Before we commence Committee Stage of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991, I would like to inform the House that amendments Nos. 1, 10, 14, 16, 35 and 36 have been ruled out of order as they involve a charge on the public revenue.
Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 1 to section 2 is out of order because it involves a charge on the public revenue.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 47 are consequential on amendment No. 2 and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (4), line 52, after "Minister" to insert "shall change the name of the college to Regional Polytechnic in the title of the college and".
We are concerned about the connotations of "technical college", in Ireland and internationally. In Ireland it is not really seen as the kind of third level institution that one would think of, such as the polytechnics in Britain or the hochschüle in Germany. We believe that by changing the name to polytechnic we would give an enhanced status and a better image to these colleges that are now polytechnics in the sense of the word. It would add to the status of these colleges and I would like to see this amendment included.
I appreciate the Senator's thinking on this matter. Section 3 (4) of the Bill states that the Minister may, after consultation with the governing body, change the name by order. The reason I think we should not push it at this stage and agree to include a word like "polytechnic" is that, first, there is no consensus on the matter. While some people like this word others do not. We should have more consultation with the governing bodies to see if we can settle on a name they can all live with. For example — to mirror the Dublin Institute of Technology — I toyed with the name "regional institute of technology" to make the similarity between the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical colleges more visible.
In the Green Paper we referred to the future role of the regional technical colleges. During the next few months I would like a debate on a name. It might be wise not to do so in this Bill, rather we should have consultations and discuss the matter in the context of the Green Paper to see if there is a consensus. The Minister of the day could then change the name by order. I am disposed to changing the name if there is consensus, if there is an obvious title and if that is the wish of the colleges. I do not think it would be right to do it at this time because a consensus has not emerged as to what it should be. It would not be fair at this time to impose the word "polytechnic" because there is no consensus among the colleges that that is what they want.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister. In relation to the title "regional technical colleges", I do not believe the word "technical" reflects the true nature of the work and functions of the colleges as defined in section 5 (1) of the Bill which states "vocational and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State." That covers a broad spectrum of professional, educational, scientific and technological developments in terms of the work of the new institutes or colleges.
I am disappointed that this matter was not discussed at an earlier stage because it could have been dealt with in the debate on the Green Paper which should have been published a long time ago. While I accept this is not the Minister's fault, he knows as well as I that according to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress not only were we supposed to have had a Green Paper and a White Paper by now, but the legislation was due to be enacted by the end of 1991. I have always said that we put the cart before the horse.
In relation to the word "polytechnic", I am reminded of a story about the colours match between UCD and Trinity when the UCD students called the Trinity players "Trinity scum". Indeed, they used slightly stronger language than that——
I hope Senator Norris is not listening.
He would be outraged. The Trinity students replied "polytechnic, polytechnic" a term which did not meet with approval but was seen as a pejorative term. I am not sure if "polytechnic" is the correct word to use in this case but "regional technical college" is not right either. I hope the title of the new colleges—"regional colleges" might be appropriate — will reflect the functions enshrined in this legislation.
It would be wise to proceed along the lines suggested by the Minister. I believe the governing bodies should have an input in relation to any decision made on this matter.
I am happy that the Minister is disposed to giving the colleges a different name and will be happy to discuss the matter with the heads of the colleges. I hope they will reach a consensus. I will not press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related while amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a) the vocational education committee,".
In this amendment we suggest that the vocational education committee should be included in the list of those eligible to be corporate members of a college while it would make no difference to the college, the vocational education committees would be happier. I cannot see why they should not be included.
In amendment No. 4 we seek to have FÁS and Eolas included. Since, in addition to their traditional roles, these colleges will be involved in research, it would be appropriate to have Eolas included. Also, and particularly in the Dublin Institute of Technology these colleges have traditionally dealt with apprentices. In the Dublin Institute of Technology there are, I believe, 5,000 apprentices at this time and it would be appropriate to have Eolas representation.
I too subscribe to amendment No. 3 which seeks to have the "vocational education committee" inserted in the section. We tabled this amendment because each regional college will serve a number of local authority areas. Consequently, the representation of any individual local authority will be diluted. Section 6 (3) (b) states that the Minister may intervene and insist that not more than four of the six people to be nominated by the vocational education committee to be members of the governing body should be members of a local authority.
Let us take the local authority in Sligo, where there is a regional technical college, as an example. This college attracts students from Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Cavan, south Donegal——
Athlone would be a better example.
It would be an excellent example. I am sure you would like to intervene, a Cathaoirligh——
Do not leave out Tralee.
The Minister knows that the parent local authority and vocational education committee are now going to have a very meagre representation on the governing body.
This would be a useful amendment because it would ensure that the local authority have adequate representation. While this will be the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology, because the City of Dublin vocational education committee are the parent body and will nominate all six representatives, in the case of the regional technical colleges the Minister will be able to intervene with the result that there may be only one representative, or at most two, from the parent body. I ask the Minister to look at this matter again.
In relation to the other amendments, FÁS and Eolas could be included under paragraph (f) which reads, "such other persons as the governing body may appoint to be members," but that would not be satisfactory. However, it is suggested in the Green Paper that FÁS should be given a different function, they should not be involved in the area of vocational training. It has yet to be decided whether FAS should deal with the unemployed or be given an essential role in the area of vocational and technological training. This is being decided in the context of the debate that has been initiated by the Minister. I understand that a committee of the representatives of the Department of Labour and Education has been set-up to look into this specific matter but we do not know yet the outcome. Once again we have been left in limbo.
I do not know at this time whether I can support amendments Nos. 4 and 5; that will depend on the outcome of the discussions on the Green Paper in relation to the role of FÁS. This is a serious matter and we are discussing it in a limbo. I refer to a letter I received this morning from Sligo Vocational Education Committee — unfortunately I did not receive one from Athlone Vocational Committee but perhaps it will arrive in the post later. I will quote from the motion unanimously passed by Sligo Vocational Education Committee:
That proposed legislation for the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Regional Technical Colleges be deferred pending a comprehensive review and rationalisation of the legislative framework for all sectors of education in the context of the 1992 Green Paper entitled "Education for a Changing World."
That is one example of the concern of people who have been dealing with education since 1930.
This is one of those times when one has to prove that the Independent Senators are not necessarily part of the Opposition. A few home truths need to be faced. I find it difficult to understand why an authority or a committee set up under the 1930 Act to operate a second level institution should now take on board the task of running a third level institution. I do not see why every board of management of every primary school in the catchment areas of these colleges should not be included also.
I fail to see the reasoning behind these amendments. I see nothing in them that will make the colleges more effective. There are many contradictions and difficulties involved. The vocational education committees were set up in 1930 to run a second level structure. If they were called local education committees, I would agree that they should have involvement at all levels of education, first, second and third level. It is part of the continuing slight on first level education — the attitude is taken that they do not need to be involved in these matters. All the vocational schools in an area can be listed, to the exclusion of other bodies.
I want to put my position very clearly on the line and I articulated this position on Second Stage. I believe in the involvement of local public representatives at all levels of education, including primary level. I made a submission to this effect some years ago to the New Ireland Forum and I will continue to hold that view. There is no intention of getting at local representatives in any way. I do not accept that an existing committee should be part of the regional technical colleges, because that would not work. There would be an immediate contradiction if this were done. It defies logic that the people who draft these Bills believe that there is a custom and practice that Members of the Oireachtas are excluded from public bodies or committees. That is a total nonsense. Members of the Oireachtas are not excluded from vocational education committees but they could be excluded from the colleges on the basis that they are public bodies. For that reason it would not be possible to implement the amendment.
I have difficulty with the size of the committees. I am not sure what the role of members of the college would be or what authority they would have. As of now they have certain powers. This amendment is an attempt to pull in a committee which were not set up to do this work. If we want local representatives on these committees — and I support that idea — it should be done in an ad hoc way and not by pulling in a structure that already exists and assigning to it different duties.
I do not see anybody rushing to make changes in the governing bodies of universities. These bodies deal with matters in a different way. Public representatives may become members of governing bodies of universities, and I support such an arrangement. However, it is unfair to exclude other areas of education from membership of the colleges while including the vocational education committees, thereby giving them a function which they were not set up to do.
I have a problem with the focus on vocational or training courses. It would be acceptable to include the bodies mentioned in a local education structure but not in the way proposed because it would be unworkable. There is a very strong case to be made for including FÁS and Eolas, but there is an equally strong case to be made for the inclusion of primary schools. How far should we extend membership? I feel that this proposal is going too far.
I think Senator O'Toole is confusing the corporate body with the governing body. We are talking about the corporate body and we are not pulling in every dog and devil. We have listed in the corporate body the students and graduates of the college. In my college, the corporate body includes the students and graduates — there are more than 30,000 graduates in the college. We are just listing the members of the corporate body, nothing more and nothing less. The vocational education bodies have been running third level institutions for quite some time and have built them up. They have taken responsibility for them for the past ten years and in some cases almost 20 years. Therefore, it is not unfair to ask that they be listed as members of the corporate body.
I thank Senators for their contributions. We are talking here about membership of the college, which is very much an honorary concept. It does not confer duties or privileges. It is a standard concept used by the universities. Our intention is to list those who are internally involved in a college, the graduates, students, staff, the academic council, the governing body and somebody they may wish to co-opt. It is to reflect the internal composition of a college, not to take on board all the legitimate external connections and linkages with the college. For example, the amendments suggest the inclusion of FÁS and Eolas, but one could equally suggest the inclusion of regional tourism organisations in places such as Letter-kenny where there may be a closer link with tourism than with FÁS. One could also suggest the inclusion of local agricultural committees in areas where there may be closer links with agriculture than with Eolas.
Paragraph (f) states, "such other persons as the governing body may appoint to be members". It is just an honorary roll-call of those internally involved, without in any way being insulting or dismissive to those who are legitimately involved externally in the college. If they wish to appoint any other person who might be associated with FÁS or Eolas, they could do so. I cannot accept the amendment.
I am happy to accept the Minister's explanation on amendment No. 4 and I am prepared to withdraw it. However, I think it is reasonable to ask that the vocational education committees, which have been part of the colleges since their foundation, be listed among the corporate members.
I have considerable respect for the vocational education committees and for local public representatives. I spent some of my own career as a local public representative, so I have a healthy respect for the work they undertake and for the vocational education committees themselves. They have undertaken magnificent work over many generations and we will be talking to them now under the umbrella of the Green Paper about their future role which I have no doubt will be equally distinguished. If we included them on the list here it would spoil what is already a standard list in terms of univerisities, and would bring in those not directly involved on the floor of the college.
Apart from the very practical difficulty I have of delaying this legislation, I share the Senator's sentiments. It is not practical for me to include the provision at this stage. That is not in any way being dismissive. The vocational education committees have a very strong role in the future of the regional technical colleges. It is built into the legislation. They will argue that it is not as strong as it used to be. I accept that and I think they will accept that, on reflection. The reason is that we have all agreed that the boards of these colleges should have more autonomy and power. As I said many times, if we are to give more power to the boards, then by definition the Minister, the vocational education committees and, in other parts of the education system, the Churches have to give up that power and transfer some of it to the boards of the colleges. Otherwise, giving power to the college boards would just be a lip service. I do not disagree with the sentiment but at this late stage it would be impractical to make that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 5a not moved.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 6a are alternatives and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) to confer, grant or give diplomas, certificates or degrees including postgraduate degrees and honorary awards;".
We are keen that the colleges would have the right to confer degrees, certificates, diplomas and postgratuate and honorary degrees. As the Bill is drafted they do not have this right. They could only do so in association with the National Council for Educational Awards and with universities. It would be better if they had this right conferred on them.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 6a are slightly different. One amendment gives the power to grant degree awards and the other simply honorary awards in relation to the regional technical colleges. The power conferring degrees should be given to the Dublin Institute of Technology. There is no element of doubt about that. I also think it should be given to the regional technical colleges. We will now have an Institute of Technology and regional colleges. The status of the certification of wards given will determine, to a large extent, the importance of the college in terms of educational professionalism. If we provide only for diplomas and certificates, then we are lowering the status in the community, nationally, and internationally. If part of our role here is to assert the role of the regional colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology, it is incumbent on us to ensure that they are given due recognition in the areas traditionally covered in educational, scientific, industrial and commercial terms. We can only give them due recognition if we give them certification of a sufficiently high order.
Let us not forget that in these colleges there are many areas of specialist education which are not available elsewhere in the country. That in itself should be recognised. For example, environmental health is covered only in our colleges, not in the universities. We have construction studies only in our colleges. Architecture is shared, but there are areas that are specialist to our colleges and these should be recognised by right. The only way properly to recognise them is to allow for the granting of full degree status.
In relation to honorary awards, the status should be given to colleges to allow them to bestow an honorary award.
The amendment seeks to give colleges their own diploma, certificate and degree-awarding status. It is not practical at this stage to set up 11 new degree or diploma-awarding institutions at this stage. That would be very difficult to handle. The present arrangement is that the NCEA undertake these diploma, certificate and degree awards. That is working fairly well. The Green Paper proposes a long discussion on the future of the regional technical colleges and whether they evolve in doing their own work in that area.
I can ensure that the NCEA in awarding the degrees indicate clearly in the certificates or degrees the particular college from which the award comes. Perhaps they can give more prominence in their award to the college from which the student graduated. That might take account, from a visibility point of view, of the fact that the college itself has a legitimate role. The existing arrangements are fairly satisfactory there and we should see how they progress.
There are 11 such institutions now and if we allow all 11 to award degrees, certificates and diplomas, it would flood the place. The NCEA are trying to ensure a common standard and quality control and to proceed in such a way that all of the students who come out of these 11 institutions have reached a certain standard. There is a quality assurance in the NCEA aspect of it. We could discuss this down the road but not at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On a point of order, Senator Ryan has given me leave to move amendments on his behalf.
I move amendment No. 6a:
In page 5, between lines 24 and 25 to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) to confer, grant, or give certificates, diplomas and honorary awards.".
I ask the Minister to respond to this amendment. There are 11 colleges——
It is the same debate.
The National Certificate of Educational Awards still have to deal with the question of awards but we are talking about introducing degrees as well as diplomas and certificates.
I wonder whether we are confusing the issue with the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill which will be discussed later.
I would like to deal with the matter in some depth under that Bill.
We are withholding the degree awarding power from the Dublin Institute of Technology at this stage. I explained that in the Dáil and will do so here later. As regards the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, the National Certificate of Educational Awards currently have authority to award diplomas, certificates and degrees. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this stage to allow the 11 institutions to make all those awards; the National Certificate of Educational Awards should continue to do so for them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (1) (b), line 26, after "or" to insert "in Northern Ireland or".
We are anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland is included here because it would help to encourage greater co-operation between colleges here and in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The Bill states: "with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time". However, it might read better as: "in the State and in Northern Ireland or with any other authority". We would like to encourage more co-operation between colleges North and South.
I support the proposal made by Senator Raftery, which is in line with European conventions in this area. Senator Raftery might have included not just Northern Ireland, which may be a little emotive, but the European Community. All the discussions in this area at Council of Ministers level relate to interchange of staff and students, and there is a close connection between the courses in different education structures. There is no reason that our regional colleges could not have a working arrangement with third level colleges in, for instance, France, if that is appropriate. The Minister should take on board this amendment.
The Department have had to deal in the last couple of weeks with verification of degrees from colleges in Northern Ireland; this is an ongoing process and I have had meetings in this regard. This amendment proposes what is, in effect, a reality. If the Minister cannot take the amendment on board perhaps he would, on Report Stage, include the European Community as opposed to Northern Ireland. There is no reason Irish colleges cannot enter into arrangements with colleges in other countries. It would be very much in line with European thinking.
I support this amendment. The wording should be extended to include "with any third level institution in the State or in Northern Ireland", which would be more appropriate. There is a great deal of interaction between third level institutions here and in Northern Ireland, particularly in the area of technology. Links are being forged with institutions of the European Community. It would be a useful gesture to include in this section a provision linking this State with Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
Perhaps the section is worded rather ambiguously, but I am advised that it clearly permits linkages with universities or other institutions outside the State. The provision reads: "to enter into arrangements with the National Council for Education Awards, with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas or certificates awarded".
I want to clearly put on record that with ministerial agreement a college can enter into an arrangement with any university or other institution for these purposes. Legal people might argue with me about the wording, but my clear advice is that Northern Ireland is not excluded from this provision, neither is any other country or part of a country or state, provided there is ministerial agreement. Therefore it would be invidious to mention Northern Ireland while not mentioning other members of the European Community. I am clearly advised that that is the legal interpretation of the section as drafted.
I accept the Minister's explanation but we all know that for the Minister to tell us what the Bill means and to put it on the record of the House is worth nothing. If the matter is ever queried, it is not the record of the House that will be referred to but the legislation. The courts decide matters every day of the week according to legislation. The language in the Bill is clear. It states that a college may enter into any arrangement with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister. That means that universities outside the State are excluded. A simple way of dealing with this matter would be to accept the amendment or delete the words "with any university in the State". People involved will take the view that these words are inserted for a reason.
The colleges may make arrangements with any university in the State without ministerial agreement; if they wish to make arrangements with a body outside the State they must get ministerial agreement. If the Senator looks at the wording he will realise that that is the intention.
I accept that that meaning can be taken from the wording.
The Senator is a quick learner.
We accept the Minister's interpretation, but anybody reading the Bill would take our interpretation. I would like the wording to be more explicit. it is a pity we cannot go back to a previous Stage so that we could ensure that there could be a linkage between institutions here and institutions in Northern Ireland and internationally or in the European Community. An explicit assertion in that regard would be very valuable.
The intention behind this amendment is that there would be co-operation with universities throughout the Community, although we specifically mentioned Northern Ireland. In the interests of saving time, I will not press the amendment but I regret that the Minister cannot accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (1) (c), line 33, after "may" to insert "by order".
These three amendments relate to the fact that the Minister may determine to enter into arrangements with limited liability companies to exploit any research, consultancy or development work undertaken by colleges either separately or jointly. The conditions as stated here are to be laid down by the Minister alone.
This section is an important one. It determines the future thrust of the colleges, how they are going to operate, what functions they are going to take on, what liaisons they are going to make, who they are going to link up with, whether they will establish companies, what research they will engage in and what consultancy or developmental work they will take on. In other words, the future thrust of the regional colleges is encapsulated to a large extent in this section and because of its importance it should not be left to the decision of the Minister, but should also be done by order.
By order requires, if we take it with the second amendment, No. 11, a restructuring of section 5 (c) to include this section so that the Minister would have to put his decision before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In other words, the Oireachtas would be responsible for further changes in relation to the development of the colleges. Because of the importance of seeing how the colleges develop, it is proper and appropriate that this function should be taken away from the whim of the Minister and responsibility given to the Oireachtas.
I oppose this amendment and I ask the Senator to withdraw it. To me, this is democracy gone wild. We are talking here about giving autonomy. This section deals with arrangements for the National Council of Education Awards and with educational authorities for the purposes of having degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards conferred, granted or given. The idea that these decisions would have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas creates a new level of bureaucracy. I have been through this debate with so many third level colleges. They have to go through a sufficient number of hoops at the moment to get courses approved, sanctioned and validated and to put in another one would be absurd.
I thoroughly approve of the direction of Senator Costello's amendment No. 11 requiring that there would be an affirmative process for orders but I would prefer if that came in at the later stage of the Bill where the Minister uses the negative process within 21 days; I referred to that on Second Stage.
This section is simply the validation of arrangements for courses, degrees, diplomas and certificates. It does not refer to the future development of the colleges. If it did I would take Senator Costello's point but to me this section is simply an administrative function. Nothing is more frustrating for progressive members of departments of colleges when they come up with an idea for a course diploma or degree or whatever, than to have to sell it to their own department, then to the governing body of the college, to the NCA and now a further element is proposed in the form of the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is not in the best interests of the colleges and I cannot see how it might help their operation. Neither do I think that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas have the expertise, knowledge or experience to make decisions as to what are appropriate degree, diploma or certificate courses at third level colleges.
This section is not meant to be intrusive or to interfere in any way with legitimate research functions of institutions, nor is it aimed at including academic or proper professional research. May I say to Senators that throughout this Bill I have reduced the role of the Minister. I had a good meeting with the IVEA recently and indicated to them in a whole raft of sections throughout the entire Bill perhaps in a dozen areas that I had taken out the requirement for the permission and agreement of the Minister. The quid pro quo for that and the arrangement with the vocational education committees was that the vocational education committees also gave some authority to the boards of management. That arrangement between myself and the IVEA and the vocational education committees seemed to win favour.
I had kept the requirement in this section for a good reason which may derive from my experience in a previous portfolio in communications and transport. Section 5 (d) and (e) says: "including participation in limited liability companies." A campus company may engage in spectacular research or consultancy and get involved in international business. Suddenly there may be a spectacular collapse and, if so, the Minister will quickly be hauled before both Houses and asked what kind of procedures existed to ensure that taxpayers' money was not lost and what control did he have over subsidiary companies of universities and regional technical colleges. It would be legitimate for the Dáil and Seanad to ask a Minister to explain that and they would not be satisfied if the Minister of the day said that authority had been left completely with the governing body.
One could not give a college governing body absolute power to decide on the exposure of taxpayers' money in such circumstances. The requirement for the Minister's permission is retained to cover that area and the main aim of those sections is not to interfere with the colleges but to protect the taxpayers.
It is not necessary to do it by order and that would be cumbersome. If in the middle of the summer one of the regional technical colleges had a major project for a couple of million pounds and wanted to get clearance on it. It might be quicker for the Minister to give the clearance; laying the order before the Houses would slow down that process considerably. My intention is to keep an eye on taxpayers' funds in the unlikely event that a well meaning ambitious campus company might lose the run of itself and cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.
It is not a heavy-handed provision but an insurance fallback. We have had experience in semi-State companies of subsidiary companies without proper reporting mechanisms. I agree with Senator O'Toole that the requirement for an order here would be a little bureaucratic.
It is a pity Senator O'Toole is not here. We will repeat that when he comes in. I disagree with him because in these amendments, I deliberately left out matters he referred to such as courses, diplomas and certificates. I am not asking for any of those to be covered by these two amendments. I was referring to other developmental areas which involve contacts with companies, sponsorship, with the business community, with matters somewhat divorced from mainline education.
The major function of the regional colleges is to educate in areas of technical professionalism, towards certification by diplomas, certificates and, I hope, by degrees in the future. I know the Minister has said that we must achieve a balance in this and not insist that every little project must be put before the Oireachtas. A situation may arise whereby regional technical colleges may become a cheap area of research and development, where business can sponsor a project and where a greater proportion of the activities of the college may be outside the mainline function of the college. In stringent times a Minister might decide that a college can get by by linking up with the business world, getting sponsorship for its courses from the construction or architectural industry or any of the commercial areas so that they will be funded essentially by private interests. A college may become unduly influenced by economic linkage that might take place with the business community. I am concerned about that and not with influencing the courses or the certification. My amendment does not refer to that section, which is section 5 (a) in the Bill.
I take on board what the Minister has said but there is need for further protection against colleges being funded by the private sector rather than the public sector where funds are Exchequer short in stringent times.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 37 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, lines 28 to 30, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following new subsection:
"(2) (a) The governing body of a college shall consist of 18 members (including the Director) one of whom (other than the Director) shall be elected to be chairman.
(b) The members of the governing body other than the chairman and the Director are referred to in this Act as ordinary members.".
We would like to change the governing body from 17 to 18 members. The chairperson would be elected from among the 18 people in question. In other words, the governing body and not the Minister would appoint the chairperson.
This amendment deals with the question of appointing the chairperson of the board. I defended this vigorously in the Dáil on the basis that of a governing body of 19, the Minister would have one direct appointment only which in this case is the chairman. The governing body would appoint the director who would be a key figure. I felt that my stipulation was not unreasonable because, apart from being important regional institutions, these colleges are also national institutions and it is important to have a wide choice of chairperson.
There is nothing in this legislation to rule out the Minister deciding to appoint an existing member of the governing body as chairperson and any Minister would have to give that serious consideration. A change in numbers to facilitate that is not necessary. The real issue is whether the chairperson is elected or the Minister makes the appointment. It is one person out of 19 and the existing provision reflects the national role of these colleges as well as their regional role. It is not unreasonable, nor is it an attempt on my part to put a ministerial hand on the colleges or to make them subject to political type appointments.
Of the 19 members, the vocational education committee will have six appointments and there will be five other organisations on the nomination of the vocational education committee so the vocational education committee will be strongly represented on the governing body. The only other role is an internal role for the staff and students. The director is appointed by the governing body and will be a key figure in the day to day running of the college. It is not unreasonable for national government responsible for providing the European and national funds for the colleges to have one representative, albeit the chairperson.
The Government are responsible for the NUI and its colleges and also for the funding of Trinity College, yet the Government do not appoint the chairpersons of these institutions.
Not yet.
Is that a threat or a promise? People working together on a governing body would have a better idea of who they might work properly with as chairperson than the Minister in his office in Dublin. We had an example recently of a board finding itself unable to work with a director appointed by the Minister. We would not like a series of those crises in colleges; we have enough of other problems without that. I suggest that it would not take much from the Minister to leave it to the board to elect one of its number as chairperson. I am not going to press the question of numbers but I will press the question of leaving it to the board to elect its own chairperson.
All appointments so far of the governing body are to be made by the Minister; the Minister has a hand in all of the appointments. First, the Minister makes the appointment of the ordinary members of the governing body with the recommendations of the vocational education committee, then approves the appointment of the director and now the Minister appoints the chairperson. So, it is the Minister plus the other two on one hand and then the top person is chosen by the Minister. The chairperson if so chosen will be seen as the Minister's person within the governing body, an infiltrator, surreptitiously representing the hand of the Minister. The proposal is unnecessary.
Senator Raftery referred to some of the problems we have had by bringing outsiders into semi-State bodies. In education terms, the Minister has had his hand on all the people who will constitute the governing body; that is the 17 ordinary members and the director and it seems unreasonable that a total outsider might be appointed as chairperson by the Minister without any role for the governing body or the vocational education committee in the matter.
The Minister should consider that the chairperson would be elected by the existing ordinary members and that it would be preferable to have the chairperson elected by his peers.
The Minister is fond of saying one cannot have it both ways; this is a clear example of where he cannot have it both ways. He cannot say one thing about the general principle of distancing himself from the board and, at the same time, run with this proposal. I also want to make a distinction between the appointment of a chairperson and ministerial appointees to the board. To say that instead of having ministerial appointees to the board that there is one appointee who has to be chairperson is not good enough. This will create an anomaly in the education system.
The Minister spoke eloquently about the need for educational structures to elect their own chairpersons and he is at the point of insisting that that takes place at primary level. It is also going to happen at post-primary level. The vocational education committees operate in that way. These colleges will be the only educational bodies I am aware of where the chairperson will be imposed.
Can the Minister explain how he is moving in one direction at primary level where the board elect their chairperson, how we operate a similar system at second level where the vocational education committees elect their chairperson, while at third level it is done by ministerial appointment? Why does the heavy hand of the Minister drop on this group and is it on this group only?
I am glad to brief Senator O'Toole regularly on these matters to keep him up to date. Senator Costello referred to ministerial involvement in the appointments. There are 19 on the governing body. Six are appointed by the vocational education committee. The Minister has no discretion but to accept those 19, save in extreme circumstances——
That is not clear from the Bill.
——Where the Minister could reject a nominee. There is good reason for this. I put in a section to make sure of a proper gender balance on these boards. I told the Dáil that I, and I am sure any successor of mine, would return the list to the various groups if it did not endeavour to have gender balance. The Minister would have no say in the name of the person appointed under these headings.
Two students will be appointed; the Minister will have no say in their appointment. The Minister will have no say in the appointment of a person from the ICTU. Two from the academic staff — the Minister would not pick the academic staff. One from the non-academic staff — no Minister would get involved in that. Of the entire 19 members and the five organisations, the vocational education committees will decide if it is a local organisation and the local organisation will select a person. The complete list goes on to the Minister to be rubber stamped from an overall national point of view.
I cannot see any of those organisations permitting any Minister to dictate to them who they should apoint to the governing body. I reject the notion that the Minister has anything other than reserve powers and a rubber stamping role in the appointment of the 19 members.
You may be a benign Minister but other Ministers may not interpret it similarly.
I could not see the vocational education committees, the staff, the students, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or the selected organisations letting any Minister tell them who they should appoint when they have the statutory duty to select the person themselves. Save in the case of a national argument about policy, that reserve power would not be used and on the question of gender balance it is necessary to reserve power of refusal. I hold to my line that the national representation is still one out of 19, even though I accept it is an important appointment.
It may be possible, for example, occasionally to locate a major international educational figure who may be available because these are not only local and regional colleges; they are also national colleges. Thus, it may be appropriate from time to time to appoint a chairperson of international stature who may be available to the Government or to the Minister of the day.
Senator O'Toole said that this did not happen anywhere else. Under legislation the chairperson of Dublin City University, and of University College, Limerick is appointed by the Minister. Both of those are fine third level institutions with excellent presidents. The two chairpersons have shown wonderful leadership, so much so that they have attracted substantial private funding and the stature of the colleges has grown dramatically and rapidly. Nobody would dispute the meteoric rise in stature of University College, Limerick and Dublin City University much of which is due to the national view of matters taken by their chairpersons who have led those universities forward. I have the same hope and express the same wish for our regional technical colleges or whatever we eventually decide to call them.
I challenge Senator O'Toole's allegation that my philosophy is being contradicted here. It is not the same thing. A primary school or a secondary school is a local institution and it is legitimate to elect a chairperson in a local situation. These are national institutions, and for the national authority to have one, albeit an important nomination out of a total of 19 is entirely reasonable.
It is important for us as national representatives not to take the view that democracy is the preserve of local democrats. People are elected to the Dáil, to the Seanad and some become Ministers through the democratic process, but when they try to exercise that democratic process, they are told that it is not democratic to do so. This is the form of democracy we know; it is the one we built. Why is it democratic for a vocational education committee to make an appointment and not for the Government of the day? I argue here, as I have done in the other House, that it is democratic for the national Government to have a legitimate voice in the progress of these 11 fine colleges. In time to come that small national input into regional colleges will have the effect of enhancing their stature. They have done well in the past and I wish them well in the future.
We have had a satisfactory experience of electing our own chairpersons in the colleges of the NUI and Trinity College. I am not denying that Limerick University has made great progress. I am not as familiar with Dublin City University but I take it from the Minister that it is going well and I am glad to hear that.
I will go back to the basic argument that people in the education business would probably be better at selecting a person who would know the requirements of education and with whom they could work. These two new universities may have been lucky but we know, as the Minister knows, of a recent case where an institution did not have such luck with the chairperson appointed by a Minister. I am not sure what went wrong there. I respectfully suggest that we are not going down the right road by having Ministerial appointments of chairpersons in these colleges. In the traditional universities, and certainly in the college I work for, the Minister has a number of appointments but not that of chairperson.
The situation the Minister described of somebody from outside coming in is the exception rather than the rule. The danger is that the person brought in by a Minister from time to time — we do not know what is going to happen between Ministerial appointments — may be removed by him at any time. There is no specified term of office. A new Minister may interfere by appointing a new chairman. The danger is that someone who is an unknown quantity may be brought in from a totally different area with no previous contact with the regional college in question. They may have experience of education but may not be knowledgeable about the needs of the area. That could cause problems. It was pointed out that in the past week the chairman of a certain body was asked to step down by the Minister because that person had lost the confidence of the board. What happens if a person appointed by the Minister loses the confidence of the governing body? Can they ask the Minister to remove that person? That is not referred to in the legislation. How do they operate if the chairperson is not in accord with the way they see the college being governed?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 6, subsection (4) (a), line 43, to delete "three" and substitute "five".
This is simply a matter of changing numbers. I have nothing further to add.
The Senator is trying to provide that at least five of the vocational education committee nominees would be members of local authorities. The provision, as it stands in the Bill, is that at least three of the vocational education committee members should be members of local authorities. The Senator wants to increase that number to five. I think it is unnecessary because the present wording does not preclude all of the nominees being local authority members. It is for the vocational education committee to decide because the wording in the Bill says "at least three". If they want to make it more that would be their prerogative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, subsection 4 (g), line 21, to delete "five" and substitute "three".
On Second Stage we suggested the governing body should comprise members of the academic staff council, members of staff, registered students, graduates, etc. but the Minister refused to give a voice to the college graduates, which seems illogical. The people who have come through the college, have gone out into the marketplace and know what is required and they can provide a direct link between the college and the workplace.
In the traditional universities the normal practice is that there would be an election by the college graduates in whatever form the governing body decided. This is what happens in UCC, UCD, UCG and in Trinity College, as far as I know. The college graduates, people who know what is happening in the real world, and are part of it could provide a direct link from the workplace to the governing body and would bring their expertise, knowledge and experience to it. This is an important amendment.
Amendment No. 17 suggests a reduction from five to three in the size of the governing body. Even having 18 members on the board makes it unwieldly. I have a very simple argument; the graduates, having come through the college, seen how it worked, gone into the workplace, can surely bring something of immense value to the college. That is the way it works in other third level institutions. I do not understand why it was not included in this one also.
Acting Chairman
I want to point out to the House that we are discussing amendment Nos. 17 and 18 together. Amendment No. 18 is in the name of Senator Brendan Ryan and Senator O'Toole.
I appreciate the concern of the two Independent NUI Senators to ensure that there is graduate representation on the governing body. The section as it stands makes allowance for that. Perhaps a more suitable course would have been to amend the list of organisations where the section reads: "such organisations shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, professions" by the addition of the words "and graduates of the college". The five persons included in paragraph (g) would then be nominated from such organisations by the vocational education committee. Otherwise, we are talking about a very cumbersome exercise, as outlined in amendment 18, which I think is unworkable.
While I agree with the sentiments, I am sure that in whatever documentation the Minister will send to the vocational education committees, when they get down to considering organisations that would be represented, graduates could be mentioned. I would not be in favour of the amendments as they stand.
I am probably the only person here who has had experience of working on a governing body, on the NUI and on the Higher Education Authority. It is very useful for a college to be able to call on some of its graduates. A much larger number were elected by our graduates than is proposed by Senator O'Toole in this amendment. They have always been excellent contributors, coming from various backgrounds — teaching, the engineering profession, commerce, law and so on. This is a very worthwhile proposal and I am happy to support it.
That is not what the amendment says. The amendment says that two persons shall be elected by the college, it does not say that two graduates shall be elected. That is why I say Senator O'Toole is very far seeing. He is obviously laying the ground work for his future electorate.
I do not understand the point being made. This is the formula of words used in UCC, UCG and UCD. For instance, in UCD six people are elected in that way. I have no vested interest. These people are not my voters nor are they my members. I have no connection with them, although I think they should have votes to these benches as well. I would be open to that suggestion. This formula has always been used in the other colleges and it was the graduates of the university who were elected. It is a very clear, straightforward, neat reference. I do not see the Minister's point, perhaps he sees something from a Fianna Fáil perspective which I do not.
I think what the Senator is referring to is that, in the event of future constitutional changes extending the franchise in certain areas, Senator O'Toole might have his eye on that area. That is between the Senators.
I can assure the Minister I would be looking at all those things.
I have sympathy with the notion that graduates should have a say in the future of their colleges but I cannot accept the amendment because there are already 19 members on the board.
It is more important at this stage to realise that these are not universities. We do not know what will happen in the future or how they will evolve, but they are not universities. There is a danger, given the university background of many Senators, that we might start thinking of them as universities and comparing what they do with what is done in UCC or UCG. There is a need to include the professions, local commercial and agricultural organisations, industry, tourism, etc. on the governing bodies. It is more important at this stage to have that spread than to include the graduates, even though they also have a legitimate role to play. I do not think that we can fit them onto the boards given the spread we need to cover the other organisations.
I am not sure about the logistics at this stage either, whether it would be possible to organise an election of graduates at an early date. I think that might be difficult. Incidentally, I am told graduates are not represented on the governing bodies of the University of Limerick or Dublin City University.
I have sympathy with the amendment. As a graduate of two universities, I enjoy my voting franchise when it comes to electing my representatives and anyone who graduates from a college, university or regional technical college, will always have a legitimate interest in the health and the welfare of that college. I have to reject the amendment, however, because we have the governing bodies proposed and all the legitimate interests are very finely balanced. It is something we could consider in the future but right now it would upset the balance that has been very hard fought for and negotiated.
Acting Chairman
Is amendment No. 17 being pressed?
I am not going to press it to a vote but I would like to register disagreement with the Minister. Graduates have a legitimate interest in having a say in governing bodies. It would be easier for these colleges than for the traditional universities to operate this system because they have graduate lists. I do not wish to create dissent on the issue but I believe this facility should be avoided. I will be looking out for my own future, but even I do not look 30 years ahead. I do not see how anything in what I proposed that would copperfasten my position or get me any extra support.
Mention was made of the titles of these institutions. Whether universities change in the direction of these colleges or vice versa, there will be a convergence of third level courses in the future; the colleges are likely to change their names to universities at some stage.
I am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to involve the graduates but I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 7, subsection (5), line 31, after "represented" to insert "in each individual group elected or nominated as members to the governing body under the relevant subsections". This is not my amendment; it is obviously of more concern to Senator Jackman. She is asking for the appropriate gender balance in each individual group elected or nominated as members of the governing body under the relevant subsections.
I do not know whether this is feasible, but I would be more concerned with having an appropriate balance in the entire body. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment.
Section 6 (5) states:
In making appointments to a governing body pursuant to subsection (4) of this section the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which each sex is represented and shall ensure an appropriate gender balance as determined by the Minister from time to time.
To my knowledge, that is the first time legislation has imposed on the Minister a statutory duty to ensure gender balance on any board in the State. That is a major step forward. I insisted on that because that is a more practical way to handle the issue. I argued also in the Dáil that to lay down that each individual group should have gender balance is too restrictive. For example, I doubt if, even technically, I could accept the amendment because what would one do about the one representative from the ICTU?
You would have to have a hermaphrodite.
What I am suggesting is in agreement with the Senator, but this is a more practical way to achieve it. The Minister can send back the entire list if necessary. I told the Dáil that if, in my time as Minister, a list is send in which does not have that gender balance I will send it back. I imagine, given the statutory duty, the Minister would have to send back such a list and insist on a list which had a appropriate gender balance. This will be a major step forward.
As we have been critical of the Minister today, I would like to say we welcome this very worthwhile innovation. The amendment poses some logistical problems to say the least. The statements in relation to gender equity and equality of opportunity are most welcome in this legislation.
I was amused by the problems of implementation. As a member of the Executive Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I wonder where we are going to get the androgynous person, the hermaphrodite, who is properly gender balanced to represent us? The provision in the Bill is a very welcome innovation. When we discuss the section, I will be asking why this provision was not carried through the Bill.
I am happy with the provision as drafted. As the Minister said, this is the first time it has been written into legislation that there should be a gender balance in toto.
The amendment, as drafted by Senator Jackman, is probably unworkable for the reason Senator O'Toole mentioned, so I am happy to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 7, subsection (6), between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) If a member of a governing body is absent from all meetings of the governing body for a period of six consecutive months he/she shall, unless his/her absence was due to illness or was approved by the governing body be disqualified at the expiration of such period from continuing to be a member os such body for the remainder of his/her term of office.".
I am not sure about the wording of this amendment. I thought the period I had included was four consecutive months. This would be the appropriate place in the Bill for an amendment reducing the allowable period of absence, although there is a reference to members of the governing body in the Second Schedule. The period of time could be shorter because, if somebody can be absent for a period of six consecutive months without any penalty he or she can be absent for most of the year, and each term of office of a member is only 12 months. We should choose for the governing body people who have already indicated a commitment to the educational work for which they are nominated or selected.
We have taken that fully on board, almost word for word, in the Second Schedule. The only difference between us is that the Senator would like to put the provision into the main body of the Bill whereas I would put it into the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule is part of the Bill and has the same legal effect. We could argue about where it is tidier and more appropriate but I am satisfied that it can be implemented and will stand up.
In case we do not reach the section in the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, would the Minister care to reply at this stage to the suggestion of a reduction of the period from six months to four in that case?
Acting Chairman
I do not consider that relevant at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I have welcomed already the Minister's commitment to gender equity and gender balance, as outlined in various cases through the section. On the day when the World Summit on Women is taking place in this city, it is totally unacceptable that once again we enshrine in legislation the term "chairman". That is offensive and unacceptable and it is out of character with the philosophy outlined by the Minister in his references to gender balance and gender equity.
I am aware that later on in the legislation it is stated that the governing body may decide what it is appropriate to call the person who chairs the meetings. The Minister is giving the authority to the governing body to refer to the person who chairs the meetings by such title as is appropriate or they consider appropriate. That is simply passing the buck. The Minister is just refusing to grasp the nettle. He is taking the word of the draftsperson in a way that is unacceptable. I am going to hang this around the Minister's neck if he tells me that the Interpretation Act does not allow him to change the word "chairman". I will certainly quote that back to him ad nauseam when this comes up. If the Minister says he is sorry, he cannot delete the word “chairman” because the Interpretation Act contains that word, I would regard that a very poor response indeed.
I do not want to hear about the many fine women who wanted to be called "madam chairperson", who did not like to be called "chairperson", or who wanted to be called "chairman". That is fine. That is up to them. I am not talking about those successful people who worked the system and came through it. I am talking about creating role models, both in written form and in real form. By common consensus, the people advising governments and Departments in the area of gender balance and gender equity are opposed to the use of the word "chairman". In the Minister's response perhaps he would indicate to me one advisory committee of Government on the gender area, who will support the use of the term "chairman". No such committee exists and if the fuddy-duddy draftspersons cannot get around that, it is time somebody grasped the nettle.
This is an anachronism. One part of this section refers to gender balance and gender equity and in another part of the same section we have enshrined in legislation the term "chairman" which is an outmoded, out-of-date term.
I want to be clear on this. Words mean different things at different stages of history. This is not just an attempt to make words mean something else. We are talking about role models and acceptable language. This terminology is unacceptable to any of the groups who work or advise in this area and it is no longer relevant to 1992.
I agree with my colleague Senator O'Toole and remind the Minister that we managed to solve his problem in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, to the satisfaction of the Minister for State at the Department of the Environment, where we did not use a term that would be offensive for the chair of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Let us reverse roles. Imagine how all the men here who have chaired meetings of local authorities would feel if they were addressed at every meeting as "chairwoman". Imagine how uncomfortable they would feel, and how peculiar the term would sound to them. Yet, somehow, all-male establishments, dominated by all-male thinking, can assume that because the term has grown into currency to encompass women it is acceptable. It is a profoundly offensive use of language. Our language is riddled with profoundly offensive terminology. The place to start to deal with this is the place where language is given its most precise meaning, which is in legislation, where words are supposed to have a very precise meaning, where terminology is supposed to have some precision.
We are not involved with creative literature here although sometimes when one reads some of the subsections that parliamentary draftspeople put together one would be inclined to think it was more creative literature than serious legislation. It is supposed to mean precisely what we want it to mean. If we put the term "chairman" in legislation, what we are saying is the norm is "man" but we will allow it to encompass those who are not the norm. The only way to reestablish a norm of gender equality is to cease using a term which is increasingly offensive and which is rarely used at any of the meetings of various bodies I have occasion to attend from time to time. Practically the only place it seems to be left current and untouched is in politics and it is time we got rid of it.
I strongly agree with this amendment. In this House we have the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach and in the other House there is the Ceann Comhairle. We avoid the problem quite nicely and we have done so for a long time. I do not see why we could not do likewise in the Bill and introduce the term "Cathaoirleach" if we want to find a neutral term. We must address the point that it gives offence to have "chairman" as the only term specified in the legislation, irrespective of the gender of the person who will occupy the position.
In the Electoral Bill, which we were discussing here last week, we found other offensive terms which the Minister concerned agreed to delete from the Bill. For example, the description of people as being of unsound mind, imbeciles and illiterate has been removed from legislation because it was seen as insensitive to the people so described. In this case, we are on the one hand applauding the Minister for introducing the concept of gender equity this legislation and, on the other, the term "chairman" operates throughout.
Nobody supports the view the Minister expressed. Most women's organisations have expressed the preference for a neutral term or that there would not be a term associated with one gender. The Minister should take that suggestion on board. It would be a useful addendum to this Bill.
I have no difficulty with the sentiments expressed but I have technical difficulties I think ensuring that there is gender equity in the composition of the governing body is more urgent and we have undertaken to do that in section 6 (5). I thank the Senators for their support. As I said, this is the first time a statutory duty has been imposed on a Minister to ensure gender balance and gender equity on the boards of governing bodies.
Senators will be aware that the Green Paper on education has a very substantial section and a six point programme, which I have proposed for discussion, to achieve gender balance and gender equity throughout the education system. This is urgently needed and very important.
I refer Senators to the Second Schedule which permits every governing body to call the person who chairs the board by such title as the governing body may determine. What we can do is advise every regional technical college that they should take that section seriously and decide what they want to call the person who chairs their governing body; as I said, the legislation provides for the governing body to decide what to call that person but that does not go as far as Senators want. The use of the word "chairman" in the legislation is standard parliamentary drafting.
It is not.
This needs to be tackled at some juncture. Having these two items in this Bill — the Second Schedule covers the point of the regional technical colleges having the authority to decide the title themselves — and the gender equity section is a step in the right direction. I have never given Senator O'Toole a veto on what I say and I do not intend to do so today.
Many a lawyer has argued what the Interpretation Act, 1937, means. I am advised that it covers and affects all legislation enacted since then. I said in the Dáil that I would welcome it if we were to amend that Act. I have said that to my colleagues and I will continue to put that view forward. I am not against what the Senator wants to do. However. I have a technical problem with the amendment. We could not just amend section 13; we would have to amend the legislation right across the board.
I am not sure if women are agreed on what they want to be called, chairpersons, chair, cathaoirleach or chairman. I put forward very strong proposals on gender equity in the Green Paper and I anticipated the Green Paper by puting a gender equity section into this legislation. This might be the vehicle to discuss that matter and decide how to proceed in future legislation. Once this Bill is passed, the governing bodies can proceed to call the person who chairs the board by any title they wish. That is the essence of autonomy.
I listened to the Minister and I have been open in accepting the points he put forward. The Minister mentioned the Interpretation Act. I proposed a similar amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and it was accepted; it is in legislation. Therefore, the Minister cannot say there are problems with the Interpretation Act. I do not care what advice the Minister is getting, the word "chairman" has been excluded and replaced by "chairperson" in other legislation.
It is true that there is no consensus as to what word should be used but there is consensus that the word "chairman" should not be used. I ask the Minister to indicate any group who support the use of the term "chairman". It is completely wrong.
The Department of Education paid for and supported a committee which looked at sexism and sex stereotyping in school textbooks. They would not approve of the stereotype language enshrined in legislation. It cannot be supported. We could ask, what is in a name? What is in a word? I once held the view that "chairman" could mean man or women, but my views have since changed.
On my first trip to the Labour Court a number of years ago I referred to the chairman as chairperson. He said: "Excuse me, Mr. O'Toole, I would like to point out that I am not cathaoirleach, I am not chairperson, I am chairman. That is my title under the Act." Every time I go there I have to refer to the person as "chairman" and it sticks in my gut. In my view this wording is unacceptable and wrong by any standards and we should be progressive and change it.
I will give that very serious consideration in future legislation. I would be interested in proceeding in that direction, but on this Bill and on this day, given my timescale and other logistics I cannot accept it.
One of the logistics mentioned by the Minister was the Green Paper. He said this would be a more appropriate forum to deal with it as there is reference to gender equity in the Green Paper. We must point out that, to an extent, we have put the cart before the horse in presenting substantial education legislation before we have had an opportunity to debate the Green Paper.
We should give example in this area. We can set up bodies to look into the question of gender discrimination and the need to ensure that structures are in place for gender equity. We are legislators; we can enshrine the full range of gender equity in legislation and this would be an appropriate forum for doing so. The real reason we cannot amend the legislation is that the Dáil rises today and there is no way the Dáil will sit next week to approve an amendment made by this House. In other words, we are debating in a vacuum on this and other issues.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators O'Toole and B. Ryan.
Question declared carried.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 8, subsection (1) (b), line 23, after "order" to insert "of the vocational education committee".
Here I propose to strengthen the position of the vocational education committee in relation to the governing body vis-á-vis the Minister. If the governing body wilfully neglects to comply with any order, direction or regulation of the Minister he can take action against the body and arrange for its dissolution. I want to include any order of the vocational education committee and in the second amendment that the Minister may not just in consultation with the vocational education committee but on the recommendations of the vocational education committee dissolve the governing body. The amendments strengthen the role of the vocational education committee in this area.
In relation to complying with an order of the vocational education committee as well as a direction or regulation of the Minister, there are sufficient powers given to the vocational education committee in the Bill. For example, there are powers in relation to the various programmes, activities and budget of the regional colleges. If in these important areas, the governing body does not conform with the wishes of the vocational education committee which is specifically responsible in relation to the colleges' budgets, activities and programmes, that would be a reason for sanction. I ask the Minister to consider writing into the legislation those specific requirements so that the vocational education committees role will not be neglected.
The amendment would provide that a governing body would be dissolved by the Minister on the recommendation of the vocational education committee, which I take to mean only on the recommendation of the vocational education committee. That would mean that the Minister would not have the authority to dissolve the governing body and, in effect, whether a governing body was dissolved would lie solely in the hands of the vocational education committee.
Amendment No. 21 would provide for dissolution if an order of the vocational education committee was not complied with. There are technical difficulties with that because there is no provision in the Bill for the vocational education committee to make an order in relation to a governing body. If there is nothing in the Bill which says the vocational education committee can make an order, then I cannot put something into it which would provide for something to happen in the event of such an order being ignored. I cannot accept that as it would be technically impossible.
In regard to the recommendation of the vocational education committee, the dissolution of a governing body is an extremely serious matter. As I said earlier, given that these are national as well as local institutions, I could not accept a situation where only the vocational education committee would be in a position to decide whether a governing body should be completely dismissed. It would be a very rare occurrence and a very serious matter. Given the seriousness of it and the national implications of dismissing an entire governing body, it is more appropriate that it should rest with the Minister of the day. For that reason, I would not be disposed to accepting the amendments.
I cannot argue about the amendment. I read the Bill a couple of times but if the Minister says there is no provision in it for the vocational education committee to give a direction, I accept that. His unwillingness to accept a process whereby a vocational education committee, which is a local body, would come to a conclusion and then recommend to the Minister to implement that conclusion, is a classic example of excessive centralisation. If the problem is serious and fundamental enough to justify the dissolution of a governing body, it ought to be possible for a vocational education committee to come to that conclusion.
What the Minister is effectively saying is that he does not believe he could trust the local vocational education committee to do what was necessary in the national interest or in the interests of education in the area and that he has to keep that power to himself. Implicit in that is a presumption of superior knowledge at the centre over that in the locality which is, of course, the classic curse of centralisation — the presumption that there is an extra level of expertise at national level that does not exist locally.
I know in the case of the regional technical college I work in that if there were such a serious issue the vocational education committee in Cork and the chief executive officer would be more capable of identifying the problem than the Department of Education. I do not believe that there is such a reservoir of knowledge and expertise at the centre as to be able to make better, and more coherent intelligent judgments about Letterkenny regional technical college, Cork regional technical college, or Tralee regional technical college than could be made by the competent local body, the vocational education committee with the advice of the local chief executive officer. That is why it is right to sustain the local decision-making structure, and to bypass it is effectively to say that some sort of expertise exists at the centre that is better than exists locally. That is not true.
The curse of this country is this presumption that centralised authority knows better than localised authority. There is no reason to believe that. There is nothing from the experience of the State to suggest that any of the big Departments know better. The local bodies may not meet everybody's criteria of efficiency but they are no less efficient than centralised authority. They are just as likely to come to the right conclusions as centralised authority.
The vocational education committee ought to be the body to do the detailed investigation and to make recommendations. This proposal, though it was not the intention, is a classic example of centralising. Interestingly enough, it seems to go against the spirit of a lot of what is in the Green Paper about devolution. The vocational education committee could do the job and recommend to the Minister, who could then carry out the recommendation if he wished, but here the Minister is saying that he or his officials know better than the local vocational education committee. In most cases that would be quite untrue.
To dissolve a governing body would be a very serious matter. It is an unlikely event in any case, but it is important that the structure would be there to address such a situation. The question of the involvement of more than one vocational education committee and some governing bodies is something that has to be considered. The most fundamental point of all is that the vocational education committee would have the largest representation on the governing body. It is highly unlikely that the vocational education committee would take a decision to effectively dissolve itself or dissolve the majority representation it would have on the governing body. There is a fundamental point here. We have to be conscious of the fact that it will not be an everyday occurrence. I hope a governing body of any of these institutions will never have to be dissolved. We have to appreciate the representation the vocational education committee have on a governing body and how it would work in the event of the dissolution of a governing body.
The Senator put it well. It is a practical problem. The vocational education committee would be asked to take a decision to dissolve a governing body on which they have six out of the 19 directly elected members and a further five nominated by nominating the organisations, that is, 11 directly and indirectly. No vocational education committee will dissolve itself, as Senator Finneran put it. The Senator is talking about a situation which is simply not acceptable; we would be asking the people who arguably are part of the problem to also be part of the solution. It is not practical and that is why somebody else has to take the decision to dispose of the entire governing body. Otherwise it is a self-policing system and it would not work in practice. It would be meaningless.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 3 and 4, to delete "appointed by the governing body".
We want to delete the word "appointed" as far as the academic council is concerned. My experience in my college, and it is the same in other colleges of the NUI, is that certain members of the academic council are ex officio members who are appointed to a certain post in college. The remaining members are elected by the ex officio members. Given the wording that is here, we could not have the elections if the governing body is to appoint the academic council. I would like to see the word “appointed” withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to delete the word "membership" and substitute "number of members". I do not feel very strongly about that, and I will leave it at that.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to delete "majority of". If we had "the members shall be holders of academic appointments within the college and at least one shall be a registered student of the college", I am afraid that would be contradictory, because I see a problem if we delete the word "majority". I had better withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 26 seeks after "college" to insert "elected by the academic staff". I could support this amendment. I will press for this amendment to be accepted because it would be covered by the majority.
Amendment No. 27, seeks in line 13, subsection 9, after "college" to insert "and elected by the student body". The student representative would not be appointed by the Minister or by the governing body but would be elected by the student body.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to ensure that the remaining members would be nominated by the governing body.
These amendments basically, are trying to give more democracy within the college and less dictation by the governing body as far as the composition of the academic council is concerned.
I hope that the appointment in section 10 (1) by the governing body does not contradict the idea of a selection procedure taking place; in other words, that the appointment only is made by the governing body but that the various categories can elect their representative. For example, a registered student would be selected by the student body. Whatever regulations were made there would be provision for a democratic election process rather than simply having the academic council make a unilateral decision in relation to all the members and all the categories representing the academic council. Can the Minister clarify the matter?
It is likely that certain academics would be ex officio members of the academic council and it is also important that different levels of organisational management within the institution be represented on the governing body or the academic council. Therefore, it is necessary to have some sort of weighted representation. Until Senator Raftery drew it to my attention, it had never crossed my mind that the governing body would pick those members of the academic staff and the student they deemed to be the appropriate representation to go on the academic council. The Minister should clarify that he does envisage some kind of election procedure to give representation to the academic staff and the student body. It is important not just to have academic staff on the academic council but to make sure that at least some of those who are on the council have a representative capacity. The student representative on the academic council should not be some sort of dog's-body nominated because the governing body approve of him or her. That person should be elected by the students to represent them.
With regard to student representation on governing bodies, the position is now that the students elect the president of the students' council and that person is then nominated by the Government. That is my experience, gained from working on the governing body of University College, Cork. That is quite acceptable to me but it would not be acceptable to me if the governing body or any body other than the students were to pick some student for representation on the academic council or governing body. Some members may have to be appointed by the governing body but if the Minister could give an assurance that at least a proportion of them would be elected by the staff and by the student body I would be happy not to press the amendments.
The section states that each college shall have an academic council appointed by the governing body and that each governing body may, by regulations made under the section, provide for the membership and terms of office of the academic council. In the case of the student representative, in particular, if the governing body wanted to make regulations as to the way in which that student were to be selected they would certainly be able to do so. If they wanted to provide for some electoral process for the students that could be done.
I am interested in what Senator Raftery had to say about the NUI. As I understand the charter of the NUI, the academic council is comprised of the president and the professors of the college, with lecturers co-opted by the president and the professors. It is more of an assimilation system than one of open election. By and large, the procedure involves academic staff who are responsible for the quality of the education in the establishment generally rather than being a system of elections in the traditional sense.
The academic council are not meant to be an alternative power centre within the institution. The governing body are a highly representative and highly democratic body and to instal immediately under them a similar institution and to provide for elections to that institution would be a recipe for disaster. The alternative power centre might be tucked in immediately under the main power centre, as it were. That type of language is probably not entirely appropriate to regional technical colleges but the message is clear. The role of the academic council is to protect the quality of the education in the establishment. I would have total faith in a governing body who decide that certain members of their academic staff have a special role to play because of academic expertise, knowledge and experience and that it is not really appropriate for a college to throw itself open to pamphleteering, canvassing and elections in the traditional sense. I do not think that is appropriate at that level of education. It could be very awkward for the governing body if an openly elected academic council were to take a particular view of education that came into direct conflict with that of the governing body. If Members reflect on the issue, they may realise that what we are aiming for is simply a quality control council, not an elected body with some kind of statutory power.
I am not suggesting that everybody and anybody from the college would be on the academic council. What I am suggesting is that in the university system some members are members ex officio because of their appointments and in order to give a voice to junior staff these people should be co-opted after election, with the electorate being the present members of the academic council. I think that would be a good way of doing it. By no means are the academic council an alternative power structure to the governing body. They have totally different functions, some of which overlap. The system has worked quite well. Student representation on the academic council is a good idea. Staff are not always aware of the kind of problems students have to face. Certainly it is important for students to have a voice at governing body level but it is possibly also important that they have a voice at academic council level. The only way one could reasonably expect to have that function is for the students themselves to select the person they want to represent them.
The Bill gives autonomy to the governing body in so far as it is stated that they may by regulation decide the process of bringing people on to the academic council. The draft of this legislation is an indication from the Minister that he has given great autonomy to the governing body. It is a matter for the body themselves as to whether they set up structures for election. That is not really a matter for this legislation, other than the provision of a framework by which the governing body can address the matter of the selection of people to the academic council. The Minister is to be commended for allowing such autonomy to the governing body of these institutions.
The governing body can make regulations. It is within their own remit to decide to make regulations which provide for some type of electoral process before they ultimately make the appointments.
I am not a member of the academic council of the Cork Regional Technical College but that has been in existence for a considerable number of years and several of their members are elected by the academic staff. If the new governing body decide to dispense with those elections that will come as a considerable shock to the academic staff in Cork regional technical college and it will produce an immediate decision which will mean that the staff will decide not to participate in the academic council at all. They have got used to it, it has worked very well, and we have had no problems about alternatives. Theoretically it is possible that somebody would think they were an alternative form of power structure, but since they do not have the capacity to spend a single penny, I do not think the academic council will be under any illusions as to where the power lies.
I am disappointed the Minister is on record as saying that he personally would prefer a system which did not involve elections. I do not believe everybody should be elected to the academic council, but we now have the Minister for Education saying that he personally prefers — as I understood him — that there would be no elections. If that becomes the norm, he is putting down a marker which will produce serious industrial relations problems in those regional technical colleges which currently have largely elective academic councils.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 9, subsection (2) (a), line 9, to delete "membership" and substitute "number of members".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 13, after "college" to insert "and elected by the student body".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 10, subsection (3), line 39, after "Minister" to insert "and until such officer has been afforded the opportunity to defend himself/herself".
I believe this amendment is very fair in that it allows for a member of staff to have the opportunity to defend himself or herself before dismissal. That is the norm in third level institutions at present and it is only right that it should be in this section as a safeguard.
I think we have taken care of the Senator's concerns in this regard in that the Bill already provides that the provision of sections 105, 106 and 107 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, and sections 7 and 8 of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act, 1944, shall apply to officers of a college with a substitution to the college for references to the vocational education committee. In all those sections there are stipulations about inquiries and so on. There is a due process laid down which ensures that any such proposed dismissal is carried out with due regard to proper procedures and with proper regard to natural justice in giving the person involved an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Given what the Minister has said about the due process and so on I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 10, subsection (4), line 45, after "Finance" to insert "and such persons shall not be used to replace academic staff".
The reason for inserting the words "and such persons shall not be used to replace academic staff" is to ensure that part-time staff will not be used to replace fulltime academic staff. We have seen the type of problems this has created in An Post and we do not want similar problems to arise in these new colleges. I believe this amendment would safeguard that.
I have no difficulty with the Senator's sentiments but it would be wrong to restrict the flexibility of the management of the college in this area and I do not believe it is appropriate to make legislative provision for that type of detail. The details of staffing arrangements are, of course, subject to negotiations which are going on all the time at national and local levels. There are well established procedures and I accept the Senator's good faith in the matter, but it would not be wise to start legislating for the detail of when and where the staff could be allocated.
I support this amendment. It is an important point that no programmes, projects or activities to be engaged in by the college should result in any person being replaced and that it should not be used as a means where academic staff could find their positions being redundant. Obviously, the new functions as outlined in section 5 of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, indicate that there will be a wide range of activities undertaken by the college in terms of liaising with the business community, various projects, research and consultancy work, etc., and there could be a situation where a member of staff would no longer be necessary, dpending on work that might be contracted out or certain contracts entered into with the business community. In that event this would no longer be necessary. I hope this would not happen but it would be useful to have that phrase inserted in the legislation in case we come across some gung-ho director and governing body who simply goes down that particular road. I believe this amendment is useful.
I accept that we could not put constraints on colleges in relation to the appointment of part-time and contract staff and so on. All third level institutions have very large numbers of these people. What I want to safeguard against here is that this would not get to a point where permanent staff, by some creeping mechanism, would be replaced by part-time staff. We have an example of it already in this country where a very important body has increasingly been replacing its permanent staff by part-time staff. It is not good for the institution, it is not good for the morale of the staff and I do not want to see this creeping into the education sector. Having said that, let me repeat, we could not function without part-time staff, we could not function without some contract staff at third level institutions, but I believe the essential core of permanent staff must be maintained.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 32a:
In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following new subsection:
"(10) Existing procedures for conciliation and arbitration in the determination of pay and conditions shall not be changed other than by agreement of the recognised staff association and trade unions.".
My apologies for the late arrival of the amendments, but the House orders its business in such a way that one has to do these things from time to time.
I put down this amendment simply to invite the Minister to clarify on the record his intention that, in principle, the existing system of conciliation and arbitration which applies to the staff of the regional technical colleges, in so far as pay and conditions are concerned, will continue to operate. Is it envisaged that it will continue to operate when their unions represent them in the future as they will then be officers of the college rather than officers of a vocational education committee? I am a member of the Teachers' Union of Ireland and this matter has been raised by them. It needs to be clarified that there is no intention of departing unilaterally, and in this specific case, from conciliation and arbitration. I know the Minister for Finance has great plans to reform the conciliation and arbitration scheme but that is a separate issue, one for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I would like the Minister to clarify that the existing procedures of conciliation and arbitration will continue until such time as they are subsumed into a new overall body.
It is intended that the existing procedures will continue to apply. Changes in the conciliation and arbitration scheme can only be made with the agreement of all parties. The Senator will probably agree that his amendment is not an appropriate item for legislation. We have had some discussions and have given satisfactory assurances to the TUI on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Do the Minister or the Government have any plans to get rid of this offensive terminology of "officers and servants"? It is an increasingly meaningless distinction. There are employees of the college who are highly skilled and highly qualified who are classified as "servants" while other employees of the college who are far less skilled and qualified are classified as "officers", simply because of their jobs. It causes profound offence to the people who are highly skilled and highly qualified — in some cases with three years third level education — to be told they are "servants", which is a particularly offensive phrase.
The Senator is right but I cannot amend it in this Bill because the phrase "officers and servants" is used in the Superannuation Acts and in the original vocational education committee Act, 1930. I might achieve the opposite result if I tried to come up with new phrases.
I was not suggesting that you take it out here.
The Senator is right. It is a dreadful phrase and I will try to do something about it as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 12, subsection (2) (a), line 5, after "consultation" to insert "and agreement".
"Following consultation with" is meaningless; if it said "in consultation with" I could accept it but they could come to any decision after "consultation". Therefore, I would like to add the words "consultation and agreement".
It is a major decision as to what extent you provide for vetoes, as it were. It is a standard provision which deals with existing staff. It provides it so that the college can, after consulting with the trade unions, redistribute duties. The amendment would provide that this could only be undertaken following the agreement of the unions as opposed to consultation, which would be very restrictive. In effect it would be saying to the trade unions involved that their absolute agreement would be required. Without deciding which side has the veto, the requirement to consult is probably the better language given the relationship between management and employees.
I appreciate that the Minister has a problem with the section. "Following consultation" is fairly weak phraseology because what follows is: "Every such officer or servant shall be bound to perform the duties allocated". The Minister may have the merest consultation but, irrespective of what the decision may be between the positions and the perceptions of the Minister and the trade union, then the "servants and officers" are bound to perform the duty. There are no criteria listed as to whether those duties will be similar to those already undertaken by the staff, so it could result in their being redistributed or rearranged substantially differently from the way they had been before.
On the one hand there could be very minor consultation and on the other very major redistribution or rearrangement. I am not sure if the correct balance has been achieved. It seems to shift in favour of the college having a very strong hand in the matter, but it seems to preclude individual employees or indeed their representative body, staff association or trade union from having a say. This section may lead to enormous problems in the future when divisions occur and when head office staff as well as academic staff find themselves in new roles, which they had not envisaged, because of the amalgamation. This would be true in relation to the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional colleges.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I raise these matters which are always dismissed as unrealistic but it would be a great help to efficiency if, as well as having rules and regulations about when programmes should be submitted to the Minister, the Minister was to agree that we would also be bound by some commitment as to when he would give responses to these programmes. It is very much a one-sided set of regulations where the college must produce a programme and a budget under a fixed schedule.
I accept that the Minister is the major source of funding and has a major role to play. I spent six years on the board of management of the regional technical college in the days when subversives like myself were allowed on the governing bodies before the Minister decided to classify us with bankrupts and thieves. In those days one of the problems was a long wait, in which the college and the vocational education committee operated in limbo for a while. It would be a great help to decision-making if the Minister had put into this section some provision about "a reasonable procedure" as to when decisions would have to be taken. As it stands there are no deadlines by which decisions must be made. I do not see why he should claim the right to be as inefficient as he wishes when he expects a different performance from everybody else.
That is a valid point, which perhaps should have been included. I do not think it is as serious as the Senator suggests because the budget and the programmes will have an automatic starting date. If they come in on 1 March they will start from a certain date, they will not just run on. The Minister of the day will have to come back with a decision well in advance of the start-up date of that programme or budget.
I wish it was always like that.
Otherwise it would be meaningless. They would be submitting the budget to start on a certain date and if the Minister had not responded by that date in time for that budget to start, then the whole section would become meaningless.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Is there anything in section 14 which says that the report referred to has to be made public?
It does not say so but it was my intention that it would be published. The governing body of a college is a public institution and the report will be published. It does not say so but those are the circumtances prevailing in the other third level institutions. So far as that would be any help to the Senator, that would be my intention.
The Minister will accept that the Irish public sector is not distinguished for its willingness to publish things unless it has to.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
This is the most welcome provision in that whenever an officer of a vocational education committee is to be suspended, he or she may be paid salary, in contrast with the present position when they can be suspended for a period of years with no salary. I may have missed something here but in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (5) of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act, 1944", an officer of the institute is referred to. In section 21 here it refers to an officer of a vocational education committee. Where in the legislation am I to take it that an officer of the college is an officer of the vocational education committee for the purposes of this section of the Bill? I understand that is the intention but I cannot understand why officers, members or staff of the college are not referred to in this Bill. It refers to an officer of the vocational education committee rather than the staff of the colleges. I have not read the Bill as thoroughly as the Minister so I may have missed the reference to officers of the college or officers of a vocational education committee, being classified as officers of the vocational education committee.
The Senator's concern is catered for, particularly in section 21 (4) which says:
This section shall apply to officers of a college suspended under this Act as it applies to officers of a vocational education committee with the substitution, in subsection (1), for "the committee may, if it thinks fit," of "the college may, if its governing body thinks fit".
That was my mistake.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment 34 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
Amendment 34 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 18, line 5, to delete "70" and substitute "65". It has now become more or less the standard throughout the public sector that people retire at age 65. I thought it would be appropriate to bring the chairpersons or chairmen into line.
That is a point of view. I do not know whether people live longer in academia than they do in other walks of life——
It is a pity Senator O'Toole is not here to lecture the Minister on stress.
From everyday perception perhaps they appear to do so. I take the Senator's point but I do not think it is worth tabling an amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 18, line 29, after "year" to insert "but may be eligible to hold office for further periods if re-elected by the student body".
The purpose of this amendment is to allow a student to be elected for a second year. There is good reason for this, in that there is difficulty in becoming familiarised with practices and procedures of institutions, it takes some months. This means that students are hardly accustomed to them or can make a decent contribution in the first three months or so. If they leave in nine months there is no continuity. I contend that membership of more than one year, if possible would be desirable as far as the students are concerned.
The amendment seeks to provide that the student member be eligible to hold office for further periods if re-elected by the student body. That might be more appropriately dealt with under the regulations to be made by governing bodies for elections. There is no preclusion under the terms of this Bill if a student wishes to be re-elected, but if it needed to be tightened up, the regulations would be the place to do it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 18, to delete lines 40 to 46.
This matter has been discussed more by other Members than by me in this House. It relates to the ineligibility of somebody who is elected to either House of the Oireachtas. I was a victim of it in the not so distant past. It is an inappropriate restriction which should be deleted.
I would like to know why I am not fit to be on the governing body of Cork regional technical college where I spent most of my working life. What is wrong with me that I cannot serve on it? Senator Norris is eligible to serve on the equivalent authority in Trinity College, Dublin; Senator Murphy is entitled to serve on the governing body of UCC and on the Senate of the National University of Ireland. I am entitled to serve on the governing body of UCD, UCC or the Senate of the National University, but apparently I am not entitled to serve on a governing body where I work, where I might have something more to contribute. I am intrigued by this.
The sequence of disqualifications in this section is profoundly offensive — I do not care whether it was the most convenient way to describe it — but to list three qualifications in paragraph 5 (2) which reads:
(2) A person shall not be eligible to be a member of a governing body if that person—
(a) is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, or
(b) is for the time being a member of the European Parliament, or
(c) is an undischarged bankrupt, or
(d) within the immediately preceding three years has, under the protection or procedure of a court, made a composition or arrangement with creditors, or
(e) within the immediately preceding five years, has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a court of competent jurisdiction.
There are there three anti-social activities, bankruptcy, being in jail, and being a Member of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament. To say the least, that is insensitively drafted, it is illogical and meaningless. I still want to know why UCC is so different from the Cork regional technical college that Senator Murphy can serve on its governing body but I cannot be on the Cork regional technical college governing body. Indeed, I could get myself elected by the graduates to the governing body of UCC. I think that provision was inserted because the Minister did not notice. Every time some such circumstances arises somebody in the parliamentary draftsman's office inserts this prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas. It is time the Minister or somebody else sorted this out.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senators Raftery and Ryan. It seems ridiculous to have these categories of people excluded. The juxtaposition of the various categories leaves a lot to be desired, but I do not think that there is any deliberate intention on the part of the draftsperson to exclude Members of the Oireachtas; it would appear to be a throwback to old legislation. It is something that has not been adequately examined. It is confused with membership of semi-State bodies.
In a sense, it appears to have a new ministerial involvement in the regional technical colleges. We must ensure that we delete the prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas because they will have a vested interest in the matter. Of course, that is irrelevant to the real issue. I would ask the Minister to delete those categories of elected representatives to the Houses of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament. If local representatives can be members of governing bodies, prohibit somebody who has been elected to a national Parliament? It is ridiculous. There is no justification for their exclusion. The Minister should accept the amendments.
Obviously this is not aimed at any particular Senators or Deputies; they have given very good service on boards at every level. There is a clear policy issue here, not a personality issue, as to whether national legislators can take part in the activities of the boards of the colleges and semi-State companies. It is a long established principle. Everybody has a different view on it. As was rightly stated, this is a standard provision in the University of Limerick, DCU, and in the case of any Government or major institution which reports to the Oireachtas and comes under the authority or remit of the Oireachtas.
As a public representative, I am not overly enthusiastic about an erosion of our opportunities. Nevertheless there is a policy issue involved here, which is that legislators should not be directly involved in the management of institutions that report to the Oireachtas and we may need a longer and fuller debate on that. Perhaps that should be taken up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or somebody else. I accept that this is now becoming standard practice in the case of a State body like the NCEA, the University College and the DCU. It applies not only in the commercial world; it applies throughout the education system also. It does not apply in the case of universities and so on; they were established under a 1908 Act; some were established under Charter, the Charter being reconfirmed under the 1908 Act, so it is a different legislative base.
In modern times this seems to be the norm. I would welcome a debate about that principle. However, it does not apply only to education, it applies to the principle of whether legislators should be appointed to the board of, say, Bord Fáilte or any other such body. It is a principle we, as legislators, need to debate in a broader forum, in a more determined way. For example, should we be eligible to State appointments or not? It is a bigger issue than the provisions of this Bill. I am merely adopting the standard approach until we resolve that issue.
Question put: "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Dardis, John.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Raftery and Staunton.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 42 to 46, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
On the question of the disqualification which we discussed. I was glad that I was able to ask a Minister if he means what he says.
Question put and agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I would like the Minister to clarify the situation in relation to Crawford College in section 3 (1) (b). The Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music are the only two schools that will have "heads of school" under this Bill. They are dealt with again in section 12 (1) (c). I would like to ask the Minister to explain the unique situation here where two schools established under the Regional Technical College, Cork have "heads of school" and not directors — and what is their position vis-á-vis the other schools of the college? Are they of lower status? Will heads of schools have the same pay and conditions as directors and what is envisaged for these schools? They are referred to in the legislation but it is not clear how they are going to be affected by it and how heads of regional colleges are called “directors” as in the Institute of Technology while they remain “heads of school”. I would like the Minister to clarify also what it means to be a head of school as distinct from being a director and how the schools will operate.
Section 3 (1) (b) establishes the Crawford College of Art and the Cork School of Music as part of the Regional Technical College, Cork. They shall also hold on to their titles. At the beginning of the Bill, in section 2 (1), "College" is defined as an educational institution established by or under section 3 as a regional technical college or as a college to which this Bill applies and in relation to the Regional Technical College, Cork includes a school of that college established under section 3 (1). That section identifies the colleges of art and music as schools of the regional technical college for the purposes of the word "college" because "college" is used in section 2 as including a school. Further in the Bill we have to define or indicate what those schools are. Is there some matter in relation to the directors on the Senator's mind?
"School" is a new term here. We have 11 individual regional colleges, one institute, directors of colleges and heads of schools. All of the principals here have lost their former designation as such but the principal of the Crawford College of Art and the principal of the Cork School of Music do not become directors but heads of school. What does that mean? Does that change their terms of employment? What are the salaries and conditions for heads of schools visá-vis the newly appointed directors of the colleges?
The principals of the schools in question will be known as heads of school and their existing pay and conditions which are aligned with directors of regional technical colleges cannot be disimproved. The heads of schools will be subject to the same conditions and receive the same remuneration as the directors of regional technical colleges. Does that clarify the position?
The same pay and conditions?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.