Deputy McGrath is in possession and has 13 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome this Bill as laid before the House by Deputy John Bruton. The Bill proposes to improve and update section 23 of the Education Act of 1930.
Section 23 empowers vocational education committees to make appointments of all staff needed to fulfil their educational responsibility in an area. The committee have responsibility for the selection and appointment of all teaching staff including principals and vice-principals, education officers, secretarial staff, caretakers etc.
Interestingly, under the 1930 Act, chief education officers must be appointed only by the local appointments committee. This was a very wise and far-seeing provision and I compliment the initiators of the Bill at that time for their wisdom.
We have, however, a strange situation where there are eight vacancies for chief executive officers and the positions have been filled by acting chief executive officers. Because this type of situation was not foreseen when the 1930 legislation was being enacted, the vocational committees concerned have appointed acting chief executive officers. Indeed, in my own county we have such an appointment and the present Minister for Education was a member of the committee who made the appointment.
I now call on the Minister to regularise the situation and make a decision about the future of vocational education committees — are they to be amalgamated or are they to continue, not knowing their destinies? It is grossly unfair to acting chief executive officers to have them operating without security of tenure, unsure what lies ahead for them.
The teaching profession is at a very low ebb. Morale is very low. There have been many rounds of cutbacks, presided over by this Minister. The worsening of the pupil-teacher ratio by this Minister is something that will never be forgotten or forgiven by the people.
We saw a Fianna Fáil spokesperson on education make promise after promise, but fail to deliver when returned to power. We may well ask "what is new"? As a result of these cutbacks and deteriorating conditions teachers feel let down by this Minister.
Teachers are a responsible professional body. They provide an excellent professional service, despite the poor conditions and lack of resources under which they operate. Indeed our teaching body are the envy of our partners in Europe. Having been a teacher for almost 20 years, I am very much aware of how stressful and difficult the job can be. The teachers within the vocational school system deserve a professional approach to appointments and applications for posts of responsibility. A vocational education committee is made up of locally elected representatives and a number of appointees.
An interview panel to allocate positions is elected from this committee. This interview group can be any combination of members of the committee. Familiarity with schools or the teaching profession, skills in interview techniques or ability to select personnel, carry no weight in selecting an interview panel. Is it reasonable to ask a teacher who is selected to sit on this interview panel to give a judgment on a number of his colleagues who have applied for a post of responsibility? Is it reasonable for the teachers concerned to have their colleague decide their future?
In many of the vocational education committees around the country we have teacher members who are sitting on these same interview panels. They are interviewing their colleagues for posts of responsibility and for teaching posts. That is totally unacceptable. It is reasonable that references, qualifications and details of one's working life be available to somebody who may be a work colleague, to somebody who may be a parent of a pupil at the school, to somebody who may be of an opposite political persuasion or maybe worst of all, to somebody who may be a rival with the same political party? Is i reasonable that those details should be available to them?
Are we all not aware of instances where interview panel or committee members have had to make such decisions? Whereas I accept that decisions were made in good faith there is the suspicion of political favouritism, the suspicion that a candidate did not get a fair chance. This, whether it be justified or not, leads to a suspicion of the appointments system and teachers can and do identify vocational education committees which they feel are grossly manipulated in this way.
This is the system in place for our vocational teachers. They deserve a more professional approach to appointments. They deserve an independent, impartial body who will give the job to the person best suited for the position, the person best suited to educate our young people.
I urge all sides of the House to support this Bill. Indeed the Minister speaking in 1989 saw some merits in just such a Bill. Indeed, I am delighted to see Deputy Quill in the House tonight. It will be very interesting to see what approach the Progressive Democrats, the junior partners in Government, will adopt tonight, because it was Deputy Quill speaking in this House on 21 September 1989 on a similar Bill who said:
I see no material in this Bill for any kind of controversy. What it advocates is essentially right and I have no great quarrel about it.
I wonder, when we come to 8.30 p.m. tonight and the bell tolls, which way Deputy Quill will go. I know she will be faced with a dilemma. Will she stand by her principles of 18 months ago or will she be steamrolled through the lobbies by the senior partner in Government?
Another crisis.
I look forward to seeing what the outcome will be and I ask Deputies on all sides of the House to consider this Bill as not being just a question of having justice done but of having justice being seen to be done.
(Wexford): I would like to share my time with Deputies Roche and Quill.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
(Wexford): This is the second time in less than two years that we have had a Bill of this kind before the House. It seems to call into question the operation of the vocational education committee structure. It seems to question the ability, professionalism and integrity of teachers in the system of education that has served us so well since 1930. Deputies on the Opposition side have talked a lot about suspicion. Are they really saying that the teachers we have in the Vocational Education Committee system only got the jobs because of their political affiliations or because they happened to know someone on the selection board or because a friend of a friend knew someone on the selection board?
That is your suggestion.
(Wexford): This is insulting to the whole profession and to the ability of the teachers in the VEC system. People go through a difficult system to qualify as teachers. In many cases people have made sacrifices to become competent teachers. In the VEC system we have the most professional and competent teachers in any sector of teaching here. They do not deserve this ill-conceived, badly thought out Bill coming from the largest opposition party in the country. It calls into question a most democratic education system at a time when all sides of the House are speaking about the need to reform local government and the need to give more power to local councillors and the people. This appears to be a classic case of double standards in that on the one hand they want to give powers to local councillors and the people but on the other they want to take back the powers held by vocational education committees.
The attitude of the top brass of the TUI, who support this Private Members' Bill, is hard to figure out. In my years in politics — about ten or 11 — between the Dáil and the county councils and during the seven years I was a member of the County Wexford Vocational Education Committee I never received one complaint about the appointments system for vocational education teachers or about the ability of teachers appointed. It seems that the executives of the TUI in supporting the Bill are placing a question mark over the ability of some of their teachers. It is unbelievable that they are objecting to the continuation of the selection system that exists, the system they came through and were quite happy to accept on being appointed as teachers or to posts of responsibility, such as principal or vice-principal. They issued statements during the past week or ten days to the effect that they support the Bill but did not explain their reasons. It is important that they do because they have placed a question mark over the ability of some of their teachers.
The vocational education system is the most democratic system of education in Ireland. Indeed, the 1930 Act is the only real education Act we have and it has proved to be very adaptable in the intervening period. In my time the VECs offered the group certificate and trained people in the basics, which allowed them to go on to become apprentice mechanics, carpenters or blocklayers. They have come a long way in the past 20 years and now offer both intermediate and leaving certificate courses. The results achieved in VEC schools are on a par with those achieved in any other school. Indeed, the results achieved in the leaving certificate in some VEC schools in County Wexford were better than those achieved in other schools in the county and elsewhere. That is an indication that the legislation has stood the test of time. I see no reason why we should change the system just for the sake of change or because there is a suspicion or doubt.
The VECs are now offering a new range of subjects and programmes. For example, we have the Youthreach programme, which is available in Deputy Howlin's home town, Wexford. I would like to see the Minister make this programme available in my home town of Enniscorthy, as it is well known that the town has the highest rate of school leavers and youth unemployment in the country. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to see to it that this programme is expanded to other towns where it should prove to be beneficial.
Other programmes on offer include the vocational training opportunities programme, the vocational preparation and training programme, outdoor and adult education programmes. That is an indication that teachers, principals and chief executive officers have been able to meet the challenge presented by the changes in education and provide a very valuable service to our young people.
The Bill is based on suspicion, rumour and the isolated case of a bad appointment. Deputy Bruton said — and I wish to congratulate him on his appointment as Leader of Fine Gael and wish him well in that position — that the scheme has been 99.9 per cent successful. If a scheme is so successful, why change it?
We need to look at the political aspect of the selection process to which the other side of the House gave much attention. There are two selection boards in County Wexford on which the Fine Gael Party are represented. They have always been fair and selected the best teachers available. I have at times been very critical of the selection boards because more often than not they selected teachers from outside the county even though I have always felt Wexford has the best teachers. However, they were not biased and selected teachers purely on their ability. It saddens me when I see politicians undermining their ability. We cheapen ourselves too often and the role we have to play. If we do not have any respect for ourselves we will soon find that the public will become cynical and will not have much respect for politicians. The selection boards have done a good job and have selected only the best. I commend them on their integrity and the professional way they have gone about their duties. The teachers, principals and vice-principals they selected were top of the class and there is no doubt they are more than capable of teaching our young people in the way they deserve to be taught.
On a memorable occasion Deputy Michael D. Higgins attacked the view that because an activity is associated with politics it must necessarily be venal. I, too, await the bells at 8.30 p.m. to see if he will stand by that principle. Deputy John Bruton was leader of this House and is now leader of the country's second largest political party. I wish him well in his appointment. He aspires to be the political leader of the nation but I do not wish him well in that aspiration. He has stated that politics is an honourable practice but in this ill-conceived measure he impugns not just those democratically elected men and women who sit on our VECs but attacks the sagacity and commonsense of those who elected them, the people of Ireland.
This is a fundamentally flawed proposition. It contains a number of very serious flaws. First, it is based on the evidently contradictory view as to the proper role of local government in Ireland. In this regard it is yet another example of the tendency of Deputy John Bruton to always try to face in at least two directions at the same time. From time to time he and his party talk about creating a vibrant and relevant local government system but if this Bill is implemented it will be a further step in the wrong direction and in destroying those little areas of decision-making left to local government. Second, the Bill, if enacted, will further centralise and hamstring the operations of the vocational education sector, which is already over burdened — we all accept this — with bureaucratic centralism. Third, the Bill, and the speeches made in support of it, casts a slur on the members of the vocational education committees who serve without ever seeking personal advantage. It casts a shadow of suspicion on each and every teacher working in the VEC sector at present.
Not at all.
Fourth, without a shred of justification, the measure focuses on the one and only sector in education where there is any real democratic control. The mover of the Bill, Deputy Bruton, has not justified his decision to stigmatise the VECs or their employees nor has he or any of the speakers in favour of the Bill provided any acceptable justification for the decision to effectively ignore other teaching appointments also funded from the public purse which very frequently are made on the basis of a porcedure no more elaborate than a phone call and which are subject to no form of democratic control.
They are private schools.
Is this just another example of Fine Gael double standards or does it mean that the young tiger is in reality no more than the timid wee beastie willing only to take the odd cock shot at the safe targets?
Fifth, the "innovation" is yet another example of the classical tendency of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Deputy Bruton suggested that 99.99 per cent of all appointments are fine, fair and good and there is nothing wrong with them. Why introduce such a bureaucratic device as this to look after the 0.01 per cent in respect of which he has a doubt? Nobody can say that the many thousands of appointments that have been made by the VECs are perfect, certainly that would not be my view. However, none of the supporters of this Bill have produced a shred of evidence to support the contention that there is any significant cause for concern with the vast and overwhelming bulk of teacher appointments in the VECs. No compelling evidence has been produced to suport the replacement of a locally based, relatively flexible system of appointment which has a democratic input by a centralised, highly inflexible, undemocratic system which would increase the level of bureaucracy and would inevitably delay school appointments.
Like many other Members of this House I am a member of a VEC. I do not say I have much experience in that regard but it goes back to 1985. I am sure also that the VEC of which I am a member is not unique, different, special, above reproach or better than all the other 38 VECs in the country. The general selection board of the VEC, of which I am a member, is made up of four members of the VEC, a departmental inspector and the chief executive officer acting as a non-voting secretary to the board. There is nothing unique in that. As it happens, three members of the selection board are currently serving as elected public representatives, two are from Fine Gael, the third is a member of Fianna Fáil, the fourth — a lay member — is a distinguished ex-member of this House, now retired, who was a TD in my own party. Those four people give of their time. They are supported in giving of their time to the selection process by an excellent chief executive officer, a man of the utmost integrity, and they are supported further by a paid public official from the Department of Education.
In the case of appointments to principals, vice-principals and A post holders, a representative of the IVEA is brought on the board. I saw these details into the record because this is the way it is in other VECs also. If there was any cause for public concern, if there was sculduggery — political or otherwise — there are many whistle-blowers in the system without even bringing into consideration the trade unions, who would put the finger on what is wrong. The reality is that this is a shabby piece of politics which is aimed at a public who are ever interested in believing the worst of politicians.
To refer to the comments of Deputy Michael D. Higgins, he said that not only was politics an honourable practice but that the reality was that he would prefer more involvement by politicians because in the end whether you are happy or unhappy with the political system at least you have the capacity to vote the people out. The reality is that the present system of selection in the VECs is a good one, it has worked well. Deputy John Bruton said that 99.99 per cent of the appointments are good. Why, in the name of goodness, focus so much energy on changing what he regards as excellent? I wish to share the balance of the time with Deputy Quill.
I thank Deputies Roche and Browne for sharing their time with me. This legislation has an interesting history. It was introduced to this House by Deputy George Birmingham, the then Fine Gael spokesman for Education, in February 1989. When the subject matter was debated in great detail by Members of all parties. I spoke during that debate on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. My contribution is best summed up by the statement of the former Deputy Birmingham in his reply to the debate — Official Report of 1 March 1989, column 2095:
The Progressive Democrats, while going along with this Bill, indicated through their spokesman, Deputy Máirín Quill, an impatience to see wider reforms being introduced. She was anxious to see legislation dealing with rationalisation of the VEC system... around the country. I share that sense of impatience and I accept entirely that it would be preferable not to proceed on a piece meal basis.
That was my position then. That is my position now. The 1989 debate on this issue was one of the most constructive Private Members' debates since I became a Member of Dáil Éireann. There was a strong measure of cross party support for the principle of bringing about fundamental changes and improvements in the appointment procedures within the VEC system. No vote was taken. To those who stated in the public press recently that the Progressive Democrats voted for the Bill on that occasion I say, not so. The Progressive Democrat Members, in common with all other party Members from whatever side of the House, neither voted for nor against.
The Bill was passed.
No vote was called, the Bill was agreed.
The Deputy has proved her point.
What happened then was that the Ceann Comhairle declared and I quote from the Official Report of 1 March 1989 at column No. 2097:
Standing Order 87 in respect of a Private Members' Bill of this kind provides that should a Private Members' Bill pass its Second Reading it shall then be transferred to a select or special committee...
This never happened. The ill-fated Bill fell victim to the subsequent general election and a different kind of voting took place. Some of those who were involved at that time did not return to the House.
I am aware that in her speech last week, the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, made it clear that the present coalition Government's policy is to devolve as much responsibility as possible from central government to local government and this extends to the education sector also. I endorse this commitment. The Minister also stated — column 1326 of the Official Report of 13 November 1989 that:
The proposal that the appointment of teachers in vocational schools, and to those schools alone, should be determined centrally runs counter to this policy and argues against local democracy.
I accept the point made by the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, but only to a point. In my view, while the principle of local selection is a good one, the guiding shape of the selection process should be that the selection body should be an expert group with professional qualifications and one which would not be open to the suspicion, as in most cases, of political interference or pressure. That is the nub of the issue.
The Progressive Democrats believe that that issue must be tackled and so we are consistent with our stand of 1989 when we state that this matter must be addressed in the wider context of rationalisation of the VEC sector. We will be working to that end and we will not be supporting the Bill.
Shame on you.
How can the Deputy say that and not support it?
I seek the permission of the House to share my time with Deputy Ferris if that is in order.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I support the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party as my colleague, the party spokesman on Education, Deputy Brian O'Shea, did in principle last night. We are consistent in supporting this Bill in principle. It is the stand we took when the Bill was last discussed in this House in March 1989. The principle that underlines this Bill, which has been clearly articulated already by Deputy Quill, is simple. The fundamental principle is that appointments to all vacancies in the public domain should be fair and be seen to be fair, and that the same should apply to promotions. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the perception among teachers and others is that the current procedure for appointing teachers in the vocational sector does not have the confidence of everybody. That is a fact regardless of whether we, as individuals, have confidence in it. There is a body of opinion, particularly among the teaching profession, that does not share that confidence.
Mention has already been made during the debate of an important IMS survey carried out among teachers on equality of opportunity in teaching. Whatever we think about surveys and opinion polls, most of us would accept that that survey was an objective and fair analysis of the opinion of teachers on equality in education and teaching. On the issue of the appointment procedures to appoint vocational teachers respondants were asked to rate procedures for appointment on a scale from zero to ten — zero being not at all satisfactory and ten being extremely satisfactory. The average figure was 5.1. The reality is that this medium line indicates that a very large number of teachers are less than satisfied that the procedures under which appointments and promotions are made are objective and fair.
What were the two issues which caused concern? First, there was a perception of political bias or influence and, second, that the relevant boards lacked the qualifications or competence necessary for interviewing in specific subject or job areas.
We can all trot out the history of our membership of vocational educational committees, we can all say how wonderful we are as individual members and that we do not know any individual members who are less upright, who have less integrity or who are less honest than ourselves, but we cannot ignore the fundamental reality that there is a perception out there that all is not well as regard the procedures under discussion.
Perception is reality.
We can do several things. For example, we can ignore that evidence — I am sure some Members would advocate this — and decide that since we have confidence in the system nothing needs to be changed. That is a fatuous argument in the light of the evidence. We need to restore confidence. That is why I believe the principles in this Bill drew such widespread support across parties when it was introduced.
Although I indicated that the medium view was about 5.1, I should like to draw particular attention to the fact that women had less confidence in this system. That is significant and is something to which we must pay attention. More and more women are becoming involved in the workplace — thankfully teaching has always attracted a very large number of women — but it is clear that women do not think they get equal treatment when it comes to appointments and promotions.
I do not believe that perception exists only in the vocational sector. In the primary sector, in which I worked, when it came to the appointment of principals or promotions within national schools a very large number of women believed there was a preconceived notion that the job of principal in a rural school was a man's job and, therefore, they could not have it.
Why not include it in this Bill?
Whether or not we like it, we have to tackle that reality. It is important that we face the issue before us now. The fatuous argument that we should do something else and that we will not right this particular wrong or even address it until we can address all the wrongs of the world is not a valid argument.
That is the coward's way out.
Deputy Roche who likes to interject — I welcome his interruptions most of the times and I take it as a compliment when he comes in——
He does it to the rest of us too.
——and quotes my esteemed colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins in support of his argument. However, the Deputy, using his characteristic flawed logic, did not realise that it was Deputy Michael D. Higgins Education spokesman for our party, who articulated the case in favour of the 1989 Bill. Obviously he did not bother to read the record.
You sacked him.
The Deputy may mix quotations to suit the cause — it is a ploy regularly used by the Deputy and his party, but it will not get away from the fundamentals which need to be addressed in this Bill.
We are being asked on Second Stage, which is all that is before us tonight, to endorse a simple principle, that is, the need for change in the current methodology used for promotions and for appointing vocational teachers. Deputy Quill said she agreed with that principle but then, mind bogglingly, jumped to the conclusion that one need not vote for the Bill. If one accepts the principle of the need for change, one must support the Bill.
I do not accept that the Bill is perfect. In fact my colleague, Deputy Brian O'Shea, the Labour Party spokesman on Education, has indicated that on Committee Stage — should the parties on the other side allow us have a Committee Stage — we will bring forward amendments to ensure, at least in some measure, that there is local involvement in the appointment of teachers to local schools. I believe this can be done. We can debate it and express our views by way of consensus as when the Fianna Fáil Party were in a minority in this House and could not steamroll and bully other Members and parties into their narrow way of thinking. It is a pity that that consensus, that progressive view, which existed then is not shared now. Now that the two parties on that side of the House have a majority, their Members, whatever their principles and views, are dragged into having a single view.
As I have indicated, I have reservations about this Bill. I have reservations about the suitability of using the Local Appointments Commission as the vehicle for appointments. However, we can argue that on Committee Stage, if we are allowed to have such a debate. We should have the widest possible consultation in advance of a Committee Stage debate so that the views of teachers, their unions and parents can be taken into account.
I listened to the debate last night and, in particular, to the contributions of the Fianna Fáil Members who have a difficulty with this Bill. They have a difficulty with this Bill tonight notwithstanding the fact that their party had no difficulty allowing the previous Bill to pass Second Stage in March 1989. I genuinely accept that some Members on that side may believe that if they support this Bill it might be tantamount to a slight on members of vocational education committees. That is simply not the case.
A Deputy:
It is.
Vocational education committees are the core of democratic education. The Labour Party have a very honourable and consistent view on this issue. I was Education spokesman for the Labour Party for some years and I had the privilege and pleasure of reading the earliest policy documents emanating from any party. As early as 1928 we were advocating a comprehensive democratic education system. That is still our view and we still argue it as a fundamental principle of reform of education democratic accountability. It may be argued that when T. J. O'Connell wrote the policy documents of 1928 he was before his time but that document is still inspirational and valid today. The time has now come when the issue of democracy and democratisation is in vogue. I hope this will come to pass even under this Minister who does not have the last record when it comes to democracy.
We have always defended and praised the vocational education sector and the service of individual members of vocational education committees, and that remains the case. It is a perversion for anybody to suggest that to seek to reform a system in any way is a slight on serving members. Those serving members themselves know that this is not the case. It is a travesty to ascribe those motives to people who seek in honesty to have reform in the education sector.
I have said that the Labour Party view on this matter is constant. That is a feature of our party. We are consistent and we are constant. In many ways we have suffered because of our consistency. We do not stand up in the morning, put a finger in the air and decide which way the wind is blowing.
(Interruptions.)
At least I have principles, which is more than can be said for that side of the House.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Donoghue will restrain himself.
I welcome the enthusiasm I can generate on the Government benches. Maybe I can inspire them to examine their consciences. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have chosen to reverse completely their views in this matter. I would expect nothing more from the Fianna Fáil Party because my experience since I came into the House is that consistency is certainly not a core value for this party. They voted against and lobbied against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and then embraced it. It is now a Fianna Fáil issue — it is their agreement. Extradition was completely unaccepable when they were in Opposition but is acceptable when they have a magic transformation to that side of the House.
Let us stick to the Bill before the House.
I accept your admonition. More shameful was the attitude of Fianna Fáil to the health cuts. They defrauded the electorate and savaged the health services.
The Deputy is deviating from the subject matter of the Bill.
I will return to the subject matter of the Bill. Regarding the Progressive Democrats, I have greater cause or hope and greater expectations. On the last occasion they supported this measure. I understand the rather shaky logic used by Deputy Quill tonight and the red-faced approach to this House. The veneer is wafer thin. The principal issue of this Bill is the same as it was last year. I understand they have taken the decision that the principle is not important enough to shake an already shaky coalition. They have done their macho thing this month and a repeat performance, regardless of the principle, is not acceptable. They will bite the bullet and accept that they cannot support a measure which in their heart and soul they would like to support.
The essence of this Bill is simple. It is a call for change. It was supported by all parties in this House a matter of months ago. The Minister for Education indicated during her contribution last night that she was considering change in this area. She stated that when this matter was last before the House it was indicated from the Government side that the question of amending the Vocational Education Act, 1930 was under consideration, in relation in particular to the question of rationalisation of the VEC service and the amalgamation of some of the existing VECs. She said it was her intention to consider the question of teacher appointments by VECs in the context of this amending legislation. The Minister acknowledges the need for change. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who is representing the Government tonight, acknowledged the need for change when he spoke in this House on 1 March 1989, as reported in the Official Report at column 2091. All sides have expressed the need for change. There is a demand from the teacher unions for change. Why not accept that in principle and in a spirit of consensus look at the actual changes we would like to implement for the good of the education service? One day we will come up with a proposition from the Opposition benches.
On a point of information——
There is no such thing as a point of information under Standing Orders when a Member is in possession.
Why did the Deputy's party not make a change when they had four years to do it?
The reality is that there is a consensus in this House but there is a block on change because someone in the depths of Marlborough Street says no. The backbenchers are forced in to say no and the Progressive Democrats are armtwisted to say no. We cannot have change until we alter our methodology regarding dealing with business in this House.
What were the Deputy's party doing for four years in Government?
Until we change the methodology of dealing with business in this House people will be shamed and embarrassed by having to come in and vote against their own conscience.
What were Fianna Fáil doing in Opposition?
The Minister of State asked a very pertinent question which I intend to answer. There is a very valid answer but I will tease the Minister before I give it. Our party have consistently advocated a policy in this area of education. It is the bulwark of democracy in the sphere of education in that it involves locally elected people at local authority level who represent the people who elect them to provide an education system which will be seen to be fair and to cover the educational spectrum required by the electorate. We have had very competent teachers who provide the most important element of education at local authority level. As a past member of a vocational education committee I pay tribute to the teaching profession who have been involved over the years since the initiation of VECs. Having worked with them on committees and having accepted representations from them I can say that their concerns were for the pupils who were their responsibility. They were always open and frank in discussions with elected members of VECs.
When teachers apply for posts it is accepted that they will already be suitably qualified. The trauma of having to canvass political parties of all views at local level before they can be sure of an appointment must be most degrading for qualified teachers. If all things were equal we would look after our friends, but unfortunately in 1985, the majority party in Government swept the boards at the local elections.
On false promises.
They managed to cajole themselves into power by securing a majority. They dominated the selection process in all the local authorities for the various subsidiary bodies including health boards, county committees of agriculture and vocational education committees. A balance was only achieved when other nominating bodies such as the urban councils were brought in because Fianna Fáil had not been as successful in those elections. Only with that kind of balance was there an opportunity for any other part of the political spectrum to be involved at VEC level. In my constituency we were presented with a fait accompli by the Fianna Fáil whip. They could decide whom they wanted on each body because they had enough votes to carry their proposals. From 1985 onwards there was the belief that if you were not a Fianna Fáil supporter you had a very slight chance of being successful in the canvass for the job for which you were qualified. That is one of the problems being encountered. When we were in Government there was fairness right across the nominating procedures in local authorities which ensured there was a fair balance between all of us at the various subsidiary committees, including the VECs. There was always that understanding between all of us. The Fine Gael and Labour people in my constituency — who, as it happened, had a majority — always ensured there were Fianna Fáil representatives not alone on the committee but also involved in the actual process of selection. Always there was resentment on the part of members of the selection boards if any of us interfered in their decision-making process in the presence of a departmental inspector. At least there appeared to be some element of fair play about the whole process.
Nowadays it is different. That is why we are supporting a change; we are not supporting change for change's sake. We do not believe people should apologise because they are politically minded or because there is anything wrong with being political; there is not. The problem arises when there is a dominant group within the selection processes that scrutinize meticulously the political affiliations of teacher applicants. It is then time for us at least to ascertain how we can render it more democratic at local level.
Perhaps the provisions of the Bill are not devising the right system of appointing teachers. In 1989 all Members of this House, of whatever party, agreed to allow it get a Second Reading, that it be referred to a Committee of the House, when we could then ascertain whether some improvements should be built in.
I know the Minister of State likes to have his facts. I can itemise conclusive evidence — I will even name some examples — of the hypocrisy of endeavouring to maintain that this system is great because it is administered by locally elected politicians.
There was the case of a vice-principal in a community college who was nominated for appointment by the selection board. The VEC, at a subsequent meeting, endeavoured to overturn that recommendation and appoint another person. It so happened that that other person himself was a nominee of the Fianna Fáil Party and had sat on the main committee; he was not on the actual selection board but was a member of the committee. Of course his colleagues decided, when he was not chosen, they would endeavour to overturn the decision of the selection board itself. The House knows what happens when that takes place. If that matter is brought before the VEC and the relevant chief executive officer, he is then required to advise the Department, then the unions become involved because they observe the damage done to some of their members. This means they, in turn must lobby the Department of Education to ensure that their member, who is properly qualified, is appointed as was decided by the selection board. That is an example of an occasion when the selection board did not nominate the god-child of the main political party on the committee.
In the academic year 1979-80 there was another example of a person who was interviewed and recommended for appointment as vice-principal of a vocational school — I am sorry Deputy Roche is not present — in Deputy Roche's constituency. At the time of the interview the person himself was a member, as was his mother-in-law, of the same party; not alone was she a member of the committee but she was also a member of the selection board.
As elected public representatives there is an obligation on all of us — going forward at local level — to declare a vested interest in planning and all other areas. If we are to be honest with ourselves and convince the public that we are seen to be fair, we must ensure the public are so satisfied. Were I serving on a selection board and a relative of mine was applying for a post — if that relative was also a member of the committee — surely to God there would be an obligation on me to disclose my vested interest and exclude myself from that decision? But that was not done in this case. That is one of the problems obtaining. Again, of course, the union would be obliged to intervene. Otherwise there would not be fair play.
Chairman, on a point of order——
The Deputy, on a point of order.
Those same obligations rest with all of us in this area.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman:
Order, Deputies, please.
The two persons involved in 1979 were Members of Fine Gael.
I will give the House another example in another county——
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman:
Order. Deputies should remember that time is very limited. Would Deputy Roche please resume his seat?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman:
Order, please, Deputies.
I will give a third example in the few moments remaining to me.
Deputy Ferris suggested they were Members of Fianna Fáil; in that case they were Members of Fine Gael.
Recently in another county there was a woman interviewed for a permanent, whole-time post. That woman had previously been interviewed in 1989 and had been unsuccessful.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman:
Deputy Ferris to continue.
The trouble with this kind of debate is that, when it injures the Fianna Fáil side, they bleed all over the floor of the House. They are unable to accept criticism from any of us who endeavour to state the position based on facts and the substantial rights of democracy.
Deputy Ferris is lying to the House.
Acting Chairman:
Deputies, please, order.
We have to be seen to be correct and fair in the way we administer local democracy——
Deputy Ferris is lying to the House.
We must do so——
Acting Chairman:
The Deputy is being disorderly.
Mr. Chairman, I am not being disorderly.
The Deputy is lying to the House.
Acting Chairman:
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman:
I must intervene at this stage. Will the Deputy please resume his seat? The time available to Members is very limited. The Deputy will have an opportunity to——
The Deputy in question was telling a mistruth to the House because the two persons involved were Members of Fine Gael——
Acting Chairman:
I want no further interruptions. Would Deputy Ferris please continue.
It is the view of the Members of the Labour Party — who want to support the principle of this Bill — that it should be supported without fear from any side of the House.
The Deputy should tell the truth; he is lying.
Obviously from what Deputy Roche said before, he is a member of the VEC himself and they are used to that kind of interruption.
I want to raise a point of principle, not a point of order, I was not a member of the VEC.
On a point of order——
Acting Chairman:
Deputy Byrne on a point of order.
I wish to protest at the way you, Sir, are handling this matter. We have had perpetual interruptions from Deputy Roche who has alleged that Deputy Ferris is a liar.
Acting Chairman:
I would not consider that a point of order. I have asked the Deputy to resume his seat. I have requested that there be no further interruptions from any side of the House.
I would ask you, Sir, to request Deputy Roche to withdraw his allegation that Deputy Ferris is a liar.
I did not say Deputy Ferris was a liar. I simply said he was telling a lie. That is exactly what he was doing.
Acting Chairman:
Please allow Deputy Ferris to continue without further interruption.
I might refer Deputy Roche to the Irish Independent of Tuesday, 8 September 1987 and to The Irish Times of 19 September 1987 in which the names of the people and the schools are mentioned.
It was 1979.
Just in case the Deputy wants them he can read them from the record. Those are the dates for referral purposes but because the Acting Chairman rightly would request me to refrain from mentioning people's names who are not in this House to defend themselves, I have no intention of so doing. Nonetheless they are a matter of public record. Anything I have said is a matter of public record, has been quoted and has not been refuted, even on mature reflection, by Deputy Roche. I suggest that if he has any problems about the examples I have given he should read the facts. Deputy Roche was most anxious to quote Deputy Michael D. Higgins whose policy in this area is impeccable. I suggest Deputy Roche might learn something from the impeccability of Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
We are supporting this Bill on Second Stage. We should like to see it referred to an all-party Committee of the House. We would like to go down the road Deputy Quill has suggested; possibly that is the correct way. Obviously that is also what the Minister herself wants. If she feels there is need for improvement in this process, then all of us are correct. We want to ensure that the public see change brought about, that the professional people to whom we are so obligated will see that the system is equitable so that they can go about their business without pandering to politicians of any hue. For that reason, I support the Bill.
Since this is Deputy Bruton's Bill I take the opportunity of wishing him well in his role as leader of Fine Gael.
I thank the Deputy.
In addition to that I will sound a note of caution to him. It would be undesirable, and unachievable, for Deputy Bruton to attempt to take his party, and the country, up the high road to infallibility, and if this Bill is anything to go by that would appear to be one of his objectives. The fact that a Bill similar to this lapsed with the dissolution of the House last year should have given us all, including those who supported it at the time, time to reflect more on its merits or otherwise.
A Deputy:
Mature reflection.
I have noted carefully the contributions by Deputies who support the Bill for evidence which might convince me that VECs should be singled out for special attention. Nothing I have heard has persuaded me that this should be the case. Of all the areas of education comprising primary, secondary and third level, the VEC system would appear to operate the fairest and most open method of selecting teachers. The suggestion being floated in this debate is that a selection board which includes politicians of various hues is much less likely to have integrity than one set up by the Local Appointments Commission. I reject this emphatically. Even Deputy Bruton has stressed that 99.99 per cent of VEC appointments are beyond criticism.
In view of the human factor involved in any such procedure, a success rate of this magnitude must surely suggest that the system could not be bettered anywhere in the world. One would presume that any selection board would be comprised of dedicated citizens each of whom would be a voter with a deeply held political view of one kind or another. No one is suggesting that any such person on a local appointments commission board would allow his or her judgment to be clouded accordingly. However, in the case of VEC boards the elected members have declared their political views openly. I would have thought this makes it even less likely that they would allow themselves to be seen as less than objective.
Deputy Bruton, in the second of two examples he cited, referred to a case where a successful applicant for promotion was a member of the relevant VEC, as was his mother-in-law, and neither of them had declared an interest. The implication was that they were both on the selection board. This seems ludicrous because it would suggest that the applicant had interviewed himself, in much the same way as — presumably — Deputy Bruton interviewed himself for the leadership of the Fine Gael Party.
He made a very good choice.
(Interruptions.)
I would certainly share the concern that in all such matters people should avoid a conflict of interest, but this applies equally to all methods of selection. The argument that teachers should be selected only by professionals is not sustainable. When the Civil Service Commission set up a board to interview applicants for public service posts they include non-professional civil servants as well as a member or members of the appropriate profession. This is done because of their obvious belief that the whole persona of the applicant should be looked at and not merely his or her academic achievements.
We are talking here about the VEC system under which the original vocational schools were set up by people with admirable foresight in 1930 — admirable foresight is what one would expect from a Kerryman, John Marcus O'Sullivan — and under which a Fianna Fáil Government with matching wisdom subsequently set up the regional technical colleges which revolutionised third level education in Ireland. The system has served us well. It has produced a body of teachers second to none in the world and their graduates in Ireland and elsewhere are ample testimony to that.
The Minister in her speech has, with commendable clarity, explained the procedures and outlined the ongoing developments over which she is presiding. The system is well served by dedicated and unpaid elected representatives of local communities. She has also referred to the repeated endorsements of the selection procedures by none other than the head of the Local Appointments Commission. This fact alone, together with the fact that the IVEA endorse the selection process, should convince people that we should leave well enough alone.
Nobody has suggested in this debate that appointments made by various Governments down the years should be changed or that the system should be changed. Nobody suggested that a Government should not appoint district justices, Circuit Court judges, High Court judges or Supreme Court judges and nobody suggested a Government should not appoint the Chief Justice. To take it a step further, nobody suggested a Government should not appoint a Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or the Ombudsman.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): This is about teachers.
(Interruptions.)
His role is to examine complaints about the bureaucratic procedure. The attitude of some Members, taking the matter to its logical conclusion, would appear to be that it is all very well for politicians at national level to make appointments at national level which are extremely important and affect the everyday lives of every individual, but it is not all right for local politicans, who may well aspire to becoming national politicians, to make appointments in relation to 6 per cent of our schools. Let us be fair and honest about this, that suggests a "holier than thou" attitude, a feeling that, while we are inspired from on high in the national Parliament in relation to some of the most important appointments in the State, those elected to local authorities, and who give of their time voluntarily day in and day out, are not qualified to make these appointments at all for the reason that they are politicans. Perhaps those who would suggest that a nod or a wink or a stroke is the order of the day in relation to the appointment of teachers in the vocational education sector would do well to remember that there is no other system of education today which appoints its teachers as openly as do the VECs. It is extremely wrong, and most unfair, to single out these committees above any other committee or system for special treatment and an examination under the microscope. I accept that reviews and examinations are necessary, but this microscopic examination has begun to border on the ludicrous.
What is the situation in other schools regarding the selection of teachers? Secondary schools select their own teachers and the State has no input whatsoever. The State has an input, with a member on the selection board, in regard to VEC appointments. There is a system of selection for primary schools but again it is completely different from what Deputy Bruton proposes in this Bill. Is there a valid or good reason why the selection procedure in vocational schools should be different from the procedure in community and comprehensive schools? One could go on forever in this vein, but one thing is abudantly clear to everybody, that we cannot simply single out the VECs for microscopic consideration. This is more especially the case when one considers the contribution of the VECs to Irish education over the years, not just in relation to second level education but to third level education, and their contribution to people who through no fault of their own were unable in the early years of this State to get an education. I mean their contribution to adult education, sport and the arts. They have made a massive contribution to our education culture but this debate has taken a twist whereby, by innuendo at least, it has been suggested, regrettably, that their contribution was given with less than full integrity or full commitment.
The evidence is different and one has to examine the evidence to decide whether the system worked. Is it not fair to say that in Irish vocational education today we have some of the finest teachers not just in this country but in western Europe or indeed the world? Is it not true to say that most of the people who graduate from Irish vocational schools, and from Irish regional colleges, are among the best educated and most able people one could wish to meet? Are they the products of a corrupt system? Are they not the products of a system which has served the Irish people admirably over so many years? The evidence has to be examined and I suggest that, in this instance, it is irrefutable.
There is a second innuendo that relates to the position of local councillors. I will not say it is the most regrettable innuendo but it is one of them. It is that there was a Ballymagash-type outfit in the community ready to nod, stroke and wink at any opportunity that presented itself in order to gain extra votes at election time.
Has the Deputy ever been on an interview board?
This is unfair to the locally elected democratic representatives. No local representative ever went into public life for personal gain. They are unpaid servants of the Irish people. They deal with people's problems on a daily basis, from Monday to Sunday, and they do so with the greatest integrity in 99.9 per cent of cases, 0.1 per cent away from infallibility. It is wrong to take those people out in a mean and vindictive way, as seems to have been attempted by some Members in the debate. While there may be errors in the system, and while mistakes may have been made in the past, one cannot emphatically say that politicians are the only people who would be likely to be canvassed. An alternative selection procedure might also lead to canvassing. I am not suggesting that it would but I am suggesting that the possibility also exists and let nobody believe otherwise. Politicians are not the only people who can be asked for favours. If, as Deputy Bruton said, only 0.1 per cent of the appointments made were incorrect, one could hardly say that the system was absolutely corrupt.
The teachers appointed by VECs over the years have made an enormous contribution to the country's lifeblood. Following logically on the argument that has been presented they too have been subject to the innuendo that they, perhaps, are in some way unfit for their positions. That too is a regrettable feature of this debate.
The system has worked. I would not disagree with those who say that there are imperfections in it; but to those who cast innuendoes like confetti around this Chamber, I say that those against whom they are casting aspersions have given of their time over several years with the greatest integrity.
Acting Chairman:
Deputies Deenihan and Creed want to share time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
At the outset I would like to thank Deputy Deenihan for agreeing to share his time with me. I would like to compliment Deputy Bruton on introducing this Bill. It is indicative of his reforming zeal and his quest for efficiency and fair play in the public service. I only hope it will not be too long before he gets an opportunity to direct those vast talents towards this and other institutions in the State because I, as a backbencher, find extremely frustrating the manner in which this House conducts its business.
I speak as a qualified teacher who never taught. I speak also as a politician acutely aware of how the present system works and as one who has close contact with many unemployed teachers who are desperately seeking work.
Newly qualified teachers are idealistic and full of enthusiasm, a great untapped resource for this State accumulated at great expense. Many of them are disgusted and demoralised by the present appointments process and refuse to play any part in it or the lobbying it involves. However, months and years of vain search, and the word on the grapevine which suggests that many appointments are politically motivated, turn sour this great resource but at the time forces them onto the lobbying circuit. I know that from personal experience and any politician who denies having been approached about VEC appointments or promotions, or who denies having made representations and all that involves and the degrees of pressure implicit in that, is not telling the truth.
This is the process as it is, warts and all, and I operate within that process whilst yearning for a change in it. The present system is not fair to us as politicians who should be more concerned about policy matters in education rather than personnel. Above all else it is not fair to our teachers employed or unemployed. As long as politicians are engaged in the appointments process people will assume political explanations for their appointment, sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. This Bill is aimed at removing a widespread public perception that there is gross political interference in the appointments process. It is also about ensuring that the people who sit on interview boards are suitably qualified to evaluate the merits and qualifications of all applicants.
A number of red herrings have been trotted out by the Government parties in their efforts to justify their U-turn on this Bill. Their claim that the Bill would undermine local government holds no credibility. Local government is not about personnel. Local government, strong local government, and reforms of local government, is about policy matters, and hearing that excuse being trotted out gives me little hope in the review body which has been set up by the Government and in which we, as a party, rightly refused to participate.
It is also their belief that a local appointments commission would be too cumbersome. Perhaps it would be but at this stage an agreement in principle to the contents of the Bill would be welcome and on Committee Stage we could tease out the proper process to be adopted in regard to appointments. What I wonder about is whether there is an implied criticism of the local government appointments commission and if the greedy eyes on the Government benches are being cast on that body for political patronage. Time has caught up on me and I will hand over to Deputy Deenihan.
I have listened to the debate on this Bill with great interest and attention in the past two weeks. In the course of the debate I have heard the Minister for Education state that the Government would not be supporting the Bill. I have heard other Deputies on the Government side of the House reject the Bill on the basis that it was attacking local democracy, that it was a slur on the vocational education system and that it represented an attempt by Fine Gael at centralisation. I would say one thing clearly tonight. The Bill is not a slur on the vocational education system or on vocational teachers. Why did 70 teachers turn up tonight outside this House in support of this Bill? That should be answer enough to those people who reject the Bill.
All of this is a surprise to me because what the Government are attempting to do is an about-turn on this Bill. On 1 March 1989, speaking on this same Bill, the Minister of State, Deputy Frank Fahey, stated on behalf of the then Government:
In general I welcome the Bill and the provisions contained in it. The specifics and the details have to be considered further perhaps and I am glad to say the Minister will be giving full consideration and will welcome an opportunity to have further discussions with the various spokespeople on the drafting of the legislation for the development and rationalisation of the vocational education sector.
That is a direct quotation from the Official Report. What has changed since 1 March 1989 to cause the Minister to change his mind? The truth is that nothing has changed. Vocational teachers are now appointed in the same manner as they were in March 1989. Clearly the Government as represented by the Fianna Fáil Party have done a cynical about-turn on this Bill for no other reason than that they have come under political pressure from their local councillors who do not wish to give up the right to appoint teachers. This is insidious. It shows no regard for the teachers who are affected by this Bill. It shows no regard for the inherent justice of the issue before us.
The Minister for Education, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, has stated that she would take on board the principle of our Bill in drafting amending legislation to rationalise VECs. Because she has changed her mind on the rationalisation of VECs she is not now going to do anything concerning the appointment issue. What has the rationalisation of VECs, desirable as it is, to do with the appointment of teachers? The opportunity of dealing with the appointments issue in principle presents itself to the Minister in the context of the Bill before the House this evening, and the Minister should grasp that opportunity if she has the slightest shred of integrity.
In Spring 1989 the Progressive Democrats, through their then spokesperson on Education, Deputy Máirín Quill, when speaking in the House on 21 February — Deputy Paul McGrath has already referred to this statement — stated:
I see no material in this Bill for any kind of controversy. What it advocates is essentially right and I have no great quarrel about it...
The Progressive Democrats have changed their view on this Bill. I was hoping that they would not do so.
You changed your mind in four days.
I was hoping they would in practice by supporting this Bill, live up to their stated aspiration of breaking the mould in Irish politics. Whatever the position of Fianna Fáil, and indeed their good heckler in the background who does nothing but heckle other Deputies, and the Progressive Democrats, the overriding consideration is that Dáil Éireann adopted this Bill on Second Stage. Is the Dáil now to reverse that position? I hope not because if that happens I believe credibility will be lost with the public, with teachers, parents and even students.
On the last occasion that this House discussed this proposal, it generated media comment which I believe reflected the view of the public at large on this issue. The media comment was favourable to the passage of the Bill. Specifically the Irish Times of 2 March 1989, in a leading article commented as follows:
There was a welcome air of co-operation and goodwill about last night's Dáil exchanges; it was a good example of constructive opposition, with Fine Gael achieving commitments on much needed reform, but without forcing an embarrassing defeat on the Government. The Teachers' Union of Ireland must take some credit, too, for having lobbied long and hard for this reform.
The appointment of teachers is a very important and very professional business; it should be handled by professionals. With increasingly high levels of unemployment amongst teachers, the pressures on politicians to use influence are bound to increase. They should be happy to pass the responsibility to a body specialised in recruitment techniques.
Unfortunately the same spirit does not prevail tonight. It has been alleged that this Bill is attacking local democracy but that is simply not so. It has been alleged that this Bill is not supported by the teachers but that is patently untrue, as was evidenced by the number of people who turned up to demonstrate outside this House tonight.
I would like to deal with both of these allegations. My party believe in democratic control of education. Deputy John Bruton in moving the Bill again reiterated this point. It was a Fine Gael Minister, Gemma Hussey, who suggested a reform of the VECs and the setting up of a more decentralised arrangement for the administration of education. For any Deputy, either on the Government or on the Opposition side of the House, to suggest that Fine Gael are damaging vocational education or local democracy, I say you are mistaken; examine the record.
This Bill will strengthen vocational education. It will remove the taunt and allegation of political interference in appointments. That can only aid the system. Having said that, I favour democracy in education. I suggest that there are some issues which are not suitable for control by the democratic system and appointments is one such area. There is no point of principle or public policy involved in whether Mrs. X, Miss Y or Mr. Z get the teaching job. The only point at issue is that the best person gets the job. Selecting the best person for the job is a matter for experts and I suggest we leave it to the experts.
If this Bill is undermining democracy at local level, is the Local Appointments Commission itself not undermining democracy in every other comparable appointment throughout the local authority service? All sides of the House accept the bona fides and the good work done by the commission. Is it now to be alleged that the commission are undermining democracy? The argument is the same in both cases. You cannot extol the virtues of the commission on one hand and decry this Bill on the other. That is illogical. It is simply a false argument put up by those who for their own political reasons do not wish this Bill to be passed.
Various Deputies, among them Deputies Cowen and Dempsey, suggested that teachers' morale was not suffering because of the present appointments system. Some Deputies implied that teachers themselves do not support the Bill, but that is patent nonsense. Their union have repeatedly called for this Bill to be passed. Their union were asked forcefully by the chairman of the Irish Vocational Education Association to "put up or shut up". The union put up and reiterated their view that there are verifiable cases of political interference with appointments. Everyone involved in vocational education knows that there have been abuses. That is not to decry the system, or to undermine the many fair and impartial appointments that have been made. What the Bill seeks to do and what the teachers seek to do through their union is to have a demonstrably fair appointments system which is above suspicion, which clearly the present system is not.
There is one other area of criticism which has been raised and that is that the appointments system in the national and secondary schools should be revised. Perhaps it should but we must start somewhere. Deputy John Bruton has made an excellent start in moving this Bill. He has addressed an issue which is of crucial importance to teachers and to our education service. This Bill will ensure that we get good teachers, the best teachers appointed through a procedure in which everyone can have confidence. Nothing could be more important for our education service.
In conclusion, therefore, I remind Deputies on the other side of the House that this Bill has previously been adopted on Second Stage by this House; that it was welcomed by the Junior Minister, Deputy Frank Fahey, on behalf of the Government and by the Progressive Democrats, and, nothing with respect to the appointment of teachers in the vocational service has changed in the intervening period. I call therefore on those persons and parties who previously supported this Bill to again support it on this occasion. To do otherwise would be, I believe, to debase democracy.
I thank the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and Deputy Foxe for their constructive contributions to this debate and their continued support for the Bill. I know that some of those contributors wished to put forward amendments on Committee Stage. My party are open to discussing such amendments in an open-minded and constructive manner with all parties, including the Government Party.
The objective that politics be taken out of appointments remains and it will be achieved in principle by the House passing this Bill as it did on 1 March 1989. I ask the House to approve Second Stage of the Bill.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.