Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 May 1991

Vol. 407 No. 7

Educational Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Bill, 1991: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (7) (c), lines 26 and 27, to delete "educational and cultural activities" and substitute "educational, cultural and individual and group artistic activities, expositions and performances".

On Second Stage I expressed the view that as many people as possible should be free to apply to become beneficiaries under this Bill. I suggested that we should use the opportunity to change from the model of An Bord Scoláireachtaí Cóm-halairte, The Scholarship Exchange Board, to bring a degree of flexibility into the arrangements. I gave some details as to the manner in which the procedures of the board had worked out in practice.

My amendment is designed to get around the difficulty which arises when a programme does not exist in a receiving institution, either in Ireland or America, to which a scholar may wish to go. It enables flexibility. Often people who are involved in cultural or literary activities or performances are not affiliated to a programme or an institution, yet their work may be of such individual merit and importance that they may like at short notice to move to an institution which wants them to exhibit, perform or participate in seminars, workshops and so on. The wording I am proposing would also include groups of artists such as the Sculptors' Association of Ireland or Poetry Ireland or a group of visual artists. The word "expositions" takes account of particular kinds of exhibition. The inclusion of the word "performances" might allow, for example, an Irish competitor in the GPA Pianoforte Competition to be included in the programme.

The amendment seeks to improve the position in such a way as not automatically to give money but to word the terms of reference of the commission so that people would not be precluded from the beginning. That is the purpose of the amendment. It would be far more satisfactory than the wording as drafted. The killer in the existing subsection is the word "programmes". I do not believe that the case I have put forward is met by such phrases as "other related educational and cultural activities as may be provided for in budgets approved in accordance with section 8". Under the existing wording the individual who would benefit is seen as a derivative from the programme rather than the other way round; the programme should be responding to the person who can either gain or make a contribution or both.

Mrs. Owen

I agree with the sentiment behind Deputy Higgins's amendment. The whole area of academic research, cultural activity and endeavour has changed dramatically since 1957 when the first scholarship fund was set up. At that stage clearly there were very few individuals, or groups of individuals, in these fields, as it were, working in an independent manner. But over the past ten years, with the growth in understanding of development of our arts and cultural activities, as Deputy Michael Higgins has said, there are now very many more people working independently of our institutions, universities and colleges. I fear that the provisions of this Bill would not take on board those kinds of changes that have taken place within our academic and cultural fields.

The people for whom the provisions of the Bill are intended are already quite an élite group, the cream of our academic and cultural people. I would be fearful as is Deputy Higgins, that we would render them even more élite by excluding some people who may have decided, as it were, to plough their own furrows in that area in a more independent manner rather than be linked to a university or college.

For example, Deputy Higgins's amendment might encompass say, somebody who might engage in photography, now a very fine form of art, a fine form of cultural and sociological study, in that photographic exhibitions can tell a thousand stories. We know that there was discovered recently a set of photographs taken by a Fr. Browne which comprise enormous background studies into the growth and social changes that took place in this country. Therefore, it would be beneficial if a person who undertook such work could apply, as an individual, and be considered for the awarding of a scholarship. Of course some such person, maybe working in an attic having no linkage with any university or college, might be unable to break into what is already a very élitist group.

I do not believe acceptance of this amendment would extend the provisions of the Bill so widely that people would be turned down hand over fist. Since the introduction of this Bill has been awaited since 1988 when the agreement was signed by the United States and Ireland, this amendment might also afford the new commission greater flexibility. Once established the commission members themselves may approach the Minister to make this kind of change if they find they are receiving applications from very fine, qualified people who would do this country enormous credit and, equally, from Americans who would be of tremendous benefit to us here. The members of the commission themselves might find their hands were tied if we did not introduce greater flexibility in this section.

Mr. Kavanagh

I would hope that the Minister would find it possible to accede to my colleague's amendment which would be a very useful addition to the objectives of the Bill. If the Minister tells us, for example, that that is understood within this section, we will take that as being on the record and meeting Deputy Higgins's objectives seeking to expand the provisions of this section.

Now that there is some little cultural activity elsewhere in this city I should like to ask the Minister whether universities and colleges, noted for their sporting activities, will be included under the provisions of this Bill. I would remind him that many young Irish people, if you like, "one-offs" in their particular fields of sport, are particularly in demand in American universities but do not often get a chance to attend because of the financial constraints on their parents. Perhaps the Minister would inform us whether such students would be afforded the possibility of attending such universities while, at the same time, advancing their academic studies. I would suggest that such students in the sporting field be included in the provisions of the Bill.

Deputy Higgins's amendment has merit. I know the Minister of State present always accepts any reasonable proposition. In this case I would hope he would find his way to accepting Deputy Higgins's amendment or, alternatively, inform us that its objectives are covered already in this section.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I would have no real objection to the thinking behind Deputy Michael Higgins's amendment. Nonetheless, I do not honestly think there is any need for it. As the Deputy knows, the Bill has been prepared in conjunction with the agreement signed in October 1988 with many of the phrases included in the Bill having been taken from the actual agreement, which would cause me some difficulty.

I will revert to some things Deputy Kavanagh said later. May I assure Deputies Higgins and Owen that the artistic and cultural element, about which Deputy Higgins spoke, is already a feature of the programme which has obtained since 1957 and was included in the 1957 Act. I might also assure them that a number of grants have been awarded annually in the visual and performing arts areas about which Deputy Higgins was particularly worried. There has been provision for the continuance and expansion of that cultural element in this Bill. Therefore, Deputy Higgins's fears are ill founded in that the wording in the Bill has been taken from the agreement.

In regard to Deputy Kavanagh's question concerning people particularly talented in the sporting field, I do not think they are covered. I do not know of any such example in that area.

This programme has been devised mainly for post-graduate students or people with certain outstanding skills — I use the word "outstanding" advisedly. Deputy Owen said that a number of applicants under this programme are very highly qualified, which is the case. It is a question of using students' experience of America here, benefiting therefrom and vice versa.

While I would have no objection to accepting this amendment in the normal way, Deputy Higgins can take my word for it that what he seeks is already covered in the section.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I awaited the Minister's response to Deputy Michael Higgins's amendment before intervening. I feared he might contend that the objective of his amendment was catered for already in the Bill. He has gone further and said that this has already taken place. I was not aware of that fact. I do not know whether Members of the House are aware of what had taken place under the Scholarship Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Act, 1957 — which we are now repealing — under which Act I understand the Minister has said the performing arts were covered. I should like the Minister to give us concrete examples.

I was particularly interested in Deputy Higgins's amendment in that it appeared to me to be something which would divorce the whole educational exchange from the "academia" by which it was surrounded before, bringing it into the public gaze, so that people would be aware of what is happening. There is the danger — when excellent educational exchanges or scholarships take place for some very worthy motive — that one never hears about them, the public may not be aware of them. There would be greater participation in such a programme if there was greater knowledge of what is happening, when public performances or expositions — referred to in Deputy Higgins's amendment — would highlight the whole educational exchange idea thereby generating greater participation. Perhaps the Minister does not want greater participation because it might entail more money. On Second Stage, I asked what money we were putting into the programme. I have not heard of any being injected by this Government. If he is worried about the exchange developing to such an extent that it would cost the State much money he should tell us that. Section 2 (7) (f) states:

financing such other related educational and cultural programmes.... as may be provided for in budgets approved in accordance with section 8 of this Act.

If the Minister is worried about the financing of these exchanges, particularly the type Deputy Higgins has proposed in his amendment, he should say that is a problem and that there would not be sufficient money for it. It is much better to have in the Bill, even if the Minister wants to leave in the existing wording, some part of Deputy Higgins's amendment in brackets such as, "individual and group artistic activities, expositions and performances" so that the board and the Commission would be aware when they are set up that this was discussed, that these specific ideas were put forward and that they are expected to do that. It would be better if the wording, as proposed in this amendment, was included in Bill.

Mr. Calleary

Deputy Mac Giolla asked for examples of grants paid. Grants were paid by the board in 1983-84 for music; in 1988 for communications — a student was sent to the school of visual arts — and in 1987 a grant was paid to a student of sculpture and painting.

Mrs. Owen

Were they attached to a programme?

Mr. Calleary

The individuals had expertise in their own right.

Mrs. Owen

And applied in their own right?

Mr. Calleary

Yes. In 1986 a final year student at the National College of Art and Design received a grant for sculpture. Another student received a grant for freelance painting. Deputies Mac Giolla and Higgins asked if a freelance artist got a grant towards furthering her interest in painting. A student in the University of Ulster also received a grant for painting. Under existing legislation, of which the Bill is in many ways a copy, the points raised and the doubts and fears expressed by Deputy Higgins — and rightly so — have been covered. That is why I said I would have no objection to the inclusion of Deputy Higgins's amendment if it was not adequately covered and the wording has been taken from the agreement. I do not know if Members of the House have a copy of the agreement.

Mrs. Owen

I could not get my hands on a copy.

Mr. Calleary

It may be of assistance to them and we might get a copy of it for them. It would be a help because the agreement is referred to frequently in the Bill.

Mr. M. Higgins

I appreciate that the Minister of State is anxious to respond to my point and I certainly am influenced by that. I want to make a couple of brief points by way of clarification. I note he is putting on the record that the wording I have suggested is to be incorporated in any reasonable interpretation of the Bill. The reason I went for the conservative view is that it is better to stitch points in legislation rather than put them in minimally. The agreement is an agreement between two parties——

Mr. Calleary

Between two countries.

Mr. M. Higgins

Between two parties or two countries, the United States and Ireland. In the case of one the main flow of personnel is coming through the Fulbright scheme. What we have to bear in mind in the legislation, therefore, is that while it has to enshrine the agreement it can mirror the agreement, or, can be a place where the agreement lodges; in other words, that the legislation can be that bit wider if necessary. Why I argued in favour of the amendment, and why I would argue that it would be better legislation, was to take account of the fact that from the Irish side we have more to gain from not being narrowly linked to the Fulbright criteria than has the United States. I will give an example because I do not want to be abstract about it or to delay and be tedious about my amendment. In the case of Ireland in a discipline such as writing, the average Irish playwright, the average Irish poet or the average Irish painter is almost unlikely to be affiliated to an institute of higher learning whereas in the United States the poet is likely to be a writer in residence, the playwright is likely to be in a drama department, artists are likely to be in a department of fine art and so on.

In our legislation which is directed for the benefit of our citizens we have to be careful to take cognisance of what the position is in relation to the arts. It is not as easy as the Minister of State said. For example, the manner in which the Fulbright scheme operates is that if somebody who is a political scientist is seeking to go to Ireland on a Fulbright scheme they have to find a slot in an institution in Ireland. While it is good at that level where there is a parallel of arrangements between institutions here and the other party to the agreement, the United States, it is looser at the other side because it is much more public and separate from institutions in the Irish case in relation to the arts. I can tell the Minister that it would create no difficulty if he accepted the wording in the amendment because he can accomplish his agreement within it, but, at the same time, his words would want to be ones of deep commitment to ensure that nobody is put off.

There is another point which is important. When we come in a later section to the composition of the commission's representatives, they are more likely to represent institutions of higher learning and artistic performance than the free unaffiliated artist, writer and so on and yet there is a growing demand for such a person. Here is the crux with which the Minister will have to deal. If a distinguished playwright such as Tom Murphy, who would be welcome in any institution in the United States, wanted, separate from any institution in the United States, to go to New York and have a workshop he would, under the existing scheme, find more difficulty than if he was going to a place that had been set aside for him in a university. In sending his form applying for the grant he would be asked which institution had accepted him. The nub of the matter is that the new arrangements can retain everything the old scheme was doing but create an atmosphere of flexibility. That was the case for the amendment.

Mr. Calleary

I want to try to reassure Deputy Higgins. He referred to Tom Murphy, a very distinguished playwright. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a person like Mr. Murphy, or anybody else the commission felt had the expertise, from going to the United States to give such an exhibition. Generally, as the Deputy said, this goes from institution to institution. I would like to return to the case where a freelance artist has been awarded a grant. That should reassure the House that, in the words of Deputy Owen, a person such as that is not precluded. I ask the House to accept my explanation particularly in view of the fact that I am anxious, as far as possible, to keep the wording of the agreement which, after all, is an agreement between two countries which was reached after long argument.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Tomás Mac Giolla

I was not very clear on the financial arrangements and I raised some questions on them on Second Stage. However it is still not clear what financial arrangements are being made. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what arrangements are being made. I also asked how much money remained in the fund set up under the Scholarship Exchange Act, 1957, and whether this money would be transferred to the commission. The amount being given to the commission by the United States has been stated but are the Irish Government or anybody in Ireland providing money for the commission? Could the Minister outline the total funding available to the commission and whether they will receive also an annual allocation? I have not been able to lay my hands on the financial report of the last board; in fact, there have been no reports in the Library since 1982, I had laid my hands on the 1982 report but it did not include a financial report. I mentioned that point during my Second Stage contribution. The Minister confirmed that reports had been issued and he assured me that they would be made available in the Library. As I have not been able to clarify the financial arrangements, would the Minister please do so?

Mr. Calleary

The capital fund which is available at present amounts to £552,528, which is partly due to the reinvestment of interest over the various years.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Is that from the previous board?

Mr. Calleary

Yes, of course. In reply to a query from Deputy Mac Giolla I indicated on Second Stage that the Scholarship Exchange Board presented annual reports to the Minister for Foreign Affairs together with audited annual accounts of the scholarship exchange programme. As he has said, I undertook to arrange that these would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and I understand this has been done. There is no statutory deadline for the reports and accounts to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but I have made arrangements for all the reports and accounts to be laid before the House, as requested, and I understand they are now available in the Library.

Mr. M. Higgins

I wish to clarify a minor item in relation to section 2. Are there restrictions on the commission should they to decide to use the capital? I do not see a legal restriction on commiting themselves to using the yield on the capital, which has been the practice to date. If the commission so decide, may I take it that they can use some of the capital as well as the yield from the capital sum invested?

Mr. Calleary

That would be a matter for the Commission to decide on in their wisdom.

Mrs. Owen

When students, whether post graduate, research or teachers, return having completed the exchange programme, what onus rests on them to prove they have participated in the programme? I presume they must report that they have completed their course. Are there instances where this has not happened? Are checks built into the Bill?

Mr. Calleary

Yes, I would be surprised, as I am sure the Deputy would, if there was not some system of checks. I understand the participants have to report on the programme and that the institute they attended must also report on them.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. Higgins

We were very pleased to hear on Second Stage that the existing chairman of the board will continue to serve on the commission. Tribute was paid to the members of the board that is being replaced by this legislation. The detail in which this section deals with the membership of the Commission is pleasing. The Minister was anxious to assure us of the breadth of experience, academic qualifications and probity of the Irish members on the board, but I am at a loss when looking at the American members of the board to discover whether it will be the person who holds a position in the embassy of the day or a diplomat — diplomatic practices differ and a person might have a political orientation — or the people from academic institutions in the United States who will serve on the board.

Mr. Calleary

As the Deputy will, I am sure, understand I cannot pre-empt the decision of the United States Government on their nominees to this commission. The practice in other countries has been for the United States to nominate in the diplomatic category those embassy officers with experience and responsibility in cultural and educational affairs. The Deputy can be reasonably satisfied that all such appointees to this commission by both the Irish and US side will be well qualified to carry out their tasks. As I have said already, the onus would be on the United States Government and I would not like to pre-empt what they might do. However it can reasonably be said that the past appointees were excellent.

Mrs. Owen

I would like further information on the Minister's appointments to the commission. When the Minister is making appointments to a commission which will have to make judgments on a very wide agenda, does he take advice from various organisations? Will the Minister indicate if he approaches the universities and asks them to submit a short list of people who might be suitable or does he approach cultural bodies such as the Sculptors' Association or artistic bodies? In making appointments, I urge the Minister to be aware of the 51 per cent of the population and ensure that a few women are included in this commission.

Section 3 (8) states:

A vacancy arising by the death, resignation or termination of office of a member shall be filled by the appointment of an eligible person in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), as the case may require, to hold office for the unexpired period of the term of office of his predecessor.

If a person served for a period of a year or a year and a half would he be entitled to complete a term of eight years on the commission, in other words would they be able to serve for part of a period of a two-year term in order to make up a total of eight years? Members are allowed to serve for a two-year period and then for three other consecutive two-year terms. Is the person who takes up office in the middle of a two-year term precluded from serving a total of eight years?

Mr. Calleary

Section 3 (5) covers the point raised by the Deputy. The term of office cannot be any longer than eight years.

Mrs. Owen

Could somebody be appointed for six months if they had completed a year and a half of the first term?

Mr. Calleary

Yes, and then they could be appointed for three further terms.

Mrs. Owen

Or four.

Mr. Calleary

The maximum period is eight years. However, the appointment of any member of the commission as laid down in subsection (6) can be terminated by the authority by whom he or she was appointed.

Mrs. Owen

What about women members?

Mr. Calleary

There was one woman on the board but unfortunately she passed away.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister will keep it in mind.

Mr. Calleary

The Deputy can be assured that I always keep such matters in mind.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Like Deputy Owen and Deputy Higgins, I am also concerned about the qualifications of the members of the commission. The Minister has assured us that the members will not need specific qualifications. Ten or 20 years from now, forgetting about current Ministers and other people who are here talking about the Bill, there may be very little protection for the members of the commission. It would be right that the Minister lay down that one or perhaps two people from each side should have some qualification. For example, one person could have a specific educational qualification and another a cultural qualification. There should be some standing for at least two of the appointees. I can expect two political appointees on each side but to have four political appointees on each side, as could happen in the future, would be a bit of a disaster for the whole scheme. It is a pity that there is nothing in the Bill to say that any one of the commissioners must have a particular standing in the community or ability in the cultural or academic area. I would ask the Minister to consider some qualification for at least one member, perhaps the chairperson or deputy chairperson. The document here mentions chairman and deputy chairman. Therefore there is not much hope for Deputy Owen's suggestion about 51 per cent of the population being represented on the commission. However, there should be some protection so that the function of the commission is maintained well into the future by ensuring that there is a certain standard of ability and integrity on the commission.

Mr. Calleary

All I can do is repeat what I have said, that I cannot pretend to have any influence over the appointments by the American Government. During the operation of this scheme appointments have been made by Governments of all shapes and sizes and of differing political opinions. All Governments have accepted the responsibility that has been put on them. The last board is one that even Deputy Mac Giolla must say is a first class board. This matter is so important that no Government would appoint a person to the board, be it a man or women, unless they had the ability to do the work. I do not think Deputy Owen would like to see a woman appointed unless she had the ability, and I know there are very many——

Mrs. Owen

There are many such women.

Mr. Calleary

Yes indeed. I do not think we can write in safeguards. We can only go on the experience of what has happened already.

Mrs. Owen

And your wisdom.

Mr. Calleary

I do not know how long I will be around.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. Higgins

I would like to raise a very small point on this section and again I do not want to delay on it. Perhaps the Minister would inform me a little more on subsection (9). Why, of all the officerships, has the position of treasurer been selected as one requiring the approval of the Minister and the representative of the United States? There is a touch of tautology here. We are all suspending any reservations and disbelief we may have to go along with the Minister's good intentions, but if the Minister has appointed four impeccable people and if, equally, four unimpeachable people came from the American side, could we not trust these eight wonderful people who have met every criterion to pick a treasurer? Why, having gone through the procedures so wonderfully, is a further ratification required, not by one but by both parties to the agreement, for the position of treasurer?

Mrs. Owen

I want to refer to that same point. Deputy Higgins and I must have been looking over each other's shoulder because I, too, read this subsection with a certain amount of surprise. I not only wondered why the treasurer is to be sanctioned by both sides but why the assistant treasurer could be any old person who does not have to match the same criteria or undergo the same scrutiny. It is with the assistant treasurer that the difficulty could arise. I wonder why it is necessary to have that line in the Bill. I would have thought that if anybody is to be subject to the approval of the Minister it should be the chairperson, but the chairperson is probably appointed by the Minister — I thought all the people would be appointed by the Minister. I have one other point to make on this section but I will allow the Minister to answer this one first.

Mr. Calleary

There is a very simple answer — the treasurer is the person who will sign the cheques and be responsible for the money and the accounts, unlike the assistant treasurer who will not have the same responsibility. It is for that reason that both parties would have to be satisfied with the person who is to be treasurer. I do not know who the treasurer is going to be, but the Minister and the agent of the United States Government will have to be satisfied with the individual concerned.

Mrs. Owen

I want to say something to the Minister in case he gets the wrong impression. I was 13½ years old when in 1957, legislation to initiate this scheme first came to this House and I have no knowledge or remembrance of this whole set up. Therefore, in asking questions I am not casting reflections on the people who have operated the system over a number of years. This is the first chance I have got as an adult to examine the legislation. I would ask the Minister if subsection (7) of section 4 is not tautolous in the sense that nobody is allowed to be on the board for more than four consecutive terms. I wonder why that provision is there. It implies that a person can be in office for only four terms but can continue to be an ordinary member for further terms. In section 3 (5) it is clear that a person can be in office for only four terms. I wonder if there is excessive wording there.

Mr. Calleary

In a way that could well be the case. A person cannot hold office for more than four consecutive terms but as Deputy Owen has said if they can serve for more than four terms that should be an answer in itself. However I do not think it makes any real difference to the Bill and it is not going to affect it in any way.

Mrs. Owen

I thought there might be some hidden meaning.

Mr. Calleary

I would not have any hidden meaning in it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. Higgins

I wish to make a very small point. Subsection (4) states that the income of the Ireland-United States Educational Fund shall be made available to the commission for the purposes of its functions. My earlier question was whether the capital sum, as well as the yield, could be used to fund the scholarship programme and the Minister replied that it would be a matter for a decision by the commission as to whether it wanted to lean on the capital fund rather than restricting itself to the yield. However, this subsection seems to specify the yield.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I want to emphasise a similar point here in regard to funding which has not been clear to me from the beginning. I take it that the Ireland-United States Educational Fund will be composed of £552,528 plus $127,000 from the United States. The Irish Government are not contributing money but will, of course, provide secretarial expenses, accommodation, equipment, light, telephones and the various expenses incurred in the functioning of the board.

I want to clarify the point Deputy Higgins raised. Will the only money available to the commission be the income arising from the fund which, under subsection (3), will be invested by the Minister for Finance, with the consent of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in such securities as may be approved of by the Minister for Finance? All that will be available to the commission will be the income arising form those securities. Will the Minister give an indication of what the income currently is from the sum available if invested by the Minister for Finance? What income is available to the commission on a yearly basis for the purpose of bursaries, etc.? I take it, if the Irish Government are providing all the backup services of secretarial expenses, accommodation, light, telephones and expenses incurred in the functioning of the board, they will be able to use all this income for the purpose of scholarships, bursaries or various grants to individuals or, since the Minister agreed with the proposal of Deputy Higgins, to group artistic activities. This proposal must have been thought up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance, that this money is available and that if it is invested in securities so much interest will be gained annually. Will the Minister give us an indication of what will be available annually?

Mrs. Owen

Subsection (6) says that the Government may, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, make contributions to the commission for the purposes of its functions. Will the Minister give us an indication — I do not know if he has the figure available — of how much money has been provided by the Oireachtas? Has the whole scholarship scheme been totally funded from interest payments? Has there been any cost to the State? Does this section of the Bill oblige the commission to invest those moneys in accordance with the instructions of the Minister for Finance? The fund is more or less under the control of the Minister for Finance. A later section states that the commission can accept funds, goods and services as may be made available to them and I wonder if such goods, services and funds that they might get are covered under this section of the Bill. Is the word of the Minister for Finance supreme in relation to any moneys available for spending or do they have a little latitude?

Mr. Calleary

A capital sum of £500,000 was made available which, because of accrued interest, is something in the region of £572,000. A sum of $127,000 has been provided for the last number of years and there is a promise that it will be increased as soon as the commission have been established.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Is it an annual sum?

Mr. Calleary

Yes. There will be nothing to stop the commission from using the sum of £52,000 which has accumulated in interest; there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this and it is left to their own discretion. Of course if they dip deeply into it the money available will be that much less. I cannot forecast what the commission might do in relation to that but they will probably keep the £500,000 intact. Unfortunately, I do not have the figure of the contribution of the Irish Government but it has been generally in the provision of accommodation, lighting, various equipment, some secretarial work, heating, etc.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. Higgins

I thank the Minister for his clarification of the previous point. I was interested to hear that there is flexibility which depends on the commission of the day. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to line 43. Subsection (b) states: "the recommendation to the Board of Foreign Scholarships of the United States of America....of the candidacy of students, research scholars, and teachers to participate in the programmes envisaged by this Act, bearing in mind the fact that that board will identify appropriate agencies to arrange placement." I do not want to be tedious about it but I want to alert the Minister to the fact that the giveaway word in that line is "agencies" because, let us be clear about it, although they have powers of recommendations with the United States side in relation to institutions, not all institutions are participating institutions. To become an agency for one side of it in relation to, for example, the traditional evolution of the Fulbright scheme, does not include all the agencies of the United States or the academic or third level institutions of the United States. Neither does it include institutions outside academic ones altogether, not to speak of the fact of it not including freely organised groups of artists, musicians, writers, the Drama Guild of America and all the other things we mentioned. My fear, lest the Minister of State think it is overstated, is justified by the very wording we have here bearing in mind that the board will identify appropriate agencies to arrange placement.

The Minister may say that, of course, this is a matter for the United States, who are the other signatories of the agreement and certainly that is a valid reply. I am saying that this is evidence of the very thing I suggested with a danger in relation to restriction because we are being pointed at rather definite and specific targets.

Mrs. Owen

Subsection (2) states that members of the commission may not themselves benefit by way of scholarship or travel bursaries. I do not know whether the Minister had time this morning to hear of the major competition being run for a bar of gold where one of the conditions is that members of RTÉ and their families are not allowed to participate in the search. I wonder about this section. Clearly members of the commission could not be sitting on a board and awarding themselves the scholarships, but it is important that it be clear that members of their families either would not be excluded, or, equally, would not be shown any form of favouritism. I wonder if the Minister has any comment on how that section works. If it was included in the original I do not think it was exactly in those words because I could not find it. Was there ever a conflict involving a member of the family of any member of the commission feeling they were being excluded because a parent or some relative happened to be on the commission? I just wondered how that part of the Bill had been working.

Mr. Calleary

The short answer is that I do not know. If I catch the drift of Deputy Owen's contribution I gather she would not be very happy if a member of the family of a member of the commission was not able to avail of the scholarship if they were suited in every other way. I have to say that I agree with her. I agree with her also that a member of the commission itself should not be able to avail of a scholarship or a grant, but I feel that it would be undue interference if a member of their family who was sufficiently well qualified should suffer because a parent was a member of the commission.

The point made by Deputy Higgins is fair. Under the existing scheme any recommendations made by the existing board and, indeed, by the commission in the future will have to be passed on to the board of foreign scholarships. In relation to the Fulbright Programme itself, operation is normally by the Council for International Exchange of Scholars at scholar level and by the Institute for International Education at graduate level. That is a normal part of the Fulbright Programme.

I can understand the Deputy's worry about agencies, but the examples I gave earlier should go some way towards alleviating his worries on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Owen

I wonder if this section does not unduly restrict the commission. Under section 7 there is a very wide range of powers. In fact, one of the selling points of this Bill according to the Minister was that it was giving more autonomy to what was formerly known as the board and is now to be known as the commission, allowing them more flexibility in their approach and giving them the right to set up their own offices so they would not be directly under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs, although excellently managed by them. Now they were becoming a more autonomous body and able to make decisions for themselves. I just wonder if this section is not tying their hands when it comes to the powers granted under section 7 (a) —"the planning, adoption and execution of programmes in accordance with the purposes of this Act". I feel they should be entitled to decide in one year, perhaps, that they might like to give a few extra scholarships because they happen to have a particularly high standard of applications, and maybe in another year decide that they did not feel the standards were reached, and reduce the numbers. I wonder if the necessity to go to the Minister for Finance to get their budgets approved annually is such a good idea. Perhaps the Minister would assure me that this is not unduly tying the hands of the commission.

Mr. M. Higgins

I have a very minor and related point in relation to this section. The Minister might be able to tell me whether the phrase "following consultation with the Minister for Finance" is an innovation on the 1957 Act. I cannot remember exactly but I would be inclined to wager that it is not in the 1957 Act. It is a fascinating exercise because here the principle of good legislation is involved. The Minister would be entitled to stand up and reply that ultimately in regard to moneys given by the Irish Government by way of an Act that is coming in under the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State are the accountable people to question in the Dáil. I can understand that.

I very much support Deputy Owen's point, but we should understand that even if there is to be accountability, it is not restriction, and that the flexibility of drawing from the capital sum and/or the yield in any one year taken with another is something that should be there. However, what is absolutely extraordinary is the insertion of the phrase in line 3 "following consultation with the Minister for Finance". Let us be dead on about this one because money and funding in this Bill have been a bit elusive. What is really being said is that the component for which the Irish Government have responsibility will be used to determine the total policy of the commission from all funds, including those not given by the Irish Government at all. Therefore what it is saying is that, even if the Minister for Foreign Affairs was to hear a submission by the commission on the very point Deputy Owen makes, this year we have an extraordinary group of people who would benefit and if the Minister was amenable and said he agreed it made sense that if sums were not used in one year they could be rolled on to another year, he has to go back in consultation with the Minister for Finance, and the small component which, as Deputy Mac Giolla has been saying, is by way of contribution to light, heat, rental, telephones and so forth, is used as a drag on the total funding. It seems that the way to deal with it is for the Minister of State to tell us on Report Stage — and he would have my support — that he will drop the words "following consultation with the Minister for Finance". We can drop them because they provide no advantage in this legislation and throw an air of uncertainty over the work of the commission.

Mr. Calleary

I do not think it is putting any veil of uncertainty over the work of the commission because this section is based on Article 6 of the 1988 Agreement and corresponds to section 8 of the 1957 Act which concerns the annual programme of the Scholarship Exchange Board. As Deputies know, it is normal for any Minister to get sanction from the Minister for Finance. There are many of us who might like to get rid of that. I can again sympathise with what the Deputy has said.

Mr. M. Higgins

It was not in the 1957 Act.

Mrs. Owen

Will I read out what was in the 1957 Act?

Mr. Calleary

It is actually based on Article 6 of the Agreement. I hope by now Deputies have the Agreement.

Tomás Mac Giolla

We have just got it.

Mr. Calleary

My apologies. It corresponds to section 8 of the 1957 Act which concerns the annual programme of the Scholarship Exchange Board.

Mrs. Owen

I have the Act in front of me, and it does not say "after consultation with the Minister for Finance". Section 8 (3) says "The expenditure of the Board during each period of twelve months beginning on the 1st day of April shall be in accordance with the programme and budget in respect of that period approved of by the Minister under this section". It has no heavy hand of having to consult with the Minister for Finance. This ubiquitous Minister for Finance has crept in everywhere to wave the large fiscal baton over this Bill as well.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I agree with the points raised by Deputy Higgins. As I said on Second Stage, it appears that the Minister for Finance is poking his nose into everybody's business. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should remove the reference to the Minister for Finance in this section. There was no reference to the Minister for Finance in the agreement. Article 6 of the agreement provides that all obligations, commitments and expenditure authorised by the agreement shall be made in accordance with the budgets approved by the Minister and the Government of the United States.

Mr. M. Higgins

The 1957 model.

Tomás Mac Giolla

All we are asking the Minister to do is adhere to the agreement and leave the Minister for Finance out of this. The people who drafted this Bill inserted this reference to the Minister for Finance. The Minister of State should look again at this point.

Mr. M. Higgins

He does not need it.

Tomás Mac Giolla

He does not need the reference and he should drop it on Report Stage.

Mr. Calleary

Deputy Mac Giolla has asked me to drop the reference to the Minister for Finance but I could not drop the reference to the Minister for Finance. There is no reference in the section to the need to have the agreement of the Minister for Finance; the section merely refers to consultation with the Minister for Finance. Section 5 (3) provides that all moneys invested shall be invested with the consent of the Minister for Finance in such securities as may be approved of by the Minister for Finance. It is only diplomatic to consult with the Minister for Finance about such matters. We do not have to get the approval of the Minister for Finance; we only have to consult with him.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is the word "consent" we could do without.

Mrs. Owen

I have no objection to allowing the Minister for Finance have some say in moneys invested in Government securities and so on. However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be the supreme Minister in these instances. If I was Minister for Foreign Affairs — that probably will never happen — I should like to be mistress of my Department and be able to make decisions without having to consult with the Minister for Finance on each occasion. I have no problem with allowing the Minister for Finance to have a say in investments in Government securities and giving good advice — he has a wealth of advice in his Department — but the Minister of State will agree that the gremlins got to work when they started to interpret Article 6, which I have only just seen. Article 6 clearly uses the words "in accordance" which, from my reading of it, is exactly the same as section 8 (3) of the 1957 Act, at which time there was no Minister for Finance hovering around.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Pattison)

Is section 8 agreed?

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes, if the Minister undertakes to look at it between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Calleary

I thought we could get through all Stages today because the sooner the commission are established the sooner we will be able to start the programme. I do not think we should look a gift horse in the mouth.

Mrs. Owen

It is the Minister for Finance who wants to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Mr. Calleary

I would have problems in removing the reference to the Minister for Finance and I ask the Deputies to leave the reference to him alone.

Mr. M. Higgins

The reference is obtrusive and redundant but we can agree to the section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mrs. Owen

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, line 1, after "accept" to insert", seek".

In the course of my preparation for the debate on this Bill, I had discussions with various interested parties about it. One point made by them was that it was a bit restrictive to merely allow the commission to "accept and use" other funds, goods or services. I got the distinct impression that people, maybe not here but, certainly, in the United States, may be interested in making money available to the commission but might not be aware that the commission would like to receive it. The commission should be given the flexibility to seek such funds. For example, a former recipient of one of these scholarships who might have acquired a certain amount of wealth might, if asked, be willing to give money to the commission so that other students could avail of it. Some Irish members of the commission may feel left out or embarrassed if they are not able to seek such funds. I know that the United States side would like to have the flexibility to seek such funds and it would be a pity if we were to prevent the Irish side from doing this.

Such funds, if sought, would have to be used in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. I am not proposing that the commission could seek funds and run off and do what they like with them. My amendment would give the commission some flexibility in this regard. In later years the Minister may be thanked by students who were able to avail of scholarships under this Bill because the commission were permitted to raise £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000.

A few days ago I attended a meeting in Dublin City University and I was extremely pleased to hear reports from the university of the amounts of money which people had made available for the purchase of technological equipment and the building of extensions to the university. Many of those people had given six figure sums to the university and they wanted no praise or publicity for doing so. That shows that there are people who want to help in this area of education. It would be a pity if we did not enable the commission to avail of all the opportunities to seek such funds.

Mr. M. Higgins

I support Deputy Owen's amendment. I will be very brief because the need for such amendment is obvious. I will give an example, drawn from the experience of the board since 1957. When the board used advertise in newspapers, they headed them, An Bord Cómalairte Scoláireachtaí with a second heading, The Scholarship Exchange Board. The format and the main title were enough to deter people from applying. I am not saying that by way of criticism. To take Deputy Owen's point, if one wants the commission to have more funding, one could argue, in terms of their administrative provisions, that they should be allowed advertise their charitable status, tax exemptions and so forth. However, another interpretation of this would be that the commission are over-stepping themselves and should sit there and wait for the money to come to them. It makes eminent sense to include the word "seek" in this section.

In order to save time later, I strongly advise the Minister to check the usage of the term "An Bord Scoláireachtaí Cómalairte" throughout the Bill. I am anxious to see the modernisation of the Irish language in print but I have a very deep suspicion that everywhere the word "Cómalairte" occurs in the Bill and the explanatory memoranda that it should, in fact, read "Cómhalairte".

Tomás Mac Giolla

I support Deputy Owen's amendment. The more money the commission have available to them the more effective they can be and the more they can do in relation to cultural and educational exchange. There are various tax incentives in the United States to encourage people to put money into charities, bursaries, scholarships and so on. We may reach that stage here in the next ten, 15 or 20 years and it would be very useful if the board were able to openly market the commission in the very fashionable marketplace about which we all speak. People may wish to put money — some people regard this as a way in which they can be commemorated after they die — into the commission's bursaries, scholarships, exchanges and so on.

The word "seek" is a very good, simple way of providing for that in the Bill. Not alone may they accept if somebody is offering the money to them but they may go out and actually look for money. Certainly it can be got currently in the US. Universities can go out openly and look for funds, so the commission should be able to do the same thing.

Mr. Calleary

I can understand the desire of Deputy Owen to make certain that the commission can get their hands on as much money as possible but the wording of the Bill does not preclude them from going out. While I accept that Deputy Owen's amendment would make it more positive, the present wording does not preclude the commission from seeking money.

In relation to the point made by Deputy Higgins, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the commission from letting people know that they have a charitable status, because that is actually conferred on them by section 2 (6) of the Bill. The section is based on article 7 (G) of the 1988 agreement. It corresponds to section 13 of the 1957 Act which concerns gifts to the Scholarship Exchange Board. We felt that it was undesirable to impose on the commission the obligation to look for funds. The Deputy's amendment is a good one but I would have to go back and have it clarified. I want this legislation put through as quickly as possible and I accept the point that it is a long time in formulation. While I accept the thinking behind the Deputy's amendment, I would ask her to withdraw it.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is only a teeny little word.

Mr. Calleary

I accept that——

Mrs. Owen

And a comma.

Mr. Calleary

It is a little word that I shall have to get cleared, and God knows how long that might take. It was taken specifically from the agreement. If I am to change it my advice is that I may have to go back to the agreement.

Mrs. Owen

If it is any consolation to the Minister, I could almost guarantee that that is exactly the kind of amendment to this Bill that the US side want. They did not ask me to put in this amendment, but I know from discussions with them in preparing for the Bill that they would like the opportunity to go out to seek funds. It is really only the Irish side from whom I would like an answer today, that is from the Minister. I checked the word "accept", and although I am not as good as Deputy Higgins in analysing English words, it means that one opens one's hands and accepts, for instance, a gift. I do not see how the Minister can say that the word "accept" means the same thing as actively seeking something.

I wonder in what part of the Bill is it implicit that the word "accept" means that one can accept money after one has sought it. The Minister is saying that one can accept money whether or not one has gone out to seek the money or it has been offered. I am advised that the Minister's interpretation is not implicit in the Bill and that the American side do not feel they have the right to seek money.

Mr. Calleary

The very fact that the word "seek" is not there does not preclude the commission from looking for money. I was not a party to the discussion that Deputy Owen had with the American side and I can only say that the American side were very much involved in the agreement and we have taken the wording of the Bill from the agreement. I am not opposed to the word "seek" except for that. I am sure the House would like to have the commission established as soon as possible. I accept that this has taken quite a while. Because the drafting was carefully chosen not to preclude the commission from seeking money, the Deputy might consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mrs. Owen

I will if the debate here is to stand part of the intention of this Bill so that when the commission run into a difficulty I can produce this debate of May Day 1991 and tell them that they are entitled to seek funding. The Minister has given me that commitment and I am happy to accept it, provided the Minister does not stand up now and say that what he has said in the House does not stand. I accept the Minister's word and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".

Tomás Mac Giolla

I would like some clarification from the Minister as to what type of equipment needs to be imported for the commission. It is a most unusual section. There are many educational establishments who would love to have that facility available to them, that they may import necessary equipment free of import charges. I thought that perhaps this referred to exhibitions, sculptures, paintings or whatever in the exchange forward and back, but it does not seem to be that. If it was, it would probably be specifically said. It says "equipment necessary for official use". That would include computers, typewriters and whatever office equipment was required. If that section allowing that sort of equipment to be imported free of import charges is included here it will open up the floodgates with many people looking for similar facilities. Perhaps the Minister would explain why it is necessary to have this.

Mrs. Owen

It would not be photocopies and so on, would it?

Mr. Calleary

The point is well made. The section has been designed to give effect to Article 1 (C) of the 1988 agreement, which says:

(C) As an organisation established for charitable purposes, the Commission will be exempt from income tax and capital gains tax in relation to income and/or gains applied for charitable purposes. Transfers and leases of land made for charitable purposes will be exempt from stamp duty. Inheritances applied for public or charitable purposes shall be exempt from inheritance tax.

The Commission shall be entitled to import free of duty necessary equipment for official use. My understanding is that that is something that the American negotiators looked for and that it is part and parcel of all the typical scholarship agreements they have with other countries.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Does it refer to office equipment or normal equipment for educational purposes? Is that specific reference made to the type of equipment that may be imported?

Mr. Calleary

No. Any equipment for official use may be imported——

Tomás Mac Giolla

Tractors?

Mr. Calleary

I doubt it very much. However, there might be something in the reference made by Deputy Owen to Teagasc.

Mr. M. Higgins

They might need a small executive jet.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Owen

Can the Minister of State give us any idea of the expenses which might be incurred by him? I assume since this body is being given autonomy they will be able to open up offices and sign agreements for the provision of a telephone service or will it be the case that the Minister will continue to pay? However I note that the ubiquitous Minister for Finance will keep a beady eye on the Minister for Foreign Affairs who will not be allowed to incur any expenses, to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, unless they have been sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. That clause only began to appear in legislation during the past few years. It first appeared in a Bill relating to education — I think Mr. Ray MacSharry was Minister for Finance at the time — with the result that the approval of the Minister for Finance had to be sought first before a school could buy a new blackboard. I would suggest that we should not take from Ministers the responsibilities given to them when appointed and that this is not good for democracy. Would the Minister of State be prepared to say that he, too, is concerned about the presence of the ubiquitous Minister for Finance?

Mr. Calleary

I do not accept invitations such as that. As the Deputy said, the commission will have the right to look for their own property and so on. However in the interim they will continue to operate from the Department. Indeed they may well decide to continue to operate from their present accommodation but that will be a matter for the commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Mr. M. Higgins

To save time and to follow up on the question I asked earlier, I wish to make the point, with regard to the Irish reference to the Scholarship Exchange Board, "An Bord Scoláireachtaí Cómalairte", that I am of the opinion — perhaps this is some new usage — that in accordance with the normal construction of the Irish language the word should read "cómhalairte". I am not making a pedagogic point but when neologisms creep in they indicate a lack of bureaucratic respect for the resonance and beauty of our ancient language.

Mrs. Owen

It may be of interest to Deputy Higgins and the Minister of State to learn that the same point was made by our own resident Gaelic scholar, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Tunney, with whom I had a discussion on this matter when the Bill was introduced in the House. I informed him that I could not decide on the correct spelling but he seemed to think that there was an error in the Irish wording on line 7 of page 4 of the Bill.

Mr. McCartan

If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle says it, that seals it.

Mr. Calleary

Deputy McCartan does not always agree with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but that is a matter for another day. If a mistake has been made it was made in 1957 also.

Mr. M. Higgins

That was a very bad year. I am simply saying if the spelling is not the correct one or the same as the one in conventional usage it should be rectified.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stage today.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Calleary

I thank the Deputies for their co-operation.

Mr. M. Higgins

May I take it that the Minister of State has given the undertaking I sought with regard to the drafting?

Mr. Calleary

Certainly. I am afraid my knowledge of the Gaelic language is not on a par with that of Deputy Higgins.

Mrs. Owen

I welcome the fact that this Bill outlines the way in which the scheme is to be operated. I am sure the Minister will do some study before he appoints the ladies and gentlemen of the commission and I wish them well in their endeavours. I hope they will find this debate useful if they need to seek clarification.

Mr. M. Higgins

I hope the men and women who serve on the commission will see that what we were trying to do was to give them the most effective instrument they could possibly have. This will be very good legislation if these thoughts are borne in mind.

Question put and agreed to.