I reiterate the need for academic freedom and support the idea that the Irish language should be copperfastened in this legislation to ensure it has its rightful place in legislation dealing with education.
Universities Bill, 1996: Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 20:
In page 11, to delete lines 5 to 27 and substitute the following:
"12. — Without prejudice to its ethos and traditions, the objects of a university shall include—
(a) to strive for academic excellence and to advance knowledge through teaching, scholarly research and scientific investigation,
(b) to protect and promote academic freedom,
(c) to promote the right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos, traditions, and the principles of academic, operational and management freedom, consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and accountability to the public,
(d) to promote learning in its student body and in society generally,
(e) to promote the cultural, social and economic life of society, while fostering and respecting the diversity of the university's traditions,
(f) to promote the official languages of the State, with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures,
(g) to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research,
(h) to disseminate the outcomes of its research in the community at large,
(i) to reflect a commitment by the university to principles of equality, and
(j) to facilitate lifelong learning through the provision of adult and continuing education.".
—(Deputy Martin).
Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an Teachta ar an rún seo. Tá dualgas orainn go léir mar ionadaithe poiblí ó gach cuid den tír béim níos mó a chur ar ár dteanga. I support this amendment. It is important that we show the importance of our language to the country in view of our distinct identity and unique culture. Given the investment in education there is no reason we should not put more emphasis on the utilisation of the language at all levels, particularly at third level. It is incumbent on us when discussing third level education to give a clear signal that we want more commitment to the language. The huge investment in the language over the years has not resulted in a greater use of the national language. It is important that universities are given a signal that they have a clear role to play in the Irish language and all its ancillary activities.
This morning I spoke at length on the objects and functions of the universities. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar Rún 21 chomh maith. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad go gcuirfimis béim ar chúrsaí Gaeilge sna hollscoileanna, agus go ndéanfaimis gach iarracht an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn. Bhuail mé le daoine ó Acadamh Ríoga na hÉireann agus le scoláirí ollscoile áit a mhúintear an Ghaeilge. Tá na moltaí a fuaireamar uathu le fáil sa rún agamsa agus ag an Teachta Helen Keogh.
Táim ag iarraidh ar an Aire Rún 21 a ghlacadh mar tá sé tábhachtach go mbeadh an Ghaeilge ann mar theanga teagaisc agus mar mheán cumarsáide, freisin, ar fud na hollscoile agus go mbeadh polasai ann é sin a chur i bhfeidhm.
Caithfimid a bheith cruinn choml maith faoi cad atá i gceist againn le cultúr. Gan amhras, baineann an tagairt sa rún seo ní amáin leis an d'teanga ach leis an gcultúr a théann leis an teanga. Sin bun agus barr an rúin atáagam féin agus ag an Teachta Mary Coughlan.
Section 12 sets out the objects of the universities. This is a broad statement of what the universities are established to do. I have outlined at length at the select committee how our universities, as one of the two major components of our higher education system, are central to the aspiration of people for higher education and personal development and provide an opportunity for life long learning and growth.
For society universities contribute to the generation of critical thinking and analysis which is essential in any modern mature democracy. For our economy, universities provide a resource of skill, enterprise and innovation. I referred earlier to funding for the third level sector. In 1987 the grant provided to the universities was £92.3 million and in 1996 the grant was £156.1 million. This was an extraordinary growth in investment, numbers, places and success.
All aspects of university find expression in the objects provided in the Bill. Amendment No.20, proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan, would involve the deletion of the section as it now reads and its replacement with the revised section. I have already opposed the amendment as many of the objects are similar to those in the Bill; those that are not I cannot agree to.
One of the issues raised by the Deputies is that universities should have as an object the promotion of academic freedom. I support the concept of a university as an autonomous academic community. Section 13(3), as amended in select committee, addresses this issue in a direct and effective way. The amended section also provides that a university has the right to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and traditional principles of academic freedom in a manner which has regard to equality, the effective and efficient use of resources and its accountability obligations. Each of the universities, from the oldest to the newest, will be able to fulfil these objectives and obligations to secure their academic freedom. Furthermore, the amended subsection underpins this affirmation by providing that if there is to be an interpretation of a provision in the Bill — an issue which was the subject of discussion yesterday with one of the groups that voiced concerns — the interpretation that promotes the ethos, traditions of the universities and the principles of academic freedom shall be preferred over an interpretation that does not. I am satisfied we can underpin the tradition of academic freedom and protect it in the amended section.
I am concerned that the important object of economic development should be given prominence rather than be incorporated with social and cultural life as proposed by the Deputies. They will note paragraph (e) as amended by the select committee. I received representations from some universities that the reference to innovation and job creation policies and objectives were excessively detailed and instrumentalist. The select committee agreed to delete this reference and to amend the object further to include both economic and social development.
Tá sé an-tábhactach dom go mbeadh sé mar cospóir do gach ollscoil an Gaelige a chur chun cinn. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé seo á dhéanamh ag ollscoileanna éagsúla cheana féin ach anois beidh sé mar príomh-chospóir acu uilig é seo a dhéanamh. Ní churfaidh faoi bhráid na Dála Bille ar bith a léirigh chospóir mar seo do na hollscoilleanna. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an Bille mar atá sé fiúntach agus éifeachtach faoi cheist na Gaelige.
I consider the promotion of the Irish language by the universities to be a central, worthwhile and necessary part of their mission and the Bill as it now stands imposes on them a statutory obligation to promote and preserve it. This is the first time such a statutory requirement will be imposed on the universities generally and it will, I believe, give a significant impetus to this important area of university activities.
I cannot agree to amendment No. 27, proposed by Deputy Keogh. Under the Bill as drafted universities can already provide courses through Irish if they so wish and I greatly favour their doing so. If it is Deputy Keogh's intention somehow to force the universities to do so I would be concerned that this would amount to intrusion in academic affairs and a limitation on their academic freedom. I would not like to be accused of such intrusion.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response to the amendments. Much thought went into what the objects of a university should be and anything which improves what is already in the Bill should be welcomed by the Minister. I cannot understand why the provision to protect and promote academic freedom cannot be accommodated.
As to the Irish language I am surprised to hear the Minister infer we would be putting an imposition on the universities by accepting amendment No. 27 in my name, which states that they may provide courses to degree level through the medium of Irish. It is in keeping with the language of that section that the universities "may" provide courses so that is a reasonable approach. We are trying to give the universities an active role which will enhance what they are already doing. If we include among the functions of a university that it may offer courses to degree level through the medium of Irish, we say something positive about the role of Irish at third level. This is needed and would be welcome. It sends out the signal that we are serious about the teaching and use of Irish and we want it used at the highest level of education.
We have discussed this at length on Committee Stage and today. In including a provision in legislation the Minister says she does not want to be seen to have a heavy hand, yet in other areas of the Bill she puts in the boot. It is easy to fit an answer to the relevant problem in the legislation. There should be a re-affirmation of Irish in the Bill. Our amendment is not over-prescriptive and it should be reconsidered, especially given who we are. We should ensure that the Bill does what we want it to do. A problem we have always had is that we might discuss ideas in the House and include them in legislation but when they are implemented other people do not necessarily take the same interpretation as us. That is why we want to reaffirm the position. I ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments.
The Minister's reply contained a rather feeble attempt to deal with the resources issue. Europe has helped fund much that happened over the last ten to 15 years and we will have greater difficulty obtaining European funding of further education after 1999. Is anyone, either within the Department or in Government, addressing that problem?
Our amendments on the Irish language are more specific than the provisions in the Bill. The Constitution gives primacy to Irish as the first official language of the State and I make no apologies for asking our universities to provide specifically for its development. The Minister said it was already catered for by making it an object of a university to promote the Irish language but that is a rather general principle and one could argue what constitutes promotion. Our amendment seeks to oblige universities: first, to promote Irish as a language of general communication within a university; second, to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction — some are doing so but some future universities may be better at doing it than others, and the degree of emphasis may vary; and third, to provide for the cultivation of the Irish language and its associated literary and cultural traditions as subjects of teaching and research. Those are comprehensive aims which clearly set out the functions and objects of a university in terms of Irish, the first official language of the State.
The Irish language community is still a minority. It has rights which should be protected and safeguarded in a Bill such as this. The national universities should have a role in the protection and safeguarding of those rights. It is in that context that we table this amendment. We did not think it up off the top of our heads — we met senior people involved in the teaching of Irish in our universities and in Irish language life generally. They suggested amendments of this type and they have great validity. That is why we are pursuing them with such tenacity on Report Stage. We often pay lip service to the Irish language. Our amendment is more specific and better than the wording in the Bill, although the Minister takes a different view. Likewise, it is important to marry the language to the distinctive culture and traditions associated with it. The language in the Bill is somewhat vague. It provides that universities must promote "the official languages of the State".
Universities will have an obligation to promote the English and Irish languages because both are official languages of the State.
The Bill then refers to "Irish cultures" without defining them. The wording is loose and vague and is open to interpretation. We put down an amendment dealing with the Irish language which is an improvement on the wording in the Bill and I am disappointed we have not got a response from the Minister. The amendment would not shock the State or the universities themselves and there would not be many objections as it is not intrusive. To argue that the Minister will not put this in because she does not want to be too prescriptive is a nonsense because the entire Bill is about putting down a framework within which universities will work. We are putting in a provision in regard to the Irish language and it is not overly onerous on universities to perform the functions and objectives outlined in that amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28 are related to amendment No. 24. It is suggested that they be taken together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, line 3, after "other interests" to insert "and community organisations".
This section of the Bill deals with the functions of a university. Section 13(1)(c) states that a university "may establish by incorporation in the State or elsewhere, or participate in the establishment of, such trading, research or other corporations as it thinks fit..." while section 13(1)(d) states a university "may collaborate with educational, business, professional, trade union, Irish language, cultural, artistic, community and other interests both inside and outside the State, to further the objects of the university". If this was accepted on Committee Stage, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 26 states that a university "may collaborate with alumni or other interests and associations both inside and outside the State to further the objects of the university". The Minister has a related amendment which says a university may collaborate with associations representing graduates of the university. I am happy with that and I am glad the Minister brought forward an amendment to meet the concerns articulated by alumni and graduates who feel they have a contribution to make to university life. During discussions on this Bill, we had meetings with convocations etc. It is appropriate that we should recognise others outside of those groups defined in the Bill originally as having a legitimate interest and as having the capacity to make a legitimate and constructive contribution to university life. I am happy that requests on both fronts have been met by the Minister.
I accept the Minister's amendment No. 25 as it is similar to Deputy Martin's amendment. What is the Minister's response to amendment No. 28? Convocations were concerned there would be a desire to have people from the locality involved in a university.
Deputies Martin and Coughlan proposed that a university should be in a position to collaborate with community organisations as proposed in amendment No. 24. They will note that section 13(2)(d), as amended on Committee Stage, already provides for this. They proposed an amendment on Committee Stage which would allow a university to collaborate with graduates in furthering its objects and have proposed it again in amendment No. 26. I indicated at the time that I considered this to be a very positive suggestion. Therefore, I propose amendment No. 25 where a university may collaborate with associations representing graduates of the university inside and outside the State.
Deputy Keogh referred to amendment No. 28. I do not agree with the inclusion of a requirement that a university shall have and support a branch of convocation as proposed. A university may well do this where it is relevant — it is covered in the previous section — but to impose a statutory requirement to this effect would be an excessive degree of prescriptiveness. The approach adopted in my amendment is better and I have no doubt it will achieve much the same end.
I am happy with that reply but convocations may not be. There is a feeling abroad that one or two university heads are not too pushed about having a branch of convocation imposed on them. Is that why Deputy Keogh's amendment is not being accepted? Convocation has been constructive in terms of this Bill and universities overall. It is a pity that it is not recognised in some form. Perhaps the Minister will introduce an amendment when the Bill reaches the Seanad to the effect that it would be desirable for universities to have a branch of convocation. This would not be an obligation on universities but it would be a clear indication from the Legislature that we regard the role of convocations as being positive and constructive as it has been in the past.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
(f) may collaborate with associations representing graduates of the university both inside and outside the State,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 29. Amendments Nos. 30 and 104 are related. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 104 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, to delete line 20 and substitute the following:
"(c) academic freedom and its obligations in relation to public accountability and scrutiny.".
These amendments propose to insert in the Bill a clear legislative commitment to academic freedom within universities. Amendment No. 30 states:
In page 12, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(4) In the performance of its functions, a university shall act at all times to maintain the academic freedom of its members.".
Amendment No. 104 is more specific and states:
In page 22, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(4) Employees and officers of a university shall not be disadvantaged, or subjected to less favourable treatment, for opinions or findings advanced during the course of their teaching or research or as a result of any other activities relevant to academic expression either inside or outside the university.".
The concept of academic freedom is the essence of the Bill. The Bill, as drafted, was injurious to the concept of academic freedom and undermined academic freedom within universities given the proposed degree of State intervention, the power of the Higher Education Authority etc. The Minister did not accept our Committee Stage amendments. I am surprised she does not want to insert in the Bill a clear commitment that academic staff will not be in any way disadvantaged or discriminated against because of views they may advance as a result of research. We want to create a climate where people will not feel inhibited by those in authority and will not be afraid that anything they do in a university context will be used against them subsequently.
During my two years as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Education I have been disappointed by the degree to which many people in education do not state their views publicly because they are afraid they will be punished in some way by the Minister or Department. For example, they are afraid they will not be given favourable consideration in terms of grant assistance etc. This may be an unreal fear but nevertheless it exists. Many principals have given me information but have asked me not to mention the name of the school as they do not want to get on the wrong side of the Department. When the free fees initiative was announced a few brave academics stated their views publicly. However, others played it cute and did not express publicly their view that it was an appalling decision and wrong for universities. It is healthy in a democracy for people to address issues head on. Professor Mitchell and others are to be congratulated on advancing cogent arguments at that time. We need to encourage this sort of attitude. It is important to provide in legislation that people who stand up to the Oireachtas or Government will not be penalised for so doing. Amendment No. 104 provides for this in unambiguous terms, while amendments Nos. 29 and 30 propose the insertion of the term "academic freedom" in section 13 which deals with the functions of universities. It is the purpose of universities to pursue and promote academic freedom and I commend the amendments to the House.
We dealt with the issue of academic freedom in the context of section 12 which deals with the objects of universities. It is vital to underline the importance of academic freedom. It is essential for people in democratic societies to have freedom of thought and expression and for universities to have the freedom to challenge decisions without fear or favour. This commitment must be specifically enshrined in the Bill. Academics are in a unique position in that they can step back from society and look at it in an objective way. The ability of universities to challenge us and to ask us to review decisions can only be healthy in a democratic society.
It is essential that those in education are not afraid to express their views publicly because they are scared of the Minister or Department. This issue has nothing to do with the Minister; rather it has to do with the fundamental right of people within universities to express ideas which may be unpopular at the time. They are in a position to analyse what is happening in society and must be able to challenge decisions. It is essential adequately to protect this right and to provide specifically for it in legislation. It was unwise of the Minister not to include this concept in section 12. However, she has another opportunity to underline the importance of academic freedom and I hope she accepts the amendments.
Section 13(3), as amended by the select committee, strikes a balance between the status of a university as an autonomous academic community and its obligations to society. It confirms that a university has a right to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom in a manner which has regard to equality, the effective and efficient use of resources and its accountability obligations. Furthermore, the amended subsection underpins this affirmation by providing that should an issue arise as to the interpretation of a provision then an interpretation which would promote the ethos and traditions of the universities and the principles of academic freedom shall be preferred over an interpretation that would not. I agree with the general thrust of amendment No. 29 which addresses the issue of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. The revised section 13(3) provides for this and its wording will be more effective than the wording proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan even though we appear to be addressing the same issue.
I smiled when Deputy Martin said some people were afraid to express their opinions publicly. There is another side to the coin. Many people have told me they agree with what I am doing but cannot say so publicly until it is achieved. There is a tradition whereby people on one side bully those who oppose their view. I hope the amended section 13(3) will allow everyone to express their views publicly, regardless of whether one agrees with them. I paid two visits to the universities and invited them to challenge me at this time of great reform. I have referred on more than one occasion to Newman's ideal of a university, a subject I studied in school books rather than in university. I strongly support the rights of academics to challenge those of us who are legislating for the common good in a way that ensures debate is not stifled and concerns are expressed.
On amendment No. 104, which states that employees shall not be disadvantaged as a result of their teaching, research or other activities relevant to academic expression, the revised section 12(3) will provide sufficient reassurance in that regard. The discussion on Committee Stage was also useful.
With regard to amendment No. 30, which proposes that a university shall act at all times to support the academic freedom of its members, I wholeheartedly support the view that academics should have the right to freedom of expression. The way the Deputies are approaching the issue, however, is unnecessarily detailed and has been interpreted by some as being offensive. The revised section 13(3), which is a positive statement of the position, will provide sufficient reassurance. It will now be specifically articulated in legislation that a university shall be entitled to regulate its own affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and the traditional principles of academic freedom. Furthermore, in interpreting the legislation, a construction that would promote the ethos and those traditions will be preferred to one that does not. Defining academic freedom to any greater degree would not be helpful and might limit the understanding of academic freedom, rather than protect it. We shall not choose one aspect of academic freedom over another.
I indicated to the select committee that to go as far as the Deputies are proposing could be misinterpreted by the universities and the wider community. There is an implication that universities would prevent freedom of expression and that has the potential for causing unnecessary offence. Universities are not currently acting in a way that limits academic freedom, rather they continue to promote it. The amendment proposed by the Deputies could signal an expectation that universities will not continue to act in this way.
When the Bill was published a number of organisations and trade unions, including the Irish Federation of University Teachers, proposed an amendment to protect academic freedom along the lines now proposed by the Deputies. I welcome the fact that the select committee listened to the concerns of IFUT, and those of the other associations representing universities.
I thank the Minister for her lengthy reply. I am not particularly concerned if I caused offence to any person or persons in the universities in pursuit of academic freedom. The amendments are not designed to cause offence and if that happened, it was not communicated to me by anyone in the university sector. The Minister's argument is that the proposals in the various amendments accepted on Committee Stage are sufficient. I do not understand the reason amendment No. 104 cannot be accepted. It is not contrary to anything currently contained in the Bill. It is required. The Bill will bring together seven institutions from different backgrounds and traditions. Given that we are effectively putting together legislation for seven institutions in a common legislative framework, there is a need for such a specific amendment. Having met the heads, I am aware they are anxious to promote academic freedom, but none of us know what the future holds. In passing legislation we should be conscious of the way it may be interpreted in the future. That is the reason I am pressing the amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 30 in the names of Deputies Martin and Coughlan was discussed earlier with amendment No. 29. I call on Deputy Martin to formally move the amendment.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 12, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(4) In the performance of its functions, a university shall act at all times to maintain the academic freedom of its members.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
We proceed now to amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Keogh.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 12, line 31, after "authority" to insert "in a manner consistent with the Charter, Statutes or Regulations of the University".
The Minister made some remarks in this regard on Committee Stage. Will she remind the House of her views?
Subsection (2) provides that, subject to this Bill, the functions of a university as outlined in section 13 shall be carried out by or on the directions of the governing authority. The effect of Deputy Keogh's amendment would be that the performance of the functions of a university would be consistent with the charter, statutes or regulations of a university. This would necessarily be the case for all of the universities as the Universities Act will not be in conflict with the charter, statutes or regulations of a university after these have been appropriately updated. I do not consider the amendment would serve any useful purpose. Therefore, I cannot support it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We will now proceed to deal with amendment No. 32 in the names of Deputies Martin and Coughlan. Amendment No. 34 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss these amendments together.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 13, line 15, to delete "at least one but not more than".
This would allow the appointment of three permanent or full-time employees who are not members of the academic staff of the university to be elected by the non-academic staff. It would ensure sufficient representation from this section on the governing body. We tabled this amendment because of the danger that when a minimum is specified that is what is adhered to.
Amendment No. 34 states:
In page 13, line 19, to delete "two or more than".
We are anxious that it would be clear in the Bill that three students would be elected to the governing body of a university. In the Bill not more than two are specified. Again, there is a danger that only two would be appointed.
The language in subsection (4) where it refers to student unions or other student representative bodies is very similar to the language used in amendment No. 8, defining a student union, which was tabled by Deputy Keogh and opposed by the Minister. The Minister may come back to it when the Bill goes to the Seanad because the amendment passed this morning is defective. This section of the Bill clearly provides for the inclusion of other student representative bodies as well as student unions.
I welcome the giving of statutory recognition of students' rights to be on a governing body. They have served on governing bodies on an ongoing basis, but that has not been statutorily based and was dependent on the will of the Minister of the day. In recent years in UCC there was some tardiness in making appointments when, two years ago, the president of the student union had to wait six months to be appointed to the governing body. Some people thought the delay was because he was of the wrong sex. I am not sure gender was the issue. It is welcome that we now have statutory recognition of elected full-time student union leaders on governing bodies. In many universities this has been the norm for as long as I can remember and, generally speaking, student leaders play a constructive role, providing an independent voice on the governing body and representing the largest consumer, the student body. Increasingly students require and are entitled to a say in the decisions taken within universities.
Perhaps the Minister would examine deferral fees and late application fees for exams in UCD. In response to student union representations the college seemed to indicate it is not a function of the college to be accountable to the students. The language may have been unfortunate. I understand what the university may have meant. However, there is some onus on them to give students the fullest information possible and to explain why fees are so high in respect of repeat examination fees, late application fees, etc. The student union body sought an explanation for this but did not get a breakdown of the costings. It is because of situations like this that we need the maximum degree of representation on governing bodies and other structures within the universities so that students' interests can be fully articulated and complete answers given to them on issues of concern to them.
There could be a problem regarding the appointment of young people to governing bodies. In the event of a change in the composition of a governing body it may be necessary to refer to the legislation and, where initially three students had been appointed to the body, this number might be reduced. This is the case in the context of Léargas where the Minister has decided to reduce the number of student representatives from two to one. It would be more specific to provide that not more than three should be appointed, and it would avoid problems in the event of a changeover.
The Minister says she wants to have gender equity on governing bodies. Appointing the maximum number of student representatives would make it more likely that such a balance would be achieved. Will the Minister reconsider the amendments put forward?
One of the things we are trying to achieve is that governing bodies would be much more representative than at first envisaged. Including employees who are not members of the academic staff but who are elected by the non-academic staff is a good development.
I support the amendment because if it is provided that at least one person be appointed to a board there may be a temptation to limit it to one. It would be helpful to be more specific.
Amendment No. 34 relates to subsection (4) and provides that no fewer than three students of the university who are elected officers of the student union or other representative body in the university recognised by the governing authority should be appointed. We have moved away from the "grace and favour" element of allowing people to serve and we are proposing that elected officers should have the right to serve.
To satisfy the needs of students and ensure adequate representation at all times, we should specify that three students should be elected. Will the Minister agree there is a conflict between the wording of subsection (4) and amendment No. 7 which she put forward earlier relating to students' unions? Perhaps she will reconsider that matter. As can be seen from this section, the amendment put forward by the Minister was too loose and, therefore, flawed. That matter should be re-examined, if not now perhaps in the other House. I support the amendments which would provide for better representation on the governing body of non-academic staff and students.
Deputies Martin and Coughlan propose in amendment No. 32 that there be no range in the possible number of members of non-academic staff on the governing authority. The provision as amended by the select committee, for between one and three people, allows a university more choice. Similarly, Deputies Martin and Coughlan propose in amendment No. 34 that there be no range in the possible number of students on the governing authority. The Bill, as amended, provides for between three and four students, including one postgraduate student. The Bill, as drafted, provided that there should be at least three students on the governing body.
The provisions allow each university to have a governing authority which best suits its interests within a broad policy framework. They give flexibility to the governing authorities to change their structures from the term of one governing authority to the next to adapt to changing needs of the university and society. I am glad of the warm welcome for placing on a statutory basis the number of students who shall be on the governing bodies. In accordance with tradition, the Minister has provided, by way of ministerial nominees, that students will have a voice. They will no longer be allowed serve by grace or favour; it will be their right.
I understand the Minister wishes to maintain a range of options, but given there is considerable detail in the Bill about the composition of governing bodies, if it is considered desirable that certain sections of a university community should be on the governing body of a university, we should bite the bullet and state the number, particularly of students, that should be on the body. There is a danger that two students as opposed to three would be on the governing body. We should make it clear there should be three students on the body. I intend to press the amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
We now proceed to amendment No. 33. I observe that amendments Nos. 35, 45, 66 and 67 are related and suggest therefore that they be discussed together, if that is satisfactory. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 13, line 18, after "staff" to insert "who shall be elected for the purposes specified in this section".
Amendment No. 33 is accommodated in the amended section dealing with elections — we were anxious that staff would be elected. In amendment 35 we propose: "In page 13, line 22, after "authority" to insert "two of whom shall be the two most senior officers elected to the students' union of the relevant university and one who shall be elected for the purposes specified in this section by the postgraduate students of the university". It is specifically provided that postgraduate students will be elected. The Bill, as amended in Committee, refers to not less than two or more than three students of the university who are elected officers. In students' union elections each year, the main election is for the president and vice-president of the union. Sometimes students contest the election as a team, but it should be specifically provided that the senior officer of the students' union, elected by all the students, be on the governing body.
I am conscious of the power struggles that took place in my college days, and it is possible that the elected president or vice-president would be overturned by the committee after the elections or during the year. The majority of the students' union could say the president should not be on the governing body, that the internal relations officer or some other officer should be on it. Students elect a president to lead the union and the candidate for presidency of a union has a clear programme of objectives for the student body which he or she wishes to achieve during the term of office. The logical follow-on is that person must be on the governing body to pursue that programme, which was voted for by the general electorate of students.
Under the present wording it is possible, and very probable in some cases, that a mid-year coup d'état could take place among student union bodies which would result in the president or vice-president, the two senior elected people, being displaced. Very often the intensity in terms of elections for the presidency or vice-presidency does not pertain to other officerships of a lesser status. In amendment No. 35 we propose the two most senior officers be elected. The Bill accommodates postgraduate students and I welcome that.
Amendment No. 45 relates to the election of graduates to a university governing body. As it is worded the Bill states: "four graduates of the university, elected by such graduates and, in the case of a constituent university, graduates for the purposes of this subsection includes persons on whom a degree of the National University of Ireland was conferred as a result of their studies at the corresponding constituent college or Recognised College". We propose to insert after the word "College" the words "and the said graduate members shall be elected by the electoral system of proportional representation by the graduates of the university". We should maintain the status quo. Members are currently elected by proportional representation. Members of the Labour Party were aghast at proposals to change the proportional representation electoral system and saw it as a Fianna Fáil attempt to secure power, but their attitude has changed. The Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, believes the single seat constituency with proportional representation is a better option and I agree.
Are we deviating somewhat from the Bill?
We are. Will the Minister consider at a later stage extending voting rights in Seanad elections to graduates of regional technical colleges? NUI graduates have certain rights in terms of election to governing bodies and votes in Seanad elections and the time has come to give votes to graduates of regional technical colleges and other third level institutions in Seanad elections. Perhaps the Minister would introduce legislation to that effect in the future.
Amendment No. 66 states:
In page 16, to delete lines 11 to 15, and substitute the following:
(10) A governing authority shall admit those members specified in subsections (2)(iv) and (v), (4)(b), (5)(a)* and (b)*.".
We had a long debate on this matter on Committee Stage. On amendment No. 35, the most senior officers elected by the students should be appointed to the governing body. The Minister included in the legislation our reference to postgraduates. The proportional representation electoral system should continue to operate. Will the Minister also respond to amendment No. 45 in her reply?
Amendment No. 67 states:
In page 16, to delete lines 11 to 15, and substitute the following:
"(10) A governing authority shall make regulations providing for the election of members of the governing authority from the categories of persons specified in subsection (2)(b), paragraphs (ii) to (v) and for the selection, election, nomination or appointment of the category of persons to be members of the governing authority; and the election, selection, nomination or appointment (as the case may be) shall be carried out in accordance with those regulations.".
I accept the thrust of the Deputies' concerns relating to the election of staff and student representatives in amendments Nos. 33, 35, 45, 66 and 67 as proposed. The Bill now provides for this. We had an interesting discussion on the matter on Committee Stage. Academic staff, other than professors and associated professors, and non academic staff members on the governing authority will be elected from among the permanent full-time staff. Professors and associated professors will also elect their representatives.
I do not accept that the most senior officers should be elected. This would be unnecessarily restrictive on students and universities. We can trust the good sense of both to work out at local level an appropriate solution to meet their circumstances. Deputy Martin's experience in Cork has stimulated the discussion. I have appointed to this position education officers, who are not the most senior officers. The students union has informed me that the current education officer is more than competent at representing his union's view on behalf of students. Irrespective of coups d'etat and so on, these matters should be resolved at local level. It might prepare some people for an active life in this House.
I support the proposal of Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 45 that "the said graduate members shall be elected" and the Bill, as amended by the select committee, provides for that. I would not be so prescriptive as to provide for the precise mechanism of election, as suggested by the Deputies, although I agree that familiarity with that system of election would prepare people to stand for election in this House. I tend to move away from over prescription.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 13, line 19, to delete two or more than".
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 13, line 22, after "authority" to insert "two of whom shall be the two most senior officers elected to the students' union of the relevant university and one who shall be elected for the purposes specified in this section by the postgraduate students of the university."
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 65 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 13, line 26, to delete "Subject to subsection (6),".
Section 15(3) states: "Subject to subsection (6), in addition to the persons chosen and appointed pursuant to subsection (2), but included in the maximum number of members specified in subsection (1), there shall be — - - — ...". Subsection (6) excludes employees or students from the categories outlined. It states:
Except in the case of a person appointed under subsection (4) where the governing authority has waived the restriction otherwise imposed by this subsection, a member referred to in subsection (3) or (4) shall not be an employee or a student of the university.
Subsections (3) and (4) deal with representatives of employers, trade unions, agriculture, fisheries, community organisations, the professions and business and industry. We should allow the bodies concerned to nominate the people they deem to be the best to represent them, regardless of whether they are employees of a university. Subsection (3)(b) deals with nominees of regional education boards. If regional education boards are established, which we hope they are not, and they nominate a student or an employee of a university, the governing body may not accept it. They should not be prevented from nominating people of calibre who could be effective in representing their interests on a governing body. I do not understand why this power is included in the Bill. Amendment No. 65 also calls for the deletion of subsection (6).
I agree with Deputy Martin's arguments and I would like to hear the Minister's reply.
One of my aims in putting forward revised governing structures is to widen the representational base of governing authorities. Unless the provisions ensure this, the Bill might not widen the representative base but merely result in governing authorities including more members of the university community. For that reason, I do not agree with the deletion of subsection (6), as proposed by the Deputies in amendments Nos. 36 and 65.
Under subsection (6), as amended by the select committee, each university can decide, if it so wishes, that graduates and co-optees representing, among others, artistic and cultural interests may be drawn from the academic staff, non-academic staff or student body. It is important, in the interests of governing bodies, that the backgrounds of their members are diverse and that there should be checks imposed on the likely tendency towards inclusion of members of the university community. We are looking for a balance and in order to achieve it, it is reasonable that, in the interests of diversity, the representatives of the wider community, the education boards or ministerial nominees should not be employees of the university or students. I spell that out because it is one of the policy differences.
I do not agree with the Minister. We should be anxious to achieve the best possible representation on the governing authority. However, if we debar people from it, someone who is eminently qualified and could be a great addition to the college might not be allowed to be a representative. The Minister should reconsider this because it is too prescriptive.
I am a true democrat and that is why many of my amendments are absolutist. I am a great believer in Rousseau. I am also reluctant to interfere with the will of the people. If bodies have the right to nominate and elect people, we should allow them to decide who are the best people.
I was not being facetious earlier when we discussed the students' union. There are tremendous power struggles in students' unions. During our time at university we had to deal with Democratic Left, or the Workers Party as it was then called, because it had infiltrated almost every students' union in the country. Some of its practices were not totally democratic and it would not have been beyond it or other parties to oust a president of a students' union.
This section excludes the possibility of an employee of a university, who may not be on the governing body because he is not a member of the academic staff, being nominated because of other activities outside the university. We should be flexible in such situations. Accepting our amendment will not endanger the Minister's objectives of widening the representational base of governing authorities. We have no difficulty with people from other sectors being appointed to governing bodies in accordance with their wishes. However, the Minister seemed to indicate this Bill may not result in the widening of the representational base of governing bodies.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 37 is in the names Deputies Martin and Coughlan. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are related. Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 40 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 13, line 29, to delete "four" and substitute "two".
That subsection deals with the number of persons chosen by a committee of the governing authority comprising the chief officer and two other members from the nominations made by such organisations and we suggest that the number be "two" and not "four".
Amendment No. 38 states:
In page 13, line 31, after "members" to insert "one of whom shall be drawn from the academic staff and the other a student, these members having been duly elected under the terms of the relevant subsections of section 15 of this Act".
Amendment No. 40 states:
In page 13, lines 35 to 37, to delete all words from and including "of" in line 35 down to and including line 37.
The lines referred to in amendment No. 40 are "of whom at least one shall be chosen from those nominated by organisations representative of business or industry". We do not see why the Bill should specify that, of all the groups, particular preference should be given to business and industry. If we list the range of groups entitled to make nominations, we should leave it at that. In the Bill we are directing that at least one shall be chosen from those nominated by organisations representative of business or industry. That gives primacy to business or industry over agriculture, fisheries, community organisations, the professions, etc. The lines of demarcation between all of these areas have become much more blurred in modern society than heretofore. Perhaps it is unnecessary to use those words in this subsection.
It could be argued that agricultural interests would play a more important role than business or industry in some universities. Agriculture is a business but the language of the Bill suggests that agriculture is not a business and business or industry is a separate category. At UCC, for example, where food research is particularly important and the food department constitutes an extremely important niche in the university, there is huge collaboration with the food industry in general and it seems there is no need for this specific reference in the Bill. It should be a fairly general reference. There should be a list of organisations and it should be left up to the universities to select the required number of people. As the Bill stands, just one person could be chosen.
I do not agree there should be a limit of two in the number of wider community representatives on a governing authority as proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 37. Representatives from business, agriculture and fisheries organisations can have an important input into universities.
Likewise, I do not support the suggestion of Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 40 to delete the requirement that at least one of the wider community representatives be nominated by an organisation representing business or industry. The present provision is in keeping with the recommendations of the Moriarty task force report on the implementation of the Culliton report.
I do not consider that the governing authority sub-committee, which will select the wider community members, should be so restrictively defined as Deputies Martin and Coughlan have proposed in amendment No. 38. This is a level of detail which I hope to avoid. The governing authority should be able to select the members of the sub-committee in any way it considers fit.
If we were to tease out the matter of setting up sub-committees again, which, unfortunately, is not possible, I would have a few reservations with regard to the governing authority choosing these people. That said, it could happen that a certain number of people would select the organisations which would be represented. They may have a propensity to appoint members of certain professions or trade unions which might not encompass what the governing body might wish to include. A university may have an attachment to certain professions or provide different academic studies conducive to the area in which it is situated. Specifying the inclusion of a member of the academic staff on the governing body would be appropriate to ensure that the degrees and studies being introduced would be reflected in the professions represented on it. County Donegal is noted for its fisheries development, but the requirements of the fisheries industry was not addressed in legislation dealing with the regional technical college. No member of the fish processors organisation or fisheries organisation was included on its board and the members of it were not particularly interested in fisheries development, which I consider is very important in that area. The appointment of a member of the academic staff to the sub-committee of the governing authority would ensure greater liaison between the industry and the professions one is trying to provide for within the university. That is what we are trying to provide for in universities by ensuring those interests will be represented on the governing bodies. That is why I support amendment No. 38.
As students have an input into the development of colleges, they too should be involved in the sub-committee. Will the Minister reconsider this matter? She will probably say we are being over-prescriptive again. However, the inclusion of a member of the academic staff and a student on the sub-committee would ensure that the governing body would be representative of the organisations referred to in subsection (3)(a).
Subsection (3)(a) states that on the governing authority there shall be at least one but not more than four persons chosen by a committee of the governing authority. We propose that a student and a member of the academic staff should be members of that committee. The Minister may think that is too prescriptive, but we do not. We celebrate the role of the students and they should be included in these type of processes. The committee will choose at least one from among nominations by organisations representative of employers, trade unions, agriculture, fisheries, community organisations, professions or business and industry as the governing authority considers appropriate. If the committee of the governing authority were to choose only one nomination, would it have to be from business and industry? If so, that is unnecessarily restrictive. Why should there be that qualification? The Minister said she does not want to be too prescriptive, but that is very prescriptive. She is saying that if only one nomination is chosen it should be from business and industry and not from the arts, other cultural areas or community organisations. This subsection is potentially very prescriptive and tightly drawn. A broader wording of it, which would allow universities to select people from outside interests, would be far better, as many of the lines of demarcation are blurred.
This provision is in keeping with the recommendations of the Moriarty task force report on the implementation of the Culliton report that there should be much closer links between the universities and the business community. Subsection (7) provides that the possibility of only one nomination applies to Maynooth and Trinity College only. The other universities will have a greater number. This is about balance, the need for the governing bodies of the universities to be in partnership with their community and the need to weave into this the recommendation of the Moriarty task force report on the implementation of the Culliton report that where there is the minimum nomination of one it would be in those universities.
I do not want to be pernickety, but the wording of subsection (3)(a) is confusing. There should be proper definitions. The subsection could be improved. Agriculture is a business and an industry. If the word "industry" were inserted in the subsection, it would cover agriculture, fisheries, the arts and other sectors. The words "business and industry" would be adequate. We have witnessed the growth of adult and continuing education, and the role of universities in that regard. Adult and continuing education is potentially one of the most important agents for social reform and for increasing participation rates in education not only among the adult community, but following adult participation down the line among children. There is a view that community organisations are the Cinderella of the grouping in the subsection. As colleges develop in areas of considerable unemployment and disadvantage — the north side of Cork is one such area and Tallaght is another — it would not harm the universities if a representative of the area partnerships outlined in the PESP or the community groups in those areas was on their governing bodies. The perspective of those community groups needs to be articulated. One of the great difficulties faced by mature students, to which the universities are trying to respond, is ensuring that adult education is part of the ethos of universities. Timetabling poses the greatest difficulty for mature students, particularly women returning to education and often governing authorities are not as conscious of that as they should be. If people from that community of interests were members of a governing body, there would be a greater possibility of those difficulties being more effectively articulated.
That subsection could be tidied up. I accept that business and industry could mean almost anything, given the changes in modern technology. There is no need to identify fisheries, agriculture, trade unions and employers in the subsection. Presumably business and industry covers those groups. I am interested in the community organisations. There was a tradition of prejudice towards the appointment of a member of a community association to a governing body. There is a strong and compelling case for the appointment of a community representative to university authorities, particularly in areas where State agencies are combining and trying to co-ordinate efforts to combat social disadvantage and high unemployment. Universities, along with the vocational education committees and other bodies in this area, will be obliged to play a collaborative role in trying to help people escape the poverty trap and other situations. Education, particularly adult education, is the best way to achieve this. Perhaps something can be done, between now and the next Stage of the Bill in the Seanad, to strengthen the community role.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 53, 55 to 59, inclusive, and 62 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 13, lines 34 and 35, after "industry" to insert "and organisations representative of Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations".
This amendment deals with the provisions relating to the Irish language. To date, my entreaties have fallen on deaf ears. I regret this because the intention throughout was to ensure the strengthening of the Bill's provisions in respect of the Irish language. I am concerned because, as they stand, the provisions are too vague and not adequately pro-active. The thrust of the other amendments is similar but amendment No. 39 proposes to insert the phrase "and organisations representative of Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations" after "industry" on page 13 of the Bill.
There has been a lengthy discussion on what is or is not appropriate, who should be nominated and whether there should be more than one nominee from those who represent business or industry. When discussing the Irish language and the fact that representatives of the language should be appointed to the governing authorities, it is essential that we consider who will be specifically responsible for the interests of the language. If the Bill contains a degree of commitment towards the promotion of the language within our universities it would be appropriate to appoint to the governing authorities people with a specific interest and expertise in Irish. The Minister stated that she does not wish to be too prescriptive, however, in many instances, she is being exactly that.
With regard to the promotion of the Irish language, a very specific skill and expertise is required which will not be obtained by plucking an individual from one of the organisations referred to in subsection (3)(a). What we need are people who understand this matter, have the vision to ensure that universities actively promote the language, understand their responsibilities and are accountable to their own organisations in respect of their commitment to the language. It would be extremely beneficial for the universities to have such people involved at that level. The role of the language at third level would be enhanced and there would be a degree of visible commitment in appointing individuals with that type of expertise.
I support amendment No. 39 which involves the insertion of "and organisations representative of Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations" into page 13 of the Bill. It is particularly appropriate in Gaeltacht areas, particularly in the context of UCG, that such a provision be put in place to provide the option to select a person representative of the Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations.
There have been considerable representations to regional boards from groups in the gaeltachtaí and the view has emerged from the gaeltachtaí that their specific interests are not often recognised by the Department or other institutions. Since its inception and establishment, Údarás na Gaeltachta has been very effective in promoting the development of the gaeltachtaí. In one sense, it has been an industrial promotion body for Gaeltacht areas. Údarás na Gaeltacht has experience of industry, business and the promotion of gaeltachtaí in a wide range of areas such as cultural, commercial and industrial development and agriculture and fisheries. It makes sense, particularly in Gaeltacht areas, to foster collaboration. The gaeltachtaí should also collaborate with universities and have a real input in terms of their own regeneration. The universities have a role to play in that regard.
UCG and UCC are located in gaeltachtaí and the latter has extensive connections with the Choirca Dhuibhne Gaeltacht. UCC has a permanent residence in Dún Caomháin where I spent many nights as a student. I have many enjoyable memories of it.
We are hearing much about the Deputy's past today.
Choirce Dhuibhne is inseparable from the development and provision of the Irish language in UCC and the college has adopted that dialect. However, my point is that a link exists and representatives from the gaeltachtaí of Cúl Aodh, Baile Mhúirne and Choirca Dhuibhne could play an important role or have some input in UCC. Deputy Keogh is endeavouring to include such organisation as one of a range of groups from which people could be selected to serve on the governing authorities. It does not place an obligation on universities; it merely inserts after the word "industry" the words "and organisations representative of Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations". It allows somebody to be chosen from organisations representing the Irish language, such as An tÚdurás or other Gaeltacht organisations but An tÚdurás is the first to spring to mind. That is all Deputy Keogh's amendment seeks to do without undermining the Minister's objectives in this section.
I do not agree with Deputy Keogh's amendment, that organisations representative of Irish language and/or Gaeltacht organisations should be included in section 15(3)(a).
However, I accept such bodies would have a valuable contribution to make to universities, including one at governing body level. Section 15(3)(a) is aimed primarily at the social partners, cultural and other interests being specifically catered for in section 15(4)(a) under which the Deputy's objectives can be adequately met whenever a university considers that appropriate. This decision should be left to universities in accordance with local circumstances. My aim in the provisions and composition of governing bodies is to strike a balance in ensuring that certain key stakeholders are involved on all governing bodies with a sufficient measure of flexibility and autonomy for universities.
Acceptance of Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 41 would have the effect of requiring that Trinity College have at least two members drawn from this category. Given Deputy Keogh's opposition to the provisions of this Bill, stipulating any outside representation on the board of that college appears to demonstrate a curious contradiction in her approach.
If Deputy Keogh's amendment is accepted we can ensure Trinity College is imprinted indelibly on the Minister's subconscious even though it does not fall within the immediate remit of this Bill.
Amendment No. 39 does not place an obligation on the universities to choose a representative from a Gaeltacht organisation. It is left to the committee of the governing body established to choose a representative from the list of all those organisations which will include Irish language or Gaeltacht organisations. Deputy Keogh's laudable objective is to enhance the status of the Irish language and the Minister should seek to accommodate her.
Unfortunately, throughout Committee and Report Stages, the Minister has shown an unwillingness to be generous in providing for the Irish language. If we are serious about an ability to educate young people at third level, through the medium of the Irish language, we must include people with a vision of the language. It will be of particular relevance to some universities because of their location. If we continue as we are, Irish language education will stop at second level. The number of students educated through the medium of Irish at third level is minimal, bearing in mind the numbers being educated through that medium at primary and secondary level. Who will provide the necessary impetus for the language? Is it to be left solely to those within universities who have a grá for or vision of the language, who wish to see it developed but who have no other demands on their time and attention? Having people to nurture the language, ensuring a place for it at third level, would have a vital, fundamental effect on its teaching at third level.
To a certain extent we have acknowledged that already universities show a certain commitment to the Irish language but it must be taken more seriously, which would have a knock-on effect throughout society. As a nation we continue to pay lip service to the language. The manner in which it is referred to throughout this Bill is minimalist and I regret that because such vague language is not particularly helpful. We should do something very definite, appropriate to its development instead of leaving it to the goodwill of those with an interest who might lobby on its behalf. We need to involve people as part of the movement, as part of the overall expression of its development.
I ask the Minister to reconsider my amendment. Its acceptance is crucial to the development of the Irish language, particularly within Gaeltacht communities.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Éamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and Keogh; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 40, to 43, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 44 is in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 50, 60, 61 and 64 are related, amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are alternatives to amendment No. 50 and amendment No. 63 is an alternative to amendment No. 61. I suggest we discuss these amendments together but I am afraid time will not permit.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 14, to delete lines 13 to 20 and substitute the following:
"(a) four persons appointed having particular regard to the extent to which artistic and cultural interests are represented among the members, and".
As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "that the amendments set down by the Minister for Education and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan — Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Éamon.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and O'Donnell.
Question declared carried.