Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 5

Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).

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

Minister for Education (Mr. S. Brennan)

As I recall, we were finalising section 5 which deals with the awarding of degrees. I dealt last evening with the main queries from Opposition in that regard. I responded to Deputy Higgins as to the reason subsection (4) is being removed and explained in so far as I could why I decided to retain the word "Minister" in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).

Deputy Therese Ahearn mentioned last night that a number of amendments have been accepted by me. This is now a better section as a result of our discussion last evening. I have accepted a number of suggestions from Deputies. I appreciate that Deputies have accepted my explanations in a number of areas and particularly my target of granting degree-awarding powers to the Dublin Institute of Technology within a 12-month period. The debate we had last evening has resulted in section 5 being a better section than it was when I brought it before the House and I thank Deputies for that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 6, subsection (2) (a), line 30, to delete "Chairman" and substitute "Chairperson".

Basically the rationale behind this amendment is in line with the whole principle of equality and the need for equality, not alone in the spirit of the Bill but also in the letter of the Bill. I understand there are some legal difficulties with the alteration of the word "Chairman" to "Chairperson". If we are serious about equality throughout the whole education system we should dispense with terminology which is in any sense sexist. There is other terminology in the Bill which is archaic and Dickensian, for example, the phrase "officer and servant". I would ask the Minister to agree to change the word "Chairman" to "Chairperson". The arguments in favour of doing so do not need to be elucidated. It is a clear-cut case of demonstrating clearly that equity in terms of the gender of people involved in the whole area of education, particularly in the area of the Dublin Institute of Technology, should be beyond reproach.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Although I am an avid supporter of equality I do not support this amendment. It is almost condescending to believe that a woman who may be elected as chairman of a committee cannot realistically accept that terminology. After all, we are all part of mankind and I see no reason a woman cannot be addressed as "Chairman". The fact that this amendment has been put down and that this is an area that is often under discussion, proves that it is only in recent times that women succeeded in getting to positions of chairmen of committees. It is for that reason that it is only at this stage that this type of debate emerges. Despite their potential and qualifications, unfortunately because of tradition and lack of opportunity of equality, it was only on rare occasions that women succeeded in being elected to positions such as chairman. As a woman, I would have no problem with being addressed as chairman. I would consider it a privilege to be elected to that position. I believe I would be entitled to be addressed as "Chairman" just as chairmen before me were so addressed.

I totally agree with gender equity. To change the terminology in order to cover a position on which a woman may be successful is almost condescending, although I know the Deputy did not mean that in his amendment. The word "chairman" is acceptable to both sexes, just as in the Irish language the word "cathaoirleach" is acceptable. The word "chairman" does not show any lack of recognition of gender even if the position is held by a woman. The need to change such terminology has only recently emerged and proves the lack of progress of women in those positions. If we had a tradition of having women in those positions, we would not be discussing this terminology now. I am happy with the term "chairman" whether a position is held by a man or woman.

Mr. Garland

I am surprised at Deputy Ahearn's attitude. I thought she would have welcomed the change. However, she is entitled to her view and if she feels comfortable with the title "chairman", that is her right. Many women feel very uncomfortable with the title "chairman". I wholeheartedly support Deputy O'Shea's amendment. It is very important to encourage people to think in terms of the possibility of a woman being appointed as chairperson in any organisation. To use the word "chairman" implies that it will almost certainly be a man who will hold the position. When a chairperson is selected the person becomes either a chairman or a chairwoman. It is absolute nonsense for a woman to be called a chairman. A woman could be called a chairperson but it would be better if she were called a chairwoman.

Tomás Mac Giolla

This is a very interesting and important debate. This issue is debated in clubs and at meetings throughout the country. Many people do not like the word "chairperson" and I agree that many women do not like to be called "chairman". Deputy O'Shea referred to a legal difficulty and I would be interested to hear what it is. In this House we refer to the "Chair". There is no reason we should have "chairman", "chairwoman", or "chairperson". The title of the office should be "the Chair". We have here "chairman and 17 ordinary members". A chairmember is closer to what the job entails than "chairperson". It is important to make a decision on this. The word "person" seems to come into everything and wherever "man" comes into a word we want to change it to "person". This is nonsense in some cases. What the office should be is an important point. The word "cathaoirleach" in the Irish language is very useful but there is no similar word in the English language. Certainly, "chairmember" would be much closer to what the office entails than "chairperson".

Changing from "chairman" to "chairwoman" according to who is elected does not give a particular name for the office. I suggest either "the chair" or "chairmember".

I agree with Deputy Garland that, while Deputy Ahearn may have no objection to the term "chairman", there are women who would object to it. I would like to hear the Minister's ideas on this, about the legal problems involved and so on. In this House we have used "Chair" rather than "chairman" on all occasions.

Mr. Gilmore

This discussion is a little bit like the discussion on the mode of dress that is appropriate to the Houses of the Oireachtas. A lot of this should be left to the discretion of the individual rather than having inflexible, stultifying rules which state that in the Houses of the Oireachtas dress must be of a particular form and, in the case of the use of language with regard to what title is used to describe the chair of a body, it must be of a particular form. Much of this should be left to the discretion of the occupier of the position. I do not get worked up over this issue. In many respects, Deputy Ahearn is right, in that there is a great degree of tokenism in the whole debate about "chairman" and "chairperson". It is interesting that where the term "chairperson" is used almost exclusively a woman is the holder of the office. I have rarely seen the term used when a man is in the chair. Even where people genuinely use the term, when a man is occupying the chair he will be addressed as "chairman" and when a woman is occupying the chair she will be addressed as "chairperson". That is bringing tokenism to its ultimate. It does not matter what one calls the position. The important thing is that there is gender equity in the occupancy of these positions. That is probably the problem.

When I first tabled amendments for a Bill in this House I used "he/she" in relation to a number of amendments and when they were printed the word "she" had disappeared. I was told that this was because of the 1937 Interpretation Act and that "she" does not exist, that "she" is presumed to be "he". It is almost like a form of language that was invented before the spare rib. The word "he" is presumed to include "she". The Interpretation Act needs to be looked at so as not to have this rigid and insulting form of language but to allow a more flexible use of language such as "chairman", "chairwoman" or "chairperson". The occupiers of the position should be able to state their preference for a particular word.

Mr. S. Brennan

In relation to the legal aspect, the Interpretation Act, 1937, is legislation which we should really tackle. Section 11 of the Act reads:

The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to the construction of every Act of the Oireachtas and of every instrument made wholly or partly under any such Act, that is to say:

(a) Singular and plural. Every word importing the singular shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the plural, and every word importing the plural shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it is also imported the singular;

(b) Masculine and feminine. Every word importing the masculine gender shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the feminine gender;

My layman's view on reading that is that it does not prevent us from inserting the word "chairperson", but that is the way it has been interpreted up to now. I think we could take another interpretation, in that if we decided to put in the contrary, the opposite will apply. That is my interpretation of it as a layman, even though I am not sure I have that freedom.

I propose to stick to that in this legislation, if for no other reason than it is the way it has been done throughout all legislation since the 1937 Interpretation Act. It is something we should tackle, however, as it is important to get the phrase right. There is substantial disagreement on what phrase to use and how we should address the Chair when the office holder is a woman, whether we should use the phrase "Lady Chairman", "Lady Chairperson", "Chairperson", "Chairwoman", or just simply "Chair", as has been suggested. Incidentally, may I point out that in the Second Schedule to the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991, section 2 (1) states:

The Governing Body shall have a Chairman who may be designated by such title as the Governing Body, with the concurrence of the Minister, may determine.

That allows the Dublin Institute of Technology to call the person occupying the Chair by any title which they wish and they do not have to use the word "Chairman". Obviously they will consult with the person occupying the Chair and then decide on the appropriate title to address the Chair.

This is not the legislation in which to make a major departure on this point. I think it would be better to tackle the Interpretation Act itself. As I have said already, we have allowed the person occupying the Chair of the Dublin Institute of Technology to be addressed by whatever title the governing body decide. On a more general note may I point out that in the Green Paper being published tomorrow and in amendments Nos. 45 and 50 of this Bill I have specifically written in a responsibility to approach gender balance on the governing body? I have specifically introduced the concept of gender balance in this Bill. I did so to be consistent with the philosophy of the forthcoming Green Paper. This should help to redress the balance somewhat.

I am very sympathetic to Deputy O'Shea's amendment. While I would like to do as he suggests, on balance I do not think this is the legislation to tackle this matter. We need to take a broader approach to it. However, this does not stop the Dublin Institute of Technology from dealing with the matter as they can address the Chair by whatever title they decide.

Mr. O'Shea

In view of what the Minister said in response to the debate on this amendment, I will not press it at this time. Gender equity is a two-way street as it concerns both men and women. The term "person" relates just as much to men as to women and therefore when we are drafting legislation it is not tokenism to make the change I suggest. For instance, Members who are on the frontbench are now referred to as "spokespersons", as is only right and proper. While individual women may have a problem with the use of the word "person", the majority favour it and it was on that basis that I tabled this amendment. The Minister makes it possible for the Dublin Institute of Technology to describe the person holding the office of Chairman if they so desire, but I ask him to make efforts to ensure that the Dublin Institute of Technology are influenced to use a term that reflects gender equity and in my view "Chairperson" is preferable. I ask the Minister to show his goodwill to my amendment by conveying these sentiments to the Dublin Institute of Technology at an early stage.

Mr. S. Brennan

I will certainly convey the views expressed in this debate to the members of the governing body and our views on how they might address that matter, in particular the Deputy's own suggestion. This is a matter however for the governing body. While the members of the governing body will be nominated by other bodies, and mainly the vocational education committees, the Minister has to approve formally the full list of nominees. I will have no hesitation in returning the list if there are not substantial attempts to ensure a sound gender balance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 27 on the additional and substitute list of amendments, dated 23 June, is in the names of the Minister and Deputy Mac Giolla. Amendment No. 31 is consequential on amendment No. 27. Amendments Nos. 34 to 37, inclusive, 39, 41 to 43, inclusive, and 45 are related. All of these amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed?

Mr. J. Higgins

On a point of order, Sir, is amendment No. 28 being taken in conjunction with this group, in view of the fact that it refers to the same matter?

Acting Chairman

I can only rule on what is before me. I have given the ruling and I ask the Deputy to accept it. The matter may be discussed at the appropriate time. Is this agreed? Agreed.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 6, subsection (2) (a), line 30, to delete "17" and substitute "18".

We should try to get through this section as quickly as possible as we have a great deal to do before 1.30 p.m. In this amendment I propose that the number of ordinary members be increased from 17 to 18 to allow for an extra student to be nominated to the governing body, as I propose in a later amendment.

Mr. J. Higgins

I agree with Deputy Mac Giolla that we should try to advance the Bill as quickly as possible as there are substantial matters to be dealt with within the time constraints.

The composition of the governing body is vitally important from the point of view of the success of and the genuine democratic input into the college. The collective will is to ensure that the governing body is as representative as possible and yet not unwieldy. Representation is very important. I accept the Minister proposes to increase the number from 17 to 18 to allow for an increase in the representation of the vocational education committee. I believe it is vitally important that we increase the number on the body and any number fewer than 20 would be acceptable. I also made this point in relation to the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. Indeed the former Minister, Deputy Davern, proposed that the number be increased to 22, which was acceptable. The membership should be as representative as possible and we should have the greatest number possible on the governing body. Indeed I am trying to achieve the same in my amendment when I seek to increase the number to 19, as we would like to see an additional student and a member of FÁS on the governing body. We will advance our case in due course when we reach our amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to raise two points on these amendments which deal with the membership of the governing body. The first relates to the nomination of six members by the vocational education committees. Will the Minister clarify whether the grouping arrangements which were made in respect of local authority and vocational education committee nominations will apply in this case? When the vocational education committee come to nominate their members to the governing body, a majority of the membership of the vocational education committee will belong either to one political persuasion or to a group of political persuasions who have come together for the purpose of constituting a majority. Will they be nominating all six members of the governing body? Will interests who find themselves in a minority on a vocational education committee come together as a group and claim the right to nominate some of those six members? That would be important in the interests of balance on the governing body. The issue has not been addressed to date in relation to this Bill or the Regional Technical Colleges Bill.

The second point relates to the election of student members to the governing body. This matter was touched on briefly in the debate on the other Bill. It would make sense if the student members of the governing body were specific officers of the student union of the institute or of the group of student unions making up the student body. Perhaps that could be prescribed in some way. Normally there are annual elections for union officers and a second set of elections would constitute duplication. That point needs to be addressed.

Mr. O'Shea

I wish to put two brief questions in relation to this section. I welcome the fact that the Minister has left in the nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This matter was voted on in the context of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill last week when an amendment was introduced to delete that nomination. Why is it appropriate to have a nominee of the ICTU on the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology and not appropriate to have a similar nominee on the governing body of the regional technical colleges? I strongly argue that there should be such a nominee.

Section 4(a) states that two members of the academic staff of the institute shall be nominated by the staff. Will the Minister clarify exactly how this nomination is to take place? Will these representatives be nominated following an election involving the whole academic staff, or is there to be some group system? Six persons are to be nominated by the vocational education committee. Does that mean that the vocational education committee can nominate people who are not members of the vocational education committee? Is there any distinction between the public representatives and the other members of the vocational education committee? Is a quota to be allotted to elected members of the vocational education committee as against those appointed by other means?

Mr. S. Brennan

The section deals with the composition of the governing body. My amendment No. 27 proposes to increase the number of ordinary members from 17 to 18 in order to take on an additional student. The Bill originally provided for one registered student of the institute and it is proposed to increase that to two, making the total number of ordinary members 18. The chairman and the president will bring the total membership of the governing body to 20. We arrived at this figure in trying to get a balance. My belief is that 20 is too many and I would have been happier to have fewer. However, I can live with 20. I would be very much opposed to going beyond that figure because it would not be manageable. In terms of accountability and responsibility a tighter number is better.

Deputy Higgins mentioned the persons nominated by the organisations decided by the vocational education committee. I concur with the remarks he made. Speaking on the Regional Technical Colleges Bill on 4 June he suggested that the vocational education committees should bear in mind the needs of vocational education and talented graduates and take a broad view of their own nominees. I join with him in that suggestion to the vocational education committees. Once they have nominated their own representatives they will seek additional ones from representative organisations and they should ensure that the spirit of the legislation is carried through. Such organisations shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests appropriate to the activities of the institute. It is particularly important that those sections are represented and I know the vocational education committees will take a responsible view. The vocational education committee will nominate six persons directly and will have a strong say in an additional five in that they will select the organisations who will nominate the persons to be appointed.

Deputy Gilmore asked about student elections. It is perhaps safer to leave it the way it is. Representatives will be nominated by registered students in accordance with regulations made by the governing body. I am almost certain that this means elections from the student body. If the Deputy feels it needs to be more tightly specified, I will look at it before Report Stage. I presume sensible regulations will be made for the election of students to the governing body.

I will examine before Report Stage the question of grouping at vocational education committee level. I had not proposed to tell them that the six persons nominated should be members of the vocational education committee, public representatives or not, or to specify that they should come from groupings. My instinct is to stick with what we have and not to dictate to the vocational education committee how they might appoint their six representatives. I am sure they will make their own decisions.

Deputy O'Shea raised the matter of a representative of the ICTU. We took the view that it was unwise to remove that provision and I intend to restore the ICTU representative on Report Stage of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. I will be proposing to the House that it be put back into the legislation. There is nothing underhand about its proposed removal. It was an attempt by myself — I take responsibility for it — to try to tidy up the board and to keep it as tight as possible. I felt that staff members of the vocational education committee and others nominated from industry, agriculture and so on, would already be members of unions and that that was, perhaps, unnecessary. I accept the argument that the ICTU are anxious that it be included and, in that case, I am happy to accommodate them. It is being put back into the Regional Technical Colleges Bill and will be retained in this Bill also.

Deputy O'Shea asked about staff. It is stated in the Bill that staff will be nominated. I am not proposing in amendments Nos. 35 and 36 to change the word "nominated" to "elected" so that the staff nominees would now be elected to the governing body. That is the mechanism the Deputy asked me to describe.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I seek clarification from the Minister of section 6 (4) (d) which states:

one person, being a registered student of the Institute, shall be nominated by the registered students in accordance with regulations made by the Governing Body;

In amendment No. 39 the Minister seeks to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "elected". May I take it he is changing "nominated" to "elected" in the other paragraphs?

Mr. S. Brennan

It was my intention to point out also that we are changing the word "nominated" to "elected" in that paragraph also so that the students will be elected.

Mrs. Owen

Subsection (4) (b) states:

two persons, being members of the academic staff...

Amendment No. 34, in the name of Deputy J. Higgins, seeks to insert the words "one of whom shall be a woman,". The principle is already accepted in general school boards and soon, where there are parent representatives that one must be a mother. The Minister's amendment No. 45 states:

...the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented...

This is an opportunity, if he accepts this amendment, to ensure that the two academics on the board would be male and female but, on the other hand, they could be two women. At least one should be a woman and the Minister should not have any difficulty in accepting that.

In regard to subsection (4) (d), even with the change of the word "nominated" to "elected"— I welcome the fact that there will be two students rather than one — much power is being given in this section to the regulations that will be made by the governing body. I would like the Minister's assurance that the governing body would ensure that all registered students would be eligible to stand for election. Difficulties can and may arise between those on the two year certificate courses and those on the three year diploma and degree courses. I would like to be sure that any registered student would be covered under this section and that there would be no element of elitism or change in status of one type of student from the other. Nowadays any qualification from these colleges is excellent.

Many years ago, when my mother was appointed to the first NCEA board, no courses, other than those in universities, were given any status or recognition. It was a very good day's work when these fine courses offered by the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical colleges were given the status and recognition they deserve.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

I am calling Deputy J. Higgins. I would remind the Deputy that we are dealing with amendment No. 27 and related amendments and I will give him an opportunity to comment on amendment No. 28.

Mr. J. Higgins

I welcome the general thrust of the amendments. I welcome the fact that the Minister is moving in the direction of increasing the membership of the governing body from 17 to 18. I welcome also the general tenor of his remarks that a number in excess of 20 would be unacceptable. I hope he might accept 19 ordinary members when he listens to the reasons advanced on the composition. I welcome the Minister's amendment No. 31, which is related and seeks to increase from four to five the number of persons nominated by the Minister. In regard to amendment No. 34 it is important, as Deputy Owen said, that we go beyond the bland prescription of talking about gender equity and be specific. On the basis of discrimination in the past and indeed at present in relation to the representation of women, we should specify "one of whom shall be a woman,". When we discussed the Regional Technical Colleges Bill I named the nine regional technical colleges and pointed out that there is not one female principal or vice-principal in any of those colleges. The same applies in relation to the six Dublin Institute of Technology colleges and that is something that leaves much to be desired.

It is important that we state here in specific terms, "one of whom shall be a woman". I accept the point that that may lead to an imbalance, as Deputy Owen said in that we are leaving open the possibility that both may be women. That is something we can examine in the light of the numbers. Can the Minister give us a breakdown, if that is possible, of the balance within the academic staff of the colleges, of the number of female and male members in the six Dublin Institute of Technology colleges? My understanding is that in the region of 20 per cent of the academic staff in the colleges are female which would add substance to the argument that we need to enshrine in hard terms the female representation.

I should point out that not one Secretary of a Government Department is female. Across the whole spectrum of the public service there is a gross under representation of women, particularly in senior management positions. When discussing the sister Bill, the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, we mentioned that in relation to principals and vice-principals at second level, and particularly at primary level, the imbalance discriminates heavily against females.

I welcome the fact that amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are being co-sponsored by the Minister; in other words that he is accepting the principle of "elected" as opposed to "nominated". In regard to amendment No. 37 I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, to have two student representatives rather than one.

Mr. S. Brennan

Amendment No. 38 states:

In page 7, subsection (4) (d), line 3, to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons, one of whom shall be a woman".

I would like to accept that amendment but, unfortunately, I cannot do so on this occasion for two reasons. First, there is a number of subheadings under which we elect the governing body——

Mrs. Owen

On a point of order, I assume the Minister is talking about amendment No. 34. My understanding is that we have not yet taken amendment No. 38.

Mr. S. Brennan

Yes, thank you Deputy. It is the same principle in the later amendment. I cannot agree to that amendment on this occasion even though I would like to. Six persons are nominated by the vocational education committee, two by the staff, the student representatives, the University of Dublin and so on and those nominated by the vocational education committee from organisations. If we are to be consistent we would have to include that in all the sections. We could not merely say that half of the representation of the staff should be women and then proceed to ignore all of the other components such as the vocational education committee. It would be inconsistent if the same requirement were not laid on the vocational education committee. I consider that I have dealt with the matter in my own amendment No. 45, which reads:

In making appointments to the 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.

My amendment, if agreed, would place a statutory duty on the Minister to ensure an approprite gender balance, which is a better method.

Mrs. Owen

How?

Mr. S. Brennan

The principle is quite simple. I, and any future Minister, I presume, would simply return the list. The entire list has to be approved by the Minister. In many instances that is merely a formality because most representatives are nominated or elected and the Minister has little discretion but to approve them. There will be an exception in this case and if the Minister is not satisfied that there is an appropriate gender balance he or she will be able to return the entire list and refuse to make the appointments.

In the introduction to the Green Paper and in the full paper which will be available tomorrow I have laid great stress on gender equity. I have made gender equity a major aim in the Irish education world. Tomorrow Deputies will note that, in the document I have proposed, all boards of selection comprise a very sound gender balance and stipulates that provisions be put in place to ensure that all governing bodies and boards of management of schools throughout the country have such a balance. A debate should take place in the next few months as to the way in which we might achieve that. In the Green Paper I have put forward some ideas as to the way in which it might be done. I should like the process to be completed so that gender equity may be developed across the country at every level of education.

I am happy that this Bill places a statutory duty on the Minister to ensure an appropriate gender balance. I feel that it is a better proposal in that my own amendment does not apply only to staff but also to the entire governing body of the college. It would be wrong if we picked out the staff component and said that half of that component should be men and half should be women but then proceeded to ignore the six appointments of the vocational education committee and did not make any stipulations in relation to the organisations that nominate representatives. I support the good intentions and the thinking behind the proposal. It would be misinterpreted as some form of tokenism if we were to select one constituency of two and decide that half should be women but then proceeded to ignore the other 18 constituencies making up the total number of 20. I consider amendment No. 45 preferable as it places a statutory duty on the Minister to ensure gender balance. It would be the Minister's duty to return the list if it did not meet that requirement.

Deputy Owen asked about the election of students. I agree with her comments, and certainly it would be my wish that all students be eligible to vote. The Deputy wanted me to make sure that the regulations were clear in that regard. I shall make it clear to the governing body that our wish is that all students would vote. I had to think a little about the question of part-time students and discuss that aspect with the governing body. I see no reason why all students should not vote, but it would depend upon the extent to which they were involved with the college.

Mr. Owen

Block release apprentices?

Mr. S. Brennan

And apprentices, yes. I think we have to leave the matter to the good sense of the governing body. I shall express the wish that in general all students should vote but if there are categories of students that are very much casual, then I would understand if the governing body and the student body decided that they should not vote. That is an issue that could be developed, rather than laid out on day one. The governing body will have to be left some flexibility in relation to the extent of the franchise. I shall express the strong view of the House that in general all students should be permitted to vote.

Deputy Jim Higgins asked for some figures. I do not have them available now but I shall find out whether figures can be compiled and given to the Deputy as soon as possible. My own impression is very similar to that of the Deputy. Not only in the third level sector but throughout education there is a much larger percentage of women than men but the management level of education is dominated by men. In the Green Paper I have very clearly sought to redress that imbalance. When Deputies read the document they will note dramatic proposals in that regard.

Mr. Owen

I must come back to the Minister's amendment No. 45. I recognise that the Minister has their best interests at heart. However, the method proposed is not practical. What will happen if there are only three women members on the board when the Minister gets the list of 18 — or 19 if the figure is increased — and then decides that there is not an appropriate gender balance? If the whole list is sent back constituencies would have to hold elections again in order to create the appropriate gender balance? The system would be very unwieldy. For example, would the Minister say that he was happy that three of the six vocational education committee members were women but was not happy with the balance on the academic constituency and so on? There is no need for the stipulation suggested by the Minister. There will be six representatives of the vocational education committee, for example, and when six people are elected there is a very good chance that the system of natural selection will result in the nomination of some women. The same is true of the five persons nominated under section 6 (4) (g). Of the five nominated there is a very good chance that at least one would be a woman because the teachers in such sections of the college as hotel management and domestic science are predominantly women. An appropriate balance would be achieved through natural selection.

Good and all as the Minister's intentions are, I do not consider that the system proposed under amendment No. 45 would work; it would be desperately unwieldy. When the list came in the Minister would have to ask himself whether three women was sufficient, whether four women was sufficient, whether the number should be five and so on. Where would the Minister make a cut-off point? The system would have to be built in, even on a trial basis, to determine its effectiveness. The Minister may not recognise the difficulties that his system would present. I am a Chair of a vocational education committee community college myself, and the only other woman on that committee is the parents' representative. There is a provision laid down that of the two parents' representatives one must be a woman. The principle is already in existence and is working on school boards. I wonder why the Minister is not prepared to follow that principle in this Bill. I hope that he will reconsider amendment No. 45 and agree with me that the system would not work. I saw the Minister smiling when I made my point earlier. In practice, I really do not know how the system would work. I should like to know at what point the Minister would decide to throw the whole list back to the governing body.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to refer to the election of student members of the governing body. As I understand it, the student members of the governing body will serve for a term of one year. Already under the arrangements for the election of officers of student unions an annual election is held in which each registered student is entitled to vote. I am anxious that the student body do not spend half a year holding elections. If there were one set of elections for officers of the student union and then another set of elections for membership of the governing body, the students would have more elections in a year than we have referenda. The whole purpose of serving on the governing body could be defeated. The two elections could be dovetailed in the universities, for example. Under the existing arrangements for representation on college councils and so on, normally the president of the students' union — and if there is a second person, usually the vice-president of the students' union — is an ex officio representative for that year on the governing body, the college council or whatever. I should like that system to be followed. I give notice of my intention to table an amendment on that matter on Report Stage. I consider it important that that be defined.

I am not happy that this would in some way be at the discretion of the governing body because if a conflict or controversy arose one would not want a situation where a governing body could devise an arrangement which would circumvent the normal representative structures which students have for representing themselves and find some other method of having students appointed to the governing body. I am simply drawing the attention of the Minister to this. I hope he will rectify it on Report Stage.

Mr. O'Shea

There is a practical problem in relation to section 5 (4) (b) and (d) concerning the regulations which would be set down by the governing body for the nomination — or the election as it will now be — by the staff of two persons to the governing body and the election of students to that body. How can the governing body draw up regulations when the body do not exist? In other words, the governing body will not be a full governing body unless the staff and student nominees are part of it. What concerns me is that the regulations in relation to staff and student representatives would logically have to be drawn up by the governing body in the absence of any nominees from the staff and student body.

I also want to ask a question concerning the regulations made by the governing body for the election — as it will now be when subsection 4 (b) is amended — because the governing body could limit the electorate as they see fit. Bearing in mind that these regulations would be put in place before any staff members would be members of the governing body one could suggest that a strong director could influence the board to come up with a set of regulations which would not necessarily serve the spirit of the representation of staff members which is inserted by the Minister.

Mr. S. Brennan

I will be brief, I do not want to repeat myself as I do not have that much to add. Deputy Owen asked me to reconsider the amendment. However, I am fully convinced that it would not make much sense to just pick two from the 20 to ensure a gender balance in that small constituency and not apply it to the other 18. I would prefer had the Deputy sought to make it across the board in relation to the 20 and not just in the small area of staff because, if we take that route, the same responsibility should apply to the vocational education committees and students. It would not be wise to select the staff for a gender battle and let the rest follow. It is an argument but I am opposed to just doing it in one area of the governing body. The Deputy also asked if the names on the list were all those of men what the Minister would do. There is a statutory duty to ensure gender balance and if that is not the case the list would be sent back to the vocational education committees, students and staff and they would be asked for the reasons for not electing women to the governing body.

Mrs. Owen

Would there be a need for another election?

Mr. S. Brennan

That might not be necessary. For example, the vocational education committee might oblige immediately and say it was not their intention not to have women members on the body. The nominating bodies may appoint five members and they might also oblige immediately. In that way it might be possible to get a strong gender balance but, if not, they would be ordered to hold another election. I would not have any hesitation in that regard. The Deputy should remember that it is not just at the whim of the Minister, there will be a statutory duty in the Bill to see that it happens. Perhaps I should not say this but I am not very keen on quotas, I prefer the gender balance approach because in some boards it is appropriate to have more women than men, depending on the activity, and on other boards it is more appropriate to have more men than women. It should reflect the number involved in the area of activity concerned.

Deputy Gilmore suggested he might introduce an amendment on Report Stage and, if he does, I will certainly consider it. We have removed the phrase "nominated" and substituted "elected". The reason the word "nominated" was inserted was to address the kind of thing about which the Deputy is worried, to prevent a whole spate of elections. As we have opted for the election route students will probably have to face them. However, the Deputy is right, we should try to dovetail the elections so that the election to the governing body does not take place one month and an election for the president of the students' union the following month. I do not want to tell the governing body how to run their affairs. If it is the wish of the Dublin Institute of Technology to have two elections — just as the country has decided to hold a number of referenda from time to time — I do not see any difficulty. There is no reason for the regulations of the governing body not to stipulate that whoever is elected — the president or secretary of the students' union — should be the persons on the governing body. I am sure that the students' unions elections could be the governing body elections if they choose to do that. However, I would stop short of telling them that is the way it should be done because we want to give the governing body as much say as possible. I suggest to the governing body that they should seek to co-ordinate the students' union elections with the governing body elections.

Deputy O'Shea raised a very intriguing point in relation to the students not being on the governing body before the regulations are made. Section (6) (3) provides for a governing body to hold office for a period of one year, a sort of start-up governing body. They would obviously make the regulations in the first instance but they could subsequently be changed when the formal governing body came into operation. Under this subsection I will be able to nominate five members, three members of staff and two students, which would probably allay the Deputy's concern. I appreciate the point the Deputy is making but, as I said, I will be appointing five members which means that there will be a mix on the governing body at that stage. I hope that will ensure the regulations will reflect the views of staff and students. The safety net will apply when the full governing body are in operation and if staff and student representatives are not satisfied with the regulations they can seek to have them changed at that time. I am satisfied that the governing body will comprise staff and students and, therefore, they will have an input to the regulations.

Deputy O'Shea was also concerned that the governing body might try to limit the electorate. I do not think that will be the case and, if it was, there would be a substantial backlash when the full governing body took office. At any rate there will not be a start-up governing body without staff or students which means they will have a direct say in that area.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 28 in the names of Deputies Higgins and Ahearn may not be moved. However, I will allow the Deputy make a brief comment.

Mr. J. Higgins

Having agreed that the governing body should be composed of 18 members I understand that the amendment falls. I should say, however, that when we come to deal with the amendments that relate to the question of who should be members of the governing body, in particular amendment No. 40 in my name and that of Deputy Ahearn, we must ensure that the membership is as broadly representative as possible without being unwieldy. I will expand on this point in due course.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 6, subsection (2) (b), line 31, to delete "Director" and substitute "President".

Acting Chairman

This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 30. Amendments Nos. 117 to 121, inclusive, are related. It is proposed therefore that amendments Nos. 30 and 117 to 121, inclusive, be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 6, subsection (3), line 32, to delete "Director" and substitute "Chairman and the President".

This amendment and consequential amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119, 120 and 121 deal with the office of chairman. When dealing with the corresponding section of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill it was said that the chairman of any body had the potential to give essential status to that body and that what was required was the widest range of persons to be considered for appointment to the post of chairman. For these reasons and also to bring the position more into line with that in other comparable institutions it has been decided that the chairman of the governing body of the institute should be a ministerial appointee. The recommendations of the vocational education committees in this matter will of course receive the fullest consideration in this regard. Amendment No. 30 also deletes the word "director" and substitutes "president". This matter was discussed when we dealt with amendment No. 2.

Mr. J. Higgins

As the Minister is aware, it was a major bone of contention on the morning Committee Stage of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill was due to be taken that a considerable raft of amendments was submitted. A number of these dealt with the role of the vocational education committees. Yesterday the Minister threw down the challenge very forcefully to the vocational education committees and others who raised the question of decentralisation and subsidiarity; he drew attention to the need to give as much autonomy as possible to the vocational education committees and asked where the vocational education committees stood. The Minister asked if we wanted to hand over control to the vocational education committees or to the colleges.

The vocational education committees seem to have a legitimate grievance in relation to the manner in which they have been culled from large sections of the previous Bill and this Bill, and particularly in regard to the decision to delete the right of the governing body to nominate the chair from their existing membership. As the Minister will be aware, it led to representations to the Tánaiste on last Thursday week; the matter was also raised at his own parliamentary party meeting, and subsequently assurances were given.

I honestly believe that it should be left to the membership of the governing body to nominate the chairman from within their membership having regard to the fact that it will be a broadly representative body made up of many constituent groups, including members of vocational education committees, members of other organisations and interest groups nominated by the vocational education committees — we have already referred today to the various commercial organisations which will have a legitimate input — the trade union movement, the student body, the academic council, etc.

I fail to understand the reason the Minister cannot accept that there may be a competent person within that body who could act as chairman. I also fail to understand the reason the Minister has decided to take unto himself the plenipotentiary power to nominate a chairman — this is what probably will happen — from outside the existing membership of that body. The vocational education committees and the IVEA complain constantly that they are under-represented, that their role has been under-valued while their role in education has not been acknowledged. Deputy Mac Giolla and others have challenged the Minister to instance one case where a vocational education committee misappropriated funds or abused their powers. I contend that they have not and that they have been extremely responsible and judicious. While the link will be a tenuous one at least they will have a positive role. There will also be the possibility that at some stage during the term of office of the governing body a member of a vocational education committee — they will have six representatives on the governing body — could be appointed chairman. If the Minister were to do this at this juncture he would allay many of the fears, anxieties and legitimate grievances of the members of the vocational education committees.

I have just received a note indicating that my office has had a torrent of phone calls from vocational education committee chairpersons and IVEA members the length and breadth of the country who feel that their role has been under-valued and diminished by the decision of the Minister both in the previous Bill and in this Bill to take unto himself the power to appoint a chairman.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Yesterday the Minister spoke at length with some sincerity and conviction about the need for himself, the vocational education committees and the religious orders to cede power and give it to the governing bodies. I agree with everything he had to say but what is stated in this section amounts to a total contradiction and flies in the face of what he had to say yesterday. As a result there is enormous tension within the vocational education committees. On section 5 we argued that terminology such as "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine" should be deleted. The Minister agreed to accept many of our amendments but decided to retain this phrase in two areas. He justifiably claimed that he had to keep a measure of power so as to avoid putting expense on the taxpayer.

May I ask the Minister what is the reason he has taken unto himself the power to appoint the chairman? Yesterday he spoke about the need to cede power but this is a perfect example of someone grabbing power. The Minister got his claws on this power and he is holding on to it but this is not in keeping with what he said yesterday. I can see no logical reason the Minister should not have confidence in the governing body which will be charged with the responsibility of running our colleges, or conclude that there is not one person among the governing body who is fit to hold the position of chairman. Can he put forward a logical argument for retaining this power and privilege for himself because what he is saying is that the chairman cannot be selected from within the existing membership? It is an insult to the members of the governing body that the Minister has decided that he must appoint someone from outside the existing membership to be chairman.

I should warn the Minister, irrespective of whoever is appointed, that it will be seen as a political appointment and will not be in the best interests of education. I await the Minister's reasons for grabbing this privilege, power and authority for himself and for deciding not to leave it to the members of the governing body to select a chairman, as originally intended. I agree with what my colleagues have had to say. The vocational education committees and the IVEA have a legitimate crib about this section of the Bill in that it was here the Minister took over ensuring that it will be he who will make that appointment. I am anxious to know the grounds on which he justifies that decision?

Mr. O'Shea

When we discussed similar circumstances on the Regional Technical Colleges Bill I made the point that amendment 117, proposed by the Minister, left the appointment of the chairman subject to political patronage. That is not good nor will it be to the benefit of the Dublin Institute of Technology sector. I do not make that criticism specifically of the present Government but of any Government. As a former Minister for Education once said, all things being equal, the party nominee will be appointed. We should be legislating to utterly rule out any such possibility.

We need only look to the events of yesterday. I should like the Minister to clarify whether the fax issued to vocational education committees nationwide — which information was to be specifically transmitted to Fianna Fáil members of vocational education committees — was sent to the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. The Minister stands condemned for issuing a document to be circulated specifically to members of vocational education committees of a particular political affiliation, placing chief executive officers of vocational education committees in a most invidious position, introducing party politics into the vocational education committee sector and, by extension, the regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology sector. The Minister's actions yesterday support the argument being advanced here that, taking the appointment of the chairman on the recommendation of the vocational education committee entirely out of the hands of the vocational education committee — in other words removing it completely from any vestige of local democratic control — is a most retrograde step. It is absolutely at variance with the position adopted by the Minister in the House last evening, not only in relation to this Bill but also, as he described to us, the philosophy underlying the Green Paper on Education to be published tomorrow.

I appeal to the Minister not to press this amendment, thereby allowing democratic control over the appointment of this premier office in the formation of the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Mrs. Owen

I am totally mystified at the reason the Minister is doing what he proposes here. It begs the question of where is the pressure emanating from to effect this fundamental change. Might it emanate from the fact that, within the Department of Education, there are not that many perquisites or favours to be handed out? My understanding is that the colleges, their directors and so on have no objection to the chairman being elected from among their elected members. If the Minister is willing, rightly so, to allow the natural selection of members representing the various sectoral interests in the colleges, why does he not extend that trust and allow them select one of their members as chairman? It begs the question of how much trust the Minister has in these members, and is utterly inconsistent with the other selection process of the governing body.

Perhaps it calls into question the meaning of the word "ordinary" rather than the word "chairman" which we have not discussed. Is the Minister now saying that he perceives the other members as very ordinary people, none of whom he would consider to be sufficiently qualified to chair their members' activities throughout the year? There have been the most dramatic changes in vocational education in the past 60 years. The whole perception of vocational education has been lifted out of the doldrums and given its rightful respect and status, due primarily to the excellent people who served on vocational education committees. Is the Minister attempting to say to them that we are very glad we had them to effect these dramatic changes but now they can go. Is he saying he does not really consider they are sufficiently qualified or experienced to select one of their members on the governing body?

What type of person does the Minister envisage will become this powerful chairman of the governing body? For example, will that person be some former party worker, some former chairman, who may have fulfilled a useful role in some other semi-State or other body who happens to be close to the Minister of the day?

The Minister must recognise that, in inserting this provision, he is giving rise to the continued lack of respect for such political appointees, creating circumstances in which their power will be undermined because he or she will be a political appointee. The Minister should let the natural selection process continue.

For example, is the Minister worried that the time may come when a student representative would become chairman? That would be a very innovative idea. I do not predict that would occur in the immediate future but, so what, if it did. Would it not be wonderful if a student representative proved to be a worthy person to hold the office of chairman? I grant it would be a dramatic change. Is somebody pressurising the Minister to the point of saying we could not contemplate the day when a student would become chairman of the governing body? From my information there is no pressure coming from the colleges. Will the Minister tell us from where it is emanating and give us an example of the type of person he envisages as the supremo of these governing bodies?

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order, I do not think the last amendments with which we dealt were moved and accepted. I am worried that the Minister's amendments changing "nominated" to "elected" have not been agreed. I refer to amendments 27, 31, 34 to 37, inclusive and 39, 41, 42, 43 and 45 with which we dealt earlier.

We are now dealing with amendments 30 and 117 to 121, inclusive, the fundamental change the Minister effected in this Bill, which worried everybody with regard to central control being retained by the Minister, eliminating what he appeared to refer to as the bureaucracy of the vocational education committees. In this case it is more blatant. I am not alleging any desire on the part of this Minister to appoint any particular person. I do not know what may have been in the mind of whoever suggested that this be done, whether the Minister, the draftsman, somebody in his Department, or whoever. It is seen to be a bad move democratically within the education system. It is seen to be a demeaning rather than a raising of the status of the Dublin Institute of Technology and its constituent colleges. The governing bodies will perceive it as demeaning their status that their chairman must be appointed by the Minister.

If this procedure were to be adopted by the Minister in relation to the existing universities there would be an absolute outcry, a major liberal uprising of academics all over the country who would repudiate the right of the Minister to interfere in any way like that in academia. Of course, as the Minister says, we are only dealing with an institute of technology here, we are not really dealing with universities, they have not the same status and they will accept this type of nomination by a Minister of the chairman of the governing body. It is really not good — let us put it that way.

I must say the Minister has been very sensitive to the mood of amendments etc. put down and has accepted a considerable number of amendments and made many amendments himself. In this area it is certainly not good to have the Minister making the appointment. Deputy Owen and others have said the governing body, who are partly appointed and partly elected, should elect their own chairperson. The original draft of the Bill prior to these amendments provided that the chairperson be appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the vocational education committee and may be removed from office by the Minister on the recommendation of the vocational education committee. In each area where "on the recommendation of the vocational education committee" appeared in the Second Schedule in regard to the appointment of the chairperson, the Minister has put forward an amendment to eliminate that, so the Minister solely hires and fires the chairperson and can fire at any time just as he can hire at any time. If the chairperson is to resign he must resign by letter to the Minister, and so on.

I do not want to go on at greater length on it, but it would be far better if the Minister left the draft as it is or allowed the governing body to elect their own chairperson. The appointment by the Minister is not a good move. I hope he will seek to amend it, perhaps drop the amendments that exist or alter his amendments either now or on Report Stage.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Barnes)

Go raibh maith agat, Deputy Mac Giolla. Before I call an tAire, let me mention a matter of information about the amendments on which you raised questions. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 39 were taken with amendment No. 27 which was dealt with——

Tomás Mac Giolla

Discussed; it was not taken.

Acting Chairman

Discussed. We are now on amendment No. 30. It is not that the other amendments are being ignored. They will be taken in sequence when we reach them. Is the Deputy satisfied?

Tomás Mac Giolla

Yes.

Mr. S. Brennan

I am a little taken aback by some of the comments on my amendment No. 30 which I stand over. There are 20 persons on this governing body. It is an institution that is almost wholly funded from the public purse and the Government of the day are proposing to appoint, albeit an important appointment, one person out of a total body of 20. I do not fully understand why that should cause so much difficulty. It has happened in University College, Limerick, and in Dublin City University when it was being established from the old NIHEs. Those are two good precedents. It is working there and there is no political interference. There are excellent chairpersons in both. They are working well with the academic staff and are highly respected. Therefore, the first point I want to make is to reject the phraseology used by one Deputy about grabbing power. If you wanted to grab power, allowing the Government of the day to make one appointment out of 20 is a feeble attempt to do so.

Mrs. Owen

It is highest one.

Mr. S. Brennan

We are coming to that. It is the only direct Government or ministerial appointment from a total of 20. It happens in DCU and in University College, Limerick. This is an institution that is substantially funded by the State, not just by the taxpayers of Dublin but by the Irish taxpayers as a whole. There is a role for a national representative also. As I said last night, the Dublin Institute of Technology is not just a local institution but a national institution of technology of which the whole country will be proud. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a total local view to be taken of it.

The president of the Dublin Institute of Technology is not being appointed by the Minister. The Dublin Institute of Technology president is an extremely central key appointment and is being made by the governing body. It is important that we understand that the very senior post of president of the Dublin Institute of Technology will be appointed by the governing body of the institute and not by the Minister. The chair is a separate post. The purpose is to reflect the national involvement and the fact that something over £30 million of not just Dublin funds but public funds will go to the institute. That is an approximate figure; I can get the exact amount if anybody wants it.

As the institute matures fully like, say, Limerick University and the DCU, there is no reason that we could not move on to a situation where the chairperson is elected. I have no difficulty with that. It is a philosophy I will be actively seeking to develop and which is reflected in the Green Paper. Electing those people is far better than appointing them. However, I came to the conclusion that at the beginning of these new institutions, or recast or reorganised institutions, one State voice out of a total of 20 is not unreasonable. In fact, it is very sensible if you are a taxpayer in any part of the country other than Dublin.

One Deputy asked me what kind of person will be appointed. All I can say is we will be looking for somebody who can reflect the stature of the institute and, it is hoped, could, by his or her stature, national or international, add to the already fine reputation of the institute.

Deputy Mac Giolla was not referring to me because he knows I would not dream of interfering in academia, but he suggested some Minister might like to do that and that is what is behind having a chairperson. I am a little amused, talking to national politicians here. Why is it all right for a county councillor vocational education committee appointee, of whom there are certainly six on this body, to dabble in academia but it is not all right for the nationally elected Minister for Education to have some say, considering that he or she has responsibility for some funds?

Mrs. Owen

The Minister did not stand as Minister for Education but as Séamus Brennan, TD, in his own constituency.

Mr. S. Brennan

I appreciate the Deputy thinks councillors are more important than Ministers. I think I got that message earlier, but there is a national perspective here. I just cannot understand the thinking which says six county councillors can sit around a table and discuss courses, funding and academia but if the Minister for Education of the day, whoever that may be, given his or her responsibility for funding, attempts to have an eye on that ball, that is regarded as interference in academia. I think it is a double standard and playing somewhat to the local electoral gallery, if I may say so respectfully to the Deputies.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister runs the show anyway. He has the money.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is all I have to say about that. I was a councillor and I have great respect for these people, as I have for Deputies, Ministers and national institutions. I fully stand over the proposal that the Minister appoint the chairperson because, as I said, it is only one appointment out of 20. This proposal is not necessarily cast in stone, it can be changed. Indeed, I should like to see it changed over a period. The chairperson would be a legitimate national voice around the table of a very important institute.

Mr. J. Higgins

I will be very brief because we are anxious to register in the strongest possible terms — by calling a vote — our non-acceptance of the Minister's logic in regard to this proposal. There has been a clear change of mind on the part of the Minister in relation to the governing body and the appointment of the chairperson. The Regional Technical Colleges Bill clearly provided that the chairperson could be elected from within the existing membership. However, a ministerial amendment was introduced to change that provision and give the Minister power, exclusively and without recourse to anybody, to nominate the chairperson. This logic has been carried into the Bill before us.

The Minister seems to be trying to allay our fears in regard to this issue very much in the same way as he tried to allay our fears in relation to the right of these colleges to award degrees. Yesterday evening we tried to insert a provision in the Bill which would give colleges the right to award degrees. The Minister bought off our good faith with a down the road promise that this time next year he would look at the possibility of giving the colleges full degree conferring rights. What the Minister is saying now smacks of the same mistrust of the ordinary elected members of the board. I use the word "ordinary" advisedly in the context of what Deputy Owen has said. The Minister is again making an attempt to buy our support for this amendment on the basis that, at some stage in the future when the members have proved themselves and have had a good apprenticeship, he might consider allowing them to nominate the chairperson from within their membership. I submit to the Minister that this is not good enough. A wide cross section of interests is represented on the board — people nominated by the vocational education committees, people elected on behalf of the academic staff, people elected on behalf of the non-academic staff, student representatives, a representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and people from five different interest groups in this sphere of industry and commerce who will have a genuine and legitimate input to make. Surely it will be possible to elect from that collection of people a person competent to hold the position of chairperson. The Minister's proposal smacks of mistrust.

The Minister made the point that this would be a national organisation. The representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the various commercial organisations will represent national or local organisations. The academic people can be from any part of the country. I submit to the Minister that he cannot give the governing body power at some stage in the future to nominate their own chairperson because section 6 (2) (a) specifically refers to "the Chairman and...". Therefore, the chairman is additional to the ordinary members of the board. I contend an amendment will be required at some stage if the Minister wishes to do what he is buying our good faith with, that is, give the governing body the right, after a proper apprenticeship, to nominate the chairperson from within their members.

As a token gesture to the vocational education committees for their contribution to vocational education and in recognition of the fact that they have never put a foot wrong or had to be hauled before the Minister or any tribunal to answer for themselves — indeed the reverse is the case; they have done great work in the most difficult circumstances and helped pioneer third level technical education — I ask the Minister to provide that the chairperson be elected from the membership of the governing body.

Mr. O'Shea

I am not convinced by the argument that there is any worthwhile justification in giving the Minister power to appoint the chairperson. The Minister justified this argument to some extent by saying that the chairperson is only one person out of 20 and, to use his own phrase, it will give the Minister an opportunity to keep his eye on the ball. I find that concept somewhat mind boggling because when a chairperson is appointed either by the Minister on the recommendation of the vocational education committee or appointed by the Minister on his own, surely he is independent and not answerable to any political master as such. The Minister has not answered the point about political patronage. I suggest that the nature of politics in Ireland is such that it would be highly unlikely for the Minister to appoint a chairperson who was not of his own political persuasion. I am not singling out the Minister for any special attention but I believe that is how Ministers act in such situations. Unfortunately, I regard the Minister's proposals as part of the political patronage syndrome; it will be another job for one of the boys, or girls, at the appropriate time.

The Minister has not responded to my point about the communication signed by him which was sent to vocational education committees yesterday. This document contained the clear instruction that it was for circulation to Fianna Fáil members of vocational education committees. I should point out that it did not refer to Fianna Fáil councillor members but Fianna Fáil members. The chief executive officers were put in the position of having to ascertain the political allegiance of all the members of their committees if they were to conform to the direction issued by the Minister's office. I ask the Minister to clearly state in the House whether such a communication was issued by his office to the City of Dublin vocational education committee or whether it is his intention that such a communication should issue. I would go so far as to say that it shows the Minister's contempt for vocational education committees that he regards them, on the basis of the communication issued yesterday, as a vehicle to be used in a blatantly unforgivable party political way. This shows total disregard for local democracy and puts the chief executive officers of vocational education committees in a highly invidious position. The Minister should apologise here to each chief executive officer for the reprehensible action he took yesterday. I believe the type of mentality which gave rise to that communication is what is essentially behind this proposed change in the Bill which effectively will remove one of the real powers the City of Dublin vocational education committee have.

I am not satisfied with the explanations given by the Minister as to why this amendment was put down. He has not said anything which convinces me that there was anything other than a political inspiration behind it. Will the Minister tell the House where the inspiration for this amendment came from? Why has such a basic amendment to be suddenly made to this Bill which has had a long gestation period? I ask the Minister to please tell us why this amendment is necessary. His statement that he wants to keep his eye on the ball is not much of an explanation because the chairperson will be appointed either on the recommendations of the vocational education committee or by the Minister himself. Once the chairperson is appointed he has to act in an independent capacity and his loyalty has to rest with the institution and not with the Minister of the day. Perhaps what the Minister is saying, with tongue in cheek, is that if the chairman — I have to use that term because we cannot get another change — wears the right political jersey, the bush telegraph will operate and the Minister of the day will be acquainted with all the facts in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

I utterly reject this whole move. It is totally undemocratic and is hypocritical having regard to what the Minister told us last night. He virtually lectured some of us that we could not have it both ways. This is totally at variance with the principle of subsidiarity which, in the recent debate on Maastricht, was seen as an important development in the growing European economic and monetary union in the Community. People should be allowed to have an effective say in all the affairs that are important to their lives and their development. The Minister should convince me and the House that there is a real administrative reason like efficiency or whatever for this amendment which would change the Bill profoundly.

Mr. Garland

Like Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Higgins who have spoken at length on this topic, I would like to add my criticism to these ministerial amendments. They are not acceptable to me or to the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas. They are another example of centralisation, putting undue powers in the hands of the Minister for Education of the day. We had an adequate debate on this point when dealing with the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. Therefore I will not detain the House any further except to say that I am totally opposed to these amendments.

Mr. S. Brennan

I will respond very briefly, particularly to Deputy O'Shea. I want to make it clear that the chairman or chairperson could be nominated from among the members of the governing body. There is no provision in the Bill that one of the members could not be appointed.

Mrs. Owen

They could not be appointed.

Mr. S. Brennan

I will consider the wording between now and Report Stage to make sure that that is laid down. It is my wish that the appointment can be from the governing body, although it need not be so. That would depend on the ability and expertise available on the governing body. I have no reason to distrust any member of the governing body and they would be prime candidates for that post. I repeat that the president of the Dublin Institute of Technology is appointed by the governing body and reject the notion that there is any attempt to interfere by providing that the Minister makes one of the appointments to a very large institution.

The Deputy asked about the circular. I have been trying to get some information on that this morning but I have been occupied in the House. The circular was not a direction to anybody but was a briefing note which was requested by the Fianna Fáil members of vocational education committees throughout the country on my view in response to a circular from the IVEA. Some of the language in that circular is ordinary, trenchant political criticism which I fully accept — I have been around long enough to take that — but some of it is personally abusive. I am not prepared to take that from them and I decided to make a circular available to my party members on the vocational education committees.

Because this matter was urgent and a number of meetings were taking place yesterday the circular was sent by my office to the chief executive officer's office for onward distribution. I regret that the matter was dealt with in that way because it is not the correct way to proceed. I have now instructed that the document be made available to all members of the vocational education committee, thereby removing any hint that there was an attempt to compromise the chief executive officer. I understand that the circular was inadvertently distributed in that manner, but had I been in a position to deal with the matter personally it would not have happened that way. I apologise to any chief executive officer who may be upset by what happened. I have asked that the chief executive officer pass the document to all members of the vocational education committee if they choose to do so or indeed to reject it. Incidentally, I have great faith in chief executive officers. In the Green Paper that will be published tomorrow there is a whole section on their future. They are very strong managers in the Irish education system. They have a key rôle to play in the future development of Irish education and I will talk to them about that during the process of the Green Paper.

Mr. J. Higgins

What was in the document?

Mr. S. Brennan

It contained my arguments as to the reason I tabled my amendments. Some of my party members were, quite rightly, concerned about some of the amendments. Because of my absence from parliamentary party meetings due to illness I was unable to explain it to them personally and I undertook to let them have a briefing note. That is something I do for all members of my party in regard to legislation, and I am sure the Deputy does likewise for the members of his party around the country in regard to his position on legislation that comes before the House. The document was a routine briefing note from the Minister to his own members, which inadvertently was distributed in the wrong fashion.

Mrs. Owen

It was sent to all Fianna Fáil members of the vocational education committees.

Mr. S. Brennan

Yes. I accept responsibility for that and I regret that it happened in that way. It was not intended to embarrass chief executive officers and I am sure they are hard-necked enough not to be too embarrassed by it.

Every Government Minister and Government appointment is open to the charge of political patronage. The same charge could easily be made about vocational education committee appointments. Deputies have been appointed to the chair of vocational education committees and they and vocational education committees have made appointments as principals of colleges. That could be a political charge, to which there is really no defence by any politicians. All you can say is that you make every attempt to select the most suitable people for the posts. It is a waste of time for any politician to try to defend the charge of political patronage because it is so wide and selective.

The persons appointed to Limerick and Dublin have proved to be outstanding and have brought additional stature to those institutes. For example — I am only speculating and do not wish to be held to this — a Government of the day could wisely consider that a national or international educational figure who is prepared to give time to this institute or another institute, a person with strong Irish roots and a strong commitment to Dublin, be appointed. Such a person would give additional international stature to an institute, but that is not to say that some local councillor who is appointed to their chair would not bring similar stature to it. They would have the integrity and the local support and experience but would they have the international or national perspective or reputation which may be needed to give the institute a certain standing in education internationally? I am just thinking out loud about that; I am not saying that is the direction one would necessarily take. Every member of the governing body would be considered as a good candidate. In the launching of a new institute international recognition may be necessary, assuming that such a person is available for the post and the Government of the day accept the Minister's nomination in that regard.

I do not with to waste the time of the House but it has been said many times that I am trying to undermine vocational education committees. The Bill provides for a strong continuing role for the vocational education committees in the regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology sectors by virtue of their nominations. They have the single largest representation on the governing body and the continuing power to nominate the organisations they consider require representation on that body. They have the power to approve or modify the programmes and the budgets of the colleges. There is no real substance to the charge that I am trying to write the vocational education committees out of the script. I am trying to achieve a balance between local and national representation and to devolve as much power on a phased basis as is practical to the governing body.

In order to clarify the functions clearly, I have amended the Bill in response to the debate and the IVEA who were invited to meet me this week. However, they are not available and I hope they will be able to meet me next week. The vocational education committees can initiate action in relation to the application of the Bills to other educational institutions. The power of the vocational education committee to recommend the appointment of ordinary members of the governing body is fully maintained. The Minister's power to direct the governing bodies to cease providing courses and services has been deleted. The role of the president has been amplified to clarify his or her role as chief executive. In relation to the format of programmes and budgets the Minister's role has been changed from determining to approving, in direct response to a request from the IVEA. In relation to seeking information from a college the requirement that the vocational education committee can only do so with the agreement of the Minister has been removed. We are not writing out the vocational education committees. We are trying to strike a balance between their role, the national role and the legitimate necessarily increasing power of the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Tomás Mac Giolla

This section is vitally important. I was not aware of the Minister's letter but there is a meeting of the City of Dublin vocational education committee tomorrow at which it will probably be discussed. I am assuming the Minister is referring to the language used by the IVEA which I would not stand over.

The Minister has to a great extent written off the vocational education committees. He has expressed his great admiration for the chief executive officers and managers and I endorse that fully. Those whom I know are excellent in their jobs. The Minister has not ever expressed any particular admiration, affection or anything in relation to the vocational education committee system, the 1930 Act and the democratisation and secularisation of education.

With regard to the appointments by Ministers, the Minister may think that the appointment of a monetarist Thatcherite to be in charge of a third-level education body, a person who would say that education is a commodity like anything else, available to those who wish to purchase it, as the Minister's great man in Limerick said, is appropriate. That is not the type of person I would like to see appointed to any institute of education. However, that is the type of person one is likely to get through a political appointment.

I am very worried about the amendments we are discussing. The denigration of the vocational education committees in this Bill is deplorable. Everything the Minister has done has removed the element of democracy that was there originally. While the first Minister wanted to alter the vocational education committee system, there would nevertheless have been much more democracy in the local education authorities. There has been no mention of any democratic element from this Minister and that worries me. I do not know whether the Green Paper will tell as much in relation to the future of education but the democratic element seems to have been swept aside. This section highlights my worries more than any other section. I am, therefore, opposing these amendments.

Mr. Gilmore

The episode over the distribution of the commentary by the Minister to the Fianna Fáil members of vocational education committees clearly shows what is wrong with this section, as amended. It has been well known that the Fianna Fáil members of vocational education committees, and the IVEA, have been greatly agitated by the Minister's amendments in relation to the vocational education committees with regard to this Bill and the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. It is understandable that the Minister as a member of that party would respond to that pressure. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that but it shows that the Minister behaves in a political way. It is natural for a Minister to behave in that way.

If the appointment of the chairperson of the governing body is in the gift of the Minister for Education, it will be a political appointment. One only has to look at the appointments made by any Government, whether chairpersons or members of various boards, and even members of the Judiciary, to see that the appointments are political, and that the political affiliation of the appointees clearly ranks higher than their international reputation. If the chairperson of the governing body is appointed by the Minister, it will be a political appointment. That is why I object to this. It may well be argued that if the appointment is made by the vocational education committee it will also be a political appointment. I am not for a moment defending political appointments by the vocational education committee but at least if an appointment is made by the vocational education committee, there is a local input and a degree of debate in a public forum where a wide range of political and educational interests are represented, and the appointment is open to a certain degree of public scrutiny.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That amendment No. 64 and the amendments set down by the Minister for Education, other than amendment No. 32, and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to; and that the First, Second and Third Schedules, as amended, and the Title are hereby agreed to."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 62.

Tá

• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mr. S. Brennan

Next Wednesday, by agreement with the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1 July 1992.

Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.