Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, 1939—Committee.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Before Section 2, to insert a new section as follows:—
2. This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall fix for that purpose, but that day shall not be earlier than the 1st day of July, 1941.
I think it is a modest and reasonable request to ask the House and the Taoiseach to postpone the operation of this Bill for 12 months. I do not think it will take very much from the Bill, when it becomes an Act, if we provide that it shall not come into operation for 12 months, as this is a time, as I stated on Second Reading, when we should not embark on any unnecessary outlay. Although the outlay of £30,000 or £40,000 which it is proposed to spend on the maintenance of this School of Higher Celtic Studies does not seem very much—I would say it is not an amount about which the country need be very much alarmed— at the same time I think that £30,000 or £40,000 could be spent to very much greater advantage to the country just now, considering the fact that we have an unbalanced Budget, that we have millions of an adverse trade balance, and that civilisation, as we know it, is in the melting-pot all over the world.
I know very little about the subject matter of this Bill, but I learned a good deal about it in the debate on Second Reading.
I think the Taoiseach told us, when introducing the Bill, that he hopes that some of the professors or students of this school would compile a brilliant Irish anthology, that he believes that it is quite within our power to have here in this country the foremost school of mathematical or theoretical physics in the world. In fact, the Taoiseach believes that this school will be the Appian Way to all branches of philosophy. I think that the whole question is complete "codology." No one seems to be enthusiastic about this Bill except the Taoiseach himself, and no one seems to believe in it except the Taoiseach. The representatives of Trinity College and University College, Dublin, are not in agreement about it. They are in agreement about the setting up of the school, but they seem to be in total disagreement as to the question of procedure and management. The Gaelic League will have nothing to do with it unless the teaching and research work is to be conducted through the medium of Irish; but the plain, ordinary people in the country are disturbed about it and are distressed that the Taoiseach should be wasting his time and energy in connection with a Bill such as this, when there is so much important work of another kind for him to undertake during this time of crisis.
My own feeling was that this Bill should have been rejected, but I have modified my attitude in that regard because I realise that this is a time when all sections of the House and all sections of the country should compromise, if you like, and try to come to some agreement in connection with any of these matters. Therefore, I think, that if the operation of this Bill were to be postponed for 12 months, we would be in a better position to see where we stand, and I think that such a postponement would not do any harm to the Bill. I hope that the Taoiseach will accept the amendment.
I cannot accept this amendment. As I indicated on a previous occasion, this Bill has been in preparation for a long time already. I think it was last July when we introduced it in the Dáil, and I believe that we ought to aim at having a start made in October. Now, with regard to the amount of money that is involved, I do not think it would be anything at all like what has been stated in the first year. It certainly would not be anything like the sum mentioned by Senator Counihan. I think that the intention of the Senator, obviously, is just to put this Bill on the shelf.
I differ from Senator Counihan to the extent that he regards this whole Bill as "codology." In normal times, I should be very decidedly in favour of such a Bill as this and, in normal times, I should not be inclined to agree that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until 1941. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, however, that, in view of the present abnormal times, he might give some more consideration to the question of postponing the operation of the Bill until after October, even although the sum involved may be somewhat smaller than that mentioned by Senator Counihan; because, apart from any possible danger of actual warfare taking place in this country, it does not seem to me that the people of this country realise the severity of the economic crisis with which we may be confronted in a very short time if the war proceeds in the way in which it seems to be proceeding at the moment. I think that, in this connection, our whole mentality is wrong, if we are not saving every penny that we can save in order to meet the hurricane that this country may have to face as a result of the present war in Europe. Accordingly, it does not seem to me that it would be wise to embark upon such a policy as is embodied in this Bill until we know how the situation, generally, is going to develop, or at least until the situation improves very much beyond what it is at the moment.
There are certain things about this Bill which I do not like. I think I made that clear already on a previous stage of the Bill, and it is my opinion that this Bill cannot be put into operation without taking away, in some way, from the position already held by the universities. On the other hand, I do not think that the amount of money involved is so great or substantial as to call for the postponement of the operation of the Bill until 1941. I do not think it should be necessary for an amendment proposing that this Act should not come into operation until a certain day, because the Act cannot come into operation until such time as the Minister for Finance sanctions its provisions, so far as the Minister for Education is concerned. So that, in fact, I think that, even if the Bill were to be passed and become an Act to-day or next week, its provisions could not come into operation until such time as the Minister for Finance would agree. Perhaps that might give some solace to Senator Counihan, and perhaps also the Taoiseach might give us some indication with regard to that. In any event, however, apart from the date mentioned in the amendment, the fact remains that the provisions of the Act cannot come into operation until the Minister for Finance gives his decision. That, I think, is, or rather will be, the law, when the Bill becomes an Act.
I think that what Senator Hayes says is true—that the provisions of this Act will not come into operation until times are suitable. A council is to be set up, and so on, but in any case the intention is to begin quietly and slowly. I think it has already been indicated that the biggest expenditure, in the first year, would be about £15,000, which will gradually increase until, after a few years, it may reach about double that sum. In the very nature of things, I do not think we can rush this matter, but, on the other hand, I think that we ought to make a beginning, however modest, by next October.
Is the amendment being pressed?
My object in proposing this amendment is to get the Taoiseach and other Senators to take their minds off such things as this, which are not pressing at the moment, and concentrate on the things that are really important to the country at the present time. Evidently, the Taoiseach cannot take his mind away from the matter of fixing who are to be the professors in this school. I cannot see how the Taoiseach can be thinking of such things instead of concentrating on the more important questions which are troubling the minds of the people of the country at the moment. If the Taoiseach would give us any indication that this Bill would not come into operation before 12 months, I should be very glad to meet him in any way, but I should like to have some assurance that the Bill would not come into operation for 12 months, or for some definite period, so that we could concentrate on more important matters.
There is one aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. On the Second Reading, the Taoiseach made reference to the question of getting the best men for this institute. I think that he said that one of these men was not available at the moment, but that he hoped to be able to avail of the services of that man later on. I suggest that it would be better not to start this school until the services of such men are available, and that it would be better to wait until they are available, because there is the great danger involved in such a matter of putting the best man, when available, over the head of the second best man whom you may have already appointed. I would ask for a delay, on the lines of Senator MacDermot's general principles, to the introduction of this measure at a time of crisis like the present.
I am quite satisfied that we can start the school with exceptionally good men.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2.
Tairgim leasú a 2:—
Fo-alt mar leanas do chur i ndeireadh Ailt 2:—
(4) An Ghaedhilig a bhéas mar ghnáth-theanga san Institiúid.
At the end of Section 2 to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The Irish language shall be the ordinary language of the Institute.
Tá mise ag tairisgint an leasú so le bheith lán-chinnte go mbeadh an Institúid seo Gaedhealach ó bhun. Tá mórán institiúid agus ranna den Riaghaltas agus rudaí eile agus bímíd ag súil go mbeidh siad Gaedhealach ach cuirtear daoine mí-chearta ionnta go minic nach bhfuil dearcadh Gaedhealach aca. An leasú so, níl sé ró-chumhang. Ní dóigh liom go mbeidh sé ró-chumhang ar aon duine. Níl mé ag ceapadh nach mbeadh sé riachtanach teangacha eile seachas an Ghaedhilg a labhairt anois is arís ach bhéadh sé an-úsáideach dúinn ins an gcéad leagan ar an Institiuid seo gurab í an Ghaedhilg a bhéas mar bhun-teanga. Ní bhéinn ag dúil le cur ar dhaoine an tarna scoile cuir i gcás, an Ghaedhilg a labhairt ina gcuid oibre. Is dóigh go mbeidh an Béarla, Laidin agus teangacha eile a teastáil uatha insan scoil sin ach ba mhaith liom go mbéadh an Institiuid féin Gaedhealach ó bhun agus sin an méid atá ins an leasú so agus táim á thairisgint.
N'fheadair an inneosaidh an Seanadóir Mac Fhionnlaoich dúinn cad é an chiall atá leis seo. An amhlaidh a mheasann sé an Ghaedhilg a dhéanamh riachtanach ar fad ins an dá scoil ins an tslighe nach mbeidh cead aca aon teanga eile a labhairt? Má's eadh, níl sé annseo.
Tá mé tar éis a rádh nach é sin atá ar aigne agam.
Go mbeidh an ghnáth-obair ins an Institiuid déanta i nGaedhilg agus go mebidh dearcadh Gaedhealach ag an Institiuid.
Ní féidir dearcadh a chur isteach i mBille.
Caithfidh sé aontú leis. Más amhlaidh a theastuíonn ón Seanadóir gurb í an Ghaedhilg amháin a labhrófaí san Institiuid níl sé sin san leasú. Níl aon chiall leis na focail "an Ghaedhilg a bhéas mar ghnáththeanga Institiuid". Ní haon mhaitheas agus ní haon éifeacht na focail sin a chur isteach i mBille. Ní bhéadh aon éifeacht dá laghad leo.
Is mar sin atá. Tá fhios sin ag an Taoiseach agus ag éinne go bhfuil aon Ghaedhilg no Béarla aige.
Tá brón orm nach féidir liom glacadh leis an leasú seo. Tá mé ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir O hAodha nach bhfuil sé sáthach soiléir.
Tá leasú agam féin is féidir a chur isteach in áit eile. Is dóigh liom go mbéadh daoine ar ÁrdChomhairle na hInstitiúide nach mbéadh an Ghaedhilg aca, agus níorbh fhéidir leo an obair a dhéanamh i nGaedhilg.
I am grateful to whatever the procedure was that enabled me to see a translation of this amendment, because hitherto I have always been in ignorance of the words of wisdom that have fallen from the mover. What I say now is not relevant to the discussion: it is that I, apparently, do not address you in the ordinary language of this House. I understand that Irish is the ordinary language of this House, but we do not hear very much of it. I really rise to ask what is the meaning of "ordinary language"? Does it mean that it would be an offence to use another language or, if Irish is not habitually used, will the whole of the machinery break down? I think we should have more enlightenment on the meaning of the words "ordinary language" and what penalties follow from failure to use the ordinary language. I see that there are going to be many people of international reputation in the service of this body. Before they function, have they to acquire a knowledge of the language and, if they are not using the ordinary language, what is going to happen to the whole operation of the institute?
Shíl mé gur thuig an Seanadóir O Catháin Béarla. Labhrann sé an Béarla go handheas agus blas deas aige. Is cosúil nach dtuigeann sé ciall an fhocail "ordinary". Shíl mé go dtuigfeadh sé an focal "ordinary" mar sin é an bhrí atá leis—"ordinary".
If some conquering dictator were to wish to ensure that this country should sink into the tenth or twentieth rank of nations, that it should have no influence in the world outside and that it should have no intellectual growth inside, he could not do better than to appoint Senator McGinley as the civil governor of this island, with full powers to carry out his ideas.
I submit that I am in order.
Wait until I follow that up. I cannot imagine anything more likely to stunt the intellectual growth of this nation or to deprive it of influence throughout the world than to imprison us so completely in a language that we are not allowed to receive ideas, however subtle, however complicated, however far removed, because of historical events, from the scope of that language, unless they can, somehow or other, be imparted through the medium of the language; and that, on the other hand, we are not to be allowed to teach others, we are not to be allowed to communicate such ideas of value as we may have, unless we are prepared to communicate them through the medium of that language, and unless the people to whom we wish to communicate them are prepared to study them through the medium of that language. In all friendliness and goodwill, I do ask Senator McGinley to conceive it possible that a nation may be only a tenth-rate or twentieth-rate nation and yet have a language of its own and speak no other; and that, on the other hand, a nation may be a first-rate nation without going back to its original language. If he will accept those propositions, perhaps he will be a little less ruthless in wishing to force on the Irish language in such a manner as must, to my mind, ultimately destroy all hope of its popularity in this country.
I did not intend to intervene in this very vexed question, but I would suggest that the question of language be left to the schools themselves to decide. I see, of course, that there is an advantage in having a language that anybody coming from any part of the world might understand, and it just crossed my mind that three of those great people that the Taoiseach mentioned the last day, Brahe, Kepler and Newton, wrote their great works in Latin, and Hamilton could also write very excellent Latin. I am not going to suggest that Latin is to be the common language, but I suggest that the school of theoretical physics might consider it.
It seems to me that the principal objection to this amendment is that it is something you cannot do by legislation. It has been accepted that every effort has to be made to revive the Irish language here. It will never become the ordinary language until a sufficient number of us know it very well and are able to converse freely in it. Some day that may be achieved. When it is, we will not be afraid of professors or others using any other language, and we will recognise that in our advanced schools many other languages will be used. My real objection is that you are trying to do by legislation something that can only be done slowly, with a good deal of hard work, and it is utterly impossible to do it by simply inserting it in an Act. You cannot make a thing ordinary by simply saying it shall be so.
It seems a pity to waste time on this amendment. The mover has been asked to explain the words "gnáth-theanga", but he cannot, and neither can anybody else. When you use the word "institute" itself, you do not know whether you mean a building or a unified body of people, and how are you going to say what is the ordinary language? If you passed this amendment and took a case before the Supreme Court for a definition of what was required and what was prohibited by it, the Supreme Court, I think, would have to toss a penny to find what the proper decision would be. But if you did that, this proposal would make the institute utterly futile.
There is a theory amongst these people who talk a lot about the Irish language that human nature is such that thoughts, what is in your mind which you wish to communicate to another mind, do not matter, that the dignity of the human mind does not matter twopence. You could go on for ever talking about the Irish language in Irish in about 100 words. Anybody can learn enough to do that, and he is going to be a great patriot. I was at dinner with a man, the greatest scholar in Irish I have met—possibly I did meet a greater one—whose name is known to everybody here as one of the supreme pioneers in philology generally and a supreme master of ancient Irish. I felt it was up to me, though I found it rather difficult, to carry on a conversation with him in modern Irish. My knowledge of old Irish is probably not very superior to that of Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich, but he turned to me and asked if I would mind speaking English or French, because it was quite impossible for him to carry on a conversation in modern Irish. We speak of Gaelic leaguers, but no Gaelic leaguer could have been spoken of in the same breath with him.
This institute purports to be an institute of higher studies. The mere capacity to talk a vernacular does not imply any higher scholarship whatever, and when people talk about the educational ambition of this country being to have the ordinary people in possession of a speaking knowledge of the Irish language, it seems to me that we are aspiring to the educational and cultural dignity and eminence of, say, the most backward people in Albania, or of some of the wilder tribes in Abyssinia because, in those places, the ordinary people have a speaking knowledge of the language in the district, but nobody speaks of them as being in the realms of higher scholarship. If we are going to establish this institute, the purpose of it is that it will take men in the realms of two branches of study, of an eminence higher, I presume, than would ordinarily be required by students in our university. The purpose of the professors there will be to convey the light of knowledge in their own minds to the minds of their students. The human being knows not only that he uses a means to an end, but that it is his duty, if that end is binding upon him, to use the most apt means. Consequently, when I get up here and have something to say—Senators may think I never have——
I use the language in which I am most competent to convery my thoughts. Some members here make a point always of using a language in which, if they had thoughts, they would not be able to convey them. The professors of that institute will be employed by the Irish State, as I have said, to convey the light of knowledge in their own minds to the minds of their students. If they fail to use for that purpose the most apt and the most efficient means, they will be failing in their duty, and I could name off-hand 50 scholars in Irish who, if they sought in Irish to convey, in the realms of higher studies, what is in their minds to the minds of students, would be choosing a most inept and inapt method of doing so. Consequently, such an amendment as this, to my mind, if it meant anything, would be directed to making this institute, not an institute of higher studies, but an institute in which people would not convey profound thoughts, but would convey only such thoughts as they were competent to convey in their limited knowledge of a certain language.
I was rather disappointed that the Taoiseach indicated even a certain sympathy with this, because here we are in the realm of higher studies. You could go around this country and meet dozens of people able to talk in Irish about something that does not matter. I can discuss the weather and quite a number of things, but I do not want to waste time discussing the weather, because everybody can see whether it is good or bad. Neither Senator MacFhionnlaoich nor anybody else would really be able to do good work in lecturing to students, on any profound or complicated subject, in Irish, and I do not think that any of them can deny that. If this institute is going to fulfil its function of bringing the light of higher knowledge to students attending it, the professors and those who are employed there must be free to use the best vehicle they can for conveying the knowledge they have.
Incidentally, I get so weary of what might be called this "Gaelic Leagueism." I have heard students getting up and talking about the marvellous golden age of Ireland around the seventh century, when we sent our saints out converting people, and when men flocked from various countries in Europe to Ireland as to an institute of higher studies. That is all historically true, but the schools that brought the light of learning to Europe, and attracted the scholars of Europe to Ireland were Latin schools, in which the subjects were taught through Latin. That was Ireland's golden age, and this idea that patriotism demands that we should refuse ever to face up to truth is something too degrading to patriotism to be accepted by me or any Irishman. If we are going to bring scholars from all over the world to found this institute, and to convey their learning to others they must be free to use a medium which will be understood by students, and in which they can express their thoughts. That can be Irish, Latin, English, or any other language you like, but an amendment such as this is aimed at directly stultifying the entire declared purpose of the Bill.
I did not intend to say anything on this matter because I thought that Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich put forward this amendment merely in order that he might have an opportunity of giving vent to certain views in connection with the use of the Irish language in the institute. The Senator has been rather severely attacked for bringing in the amendment. There is a good deal in the amendment; as a matter of fact, there is a great deal in it. I have given some attention to the matter, however, and I have come to the conclusion that what Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich has in mind cannot be achieved by this amendment. It may be difficult to define this word "ordinary" in this connection, but, at the same time, there is something very important at the back of it.
With regard to the School of Celtic Studies, this school is going to deal mainly with the Irish language. There is nothing inconsistent in the use of the Irish language in higher studies. Senator Fitzgerald is a philosopher, and he may be aware that very serious study in philosophy was carried out in the Irish language centuries ago. He may not be aware that advanced studies in the university are being carried out in the Irish language at present, and that neither the lecturers nor the students find any very great difficulty in getting through their work. What we should remember, particularly in regard to the School of Celtic Studies, is that there are people coming on now in the university and people who are going to come into this institute who, if their education begins when they are born, will have had their whole education in Irish. They are getting their education in the national schools solely in Irish; they are getting it in the secondary schools in Irish; and they are getting it in the university in Irish, and in Irish only. They ought to be able to continue their use of Irish in the new institute. If these people, in the course of their higher studies, have need to correspond with their professors or need to speak to them, they ought, in all fairness, be allowed to do so in the Irish language. Many of them, although born and reared in the Galltacht, are in truth native Irish speakers. There are very many young native speakers coming along not only from the Gaeltacht but, in increasing numbers, from the Gaeltacht, and they want to carry on their studies through Irish. These people are entitled to consideration, and when professors and officials are being appointed to these institutes we ought to see to it that, if possible, they shall have Irish and be sympathetic towards it. We ought, as far as possible, see to it that the new staffs shall be of a type who believe that Irish is coming back and that they will bend their energies, as far as lies in their power, to the bringing back of the language. We should see to it that they have a national outlook.
There is a great deal in what Cú Uladh has said. It has been pointed out that people should be lectured to in the language which they understand. Of course, foreign students will come to this country for higher Celtic studies. But these people will have a considerable knowledge of Irish — middle Irish and early Irish. There is no very great difference between middle Irish and modern Irish, and such foreign students should be able to make up the modern Irish without very much foreign culty. We send students to Germany without a word of German. We also send them to Sweden, Norway and France, with very little knowledge of the languages of those countries. They are, of course, brilliant students, and it takes them but little time to acquire proficiency in the required language. At the moment we have in Galway a German student who came in with scarcely a word of modern Irish. There is no need for this student to speak a word of English to-day, although he has been little more than a year in the country. Students, as I say, can come here and make up a good knowledge of the Irish language. There is no reason why foreign students in general cannot come in here— especially for Celtic studies—and do the same.
I particularly liked the reference which the Taoiseach made the last day when he hoped that the people coming into this school would be imbued with a love for the nation. That was a sentiment I liked very much—a sentiment endorsed, I think, in no ambiguous terms by Senators Hayes and Tierney. We must rely on the people who are to be appointed realising that they owe a duty to this nation and to the Irish language and that they will act accordingly. There is a great deal implied in this particular amendment put down by Senator Mac Fhionnlaoich, but I do not believe that the amendment of itself will achieve anything. We must rely on the spirit of the staffs who will come in, particularly those coming into the school of Celtic studies.
If this amendment is put to a vote, I would feel compelled to vote against it for a fundamental reason. It fundamentally affects the whole Bill. To my mind, the Bill has been designed to give as much liberty as possible to the constituent schools and, if we begin to put fetters on them by prescribing which language must be used, we immediately defeat the purpose of the Bill. Naturally, we hope that Irish will be used in Celtic studies, but it would be a great mistake to put into an Act that any particular language must be used. The principle of freedom is essential to the success of these schools and the whole spirit of the Bill is to preserve that freedom. We would cut across it if we imposed any restrictions as to the language which is to be used.
Like so many other speakers, I did not intend to intervene at all. It seems to me that this debate illustrates rather well the tendency that this House very frequently has to fall through the thin ice of practical business into the deep sea of general contemplation. A Resolution like this gives rise to a lengthy debate on questions which, while most interesting in themselves, are generally irrelevant to the object of the Bill. I should not intervene at all but for one thing which Senator O Buachalla said. I did not like it, and should not like it to go on record without, for my part, objecting to it. He said that there is no reason at all why higher studies should not be carried on through the medium of the Irish language. There is a very good reason. I am not giving my own opinion only, but that of the very best Irish scholars. The Irish language, unfortunately, is not at the moment in a position in which it can be used for scientific studies, especially those of a higher kind, and it is the utmost foolishness for us to pretend that it is. In order to make Irish suitable for such teaching, many people wish to endow it with a completely new vocabulary, most of it invented on the spur of the moment. As a result we find Irish appearing in weekly papers, which only the authors of the particular articles can understand. As a result of this hasty movement to equip Irish with machinery that—owing to the course of history—it has not actually got, we are gradually turning the language into a whole series of private languages, which only the particular writer or speaker at a particular moment is able to understand. It is not the fault of the Irish language or of any one particular person that that should be so. I only emphasise that point as it has been stated so broadly by Senator O Buachalla as a well known thing that it is the weakness, ill-will, negligence or laziness of certain people which prevents everything from being done through the medium of Irish. People whose competence in this matter is absolutely beyond question, and who are well acquainted with the spoken language and with Old Irish, have assured me that they themselves find it extremely difficult to lecture even on subjects bearing on Irish through the medium of Irish. That is the main reason why the Irish language should not be made the compulsory medium of instruction in a school like this. It is bound to destroy the school and to do much harm.
I would suggest to Senator Tierney that he approach some of the people so competent in English and ask them to explain the meaning of the words "ordinary language" which baffled some scholars this evening.
I am not going to fall through thin ice into the sea of contemplation. My main objection to the amendment is that it was framed in Irish and is an excellent example which can be used by all who object to the use of Irish as a teaching medium. Here is an amendment framed in Irish: if it is put into the Bill, it will have no effect. If a judge is asked to decide, he certainly would not rule, on the Irish or on the English version, that it made the use of a particular language compulsory in teaching. This is the kind of thing which brings the Irish language into disrepute: putting down vague and indefinite phrases in the vain hope that one is doing something for Irish, when the fact is one is doing no such thing. Surely Cú Uladh does not intend that it should be made compulsory upon a higher school of theoretical physics to conduct studies through Irish?
Dubhairt mé nach raibh mé ag súil le sin.
Mara raibh—I cannot talk the two languages together—if the Senator was not expecting that, he should not have put down this amendment. He should at least have gone to the trouble to decide what he did mean, and then to express it either in Irish or in English. One cannot compel people to teach theoretical physics through the medium of Irish, but there is one thing one can do—and I disagree with Senator Tierney in this —one can use the Irish language much more extensively in higher Irish studies. That is being done at present, and can be done to an increasing degree. There, again, nobody could frame an amendment which would be suitable and which would make that compulsory, but even if they could, I would be entirely against it. In other words, even if this amendment were really well framed, I would have doubts as to the wisdom of it. I suggest that this amendment cannot be put from the Chair, as it does not mean anything at all, either in Irish or in English. It is a setback to the Irish language and a help to its enemies.
Taréis an méid atá ráidhte ag an Taoiseach agus ag an Seanadóir O Buachalla, tá mé sásta an leasú seo do tharraingt siar, gidh nach dtigim ar chor ar bith le cuid mhaith de'n chainnt chuala mé.
Sections 2 and 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(2) Whenever it appears to the Government that it is in the public interest that a Constituent School (other than the Constituent Schools mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section) should be established for the furtherance of advanced study and the conduct of research in a particular specialised branch of knowledge and each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution approved of the establishment of such Constituent School, the Government may establish under this Act a Constituent School for the purposes aforesaid.
(3) Whenever it appears to the Government that it is in the public interest that a Constituent School (other than the Constituent Schools mentioned in the first sub-section of this section) should be disestablished and each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution approved of such disestablishment, the Government shall disestablish under this Act such Constituent School.
I move amendments Nos. 3 and 4:—
In sub-section (2), after the word "Government", in line 9, to insert the words "after consultation with the Council".
In sub-section (3), after the word "Government" in line 18, to insert the words "after consultation with the council".
May I raise a point before we come to the amendments?
We can take the amendments and the Senator can raise his point on the section.
During the debate on the Second Reading, which was, of course, only in general terms, I suggested to the House that the trail of Government control was all over this measure and I drew, perhaps, an imaginary picture of files and the usual machinery of bureaucracy. I think, on the whole, that I was justified even if it was not entirely an accurate picture, but the machinery of the Civil Service will, undoubtedly, be functioning through the controls set out in this measure. That is so, although the Taoiseach rather suggested that it is not. I want to point out various places in this measure where the Government control might be modified and the institution made more of a living reality than what I fear it will be, a dead body, dead spiritually, like many of these institutions we know. They have not the vivifying power of the individual in life, nor have they got the galvanising effect of trade and business where, if they do not succeed in making profits, they perish. That is why I do dislike the modern tendency for Governments to get them more and more within their grasp. On this amendment I have attempted in a very small way to ensure that the Government shall not be the sole authority in this matter of establishing and dis-establishing constituent schools.
You have set up a council which is going to have a substantial control of the whole institute, and surely it is only natural that the Government should have to consult the council in matters of this kind. I do not place any value whatever on bringing in the Oireachtas, because they will only do what the Government, presumably, the majority, say they must do, and I have never seen any practical effect of Oireachtas control in this form. I would ask the House to accept this amendment, which does not go quite as far as I would like, but it does say that the Government must formally and, as a statutory obligation, consult the council before it establishes or disestablishes the schools set out in the first paragraph of this section. I think it is only reasonable. I gather that the Taoiseach, from the way he challenged me on the Second Reading, did not accept the principle that the Government should indicate that it is not primarily too concerned and does not wish to exercise undue control in this institute. I suggest that the amendment should be accepted.
I presume we are taking the two amendments together?
I refrained from putting down an amendment on this very point.
We are not dealing with the section yet.
I am speaking on the amendments. I refrained from putting down an amendment of this kind, for the reason that I propose to oppose sub-sections (2) and (3) altogether. I consider that it is a very large and far-reaching defect in the whole scheme that a school of physics and a school of Celtic studies are linked together as they are, and it would be a still more far-reaching defect if any more schools are set up as is contemplated in sub-sections (2) and (3). I know it is unavailing, but I would still appeal to the Taoiseach to consider that whole matter and to accept the view that we should concentrate, for the time being at any rate, on trying to put Irish scholarship on a sound basis before we complicate the question with any other developments of the kind suggested in these two sub-sections.
The difficulty I find about Senator Keane's amendments, apart from the merits of the setting up of an institute and a number of schools in such a form, and whether it is a sound proposal, is that if they were adopted they would not be very effective. He was considering bringing some kind of pressure to bear upon a Government. Now, the kind of Government that wants to go ahead on its own will consult the council in accordance with the Act, if these words were inserted, and would then go ahead in its own way. An intelligent Government, when extending the institute, will certainly consult the council. I do not think it makes any difference with regard to the practice a Government would adopt whether you have the words "after consultation with the council" in the Act or not. The proper kind of Government would consult; the other kind would consult them and would not worry about what they said.
I could not and do not propose to accept these two amendments. I agree with Senator Hayes that the practice which this is intended to make obligatory would in any case be followed. As Senator Hayes has pointed out, if a Government did not wish to accept the view of the council, they would have done their statutory duty without anything happening. With regard to what was put forward by Senator Sir John Keane, there is no point in it. The practice that is indicated there will be followed in any case. With regard to the point raised by Senator Tierney, of course we argued all that out on the last day. We expressed our different opinions and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by travelling over the old ground again. I simply want to say to the Seanad that the scheme was adopted after considerable thought—it was not hastily put down —and that, on the whole, it is one which I myself and the Government were satisfied would be the best under the circumstances.
I am very disappointed that the Taoiseach has adopted the attitude he has. I know that taking it literally the amendment would not be very effective, but I was looking to some sort of spiritual attitude, that the Government would say: "We want to remove every reasonable apprehension that we are not going to be elastic over this matter, and even for what it is worth we are going to accept the obligation to consult the council". I really think that the very attitude of the Taoiseach confirms me all the more in those apprehensions about this measure. There is going to be a lack of elasticity, a rigidity, a failure even to gesture and to offer the hand of good fellowship which is so important. I agree, it is not in words; it is atmosphere and it is that atmosphere, the things you cannot put into words, that matters but here we have that rigid attitude to-day in the attitude of the Government towards this amendment. I have nothing more to say on it.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The point which I wish to raise on the section is rather a point of pedantry. It concerns the Irish titles of these schools. I have been assured by at least two people who, I am pretty certain, will be important officials in these schools when they are set up, that they take strong exception to the titles An Scoil Leighinn Cheiltigh and An Scoil Fisice Teoiriciúla, that it runs counter to the whole natural idiom of the Irish language to use the article in the way it is used in these titles. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be a sound scheme, before giving these two schools titles like those, to consult the people who will be working these schools and to ascertain their opinions on the matter.
There is a difference of opinion on that particular question. I did my best to have the experts settle it and that is the settlement I got. I know there is a difference of opinion.
Is it essential to insist in the Bill that the school shall be known by these titles? Would it not be better to leave the matter open so that the question would be left to the schools themselves afterwards? It would be most unfortunate if the titles were rigidly fixed in the Bill to have the experts disagree on the matter again, as the Taoiseach stated.
It should be left to the people who will be the governing board of the schools to decide, by a majority, what the title should be. The difficulty I find about consultation of the experts is that it is like all these Departmental consultations. Nobody knows who are the experts or how they are consulted. I spoke to experts who are well-known people outside, and I am quite confident that if the Taoiseach consults any of the people, whom I know he has in his own mind as members of the governing board of the school, he will find that they will take exception to the title. At least two of them spoke to me and expressed great sorrow—I put it that way—that the title takes the form adopted here.
I suggest that the settling of terminology of this kind will form a very important part of the work of the new institute.
That is the reason that I pointed out that if these titles are put into the Bill it will be necessary to introduce a new Bill to change them. It seems a pity that it should be necessary to do so if there is any disagreement on the matter.
I wish some of the experts that have been consulted and to whom we wrote would send us their replies. I shall try again to see if we can get some sort of agreement in regard to the names of the schools.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The functions and duties of the School of Celtic Studies shall be the promotion of Celtic studies generally, and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing,—
(1) such other functions and duties in relation to Celtic studies as may from time to time be assigned to the school by the Government by order made after consultation with the governing board of the school.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (l), to delete all words after the word “studies” in line 60 to the end of the paragraph, and substitute the words “as may from time to time be decided on by the Governing Board of the School”.
The intention of the amendment is to remove from the Government the power to make orders assigning duties to the school in relation to Celtic studies. The reason I put down the amendment is that I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would be capable of issuing such instructions to such school. Furthermore, I think that it is a very wrong attitude to adopt towards a school like that, that you set up a body consisting of the best experts you can find, and then a Government of politicians, backed up by civil servants, takes on itself to assign to these people certain duties in relation to the subject in which they are acknowledged to be the best experts. I think it would be much better if any extension of the work of the school were left to the experts themselves. As a matter of fact, I am rather inclined to regret that there has been such an elaborate setting forth of the duties of the school in this Bill at all. It would be better if the authorities of the school got together at first to survey the ground, and find out and set forth what work they ought to undertake. I certainly think that if there is to be any extension of their duties, it should be undertaken by themselves and not by the Government. As has been pointed out already, even the phrase about consultation in that paragraph does not make any great difference, because you can consult a person and not pay the slightest attention to the advice he gives you. It would be really ludicrous if the situation were ever to arise—and it might quite possibly arise under our form of government—that the Government would come along and consult the governing board of a school such as this, and then assign to that governing board duties which that governing board did not want to undertake. It would be much better if the matter were left to the governing board to decide in the first instánce.
May I ask with reference to the refusal to accept my amendments regarding consultation with the council, why a statutory obligation is being imposed under paragraph (l) on the Government to consult with the governing board of the school in this instance? If it was not necessary to insert this provision in one place, why should it be necessary to insert it in another? That attitude seems to me to be quite inconsistent. The Government need not follow the advice of the governing board in this case any more than in the case where I tried to have a similar phrase inserted.
I would be inclined to agree with Senator Tierney in one thing, that the Bill is becoming much too elaborate. It is becoming much more elaborate than is necessary, and it is to avoid further unnecessary elaboration that I am objecting to consultation in certain places. I believe, as a matter of fact, that consultation will take place, and I do not think that the amendment proposed would matter a row of pins, because the natural procedure will be for the Government to keep in touch with the school. What is likely to happen in this case is that the governing board of the school will suggest that they want to do certain things and that these should be added to the functions which they have already.
The method by which that would be done is that they would ask the Government to approve of the suggestion, and the Government would fall in with their request if they did not see some vital objection. For instance, if the board were going to take up the question of the names of townlands, and certain steps had been taken to get that matter dealt with otherwise, the Government would have to choose whether it would allow the school to do it, or get it done otherwise. I am prepared to accept the amendment simply because I do not think it matters very much. It will mean that the same thing will have to be done in the case of the School of Theoretical Physics.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
People who are not experts in these higher studies have been asking what all this section means. I do not want to put myself in the position of a student asking a professor what geophysics and cosmology means. Cosmology has to do with order, but as the whole of the universe seems to be in a state of unparalleled disorder why should not a study of disorder in modern times be better than a study of order? I suggest that, perhaps, a study of "cha-ology" might be better than a study of cosmology in view of the present chaos that exists in the world. I think it might be a serious subject for study, just as logic is a serious subject for study, although the study of logic has done just as much harm in the world as it has done good. In my opinion, we should not be too diligent in the study of order when everything around us is in a state of chaos.
There is one point that I should like to make very briefly, and that is in connection with the first sub-section of Section 5. First and foremost, there is a clause there to the effect that, amongst the functions and duties of the School of Celtic Studies, there shall be the phonetic investigation of existing Irish dialects, and the recording of the living Irish speech. I think that that concerns a point that I mentioned on the Second Reading of this Bill, to the effect that we ought to take stock of what we have been accomplishing with regard to the living Irish language in the last 18 years. If we fail to do so, it may very well be that, after another generation, the living Irish language may disappear entirely. Now, I do not want to labour that point again, but I wonder if the Taoiseach has ever given any consideration to the matter of actual Government operations at the present with regard to Irish studies. There are three branches of the Government at the present moment engaged on work which is valuable for the Irish language. There is the Translation Staff of the Oireachtas, which is doing Government translation work, generally, with certain exceptions, and also translating Acts of Parliament.
I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but I should like to know what connection that matter has with the Bill we are discussing. It seems to me that, if we are going to talk on the subject of the Irish language generally, we should be here until this day month.
I suggest that this is a Bill to enable us to do whatever can be done for the development of Modern Irish as well as for research into Celtic studies generally. Now, at the present moment, under Government auspices and at the Government expense, certain things are being done with regard to the development of the Irish language, and I should like to ask whether the work of "An Gúm" and the work of, let us say, the Oireachtas Translation Department which does not perform exactly the same function, will be brought under one control. I know that a need exists for co-operation and co-ordination between them. There is need, for example, of a common head who would be, not only a competent person, but a person who would be tolerant in his mind in connection with co-ordinating these functions. Now, the work of the Dáil Translation Staff has been in the nature of research work to a great extent, for many years. They have been helping to make the modern language a suitable vehicle for the very thing of which we were speaking a few moments ago. What I want to know is, whether there is any intention of unifying this whole matter and bringing those people under a common head in Government administration.
I do not think this matter comes into this Bill at all. One of the questions with regard to the development of the Irish language is that of getting certain standards and to have some authoritative body to decide on these matters. Very often if you get an authoritative body to decide on such matters, it does not matter a row of pins what their decision may be, provided you can get it accepted and followed.
It is a question of getting uniformity, such as in the matter of spelling, and undoubtedly that would help us tremendously in the schools. I think, however, that we are getting to be more tolerant with regard to such matters, but I am afraid that such a discussion as that would be much too wide to enter upon here. Of course it may be possible, in connection with this institute, to establish some sort of authority to decide on matters of that kind. For instance, we might be able to get some standard of usage with regard to grammar. We had a question raised by Senator Tierney to-day in that connection. I am not an expert, but I am told that there is a difference of opinion—some people having one idea, and other people having another idea on matters of that sort— but I do not see how that could be brought within the scope of this Bill.
I understand; but at the moment we have translations being made by the Dáil Translation Staff, using a certain type of spelling, which they had been using and which they were allowed to use when the present Government came into office, but the present Constitution was framed, or purported to be framed, on an entirely different basis of spelling, and that different type of spelling had to be brought into an Act of Parliament, owing to the uncertainty that existed. Accordingly, the Government, yielding to the opinions of certain people at certain times, is bringing a certain amount of chaos and difficulty into this matter. I suggest, therefore, that before setting up elaborate machinery of the kind we have in this Bill, the Government should be expected to put its own house in order in the matter that is immediately under its own control. I do not think I would be going too far in saying that the Taoiseach himself has certain views on spelling and on script, which are being absolutely violated in Government publications at the moment.
I do not think that I have, or had, any very definite views on spelling or on script.
This is a practical question.
Yes, I agree. The practical side, so far as I was concerned, was that we should get a standard somehow and that, naturally, the spelling to be used would be the shortest type of spelling that would be practical and satisfactory.
I understand that, for years back, there has been a Fianna Fáil and a Cumann na nGaedheal method of spelling Irish.
I do not think so. I knew that there was a certain amount of controversy with regard to the form of Irish being used in connection with the Constitution, and I brought a number of experts together.
No; there was no question of that.
I ought to know what I am speaking about, since I had to do with the matter; and what the Senator says occurred is not so. I said that a number of experts were brought together and that a decision was arrived at in the matter of spelling. That view was submitted to me, and I accepted it. When the question arose afterwards as to whether the same spelling should be adopted in subsequent statutes, I came to the conclusion that, since such good work had been done, it would be wise to follow along that line and that, having acquired a good standard, it would be better to follow it. The consequence was that the same method of translation has been followed in the various statutes. As far as an Act of Parliament is concerned, I do not think it would make much difference if a word were spelled in either of two different ways. For instance, in the English language, we have the English and also the American methods of spelling, and if we were to use the American spelling instead of the English I do not suppose it would invalidate the particular Act of Parliament concerned. With regard to standards, certain difficulties and differences have to be adjusted. Nobody is more anxious than I am to have a standard arrived at as soon as possible. I feel I am talking altogether out of order in dealing with these matters at all. They have been raised and I want to say that in regard to the Civil Service an order has been issued that the system that has been adopted by the translation staff should become universal in the Civil Service.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(3) The Government may, after consultation with the governing board of a constituent school and with the council, by order amend the establishment order establishing such school, and may, by order made after the like consultation, amend any order made under this sub-section.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (3) to delete the words "after consultation with" in line 38, and substitute the words "with the consent of", and to delete the words "and with the Council" in line 39, and all words after the word "school" in line 40 to the end of the sub-section.
This amendment is really of a piece with a number of other amendments which I have submitted. The object of it is to try to make these schools, as far as possible, autonomous institutions. I am strongly convinced that it will be found in practice that no good work will be done by any other type of institution in regard to higher learning. If you set up these bodies as is contemplated in this Bill, with very close and careful control over them by the Government, you will find you will not get the right people, and they will not do the work as it ought to be done and that, ultimately, you will have either to abolish these schools altogether or fall back on the only means by which, to my mind, research work in any department can be carried on, and that is the good old principle that has lain at the foundation of all research in European countries for the last 150 years—the principle of freedom of teaching and freedom of learning. Unless that is adopted, I do not think you are going to get anywhere under this Bill. It is in order to try to induce the Government to give consideration to that point of view that I have put down these amendments. Sub-section (3) as it stands reads: "The Government may, after consultation with the governing board of a constituent school and with the council, by order amend the establishment order establishing such school, ...." I propose to substitute for the words "after consultation with" the words "with the consent of", and to delete the words "and with the council". I think I have already explained sufficiently why I wish to substitute the words "with the consent of". It is because I believe that the Government's duty with regard to a school such as that should begin and end with the setting up of the machinery and the financing of the machinery and that if any further steps are taken by the Government they are far more likely to do harm than good.
The reason why I wish to delete the phrase "and with the council" is—and this is an illustration of a point I have been trying to make all along—that no matter how you try in the wording of an Act of Parliament which is setting up an institute to secure that the various schools under that institute shall be independent of one another and shall not interfere with one another, you will find here and there phrases will creep in which will enable that sort of interference to take place. Here, for instance, under the sub-section as it stands, the Government may, after consultation with the governing board of a constituent school and with the council, by order amend the establishment order establishing such school—in other words, the Government may, after consultation with a body of people who are experts on theoretical physics, make an order amending or changing the establishment of a school of higher Celtic studies. That is what that really, in fact, amounts to. I can see no point in making a regulation like that, and it seems to me that illustrates exactly the defect I have being trying to point out all along in this sort of joint body. We cannot get away from it, and even with the greatest care in getting rid of loopholes like that, you will find, when the Act has gone through, that you will have somebody or other on that council who will make it his business, whether by natural perversity or for some other reason, to be the instrument of such interference between one school and another. It is almost bound to happen.
I would suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be very wise, in setting up these schools, to make them as watertight from each other as can possibly be done. The proposition that the Government may, by order, amend an establishment order establishing such a school, without any more than bare consultation with the governing body of the school, seems to me to open up the possibility that you will appoint experts, you will appoint men who have spent a large part of their lives acquiring very specialised knowledge in certain subjects to govern these schools; you expect to get these men and, having got them, you expect that they will allow you to disestablish them by a mere turn of the hand. I do not think you are going to get experts on that basis. The only experts there are are men who are already well able to make their living, without dependence on the Government. If you expect any man who has spent a long time acquiring a particular kind of knowledge, and who has achieved a position for himself in that kind of knowledge, to take up a position in an institution which can be wiped out by the Government after consultation with some other body, by a stroke of the pen, I think you are being very optimistic indeed. I doubt very much whether you will get your experts on that basis.
There is a science in business organisation. It is a modern science. One of the cardinal principles in organisation is to avoid internal friction, to eliminate opportunities for intrigue, to prevent people who do not like decisions getting them reversed by going to some back door, or in some other way. It is also desirable that when a person is put into his job he should be made responsible. I suggest that that same principle applies to academic life just the same as to any class of business. I suggest that that entire principle is violated right through this measure. We all know the possibility for intrigue in every walk in life. If a person does not like a thing that has been done he goes to somebody else to try to get it upset. In this Bill we have the Government interlocking with the governing body. I think that spells death to smooth working, and to any higher thought or the manifestation of any genius or learning. I feel that Senator Tierney has put this from his knowledge of the university. I am looking at it more or less from my knowledge of ordinary life. I am very apprehensive about this measure, and, although it is only a lone voice in the wilderness, I feel it my duty to make these protests on every conceivable occasion.
I would like to support Senator Tierney's amendment as strongly as I can, and for the reasons he has given. I know these councils where you have representatives from different bodies. If criticism comes from people who are not experts, who do not know intimately the matters discussed, there is intense resentment. As Senator Sir John Keane says, great friction springs up in such a council at once. It is the consent or the advice of the governing body of the school that is all important. They are the people who count. They know what they are talking about. The council as a whole cannot know what they are talking about if it is a special matter. I think Senator Tierney's amendment is sound and practical, and that it would lead to the proper working of the Institute.
I would also like to support the amendment in principle and to point out that the whole object is to place the responsibility on the right shoulders as far as the general management is concerned, but it does not remove State control. State control, to my mind, should lie in the total provision of finance for the year and, if the school wants to do something for which the State cannot provide the money, it just cannot do it.
That is provided definitely in other sections of the Bill. Outside that, to my mind, there should be absolute freedom.
With regard to consent, I am not accepting that part. I am agreeing with the part to omit consultation with the council. I am doing that on the general principle that I want to have the council a very elastic link and not in any sense a controlling body. It is there, in the main, to try to economise, in so far as administration costs are concerned. That is its main purpose, and also, as I have said, to see that the institute will receive all the praise that is coming to it in various ways as a single body. On this matter of consent, I think I have a fair experience of organisation over a long period of years. I understand the methods under which the universities are working and I have some knowledge of Government action in connection with matters in which it is interested, such as it will be in these schools and, given ordinary good sense—and I hope that we will have good sense—on the part of the governing boards of the schools and the Government, you will not have friction.
I think that where the Government is coming in, it has to come in almost of necessity. You could establish this on a different principle. You could have given, as I think is to be suggested later, a definite sum and said: "Go ahead and do whatever you like as best you can with this sum"; but the trouble is that you do not know at the start, and four or five years must elapse before you will be in a position of having an idea of what sum of money will be required annually. What estimates we have got are based on whatever information we could get and whatever pre-vision we had in the matter, but nobody could say that they were definite or that they could be regarded as exact, or nearly exact. Consequently, you cannot say to these schools: "Here is a sum of money. Go ahead and do this." The sum might be altogether too much, or altogether insufficient. After a period of four or five years, if it is felt that the other principle would work better than the principle here, it can be adopted. This is not the last piece of legislation and new legislation can be brought in. I want to see the schools started and I had to make up my own mind as to what the system was on which they were going to start. I am satisfied that this system will work and that there will be no unnecessary friction.
Pictures have been painted here of the Government telling experts in old Irish what texts they are going to have edited, what particular classes they are going to teach, and all that sort of nonsense. There is no suggestion whatever of that kind in the Bill. If the Government were to do things like that, it would be unfit to be a Government. The suggestion is that a Government is always bound to do everything wrong. I have some experience of other bodies as well as Governmental bodies, and my experience is that when the Government have to make appointments, they make them as honestly as other bodies make them, and that when they undertake a task, they are just as competent to do the work well, because, if they have not got the knowledge themselves, they will seek it from those who they imagine have it.
The Government is coming in here mainly to see that these schools do not run wild at the start. If this school were started and we were to give £100,000 for it, it could start spending £100,000 in a couple of years. You must have some idea of what you are after, and what we are after here is the establishment of a school with a reasonable number of senior professors. If a case is put up for a number of assistants, and for the money required for that purpose, it will be met, if it is an ordinary reasonable case. Just as I was influenced by the case put up for the establishment of this school, I am perfectly certain that I, or whoever else may be in the position I occupy at the moment, will be quite prepared to face it in the same spirit and in the same way, and to give all reasonable facilities. I do not think the question of consent there is necessary. It changes the general character of the scheme. The Government must ultimately decide. This is a Government project, to start with, and they must decide for themselves whether or not certain things are to be done. I am, however, accepting the deletion of the words providing for consultation with the council, because I think it implements the original idea better than the section as at present drafted does.
I am glad the Taoiseach has made that concession, because I think the removal of the phrase will help to render the working of the whole system more smooth than it might otherwise be. I regret very much that he does not see his way to go further. I am not by any means wedded to the actual words in the amendment, and I can quite see that it might be necessary to find better words, but what I am convinced of is that it is entirely a mistake, in spite of all the Taoiseach has said, to imagine that the Government can play any part in the intimate working of bodies like these, and even though the intention to do that may be disowned by a particular Minister or by the Taoiseach himself, what remains is the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament is not operated by the Government; it is operated by civil servants; and it is not any derogation of any civil servant, or any Government, or any instituting of odious comparisons, as I think the Taoiseach thought it was, to say that the direction of higher studies in Celtic languages is not a function either of the Civil Service or of the Government.
Under the Bill as it stands, the Civil Service is almost invited to assume the direction of higher studies in Celtic studies and theoretical physics. The Taoiseach will not be there always; other Governments will be dealing with this matter. We do not know who they will be and we are putting power into their hands to abolish these schools, or to take particular action with regard to them, when we set up an institute like this, invite experts into it and devote a certain amount of money to it and, at the same time, put the whole thing in such a position that it can be abolished by a stroke of the pen by any particular Government which comes along.
It cannot. In the case of these two schools, has it not to be brought before Parliament?
In this case, the Government may, by order, amend the establishment order setting up such a school. Amendment may mean anything.
It cannot. According to the Bill it cannot mean disestablish.
It may amend to this extent, that it may abolish some particular post or some chair in connection with the school. I am looking at this, partly from the point of view of individuals who will be working in the schools. It is necessary to safeguard them to some extent and it is not imputing motives to the Government to suggest that, from time to time, arguments will be put up to the Government—one Government or another— about certain matters, which may seem to be very cogent at the particular moment, but which would be very bad from the point of view of the prosecution of higher studies in the Irish language and mathematical physics. Senator O Buachalla attributed to me a sentiment of agreement with himself on the principle that the people who are employed in these schools shall be nationally minded. I do not agree with any such principle at all, and I never gave expression to any such agreement. What you want in a school like this is experts, whether nationally-minded or not, and if they are nationally-minded and are not experts, we should be far better off not to employ them in a school like this.
That is the sort of thing I am afraid of, and because I am afraid of that happening under this or any other Government, and because I am afraid that by the mere force of inertia, the Civil Service will inevitably start to control this body, I want to try to make it as autonomous as it possibly can be made. If the Taoiseach will not agree with that, nothing can be done about it, but I think that to the extent to which Government control is kept in the Bill, to that extent the school will be weakened. I conceive of this sort of work as being begun, or set on foot, by the Government, but the Government would be much wiser to confine their activities to two things, firstly, the selection and devising of the mode of selection of the governing body of the school, and, secondly, the financing of the school, however that is done.
The Taoiseach said that difficulty arises because it is not possible to foretell what sums will be required for the work. That is so, but the Government and the typical Civil Service answer to that always is: "We therefore must decide it. We must get into the thing; we must have a hand in all the details of it, and control this thing, its working and what it is to do from the beginning." The assumption on the part of the Government, for instance, of that sort of control means that the Government are going to tell these experts whether they should devote their time, their money and their work to some question like the examination of place-names or the compilation of a dictionary. Suppose some question arises about a dialect survey or dialect dictionaries. What is undoubtedly going to happen is that before any action can be taken by this body of experts on that matter, they will have to satisfy, firstly, civil servants in the Department of Education; secondly, civil servants in the Department of Finance; and, thirdly, the various Ministers concerned. I submit that, on that basis, you will get no research done worth talking about.
The Government should confine themselves to supplying the money. It would be quite easy to devise some means by which a sum—as I suggest in an amendment later on—could be agreed upon and could be put at the disposal of a body like this for a certain limited period. After that period the question could be brought up again. The Government has sufficient control over the working of any school like this, if no more than a stated sum of money can be got without its consent. If the work is to be really well done, the only course to follow is to appoint a body of experts—anybody can pick out the experts in this matter of Celtic studies, it does not require any great skill to find them— and when that body of experts has been appointed, to give them a sum of money and freedom in the use of it.
I had no wish to enter into this discussion, but I am forced to do so after listening to Senator Tierney. It seems to me that he is advocating a shocking form of preferential class legislation. He tells us that the Government's function should be to set up this fund and hand over the money without having any more to say or do as to how the fund is carried on. I wonder, if I were to stand up here and advocate that policy on behalf of the national schools, how far Senator Tierney would agree with me. It is all very well to enlighten and educate a small group of people and set them up as experts, and so on, while leaving the great majority of people in abysmal ignorance. If Senator Tierney would examine the policy he is advocating he will realise how dangerous it is, even though it is for experts in education and culture. If that thing were applied generally, what is it going to come to? Is the Government merely to put up money, select and approve of people to spend it, and remove all control? I am not in favour of the Bill, and certainly am not in favour of the amendment proposed by Senator Tierney.
If it were relevant to the Bill, Senator Foran would be surprised how far I would go in regard to Government control over the national teachers. One of the greatest curses since the system of national education was set up here has been the system of rigid Government control and inspection over the national teachers. The same applies to a great extent in the secondary schools, and to a still greater extent the higher one goes. One of the worst things in recent years has been the tendency on the part of the Government to get in by the back door and apply that control in the case of the universities. There has been the tendency, in cases where grants are being made for a particular work, to make them only on condition that there is stringent Government control over expenditure. I regret that as a tendency which in the end will destroy the universities. With regard to the other point raised by Senator Foran when he mentioned class legislation, I do not see where class comes in. I do not regard myself as being in a different class from my brother, who is a small farmer.
I am just pointing out that there is preferential treatment for a small class in this amendment.
I think Senator Foran mentioned class legislation. Class legislation and preferential treatment for a small class—he seems to be using the word "class" in two different ways. Perhaps the Senator was not using it in the sense in which I took it, that is, in the labour sense, of those able to write being in a higher class.
That is not the usual comment on class or the usual line drawn between one class and another by the Labour Party.
There should be no question of class in this matter. What you have to do is to make up your mind as to whether you want a thing or do not want it and, if you do not want it, then do not have it. If you do want research and are able to get it done, there is only one way— that is, by employing the expert to do it. The Senator may be of the opinion that it is class legislation to have such work done or that it is unfair discrimination against other classes in the community. I am inclined to insist that research is only to be got in a particular way and that it is only common sense—if you want to get it—to get it in that way.
I am astounded that a man with Senator Foran's experience should propound such a doctrine. Here is purely the mind of the doctrinaire. While it is sound in principle that the public must have control of public expenditure, there must be exceptions to such rules. The Senator should not be so astonished at that. What has happened in the case of the E.S.B.? Have they not been given £10,000,000? Is the Government to inquire at every step into the conduct of the E.S.B.?
I would like to ask Senator Sir John Keane a question: What was his attitude towards that measure when it was going through?
That has nothing to do with it.
I am quite prepared to defend my attitude. The E.S.B. took over the whole machinery of the Dublin Corporation, the property of the ratepayers, and gave them not a penny. I was justified in opposing that.
This discussion is becoming very wide. It should be confined to the question before the House.
I accept your ruling, Sir. I was provoked into a challenge by Senator Foran which I am prepared to deal with at any time. It is pure pedantry to say that, in every case where you spend public money, you should set up a whole machinery of civil servants to regulate the expenditure. I am going to refer to that matter on the next section.
This principle is coming into all these amendments. I have them grouped here in sections, and we could spend all the time talking about them. I have taken one line and I believe it will work. I believe that the Government is not going to interfere with the things with which it should not interfere, and that it is not going to tell the people engaged in Celtic studies what particular lines of research they are to follow. There may be a particular line of research which would require a very large sum of money and, when they ask for that sum of money, the Minister may suggest that they take something else, as it may be a time of special stringency. If, however, they say they could not do that, then it is a question as to whether the money can be made available or not. All this talk of civil servants coming along and putting their finger in every pie and trying to tell professors of Celtic studies what particular spelling they should adopt is all nonsense. I have had some experience of this and know the various sections which will deal with it, and I do not apprehend that there will be any friction. There will always be the difficulty of getting money, as the Minister for Finance has got to distribute equitably whatever sums he may have for various services.
I do not anticipate any difficulty whatever in carrying out this scheme. I believe I could not have got any other form of scheme adopted by the Government and put through Parliament. I know Professor Tierney's views, and feel I must reject them in the case of these amendments. I can only say that I am keeping to the general scheme set out in the Bill, which means that the Minister for Education is to be in close touch with the schools, in order that he may be the medium through which their views are conveyed to the Minister for Finance and the Government. There is nothing in this Bill which would mean running away from the principle and the general spirit of freedom for the professors, and I do not believe that there will be the interference which Senator Tierney suggests will come at every hand's-turn. There are several of these amendments, all designed for the same purpose, to eliminate the Government and the Minister for Finance. I do not think you can eliminate them.
Will the Taoiseach say how they are eliminated in the National University and the Royal Irish Academy?
Because they were set up at a different period, and they are different schemes. I took this on myself on representations of various kinds that were made to me. I said "All right. I think the project is a good one and we will get a Bill which will bring it about. It was last July, I think, when we introduced it. I have given a great deal of my time to the framing of it. I think that every consideration has been given by me, personally, to the point of view that has been expressed here, and I cannot do anything better. I am not going to go to the Government and ask them to change the principle completely and adopt that advocated by Senator Tierney, because I think it is not necessary to do so. I do think that I know just as much as any professor about the general principles that enable research to be carried on. I cannot see anything in the statements that have been made except pictures of things that do not ordinarily occur, but things that could possibly occur. I have had the same in connection with other Bills.
Neither I, nor any Minister, nor any draftsman can get Acts of Parliament which would completely eliminate the possibility of people wanting to do mischief. You have to legislate on the principle that the people charged with the carrying out of the Acts will act reasonably in accordance with them, and that civil servants will not approach, when they are asked to approach, from the point of view of trying to crab and interfere where they have no right to interfere. If they do, that is a matter for the responsible Minister. Whenever a Minister is mentioned in an Act of Parliament like this, he has a personal duty to perform, and he ought to be the judge whether the civil servants and his advisers in that regard are interfering unduly or whether they are merely trying to do their ordinary work. My experience is that they try to do their work in the ordinary way. I have none of the apprehensions that have been suggested in this regard.
Does the Taoiseach not think that there is too much red tape when the Government give a grant for any particular purpose? From my knowledge, I think that there is too much red tape. They often ask for elaborate returns which take a lot of time to furnish, and I would like to get some assurance——
You can have all the assurances in the world, but it will happen all the same.
I have seen some returns that took the best portion of a week or longer to prepare.
As a matter of fact, the whole question of reports was very carefully considered. A man can write a very elaborate report about an insignificant piece of research, while the report of a very valuable piece of research might be written in a page or two. With regard to the reports supposed to be furnished, they are simply a short general account, so that it would be known generally what is the work that is being done. Take, for example, if there had been a study of phonetics, or a study of dialects carried out during the year, I would expect the report to state that a detailed examination of, say, the Connaught or Munster dialect had been made. That is all that would come into it, and I think that Professor Tierney, and I told him so after the meeting, started a strange hare altogether. He has put the whole of this debate on wrong lines by suggesting pictures which are not real. I have never seen any cases where there have been undue demands for research, and I do not know any particular instance. I, myself, have come into contact with folklore—I know it is not worked on the same system as this—and you want only a simple assurance that the money provided by Parliament is being spent in the way in which it was intended at the start. I think the independence that is given here to the Board of the School, and the Schools themselves, is sufficient guarantee that no Minister or other official is going to assume to dictate to them the particular lines they will follow.
I will give the Taoiseach one instance I know of, because it has happened to myself. Before the Taoiseach's Government came into office, there was a project for a handbook of Saorstát Eireann. I was appointed chairman of the Editorial Board to bring it out, and the Executive Council of the day agreed to it, but the project was held up by the Secretary of the Ministry for Finance for some considerable time after the Executive Council had agreed to it. That is the kind of thing I suggest is going to happen after this Bill becomes law.
I am not in a position to know what happened in that case, but I suppose that the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance would probably have been brought in when the project was first mooted. The Minister would have asked him to make investigations as regards costs and estimates for the carrying out of the work. Suppose the project was started with the idea that it was going to cost £3,000, and the Secretary saw that if it was carried out in the way that the Chairman wanted it would cost £10,000.
The grounds were, in fact, that the Secretary to the Ministry for Finance did not like the project, and that can happen more than once.
I am not in a position to say that, but I know there was such a thing as a handbook.
Ultimately there was; yes.
So that whatever difficulties there were, were got over. There was some deciding body. It was probably brought to the notice of the Executive of the day, and the Minister for Finance or the Secretary looked into it personally and ultimately adjusted the difficulty, whatever it was. I am perfectly certain that when that project was put up, of getting out a handbook, it was not passed simply in blank. There was some estimate as to the cost of the scheme, and the method by which it was to be carried out brought before the Council and passed, and then, when the particular persons that were asked to carry it out were set up, it was found that the views of the Council differed somewhat from the views expressed in the original proposal. Probably the Department of Finance or the Secretary would not come in unless there was some change in the financial proposal, and if he held it up for the reason that he disliked it, as sometimes happens. It must be remembered that it is not the Secretary of the Department or the Civil Service who ultimately decide these matters, but the Government. However, that is far afield. It is not the same as this particular thing. There is machinery here for the setting up of a governing board, and they are given a large measure of autonomy. There is no interference except that there will be a certain general scheme setting out conditions of service and other matters which will be brought up in the first instance. Then the Government will say: "God bless you. Off you go now, provided you keep inside this scheme and don't let us hear about you except when we hear about your success in doing the work you have to do." I think that would be the attitude of any Government that would have anything to do with this. Senator Tierney seems to have had some personal experience which coloured— I will not say "soured"—his views.
I am not entirely impartial, but I have no coloured views.
I am equally so on the opposite side, so we will have to let it be at that.
I realise that the officials always act in accordance with their conception of their duty. I am not making any charges against any official, but I would suggest to the Taoiseach that in order to get over delays and difficulties that are ahead, he ought to have something in the Bill providing these schools with a store of dynamite in order to get things passed.
The dynamite is the Minister for Education, and one of the principal reasons for bringing him into this Bill is that there will be direct contact possible at each stage. I assume that he will be always sympathetic.
The Taoiseach suggested that a portion of the amendment, if I mistake not, was acceptable. How does the amendment stand then?
I think it is really in three parts although it is down as one amendment. It would be quite open to us to accept the central part.
The Taoiseach accepts the part which deletes the words "and with the council".
Acting-Chairman
Am I to understand that Senator Tierney agrees to withdraw the existing amendment and substitute the other?
Acting-Chairman
I take it that the change in the amendment is approved?
Agreed.
Amended amendment: ‘In Section 6, sub-section (3), the words "and with the Council" in line 39 deleted', agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 7.
Every establishment order shall contain, subject to the provisions of this Act, such provisions in relation to the regulation and conduct of the constituent school thereby established as the Government shall think proper, and, in particular, shall provide for the following matters, that is to say:—
(d) the constitution of such governing board as a board consisting of
(i) a chairman appointed by the President on the advice of the Government, and
(ii) certain members similarly appointed, and
(iii) the senior professor of the school;
I move amendment No. 7:—
In paragraph (d), page 5, delete all words after the words "Governing Board" in line 9.
This amendment is in pursuance of the same idea which dictated previous amendments, that is, to delete all these elaborate provisions contained in paragraphs (d) to (j) of Section 7. They lay down a great many component parts of the establishment orders and they compel the Government to appoint in particular a governing board of a very special composition. Personally, I think it would be better if the Government were simply given a free hand in regard to the appointment of the governing board and leave it at that. I do not propose to press the amendment.
That was a question that occurred to me originally, as to whether we would leave it open, but the general scheme would be upset by that. If you had another school, it would not fit in with the general scheme. The scheme for the board is so general in its character that I do not think there can be any difficulty. As for the appointment of members besides the professors, the Government would be free to appoint people who are in the same line of activity, who would know what work would be done and who may have other qualities which might be useful to supplement those of the professors in the school. I think the method is sufficiently open to allow of that scheme being adopted in the case of any other school. If you were to depart from it, the scheme as a whole would be upset.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In paragraph (d) (i), to delete all words from and including the word "President" in line 11, page 5, to and including the word "Government" in line 12, and insert instead the words "Council after consultation with the Government".
We have now reached a stage when the Government have got complete control in regard to this Bill but we can only make a final protest. I have a certain amount of experience of public life and I suggest to the Taoiseach that in the scheme as outlined in this Bill you are going to get friction, intrigue and every other hampering condition by this machinery. The Taoiseach however says "no" and what is the good of arguing when he has got his mechanical majority to enforce his view?
Is it not a good thing that we are able to get a decision on some matter?
The Government apparently makes every regulation. It sets out in particular what it does, and in general it can draw up detailed regulations in regard to the conduct of the school, the hours of the work and every conceivable thing.
It will do nothing of the kind.
It can apparently regulate the conduct of everybody connected with the school. The students can be dismissed or can be punished. I do not know how students are punished.
They are sent down occasionally. Is it not clear that a student with a political pull will do everything in his power to get such punishment rescinded by ringing up T.Ds. and by approaching the Government with all sorts of complaints about the matter? It is childish to expect otherwise. The Táoiseach is not living in this world if he says that cannot happen. We have it even in banks and commercial institutions. I must admire the innocence of the Taoiseach in all these matters. It reminds me of the famous question once put by a judge "What is a bookmaker?" The innocence of the Taoiseach is almost equivalent to that. He does not realise how these things happen and how they will go on to the end of time under this machinery.
To come to the amendment itself; why is it necessary to bring in the President? We know that the President in a matter like that is only a figurehead. He acts on the advice of the Government as Constitutional Head of the State. Why is it necessary to bring him in to appoint the chairman and the members of the governing board? The effect of my amendment would be to have them appointed by the council.
I do not know whether Senators are impressed by all these arguments or whether they think that all these terrible things will happen. There are certain things for which regulations will have to be made but that does not mean that all these alarming things suggested by the Senator will happen. We are told that every single thing it is possible to imagine will be put into the regulations but I am perfectly sure Senator Sir John Keane is not convinced by these arguments.
I am prepared to be constructive in my criticism. Let us reserve certain things for the Government but let the governing body attend to all other functions. That is a well-known principle in federal government, that what is not left to the subordinate body is reserved. Complete power is taken by the Government in this instance over all these matters.
What will really happen is that the system which Senator Tierney and Senator Sir John Keane have been advocating will, in practice, be operated. I cannot imagine, for instance, that the Government is going to tell one of the professors in theoretical physics what particular line of research he should follow. The thing is ridiculous. In fact, the practice and the freedom which have been advocated here will be recognised and will be the actual state of affairs. But you do want to have the Government come in where there is a question of money, and the Minister for Education comes in, largely as the intermediary, so as to get from the Government or the Minister for Finance the money necessary for the conduct of the school. He will be really the advocate with the Government and the Minister for Finance in telling the Government or the Minister for Finance, in a general way, why it is important that a particular project should be engaged in, and he will have to try to convince his colleagues in the Government that that project is of such importance that more money should be given for it, if there is more money available. I anticipate that what will happen is that, after the first three or four years or so, the Government may say: "We will not give any more money for this." I can visualise this thing growing very rapidly and where, after three or four years, a point may be reached where the Minister will have to tell the governing board that, if they want to spend money on certain expansions they will have to save money by contracting their operations in other directions. I do not want to have such a position reached, but I can quite visualise that happening. The Minister for Education, naturally, should be in intimate touch with such an institution, and I anticipate that the position will be reached in a few years' time when the Minister will be able to say: "This institution is a going concern now, and is no longer in the experimental stage. What we will have to do in future is to give an annual grant—put this thing on the Central Fund, or something like that—and you will have to do with that." I expect that that is what will happen but, in the meantime, we will have to go on choosing our steps, so to speak, and gradually developing. I, personally, feel that the position that I have referred to may be reached in three or four years' time, and I think that the scheme may work so well that the board may even be anxious to avoid the position of the Government saying: "Here is a certain sum; you will have to do with that and that is the end of it."
With regard to this matter, I do not find myself in such strong disagreement with the views expressed by the Taoiseach as with his action. I think, however, that the case made by Senator Sir John Keane and, to some extent, by Senator Tierney, has been rather weakened by exaggeration. For instance, I do not think for a moment that this school could be carried on if we were to have the kind of interference with studies or research work of the kind proposed to be carried on, because the people who would be fit to do such work simply would not take dictation of that sort. What I am afraid of is that you will not get, even in three or four or five years' time, what the Taoiseach desires, and that is that a fixed sum should be given each year according to the requirements of the institute, which would be left to them to spend or save according as they saw fit. Rightly or wrongly—I think, wrongly—we have always adopted in this country the same system of Treasury control as in England. We do not call it the Treasury in this country; we speak of the Minister for Finance; but it is the same kind of control. I have always felt that another system, such as the system they have in France—a Court of Accounts— would be very much superior to our system. The actual effect here is that the person or section in charge of a department cannot make economies or cannot spend moneys in one direction rather than another during the course of the year without the consent of the Minister for Finance. In effect, you cannot even change an office boy during the year without the formal consent of the Minister for Finance. Now, although I agree with the principle of this Bill, I think that we have a duty to perform here, in connection with a matter of such importance as this, and that is to express our views. I have already indicated my approval of a certain kind of control, but I do not think it would be for the good of this institution to have that sort of general control in the Minister for Finance, nor do I think it is necessary; and I think that the sooner that system can be changed to what the Taoiseach desires —that is, that the matter should be placed on the Central Fund, with an annual sum voted each year—the sooner will you get smooth and satisfactory working. Although I take that view, and hold it very strongly, and would like to see that system extended to other Departments, nevertheless I think that we must accept the fact, now that the Government have made up their minds that, for some years at least, there must be that small amount of interference in these details, and that that is the only way in which they can be sure of what the total expenditure is. At the same time, I think that there should be something in the Bill dealing with what the Taoiseach hopes will take place.
I agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon on the matter of affording the maximum amount of liberty. However, I am not really afraid that there will be any interference by a particular President or Cabinet in the matter of the nature of particular studies. I do not think such interference would take place, but I am afraid of what I might call petty delays in connection with expenditure or economies—delays which would be extremely vexatious to anybody, and particularly vexatious to the minds of men such as the professors who would be suitable for this type of work.
I take it that, no doubt, the Taoiseach has been examining this matter in relation to other countries. I should like to know in what countries has he found that machinery of this kind has been adopted in universities and bodies of a similar kind.
I have not examined, in any detail, the provisions in regard to institutions of this kind in other countries. I know, of course, that there have been private foundations in other countries, and so on, but I examined this matter in the light of our own set of circumstances, and I used whatever information I could get and whatever knowledge I had myself in order to try to get a system that would work. As I say, I have not examined in detail what was done in other countries, but no matter what may have been done in other countries, the principles here are very simple. Anybody can see, a priori, what type of control there is likely to be in connection with any such institutions. First of all, you may have complete State control; secondly, modified State control, as you would have here; and then you may have an institution of the completely independent sort. These are the three classes, running the whole gamut from complete State control to absolute independence. It seemed to me that there could hardly be anything else, and accordingly I was not particularly interested in asking people to find out for me what had happened in other countries. There are certain general principles which are important. One is that those engaged in research work should be given as free a hand as possible. That seems to me to be obvious. Of course, in the case of such a thing as Celtic studies, there would be a good part of it that would be capable of organisation—laying out the work to be done, getting the necessary assistance for doing that work, and so on. You can plan to a certain extent in such a case. You cannot plan within a year or two, perhaps, but you can make a plan with a certain elasticity in a matter of that kind. The general idea, however, is that in research work you cannot arrange that a certain amount of work will be carried out in a certain time. The very nature of the work is against that. With regard to money, however, that is a matter that you will have to consider in any particular case. If money is easy and you can hand over to an institute such as that, say, £100,000 as an annual grant, you may then, by choosing a controlling body who will look after the finances, probably ensure, without any Governmental control, that that money will not be wasted. But, in this particular case, the professors are coming in themselves. The intention is to try, if possible, to put people in who will be concerned with the work that is to be done rather than with financial control. Any financial control involved in this particular case is done on the Governmental side. However, I have not the answer to that question. I have not studied the particular details of any other institutions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I see a Director is mentioned. He, of course, might be the chairman of the governing body?
Is it not set out clearly in the Bill that the Director is one of the senior professors? He may be a member, or may be chairman, too.
I cannot see why you should duplicate.
My view of how the thing will work is this: You choose one of the staff as the Director. There will be establishment orders which will impose on the Director certain duties. I should imagine that one of the duties will be that he will draw up a general scheme of work that is to be done in the school. For instance, in the case of Celtic studies, he would draw up a scheme of work that is going to be done in the year, or over a period of years, and then the governing body would consider where they were to start, what would be one of the first things they would have to do, what period of time would be given in relation to manuscripts, and so on. The Director would draw up a scheme that might be considered by the board, and on which the board might express their views. The other members, who would be chosen mainly for their interest in that particular type of work, would express an opinion, and the thing would be settled. The Director might modify the programme suggested in deference to some views that might be expressed, or he would be able to insist on his own. However, the governing body would generally approve of the scheme he put up. Then there would be the question of the allocation of the funds at their disposal for the different branches. For instance, I assume he will start with two or three different things in the first year. A certain amount of money would be required for each, and it would have to be decided by the governing body as to how much would be allocated to one project or the other. It might be just as well that the Director was not chairman, but he could be. It is left quite free.
He will be a draftsman of schemes, as it were, which will be considered by the governing body, and he will have no autocratic power, because their decision must stand?
No. It is quite obvious, in a case like that, that the governing body, unless they had very strong reasons indeed, would not run counter to his views.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) The senior professors of a constituent school shall be appointed and removed by the President on the advice of the Government.
(2) The numbers, salaries, and conditions of service of the senior professors of a constituent school shall be such as the Government, on the recommendation of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall from time to time determine either generally or in respect of any particular senior professor.
I move amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 14:—
In sub-section (1), line 32, to delete the words "and removed".
In sub-section (2), line 34, to delete the word "and" and after the word "service" in that line to insert the words "and removal from office".
In sub-section (2), line 38, after the word "Professor" to add the words "Provided that the salary or conditions of service of any professor shall not be altered during his term of office without his consent".
These amendments are of a somewhat different character from most of the amendments that have been discussed, and the object of them is to provide for a little more elasticity in the matter of the appointments. I have, of course, no experience whatever of the appointment of professors, but I have had a certain amount of experience of the appointment of fully qualified men to positions in business. It is highly desirable that you should be free to make reasonable conditions of service and a contract. I can see that a very suitable person would be somewhat chary of making an agreement if there were no conditions at all as to how he could be removed. I could see, for instance, a professor making an arrangement with the Government whereby it would be provided that his term would be three years or five, subject to a continuation of certain conditions, and that he would be removed because he was unable to act or because of malfeasance, or because of certain other conditions, or that he was considered incompetent by the council or the school. But the way in which this particular section is worded, it provides, in sub-section (1), which, it seems to me, would govern the whole section, that, no matter what conditions there are, he can always be removed by the Government without reason stated.
I therefore suggest that the word "removed" should be taken away and put into sub-section (2), which would read: that the salaries, conditions of service, and removal from office of the senior professors would be a matter which would be arranged with the professor by the Government. I also have the feeling that, while there is a good deal to be said for an announcement in the Press that the President has appointed Professor So-and-So to this position, I do not like the provision, if for any exceptional reason he has to be removed, that you should have the announcement that the President removed Professor So-and-So. That is another reason why I do not like the word "removed". Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 are designed entirely for the purpose of helping the Government in giving the maximum amount of freedom and helping them to be able to come to reasonable terms with a person they regarded as suitable. Amendment No. 14 covers very largely the same idea, that is, that a contract should be made. It is quite a common thing in business, and I think the principle applies just the same in appointments of this kind, particularly where you are dealing with a senior person, that he will accept the position on specific conditions and that there is a period of time during which his salary is fixed and that he can only be removed according to certain specific conditions. My reasons for these three amendments are that I think it will make it easier for the Government to get a suitable person and, also, it enables them to vary the conditions having regard to the circumstances. I do not know whether the question will arise of bringing a professor from another country but I can see that the terms of appointment and, particularly, of removal, might be somewhat different in the case of a person who was induced to move here, if at any time it became desirable, as against a person who was living in the country.
I am assuming also that the kind of professor who would be suitable for this advanced work would be somebody who has reached very considerable eminence and who, as has been pointed out by another Senator, has probably got a position. He will be prepared to take up this office only if he is reasonably secured. I think, therefore, that it would be undesirable to have it in the Bill that he can be removed by the President on the advice of the Government, which, I know, means that no reason need be given because, when the Government has the power of removal it means that it is entirely at their discretion. There is also just the danger that there might be political pressure following public discussion of something a particular professor had done, which had no relation to his duties at all. I would like to feel that he has a contract just as a man with a high position in business would have and that the terms on which he could be removed were set out and not left to the Government of the day. I am not an alarmist. I am not saying that it would be abused but what I am saying is that it would be a difficulty in the minds of certain people who felt that the rest of their life was to be devoted to that work.
I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment, and, in fact, I think there are only one or two cases in which I think I would be able to agree with any of the amendments. I should like to explain that it is not a question of any unwillingness to see another point of view, but simply a balancing up of two points of view. As I told the House already, I have given a great deal of consideration to this matter, and I had to make up my mind on various points. I came down in a certain direction after a good deal of thought. With regard to this matter, there surely will be a contract. I agree with the Senator as to the desirability of any person who takes up an office of this kind feeling that there is reasonable security, that he will be secure in so far as he does his work in the ordinary way. Surely there will be some form of contract, and I do not think there is anything in the Bill that suggests that he is going to be removed arbitrarily. Take the case of civil servants. I think they hold their office at the will and pleasure of the Government, but I think there are not very many cases of removal.
There are, I think, legal remedies.
No; there is no legal remedy if the Government acts correctly.
There can be a contract, and surely if there is a form of contract entered into by a senior professor coming into the school, he cannot be arbitrarily removed by the Government.
I am not so much arguing with the Taoiseach as trying to clarify what I think is a genuine difficulty. I believe that this wording precludes the conditions of removal from being part of the contract. If the Taoiseach will look at sub-section (2), he will find that it is quite clear that there can be a contract. I want to add the words "and removal from office" to the opening words of the sub-section.
Surely the phrase, "conditions of service," in any broad interpretation would imply the conditions under which he would come in and under which he would leave or be removed.
I am advised that so long as sub-section (1) remains, and the conditions of removal are that he can be removed at any time by the President, on the advice of the Government, it will limit, if not entirely preclude, the terms of the contract. If the Taoiseach is satisfied that there is nothing in it, I do not propose to press it. The amendment was put down with a view to being helpful and because I believe that a genuine difficulty arises.
I have not got legal advice on the point, but it struck me, reading it as an ordinary layman, that what is in the first sub-section is the machinery by which it is done, and, on any ordinary interpretation, I should imagine that "conditions of service" would include the conditions under which his service would be terminated.
I have sought to make contracts in business on more than one occasion, and I have had pointed out to me that I cannot make a contract with an employee which exceeds any specific Act of Parliament. That being the case, I believe the Government will not be able to make contracts which go outside sub-section (1), which is the governing matter with regard to removal. I am quite satisfied, however, if the Taoiseach will look into it. I raised it because I think there is a danger involved.
Is it not clear that the position into which these people are being put is the same as that of a civil servant? "The conditions of service will be such as the Government shall from time to time determine generally, or in respect of any particular senior professor." There is no contract of service at all there. It is such as the Government shall determine. There is no doubt at all at present that the civil servant's conditions of service can be altered by the Minister for Finance, and that any civil servant can be dismissed by the Government. That has actually happened, and there is no legal redress of any kind. The position seems to be identical here. The senior professor is appointed, and his conditions of service may be altered by the Government under sub-section (2).
That is what my amendment No. 14 is designed to meet.
He has no contract of service at all, and any contract of service he may make would surely be overridden by the provisions of this sub-section.
Not if my amendment No. 14 is accepted.
Not if that amendment is accepted, but, as this section stands, a particular man goes up to one of these schools and is told something orally by the Minister for Education. It has no force or effect. Even if the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education writes to him, that has no force or effect either, except in so far as it has a moral effect, but, under that section as it stands, the Government can arbitrarily remove him. I am not for a moment overstating the case, or accusing the Taoiseach of wanting to appoint people and then summarily to remove them by a stroke of the pen. I have no such view, but I am looking at the kind of person who is going to be asked to do this, a person who already has a post in which the conditions are not so rigorous as these. One does not know what the course of politics in this country is going to be. There are people in the country who have the view, for example, that this kind of research institute should be entirely abolished, and they would abolish universities with it, if they could get their way.
Here, this evening, a member of the Seanad told us that the professors should have a national outlook. That phrase "national outlook" varies very much. For example, I got a job in University College when I was a very young man of 21 years of age and the national outlook I had at that time was entirely contrary to that of the majority of the people. There was not a single member of the governing body, or a single colleague of mine, with the same outlook, but circumstances were such that I was accepted for the particular job and allowed to keep it. But you may have people coming along and saying, particularly when you discuss the question of Irish studies: "Here is AB who has not got a national outlook." I have heard it said about experts in Irish, particular friends of mine, that they have not a national outlook and the Taoiseach may be interested to know—perhaps it is only a joke—that I remember getting in an essay by a third honours student in the National University the statement: "Ní raibh an spioraid ceart Gaedhealach ag Eoin Ruadh O Suilleabháin"—"Eoin Roe O'Sullivan had not the right Irish spirit." I had the greatest possible difficulty in arguing that question. If Eoin Roe O'Sullivan had not got the right national spirit for some people, how can an unfortunate professor in 1944 have it?
May I emphasise what I really am afraid of is that the proposed contract and conditions will be submitted to a professor by the Minister, that he will take them to a solicitor and that, under this subsection (1), he will be advised "notwithstanding what is in it, this subsection gives an overriding power to change the conditions of your service at any time and you may still be removed, apart altogether from what is stated as the basis of your removal in the contract." That is what I should like the Taoiseach to look into.
One matter occurs to me as being capable of leading to trouble, that is, the phrase "senior professor". As a layman, not connected with academic life—I do not know much about the hierarchy of professors—suppose a case went to court. There is no definition of the phrase "senior professor". Might there not be a very nice legal point involved in whether a man was a senior professor?
Oh, I see. That is his title.
I am afraid I will have to get some legal advice before making my mind up definitely on this matter. It would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if what Senator Douglas mentioned could happen under the Bill. I did not read it that way. I took it that this first subsection provides the machinery whereby he shall be appointed and removed as indicated, that the terms on which he was employed would, in fact, be a contract and that there was no question of anything in the Bill to prevent these being set out in any particular way, and obliging the council or the Government to abide by them. The difficulty is that phrase "shall from time to time determine". There is trouble there as in the case of the word "regulation". You want the word for certain purposes. You want it to determine initially the new cases coming along, but, once determined and a contract is entered into, you want that contract to be carried out. I am afraid I should not like to decide it at the moment.
I am not pressing for an immediate decision at all.
I can only have it examined from that point of view. Saying "shall determine from time to time" will do more than it was originally intended to do. Asking people to come into an existing position in which they would have security of tenure is different from asking them to come into a position from which they might be arbitrarily removed. I will have to postpone consideration of this question.
In business circles— though not actually in my own business —I have come across the case of a person who was not obtained for a certain position, but who would have been obtained were it not that a solicitor advised him that the terms of the contract could be overridden by an Act of Parliament. I should like the Taoiseach to consider something such as is contained in amendment No. 14.
The machinery for appointment or removal should be the same, and the question is to express that in such a way that it will not be regarded as giving arbitrary power to override a contract. I shall have to get legal advice about that.
Regarding the point "from time to time", which is not really in relation to removal, but with regard to salaries and conditions of service, I suggest my amendment, No. 14, would make it possible to leave "from time to time" there, and that it would safeguard the individual.
The consideration which I gave to this matter before this meeting was from a particular point of view, and it does not seem to be the same point of view as that taken by the Senator.
Has the individual senior professor a right of appeal to the Minister? The governing body of a school has the right, but supposing that the governing body tried to interfere with the terms of service of a professor, what redress has he got?
I do not think that any redress is provided for in the Bill. There are certain difficulties which can be referred to the Minister.
He might have redress in case of a breach of contract.
It would come there ultimately.
Regarding amendment No. 14, I do not like the idea of non-alteration of the office. There again there is the question of the contract. Sometimes it is necessary that there should be economies and it would not be well to have too many people paid out of public funds exempted. There was a time when general cuts were under consideration, and one of the difficulties in that matter was that certain people were specially excluded and that a special class was not asked to bear burdens which others had to bear. I know that there are difficulties when bringing in people from outside— probably from another country—but I do not like this question of non-alteration. If there is a time of special stringency of one kind or another regarding funds, I do not like that we should be precluded absolutely from interfering by having to get the person's consent.
Mr. Hayes
In business, that is overcome, not infrequently, by providing for a salary for a limited period with a revision at the end—after, say, three years.
That would scarcely do. If certain work were being done by the School of Theoretical Physics, it might begin to branch off into a particular line of research. A particular person—say, in Australia—might have made remarkable discoveries in that particular direction, and bringing him to this school might mean that the value of the work done by the school would be tremendously enhanced. In order to bring him it would be necessary to guarantee him a certain salary and so on. I would not like to think that you could bring a person like that on conditions under which the salary could be changed after four or five years. If there is a contract, the contract ought to be kept, but I do not care to put in something which would prevent alterations being made.
The real danger is that one may not be able to get the man, as the Bill would prevent him from making a special case. In referring to business a few moments ago, I was dealing with the case of persons whom you can get under those conditions. In the case of persons who could not be got, there would have to be contracts for a definite time.
It would be better to secure that by making sure that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the making of any kind of contract we want to make.
I suggest that senior professors be appointed for a time, and that the appointment be renewed after five or seven years if they have been found good and efficient and if their services are necessary.
That depends on the man you want. A young man would sometimes be of the greatest value to a school. First of all, he would probably be just entering on that line of research, and would be full of the energy of youth. Such a person who has just come out, and who has recognised ability, may not be willing to accept a short period of four or five years. Even though coming to a strange country, he may feel confident that his abilities would warrant his retention. The less we bind the better.
That is why I am anxious, on the point made by Senator Douglas, that there should be nothing to prevent the governing board of the school making a contract with a person they want to get.
That is the whole object of my amendment.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 may be discussed together.
I move amendments Nos. 10 and 13:—
10. In sub-section (1), to delete all words after the words "removed by" in line 32, and substitute the words "the Governing Board of the School".
13. In sub-section (2), to delete all words after the words "such as" in line 35 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "the Governing Board of the School shall determine".
In view of the turn which the discussion has taken, I scarcely suppose it worth while discussing these amendments at all. The Taoiseach has made it quite clear that he regards these professors as civil servants, and that their salaries—except in regard to certain people who may come in from abroad—will be more or less at the discretion of the Government, and that their appointment or removal will be in the hands of the Government. I put down these amendments after reading the provisions in Section 8: "The senior professors of a constituent school shall be appointed and removed by the President, on the advice of the Government." In that bare form the section constitutes something unique in the history of higher education, and I do not think an example will be found anywhere in the world where such complete power is taken by a Government. If you examine the method of appointment to the College de France, you will find a most intricate system under which the existing professors have an enormous amount to say in the appointment of new professors. There is no such provision in this Bill. The whole matter is left simply and solely in the hands of the Government. Without wishing to give offence to any university professor here, I must say that it is something which should not be in the Bill. I cannot conceive of a Government undertaking that function and carrying it out successfully. The Taoiseach may say that the Government is well able to make appointments. The fact is that it is not the function of a Government to make appointments in this matter, and I protest against the section.
But the Government appoints judges, and they are not lawyers and it might be said that the members of the Government should have no functions in the appointment of judges, but that they should be selected and appointed only by lawyers.
There is an ancient British tradition that the appointment of judges is made on a political basis. Is not that a fact?
That is a fact, right enough.
The point here is that no matter who does it, the people who are to be appointed should inspire confidence. Their duties are of tremendous importance to the community as a whole, and naturally what will happen in making these appointments is this: First of all, I certainly would not dream of starting if I did not know that the Institute is to start with the people who will be appointed to begin the scheme with these two schools. The moment these schools are started you will have a competent body to advise. I could not imagine a Government making any further appointments without consulting with such an expert body as would be at their disposal. If a new school is started the same thing as happened in the present case will happen again. There will be some of these people who will be required to act as senior professors of that school, and you will have again a consultative advisory body, but all that is stated in the section is that the machinery of appointment shall be the Government, and that it is the Government who shall take the responsibility. It does not mean again that the Government would appoint anybody they pleased, because he happened to be a political friend. I think it is the old question of "who will guard the guardians?" In my view, it is a nice little check if people are put forward or suggested for appointments that they will have to be people of such outstanding ability that the Government will be justified in taking the responsibility for making those appointments. There is a certain check in that, and I think that it will be found of value.
I am strongly of the same opinion as Senator Tierney, and I would urge the Taoiseach to consider it. Young men will work better if they know that they will win the approval of the directors of their school, and if they know that their names can be put forward to the Government. By all means let the President act on the advice of the governing body, but bring in the school or the council to it. In its present form it looks too blank and too autocratic.
I propose to bring in a couple of amendments on the Report Stage. I am beginning to wonder whether if I had thought this Bill was going to take up so much time, I would ever have brought it before the House.
Is it not all to the good?
It is taking a tremendous amount of time, and I think that the difficulties put up are largely imaginary. In practice, they will not occur at all. An attempt has been made to go into detail on some of them and, as a result everybody wants to go into greater detail. I propose to bring in a couple of amendments that if proposals are put up by the schools they will be considered by the Government, but this is the machinery, and I think the machinery ought to remain, and that the responsibility for the appointments ought to be on the Government. It may not be a usual thing, but I think it can work well, because, again, I would like to point out that it is a case of specialised qualifications. The Government will not take it upon itself to appoint a specialist without having that specialist recommended either by clearly obvious qualifications, or by the school. It is not as if you were appointing, for instance, a clerical officer or something of that sort. I really believe that we can go on using our imagination, perhaps that is the reason why we can go on using our imagination——
So long as we have liberty.
——conjuring up every possible type of difficulty and friction. However, with regard to the amendments, I am wondering if the point of view of some of the Senators can be met to a certain extent, but we are not dropping the machinery of the section.
Acting-Chairman
Are amendments Nos. 10 and 13 being pressed?
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
An dtiocfaidh mo leasú anois?
Acting-Chairman
Ní thiocfaidh—tar éis an ath-ló.
I propose that we adjourn until a quarter past seven.
I take it that we will finish the Committee Stage to-night.
Acting-Chairman
That is the intention. Will a quarter past seven suit Senators?
I have to do a piece of work that will take me about half an hour, and that is why I am anxious that we should adjourn.
Is it intended to finish the Bill to-night?
Acting-Chairman
No. Will it suit Senators if we adjourn until 7.30?
Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
I do not propose to move amendment No. 11. I leave the Taoiseach in possession of the field. I have done my best and I am exhausted in this combat. The Seanad seems thoroughly apathetic about everything, so I shall leave the future to judge who is right.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I do not propose to move amendment No. 15. I put it down merely to try to secure that some of the restrictions on the school should be removed, and that the question as to who should be members of the council should be left as far as possible to the discretion of the school itself. I do not see that there is any use in pressing the point.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
The persons who, for the time being, occupy the following offices, namely:—
(a) President of University College, Dublin,
(b) Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and
(c) President of the Royal Irish Academy,
shall beex-officio members of the council, and in this Act, the expression “the ex-officio members of the council” shall be construed accordingly.
Tairgim leasú a 16:—
Na focail "ach amháin go mbeidh a ndóthain Gaedhilge aca leis an obair do stiúradh as Gaedhilg" do chur isteach i ndiaidh na bhfocal "shall be ex-officio members of the council” i mír (c).
Tá mé ag tairgsint an leasú seo leis an riaghal atá i bhfeidhm cheana sa tseirbhís phoiblí agus i mórán áit eile ins an tír, go mbeidh Gaedhilg ag na daoinibh seo sul a n-ainmnighthear mar oificéil iad. B'fhearr liom féin gan aon bhaint a bheith ag na h-Iolscoltaibh leis an Institiúid nua. Níl aon mhuinighin agam as na h-Iolscoltaibh maidir le Gaedhealachas. Má gheibh siad mórán chumhachta san Institúid, déanfaidh siad cumang í, ag fiosruchán fá'n tsean-Gaedhilg gan áird aice ar an Ghaedhilg bheo. Tuigim go mbeadh sé deacair, b'éidir, deighilt iomlán a dhéanamh eadar na h-Iolscolta agus an Institiúid, agus mholfainn an tseift seo: má tá aon duine luaidhte nach bhfuil Gaedhilg aige, cead a thabhairt dó fear-ionaid d'ainmniú. Tá roinnt ollamhan ins na h-Iolscoltaibh go bhfuil Gaedhilg aca, d'fheudfaidhe duine aca seo d'ainmniú in ionad an Uachdaráin.
Tá brón orm nach féidir liom glacadh leis an leasú so. Ní haon mhaith daoine a chur isteach in ionad na ndaoine atá sna hoifigí sin. B'fhearr liom gan daoine a chur ina n-ionad. Mar adubhairt mé cheana, beidh leasuithe agam féin agus sílim gur féidir feidhm a bhaint asta, ach ní dóigh liom gur ceart é seo a dhéanamh. B'fhearr liom nach mbeidís ann chor ar bith ná daoine a chur ina n-ionad. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir, fá lathair, an Ghaedhilg a dhéanamh riachtanach dóibh. Ba mhaith liom a rádh nach n-aontuím le n-a lán rudaí adubhradh indiu nuair a bhí an leasú eile ar siúl. Bhí díospóireacht annseo. Sílim gur ceart an Ghaedhilg a thabhairt isteach más féidir. Ach nuair nach féidir, ní haon mhaith bheith ag iarraidh caisleán a thógáil in aon lá amháin. I ndiaidh a chéile a tógtar na caisleáin, agus i ndiaidh a chéile is féidir linn an Ghaedhilg a thabhairt isteach i ngach uile áit. Sin é mo thuairim-se, ar chuma ar bith.
Tá mé ag tarraint siar an leasú seo tar éis an méid atá ráidhte ag an Taoiseach. Agus tarraingim siar leasú eile atá ar an gclár mar tá leasuithe eile curtha isteach ag an Riaghaltas a bhfuil mise sásta leo.
is there any provision made for a vacancy in these cases? What would happen if there was a vacancy in the presidency?
Acting-Chairman
That matter might arise on the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I wanted to say something on that amendment, as far as I could understand what had happened. I want to know what has happened. Is it being accepted?
Acting-Chairman
I move amendment No. 17:—
To add to the section the following new sub-section:—
(2) Each ex-officio member of the council shall be entitled, with the consent of the Minister, to nominate a substitute who shall hold office on the same terms as the other members of the council.
The object of this amendment is to try to make provision for cases that may arise when holders of these offices, the President of University College, Dublin, the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, or such persons, cannot find it possible to attend meetings of the council of the institute or take up that work at all. It may happen in certain cases—I do not suppose it would often happen—that one or other of these three persons who are named here as ex-officio members of the council would find that he had not time or that he was prevented in some other way from taking up that work. What I suggest is that if that should arise, he should be entitled, with the consent of the Minister, to nominate a substitute who would hold office for the duration of any particular council. I just put that down in case the Taoiseach thought that it might be possible to make better provision than actually is made in the section for the filling of these offices.
This question of a substitute occurred to me in another connection, namely, in regard to the chairman, but, on the whole, it seemed to me that it was much better, even in the case of the chairman, to have one person designated and if he were not able to attend, to allow the body to choose their own chairman. The purpose of the section is partly to associate the universities and the academy with the work of the institute and, by having the presidents on the body, to raise the prestige, if you like, of the institute. But I think if any substitutes were appointed that object would be defeated. If the presidents are not able to come, so much the worse. I think they will endeavour to do it. If they are not on occasions able to do it, it cannot be helped.
I was thinking of this amendment of Professor Tierney's, but rather in a different connection. For example, the Taoiseach will think of certain people who held or who hold the offices mentioned. The last Provost of Trinity College, for example, was an Irish scholar who, in the circumstances of there being only two schools in this institute, would have been anxious to have been on this body. The present President of University College, Dublin, is a very distinguished mathematical physicist, and would be obviously suitable in the circumstances where there was a school of theoretical physics. But you can easily imagine a person holding one of these three offices who would not be enthusiastic about acting himself, but would have at his disposal on the staff of the university or the academy, a person who would be quite admirable and helpful for the institute. I think that case might easily arise, and that it would be better to make provision for it. I am not pressing that point.
I think what would happen in a case like that is that the person who would be appointed would certainly, as a rule, be of academic standing and, therefore, would be generally acquainted with the type of work being done in the schools. Suppose a medical doctor happened to be either Provost of Trinity College, or President of University College, Dublin, or President of the Academy, in these particular bodies he would be associated with people who would have a special interest in any technical matter that might arise. I take it that there would be an agenda issued before these meetings, and he would know in advance generally the type of work that was to be done at any meeting, and he could consult. In any case, the work of the council in this connection is not so much directed towards the technical side as the general administration. I do not think it is necessary to arrange for substitutes, or that it would be worth bothering at this stage trying to provide for them.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question. The Provost of Trinity College has got an official substitute, a Vice-Provost. The President of the Academy has got an official substitute, a Vice-President, or Vice-Presidents. I suppose they will automatically act for them?
No, I imagine not, unless he can be called by that name. Unless he had the title, a President of the Academy, Provost of Trinity, or President of the University, I do not think he could act.
I thought that that matter would be covered by statute.
It is possible that, let us say, in the case of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, one man could act for the other, but that would be where the matter would be provided for by law. I do not know whether, in every case where the Taoiseach is absent, the Tanáiste can act for him. I think that there would have to be some special necessity there. However, I am not sure about that particular matter.
I think it is quite clear here that, if you mention the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, the President of University College, Dublin, and the President of the Royal Irish Academy, the person who is, let us say, Vice-Provost, by virtue of some other function, could not be a member of the council in this particular matter.
The Vice-Provost of Trinity College or the Vice-President of the Royal Irish Academy, I understand, cannot act with regard to certain matters.
I think I can agree with Senator Hayes in this matter, to the effect that such a person would not be entitled to act.
I should like to know what would happen in the case of a vacancy. What I have in mind is the question of whether or not people could be elected validly by the council, even if the council were not at full strength.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(3) The council, in carrying out the duties imposed on them by sub-section (1) of this section, shall not provide for the erection or acquisition of any building without the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.
(4) Any buildings acquired or erected by the council under this section which are not required for the purposes of the institute or of any constituent school may be leased by the council to such persons for such term and upon such conditions as the council, with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, may determine, or may, with the like consent and concurrence, be sold or otherwise disposed of by the council.
(5) There may be paid to the institute, from time to time, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, grants of such amounts as the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance may consider necessary towards defraying the whole or any part of the capital cost of erecting or acquiring any building under this section, or adapting any such building for the purposes of the institute or any constituent school.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (3), to delete line 61.
I do not suppose there is any use in pressing this amendment.
This has to do with the matter of housing and accommodation?
Yes. For instance, there was considerable difficulty experienced in connection with the Folklore Commission in this regard, and I do not think it was ever satisfactorily settled.
Well, again, I suppose it is a question of expense. I have no doubt that, at the beginning, there may be some people who will want to have a big establishment. Now, I do not want to prejudice anything that might be in people's minds, but my own view is that it is better to begin in a modest way in regard to these things. I think that there is nothing so terrible as to see a big establishment with nothing doing in it, so to speak. I believe that it is much better to begin in a modest way, and I am perfectly certain that any demands with regard to housing or accommodation, in this connection, will be met reasonably. For instance, in connection with the theoretical physics side of this matter, I was assured—I think I mentioned this matter already—that one of the houses in Merrion Square, if some slight alterations were made, would be quite suitable.
I agree with what has just been said. I think it will be admitted on all sides that it would be quite impossible, and against all ordinary rulings, that State expenditure should be taken out of the control of the Minister for Finance. As he is the Minister who is responsible for State expenditure, I do not see how the Minister for Finance could be eliminated from control in a matter of the expenditure of State moneys.
Yes, but my point is that, when you speak of the Minister for Finance, you generally mean the Board of Works, and everybody knows what that means. We all know the delays that occur in such cases.
Yes, but the Board of Works also has to get the sanction of the Minister for Finance for expenditure in connection with any of their schemes.
Yes, and again that means more money and more time being wasted.
Well, at any rate, all I can say is that I have spent a lot of time thinking over this matter, and I shall certainly try to act as an intermediary in this connection in order to get these people provided with proper accommodation and properly housed as quickly as possible. Again, however, I do not know whether we shall be able to get a cage to fit the bird, so to speak, and it all depends on how this matter may develop later on. As I have said, I think it would be better to start in a modest way.
I think that everybody approves of the idea of starting modestly.
I would suggest that, if there is any question of adapting these houses, such as the Taoiseach has suggested, a good architect should be consulted.
Well, of course, as I have said, we have not got the bird yet for the cage, and do not know what kind of cage would be required.
At any rate, I think we can feel sure that the Minister for Finance will be a champion of modesty in that regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Since the same argument would apply to amendment No. 19, I wish to withdraw that amendment, with the leave of the House.
Amendment No. 19, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
In this connection I should like to draw attention to the number of buildings that we have here in the city available for such purposes, many of which are unused or comparatively unused. Take the case of the Royal Hibernian School. I understand that portion of that institution has been given over as a preparatory training college for about 100 Protestant student-teachers, who are being trained to teach through the medium of Irish. Now, I understand that the heating installation that has been provided there for the accommodation of these students is such as would be more than sufficient for the biggest hospital or asylum in Ireland, while the rest of that institution is practically derelict, and left with broken windows and so on. I think it looks very bad to have these buildings in such a condition, and perhaps I might be permitted to suggest that, on the face of it, the ordinary business man, if he were a shareholder in such an institution, would have very good reason to object. I understand also that quite a large portion of the Castle is now of practically no value, and we also now have a new building in Stephen's Green.
I suggest, therefore, that you do not want a new building at all. We are told very frequently that it is the intention of the Government to house the various Departments in one building, and in that connection I should rather welcome an announcement from the Taoiseach that, instead of erecting a new building it was his intention to make use of some of the old buildings, such as Kilmainham. Really, when you consider that there is such a number of buildings available, it seems to be a waste of money to go about putting up other buildings, with all this talk of getting a special architect and having wonderful frontages, and so on. I think that we should seriously consider the matter of consolidating and tightening up on the buildings that are already in our possession instead of erecting new buildings. For instance, we have another one being erected now in Kildare Street. I wonder what is going to happen to that. I suppose it is only being put up in order to house more officials, or if there are not enough officials to fill that building, we will probably have to provide more officials in order to fill it.
Well, I do not know what kind of an argument I am going to be brought into now, but I should like to get a list of such buildings as have been suggested. The Senator mentioned the Hibernian School. I am not aware of the conditions there, but I do know that so far as the Board of Works is concerned, whenever there is need for office accommodation you are always being asked to locate the office in some place that is already full up. Now, if I had my way, and if I were a dictator in the matter, I would start out on a scheme of Government buildings or offices that would be specially designed for the purposes of these offices. It seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of waste as a result of the lack of centralisation, and I would endeavour to have all these offices and Departments in one central building, instead of having them scattered around through various parts of the city.
What about the Hibernian School, to which I have referred?
I understand that that was used until recently.
Well, in a good portion of that building there is nothing but broken windows.
I think that that would be good news to the Department of Defence. I was there on one occasion and I did not know that the entire buildings were not occupied.
They are in a terrible condition.
I am very glad to have been told that, and I shall look into it. I really do believe that what we are doing at present is bad economy. Whenever a piece of work has to be done, we have to go round looking for buildings suitable for Government offices. I think the whole thing is wrong. I believe that you would ultimately have very much more economy if you had properly designed Government buildings, with large rooms where people could work together and where there could be general supervision. I do not believe in these little separate cells at all, but I wonder whether, if I brought in some such proposal, I would get the support of the Senator for it.
I do not think you would.
I am certain that it represents the best possible economy. At the moment, however, there is no intention of starting out with new buildings, though, there again, a case could probably be made that ultimately it might be better to have a separate building especially designed for it, but we have no intention of doing that at the moment. As a matter of fact, I have been making inquiries as to whether some of the rooms in Iveagh House would be suitable for housing the Department of External Affairs and some other Departments, but I have to have consultation with the Board of Works on the matter. There is no intention, as I say, of starting off elaborately in this matter. We want a suitable place, and if the house ultimately taken is worth preserving, care will be taken to preserve it. Deputy Dillon, I think, mentioned in the Dáil that if one of the old Georgian houses were being secured for a purpose of this kind, care should be taken to keep it as a kind of museum, as a sort of record of the time, with appropriate furniture and so on, but I do not know whether that could be done or whether such a house would be available.
As against what Senator Sir John Keane has said, I hope the Taoiseach will see that this institute is centrally situated. It is essential that, to be effective, it should be in immediate proximity to libraries and universities, and, for that reason, it could not be in the Park. If we want to find a use for Kilmainham or for the Royal Hibernian School, we might send the Seanad out there.
I suggest that the Phonix Park would be an excellent place. It is quiet and secluded, and is just the place for higher thought and contemplation.
Would they be as busy in the Bank of Ireland?
I do not know whether the Taoiseach is open to a suggestion, but one of our corporation inspectors brought to my notice some time ago an excellent old mansion, not very many yards from where we are now. I went to the trouble of suggesting to certain parties that it might be a useful place for some Government purpose. I inspected it and found it an excellent old mansion. I do not know whether it would be suitable for the purpose we have in mind here, but I suggest to the Taoiseach that it might be worth inspecting. I do not know whether the place is still vacant or not, as it is some months since it was brought to my notice and since I brought it to the notice of people who, I thought, might interest themselves in it.
If the place is suitable and the price right, we will see about it.
I hope that will not happen. The Army, police and Government Departments are like nature in that they abhor a vacuum. If we had inherited half the buildings when we took over, we would have had ample room, and, if we had got four times as much, every Department would say that it wanted to overflow into other places. So long as you have space, Government Departments will expand and fill it. I have had experience, and I know that if you put them in smaller places, they will do the work better, but if you have Dublin Castle and Kilmainham available, the police will say that they need the extra space. You have plenty of room and do not need any dilapidated or unused mansions. The Government has more room than it wants.
I wish we could get the Senator in the Board of Works.
I should be very happy. I know with regard to the Army that it would have swollen and filled every barracks in the country. Unfortunately, the trouble was that when I was restraining the Army, the police really took advantage of the situation, and filled the places which the Army did not fill.
I do not know what the Senator's experience has been, but I can speak only from my own experience, and I do not think there is much room wasted. There certainly is not any in Government Buildings, and, in any other places I have been to, such as the Education Offices, I have not seen any waste. The room I have down there myself, as I am not always in it, is used as a council room for conferences, and so on. There really is a genuine shortage of space, and I assure the Senator, lest anybody should get a wrong impression, that one of the hardest things to get from Finance is extra room. The Board of Works naturally take their instructions from the Department of Finance.
On a question of fact, I should like to refute the statement of Senator Sir John Keane as to the condition of the Hibernian School.
Might I suggest to the Chair that this discussion is not relevant?
Acting-Chairman
I quite agree with that observation.
As it is irrelevant, I will sit down and content myself with saying that I refute the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane. I was in the grounds on Monday last, and I saw no broken windows.
Question put, and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(4) The registrar-bursar shall be paid such remuneration and shall hold office on such tenure and conditions as the council shall, with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determine.
I move amendment No. 20.
In sub-section (4), to delete all words from the words "council shall", in line 26, to the word "Finance" in line 28.
This is the same point as before—the registrar bursar is tied down hand and foot to an appointment on such tenure and conditions as the council shall, with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determine. There, again, I think the procedure is bad. It would be much better to leave this body to employ its own officials and to establish their own terms, remuneration and conditions, with the ordinary control which the Minister for Finance is bound to have over these bodies. I can see no reason at all why the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of the Minister for Finance should be called for in all these cases and I think that, as in the case of professors, it sets up a most unfortunate and very strange precedent.
I wonder if I might ask the Taoiseach what he has in mind with regard to the registrar-bursar. He does not commit himself to giving an opinion. Is this bursar thought of in terms of being a civil servant? Can we have an idea as to whether he will be selected for his academic distinction or a vague suggestion as to what emoluments will attach to the office? My own judgment of the amendment would depend on information as to what his standing in the institute is going to be. If we had some information in this respect, my position would be made somewhat easier.
Naturally, the procedure would be that, first of all, the council would meet and consider what duties the man would have and would ask themselves what qualifications he would need. Then they would consider the position of a similar person elsewhere. The Civil Service might be taken as a good example for comparison, as in the Civil Service a man doing a certain sort of work would have certain emoluments and certain conditions of service. If I were asked to choose a person for this post, I should try to get one with administrative ability and scholarly attainments. He would need a good knowledge of Irish: it would be wrong to have him in that position without it. It is not like a professor of theoretical physics: one might not get a man like that with a knowledge of Irish. In this case, however, I think it is possible to get a man with a knowledge of Irish. It would be a good thing, of course, if he had a knowledge of theoretical physics as well to start with. In addition to having a good knowledge of Irish, he should also understand the type of work being done in the school, so that he could understand the general meaning of any discussions and, if it meant executive work afterwards, translate into actions the directions given to him. At the moment, I should not say what salary would be fair.
The council may decide the sort of man they want?
Yes; the council would decide on the man. He should have executive ability, a good knowledge of organisation and of the keeping of statistics and records, and he should also have accountancy experience. If one knew a suitable man with a certain salary and a certain future, one could consider what salary it would be necessary to pay to secure him.
It is almost inevitable that there will be certain tension between the council and the Department of Finance.
Probably there will, but that only happens once in a lifetime. Most of the criticism levelled here against financial control and control by the Government really means that at the start there will have to be an adjustment of ideas between the governing body of the schools and the Government, where expenditure is concerned. We are undertaking this on the understanding that we are not going to be committed to unnecessarily large expenditure and, as long as things are done in a reasonable way, there will not be very great difficulty. I can quite imagine that, at the start, there will be differences of opinion which will have to be adjusted with commonsense.
I am sorry that this section has been framed in such a cast-iron manner and that it includes the term "registrar-bursar". That fills me with surprise and doubt. I must admit to Senators that I am a registrar and know what a registrar has to do. When the task of accountant to two bodies is added to that of registrar, it makes the work more onerous. I admit it is essential that the person appointed should have a knowledge of Irish. Would it not be better to get an efficient registrar and attach to him a secretary as an accountant? The registrar will have to correspond with different corners of the world and arrange matters at different ends of it, so he must be up to date and very alert. The term "registrar-bursar" is awkward and, while I do not wish to give the Taoiseach more trouble, perhaps he would be able to find a solution.
Some consideration might be given to the unfortunates who will have to translate "registrar-bursar" into Irish.
They can get another name for him if they wish. When one has the idea, there is no need to translate the actual words into Irish. The purpose is to make it clear that he has control over all the records, and I do not mind if the word "bursar" is left out.
If we are not careful we will be building up a large administrative staff, which is the last thing we want to do. Any money available for this institute ought to be used for the academic work and we should grudge every penny spent on the administrative side. Senator Alton may be thinking of an institute like Trinity College with a very large number of students. This is going to be a relatively small school with small numbers, and the registrar's work will not be great. Even if there were five schools, I think he could be responsible for them all. He would, of course, need some clerical assistance, but the accountancy would not be very intricate.
I suggest that he be called the "Registrar."
Senators must realise that before a Minister brings a Bill into Parliament, the Departments concerned have considered it from many points of view. First of all, the principle is accepted by the Government, then it is elaborated on, then it is sent to the draftsman, then it is discussed by the Departments concerned to make sure that there is nothing inadvisable or undesirable in it. That means that, when it comes to Parliament, the Minister has the consent of many people to what is in the Bill; and, no matter how sound certain arguments may appear at the time, it is very difficult for a Minister to accept them. He may say that they are put forward only on the spur of the moment, while everything already in the Bill has been given consideration from different angles. There is not much in this question of title: the intention is that the man be responsible for finance. If it helps to make the title less cumbersome, he could be called the "Registrar."
Would it not be better to cut out the words "shall be known"? That would make the sentence read: "The council shall appoint an officer of the institute who is in this Act referred to as the registrar-bursar." That would enable a change to be made later without making a change in the Act. The simplest way would be to say that he would be known as the registrar. We will call it that—I am quite prepared to do it.
If you do not appoint a registrar-bursar I am afraid that in view of the amount of work that he would have to do in connection with the finances of the institute, you will have to appoint a bursar. There is really nothing against calling him a registrar-bursar except that you may object to the title. You will have to have a man in charge of finance.
Various things will have to be implemented by means of an order and the duties of the registrar will be set out in the order.
A large part of the work of the institute will centre around correspondence with schools in other parts of the world. Will the registrar be responsible for that?
He will be responsible for all the secretarial work.
A particular type of man would be necessary for that position.
I know it will be difficult to get anything like the ideal person and I hope that a great deal of care will be given to the selection of the proper person for the post. The difficulty is to get a combination of what you might call the scholarly type with the executive type. However, such people do exist.
Acting-Chairman
I take it that amendment No. 20 is withdrawn, subject to the tabling of a Government amendment on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) The council shall appoint such and so many officers and servants for the institute and such and so many clerical and other non-academic officers and servants for each of the constituent schools as they think proper, but subject, in regard to the numbers of such officers and servants, to the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.
(2) Every officer and servant appointed under this section shall be paid by the council such remuneration and shall hold office by such tenure and on such conditions as the council, with the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall determine.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-sections (1) and (2), to delete all words after the word "proper", in sub-section (1), line 36, and all words from the word "council" in sub-section (2), line 41, to the word "Finance" in the same sub-section, line 43.
It is the same amendment in relation to the less important officials and I do not suppose there is any point in debating it at any further length. The Taoiseach has already sufficiently indicated his view on the question.
I need only say that the consideration which will affect the Government in regard to the Ministers for Education and Finance is: "Do you want two officers or do you want one?" If I were the Minister for Education, I would say: "Let us get a picture of the work this man has got to do. Will he be capable of looking after the Bursar's side as well?" I would say we are not going to create two high offices of that kind. If we want to get the work done, he may have a financial clerk who will do the work subject to his supervision and to his satisfying himself that everything is all right.
The same consideration will arise in connection with the entrances to the schools. I would have only one door, entering into the three schools because, assuming that it was easy to pass from one to the other, I think it would save expense by having all entry through the centre or administrative door. There are a lot of things like that. The question is, would you want three janitors or would one do? In matters of that sort, it is advisable to have some check against their saying: "We have a certain amount for administration. We will appoint three door porters," and so on, and although there may be differences of opinion—I could imagine, for instance, differences of opinion on the question of the registrar-bursar—as to whether two persons are not in fact wanted. My own belief is that, with two schools, one person would do, but, in questions of that sort, I think Senator Keane, if he only began to think in ordinary terms, would see that economies are much more likely to come when the Department of Finance, or the Department of Education, even, comes into it.
I think the Minister for Finance has the right to say a word as to the number of employees. He might also save the council from a lot of canvassing and looking for jobs if it was known that there could be an unlimited number.
Acting-Chairman
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) It shall be the duty of the council, as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act, to prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the granting of pensions, gratuities, or other allowances on retirement to such senior professors and permanent whole-time members of the academic staff of the several constituent schools, and to such permanent whole-time officers of the institute as the council, with the approval of the Minister and the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, may determine.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1), to delete all words from the word "council" in line 50, to the word "Finance" in line 51.
There is no necessity to argue this all over again. It is the same story. The Taoiseach is quite convinced that the final word must be with the Minister for Finance and nothing can be done about it.
Acting-Chairman
You are withdrawing the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Every appointment to a position (other than the position of senior professor) on the academic staff of a constituent school shall be made by the council on the request (with the approval of the Minister) of the governing board of such constituent school, and no such appointment shall be made by the council otherwise than on and in accordance with such request.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (1) to delete the words and brackets "(with the approval of the Minister)", lines 15-16, page 9.
This is slightly more important—in fact it is considerably more important than the other matter. It is the same principle that runs all through the Bill:—
"Every appointment to a position (other than the position of senior professor on the academic staff of a constituent school) shall be made by the council on the request (with the approval of the Minister) of the governing board of such constituent school, and no such appointment shall be made by the council otherwise than in accordance with such request."
The Minister has the final word again in all these matters and the governing board of the schools has nothing to do except to register the decision of the Minister for Finance.
Is it a fair representation to use the expression "register the decision of the Minister for Finance" when in fact what will happen is that the Minister will register their decision? Suppose that the governing board decided on a certain piece of work. They planned that work and they said that they wanted three people and three people were available to do the work. As a rule, everybody will have a general idea of whether it is, if I might put it that way, genuine. There will be no difficulty in this case. There would be a difficulty if, suppose instead of asking for three people, they started with 23. Then you might begin to say: "Are they acting properly here? Is this a natural development or is it going to be successful?" You might say that these people were starting altogether in a way that was not intended. This Bill has been brought in and this institute is being founded with the idea that there is a certain piece of work that can be begun modestly and that it will develop. Nobody is going to check its development but, if there is an attempt to do something like that in the first year it might be asked if they could not do with a smaller number.
Suppose there was something outrageous like that, the Minister for Education, as a go-between, would say: "Look here, I am afraid I can hardly go to the Minister for Finance with a proposal like that. You will have to convince me that this is a reasonable way to start." I would like to say this: that experts are splendid for certain things, but there is no reason why a man of ordinary commonsense cannot judge whether the expert's opinion is likely to be right or not. I have great dependence on the ordinary man's commonsense, and if an expert has a good case, he will be able to convince a man of commonsense, assuming goodwill and a desire to be convinced. The only thing here is to assure the Minister for Finance that nothing ridiculous is going to be proposed. I am assuming that nothing ridiculous will be proposed and, therefore, I am assuming generally that work will be carried on without restriction.
If the Taoiseach were always Minister for Education I would have confidence because he has experience and has seen the light, but I share Senator Tierney's doubts to some extent. I am convinced that the giving of a lot of authority and, consequently, responsibility to the governing bodies of these schools is of importance. Does not the Taoiseach think that they would be checked enough in the schools, in making appointments and in encroaching on the funds? Their grant is limited?
No, it is not limited. At the beginning we do not limit it. What I mean is this: I would hate to see this thing begun and for the sake of £1,000 abandoned if the real fruit of its work was going to depend on £1,000. I would hate to think that because it did not get that extra £1,000 it could not do its work properly I think that if we proceed for four or five years and let this institute develop a tradition, afterwards a more enlightened Minister for Finance and a more enlightened Minister for Education might come along and say: "All right; you have proved it is valuable national work and we want to free you from any fetters which you have found galling up to the present." The trouble is that we do not want to limit it. We have no idea of what is the sum that will be required. I believe myself that it will be a modest sum.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting-Chairman
I take it that applies also to amendments Nos. 26 and 27?
It will apply to all of them.
I do not propose to move amendment No. 28 which stands in my name. If any of these things do happen, this side of the House cannot be blamed.
That is so. I shall have to carry all these sins on my shoulders if any of them are committed.
Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 not moved.
Sections 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed—"That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
I do hope that this section will not preclude the Minister for Finance from making grants to the academy for the publication of Irish records. Their efforts in the past in that connection have been heroic under very difficult circumstances and I should be sorry to see the Minister for Finance cutting down the grants to the academy.
All I can say is that, on general principles, there is no intention to rob Peter to pay Paul.
I am rather surprised to find that the council is entitled, without the consent of the Minister for Finance, to give scholarships. I think the same difficulty arises there which was so eloquently pleaded by the Taoiseach in other cases.
That might be an oversight.
The council could start off by providing 500 scholarships and the Minister, in his wisdom, might decide that that would involve too much expense.
It is suggested to me that there would be some administrative understanding between the school and the Minister for Education. However, if I had noticed that, it might read differently. At the same time, one does not need to go into it unnecessarily. I do not believe there will be the danger which the Senator mentions.
You do not get to heaven by being consistent.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) It shall be the duty of the council to make regulations providing, subject to the provisions of this Act, for the good government of the institute and, subject to the relevant establishment order and this Act, for the good government of every constituent school.
(2) No regulation made under this section shall have effect unless or until it is approved of by the Minister.
(3) No regulation shall be made under this section for the good government of a constituent school save after consultation with the governing board of that school.
I move amendment No. 29:—
To delete sub-section (2):—
This section reads:—
It shall be the duty of the council to make regulations providing... for the good government of the institute and... for the good government of every constituent school. No regulation made under this section shall have effect unless and until it is approved of by the Minister.
In other words, the Minister must decide whether smoking is to be allowed on the premises of the school.
That would be a matter which would be governed by rules apart from regulations. The matter has to be considered in that light.
I must break my promise to remain silent when I see that the Taoiseach suggests that Government control is not over the whole Bill. Regulations connected with such matters as even the care of a lavatory cannot be made without the approval of the Minister.
Regulations do not cover all these things. In every university, there are regulations and there are statutes. There are some things less formal than statutes that are called regulations, but I do not think they would include the control of smoking or matters of that kind. The trouble is that it would be impossible to find words to define exactly what these regulations should cover. You would have to spend an age to see how far you should go with regulations. There is no way in which you could define absolutely in an Act of Parliament every type of thing to prevent abuse. If people are going to abuse these things, I do not think that any Act you could possibly frame will prevent abuse. You must assume that these matters will be governed by common-sense and good-will.
If there was a distinction, I could understand the attitude of the Taoiseach, but every regulation has got to be approved by the Minister. The Taoiseach says that there are regulations and regulations and that the term "regulations" has not been defined. I take it that every rule governing the conduct of the schools is a regulation. Otherwise, where are we? We are talking in different languages. Conceivably some question arising out of this section might go to the courts, and how are the courts going to interpret "regulation?"
I would not call anything concerned with minor questions a regulation. I would call it a rule. If I were the person acting as registrar-bursar I would say: "We will call formal arrangements which have to be submitted to the Minister regulations and we will call these other things rules" and I would not bother submitting these smaller matters to the Minister. I am perfectly certain these things will not go to the Minister.
If any ridiculous regulation is made, ridicule will kill it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 24.
If the governing board of a constituent school is dissatisfied with any action in relation to such board or such school taken or proposed to be taken under this Act by the council or with the refusal of the council to take under this Act any such action, the said governing board may appeal to the Minister, and thereupon the Minister, with (in case such appeal relates to a matter of finance) the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall give his decision thereon, and such decision shall be final.
I move amendment No. 31:—
To delete the section.
I have only to repeat on this that the decision of the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, is final. The governing board is entirely in the hands of the Minister in any matter that comes under the section, as it is in practically every other matter.
We have to eliminate the council in matters of this kind where a dispute is likely to arise. Suppose the council, for example, received a sum of money and the donor had not defined how it was to be divided. There might be a dispute between the council and one of the schools in that matter and you would require to have some arbitration. In a case of that sort, I am assuming that the Minister for Education would make certain recommendations and you may be perfectly certain that the recommendations of the Minister for Education would be accepted nine times out of ten. Where, of course, Government decisions have to be obtained he will have to make a case to the Government but generally the best thing that could happen, where there is a question of finance, is that one of the Ministers should be an intermediary because it prevents any Departmental entanglement, delay or want of appreciation of the points involved.
I think, of course, there must be an appeal in such cases to somebody. Does Professor Tierney suggest that there should be an appeal to somebody other than the Minister for Education or the Minister for Finance?
It is not possible under this scheme. You cannot have two schemes. This is a scheme which contemplates the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance with a yearly grant and with the Minister being responsible for appointing or removing staffs. You cannot have two schemes. I do not say that I like this particular scheme, but at any rate you cannot have two schemes.
But is the Minister for Finance absolutely necessary in this case?
He is, of course. The only limitation here is on the Minister for Education and, of course, he gets limitless sums of money, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. It is quite simple.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
Before Section 25 to insert the following new section:—
(1) In the financial year current at the passing of this Act and in each of the subsequent five financial years, there shall be paid to the institute out of the Central Fund—
(a) a grant towards the administration and expenses of the institute not exceeding £2,000;
(b) a grant in respect of the school of Celtic studies not exceeding £15,000;
(c) a grant in respect of the school of theoretical physics not exceeding £3,000.
(2) Any part of these grants not expended during any financial year shall be returned to the Central Fund.
(3) At the end of the period specified in sub-section (1) of this section, the said grants may be continued for a further period of five years on the passage, by both Houses of the Oireachtas, of a resolution to that effect.
(4) The further continuance, after ten years from the end of the current financial years of such grants, may be authorised by the passage of similar resolutions.
(5) Moneys paid under paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of this section to the institute in respect of each constituent school shall be applied by the council for the purpose of that school only.
The adoption of this amendment would involve the deletion of Section 25 of the Bill.
On the section, Sir, may I put this point? The moneys to be paid for this institute are to be provided by the Oireachtas. Now, I take it that there will be a new Estimate in this connection, for which the Minister for Education will be responsible, which will be presented to the Dáil and in which will be set out the expenses of the institute, including the salaries of the senior professors and other members—without mentioning their names, of course. Now, in Section 29 of the Bill there is provision for the submission to the Government by the council of an annual report of the work of the institute and the constituent schools. I take it that, since all these expenses are payable out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, that means that there will be an Estimate for that particular matter. That is my belief, unless I am mistaken.
I think it is this is a as in the university.
No, I think this is a different point. In the case of the university, the Minister for Finance has consistently refused to answer any questions in that regard.
And he may do so here also.
No. In the case of the university, the moneys are provided by statute, and the Minister cannot be asked any questions about, for example, the behaviour of any professor of any university college. In this case, however, unless I am mistaken, under this particular scheme and section you will have, let us say, three senior professors appointed at £1,000 a year each, or whatever the amount may be, and these people will have been appointed by the Minister, and, as the Bill stands now, the Minister can appoint or remove them. It appears to me, therefore, that it will be possible for anyone in the Dáil to ask the Minister questions as to what these professors are doing. I would not mind making a prophecy that nobody in the Dáil is going to worry very much as to what these people are doing in a matter such as theoretical physics, but my point is that such questions may be asked in the Dáil, under the Bill as it stands, and I should like to know whether or not the Minister is putting himself in the position of having to answer such questions, because it seems to me that, under the Bill as it stands, there is responsibility on the Minister in the Dáil to answer such questions.
I should like to make the same point that Senator Hayes has made, and that is that you cannot have two schemes in this connection. I think it is fundamental to the whole scheme. The Minister will make certain orders as an administrative act, and he can be challenged publicly in connection with his administrative acts, but you cannot have it both ways. Of course, I do hope that what the Taoiseach has in mind will come to pass in two or three years' time, and that every effort will be made to get this matter on to the Central Fund.
It was with a view to what Senator Hayes has just said that I put down this amendment, to insert a new section before Section 25. That was in order to carry out the idea of giving these schools a fixed grant and remove them, as far as possible, from the control of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education. I realise, of course, that it is very doubtful if that sort of amendment would be in order in the Seanad. I only put down the figures that are given there in the amendment as a sort of token, because I take it that the proper course would be to come to some arrangement, before the Bill becomes an Act, as to what amount is to be expended on this scheme over a number of years, and then incorporate that in the Bill. I was hoping that the Taoiseach might be able to do that before the Report Stage of the Bill, but it has been pointed out now that that would cut across the whole intention of the Bill.
I do not know to what extent one would have to go into details in this connection. After all, in connection with the ordinary Estimates you have not to go into every item. You will have different headings, I dare say, dealing with salaries and so on, but I do not know whether you would have to indicate all of them. I think that the usual idea is just to make the details as clear as possible for the ordinary member of the Dáil or Seanad, so that he can appreciate how the money is being spent. I admit, of course, that in this case we are starting out to build up I presume that you when it is built up I presume that you will get to something like a stable position, and then, the moment we have reached that point, we will know where we are. If there are objections to the present system, then the sooner any of these difficulties, frictions, or inconveniences are pointed out in the working of the scheme, the more quickly will they be taken out of the present framework. For instance, if I were to go to the present Minister for Finance and ask him to give me so much money for such a scheme as this, I would probably be told: "We cannot do that unless you can give us some idea as to what is required for the administration of this scheme."
Therefore, since one cannot give a definite estimate at the start, the only way to proceed is by a process of trial. This is only a start, and after a few years, we may be able to go to the Minister for Finance and say that, if there is too much interference by Departments or Ministers in the working of the scheme, we think it would be very much better to put this matter on the Central Fund and provide an annual sum for it. I may say that it did not occur to me that there would be required more detailed estimates in this case than in the cases of universities. I believe, however, that it is true that there is a statutory sum mentioned in the case of universities, and I must confess that I had not appreciated that difference. My intention was that there would be an annual sum, such as is the case in the university, but we have not reached the position in which we can do that yet. All you want is to have a natural check against possible abuse. I do not expect that abuses will occur but, at the same time, when money is being asked for, one would like to make sure that certain possible abuses would not occur.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I do not propose to move any of the further amendments in my name because they all deal with the same question and, from the last remarks of the Taoiseach, it is perfectly plain that, fundamentally, we are all in complete agreement and that we completely disagree as to the way in which it will be achieved.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Sections 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
(2) The council shall keep, in such form as shall be approved of by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, all proper and usual accounts of all moneys received or expended by them, and in particular shall keep in such form as aforesaid all such special accounts as the Minister of his own motion or at the request of the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (2), to delete the words "in such form as shall be approved of by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance," in lines 8-9.
All I have to say on this amendment is that, not only will the discussion of this Estimate come before the Dáil, but I take it it will also come before the Committee of Public Accounts, and some official in the Department of Education, who is responsible for this expenditure, is liable to be called before that committee and examined in the most detailed fashion in every single item of this expenditure. We all know that examination by the Committee of Public Accounts can go very far indeed. That is another aspect of the finances of this Bill which induced me to put in the amendment that I have now withdrawn—amendment No. 32.
I do not see how the Senator can expect to have it both ways. If it is a fully fledged Government Department it has got to submit to all the machinery of debate and examination by the Committee of Public Accounts. Incidentally, there will be strong objection to putting expenditure of this kind on the Central Fund. They have put judges on the Central Fund; they have put interest on debt on the Central Fund, and they have put pensions on the Central Fund. If these ordinary appointments which the Government make are put on the Central Fund there might be great objection to it.
That is a matter that arose in the Dáil. A doubt has been put into my mind by what Senator Hayes has said, but my information in the Dáil was that the procedure would be the same as in the case of the funds of the National University, which means that they would not be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts. My information was that they could, by a resolution of the Dáil, be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. In practice, that is not done in the case of the National University, and the information given to me was that there would be the same position here, that it would not be discussed by the Committee of Public Accounts. A certain doubt has arisen in my mind now on account of the difference between the two positions, one being a statutory provision of a fixed sum. I would have to get further advice as to that.
There is really no doubt about it. Let us take an example that probably would never arise. A Deputy in the Dáil wants to know something about what is done in the department of chemistry in University College, Dublin. The Minister for Finance has an immediate answer—"I have nothing at all to do with the professor of chemistry. I do not know who he is. I did not appoint him. I cannot remove him. I have no control over him. I have nothing to do with the professor of chemistry in University College, Dublin, or University College, Cork. Do not ask me about him. I am completely ignorant about him." In this particular case the Minister for Finance cannot say that.
In fact he will act in that way in any case.
I am sure he would. If I had any influence in the Dáil I would prevent anybody in the Dáil from asking any question. Of course, that is not the position. The Minister for Finance cannot ignore the responsibility. There will be no use in his saying to the Chair in the Dáil: "I do not know anything about this" because it is provided that the Government appoints, the Government removes and, once that is so, the particular professor is in the same position as a civil servant. While personalities cannot be introduced, anything for which he is responsible, the Minister is responsible for too. It opens out a completely new field. I want to ask the Taoiseach, whoever he takes advice from, not to believe that anyone has any doubt. There is no doubt at all.
The former Ceann Comhairle is well aware of the practice but even his word I am not prepared at the moment to take without further examination. I know that if I were Minister and somebody asked me, "What is professor So-and-So doing," I would say,"I do not know. I know in general that the work is going on. I have got a report and I am satisfied that the work is being done. When I say ‘satisfied' I mean that I have no reason to think otherwise, that any indications I have seen satisfy me that the work is going on." If, for instance, I found that there was no work of any kind being done and I satisfied myself as to that then I would feel I had the responsibility. That is the type of responsibility I would have and no other.
In the Dáil, as the Senator knows, a Minister may be theoretically responsible and may be able to convince any of the Deputies in the Dáil that it is all nonsense to say he would be more responsible except in a general way. I would take up the attitude, as Minister for Education: "We made these appointments in a general way. You do not expect me to go in and examine how certain work is going to be done. There is certain evidence that this work is being done. Such and such books have been published and such and such work has been done. If anyone wants to satisfy himself in the matter he can examine those books. All I can say to the House is that I am generally satisfied that the purpose for which this institute was set up is being effected."
The Taoiseach does not get my point. He could, as Minister for Education, do a much more drastic thing than he has just suggested. He could say: "I will not answer about this at all." But this is the important point: the Minister for Education in the Dáil for the time being, no matter who he is, could not prevent a member of the Dáil from making a speech about it under the privilege of the House and saying what he liked about an unfortunate individual who had no redress. That is the point. It is not the Ministerial answer that matters.
That is the point I wanted to make. It is really going back to the old reasons why we have been opposed to this particular system. We know, for instance, the view taken, very sincerely, by Senator Counihan, and I think there are many people in the country who may continue to take that view, and perhaps in a more extreme form after the institute is set up. If the Minister declined to give further information, I can easily see a Deputy from some Party moving the reduction of the Vote in order to debate the whole matter and making statements so that the Minister would feel, in the interests of the institute, he would have to go and get more information and try to defend it. It is too late to hope that it will be changed now, but I would ask the Taoiseach to see whether it would not be possible to change it in a year or two.
I promise that if I have anything to do with it, and if a development such as has been suggested here takes place, we will get a better way of doing it. In the meantime we live in hope that no such instances will occur.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
I notice that under Section 28—and also Section 29—that there is no date or period specified within which these accounts must be rendered. I hope, perhaps as a consolation to me for all the trouble I have been taking, that the Minister might agree to consider this matter on the Report Stage because a very undesirable practice has arisen in some Departments now. Some Departments' reports are three years late. I think one of the Revenue Commissioners' reports was four years late and in one case we got three reports together. There is a period prescribed for the report. Apparently the report has got to be rendered within the next financial year after the year covered by the report. In practice, what reason is there for separating the report and the accounts? In every business institution—and I suggest that this has some analogy to business, certainly not much, if you look at the Bill—the reports and the accounts are issued together. Why should not the reports and the accounts be issued in one single document and why should there not be a period within which these must be rendered? That appears to be a very harmless and simple request and I hope the Minister will consider it before Report Stage.
I think Senator Sir John Keane's remarks represent the first good argument in favour of the scheme in the Bill because if it is definitely under the Department of Finance, it will have to be provided for in the Estimates, and if they do not send in accounts, there will be no Estimate.
I think it is clearly indicated that the accounts must be rendered for the financial year. With regard to the report, you can sometimes try to get consistency of that sort which may not be desirable. For instance, the end of the financial year may be a proper time for the accounts, but it might not be the best time to fix in respect of the report on the work being done. It might, perhaps, be better to have it in July, or some time like that. It is left open so that the most convenient arrangement can be made, and my regret now is that we did not leave more to be done in that fashion, because I think that, looking at it now in the light of the discussions we have had, one of the mistakes made is an attempt to work out too much in detail.
Do I understand the Taoiseach to say that there is a period within which the accounts must be rendered?
I think so; I think it is set out in the next section that the accounts have to be rendered for the financial year.
Yes, but it does not say when. You could render the accounts for this financial year in 1947.
Surely Senator Sir John Keane knows the infallibility of the 5th April from the point of view of the Department of Finance?
It is never done. Many Departments do not render their report for quite a considerable time, but I see the Minister's point. It is as he says.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
