining a programme for development over the ensuing quinquennium for which the Minister's approval would already have been given and then a mid-term review of progress during the first half of the quinquennium and a forecast for the remaining half. This would be more suitable than just having yearly reports on a quinquennial programme. In other words, you would at least have to get it in the middle of the quinquennial period and then we would have an annual publication of statistics on higher education collected by An tÚdarás with a brief résumé of the main features of the activities of the body during the year to which the statistics refer. Then, at the termination of the quinquennium we would have a review of the progress over the previous five years and an outline of the programme approved by the Minister for the next five years. This is going a good way to meet the Deputies.
We now have the Minister hanging on to this argument about something which probably will never happen, this quinquennial budget, which is a method of hiding realities from the public. Reports are always made yearly and there is nothing sacro-sanct about a year. It could be two years or three years but five years is certainly too long a period. The Minister can fix some other period if he wants to. The method of approach which the Minister adopts here is different from his approach on other parts of the Bill. The Minister's argument is completely absurd and ridiculous.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
Earlier on we discussed the Schedule item by item but this morning we have gone through a large portion of it in one lap and therefore I want to speak on a few points which were not mentioned. Paragraph 11 of the Schedule states:
A member of An tÚdarás shall be paid by An tÚdarás —
(a) such allowances as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines,
(b) such amounts in respect of expenses as An tÚdarás considers reasonable.
What is the difference between the two items? The allowance is presumably a salary of some sort. It would probably be comparable with what we receive as Members of this House which is not exactly a salary. I do not believe it is intended to have it a regular thing so what exactly does it mean? It says "such amounts in respect of expenses". Is the word "allowances" here intended to be the overnight allowance you get when you are away from home, or is it the daily allowance which a civil servant gets if he is more than ten hours away from headquarters? Are "such amounts in respect of expenses" travelling expenses? If they are, why not say so?
Paragraph 19 (2) states:
The seal of An tÚdarás shall be authenticated by the signature of a member of An tÚdarás authorised by An tÚdarás to act in that behalf and the signature of an officer of An tÚdarás authorised by An tÚdarás to act in that behalf.
The usual procedure is that the chairman signs with the secretary and you make such provision in the Bill and then you go and you say that in the absence of the chairman the seal shall be authenticated by such member of An tÚdarás authorised by An tÚdarás.
Paragraph 21 (3) states:
An tÚdarás shall supply the Minister with such information regarding the performance of its functions as he may from time to time require.
There is some double thinking here. When An tÚdarás came into existence it was stated by itself to be an independent body. The very fact it did that made everybody think that it was not in fact independent. We have the proof here that it is not independent. How well or how badly this works will depend on the particular civil servant who will be for the time being in charge of this job. If the particular person is a "Nosey Parker" he can make an awful nuisance of himself in the name of the Minister until such time as the authority protests to the Minister. There has been a great increase in the size of the Civil Service since 1964 and a great increase in the cost from approximately £19 million a year to approximately £46 million a year in seven years. It is necessary to find work for all those people and one method of doing so is to get them to write letters to people. The paragraph could be phrased differently such as saying that the Minister may ask An tÚdarás for information from time to time. When you say "shall apply" it is compulsory on this independent body to supply the Minister for Education with such information as he may from time to time require meaning that such civil servant as may from time to time be appointed to do this particular job shall obtain the information. I should be glad if the Minister would clear up those points.
In relation to the first point on paragraph 11 this paragraph provides for payment of allowances and expenses to members. The payment of allowances is understandable. It is the ordinary payment of an allowance to a member for his work on the authority.
Is it intended to be a salary?
It is not a salary as such, because if we were to pay a salary we would have to pay a greater sum than we are likely to pay when we call it an allowance.
Is it intended to pay something, such as £12 a year, to every member of the authority?
It is the intention to pay an allowance. In relation to the other part of the paragraph it is in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses.
That is not exactly the normal meaning of the word. However, now we are clear as to what is intended.
In the second case it is in relation to the travelling allowance and the subsistence allowance.
I appreciate that.
Paragraph 19 is identical to sections in other legislation dealing with bodies corporate set up by the State. I am told that, as a matter of legal practice, such bodies corporate are required to seal certain legal documents and instruments.
The more serious one, paragraph 21.
I am told that there is nothing new in this provision and that, in practice, the necessity to take action would rarely arise. It will ensure that, if a question is put to the Minister in relation to the performance of the authority, he will be able to supply information.
I get the point. What the Minister is really telling me is that if somebody puts down a parliamentary question the Minister will be able to get the information and that, if this provision were not in the Bill, he might not be able to get the information. "I cannot obtain the information" has been said from time to time in this House. It used to be said regularly by the Minister for Health.
I would try in this way to get the information.
I do not think this is what this paragraph means at all. I think it means something entirely different.
No.
I think it is put in for an entirely different purpose. It is a suitable ending to an extremely objectionable piece of legislation.
I think it is a suitable ending to a very worthwhile discussion on the Committee Stage.
The Minister is too complimentary. I did not want any compliments on what I said.
Before we conclude I am sorry again to have to appear to differ from my colleague Deputy O'Donovan, but this is a specialist issue on which there may fairly be disagreement. We have had a constructive debate. In the main, this is a good measure. The Minister has accepted some amendments and he has refused to accept others which he should have accepted. We may have an opportunity to press them again later. As the Order Paper is choked with business and we on this side of the House consistently press for the expedition of legislation, I do not intend to hold up the House any longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15th June, 1971.