The Minister in summing up mentioned the Minister for Foreign Affairs and this section states that "the Minister" means the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I did not catch why it was limited to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and why there was no role for the Minister for Education. I can see a situation where there would be a role for the Minister for Foreign Affairs but to exclude totally the Minister for Education would seem to be deliberate because, obviously, it is referring to educational matters. It would seem to any ordinary person that there should be some role, if not the critical role, for the Department of Education and the Minister for Education in relation to the contents of this Bill.
Death of Rajiv Gandhi. - Educational Exchange (Ireland and the United States of America) Bill, 1991: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
As I said, this is just a repetition of the 1957 Act. The Minister in that Act was also described as Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is no reason why the Minister for Education should be excluded. However, the reality is that this Bill reflects the agreement which was drawn up between the United States and Ireland in October 1988. Of course consultation is carried out between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Education on certain matters.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (7) (c), lines 26 and 27, to delete "educational and cultural activities" and substitute "educational, cultural and individual and group artistic activities, expositions and performances".
In this amendment I am seeking to extend and broaden the parameters of the operation of the Bill. The reason is that we have a fairly clear and defined range of programmes set out in the Bill and, quite clearly, that is the way the old Fulbright operation worked. There was research work, there were studies, there were institutions and designated areas. I am seeking to expand on that, to include the broader area that may not be clearly defined, such as performances, individual activity, group activities and exhibitions, for example, of paintings or poetry readings. You could hardly call those programmes.
There is a broad area of educational cultural activities that do not come within the definition of "programme". It is a real problem because the danger is that by the wording used you are simply precluding from the word go, a number of people and their activities which should come properly within the ambit of this legislation. This is particularly true if what we are seeking to do is to extend the range of cultural and educational contact not simply to institutions, to post-graduates or to research facilities, but to the broader educational and cultural arena and the inter-relationship between two communities.
I am particularly worried about it when I look at section 7, where the powers of the commission are described. It is categorically stated in section 7 (1) (a), (b) and (c) that we are talking about programmes and the planning, adoption and execution of programmes. Paragraph (b) refers to "students, research scholars and teachers to participate in the programmes envisaged by this Act". Paragraph (c) relates to the arrangement "for the placement of Irish institutions", which is the return sector, and it reads: "as presented by that Board to participate in the programmes envisaged by this Act". There is no reference to activities or the broader area of cultural relations that I hope are included in this Bill. I am worried that while it mentions activity at an early stage it goes on in section 7 to tell the commission that they must operate within narrower parameters and confines. The confines are the old traditional ones that were there under the 1957 legislation on the Scholarship Exchange programme — designated institutions and programmes, studies, and research. I think it will be a grave disappointment if the new legislation simply allows that situation to continue. Therefore, the amendment proposed here is worth while. It is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation and it would be an invaluable contribution to expanding the parameters of the exchange programme and its activities.
I think Senator Costello is looking at it from the wrong angle. There is no limitation whatsoever on the programmes referred to in the Bill other than that they will be of an educational and cultural nature. That gives a very broad range of subjects. We have deliberately left this vague so as to ensure that no appropriate element could be excluded from the programme, and in order that the programmes could be broadly based and have as wide a scope as possible, in line with what Senator Costello has just pointed out. I honestly think Senators can be confident that their concerns have already been taken care of.
I would also like to say that the wording of section 2 (7) (c) reflects that of Article 1 (d) (iii) of the agreement which was signed in October 1987 between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United States. It is the normal wording for agreements of this nature and for the related legislation. The whole purpose of the agreement and legislation is to bring the procedures and the structures into line with the usual Fulbright procedures and structures, so that they may be able to avail of the additional funding that is now being offered to us. The existing wording of the Bill is broad enough to include each of the elements mentioned by Senator Costello.
Artistic and cultural exchanges were already a feature of the programme under the 1957 Act. I can give the Senator examples of the wide diversity of grants that have been made available under that Act. It has always been the practice under the programme — and I would like to repeat this — to award grants in the different areas of the visual and performing arts; that is something that Senator Costello would like to have included. It is already there; grants have already been awarded to people in the visual and performing arts. Provision was also made for the continuance and expansion of this cultural element in the new Bill under section 2 (7) (c) and section 7 (1) (i). I honestly think that everything Senator Costello wants is already included. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
I certainly accept the assurance made by the Minister that there have been instances in which there has been broader definition of the use of the words "programme" and "cultural activity". From what I know — and it is largely hearsay — the problem about the operation of the old Fulbright scheme was that it was very much a post-graduate scheme, it was very much a third level scheme. It was a fairly rigid scholarship exchange of post-graduate activities and there was no great focus on a broader exchange.
What I want to do is to introduce into the legislation that necessary focus to ensure that we are now moving from exchanging the best and brightest in an academic sense to exchanges in a broad cultural and educational sense, with breadth and balance in every area and at every level. I am concerned that that needs to be put into the legislation. Otherwise I would be afraid it would continue to operate more or less along the same lines as the old legislation. I am anxious to ensure that the new commission sees the particular concern we as legislators have for ensuring that there is not an imbalance. It is not just good enough to say there are some in the categories of the visual and performing arts who are able to avail of it. I do not think the old Fulbright scheme had a balance and that is my concern in this legislation.
May I try to reassure Senator Costello that what we are doing is a continuation and broadening of the old scheme. Under the old scheme such things as ceramics, photography, music, sculpture and various other forms of the arts were awarded scholarships. I honestly feel that the concerns the Senator is expressing are catered for. I would be afraid we would tie ourselves into something a lot more rigid.
Does the Minister have any numbers?
I am sorry I do not have any numbers, except to say that this has been a feature of the old scheme and I see no reason why it cannot continue like that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I have one point to put to the Minister. I understand that in the other House there was a suggestion that An Bord Scoláireachtaí Cómalairte was incorrect in terms of its spelling and that it should be Cómhalairte. Has the Minister discovered whether that is accurate and will the changes take place?
Mission accomplished; that has been taken care of.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discused together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 30 and 31, to delete "and an Assistant Treasurer" and substitute ", an Assistant Treasurer and a representative of the teaching profession".
This is certainly an important amendment. Its purpose is to introduce into the commission at least some person or some body with relevant qualifications as part of the eight member team. What we have there at present is:
The commission shall consist of eight members including a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, a Treasurer and an Assistant Treasurer.
We are, I might say, top heavy with named administrative people: 50 per cent have already been named in that administrative capacity. I find this somewhat disappointing because that would suggest that at least some of them are there for very specific functions which certainly do not seem to be selection functions. The treasury is very strong. Whether or not the chairman and deputy chairman are going to have the academic, educational and cultural qualifications for the job is not clear; but certainly the legislation indicates that they would have to have certain administrative qualifications.
If it is to be a broad educational and cultural operation, then it is important that we add that there should be a representative of the teaching profession as part of the commission. I say that because the terms of reference extend to students, studies, research work, teachers, cultural activities, obviously the whole area of curricular development in the educational context of teaching and the professional development of teachers. Therefore you need somebody with expertise in the education and cultural area. Who is going to sit on the commission? Are we going to have two citizens, two officers of the foreign service from the United States who are part of the diplomatic service and may or may not have some knowledge of cultural and educational affairs? The Minister suggested that in other countries this is often the case. But there you have six members identified already who need not necessarily have any educational or cultural knowledge and by their description they are there for different reasons rather than because of their expertise in the cultural and educational fields.
It alarms me to a degree that we have no indication in terms of what is provided in the Bill about any expertise for the commission. I feel that the most relevant expertise is qualifications and experience in the teaching profession. May I ask the Minister if he would be agreeable to accept this amendment as it is an amendment which seeks to ensure that at least one person is specifically designated as a professional in the area of education and cultural activities?
Again, I am afraid that Senator Costello seems to have interpreted section 3 in a different light than I have. The commission shall consist of eight members and, like any board or commission, they will have a chairman, and a deputy chairman will be appointed from the eight members, not necessarily that a deputy chairman is going to be appointed. All the Minister for Foreign Affairs can appoint is four. The other four are, under the terms of the agreement, to be appointed by the United States. May I just give you the names of those on the Scholarship Exchange Board so that you will see the calibre of people that have been appointed to that board by various Ministers?
As of now, the chairman is Professor Lee, Department of Modern History, University College, Cork; Dr. Watts, the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Colm Ó hEocadh, President of University College, Galway, and the former member, now unfortunately deceased, Mrs. Sarah Nangle, B. Comm., FCA. So you can see that already three of the four people appointed are people who are eminently associated with teaching.
I can understand the thrust of Senator Costello's amendment that he would like to ensure that there is somebody there, at least one, who has educational qualifications. You can can take it that the Minister will, of course, be in consultation with the Department of Education. As the Senator can see from the people who are on this board, the appointments to the new commission by the Minister for Foreign Affairs from Irish citizens will certainly reflect the kind of people who are on the outgoing board. The Senator, therefore, need not have any worries at all about people of very high educational qualifications being on this commission.
Certainly that is helpful, but the names that the Minister has given lead to another point, that is, that they are all third level. That again is what I have been saying: that the old Fulbright scholarship was very much identified with third level and post-graduate. Therefore, while these are excellent people, they are excellent people at third level. That explains one point, but it creates another problem. It ties in also with my second amendment, which we are also discussing, that they be nominated by organisations in the field of education. What I wanted was that at least one person would be representative of the teaching profession, that the organisations involved in educational matters would be responsible for making nominations and then that the appointments would be made by the Minister. Obviously, I would be looking for a greater breadth of educational representation, that it would not all simply be from third level but that there would be one or two from other levels as well.
That is the combined effect I hoped for from those two amendments: that there would be a specific representation, then nomination rights outside, but hopefully that it would also be of an educational nature. I still feel it is a bit lopsided that we have the functions of so many of the members identified without having any member identified in terms of his or her expertise for selection purposes. That was my point: that at least we would write in our concern that there would be people on the board with the expertise.
In practice, I have no doubt the Minister will choose very wisely, but we as legislators have a responsibility to ensure that we point the Minister in the right direction, because there is a Minister now and there will be another Minister again. In my previous amendment I wanted to ensure that we pointed any future members of the commission to our view that there would be as broad as possible a cultural and educational exchange programme. In this case I want to ensure that the selection process would be by people who are eminently qualified to do it.
Obviously, I cannot give the Senator any more guarantees than I have given him. I think that the three people who are still members of the board appointed by the Minister — and indeed, may I say, by successive Minister since the board was set up — are all highly involved and very well qualified in the educational field. The provisions of the Bill — I am sorry for repeating this so often — reflect the international agreement which has been signed by the United States Government and by the Irish Government and they just generally bring into line our procedures and our structures with the usual Fulbright procedures and structures so that we may be able to avail of the additional funding being offered.
I accept the thrust of Senator Costello's amendment. I can sympathise with it, but I think I have been able to show him that his concerns are adequately covered in the expertise and integrity of the people who are already on the board. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.
Is the Minister saying that a condition of the 1988 agreement is that it would preclude us from adding this amendment, that we would not get the funding if we were to introduce an amendment that would specify the origin or nature of one of our representatives on that commission?
I am not saying at all that you cannot recommend to the Minister. If Senator Costello is going to put in that the teaching profession should nominate an individual, then that individual is nominated not by the Minister but by the teaching profession. It is not the normal practice in agreements of this nature to specify details relating to commission members other than what has been provided. We have followed the normal practice. I can assure Senator Costello and the Seanad that any appointments to this commission will only be made by the Minister following very detailed and comprehensive consideration. I can assure the Seanad that all appropriate consultations will be carried out and that the concerns expressed in the House will be brought to the Minister's attention.
The agreement took a long time to finalise and there were suggestions in the Dáil that it took a long time to bring in this Bill. The reality is that we had to get agreement on many points. It is important that we get this legislation through as quickly as possible so that we can benefit from the extra funding which is being given to us by the United States under the Fulbright programme. I will put to the Minister the suggestions that have been made by Senator Costello. While I have every sympathy with the thrust of this amendment, I cannot accept it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment No. 2 being pressed?
I am afraid so. I am prepared to forgo the second amendment concerning nominations by organisations. I am delighted with this legislation and far be it for me to suggest there is something fundamentally flawed with it. However, it is our function to try to improve legislation where we think it requires improvement. I believe it is incumbent on us to ensure that somebody is named and that a professional body with the necessary expertise would be involved in the selection process rather than simply stating a commission with a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, a treasurer, an assistant treasurer plus two officers of the foreign service and not defining any expertise other than administrative expertise or diplomatic expertise.
As I said, I sympathise with the thrust of the amendment. Even if I take the second amendment which seeks to insert "nominated by organisations in the field of education", I could well make the same point to Senator Costello as he is making to me. How many organisations have we in Ireland that are involved in the field of education? One would have a job to define those organisations. Nearly every organisation, from Macra down to the Senator's own organisation, would feel they have a right to be part and parcel of what the Senator described as organisations in the field of education. While I can sympathise with and acknowledge the thrust of the Senator's amendment, unfortunately I am not in a position to accept it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment No. 2 being pressed?
I will not be pressing amendment No. 3 concerning the organisations.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are dealing with amendment No. 2, Senator and I am asking you is it being pressed?
Yes, it is being pressed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Question put.
Vótáil.
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand". On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Costello, Norris, B. Ryan and O'Toole rose.
As fewer than five Senators rose in their places, I declare that the question is carried and the amendment is lost. The names of the Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared lost.
Are the Senators sure about their counterpart? Where was Senator Shane Ross?
(Interruptions.)
As Senator Ross was not in his seat I had to take it that he was standing. I would put it to you, Sir, that there were five people and I would ask you to call the numbers again.
He certainly will not be obvious if he is sitting.
He was not sitting; I had to take it he was standing.
Without being accused of unparliamentary language I have the opportunity to say that he is lying in the window.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order because it involves a potential charge on Revenue.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
I was on my feet on section 6 but the Cathaoirleach did not hear me.
Certainly, there was no indication to me. I went through the sections and I asked were they agreed.
I said I did not agree, but you were not looking in this direction.
The House has taken a decision and I cannot go back on that. It is unfortunate, but the Senator's protest was not sufficient to ensure that there was an objection to the agreement.
I like to show restraint in the House and I do not think I should have to shout, but I was on my feet.
The House was asked if section 6 was agreed.
I am saying I said "No" and that I got to my feet.
With great respect to you, Senator, it was not sufficient to make me aware of your intention.
I am not sure what is required then, a Cathaoirligh. It is sufficient to be on my feet.
The decision is taken, Senator, and that is it. The House has agreed section 6 and section 7. We are on section 8 now.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Section 10 describes the meetings and procedures of the commission but it does not give any indication of what would constitute a quorum. It states that the decisions of the commission shall be taken by majority vote and in the event of a tied vote the chairman shall cast the deciding vote and, second, that the commission may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership. How many members of the commission need be present for decisions to be taken? What constitutes a quorum and how are the decisions taken? Would the Minister elaborate on the operation of the commission and its procedures?
This section corresponds to section 10 of the 1957 Act which concerns meetings and procedures of the Scholarship Exchange Board and it is designed to give effect to the final three sentences of articles 2D, 2F, 2H and 3 of the 1988 agreement. It was the custom to leave it to the former board to decide how it should conduct its meetings and the same is implied here. It is the same as the 1957 Act.
I accept that but how does the commission make its decisions? If two members out of eight turn up for a meeting, a majority decision applies if the two agree. If, in the event of a tied vote the chairman casts his vote, one person would be sufficient to decide. If there is a quorum what procedures are adopted and what procedures operated in practice under the previous legislation? The absence of any reference to a quorum is a lacuna in this legislation. I would like some indication from the Minister of past practices or what he perceives will be the practice in the future and how he might advise the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the commission to proceed.
The old board operated with a quorum of four but I do not know what the commission is going to do. I presume that at its first meeting it will decide what the qourum is going to be and will take into account the various problems that might arise during its meetings.
I accept what the Minister has said but would he agree to bring that concern — that some ad hoc quorum should operate and that that procedure be established at the first meeting where the eight people present would decide what would be required for a quorum and that that procedure be followed — to the commissioners?
I will put the concerns expressed by Senator Costello before the commissioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Section 12 is an interesting section which states that the commission may accept and use in accordance with the provisions of the Act such other funds, goods or services as may be made available to the commission by contribution from any source, public or private. This indicates not that the new body is being set up on a charitable basis but that it is open to the reception of funds from any generous donor whether from a corporate or an individual source. I would like that clarified and I would also like to know if the commission has the power to actively seek such donations and whether they are intended to be a substantial source of funding for the new body.
This section is based on article 7G of the 1988 agreement and it corresponds to section 13 of the 1957 Act which concerns gifts to the Scholarship Exchange Board. The wording in the Bill is drafted so as not to preclude the commission from fund raising. The new body may accept or receive gifts from private or semi-private organisations but it was considered undesirable to impose a specific obligation on the commission to seek funds.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Annual Report of the Commission shall be published."
It is important that an annual report be made to the Minister and to the representatives of the United States on the activities of the commission and that that report be available for public inspection. I have seen too many internal reports in the past gather dust on shelves in various Departments. It is difficult to get reports of the old Scholarship Exchange Board; they were not available in the Library up to recently. Reports should be made available to the public to provide up-to-date information.
It is important that we review the situation to know what is going on, how it is working, what progress is being made, how many members are availing of the exchange service being provided and how the funds are being used. It is important to publicise the operation so that people will be made aware of its existence unlike the old Fulbright structure which was known to a limited number of people. We want the new scheme to be known about and available to a much greater degree so it is important that we publish a report of its activities on a regular basis so that the public may be aware of what is happening.
The Bill reflects the agreement with the United States and is designed to bring our structures and procedures into line with the normal Fulbright procedures and structures. Provision has been made in the Bill for information to be provided to the Oireachtas through the medium of the audit and related reports thereon of the new fund and of the commission's accounts. Under section 15 (3) the form of the commission's accounts is to be agreed between the Minister and the representative of the United States. The House can be assured that both parties will be anxious to provide as much information as possible about the work of the commission and that the form of the accounts will therefore be very detailed. The audits and reports of the audits will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas which was considered to be the most useful and efficient method of providing information on the work of the commission. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude the reports of the commission being published. I would see no reason why this should not be done. However, it would require the consent of both the Minister and the representative of the United States and should be left to be decided and arranged by both of these parties in consultation.
The auditor's report will be presented to the Oireachtas but there is no provision for the annual report to be presented to the Oireachtas or to be published. If the annual report were part of the package presented to the Oireachtas, that would constitute a degree of publication. Without Government publication there will be limited public access to information on the activities of the commission we are about to set up.
I cannot see why the Government of the United States would not be delighted to ensure that the people of Ireland knew of its generosity and largesse through the exchange relationship that it had, by agreement, made with Ireland for the benefit of both countries. Similarly, our Minister should have no objection to the broadest dissemination of information on the operation of this new facility. The Minister says there is nothing in section 15 that precludes publication of the annual report neither is there anything in section 15 which requires its publication. That is my problem. The Minister might give us some assurance that he will bring to the commissioners the concern of the House that the annual report be published or at least that both the US representative, the US Government and the Minister might discuss the matter and come to agreement on it.
I have no objection to these reports being published but it will be a matter for the Minister and the representative of the United States and I will pass on Senator Costello's views. The publication of these reports would probably be a good thing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Under subsection (1) all moneys that come to the commission or to the fund from whatever source accrue to the Government and should there be a dissolution of the fund for whatever reason all moneys would be transferred to another institution with similar objectives. If we operate section 12 to receive or invite funds from corporate or individual donors — some philanthropic old lady or wealthy gentlemen or previous Fulbright scholar might wish to make a contribution — it would seem improper that their money, if there was a termination of the 1988 agreement, should go to the Government. The proper course would be to restore that money to the donor since it would have been intended for the purpose of cultural and educational exchanges. Why should the Government be the net beneficiary seeing that this operation is going to be funded largely by non-State funding?
The provisions of this section are Government-orientated and are too simplistic and rigid concerning the manner in which such funding would be dealt with irrespective of the source of donation in the event of the commission being wound up. Excess funds should go back to the sources from which they have come, particularly if a section allows for public and private sources of funding. Should we not provide in this section for the return of money to private sources?
This section is based on article 10 of the 1988 agreement which provides for the division of the funds and the property of the commission upon termination of the agreement. Why should we look forward to the termination of the agreement? Should we not look instead for an extension of the agreement? In relation to Senator Costello's point concerning funds sourced from outside the two Governments, this money would be put to use immediately. The point at issue is the capital sum which has been there for a considerable time and I do not see why that capital sum cannot go back to the Government or Governments that contributed in the first place. Senator Costello need have no worries about the commission's capacity to spend any moneys they can acquire in relation to scholarship exchange.
A point made by many Senators throughout this debate was that not enough people are availing of the exchange programme and that more money should be made available to enable greater numbers to avail of the scheme. If the commission succeeds in attracting money from private or semi-private sources or from State organisations, that money will be used quickly and to the benefit of many young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Members for their contributions and for the meticulous way in which the Bill was debated. I have learned much from the debate and I guarantee to place before the Minister the fears of some Members of the Seanad.
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I consider it to be a fine Bill. I am unhappy he did not accept one or two of my amendments but I thank the Minister for his courtesy and I am delighted to see this legislation passed.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.