I move amendment No. a1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann notes that the acquisition by UCD of the Carysfort College premises and 20 acres for development as its Graduate School of Business has the following advantages:
— the development of such a business school is essential for educational purposes and the efficient management of Irish business in the future,
— the development at Carysfort will provide places for 600-900 graduate students and will release accommodation at Belfield,
— the decision by UCD represents a welcome response to the widespread concern, that Carysfort and its lands should continue to be used for educational purposes;
decides that further consideration of this matter by Dáil Éireann must await the outcome of the examination being made by the Committee of Public Accounts."
I have been interested in Carysfort as an educational institution since 1986.
In that year the Fine Gael-Labour Government decided abruptly to close it down as a teacher training college without consultation or notice.
Since that time, I and Fianna Fáil have maintained our interest in ensuring that the valuable and important, specially designed, buildings at Carysfort would be retained for educational purposes, particularly as £2.5 million of State funds had been expended in developing the educational facilities there.
A memorandum on Carysfort was first brought to Government by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, in July 1987. While primarily concerned with the position of the former staff of Carysfort, a matter which was decided in the context of the 1988 budget, the Minister stated that "the intent of her memorandum is to secure, if possible, the use to the State of the premises and facilities of the college for the purpose of providing for the growing demand for places in third level education", especially in the light of the serious constraints on capital resources which had led to the cancellation of a number of projects in the third level building programme. The Minister also drew attention to the report of the working party presided over by the chairman of the Higher Education Authority, set up by the previous Government, which reported on 26 February 1987. The principal thrust of their report was towards the continued use of the Carysfort premises and facilities for the operation of appropriate courses under the aegis of University College, Dublin.
In July 1988 a second memorandum on Carysfort was brought to Government by the former Minister for Education, who wanted to draw the Government's attention to a proposal by the City of Dublin vocational education committee for the use of Carysfort as a national college of music and drama. The Government, however, decided that the Minister should make a further submission to the Government concerning the property and should bring forward wider and more comprehensive proposals, including use for UCD purposes. This has fitted in with the Government's policy of linking training colleges, no longer required for their original purpose to universities in the vicinity so that courses can be carried on there. This has happened with Mary Immaculate College and Thomond College, now linked to the University of Limerick, and as is proposed for St. Patrick's Training College in Dublin in linkage with Dublin City University.
The difficulties encountered by the Minister for Education with regard to the acquisition of Carysfort on acceptable terms and the identification of a valuable priority use which would justify the acquisition of the property have been outlined to the Dáil on many occasions.
In July 1990 UCD was approached by the then proprietor, and the property was visited by the appropriate authorities and staff within UCD. According to the UCD President they "were very impressed by both the quality of the buildings and the potential they offered". The merits of Carysfort as a possible Graduate School of Business were clearly recognised, notwithstanding its separation from the Belfield Campus. However, in view of the asking price of over £10 million it was not considered practical to pursue the idea. Against that background the Minister took the initiative in September to approach UCD to discuss the use of Carysfort in the context of the Government's programme for increased undergraduate student intake. At that time UCD's plans to use Roebuck as a business school had run into difficulties, because of the escalating cost of the project, because sufficient private finance was not forthcoming and because many key facilities could not be provided within the budgeted cost. I would like to state, as a misunderstanding has arisen on this point, that while UCD had hoped to raise £5.5 million for a business school at Roebuck, it had not been able to raise anything like this amount, less than £2 million in fact. It was made very clear to me from UCD when pressed on this point at the meetings that I held with them, that they could not contribute more than £2 million to the purchase price of Carysfort.
There is also the point, as the President of UCD has acknowledged, that Carysfort offered incomparably better facilities. As an illustration of this point the facility on Roebuck would have cost £1,500 per square metre, whereas Carysfort was being acquired for £300 per square metre. Roebuck, when complete, would have provided less than a fifth of the space available at Carysfort at a cost of £7.18 million. When Carysfort is operating at full capacity, it will have created an additional 2,200 university places, taking into account the fact that Roebuck is now available for undergraduate courses.
Thus, there was a perfect convergence of purpose between UCD which required a premises for their new graduates business school and the Government, who had a longstanding policy with regard to keeping Carysfort in educational use. Both UCD and the Government also shared the objective of seeking to expand the number of third-level places. In fact I held two meetings with the Heads of Universities in 1988 and 1989 on this subject, and in the 1990 budget we made provision to increase the third-level intake by 3,600. In theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress discussions during 1990 this was subsumed into the promise of 8,800 additional third-level places, which included funding to UCD for the acquisition of Carysfort.
I had two meetings with Laurence Crowley in his capacity as Chairman of the Business Graduate School, one on 11 October and a second on 3 December 1991. There had already been several informal and explanatory meetings between the Minister and representatives of UCD, including Mr. Crowley, before my first meeting on 11 October.
There was no secrecy about those meetings. They took place in my office and were arranged by my private office in the normal way. It is quite absurd to suggest that there could be anything untoward about two official meetings with one of the most upright and highly respected persons in Irish business and professional life. Of course, it is never very difficult, if someone is unscrupulous enough, to come along two years later and take any normal meeting out of context and attribute some totally misleading significance to it retrospectively.
I arranged these meetings because I wished to discuss with the chairman the different aspects of the establishment of the graduate school in Carysfort, my support for the project, its importance from the point of view of improving Irish business management and the provision of additional places in third-level education in accordance with the commitments being negotiated in theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress. I also wished to discuss with the chairman the financial position of the graduate school and the prospects of raising funds from the private sector to enable the school to expand and develop. On one occasion I offered a letter of support in connection with a possible fund raising mission to North America. The procurement of private funding for capital development in third-level education is a well established feature of Government policy since 1987, as a means of maximising the number of third level places.
Some of the views that were expressed to me by Mr. Crowley are contained in a speech he made to the Irish Association of Pension Funds in Trinity College on 2 October 1990. He stated that graduate business education was critically important to business and industry. He said resources will have to be invested in knowledge generation if we are to have any hope of survival as a nation, and that investment in education is essential for successful managerial performance.
I regarded those meetings with him as normal and routine and similar to many other such meetings that I have held on countless occasions with the individuals concerned in advancing important projects for the public good in many different areas.
I also want to reiterate the point that it was UCD, not the Government, who took the decision to purchase Carysfort, and it was UCD who put the formal written proposals to the Minister for Education.
The former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, took it upon himself to intervene during Question Time last Wednesday and purport to give us the benefit of his advice on Government procedures and practices. It would have been better for him and his own reputation if he had kept quiet, because the record clearly shows that what he said on that occasion was untrue and that on a number of occasions, decisions were taken by Governments over which he presided not just without specific memoranda being submitted but also in chaotic circumstances.
A case in point is the UCD School of Engineering building in Belfield. Dr. FitzGerald wrote to Dr. John Kelly of UCD on 25 May 1983, saying that the Government had decided that a general review of the third level capital requirements of that Department over the next four or five years should be undertaken and that no final decisions could be taken on the Engineering School before then. In a further letter of 19 July he said he understood that progress was such that the matter could be considered by Government shortly. In the event a memorandum, meant to facilitate a decision on the UCD Engineering School, was withdrawn in October 1983 and was resubmitted only in 1985 by which stage the school was already under way. Direct approaches were made to his Government in May 1984 rather than to the Higher Education Authority by the Registrar of UCD and by Professor Dooge, a former Fine Gael Minister and close associate of Deputy FitzGerald, with regard to that project. On 7 June 1984 the Secretary of the Higher Education Authority wrote to the Department of Education to protest that they had no previous information or advice with regard to the project, nor had they considered the proposals put forward. The Higher Education Authority were informed in 1985, without further consultation, that the construction of the Engineering School was to go ahead on the basis of the proposal put to the Minister in May 1984.
Despite the earlier decision that the UCD Engineering School and all other third level projects, such as five Regional Technical Colleges, a dental school at TCD and a College of Art and Design, should form part of the capital review submitted to Government for approval in May-June 1985, the largest and most expensive of these projects, the UCD School of Engineering, the final cost of which exceeded £20 million, was not submitted to Government and there was no memorandum to Government.
In a letter toThe Irish Times of 14 December 1991, Deputy FitzGerald sought to confuse the situation, by pretending the decision was taken a year later by reference to the Public Capital Programme of 1986, which was brought before Government. But, the passage he quotes from the Public Capital Programme clearly indicates that the project was already well underway. The fact is the proposal was already sanctioned months earlier, having been dealt with separately, without any memorandum to Government and without any reference to Government, involving the expenditure of over £20 million on a single third-level project, commencing in 1985, without the specific approval of the Government. On the general question of my support for the Carysfort project I must draw attention to the fact that Deputy FitzGerald, as Taoiseach, had confirmed that he was “extremely interested, extremely involved” in the UCD Engineering School project. By contrast the question of the use of Carysfort College as a business school was brought before this Government together with the possibility of a contribution by the State which the Ministers for Finance and Education were given authority to settle between them.
In the provision of assistance to UCD to enable it to purchase the Carysfort institution for the establishment of the Graduate School of Business this Government followed perfectly acceptable and well-established procedures. On 4 December 1990 following a presentation by the Minister for Education an informal decision was taken by the Government in the following terms:
The Ministers for Education and Finance are to consider the question of the use of the college as a school of business management, with the possibility of a contribution by the State of which an initial payment might be made in 1990 — and be covered in a Supplementary Estimate.
I would like to make a number of points about the procedure. First, as paragraph 2 of the Government Procedure instructions states: "Certain matters may, however, for reasons of urgency or confidentiality, have to be raised orally at Government." What in this case was being raised at Government was approval for the use of Carysfort by UCD and the provision of a financial contribution for this purpose. No Government approval is actually required for the introduction of Supplementary Estimates as such, which are and always have been sanctioned by the Minister for Finance.
The Government legitimately delegated to the Ministers for Education and Finance the authority to settle all the details between them. It will be noted that the decision referred to the use of Carysfort by UCD, not just its acquisition. A letter from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Education on 18 December 1990 approved a Supplementary Estimate on the basis that £9.7 million was the final Exchequer contribution to the capital costs. He also stipulated that there would be no Exchequer subvention to the running costs. The Minister for Education replied to this letter on 21 December 1990, stating that the President of UCD had confirmed that it would not be possible for UCD to operate Carysfort without an Exchequer Subvention from 1992, particularly in the early years, but there was a clear understanding that they would be generating extra income, with the ultimate objective of being completely self-financing. That to my knowledge was clearly the position, and it was necessary for me to telephone Dr. Masterson to assure him of my confidence that incremental running expenditure would be regarded as an appropriate charge. In parallel with my phone call, the Department of Education conveyed a message in similar terms at official level to the UCD authorities on the same day, pointing out that there would be no additional funding in 1991, and that the amount of the subvention in future years should be the subject of negotiations between the college authorities, the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education. Formal sanction was subsequently conveyed by the Minister for Finance in a letter of 31 January 1991 to the Minister for Education, agreeing that some assistance towards running costs might be given, provided it would not give rise to an excess of expenditure over and above that already allocated to Higher Education Authority institutions in 1991. This is the situation that applies also in the case of the two training colleges, Thomond and Mary Immaculate in Limerick.
With regard to the role of the Higher Education Authority, they formally sought a draft for £9.7 million on 20 December. On 21 December the Department of Education confirmed that a payable order had been made available to the Higher Education Authority, with the condition that it will be necessary to assure, before any money is paid to UCD, that the negotiations for the acquisition of Carysfort are sufficiently advanced to justify the disbursement of public funds. The chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. John Hayden, stated on 24 September 1991, as quoted the following day in theCork Examiner, that the money paid for Carysfort represented very good value for money, even though the Higher Education Authority had not been directly consulted, although it was in line with the views of the working group under the chairman of the Higher Education Authority that reported in February 1987. He noted that there has been precedents for this.
It will thus be seen that the subsequent arrangements made between the Ministers for Education and Finance about the use of Carysfort by UCD were fully in conformity with the authority delegated to them by the Government, and that all correct procedures were followed, before the moneys were disbursed.
I am proud to have been able to contribute to keeping Carysfort College and its traditions within the third-level sector in accordance with the wish expressed at one time on all sides of this House. I am equally proud of my part in helping to provide UCD and the nation with what will be a superb business college in the most economical way possible.
Institutions of higher education are one of the best reflections on whether a country is seriously committed to excellence in every branch of its national life. America is very proud for instance of its Harvard business school. It is a great pity that the Opposition parties are so blinded by political prejudice that they cannot share our wish for Ireland to have something of similar value and importance. Today, few things are more vital for our success than top managers. Our young people deserve the best, and in enabling UCD to use Carysfort we have provided them with the best.
The business college at Carysfort is already admired, and in a few years' time people will be amazed at this absurd controversy.
There are a whole series of clichés in vogue about Carysfort. Despite the enormous amount of information that has been made available at this stage, "unanswered questions", "an issue that will not go away" are phrases used to try to keep the pot on the boil a little while longer.
Opposition Deputies have been particularly dishonest in completely misrepresenting what I said here in reply to an interjection during the course of the confidence motion on 16 October 1991.
What I said is recorded in the Official Report, at column 41. It reads:
The Taoiseach: I regard the purchase of Carysfort by UCD, to provide a premises for a graduate business school as an entirely praiseworthy and progressive step.
Mr. McCartan: What about the price?
The Taoiseach: The transaction was carried out in a perfectly straightforward manner and I was not involved in it.
The words are perfectly clear. I was stating quite truthfully that I was not involved in the transaction. I had absolutely no involvement in the negotiations over the sale of the property which were conducted from the first approach by representatives of the vendor in July 1990 to conclusion of the sale in December by the college authorities.
The actual purchase was carried out by the UCD authorities without any participation of any kind whatsoever by me. A question was put down to me for answer today by Deputy Gilmore in the following terms:
To ask the Taoiseach if he met with or had any discussions with (a) Gunnes Estate Agents, (b) Drucker Fanning Estate Agents, (c) Davmac Developments Ltd., (d) JHA Ltd. and (e) Mr. "Pino" Harris or with representatives of these companies or persons concerning the sale of Carysfort College; if such discussions took place before 12 July 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The question was quite properly ruled out of order.
I am glad, however, to avail of the opportunity of this debate to answer it and to state categorically that I had no contact or any discussion with any of those companies or persons concerning the sale of Carysfort College at any time.
As Deputies of this House we are in a privileged position. We are perfectly free to say here anything we wish, secure in the knowledge that we cannot be pursued by anyone in regard to our statements. It is a very important freedom. It is fundamental to our parliamentary democracy, but we should always recall that it carries a corresponding responsibility because we are in effect the judges of our own behaviour. This places a heavy and serious obligation on us to be careful about what we say and in particular about what we allege. It is a gross misuse of our parliamentary privileges for any Deputy to use the protection of this House to make false and unfounded allegations.
I believe that the Deputies of the Labour Party who have put their names to the motion which we are debating this evening in Private Members' Time have been guilty of a gross abuse of privilege because of certain statements which are contained in their motion.
I direct the attention of the House to the following which is included in the wording of the motion:
... Dáil Éireann condemns the Taoiseach for: failing to ensure an arm's length and independent position in relation to his part in the transaction, particularly having regard to his relationship with the vendor; holding secret meetings with key persons involved in the transactions;
Those are quite appalling statements. They are blatantly and recklessly untrue. They demean the people who make them.
The records clearly show that I had no part in the transaction. I was at arm's length and had an independent position in relation to the transaction, because I did not participate and was in no way involved in it. I wish to state equally strongly and categorically that I have not and never had any relationship with the vendor.
I state equally categorically that I did not hold secret meetings with key persons involved in the transactions. These statements are untrue and reflect on the credibility of the Deputies who signed their name to this motion.
I had no interest of any kind in Carysfort except in the public interest to promote a very worthwhile project. I saw the graduate school as an important educational project of great national benefit that I wished to see come on stream. My involvement was solely for that purpose.
A primary purpose for being in Government is to achieve progress; to put new institutions, services, structures and improvements in place for the benefit of the people. These things will not take place unless there is constant effort by the Government to make them happen. That has always been my approach. I spare no effort to get projects moving. It would, of course, be much more tranquil to avoid controversy and do nothing. I totally reject being criticised for holding meetings, making phone calls, pressing for action, expediting projects through the machinery of Government in order to get things done. Does anybody here suggest that we are so well off, so well developed economically, socially and culturally in this country that in Government and elsewhere we can all sit back and hope that progress will happen of its own accord; that there is no urgency; no need for Government to keep trying to force the pace?
What are the Opposition about over Carysfort? Do they want to damage a valuable project that will benefit countless young Irish men and women for many decades to come? This project represents great value for money to the State; it was accomplished in conformity with proper Government and parliamentary procedures. The Department of Education in their evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts have gone so far as to say that it represented outstanding value. Are the Opposition so blinded by political prejudice that they care more about pursuing a personalised political vendetta than they do about a third level education project of great benefit to the young people of this nation? Let me here emphasise that Fine Gael and The Workers' Party enthusiastically supported the Government's decision in the Dáil 12 months ago, when the Supplementary Estimate was before the House and was approved. There is no rational justification for their U-turn, except naked political opportunism.
For some time now, we have been going through a black period in politics. The time of the Dáil has been taken up day after day, week after week, with unscrupulous and unfounded allegations of all kinds against myself and other members of the Government. The normal business of the Dáil has been constantly interrupted by an unceasing campaign of vilification, accusations, and innuendoes. I believe the Opposition have been acting very irresponsibly and without any care or consideration for the best interests of the country at this difficult time. The nation today faces many serious difficulties and challenges. A broad range of issues require urgent attention. There are difficult decisions which have to be made. The Opposition have themselves turned away from these affairs and sought to distract us from them in order to concentrate all their energies in attacking the Government, undermining our position and creating a sense of political instability and insecurity. They are in my view doing a serious disservice to the Irish people by the manner in which they have dragged political debate down to a unprecedentedly low personal level.
Deputy Spring has been the principal instigator of this malevolent period. Vilification and character assassination are his stock-in-trade. He knows no other policy. Not for him constructive debate, reasoned argument. He puts forward no policy alternatives, no new ideas for progress, no worthy concept. I wonder what cause Deputy Spring and his collaborators think they are serving by all this. They are certainly not acting in the best interest of a general public who at this stage have other concerns and preoccupations. They are deeply mistaken if they think they are serving their own political fortunes. There is increasing evidence to the contrary.
This motion is motivated by malice. It is based on falsehoods and it should be rejected out of hand by Dáil Éireann.
