We now come to amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 is related.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be discussed together.
George Mitchell Scholarship Fund Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 21, to delete "duly".
The strong legal advice is that the word "duly" must be retained to convey the requirement that in establishing the fund in the United States the Minister must comply with its laws.
I tabled the amendment to be constructive. May I have sight of the Attorney General's advice?
The advice of the Attorney General is not normally made available.
What is its essence?
The advice is that it is necessary to include the word "duly" to convey the requirement that in establishing the fund in the United States the Minister must comply with its laws.
It is still not clear why the word "duly" should be included.
I have given the Deputy the reason. I will have someone on the legal side of the Department communicate with the Deputy further.
On amendment No. 2, we would not be here without the prior consent of the US Government. I met with Secretary Reilly during the visit of President Clinton. The scholarship fund has arisen as a result of an agreement between Secretary Reilly's department and mine. The issue does not arise — there is prior consent from the US Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 27, after "an" to insert "Institute of Technology or an".
I dealt with these amendments during my Second Stage speech. I wish to briefly reiterate why the inclusion of the Irish School of Ecumenics and the institutes of technology would enhance this Bill and also help to raise the prestige of those institutions, not only in this country but also in the USA.
This fund has been established to celebrate the contribution of George Mitchell to the peace process. Therefore, it seems extraordinary that the Border counties cannot, by definition, participate because the institutes of technology at Letterkenny, County Donegal and Dundalk, County Louth are excluded. Sligo Institute of Technology is also close to the Border. The north-eastern and north-western regions are excluded, as are the midlands and the south-east, which has two institutes of technology. Our fifth largest city, Waterford, which I represent, is also excluded.
The Irish School of Ecumenics, which is devoted to the study of ecumenics and conflict resolution, seems an appropriate institution to be involved in this fund. I referred to the growing academic prowess of the institute in the context of co-operation with Trinity College. This is a fundamental issue and I ask the Minister to agree to the inclusions of these institutions. It does not go beyond that at this stage as the decisions to choose projects will be taken elsewhere. If these institutions are excluded, they will never participate, which is my difficulty.
I support Deputy O'Shea's amendment. We should relax the straitjacket of this provision on Report Stage. Essentially it is an extremely elitist approach to selecting students to be supported by the fund — those with a high level of academic achievement who will be attending university. This fund is being established to encourage research, to look at what is dividing communities and what can be done to study problems on the ground to break down barriers. There is no doubt that those with an academic background have a contribution to make in this area. However, we must not have a scheme which from the very start rules out from participation those involved in community or voluntary work.
There is a record of community conflict in the USA and there are people working voluntarily there who have established knowledge and expertise in this area. We should open the fund to a wider range of participants, as Deputy De Rossa suggested, because of the nature of the subject matter. We will be looking at community conflict, which does not tend to occur between university professors but at the heart of working class society. The fund should be open to the participation of such communities.
Perhaps the Minister could consider an amendment on Report Stage, which I know is following this Stage immediately. We should not be looking at community conflict as a phenomenon to be studied by so-called "experts", but as a subject in which those with first-hand experience could be involved.
I ask the Minister not to reject the amendments out of hand but to come back to them on Report Stage. I do not have the statistics to hand but I am reasonably sure that the access of young people from working class areas to third level education tends to be through institutes of technology. I am not saying that is exclusively the case but the figures indicate it is predominantly so.
It is a shame that such colleges should be excluded from this scholarship fund. It is an issue which should be looked at seriously. There can be no argument that the level of research or academic achievement in such institutes is less than that in traditional universities. In fact, their application may be more practical in everyday life. It is worth having a new look at how restrictive the current proposal is and considering the amendment.
It is important that the scheme is kept tight to a certain degree as it relates to American students coming to Ireland. We are contributing £2 million, which cannot be spread everywhere to cover everybody involved in conflict resolution, such as community and voluntary groups. That is not realistic and it would dilute the impact of the scheme.
The university sector has been involved with the US-Ireland Alliance which led to the initial suggestion of the idea. I have no principled objection to including the institutes of technology or the Irish School of Ecumenics as hosts for potential scholars. We are not talking about people going to the US under this scholarship fund but rather about American students coming to Ireland to experience higher education, whether in universities, the institutes of technology or the Irish School of Ecumenics, which will be linking with Trinity College and already offers some post-graduate programmes on peace and reconciliation and conflict resolution.
The level of post-graduate research in many institutes is not high. However, that does not matter. Even if one student wishes to pursue a particular specialty which is only offered in an institute in this country, that should be facilitated. I accept the two amendments, without alteration.
When President Clinton and Secretary Reilly came to Ireland, this was not the only initiative we decided to take jointly. On Deputy Bruton's point, Secretary Reilly and I announced Project Citizen whereby the US will contribute up to $1 million over three years and we will provide matching funds to develop projects between children North and South. They will come together and work on a civics project which might relate to local politics or issues pertaining to a given area. That will get to the heart of the community conflict and the generation issue. The young children of today must be freed of the myths and prejudices of the past. The best way we can do that is through education.
I am also working with Co-operation Ireland on significantly enhanced funding for their programmes of exchange between North and South. Recently, following British Secretary Blunkett's visit, we agreed additional funding for youth exchanges East-West and North-South.
There is much happening in other programmes in conflict resolution, community relations and, above all, in greater familiarisation between young people on both sides of the island. We can encourage that by facilitating their coming together more often. Project Citizen is about encouraging contact in a more structured way than school exchanges, which involve students visiting each other. There is a project at the heart of it. Co-operation Ireland will be the implementing body for Project Citizen. We have already had talks with Co-operation Ireland on that. That, to a certain extent, takes care of those issues.
Some of our universities had developed programmes on conflict resolution. University College Galway recently launched a human rights centre. There is no reason that an American student who is particularly interested in human rights, the bill of rights or that area could not come to visit Ireland or UCG to undertake some research study on human rights. Likewise other universities, for instance, University College Cork, have developed programmes on youth and voluntary work. There are now degree programmes on offer for people who want to become qualified in youth work. The scheme does not exclude American citizens coming over here who wish to pursue some post-graduate study in the area of community and youth affairs, for example.
This is an enabling Bill and a framework Bill. The Minister will work with the agreement of the parties in the US in terms of defining the broad parameters for the areas on which students can come to study. The Houses of the Oireachtas will review the scheme on an annual basis. A report will be compiled every year which must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas so that the Deputies can see how the scheme is working and what is happening within the ambit of the scheme. It has potential to evolve and change, and we can come back to the House and amendment the Bill in the future.
I welcome the Minister's acceptance of these amendments. It is a forward looking decision to include the institutes and the Irish School of Ecumenics. Obviously it will be a matter for the American students to opt for the choices which best suit their inclinations. The Minister is to be congratulated for accepting the broadening of the scheme.
As the proposer of the two amendments, I thank the Minister for his constructive attitude in this regard. Acceptance of the amendments enhances the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 28, after "applies" to insert "or at the Irish School of Ecumenics".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5. and 6 are related. Therefore, they may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall make regulations setting out the objectives of research to be supported by the Fund, the areas of study open for consideration, the priorities or criteria to be considered in selecting applications and such other matters as he or she considers appropriate, and shall lay those regulations before the Oireachtas for approval.".
I am glad the Minister will provide some guidance as to what sort of research and study should be undertaken. The issue revolves around whether it should be a group which the Minister says he will appoint as he considers appropriate to manage and control the fund, or whether it should be the Minister who sets out certain "objectives of research to be supported by the Fund, the areas of study open for consideration, the priorities or criteria to be considered in selecting applications and such other matters as he considers appropriate, and shall lay those regulations before the Oireachtas for approval.".
We should decide here for what we intend this fund to be used. By all means, we should hear the views, particularly of former Senator George Mitchell or the US Secretary of State, as to how they would like to see this develop. However, we should not delegate this to some committee yet to be appointed, whose job is mainly to manage and control the fund not decide on the objectives.
The objectives of this fund should be related to the sort of causes which Mr. Mitchell has advocated over his years of service. They should reflect something of his bequest to us, both his passionate advocacy of reform in social and health areas, environmental areas and, most importantly, in the reconciliation of groups which are divided. The latter relates not only to Northern Ireland as he worked in Yugoslavia before that. He has a proud record in this area. We should tailor make the sort of work to be a fitting memorial to what he has done over his career and what he continues to do.
That is why I feel the need for this approach, where the Minister would set out some objectives in regulations as to the way we would move forward with this and the sort of criteria to be considered in selecting applicants so that there is some way in which the Minister rather than some fund managers in the US sets the tone. This is a gesture by the Irish State to commemorate the contribution of Mr. Mitchell. It seems to me more fitting that the Minister would devise this sort of formulation when he has had the consultations which undoubtedly will be necessary and then come back to the Oireachtas with his proposals. That would be a better way to proceed than the Minister's suggestion that these decisions will be made by a fund and then some time at the end of the following year an audited account and copy of the auditor's report will be laid before the House. That is not a satisfactory approach to adopt.
This has been a two-way process from the beginning. It has not been one side unilaterally dictating to the other. I pay tribute to the US-Ireland Alliance which did much of the running early on in terms of the concept and the idea. It is in the overall context of Irish-US relations. Aside from the legal aspects of it, with which I will deal later, I would be reluctant to unilaterally impose regulations on the fund.
I have no difficulty consulting with Mr. Mitchell in terms of the broad objectives of the fund. We should not ring-fence it too much. Mr. Mitchell probably would not want to ring-fence the areas of study and research which may be undertaken.
Having accepted the previous amendments, we have identified the sectors. These give a broad range for any American student who wishes to study or engage in research in any area.
The Attorney General's office has advised that regulations have no legal effect outside of the State whereas matters covered by an agreement would be legally binding on all signatories. Section 2(3) states:
The Minister shall make, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, an agreement, with such person or persons, as the Minister considers appropriate, in respect of the management and control of the Fund, and such agreement shall provide, as may be appropriate, for all of the following:".
There follows a list from (a) to (f) and we will include, with my amendment No. 6, "areas of study and research for which scholarships may be awarded under the Fund,". That gives us a facility to work out the areas, if we so wish. It is my intention that the areas should be as broad as possible. That is the better way to proceed. This concept came from a partnership approach and was jointly announced when Secretary Riley came here with President Clinton. It would be wrong at this stage for one side to say it is going to put a provision in legislation whether the other side likes it or not.
I see the validity in the argument the Minister made. Clearly, we are talking about an agreement between two states. Therefore, we must have regard to its law and practice in the education area and, of course, it must also have regard to ours. I still have a problem in that, as it stands, the organisers or managers of the fund are not accountable to this House. They will dispense taxpayers money. Will the Minister be answerable to this House on how that fund is managed and will he ensure it is run to the best standards? The last thing we want is a fund established to honour a person who has made an enormous contribution to Irish society to become a matter of scandal.
Section 2(4) states: "The Minister shall cause a copy of any agreement made by him or her, in respect of the management of the Fund, to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas." Once the agreement is finalised, a copy of it must be laid before the House. Section 5(1) states: "The Minister shall annually prepare a report with respect to the operation of the Fund during the previous 12 months and shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas." Section 5(2) states: "The Minister shall cause a copy of an abstract of any audited accounts of the Fund together with a copy of any auditor's report thereon to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas." The Minister is per the Act answerable to the House in terms of the conduct, operation and management of the fund.
Will the Minister, or whoever the occupant of that seat may be in the future, be obliged to answer parliamentary questions on those reports?
Absolutely.
As the Minister said, American students attend the Irish School of Ecumenics. I visited there earlier in the year and met a girl from California, to the best of my recollection. There was a group discussion and I asked her what was the most important lesson she had learnt since coming here. Her answer stayed with me because I learnt from it too. She said when we apply ourselves to conflict resolution and look at a conflict, we find that the elements of the conflict are within ourselves and that we need to resolve those elements before we are best placed to apply ourselves to the other situation.
I refer to a point raised by Deputy De Rossa and do so in the context of the discussions which will be held with Senator George Mitchell, who I suspect will have a considerable input into the shape this scholarship will take. The position of disadvantaged students in the US should be looked at and the scheme should be tailored to ensure representation from disadvantaged groups — obviously, these will be graduates. Unless extra provision is made in the fund, there may be people who would not be able to take up a college place to study or carry out research here. Without being prescriptive, the spirit of the fund and George Mitchell would be very receptive to this type of approach.
I accept the spirit of what Deputy O'Shea said. It is our intention that bursaries will be quite significant so that a person from the background the Deputy mentioned would be in a position to take up a bursary and that it would be sufficient to meet any of the costs a person would incur while staying in Ireland. Senator Mitchell is a classic example of a person who came from a poor background and he acknowledged that when he accepted the freedom of Cork City last week. He gave a remarkable account of his life and the difficulties he had. The Senator paid tribute to the meritocracy ethos which we, on this side of the Atlantic, do not often acknowledge and which is strong in America. He said American society was particularly open in facilitating him in his life's journey from a humble socio-economic background to the heights of the American political establishment. He made that point very tellingly in speeches both at City Hall in Cork and at UCC. The bursaries will be significant, will not be grant-in-aid whereby somebody must pick up the tab after that and will enable a student to come here without penny pinching.
I am relatively happy with the Minister's explanation. It is important that he remains answerable to the House and that George Mitchell has a role in shaping the type of work done because he is a man who, throughout his career, has proven to have distinctive priorities and principles to which he clings. It is appropriate that they should inform the selection process and I hope the Minister will assure the House that George Mitchell's views will be very much at the heart of this process.
I assure the House of that. Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (3), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(c) areas of study and research for which scholarships may be awarded under the Fund,”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration and passed.