In view of the amendments tabled by the Minister in relation to section 5 (1), this amendment is now redundant. Section 5 (2) (c) covers the contingency and any orders made under this subsection will have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in draft form and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House. Yesterday the House agreed to an amendment tabled by the Minister and, therefore, my amendment is now redundant. For that reason I wish to withdraw it.
Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 39:
In page 6, subsection (2), lines 10 to 14, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) Whenever an order is proposed to be made under this section, a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
—(Deputy O'Shea).
Amendment No. 39, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40a.
In page 6, lines 15 to 24, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Will the Minister explain why the amendment in his name is not being moved? What has brought about the change of heart?
I decided not to move the amendment because the matter is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and we will deal with it later.
Are we discussing amendment No. 42 which states:
In page 6, lines 28 to 30, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) The governing body of a college shall consist of 22 members (including the Director) one of whom (other than the Director) shall be elected to be chairman as provided for in the Second Schedule to this Act.
(b) The members of the governing body other than the chairman and the Director are referred to in this Act as ordinary members.".
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but there is a difficulty as we cannot hang a debate on an amendment that has not been moved. I would much prefer if the Deputy expressed his views on this amendment when we come to discuss the section.
There are related amendments tabled by the Opposition and perhaps we can discuss it when we are discussing them?
I am afraid I cannot permit a debate on an amendment that has not been moved.
We now come to amendment No. 43 in the name of Deputy Mac Giolla and there is a number of related amendments; amendments Nos. 43a to 69, inclusive; amendments Nos. 71 to 74a, inclusive; amendments Nos. 182 to 184b, inclusive; amendments Nos. 186 to 189b, inclusive, and amendment No. 197. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss these amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 29, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) a chairperson and not more than 19 ordinary members, and".
In my amendment I simply seek to increase the number to allow for a chairman and not more than 19 ordinary members on the governing body of a college.
In our amendment No. 44 we seek to delete "15" and substitute "18" as the number of ordinary members on the governing body of a college. In the Bill as drafted, section 6 (2) (a) provided that the governing body of a college shall consist of a chairman and 15 ordinary members, but subsequent amendments, tabled by the Opposition parties, suggested the number should range from 18, as Deputy Ahearn and I suggested, to 19, as Deputy Mac Giolla suggested. We were pleasantly surprised when we were circulated with ministerial amendment No. 42 which proposed to increase he number to 22, but we were then circulated with mendment No. 43a, a ministerial amendment, which proposed to substitute "16" in place of both "15" and "22". The Minister has suggested that the number of ordinary members on the governing body should be 15, 22 and now 16.
The governing body is a key instrument in the success of the college as it oversees the day-to-day operation of the college. It should be as large and representative as possible without being unwieldy. We were pleasantly surprised when the Minister went further than us and increased the number of ordinary members to 22, allowing for a knock-on increase in representation by the various component bodies of the governing body. One is reminded of Lanigan's Ball: First, a membership of 15 was proposed, then 22, and now 16. I urge the Minister to move his amendment that the membership be increased to 22. This would allow for the various increases in membership and the dual sex representation proposed by us in a late amendment.
There is only one amendment before the House at present, that is amendment No. 43 in the name of Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla. Members may, as Deputy Higgins has done, refer to their amendments.
I support the points made by my colleague, Deputy Higgins. All these amendments relate to the change in membership. We welcomed the proposal to increase the membership to 22 even though we proposed that it should be 18. It would help us to deal with these amendments if the Minister explained his amendment further.
I do no think there is any great difficulty with this Part of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 propose that the board should consist of a chairman plus 17, 18 or 19 members. My amendment, which proposes that the board should be made up of a director, chairman and 16 members, is very much in line with the proposals in those amendments. It was felt on further consideration that a board comprising 22 members would be too big and unwieldy. This is the reason for the change.
I seek your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 43 to 69, inclusive, 71 to 74a, inclusive, 182 to 184b, inclusive, 186 to 189b, inclusive, and 197, together. May Deputies refer to any of those amendments for the purpose of this debate.
Absolutely. They will be discussed together and we will make decisions on them seriatim.
Amendment No. 42 was tabled by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern. There are a number of fundamental changes in the present Minister's amendment. For example, it is proposed to change the Second Schedule of the Bill. The former Minister's amendment proposed that the governing body of a college should consist of 22 members including the director, one of whom, other than the director, would be elected to be chairman as provided for in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Under the present Minister's amendment the proposal for the election of the chairman by the governing body and the recommendation made by the vocational education committee to the Minister in regard to the nominated person will be removed. This is an outright attack on local democracy and the local education system. In other words, the appointment of the chairman will be centralised in Marlborough Street and it will be on the direction of the Minister.
As a member of the Labour Party I regard as reprehensible the proposal to exclude from the governing body the one person to be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. A later amendment in my name proposes that a member of the FIE should be nominated to the governing body. This amendment was tabled to achieve balance. The Labour Party recognise that while the general trade union movement in a region should be represented it is also important that the employer interests be represented. The proposal to exclude the person to be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is an outright attack on the trade union movement.
It is not clear at this stage whether there will be one or two teacher representatives on the governing body. If I recall correctly, the then Minister Deputy Davern, proposed in his amendment that there should be two teacher representatives on the governing body. The Minister should make a very definite distinction between teacher representatives and a representative of the general trade union movement. The general trade union movement are involved in much more than the educational area and educational trade unionism per se. The Minister will be aware that trades councils in the south-east region have played a very positive role in many developments. For example, they have played an important role in the development of Waterford Airport and the sports complex in my area. I understand the Minister has an interest in this complex and that he recently visited it. The proposal to exclude the ICTU representative from the governing body is unthinkable, and I will certainly push my amendment to a vote when we reach it.
As Deputy Higgins said, we are not clear as to the intention of the Minister in this respect. The former Minister for Education proposed to increase the number of vocational education committee members on the governing body, but it is now proposed to leave that membership at the level initially proposed in the Bill. This is an attack on organised labour on the one hand and local democracy on the other. The amendments dealing with the composition of the governing body bring us to the very kernel of the Bill and the changes which have been made to it. This Bill is not the Bill introduced by Deputy O'Rourke or the Bill pursued by Deputy Davern during their terms as Minister for Education. It is a totally new Bill. Concerns raised are about the leak in relation to the Green Paper that the Government intend to completely remove vocational education committees from the scene. I want to repeat that at the end of the day vocational education committees are the only democratic educational administration bodies in the State. We seem to be moving towards Thatcherism in this area. In this respect, I wish to enter a caveat to the officials in the Department of Education. The problems which exist in Britain in this area are proof positive that the road followed by the Tories is not the road leading to a proper educational system, a liberal spread in curriculum content, the full development of individuals and all that goes with that.
The Minister has a duty to explain to us why the Bill presented to this House by the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, has been changed totally in character. The legalities in relation to the explanatory memorandum also bear examination. I believe that the link with the vocational education committee is effectively being broken. I will be pursuing the amendment in the names of Deputy Higgins and myself. The removal of the election of the chairman from the democratic process and the fact that the representative of organised labour will no longer have a place as of right on the governing body, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, is a retrograde step and an ideological step in the same direction as other Government decisions on economic policy. Such measures will be greatly to the detriment of our educational system.
The change of Ministers becomes clearer with each amendment put down by this Minister. The attack on the vocational education committees is evident in that the original draft by the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, provided that the first members other than the director of the governing body of the college shall be persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the vocational education committee, but the present Minister has deleted that provision. I suggested on Second Stage that the members be appointed by the vocational education committee. For the Minister to appoint the members on the recommendation of the vocational education committee would give some credibility and power to the vocational education committees. The present Minister, Deputy Brennan, is providing that the Minister would have total control. He would not have to seek a recommendation from the vocational education committee; they would not even be asked for their opinion. That is the whole thrust of this Bill.
Similarly, in the original draft of the Bill Deputy O'Rourke provided, under section 6 (4), that upon the expiration of the term of office of the first ordinary members, the ordinary members of a governing body shall be appointed by the Minister, on the recommendation of the vocational education committee. That provision was not changed by her successor, Deputy Davern, but it has been deleted by this Minister — amendment 53a in the name of the Minister proposed to delete "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee".
When Deputy Davern was Minister he made substantial amendments for the better in regard to representation on the govening body, retaining the power of the vocational education committee. He amended the numbers of persons to be nominated by the vocational education committee from six to eight, of whom at least five shall be elected representatives. The present Minister proposes that at least three shall be elected representatives of local authorities. Therefore, there are changes all round.
As Deputy O'Shea said, it is difficult to understand why the terms of the Bill in regard to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are being altered to provide that one person would be nominated by them. In the Minister's amendments there is a definite trend towards removal of democratic control and trade union influence. This gives a whole new context to the Bill. The third level education system is being substantially altered in all these amendments by a Minister who sees any type of democratic or local control as being anathema and going totally against the grain. The Minister wants to retain control over all aspects of the colleges, from the governing body to courses and degrees, and this is evident in every amendment tabled by him.
I am totally opposed to the thrust of these amendments. Under the last Minister we felt we could have dealt with the Bill rapidly because there was consensus between Minister and Opposition. Under that Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Rourke, there was also a tendency to make changes and she agreed with certain suggestions, but this Minister does not want to listen to any suggestions. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not here to show whether he has flexibility. Up to now there has been inflexibility in regard to suggested improvements to the Bill, improvements that have been sought by many people involved in education, particularly in vocational education. Everybody who is interested in this matter, including parents, have made suggestions in regards to the Bill. We looked forward very much to the passing of these Bills in which, we hoped, greater flexibility and autonomy would be given to the colleges while retaining local control and input. A great asset of the vocational system was that there was local community input and each region knew what was best for its own area. However, this is being gradually whittled down in this Bill. I would ask the Minister to consider with a more open mind the amendments to broaden the scope of the governing body and to ensure that interests are properly represented.
One of the amendments in my name proposes greater representation by the academic staff. Amendment 60 proposes that the word "nominated" be changed to "elected". I am proposing that three people be nominated although the Minister is insisting that there be only one person. When Deputy Davern was Minister he proposed to increase the number of academic staff to two persons. I am a little confused in that I do not know whether the Minister agrees to that provision. However, regardless of what number is decided upon I would ask the Minister to ensure that the academic representatives on the governing body be elected by the staff. To nominate staff in accordance with regulations made by the governing body would seem to be a self-perpetuating system in that the governing body could ensure that they select the members of the academic staff. Surely we should be promoting democracy at local and college levels to ensure harmony among the staff and the governing body. We should ensure that members of the academic staff on the governing body are elected rather than nominated. Basically what I and other Oposition Deputies are proposing is a more broadly based governing body with more representation and more democracy in it.
The reduction in numbers and the lack of clarification could have serious consequences for other amendments tabled by Deputy Higgins and myself, particularly amendments Nos. 61 to 65. The Minister in clarifying said that 22 would make it unwieldly, but he failed to tell us exactly how many of the 16 will be representative of academic staff, other staff and students. The reason I stress this point is that we have tabled amendments increasing the representation of the academic staff from one to two, other staff from one to two and students from one to two. We added a further amendment to those three amendments stating that one at least must be a woman. We will be pursuing these amendments.
The composition of a governing body gives us a golden opportunity to give equal representation to women. People at large believe that from primary education to third level education women do not have their just representation at the highest levels of power. The representation of women principals in our primary school system is deplorable, despite the fact that over 80 per cent of the staff are women. The same story applies to our secondary schools. This Bill gives us an opportunity to give equal representation to women in our third level education institutions. At the moment the higher levels of power in our third level institutions are dominated by men. I appeal to the Minister to use this opportunity. We should not be afraid to discriminate positively in favour of women. It is the only way they will get adequate representation. Despite many calls for equal and just representation, this has not happened throughout the system. There are no women presidents of universities. How many heads of departments are women? There are few. How many principals of RTCs are women? The system has evolved ignorning the right of women to be represented at those levels. It cannot be claimed that women have neither the calibre nor the capacity to occupy these positions. It has been proved that women have the talents but do not have the opportunities to fill these positions. The Minister has a perfect opportunity at this stage of the Bill to ensure that women will be represented. In the academic staff it is not too much to ask that we have two representatives, one of which is a woman. The same applies to students.
The amendment tabled by the Minister is proof of this Government's attitude towards equality. They give it lip service but stand back from making a definite decision to ensure that women will be rightly represented. The Minister's amendment No 72a, tabled in response to our amendments I am sure, reads that:
The Minister shall have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented and shall ensure an appropriate gender balance as determined by the Minister from time to time.
Would anybody object to 50 per cent representation? Why does the Minister have to say "an appropriate balance". The appropriate balance is that one at least must be a woman. The amendment says that the Minister will determine this from time to time. Surely now is the time to ensure that we give equal representation to women on the governing body. I appeal to the Minister to forget about lip service and make a definite statement in favour of representation of women on the governing body.
Our amendments should be accepted. I appeal for a generous response. It is not too much to ask. What we are doing is putting into reality what the Government are saying. Despite many appeals for fair and equal representation, experience has taught us that it will not happen. The statistics speak for themselves. The time has come to have the courage to take a positive step to ensure that women will be properly represented on the governing body.
I support Deputy Mac Giolla in seeking democracy in representation. Staff cannot nominate somebody, they must elect somebody. From representations I received from the staff of the colleges I know that they want the powers to elect. They do not want to be left with the very difficult decision of nomination. If we believe in democracy we must ensure that it exists at all levels of life. I appeal to the Minister to accept these reasonable amendments. We will be pushing the amendments for equal and fair representation for women.
The governing body now proposed will comprise the chairman and director, six vocational education committee nominees, two academic staff, one non-academic staff, two students, five nominees of organisations the vocational education committee consider require representation having regard to the courses in the college, who shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests appropriate to the college.
A question was raised on the appointment of the chairman. The current proposal with regard to the Minister appointing the chairman is in line with the original Bill, apart from the recommendations of the vocational education committee. This is the only position which will be nominated by the Minister.
Reference was made to staff members on the governing body and how they will be nominated. The Bill says that they will be nominated by the staff. It will be a matter for the staff to decide a method of selection.
Deputy Mac Giolla in his amendment No. 43, Deputies O'Shea, Higgins and Ahearn in amendment No. 44 and Deputy Garland in his amendment No. 45 all seek to increase the size of the governing body proposed in the Bill as initiated. The main issues in question here are the number of academic staff and student representatives. Strong representation has been made in this regard and following consideration of the matter I have decided to increase the representation for both from one to two. My amendments Nos. 43a, 48, 58, 64 and 197 provide for these and consequential changes.
In considering this matter and amendment No. 66 from Deputies O'Shea and Garland, which proposed the inclusion of a nominee of the Federation of Irish Employers, I concluded that it was undesirable to specify any particular organisation in this way. I was anxious to increase the representation of the staff and students without allowing the governing body to become too large and unwieldy. Taking these matters into account, I have removed the specific reference to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with amendment No. 65a and equally I will not be accepting amendment No. 66 from Deputies O'Shea and Garland.
Deputies O'Shea and Garland in their amendments Nos. 46, 53, 74, 183 and 188 propose that the governing body should be appointed by the vocational education committee. This was not intended and would be very much out of line with procedure for governing bodies in other third level institutions. I am not prepared to accept these amendments and propose to go further in order to remove any ambiguity on this matter. Accordingly my amendments Nos. 46a, 53a, 74a, and consequential amendments 188a, 189a 189b in the Second Schedule remove the provision in the Bill as published that members of a governing body would have to be recommended by the vocational education committee before appointment by the Minister. This was an unnecessary additional layer in the appointment process and the simplification now being put into place will also remove any ambiguity in this matter. Amendment No. 50 is a drafting amendment to improve the wording in subsection (4).
My amendments Nos. 183a, 183b, 184, 184a and 184b are related to the amendments I have just outlined but relate in this case to the office of chairman. Again, I have been anxious to clarify the intent on this matter but I also took other matters into account in clarifying that the chairman would be a ministerial appointee. I am conscious that the chairman appointed to any body or board has the potential to lend essential status to that body. I was anxious, therefore, in the interests of these fledgling governing bodies that the widest possible range of persons should be considered for appointment. This is in line with the position in other third level institutions. I will, of course, in making their appointments consider with the greatest care any recommendations the vocational education committees may wish to make on individual appointments. They are particularly well placed in this regard.
In amendment No. 56, which provides that at least three vocational education committee nominees shall be members of a local authority, I have sought to meet the concerns of those Deputies who expressed reservations about the elimination of input from democratically-elected representatives. This, together with the significant representation of the vocational education committee on the governing body, should allay fears in that regard. I will not, therefore, be accepting amendment No. 54 from Deputies Higgins and Ahearn.
I could not accept amendment No. 56 from Deputies O'Shea and Garland which proposes to reduce the vocational education committee nominees from six to four. Neither could I accept amendment No. 57 from the same Deputies as it seems to assume that the region served by each college will consist of exactly six vocational education committees. The Deputies' amendment No. 68 is related and I will not be accepting it.
Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 65 from Deputies Higgins and Ahearn raise the important matter of a balanced representation on the governing body from each sex. I share the Deputies' concern in this regard but I am reluctant to deal with the matter as proposed by the Deputies. Instead, I am proposing in amendment No. 72a to place a duty on the Minister to have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented on the governing bodies and to ensure an appropriate gender balance. I am going further on this matter by providing in section 7 that the governing bodies also will be required to have regard to gender equity in education.
In relation to amendment No. 60 from Deputy Mac Giolla and amendment No. 61 from Deputies Higgins and Ahearn, I should point out that the purpose of subsection (4) (c) as it is worded is for the academic staff to be afforded the opportunity to decide themselves on the method by which they will be represented, as is the case in the two new universities in Dublin and Limerick. Accordingly, I would be opposed to imposing conditions which could preempt a decision by the academic staff. There is a problem too that amendment No. 61 has proposed the phrase, "one of whom shall be a woman", would apply to the governing body as a whole rather than the academic staff representatives as was the obvious intention.
The Minister has clarified matters but has not allayed our anxieties and fears. The size, scope and composition of the governing body is the kernel of this Bill. Unless we get the governing body right in terms of size and composition of the governing body is a suitable chairman by a suitable method, the Bill will be flawed. We cannot understand why there has been such a policy of retrenchment in relation to giving powers to governing bodies and giving the vocational education committees the linkages contained within the Bill.
The Minister sought to allay our fears by saying that he wants a chairman who will be appointed by him and who will have the status for the job. That is an insult to the governing body, who will be people of the highest calibre because the nominating bodies will be conscious of the need to nominate only the best people. The Minister's position smacks very much of another case of jobs for the boys. The Minister said in relation to the appointment of the chairman that this was the only area in which he was taking unto himself the power of appointment. That is not the position. The amendments he circulated yesterday provide for the deletion in several places in the Bill of phrases such as "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee" and "recommended by a vocational education committee". Reference to a mere recommendation by a vocational education committee is to be removed. Power is to be centralised in the Minister. The Government claim that one of the central planks of Government policy is decentralisation. The decentralisation of power to local authorities has been nothing but a meaningless cliché. What we have is central Government locally administered.
The vocational education committees have stood the test of time. Since 1930 they have pioneered the only really democratic management of education. One would imagine, seeing the way their powers have been culled and whittled away, that they had been errant, reckless and irresponsible. I defy the Minister to point to any serious misdemeanour on the part of any vocational education committee.
Nobody said that at any stage.
The implications are that they are not capable of making a token recommendation. We are not seeking to provide that the Minister must take on board the recommendation made by the vocational education committee. We are seeking to provide that the Minister would take cognisance of a vocational education committee recommendation. The people who pioneered technical education, starting from small beginnings in difficult times, in many cases travelling around rural Ireland by bicycle building up a substantial body of education which is very much in line with current thinking here and within the EC generally, are being sidelined. The Minister rules OK.
This approach completely undermines the so-called openness in Government preached by the various proponents of the stop-start Green Paper. Minister O'Rourke wanted a great national debate in which there would be participation and openness, leading to consensus of proposals which would form the basis of an Education Bill. We had the same thing during the brief tenure of Minister Davern. Much has been said about his so-called lack of qualifications for the Education portfolio but in relation to vocational education he had a particular empathy, sensitivity and feel for it. He showed that in the person he appointed to be his special adviser and in putting his imprint on the Green Paper and on this Bill. It is obvious that the present Minister does not have a feel for or a sensitivity to education and he is not worried about democracy in education. He is worried about centralising powers in Marlborough Street. He shows scant regard for vocational education.
The preamble to the Green Paper which was given by the Minister to the teacher conferences contained an assurance that the vocational education committees would remain. On the other hand, the Minister's thinking on the role of vocational education committees augurs a black day. This is not a Green Paper which is about to emerge, it is a black paper, where the powers of the vocational education committees are literally being whittled away. We are all blowing hot and cold about enhancing the role of the vocational education committees but all this is negatived, neutralised and rendered meaningless in the thrust of this Bill. Instead of an open, receptive approach to education we now have a closed mind and a closed door policy in relation to greater participation by the people, by the elected representatives and vocational education committees in particular. What we are doing is going through the pretence of a great national debate while at the same time forcing through this House measures which would render meaningless the role of the vocational education committees. They cannot even be trusted to make a recommendation — that is all that is involved here. The Minister may or may not take on board the recommendations.
Amendment 47a, which seeks to delete paragraph (f), is a retrograde step. ICTU are the umbrella organisation which pull together all the various strands of industrial relations in this country. It is very important that they are not just included in a general provision further on in the Bill. It is important that they be included as a specific body, nominated and specified in their own right. It is important, therefore, that that particular section remain.
I fully support the points made by my colleague, Deputy Therese Ahearn, in relation to the need for gender equity. I thank the Minister for acknowledging that there was some substance and merit in what we are proposing. Amendment 82 in the name of the Minister states:
In performing its functions a governing body shall have regard to the attainment of gender equity and of equality of opportunity in education.
It is a move in the right direction but it is more a general statement of principle that one would find in a preamble rather than in an actual section in the Bill. I believe it contains a certain amount of jargon. Words such as "shall have regard to" are open to interpretation.
We need a stronger, more substantial, more definitely defined role for women, we need to specify that at least one member shall be a woman. It is important, in view of the statistics outlined by Deputy Therese Ahearn in relation to the huge imbalance in promotions as against the actual number of women working in education in relation not only to prin-cipalships and vice-principalships — as statistics will bear out — in primary schools, in all second level schools but also in relation to A post responsibility and B post responsibility, although there is a more equitable shake-out of the B posts but very often these are the menial posts. It is important that we enshrine in the Bill the exact words that one of the places go to a woman. This was one of the principles we sought to enshrine in our Bill last year. It sought to amend the Vocational Education Act, 1930, in order to give two parents and two teachers guaranteed places on vocational education committees. We inserted that specific clause and it is important that it be inserted here.
I urge the Minister to go the full hog in relation to the participation of women by right and by guarantee on the governing bodies. I would also ask that the terminology be changed. Instead of using the word "nominated" I suggest we insert instead the word "elected" to enshrine the democratic principle of electing members of the academic council to the governing body, student members, etc. This is the very principle of democracy and it is important that it be enshrined in the legislation. The word "nominated" should be deleted and the Minister should accept the reasoned amendments put forward by the Opposition on the need to insert the word "elected".
I should like to refer to the change being proposed by the Minister whereby the chairperson of the governing body is now to be appointed by the Minister. A question we should address ourselves to in this House is whether anybody is seriously suggesting from the Government's side, that if it comes to nominating the chairperson and the political affiliation of particular members of the board are the same as the Government that the Government will not appoint one of their own supporters. This is a reprehensible development — it is a movement away from democracy. There is a democratic basis for the putting in place of the governing body but here we are bringing the key position of the members of the governing body into the area of political patronage. In educational terms that is a retrograde step.
In my view no Minister will appoint somebody of a different political persuasion. We can make all the protestations we like but the reality of appointments by Ministers in this country has always been that they were politically influenced. We are taking democracy away and we are placing the appointment of the chairperson of a governing body in the area of political patronage. I would ask the Minister to seriously reconsider what he is proposing here. If the reason somebody is appointed to a position is that the person has a particular political allegiance and not because of his other capabilities and skills, then we are doing a grave disservice to this sector of education which has been nursed and brought to its splendid condition by vocational education committees. We are going backwards rather than forwards. A Government who make great play of subsidiarity in the context of the Maastricht Treaty are now moving a democratic appointment from the local scene.
The former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, who comes from the same region as the Minister, showed a great deal of commonsense in terms of his amendments in relation to the composition of the governing body. It was based on a political career which had come from the grassroots of local government in his own area. He understood the importance of local democracy and saw that the best road to pursue was for the governing body to elect their own chairman.
The Minister for Education is not present and I do not like talking about people who are not present. In anything I have seen to date from the Minister there is no particular vision of education, but instead an accountancy approach, based on unit cost but not based on what education is all about. I say this in all sincerity. I believe this Bill will do enormous damage in the years to come to areas outside of Dublin, areas whose only third level provision comes from these colleges. To put the appointment of the chairman of the board of management into the political arena, in a bald way which is open to abuse and patronage, is unbelievable. The Minister has said he is following the usual practice in similar institutions — there are no similar institutions. These institutions have been developed from a local democratic base.
Nobody so far has mentioned the people, with and without political affiliations, who were committed to this concept. I can recall people promoting this concept back in the sixties, talking about developing the food industry and providing people with the skills to participate in this type of industry. With these amendments we are losing sight of the organic growth of these colleges and of the fact that these colleges reflect, to a very large degree, the demands of an area.
This brings me to a matter I raised earlier in relation to which the Minister gave a disappointing response. I refer to the deletion of a place for one person nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Let us examine what the role of such persons has been on the boards of management of the regional colleges. They reported back regularly to trades councils which consist of delegates from the affiliated unions throughout an area. There are areas that are bound by confidentiality, but general information about what the colleges are seeking to achieve, how they are seeking to expand and to better serve the students in a particular region, is fed back on a monthly basis through the trades councils so that the representatives of affiliated unions are aware of what is happening. In addition, information about second chance education and courses designed to enhance the qualifications of people already at work is passed on to trades councils and thence to the affiliated unions.
In my area I have seen the very positive input of trades councils. For example, Waterford Council of Trade Unions played a big part in development of Waterford Airport. I mentioned the sports complex, and another project is the kidney care unit at the regional hospital for which a great deal of the funding was generated with the active cooperation of the trade union movement at all levels.
The Government tend to see trade unions as a nuisance to be placated, to be involved in agreements and kept on side. They are losing sight of the positive role played by trade unions throughout the country through trades councils. There are many areas where trade unions play an important role and which do not get much recognition in the local or national arena. I refer to developing services for and ensuring that buildings are made accessible to the disabled. This, I know, relates to an area other than education but it underscores the point I am making.
It would be a retrograde step to abolish the place for a nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. If this place is not allowed to remain as a matter of right, the Department may live to regret it. It is stupid to abolish it and whoever is responsible for this idea must have no comprehension of what these colleges are about. Instead of keeping the nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the board as of right, the Minister has now decided to bring the appointment of the chairperson of the board of management directly into the area of political patronage. On balancing one against the other one can see where the Government are going.
Let us now look at the three members of the staff who are to be nominated to the governing body. Two members of the academic staff and one member of the non-academic staff are to be nominated. This is in a mind-boggling concept. If someone is representing a group, that person should be elected by that group? How can that person be nominated by the group if he is not elected by the group? There seems to be a subtle plan here; when a chairperson is appointed under the political patronage system that chairperson can then nominate two academics and a members of the staff whom he considers politically "safe". It is the movement away from democracy and towards political patronage and centralisation that is worrying.
The Minister spoke about unnecessary duplication. This is to lose sight of the role of vocational education committees. There is an organic growth between second level and third level institutions. This is an area that the vocational education committees have developed throughout the country since the 1930 Act. We are forgetting services like literacy courses for people who cannot read or write. It is the vocational education sector that provides services for such people. The vocational education committees also cater for second chance education and the development of particular talents both at second and third level. The grasp and vision of the vocational education committees is something the Minister and Government are kicking into some educational dustbin to the detriment of the people of Ireland. Their services will be a loss to the children of Ireland and to many adults who, for whatever reason, did not succeed in getting the education they needed.
We now come to the matter of gender equity. Having four daughters, I suppose I have a vested interest in this, there is no reason why there should not be equal representation of men and women on boards of management and on the staff. I would add the caveat that people should not be promoted merely because they are men or women; they must be promoted on ability. Having said that, no one could disagree that the proportion of women in important positions in education is disgracefully low. I agree with other speakers that what the Minister has included here is aspirational and vague and does not mean much at the end of the day. If we are to move rapidly towards gender equity we must do something more substantial than is done in this legislation and there must be active discrimination in favour of women. I would like to hear the Minister's response to that. If he is not accepting the amendments moved by Deputies Ahearn and Higgins I hope he will, on Report Stage, move a suitable amendment which will take our views on board.
Examination of the amendments shows up the deletion of the role of the vocational education committees. My examination of the amendments spelt out one thing clearly, that the present Minister is the plaything of the Department. Essentially, this is the Bill that the Department wanted in the first place. The good sense of the previous Ministers for Education, Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Davern, prevented the Department from getting the Bill it wanted. The amendments demonstrate the thinking inside the Department. This Bill is not based on education, on regional development or on balanced development throughout the country.
The famous guidelines in relation to regional technical colleges provide for only 10 per cent of students pursuing degree courses. Admittedly, while some colleges have no provision for degree courses, a good number of degree courses are provided by other colleges. We should be talking in terms of growth. The industry of any region of the country that will take its place in the new Europe will have to be able to compete within a much more rigid system in which only the best will survive. At the very beginning, Ireland has the disadvantages of being an island nation and the only nation in the Community that does not have a land link with Europe. The provision of education in rural Ireland, therefore, needs to be expanded rapidly. Statistical figures illustrate that graduates from a college tend to stay in the immediate area of that college. The Bill is a method of writing in tablets of stone that our achievers in the second level education system will, by and large, be directed towards Dublin and the other university cities. In that way the legislation will add to the drain of people of ability from those parts of Ireland that do not have a university. That measure gives the lie to a Government that is in the process of selling the Maastricht Treaty on the lines of subsidiarity. This Bill is all about centralisation.
Yesterday the Committee dealt with section 5. Many of us were concerned about some of the provisions contained in that section because of a perceived centralisation of authority in Marlborough Street. The Minister amended those provisions in a way that made them less objectionable, and I complimented him on that. However, the Bill is much more complex than it appears on the face of it.
We have now reached the most important section to be dealt with in Committee so far; the section relating to the way in which the governing body of the college will be composed, the way in which the chairperson will be elected and which outside agencies and organisations are to be represented on the board. The Government have decided to kick out the representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. There is much talk of the social partners but what does that measure have to do with social partners? It is a complete negation of that concept.
I suggest that a Department that does not have sufficient information about the way in which the whole system works, a Department that look to the financial elements rather than to the educational elements, have brought in this amending legislation. The amendments that have been made have given rise to a new Bill — this is not the Bill introduced by Minister O'Rourke and improved upon by Deputy Davern. The present Minister for Education is very closely following the kind of education philosophy that developed in Margaret Thatcher's Britain to the detriment of Britain. The Bill is going down the very same road in that the new amendments made to it do not comprehend the organic nature of education in areas outside Dublin.
If the university at Maynooth is included, Dublin effectively has four universities. Thirty per cent of the students at the Dublin Institute of Technology are pursuing degree courses. I welcome and support that development; every educational development in the capital or elsewhere has to be welcomed. However, the trade-off to the rest of the country, other than the cities of Cork, Limerick and Galway, which have universities, is a ten per cent degree provision. By and large, someone wanting to pursue a degree course has to leave his or her own local area; resources leave the local area and, worse still, that individual will probably stay away from the local area forever because of the recognised pattern of people staying in areas near the college from which they graduate.
I again ask the Minister to seriously reconsider the method proposed in the Bill for the appointment of the chairperson of the board of management. The method proposed is open to political abuse, something that should be taken out of any Bill that seeks to improve any sector of education. I shall oppose the measure by way of calling for a vote when the time comes if the Minister does not respond to my plea.
Equally, the stupid — and I use that word advisedly — decision to remove the nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions from an automatic place on the board is a retrograde step. I do not know whether that decision is based on some kind of ideological vindictiveness. Deputy Garland and I have tabled an amendment seeking that a nominee from the other side of industry, the FIE side, also have an automatic place on the board of the new governing body. Those of us who know the system recognise that there are people in industry who have made a very great and a continuing contribution to this sector of education. It is absolutely vital that both the organised labour sector, through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and the FIE nominee have an automatic place on the board of management.
All the amendments that seek to reduce the role of vocational education committees, which is already reduced to virtually nothing, are wrong. If the links with vocational education committees are not allowed to remain that will be to the total detriment of the system. At the end of the day, decisions made outside the House will have a great bearing on this Bill. I have already mentioned that the maintenance ESF grants are to be means tested from September.
Please do not mention that again, Deputy. Repetition is not allowed and, as far as I can judge, that issue is not relevant to any specific amendment before the Committee.
I shall take your direction on that matter, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. My point is that the policies being pursued by the Government will result in a decrease in the number of students attending regional technical colleges and a downgrading of that sector of education. By way of amendments that have been tabled, the Government want to remove the role of vocational education committees as a buffer between the Department and the colleges. This is the real thinking behind the new amendments. The committed locally elected body, since the inception of the regional colleges, have nurtured and developed the colleges but, effectively, the Department of Education want to run down this sector and to direct the achiever type students in the system towards the university sector on a centralised basis, very much to the detriment of the rest of the country.
Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) rose.
In calling Deputy Browne, I suggest that, as far as possible he confines his comments to the amendment and, in doing that, he can speak to his heart's content. I should like to advise the House that we can also, to our heart's content, criticise the Minister. The legislation has the imprimatur of the Minister whose responsibility it is and we should avoid as far as possible, directly or indirectly, referring to any of his officials, assistants or advisers whose responsibility ends when the Minister introduces the legislation to the House.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I will make two comments on your remarks, I am a firm believer in the saying that brevity is the soul of wit; I have never been reprimanded for making long speeches in this House and today will not be an exception. I also wish the Minister well in recovering from his appendicitis operation.
For a long time "decentralisation" has been the flavour of the month. Departments have been transferred down the country and I am in favour of that policy. I assure the Minister of State that as a fellow constituency TD, I will back him all the way in transferring a Department to Carlow, as he has successfully done in relation to Kilkenny. Therefore, I do not criticise the idea of decentralisation. However, in this instance where the election of a chairman has now been handed back to the Minister it looks as if decentralisation has gone out the window, in regard to this aspect at least. It leads to the question of whether there will be political patronage. I accept the right of the Minister to nominate somebody who can stand on his or her merits because of academic, business or industrial achievements and who would be a shining light in the governing body of the regional colleges. However, I am afraid that, in picking a chairman, his or her political beliefs might weigh very heavily with the Minister, which would be a disaster. I admire the work of the regional colleges throughout the country, they have done a great deal for education and employment as a result of their practical educational system. I firmly believe that they should be recognised as third level education centres.
The only argument against the role of vocational education committees who have done so much work for second level and vocational education down through the years is that if they are to be recognised as third level colleges they cannot be linked with second level administrations. That is not taking from the tremendous work which so many vocational education committees — and members of vocational education committees — have done over the years. I agree with previous speakers who said that to fail to accept the recommendations of the vocational education committees is throwing them to the wolves. The Minister does not have to accept recommendations made by the vocational education committees but they should at least have the right to make them. The Minister may pick the best person for the role of chairperson of the governing bodies but it will be very difficult for highly qualified people, who may have a particular political allegiance, to face the wrath of the public if their political views are well known. People are entitled to hold political views and if they did not many of us would not have been elected to this House; we must have people who support us. However, the political beliefs of a ministerial appointment will always be questioned. I regret that the chairman will be appointed directly by the Minister and I hope, in making such appointments, that the Minister of the day will be able to justify them on qualifications, performance and past experience.
The regional colleges will only get the status they deserve if they can award degrees right across the board; they cannot be third level colleges without having full academic standards. I am in favour of third level status being granted and I said yesterday that, if they were recognised as institutes of technology, they would attract standard recognition inside and outside the country, which would make a big difference to them.
I also agree that ICTU should be on this governing body because they represent many people who have difficulties in relation to third level grants. The trade unions should play a leading role in the inequity in relation to third level grants and I very much regret that their representative is not included. No one else represents a wider view of the practicalities and difficulties facing the public. Somebody has obviously lost the run of themselves in regard to the English language, about being nominated and elected to the governing body. In a democracy people will have to be nominated and then elected by their peers or colleagues. It would be more sensible to have the word "elected" inserted. I cannot understand why the word "nominated" replaced it.
Most of the points have been made by other speakers. It has been pointed out that the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, increased the membership to 22 but the present Minister has reduced it to 16 members. I suppose we should be grateful that he increased the academic staff representation to two, the same applies to the student representation. However, he did not agree to have the simple word "elected" inserted instead of "nominated". There is a difficulty in this regard; it might appear from the Bill that persons may be elected because it states, "shall be nominated by that staff in accordance with regulations made by the governing body". The governing body could make regulations saying that the person could be elected. However they may also make other regulations with regard to the appointment of members of the academic staff which may not be acceptable to the academic staff who would prefer an election. Similarly, in relation to the student body, the Bill states "one person, being a registered student of the college, shall be nominated by the registered students in accordance with regulations made by the governing body". Again, we do not know what regulations a governing body will make and these may well be unacceptable to the students.
This provision could be the source of controversy because persons will be nominated in accordance with regulations made by the governing body. This will lead to the creation of a self-perpetuating governing bodies system. These will be able to decide on the regulations under which a member of the academic staff and a registered student will be nominated and appointed to the governing body. This sounds crazy and is undemocratic. I do not know whether it is appropriate to give powers to the chairperson, who will be appointed by the Minister, to decide on the system of selection, but the Minister of State should advert to the democratic procedure which is acceptable to all other bodies and allow the staff and students to elect their own representatives on to the governing body.
The Minister has decided that he will select the chairperson without interference or seeking recommendations from anybody. Under the Bill as it stands, he has the power to appoint the chairman "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee", in addition to the power to remove him. Incidentally given that the word "chairman, is used in the Bill, there is little hope that Deputy Ahearn's amendment, the purpose of which is to provide for a woman chairperson, will be accepted. It seems the Minister has decided to appoint a chairman.
As I said, under the Bill as it stands, the Minister has the power to remove the chairman from office but only "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee". However it should be noted that the words "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee" are being removed wherever they appear in the Bill. As a result the Bill will state that the chairman shall be appointed by, and may be removed from office by, the Minister. No restrictions are being imposed, with the result that he will be able to appoint whoever he wishes. He will also be able to remove that person from office whenever he wishes without seeking recommendations from anybody.
I wonder why the Minister wants to retain this power in relation to the functions of the colleges, from research to the conferring of degrees and the curricula. These are supposed to be third level institutions but the Minister is reducing them to the level of polytechnics. Given the changes that are included in the Green Paper, the Department will have far more control over third level colleges than they do over the primary school system.
Under this Bill a college's functions will be "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". Given that he will also be able to appoint the chairperson he will be able to maintain tight central control over each and every college and decide what they can do in a range of areas. The purpose of this Bill is supposed to be to give the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology autonomy. What it will do instead is remove the local input into the colleges and tie the colleges in every respect to the apron strings of the Minister. Therefore the proposal to give the Minister the power to appoint the chairperson is the final straw because it will lead to tighter ministerial control.
The proposal in relation to the person to be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions can only have been made on the basis of ideological hatred —"why should the ICTU be mentioned in the Bill? Throw them out for God's sake as we do no want them". Under section 6 (4) (g) as it stands — I would like the Minister of State to read it for us — five persons shall be nominated by organisations which shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests as appropriate to the activities of the college. Therefore, given the reference to industry, agriculture and commerce, and the professions the employer organisations are going to be well represented. What is the reason the Minister wants the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to have only one representative on the governing body? It seems that he is adopting an ideological position which gives employers in the areas of industry and commerce a strong input.
It is interesting to recall that, following the appointment of the Minister, Deputy McCartan said that at least the Minister would not be able to privatise anything, to which the Minister replied, "wait and see". In relation to the introduction in the Green Paper, it appears that he has some ideas in mind with regard to the primary sector and, possibly, the regional technical colleges. He is going to retain strict control and is limiting the number of persons to be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to one. Perhaps this is an indication of his future intentions for these colleges.
I would like to make one other point in regard to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. What has the Minister in mind in relation to apprenticeships in the regional technical colleges? Although apprenticeships are not mentioned in the Bill, the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, indicated that these would be retained wherever they exist.
Presumably there is provision, in section 5 (1), in regard to the functions of the college, that is the last section with which we dealt, which says that the function of a college shall be to provide vocational and technical education and training. I presume there is provision made for apprenticeships. The present Minister has never mentioned apprenticeships. I should like to know from the Minister whether he regards apprenticeship as playing any role whatever in the regional technical colleges, in the functions of the governing bodies or, indeed, of their chairpersons. If the Minister envisages that apprenticeship will form part of the functions of some of the colleges, then surely a representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions should be on the governing bodies? Does the Minister's removal of ICTU from having any contact with the RTCs mean that he will also remove them from all contact with apprenticeships? I should like clarification of that point from the Minister. I should also like the Minister to read out the ministerial version of section 6 (4) (g).
As far as I am aware, none of the regional technical colleges has ever managed to win an architectural award. Certainly the RTCs built in the early seventies are distinguished by their physical similarity; if one has seen one, one has seen them all. But there the similarity ends because each of the RTCs has managed to carve out for itself a distinction and uniqueness, indeed, a degree of regional responsiveness. What is happening here is the beginning of the end of the unique regional character of the regional technical colleges. We are now faced with a scenario in which, under the new regime, the governing bodies of the RTCs will be appointed by the Minister, albeit in some cases from nominees of particular constituencies. For example, the chairperson of the regional technical college governing body will be appointed by the Minister and any replacements will be appointed by the Minister. In addition, the governing body, in the exercise of their functions, will have to report to the Minister, will have to submit their programme to the Minister, have it approved by the Minister and have their budget approved by the Minister. This country is full of people who work in State organisations, in local authorities, health boards, in some areas of the education service, who are absolutely frustrated that they cannot get on and do the job for which they were appointed. There are all kinds of little details on which they must report back to the parent Department, seek permission, sanction and approval of this, that and the other from the parent Department. Clearly that is what is intended in the case of the regional technical colleges. Where the members of the governing bodies will be appointed by the Minister — such appointees owing their appointment to the Minister, with this high degree of reportage back to the Department of Education — in practice there will be a tendency for the regional technical colleges to become the same; harmonisation will be the order of the day. What will be lost will be the unique, regional character of the regional technical colleges because what will be missing will be the accountability and responsiveness to local needs through the vocational education committees. I consider this to be a very regressive step for the regional technical colleges. I predict that, in time to come — if this Bill is passed by the Oireachtas — it will be seen to have been very bad legislation indeed to have reversed the regional orientation and character of the regional technical colleges.
It is highly significant that effectively we are proposing the end of regionalisation of the regional technical colleges, proposing a system of appointing governing bodies and of reportage which is highly centralised at the very time when, throughout Europe, emphasis is being placed on regionalisation, on allowing regions develop their momentum and areas. Of course, it is also at variance with the high-minded sentiments set out in the introduction to the Green Paper which referred to devolution, decentralisation, autonomy and so on. The whole idea of this educational umbilical cord between the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges and the Department of Education is completely at variance with the stated policy position.
I agree also with the comments made in relation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I cannot understand why it is proposed to delete representation of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions from the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges. As I understand it, that is not a new idea, that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are represented on existing boards of the regional technical colleges. In most cases what happens is that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions appoint a nominee of the local trades council. Therefore, what is being done here is not simply deleting from the Bill something that is new but rather ending a practice that has been in existence for 20 years whereby the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been represented. In most cases, Congress have appointed nominees of the local trades councils to the boards of regional technical colleges. That practice will be ended. An entire segment of local opinion, that is the local opinion of organised labour in the locality, will be denied representation on the boards of the regional technical colleges. I cannot understand why this is being proposed. It does not make any sense. I should like to hear what the Minister's justification is for doing so. Certainly it is at variance with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which speaks in laudable terms of the involvement of the social partners, of the trade union movement, in a whole range of areas.
I wonder whether the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been notified of the Minister's intention to exclude them from the provisions of this Bill and what has been their attitude to that? I cannot believe that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would agree with being excluded from the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges. If the Minister has not already done so I would suggest that he should advise the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that it is his intention to exclude them from membership of the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges. Then let us ascertain what will be their response. When it does become known to Congress that it is proposed to exclude them from membership of the governing bodies of the RTCs I predict the Minister will be coming back here, on Report Stage, or perhaps going into the Seanad, to have them included, because it would certainly be very much at variance with the proposals contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress were they excluded.
Deputy Mac Giolla requested that I read out exactly what is contained in section 6 (4) (g). It states:
(g) five persons shall be nominated by such organisations as the Vocational Education Committee consider require representation having regard to the particular courses provided by the college excluding interests otherwise represented on the governing body. Such organisations shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests as appropriate to the activities of the college.
A number of points have been raised, some of which were dealt with earlier.
First, I totally reject the suggestion of political favouritism advanced by Deputy O'Shea. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the broadest possible spectrum of talent will be taken into account in the political appointment to the post of chairperson.
Deputy O'Shea mentioned overall education policy and, in response, let me dwell on the key principles which are: devolution to school and institutional level to manage their own affairs; the major broadening of curriculum to enhance vocational education; providing equality of educational opportunity for all; promoting gender equity and developing teachers as key agents in educational change. He also referred to the role of vocational education committees generally and the contribution the vocational education committees make to adult education and literacy programmes. I agree with the Deputy and I applaud the very fine contribution made by the vocational education committees in this area over the years. There are no proposals in this Bill, or anywhere else, to take this role away from the vocational education committees, on the contrary this is an area for development and one I will encourage.
Deputy O'Shea also expressed the fear that there would be changes in apprenticeship training arising from the Bill. Section 5 (1) provides for regional technical colleges to engage in technical education and training which specifically covers apprenticeships. Again, I agree with his point on the drain from local communities to university towns. Indeed, those who live in rural Ireland will agree with him. At present the Higher Education Authority, the NCEA and the Department of Education are examining how best to put in place a comprehensive system of modularisation of courses and credit transfers. This would greatly facilitate flexibility of study in different geographic locations and would facilitate the mobility of students across the entire sector. That is to be welcomed.
Some Deputies think that power is being centralised in the Minister and Marlborough Street was mentioned. I wonder how Deputies can in all honesty say this is true. The membership of the governing body, for example, comprises six vocational education committee nominees, representatives from five vocational education committee nominated organisations, two students and three staff, making a total of 16 and these appointments are determined locally, I do not think the Members' arguments stand up.
Many Members also expressed their concern in relation to the nomination of staff to the governing body. The reason nomination is mentioned is that some sections may wish to nominate rather than elect their representative, for example, the students may wish to nominate their Union of Students of Ireland representative. However, if Members feel that should be changed I have no difficulty in doing so and substituting the words "or preferably by election" if Members agree. I do not see any difficulty with making this change because it was not included for any sinister reason but only to facilitate groups which may wish to nominate their representative. However, if Deputies agree, we can change it.
The vocational education committees' involvement in the governing body has caused quite a degree of concern. I must admit that the vocational education committees are very well represented on the governing body through their six nominees as well as the five persons nominated by organisations which the vocational education committee select, as provided for in section 6 (4) (g). With regard to ministerial involvement, it was always intended that the Minister would make the appointments. However, taking out of the recommendations of the vocational education committees does not make any great difference but it has caused a great deal of concern both inside and outside the House. We will look at this between now and Report Stage and we may bring forward an amendment at that stage which may be acceptable to the people concerned.
The appointment of an ICTU member also gave rise to a great deal of concern. There is a number of organisations currently represented on the management boards of regional technical colleges but staff and students are not represented as of right. In the interest of ensuring the governing body is a workable unit, it is not proposed to include individual organisations. However, it would, of course, be open to the vocational education committees to nominate any such member under section 6 (4) (g). Let me add there is a number of other bodies — Deputy O'Shea referred in particular to the FIE — who have expressed an interest in being represented on the governing body but perhaps it would be best to deal with this under subsection (4) (g). If there were too many representatives on the governing body it would become unwieldy and for that reason the change was made.
Before the Chair puts the question perhaps Members might like to respond to whether representatives should be nominated or elected to the governing body and, perhaps, we could first get agreement on that point.
I have tabled an amendment to the effect that the chairperson be elected rather than nominated. That is the better system. The Minister has suggested giving an alternative and I have no objection to that, provided that the words "or elected" are included. I would prefer if the representatives were elected but I have no objection if the Minister wants to give both options.
We could include the words "or preferably elected".
Is Deputy MacGiolla pressing his amendment?
No.
Amendment No. 43, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
We agreed to discuss amendments Nos. 43 to 69, inclusive; amendments Nos. 71 to 74a, inclusive; amendments Nos. 182 to 184b, inclusive; amendments Nos. 186 to 189b, inclusive, and amendment No. 197 together. We will take amendment No. 43a.
I move amendment No. 43a:
In page 6, subsection 2 (a), line 29, to delete "15" and substitute "16".
I am strongly of the opinion that the membership should be greater than the 16 ordinary members proposed in this amendment. I do not accept the Minister's change of heart in this amendment. The Minister's predecessor proposed it should be set at 22. It should be as large as possible. I do not think that 22 representatives will make the governing body unwieldy. while I acknowledge the Minister did not move the ministerial amendment No. 42 to increase the number to 22, I will certainly move amendment No. 44 in the names of Deputies O'Shea, T. Ahearn and my name. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 43a in the name of the Minister.
Acting Chairman
I did not wish to interrupt the Deputy but I had clearly stated before the Minister moved amendment No. 43a that we were discussing amendments Nos. 43 to 69, inclusive.
We may have discussed the amendments but we have not disposed of the individual amendments. I understand that each amendment must be taken separately.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 59; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- 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.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Creed.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 6, subsection (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete all words from and including "Minister" in line 32 down to and including "committee" in line 33 and substitute "vocational education committee and approved by the Minister".
Question, "That the word ‘Minister' in line 32 stand", put and declared carried.
The question has been put in this manner in order to preserve amendment No. 46a in the name of the Minister.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46a:
In page 6, subsection (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee".
We regard this amendment as a very retrograde step. It is a further diminution of the role of the vocational education committees; as the Bill has developed their role has become increasingly peripheral. Whatever tenuous powers they held have been eliminated by the amendments circulated yesterday.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but the amendment has been discussed earlier.
The Minister suggested that he would consider the recommendations of the vocational education committee for Report Stage. I do not know whether that refers to this or to other parts of the Bill. Could the Minister clarify the position?
It refers to this area, but I will consider the matter generally.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John. (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Creed.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
I move amendment No. 47a:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 35, to delete ", (f) and (g)" and substitute "and (f)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 35, to delete "three" and substitute "five".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 39, to delete "ordinary".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.
I move amendment No. 53.
In page 6, subsection (4), lines 41 and 42, to delete all words from and including "Minister" in line 41 down to and including "committee" in line 42 and substitute "vocational education committee and approved by the Minister".
Question, "That the word ‘Minister' in line 41 stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 53a:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 41 and 42, to delete ", on the recommendation of the vocational education committee."
The Minister is taking a different road from that taken by his predecessor. The vocational education committees have done tremendous work in the establishment of regional technical colleges. It is obvious that the Minister for Education has never been a member of a vocational education committee. I suppose the Minister of State has had that experience. The heavy hand of the Minister is in evidence here. This should not be allowed. Our party have protested in the strongest way against this kick in the face being given to the vocational education committees.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 56a:
In page 6, subsection (4) (a), line 43, before "shall" to insert "of whom at least three shall be members of a local authority".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 7, subsection (4) (c), line 4, to delete "one person, being a member" and substitute "two persons, being members".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 7, subsection (4) (c), line 6, after "governing body" to insert "one of whom shall be a woman".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford)
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Micheal P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Micheal J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Creed; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 7, subsection (4) (d), line 10, after "body" to insert "one of whom shall be a woman".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 7, subsection (4) (e), line 11, to delete "one person, being a registered student" and substitute "two persons, being registered students".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 7, subsection (4) (e), line 13, after "governing body" to insert "one of whom shall be a woman".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 65a:
In page 7, subsection (4), lines 14 and 15, to delete paragraph (f).
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John. (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Micheal J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies O'Shea and Flanagan.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 7, subsection (4) (g), lines 16 and 17, to delete "or interests".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 not moved.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 7, subsection (4) (g), lines 19 and 20, to delete "and the overall membership of" and substitute ", excluding interests otherwise represented on".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 7, subsection (4) (g), lines 20 and 21, to delete "or interests".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72a:
In page 7, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) In making appointments to a governing body pursuant to subsection (4) of this section the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented and shall ensure an appropriate gender balance as determined by the Minister from time to time.”.
This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 43.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.
I move amendment No. 74a.
In page 7, subsection (5) (a), lines 29 and 30, to delete "recommended by the vocational education committee and".
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 75, in the names of Deputies O'Shea and Garland. Amendment No. 76 is an alternative amendment. It is therefore proposed for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 75 and 76 together.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 7, subsection (5), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(c) If a member of a governing body is absent from all meetings of the governing body for a period of six consecutive months he/she shall, unless his/her absence was due to illness or was approved by the governing body be disqualified at the expiration of such period from continuing to be a member of such body for the remainder of his/her term of office.".
The amendment seeks to provide for the circumstance of a member of a governing body being absent from meetings for six consecutive months. It provides that such an individual need not necessarily be taken out of office if the absence was due to illness or was approved by the governing body. I should like to hear the Minister's response to the amendment.
My amendment No. 76 is similar. Its purpose is to ensure that the governing body is a working governing body. Occasionally people are members of governing bodies for prestige purposes. The amendment provides that if a member of a governing body is absent from all meetings of the body for a period of six months, unless the absence is due to illness or is approved by the governing body, he or she shall be disqualified at the expiry of such period from continuing to be a member of the governing body. The amendment is designed to ensure that members of a governing body attend and work on the governing body.
I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the comments made by other Members in this regard. I believe that if a person is appointed to a governing body — or any committee or board for that matter — and then does not turn up to meetings for six months he or she obviously has no interest in the appointment. However, I should have to make provision for the contingency of an appointee being ill or unable to attend meetings for some other reason. I have no difficulty in accepting that a person should vacate his or her position on a governing body after an absence from meetings of six months unless there are special circumstances.
Would the Minister come up with an amendment on Report Stage to include that?
On Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There is a technical point that I should like to bring to the Minister's attention. Amendment No. 56a sought to insert the phrase "of whom at least three shall be members of a local authority". The amendment related to the six vocational education committee members who are to be nominated to the governing body of a regional technical college. Subsequent sections of the Bill prevent Oireachtas Members or Members of the European Parliament from being members of a governing body. If a vocational education committee opted for the least number of public representatives or, more correctly, if the local authority forming the vocational education committee opted for six members of the local authority and four of them were Members of the Oireachtas or MEPs, the quota of three who would be members of a local authority might not be filled. You could have six members of a vocational education committee, four of whom could be Members of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament, leaving only two members who would qualify as public representatives in this situation. It is just a technical point which occurred to me.
We will not be voting against this section but I wish to comment on paragraph (g). This refers to five persons being nominated by the vocational education committee and encompassing various interest groups such as industry, agriculture, commerce and so on. In tandem with the provisions in section 5 in relation to research and development this is one of the most vital sections in the Bill. In relation to fulfilling the role of the regional technical colleges as dynamic agencies liaising with industries, the research and development aspect of section 5, with the nomination of appropriate people from relevant industries and professions, is vitally important. I am sure that the vocational education committees will bear this in mind in terms of choosing and nominating the personnel involved because too often in the past talented graduates left college without doing any research and this element has been underutilised in universities and colleges.
If we want to make our mark on the competitive European scene it is vital to have the ability and capacity to innovate, to initiate new processes and to increase our research and development facilities. That is where colleges can play a central and vital role. Too often the non-indigenous industries, which were brought to this country at considerable cost to the taxpayers and the Industrial Development Authority, have been "torso" industries; their production facilities are in this country but their research and development — the feet and legs — are overseas. That is why it is vital from the point of view of promoting industry within the region, and promoting the concept of the regional technical colleges as the catalyst of development within the region, to increase research and development. We must ensure that the people nominated have a proven track record within the community in relation to development, industry and economic input.
I am disappointed that the nominations of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been deleted and that the Minister has taken full control of the appointment of the chairperson. However, I thank him for accepting a number of suggestions from this side of the House which he will introduce on Report Stage — one is allowing for election to the governing body by the staff and students and the other is reconsidering the point about recommendations by the vocational education committee. This has been deleted in three or four different areas, one in subsection (3) in line 33, in subsection (4) it has also been deleted, in subsection (5), line 30, and again in the appointment of a chairperson in the Second Schedule. Will the Minister clarify whether we will review this matter in all areas or in just one or two?
I will reply to Deputy Mac Giolla first. I pointed out earlier on, when he referred to a specific area, that I would look at it. I will take a general look at all the areas involved. I fully agree with Deputy Jim Higgins's remarks; and the spirit of the Bill bears this out because it has been emphasised that when appointments are made by the vocational education committees they should be relevant to the catchment area of the school involved. If it is possible to strengthen that division we will do so on Report Stage.
Deputy O'Shea referred to public representatives forming numbers on committees. He said it was a technical point and we will ensure that it is covered in the Bill on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 76a has already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 76a:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 42 to 44, to delete "shall manage and maintain all property of the college including land vested in the vocational education committee for the purposes of the college" and substitute "all property of the college".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 77 to 79, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 5, after "body" to insert "with the sanction of the Minister".
Amendment No. 79 seeks to remove the power of a governing body to dispense with the necessity of confirming acts with the committee they establish and amendment No. 80 proposes to retain it with ministerial sanction. In the circumstances, and given that this is a standard provision in many Acts, I intend to let the subsection stand as it is. Experience with the NIHEs and the universities over the years has shown that such a clause is not a cause for concern.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 8, subsection (4), lines 6 to 9, to delete all words from and including "bear" in line 6 down to the end of the subsection and substitute "have due regard to the preservation, promotion and use of the Irish language and to the preservation and development of the national culture.".
This amendment relates to the status of the Irish language in regard to the colleges. The Bill as published states that in performing its functions a governing body shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and of preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims. In the context of the Irish language, this provision is rather weak and does not put sufficient emphasis on the Irish language. It merely states that "a governing body shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language"; we bear many things constantly in mind but they do not necessarily motivate us to do anything. Amendment No. 81 seeks to strengthen that provision while the words that I am seeking to have substituted, by words which have been recommended by the universities——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would just like to say——
A brief comment, please.
——that I share the Deputy's concern and have no problem in accepting the amendment.
May we take it that amendment No. 81 in the names of Deputies O'Shea, Mac Giolla and McGinley is agreed to?
May I say——
The order requires that I proceed to Questions at 2.30 p.m.
We are grateful to the Minister of State for accepting this amendment but we would like to discuss it further on the resumption of the debate.
We will see what will happen following the resumption of the debate. While the Minister can, the Chair cannot make promises.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.