Private Members' Business. - University College, Cork, Statute: Motion. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Wednesday, 26 Nov 1975

Private Members' Business. - University College, Cork, Statute: Motion.

Minister for Education (Mr. Richard Burke)

I move:

That, pursuant to section 5 (2) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, Chapters II and III of Statute CIV of University College, Cork, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st August, 1975, be and are hereby disallowed.

This motion is being introduced because certain sections of Statute 104 made by University College, Cork, are not, in the opinion of the Ministers of the Public Service and Education, in accordance with the terms of the national wages agreement, 1974. In addition to proposals to increase the salaries of certain staff, with effect from 1st March, 1975, under the terms of the national wages agreement, 1974, it is proposed in Chapter II of Statute 104 to increase the children's allowances of certain staff with effect from 1st March, 1975.

In Chapter III of the statute it is proposed to increase pensions first with effect from 1st December, 1974, and further with effect from 1st March, 1975. With regard to the proposals to increase children's allowances, it is necessary to point out that children's allowances are not allowances in the nature of pay and cannot be regarded as entitled to be increased under clause 3 of the national wages agreement, 1974. Clause 3 of that agreement applies only to increases in basic rates of pay.

In the matter of pensions, the practice in other parts of the public service is that pensions are received annually on 1st July by reference to pay rates on that date. As the major portion of university funds comes from the public purse the universities are expected to conform to public service standards in all aspects of pay and remuneration. In fact, the university staffs themselves request parity of treatment with the public service in the case of anomaly or other special increases.

The authorities of University College Cork were informed through the Higher Education Authority of the views of the Ministers of the Public Service and Education in regard to the need to revoke the appropriate provisions relating to children's allowances and superannuation contained in Statute 104, or to introduce an amending statute. The college stated in reply, however, that it had been the practice for many years, because of the long period necessary to process statutes, to pay salary/wage increases and consequential pension increases from the due dates or as soon as possible thereafter and that such payments are made in advance subject to the subsequent validation of the relevant statutes.

Once previously—on 4th July, 1974 —I introduced a motion disallowing statutes of University College Cork which dealt with pensions. During the discussion of the motion in the House on that occasion I said that I am always willing to enter into discussions with the governing body of University College Cork, to enable a scheme to be drawn up which would satisfy the requirements of comparability with other parts of the public service and, in so far as this can be achieved, the desires of the governing body.

I am glad to learn that University College Cork, has recently suggested that the method of review to be applied to pensions in the future be discussed with the Higher Education Authority and that in such discussions the issue of children's allowances could also be considered. I welcome this suggestion.

In the meantime, however, I have no option but to introduce this motion that

pursuant to section 5 (2) of the Irish Universities Act, 1908, Chapters II and III of Statute CIV of University College, Cork, which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st August, 1975, be and are hereby disallowed.

May I add for the information of the House that a letter was received from the Higher Education Authority this afternoon in which it was stated that the authorities of University College Cork have suggested that discussions might take place at an early date in relation to the procedures to be followed in connection with these matters in future. The suggestions made will receive careful consideration in my Department. In the meantime, however, I have no option but to take the present action in the case of Chapters II and III of Statute CIV of the College.

Mr. Wilson

On behalf of the Opposition I want to register a strong protest at this whole procedure. As the Minister stated, UCC as well as the other colleges and the universities always related their pensions to the salaries of the corresponding staff, and this I think is a headline which the Government could follow. I must say this is in keeping with a certain harshness that I find creeping in, particularly in the Department of Education and the Minister for Education. It was evidenced in the Minister's treatment of the untrained teachers.

The colleges are perfectly right in relating pensions to salaries and I cannot see how the Minister for Education and his fellow Minister should not take them as a headline with regard particularly to pensions. It is essential in a period of rapid inflation—we are in one at the moment— that people on fixed incomes from pensions should not be left out in the cold. That in fact is what the Minister and the Department are doing by removing this statute from UCC. Substantially, the salaries are obviously in accordance with the national wage agreement, but the Minister has made no great play in his statement with regard to salaries. He simply has not approached the salaries issue at all, and that is the substantial part of this statute. What it means is that the Minister is imposing a time lag as far as pensions are concerned. He said that 1st July is the relevant date. That means that if they were not adjusted by 1st July, 1975, they must wait until 1st July, 1976, and in an inflationary situation that is simply unjust.

What happens to a pensioner in the meantime? Here we are not talking purely about academic staff, because retired janitors, porters and secretaries are all involved. What happens to a person on such a fixed income with inflation rising rapidly? What happens to him in January when he cannot write a letter without putting a 9p stamp on it? What happens to him when his telephone charges will rise astronomically?

This is all evidence of the harshness which is creeping into the administration and is particularly applicable to the Department of Education. Apparently Dublin University is not obliged to go through the same process as UCC, UCD and UCG. What has the Minister done about salaries, pensions and allowances in Trinity College? Has he received similar provisions from UCD and UCG? Why is it that Cork seems to be the only college up for the hammer? Is it not true the Minister has representations from the other two colleges as well as UCC to save a situation which had been happening for some time and sent the statute up to be put before the House here in due form, but did UCD and UCG send it into the Department of Education? Are these proposals lying in the Department of Education untouched? Is it not sharp practice on the part of the Department of Education to keep them coming before the House?

I should like answers to these questions because there is evidence of undue harshness on the part of the Department of Education in this respect as in others. How long according to law can the Department sit on proposals like this? How long will they be lying in the Department before they are assented to or brought before the House for annulment?

I submit that if the Minister and the Department of Education and other Ministers wanted a headline they could have taken it from UCC. I am concerned particularly for the pensioners. It is not fair practice to keep pensioners waiting for long periods for pro rata increases in their pensions. The Minister belongs to an Administration that claimed they would indulge as never before in consultation and by implication they criticised the previous Administration for not doing so. Is UCC at the moment adopting this practice to avoid the foot dragging in the Department of Education? Is there a case of foot dragging in regard to the other two colleges?

I started off by saying I protest at the whole procedure. There is a little bit of nit-picking in the Minister's speech about children's allowances and the time for the admission of increases in pensions and superannuation. This is not sufficient. If UCC—this is not contained in the Minister's script—has stated it is willing to go into consultation with the Higher Education Authority about procedures, I am sure it will be making a case that it is willing to go according to established procedures according to the statute if their statute is not allowed to grow whiskers in Marlborough Street before coming to the House for assent, or refusal if it comes to that.

As a famous Spaniard said, our universities are supposed to be tempies of reason. If UCC in due form prepares a statute, such as Statute 104, and sends it up, it deserves better treatment than the Minister is giving it and that he gave the last one as well.

The Department over which the Minister presides had built up over a comparatively short period a reputation as "the Department of action". This kind of handling of a situation in relation to the staff and retired staff, both academic and unacademic, in UCC is an example of messing, the same kind of messing as we have witnessed not merely from the Minister for Education but the Government on the proposals in relation to higher education, the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick, the National Physical Education College in Limerick and the National Council of Education Awards. It is on a par with all the messing that is going on in that Department, where there was action when the late Donogh O'Malley was Minister.

I hope we are not going to have a rosary of motions by the Minister to annul statutes. We had one last year and we have one this year. The tragedy is that some pensioners may not live until the Minister sees fit to allow the pensions to be increased. This farce may turn out to be an annual affair. Perhaps some good will come from the discussion with the Higher Education Authority. I do not think University College, Cork, are to blame for what is happening. I do not blame them for adopting the procedure they have adopted in this case because if, as I suspect, UCG and UCD have sent proposals to the Department in a different way and if they are held up there, I do not blame UCC for doing the job the way they think it should be done.

I want to protest at the whole procedure. I protest particularly on behalf of pensioners who, if the delay is very long, will not be alive to enjoy a properly deserved increased pension related to increased salary.

Mr. Lalor

It strikes me as extraordinary that we have a situation where the Minister for Education, the man who committed himself early on to being a person who could be met and who could discuss problems with people in the educational field, should admit in his speech that at no stage was he in direct contact with the UCC authorities.

As Deputy Wilson pointed out, the Minister had a motion before the House last year and now there is this motion. It was introduced in the House at approximately 9 p.m.; we have a deadline for dealing with this matter and, in a kind of guillotine manner, the House is being asked to approve this motion without a sufficient opportunity of discussing it.

In the Minister's speech there is the bald statement that the authorities of UCC, with whom obviously the Minister has been in dispute since he came into office, were informed through the HEA of his views and those of the Minister for the Public Service. Quite frankly, I consider this is a despicable and dictatorial attitude by the Minister for Education. We have the almost unparalleled arrangement where the Minister for Education, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service is asking the Dáil to disapprove of sections of this statute.

I know that the Minister may say that the appropriate authority for dealing with this matter are the HEA. Earlier today we had a situation with regard to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The National Prices Commission were the appropriate authority to deal with something he announced yesterday but he went over their heads and ignored their views when he announced extra taxation measures. Here we have the situation where the Minister for Education has put the blame for the rejection of the pensions proposals and the children's allowances proposals in Statute No. 104 on the HEA. As the responsible Minister he is asking us to approve the non-sanction of those proposals but for some reason or other he has refused to communicate directly with the UCC authorities. He may say he did communicate directly with them but he did not say that and I do not see why he should specifically spell out that the HEA are the means of contact.

In the final part of his speech he said he was glad to learn that UCC had recently suggested that the method of review be discussed with the HEA. Even though it was not in the speech he circulated he mentioned that some kind of letter had been received this afternoon by the HEA asking for very early discussion on this matter.

There seems to be a peculiar non-contactability about the Minister for Education in relation to this matter. We cannot possibly support proposals in a statute that would be in breach of the national wage agreement but we think it is a rather extraordinary statement from a Minister in an open Government, where we were given to understand that the doors were open at all times, and nowhere more open than in the Department of Education. The Minister has admitted that it was necessary only once before to introduce a motion disallowing statutes of UCC and that was almost one-and-a-half years ago. Apparently the sour grapes are such that there has not been any direct communication between the Minister and the UCC authorities.

——because I have been told that this must go through tonight, and we now discover there are four more days and the Dáil will sit tomorrow. The Minister told us the reason we waited until tonight was that he could not take the motion because he had to go to a dinner. I might say that it is not my function to amuse the Minister or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs because it is a very serious matter and another indication to me of a continuance in its own way of Government blundering. We have a situation in which the Minister has to come in here with the Oireachtas mallet to reject proposals, and at the 11th hour, he tells us that he is willing to have discussions with the governing body of University College Cork. Since this statute was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st August last, has the Minister, directly as Minister, through the Secretary of his Department or through his private secretary, communicated with the authorities of the college asking them to meet him to review this situation? Will he say whether the directive went from his office to the Higher Education Authority, saying in short: "Will you rap these fellows on the knuckles and bring them into line"?

It is high-handed of the Minister to adopt the line he is adopting here. I accept what he says in relation to Chapter II and in relation to Chapter III, but could the Minister not have endeavoured before coming in here to refuse, to annul or to disallow Chapters II and III, to get on to the Cork authorities and say to them "If you force me to disallow Chapters II and III of Statute No. 104, it will mean that the unfortunate pensioners covered by Chapter III will not receive the increase in pensions to which they are legitimately entitled as from 1st July last." I have no knowledge of who constitutes the University College Cork authority. I am not an informed source in this regard, but as a man far removed one of the thoughts that struck me when I heard the Minister's statement was that he was disallowing benefit to pensioners to which they were entitled, but that there was even the possibility that the authorities of University College Cork might not have been as worried as they should have been about their pensioners.

Obviously, there is a battle being waged by the Minister through the Higher Education Authority with the authorities of UCC. There is the question of people who will benefit through children's allowances but the real sufferers arising from the passing of this motion tonight, as presented to us by the Minister for Education, are the people who have finished their time, people who are not directly concerned with UCC at present, people who have given a service in the college, people to whom graduates all over the world must be grateful for services rendered. Perhaps some of those are in this House—or should be—tonight and those people are being asked to approve a motion refusing to give a justified rise to pensioners who qualify for it, just like everybody else in the public sector on 1st July last.

I hope that the Minister, in order to meet my views in this regard, will be able to say when replying that he is in a position, through the Higher Education Authority to make arrangements so that those pensions will qualify and will receive before Christmas the increases to which they are entitled from 1st July.

Mr. Richard Burke

It is quite obvious from the discussion that some Deputies opposite do not understand some of the matters which are the subject of the motion before the Dáil. Let me clarify the position by stating that section 4 of the Irish Universities Act, 1908 provides for the making by governing bodies of the National University of Ireland and of constituent colleges at Dublin, Cork and Galway of statutes for the general government of the university and scholarships. The section states that such statutes:

... may regulate any matter relating to the government of the university or college (including the appointment and remuneration of officers) or otherwise concerning the university or college so far as that matter is not regulated under this Act or by the charter of the university or college.

Section 5 (1) of the Act provides that when any statute has been made under this Act, a notice of its having been made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament. The remaining subsections of this section as adapted contain provisions in relation to the disallowance of a statute in whole or part so that there is in fact legislation covering this whole question of disallowance.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, Statute 104 of University College Cork was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in August, 1975 and will become law on 30th November unless disallowed. The statute provides for increases under the national agreement 1974 in the stipends of the president, professors, readers, certain lecturers and officers of the college effective from 1st March, 1975; for increases in the children's allowances payable by the college and for increases in the pensions payable to retired participants in the college pension scheme effective from December, 1974 and March, 1975.

As I mentioned earlier, the Minister for the Public Service, and the Minister for Education object to that part of the statute relating to increases in children's allowances on the ground that children's allowances are not allowances in the nature of pay and cannot be regarded as entitled to be increased under clause 3 of the national wage agreement. Deputies opposite who spoke on this matter did not clearly convey to me what their view was of clause 3 in so far as it relates to the matters under discussion.

Clause 3 of the national wage agreement applies only to increases in rates of pay. Children's allowances do not move with basic pay in other parts of the public sector. The universities are expected, at least on this side of the House, to conform generally to public service standards in such matters and not to introduce conditions more generous than in other parts of the public service. I take it from the remarks made opposite that the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party feel that University College Cork should receive generally more favourable terms than the rest of the population.

I also pointed out that I objected further to that part of the statute relating to increases in pensions on the grounds that the statute introduced superannuation conditions which are more generous than those applicable in the public service generally. Again, I ask Fianna Fáil Deputies whether they wish me to allow more favourable conditions for those in University College Cork than for the public service generally? I have pointed out that public policy in relation to pension increases in the public service is that pensions are revised annually on 1st July and the Minister for the Public Service and I would be very concerned if one particular area of the public sector should be more favourably treated than others in this regard. In view of the massive involvement of public moneys in universities it is only reasonable to expect that they should conform generally to public service standards in such matters as superannuation.

Last year I introduced a motion in Dáil Éireann disallowing superannuation provisions made in statutes at that time. The reason for this extreme action on the part of the Government was that these statutes would have introduced superannuation conditions which were more generous than those applicable to the public service generally.

The position in regard to pensions parity is unchanged since then. Have Deputies opposite any views on that? In normal circumstances we would see grave objections to better pension terms for this college than for the rest of the public sector. In the present serious economic and financial situation we find that the college proposals for pension increases are even more unacceptable. I have already pointed out that the college had been asked through the Higher Education Authority to revoke or annual by amending statutes those parts of Statute 104 which relate to increases in children's allowances and pensions. The college indicated however, that it is opposed to taking such action.

We can only deal with the motion before the House.

Mr. Lalor

I asked the Minister a question in relation to the pensions. Does this mean that pensioners will not now be eligible for any increase as from the 1st July last because of the disallowance of chapter 3? Replying, the Minister said that particular chapters can be disallowed in whole or in part. Does this mean that pensioners will not receive any increase in their pensions as from the 1st July last?

Mr. Richard Burke

If the pensions are to be put on a proper footing vis-à-vis the public sector generally, it will have to be done by statute in the proper way.

Mr. Lalor

Therefore, on account of that, they will not get an increase.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 26 Nov 1975

Private Members' Business. - University College, Cork, Statute: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 1975