Government amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, Section 4, sub-section (1), line 1, before the word "may" to insert the word "conveniently"; and in line 2, before the word "under" to insert the words "either simultaneously or successively,".
Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, 1939—Report and Final Stages.
The change that is proposed there is to introduce the words "conveniently" and "either simultaneously or successively" lest by any chance we might have some difficulty in doing it all forthwith. It gives a little more latitude than there was in the original wording.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3:—
In page 3, Section 4, sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 3, to delete the words "An Scoil" and to substitute the words "Scoil an".
In page 3, Section 4, sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 6, to delete the words "An Scoil" and to substitute the words "Scoil na".
These amendments are to meet the criticism that was made by Senator Tierney on the last occasion about the name. As I pointed out on that occasion, there is a difference of opinion amongst experts as to whether the article should be before the first noun or whether it should be before the noun in the genitive case. I have read a good deal of the various opinions that have been expressed on both sides. The same question arose, I think, in connection with "An tAire Oideachais" and so on. We asked particularly the people who were likely to be senior professors of the school and although their view is not the same as the view that was held, I think, by the translation staff in connection with the other question that arose, I do not think any harm has been done. I must say that from the study of the examples that were given to me I have not been able independently to say which is the better form. I do not profess to have any more knowledge of it than a person who would use ordinary commonsense and logic. From the examples, I would not like to say that I was certain that there is more argument in favour of this form than the other. The objection to it, of course, is the going back on the practice which has been already initiated in connection with Departments, etc. There is such an amount of dispute in regard to the two forms that I do not think there is any harm in having the two of them put there for use. I do not think there would be any particular point in giving examples and giving you the arguments on both sides. I am accepting this form simply because I asked the opinion of those who are likely to be senior professors and they are in favour of this form.
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (1), after the word "Government" in line 33, to add the words ": Provided always that no such Senior Professor shall be removed in contravention of the terms on which he holds his office."
This amendment is really to try to meet a matter that was raised by Senator Douglas on the last occasion and to make it clear that a contract could be made and that there could not be violation of that contract, or at least, that it was possible to make a contract and that you would not be prevented from making a contract by the terms of the Act itself. This makes it clear that his removal should not be in contravention of the terms on which he accepted office, the terms of the contract.
My sole object in putting these amendments down was to strengthen the position of the Government in being able to get the man they wanted. I had no other object at all. It is difficult to take the amendments one by one because they relate to each other. They do not seem to me to quite meet the point. I am not going to press it if the Government are perfectly satisfied, but it seems to me that this particular amendment, to be effective, should read: "provided always that no such senior professor shall be removed in contravention of the terms on which he was appointed." I cannot argue this point without taking it in conjunction with the following amendment because they are really part and parcel of the same point.
The Senator may discuss them together.
It is provided in a further Government amendment that the tenure of office and other duties can be determined by the Government, but it goes on to say: "from time to time". I do not want to appear to be making a small point but it is a point that might be made by some lawyer who was advising a professor who was likely to be appointed that it is provided that the terms of appointment can be changed by the Government from time to time. If you merely say "the terms on which he holds his office" it would, in my opinion, be legally possible—I am not suggesting that this Government would do it—to alter the terms and he would not then be protected because the terms on which he could be removed would have been altered from time to time. I believe it would be entirely got over by inserting "the terms on which he was appointed". That would give complete latitude to the Government, and even if there was a general reduction in Civil Service or professors' salaries they could provide that he would be liable to the reduction, but, so far as his removal is concerned, the position with regard to it could not be changed. If, however, he failed in certain respects, he could be removed, but not otherwise. I am not pressing the matter, but I am trying to get it made as clear as possible.
It is quite possible that that view might be taken. I should like to have the wording as perfect as possible without spending an undue amount of time on it.
Would it be possible to postpone this amendment and deal with the others, so that the matter of whether the words I suggest could be inserted could be considered?
No matter how impressive an argument may be at the moment, there is always the danger of finding that some other parts are put out of joint by the sudden acceptance of an amendment. I should like to finish the Bill to-day, and perhaps we could have an interval, or go ahead with other business, and then finish it.
We could postpone the amendment until later.
I examined it carefully, and I also consulted a friend of mine, and that was the opinion he took. I am putting it forward seriously as a doubt.
What is required is an alteration of the words, "terms on which he holds his office," to "terms on which he was appointed."
Further consideration of amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 postponed.
Perhaps I ought to say that, so far as the remaining amendments are concerned, they seem quite satisfactory, and it is only this point I am raising on this amendment.
Government amendment No. 9:—
In page 6, Section 11, sub-section (1), line 20, to delete the words "a casual vacancy" and to substitute the words "casual vacancies."
This is a mere verbal change. The word "members" appears in a previous line and the word "vacancy" might seem to suggest only one vacancy, when there might be more than one.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:—
In page 6, Section 11, sub-section (2), line 25, to delete the words "a casual vacancy" and to substitute the words "casual vacancies."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:—
In page 7, Section 15, sub-section (2), line 33, to delete the word "Registrar-Bursar" and substitute the word "Registrar."
This is for the purpose of simplifying the name.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:—
In page 8, Section 16, sub-section (4), line 5, to delete the word "consent" and substitute the word "approval".
This is also a verbal amendment. The word "approval" appears in a previous line.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:—
In page 8, Section 17, to delete the word "Registrar-Bursar" in lines 15-16, 17, 20, 25 and 29, and substitute the word "Registrar" in each case in lieu thereof.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:—
In page 8, Section 17, to delete the new sub-section (6) (inserted on Recommittal), and in lieu thereof to insert, after sub-section (5), page 8, a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) No person shall be appointed to be Registrar under this section unless he satisfies the Council that he possesses such an oral and written knowledge of the Irish language as will enable him to use that language in the performance of his official duties.
I made the point on the previous day that there were acts which were not verbal acts, and that it was ridiculous to talk of their being carried out through the medium of a language. I think the view was that there was no need for any change, but this form is perhaps preferable.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In page 8, Section 18, to delete the new sub-section (3) (inserted on Recommittal), and in lieu thereof, to insert, after sub-section (2), page 8, a new sub-section as follows:—
No person shall be appointed to be an officer or servant under this section unless he satisfies the Council that he possesses such an oral and written knowledge of the Irish language as will enable him to use that language in the performance of his official duties.
Amendment agreed to.
As regards amendment No. 5:—
On a point of procedure, the Taoiseach is impressed by the point which Senator Douglas makes. I think it is a sound point, although it is scarcely possible to contemplate a Minister for Finance altering terms suddenly from time to time, or altering a contract he had made. There is, however, a point to be considered. The Bill is going back to the Dáil with these amendments, and if the amendment is accepted now, and then, having accepted it, if the Taoiseach finds that his own form of words is preferable, he can change back to that form in the Dáil.
Would it be necessary for us to come to the Seanad again?
It is only a question of a couple of minutes. Alternatively, the Taoiseach can keep this form of words and change it in the Dáil. The amendment is one which offers scope in the Dáil for a change either way.
I should not be afraid of it as it is. I think the chances are that it is all right, but I should not like to think, if some difficulty arose afterwards, that we could have made it right here and did not do so. It will take very little time for me to find out about it, and possibly the Seanad could continue with other business in the meantime.
We have no further business.
If 12 of us were willing to come back, we could deal with it.
It has been suggested to me that we could let the form that is here go through, and if I find that the point raised by Senator Douglas is sufficiently important, I could provide for it in the Dáil.
If that is being done, and I am not objecting, I should like again to emphasise my point. It is not that I see a danger of the Government doing what I have envisaged, but that a professor might possibly come from another country, go to a lawyer and be told: "This cannot be a permanent contract under the Act." That is my fear, because I know from experience that there are difficulties.
I think I understand the point.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (1), after the word "Government" in line 33, to add the words ": Provided always that no such Senior Professor shall be removed in contravention of the terms on which he holds his office."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (2), line 34, to delete the word "and" and substitute the words "tenure of office and other".
This brings in the tenure of office as part of the general arrangements.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the point raised in Committee, that the fact that an Estimate must be introduced for the moneys to be spent on this school, and that salaries must appear on that Estimate, gives scope for discussion in the Dáil? I am afraid it cannot be settled, but that is the position.
It would be open, I am afraid, to any member to speak on the Estimate, as the Senator points out. All I can say is that if any abuses of that sort appear to arise—abuses, not from the point of view of order and so on but from the point of view of using the Estimate for an attack on individuals, or something of the sort— we shall have to hurry up with the scheme, which probably will be the ultimate scheme when this school is going and everybody knows how it is working, by which an annual sum will be made available, possibly out of the Central Fund and so removed from discussion.
Until that is done, it will be liable to go before the Comptroller and Auditor-General and to the Public Accounts Committee.
I think that is not so. We have been assured absolutely, with regard to that, that it stands on the same basis as university accounts, that is, it will not go before the Public Accounts Committee except by special resolution from the Dáil.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Fifth Stage be taken to-day.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Bill to be returned to the Dáil with amendments.
The Seanad adjourned at 3.20 p.m.sine die.