Amendments Nos. 1 and 58 are consequential on amendment No. 59.
Amendments Nos. 1, 58 and 59 will be discussed together, by agreement. In amendment No. 58 the words being deleted and substituted should start with a capital letter.
Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Bill, 1997: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), lines 35 and 36, to delete "Scientific and Technological Education (Investment)" and substitute "Education Investment".
I welcome the Minister to the House and the response to the request of the House that there be a break between Second and Committee Stages. On the Order of Business we requested a break between Committee and Report Stages. We would have preferred this to be a few days but we did not put it to a vote because we are aware of the Minister's anxiety to pass this legislation.
There are 60 amendments to this Bill and they have been put forward with the best will in the world to improve it. Not many Bills are initiated in the Seanad and we are anxious to ensure the Minister can give attention to the amendments. We fear that if they are rushed through in one day the Minister may not find time to give them consideration between Committee and Report Stages. If decisions are not made on Committee Stage we would like to ensure they are in time for Report Stage. The danger in taking both Stages with little time between them is that it conveys a message that the Minister does not have time to consider amendments on Report Stage.
The purpose of these three amendments is to change the Title of the Bill. I am sure the Minister cannot understand why I want to do this. My purpose is to improve the legislation and improve the work of a Minister who is energetic and innovative. I praise this Bill, I am proud it was introduced and I am delighted the Minister is dealing with it so quickly.
It is proposed to call the Bill, once initiated, the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Act. My amendments propose to cut the title to the Education (Investment) Fund Act. There are two reasons for doing this, each of which stands on its merits. First, the Title, for all its length and pomposity, is inaccurate and understates the scope of the Bill and the Minister's intention behind it. People may be misled on the true scope of the Bill and there may be later disputes — which we should take great care to avoid — about what is a legitimate payment under this legislation.
This excellent initiative by the Minister was launched on 6 November last when he made it clear that £20 million of the overall £150 million would be invested to address the skills required in the hotel and tourism sector. I grew up in a holiday camp and I was delighted to see this measure included in the Bill. I applaud the decision to provide investment for the accommodation and equipment requirements of the tourism sector. The hospitality industry is as much an engine of future growth as the technology industry. The Minister said at the launch in Dublin Castle: "Over the last 15 years, in spite of its considerable growth there has been only modest investment in the colleges which provide most of the trained personnel for this sector." On that occasion the fund was referred to as the Education Technology Investment Fund. This was before the draftspersons went to work. The title of this legislation as proposed is not congruent with the Minister's commitment to include the hotel and tourism sector in the scope of the fund. Although the hospitality industry is increasingly dependent on technology, nobody would suggest that what is purveyed at Cathal Brugha Street or elsewhere is scientific or technological education; it is vocational education. This is reflected in the description of the Act. If the draftspersons wanted to be pedantic in their accuracy, they should have called it the "Scientific, Technological and Vocational Education (Investment) Fund Act". I am not recommending that, but as it stands there is a strong implication that the purposes of this fund are concerned exclusively with science and technology when the clearly expressed intention of the Minister, with which I fully agree, is quite different from that.
I am not suggesting that this will result in the hotel and tourism colleges being excluded from benefiting from the fund, but I foresee hassle about what they are seeking the money for. For example, will the Department of Finance, which is to be given such extraordinarily detailed day-to-day control over this fund — I will come to that later — insist that the hotel and tourism colleges spend the money only on projects with a scientific or technological basis? The Minister may shake his head, but he may not be in control of what those boys up in Merrion Street think of in two or three years time when it is remembered that the intention of the Bill was to make sure it was concentrated on scientific and technological education.
That would be unduly restrictive, and it is not what the Minister intended. However, that is what is opened up by this inaccurate title. My fear is anything but fanciful; it is very solid, grounded and logical. That is one reason for accepting my amendments.
There is another reason, equally good. There is much talk these days of making the political process more open, more transparent etc. , about making it attractive and accessible to the increasing number of people who are becoming disillusioned with the basic structures of our society. One of the ways we can move forward on this is by using wherever possible, language that is accessible to ordinary people. We would make a start with the titles of all the laws we pass in these Houses. I recognise that in the Acts themselves we have no choice other than to use legal language. Drafting is obscurantist to a degree that is quite unnecessary, but in the titles of Acts we have the opportunity to be clear and simple. In today's circumstances, not only do we have the opportunity, we have an obligation to be so. In this case we have a double obligation, first because the proposed title is unnecessarily long and pedantic and unnecessarily inaccessible to ordinary people, and second because it is simply inaccurate as to what the legislation actually contains and as to the intention of the Minister.
I have taken a long time to say that, and I have been careful about the words I have used, but there are at least two solid grounds for changing the title. Those two solid bases should be considered, and I welcome the opportunity for the Minister to consider them. Amendments Nos. 1, 58 and 59 are the relevant amendments. I urge the Minister to give consideration to them.
The thrust of Senator Quinn's argument is to delete the title and insert "Education and Investment" in a new title. That is too global a heading and would include the whole area of education, whereas it is intended to cover technological and scientific education. I made inquiries of the educational staff at Cathal Brugha Street and CERT and they had no difficulty whatsoever with it and see it for what it is. On that basis I cannot agree with Senator Quinn in relation to changing the heading.
I support the Government on this issue. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a vehicle which will channel Government funding over a three year period into a project for scientific, technological, vocational and research purposes. It will also provide a vehicle whereby private donations will be attracted to the fund. In the business world the terms "scientific" and "technological" are regarded as more sexy than the terms "vocational" and "training" and are more likely to attract investment funding. The present title is more accurate than the one proposed in the amendment. I agree with Senator Ormonde that the term "education" is too global.
On Second Stage many Senators said it was wonderful to see this sector of third level education receiving attention. The universities have voiced their concern that they do not come substantially within the remit of the fund in comparison with the Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technical colleges. The vocational sector is also concerned that it does not come substantially within its remit. The primary and secondary factor barely come within the remit. We are talking about a specific education fund, not a general education fund. The purpose of the fund is to attract donations from private interests. The business interface with the third level sector in terms of science, technology and research is important in that it is the one most likely to attract private donations. The present title is better than the one proposed by Senator Quinn. While I respect his arguments, I do not see any sense in extending the title. If it is to be extended I would include research and vocational training.
Much laboratory work is being carried out in Cathal Brugha Street Dublin Institute of Technology in the area of food research. The food section in the new building will be to the forefront in food and environmental analysis. It will also make a major impact on the scientific process in terms of the development of food products.
I agree with Senator Quinn that we need to make legislation as clear as possible for the general public. A small portion of the fund, even 1 per cent, should be allocated to ensure that the general public understands how extraordinarily important scientific, technological and vocational education are. I would not like to see vocational education disregarded in any way as it is vitally important. Many parents do not see much value in encouraging their children to pursue vocational education. I understand Senator Quinn's concerns in this area.
Will the Minister say if those responsible for administering the fund will ensure a small amount is spent on advertising its aims? It is difficult in the primary and secondary sector to get parents to encourage their children to become involved in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Business subjects have taken over in many areas and it is important that the value of scientific and mathematical disciplines is promoted by the fund. It is important the fund promotes the value of this aspect of education as well. Some of those helping primary school children with homework, particularly women, have poor scientific backgrounds and they should be encouraged to promote scientific subjects. I understand why Senator Quinn is concerned that the public will not focus sufficiently on the importance of this Bill, and I congratulate the Minister on moving so rapidly in this regard. Perhaps part of the fund could be used for promotion.
Part of the problem is the commitment of £20 million to tourism. Where will it go to? I have some knowledge of the education field because I lecture hotel management students in a regional college and lectured at the lower skills level some years ago. In terms of funding, there is nothing scientific about the lower skills level, which needs to be developed. On the management level, some technological use is made of equipment, etc. , in colleges. A previous speaker spoke about laboratory food science, which is being developed, and I see where this relates directly to that. If it is the Minister's intention to develop the skills area, perhaps some of the difficulty would be resolved if an extra allocation was made so this could remain in the science and technology area.
I, and other Senators, expressed concern about the decline in the number of students at second level taking science subjects, not only here but in the North of Ireland and England. Science subjects are less attractive than computer studies, for example. I agree with Senator Henry that we must encourage people to develop an interest in science, whether by changing the curriculum at second level or by introducing science subjects at a basic level in primary school. It is traumatic for students leaving primary school to have to deal with scientific topics which they have not come across previously. Perhaps simple biology or zoology lessons would provide an introduction.
I am involved in what is underdescribed as technological education. The problem is to find a proper title for the sector of non-university education. Every title I have ever thought of was inadequate because it did not describe it appropriately. The Dublin Institute of Technology incorporates art and music, as does what I hope will be the Cork Institute of Technology by the end of next week. The greatest problem in persuading young people to pursue science and technology — and this is why I compliment the Minister — is the appalling infrastructure in most of the science and technology sector. It is difficult to persuade a bright young person in Cork, unless they are committed, that the two main institutes of higher education are equal. All they have to do is walk around both of them. We need to create the vision that these two sectors of education are equal in terms of student services, infrastructure and so on. We can do so if money is spent in the way this Bill and Minister promise.
I compliment Senator Ryan on his comments which perhaps he made on Second Stage also. From my experience of being involved with the Dublin Institute of Technology for six years, what he said rang true. Instead of being in the second division, the colleges of technology regarded themselves at that time as being in the third or fourth division, so I would agree with much of what the Senator said on Second Stage in that regard.
I wholeheartedly endorse what has been said by my colleague, Senator Costello. While I can see where Senator Quinn is coming from in his proposal to substitute his title for that of the Bill, his title is far too global and all inclusive. As a result, it would miss the target which Senator Costello referred to as having a "sexy" ring to it. In attracting funds, specific targets need to be identified. Frankly, nowadays the terminology which is used here seems to be the buzz terminology for business.
I thank the Senators for their contributions.
I understand the motivation behind the amendment. When we launched this we were clearly sending a signal to the worldwide community of investors about Ireland's commitment to put certain funds aside to develop the technological and scientific base of our education system so as to enable us to be in a position to continue to attract inward investment and to assure the worldwide investment community that we would have a sufficient pool of skilled young people emerging from our colleges and schools.
Senator Ormonde is correct in that the proposed title is too global because we are very anxious that the £250 million is in addition to the year on year estimates and that it is not a substitute for the existing current and capital provision for primary, second and third levels. There would be a danger, if one simply had a education investment Bill which was very generic, that in a year or two there would be a tendency maybe six months before a general election, for example, to start stealing money from the fund and ploughing it into areas for which it was never intended in the first place.
We had to be very ruthless in one sense in trying to ringfence the fund for the purposes of skills shortages, the modernisation of the technological sector, and meeting certain existing vocational skills and needs.
Senators Ryan and Liam Fitzgerald are correct. The technological sector, particularly the regional technical colleges and institutes of technology, has been starved of funding for far too long and its infrastructure is relatively undeveloped in comparison to the university sector. That has had an impact on attracting students to that area.
I reiterate that the genesis of this Bill and of the fund was in the skills issue. Within my Department, following meetings during July and August with industrialists, Forfás and IDA Ireland. It was clear to me that an extraordinary provision outside the normal Estimates process was required to meet the needs of the skills issue.
Travelling around the world, Government agencies, the Minister for Public Enterprise and others were left in no doubt that this was a key issue for those who wished to invest in this country. Will Ireland meet the skills needs of new industries which are coming into this country on a monthly basis? Senators will be aware of the background to the Higher Education Authority report, that is the Lindsay report, and the £50 million which he identified — we have provided for £60 million — for skills, and we have already spent £5 million. We felt we had to give that signal. Then we broadened it to cover other aspects.
On the Senator's specific concern about tourism, I assure him that it will be covered within the Bill. Subsection (1)(b) of section 4, which deals with the payments from the fund, states:
scientific, technological or vocational education and training programmes the primary objective of which is to equip the persons participating in such programmes with skills for which, in the opinion of the Minister, there is a special need,
That covers the vocational side. Most of the tourism projects will be in regional technical colleges and institute of technology areas. A programme has existed for four or five years where CERT has made proposals to successive Governments on the need to invest in updating and modernising the areas, in the regional technical colleges in particular, and in the institutes of technology which were dealing specifically with catering and tourism programmes. No money was available. The normal capital list could not possibly deal with it. The fund was set up so that approximately £20 million would be specifically directed to that purpose. The Bill does not exclude the tourism sector and the PLC sector is also covered. For example, equipment is covered in the Bill as a capital expenditure so provision could be made in some PLC courses which have a relevance to the catering and tourism industry for equipment to be purchased, if necessary.
I do not accept the amendment on those grounds. The Senator's fears are dealt with in the Bill and there will not be any subsequent arguments or disputes about that because it is well covered in section 4. In terms of institutions, regional technical colleges and institutes of technology come within the definition of technological education.
I accept the Senator's point about parliamentary draftsmen. They examined the situation and there was obvious influence from the parliamentary draftsman's office. Hence we have the term "Scientific and Technological Education". Neither do I want to underestimate the need to ringfence this fund to ensure it is targeted towards areas which have been underfinanced and poorly resourced to date.
I am impressed by what the Minister said and he has put my mind at ease to a large extent. I would be concerned if any effort on my part damaged the objective of the Bill, which is to ringfence funding for the reasons the Minister outlined. I understand his reference to section 4 and what it contains. My concern was that someone might say at a later stage that this was clearly intended for scientific and technological education and, therefore, it could not go towards other areas the Minister intended under the Bill. I hope that if anyone tries to interfere with it in future, I will be able to use the Minister's words as an argument against them. On that basis, I happily withdraw the three amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53 and 54 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "after consultation with" and substitute "with consent of".
These amendments tabled by my colleagues and me all have one thing in common and it is something anyone who spends a reasonable period of time working in the Houses of the Oireachtas develops — a great wariness of the Department of Finance and its extraordinary belief that it knows what is good for everyone. One gets a feeling when working with legislation — I have seen it in legislation dealing with forestry, health and education — that the Department would prefer if the Minister for Finance were the Minister for everything. It still believes the only people who should be allowed to control and decide upon expenditure and allocate expenditure priorities are those in the Department of Finance.
The problem is that it will not be the Minister for Finance who will make these decisions but some civil servant in his Department. The range of references to "with the consent of the Minister" throughout legislation is so enormous that, if the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, were required to give his consent to every proposal which arises under legislation he would have no time for anything else. He would spend 12 hours a day, seven days a week signing orders giving his consent. He cannot do that.
These amendments attempt to put the Department of Finance back into its relative position, that of Department with responsibility for certain areas dealing with taxation and expenditure but without any specific expertise in the area of education. I do not know why the Department of Finance thinks it would know better than the Minister for Education and Science about investment in education. Why does the Department of Finance think it would know more than the Minister for Education and Science about the commercial exploitation of third level research, which is one of the more obscure issues? Under section 4(5) the Minister will put down guidelines to deal with such matters "with the consent of the Minister for Finance". What does that Department think it is doing? The provision is concerned with the commercial development of third level research and the Department of Finance wants to control the guidelines under which this is to be done.
Amendment No. 2 relates to section 2(2), which reads:
The Fund.shall be operated subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister, may determine.
The Minister for Finance must consult the Minister for Education and Science but does not have to be guided by him as to how the fund is administered. In many other sections of the Bill, the Minister for Education and Science must consult the Minister for Finance or vice versa, but it is a matter not of asking the latter's opinion but of getting his agreement. Where the Department of Finance is on top, everyone else plays a second role; but where the Minister for Education and Science is in charge, the Department of Finance still has a veto.
Another aspect of this was raised in the Dáil at the beginning of this Government, that is, the fundamental question of whether it is constitutionally appropriate to give one Minister the right to supervise another. We have a system of Government where all Ministers are equal.
Government operates on the basis of collective responsibility and a vote of no confidence in a Minister is deemed to be a vote of no confidence in a Government. That is how our Cabinet works and how our Constitution has been interpreted for 60 years. If, therefore, we put into legislation a requirement that a Minister can only do something with the consent of another Minister, we are probably in breach of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I fully accept that my amendment No. 2 would also be in breach of the Constitution but we must deal with reality and I am sure the Attorney General has advised this is not a problem. However, it is wrong to give the Minister for Finance such an extraordinary role.
There are 21 references in this Bill which is concerned with funding education to the Minister for Education and Science and 13 references to the Minister for Finance, with seven of those requiring his consent. These details have been hammered out in Cabinet and the Minister — on his life and as a result of his constitutional obligations — cannot tell us how these conclusions were reached, because this is a secret to which we are not to be admitted. What is undoubtedly true is that the Department of Finance spreads its tentacles everywhere to try to control everything at all levels. These amendments attempt to restore the proper autonomy of a Department by giving it the right to spend its funds according to the skills which it alone has. There is far more knowledge and skills relating to education expenditure in the Department of Education and Science and the education sector than there could ever be in the Department of Finance; it does not know about education and therefore should not be in control of its expenditure.
Everything I was going to say has been said extremely well for me. We are creating another level of bureaucracy which will slow down the procedure between an application for funding and a decision to grant it. The Department of Education and Science is capable of making investments and ensuring the funds are managed properly. To go back and forth between it and the Department of Finance will slow everything down. It is ridiculous that we cannot refer to just one Minister and remove the 13 references to the Minister for Finance. It would not be difficult to remove these and put our trust in the Department of Education and Science so that it can manage the fund and react much more speedily. This would avoid another layer of bureaucracy. Who knows what decisions will be made by the Department of Finance regarding funding? It may redefine everything.
The Minister is well capable of administering these funds and it is quite unnecessary to involve the Minister for Finance unless he is going to rubber stamp everything, in which case there is no need to refer to him.
We had a dreadful time with the Department of Finance regarding the Wellcome Trust Foundation and the Department of Health and Children. We almost lost the funds from the foundation because of various problems with the Department of Finance. At that time, the Wellcome Foundation was providing more funds for medical research than the Government. Is it wise to keep referring back to the Minister for Finance once it has been agreed that capital is to be made available to the fund? It should be sufficient to have the Department of Education in charge once the funding is made available.
Eleven of the 30 amendments I have tabled refer to the role of the Department of Finance. I had not counted the 21 references to the Minister for Education and Science, 13 to the Minister for Finance and seven to the constant of that Minister. I wholeheartedly support what the Minister is seeking to achieve and my aim is to strengthen his role in this area. I wholly favour strict control over the spending of taxpayers' money. Anybody who has examined the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General will realise the necessity of this in the context of the laxes which occur. Those who have listened to what I have been saying over recent years could not think otherwise because we do need tight control of State money. However, this Bill is an example of control gone mad. Not only is the control excepted in itself, but it strikes at the heart of what the Minister intends to achieve through the Bill. The 13 references to the Department of Finance, which amendments including my own seek to remove, undermine the entire thrust of the Bill and make a nonsense of it in the context of its original intentions.
The original idea was clear and praiseworthy, namely, to break away from the straitjacket of annual spending through the provisions of Estimates and to substitute a medium term approach to the planning of capital projects in this area. The original idea was that each year the State would put aside a certain amount of money, which would be agreed by the Oireachtas in the usual manner, but which would be put in the fund as a lump sum rather than being earmarked for individual projects. This was a great concept. Spending money in the fund would be a separate operation, a praiseworthy concept. The process would be carried out by the Department of Education and Science which would consult with the providers of education and industries which provide employment for those leaving the system at various levels.
From the moment this project saw the light of day, it was obvious that it was imaginative and innovative. It was also clear that the idea was, as Senator Ryan said, to remove the dead hand of the Department of Finance from the allocation of specific moneys for capital projects.
That is the nicest thing I said about it.
Perhaps the Senator used other longer adjectives.
I said more than that about it.
Everybody in education knows the damage caused by that dead hand over the past 15 years. Instead of looking to the national interest in the long or even medium term, the Department of Finance's grip on capital spending was dominated entirely by short term budgetary considerations. I understand the reason for this is to control State funding. However, the result is an entire education system with seriously deficient infrastructure, including the shockingly unsuitable buildings occupied by primary schools — Senator O'Toole is not present to agree with me — and chronically under-equipped university laboratories. There is little doubt that the education system needs funding it did not receive in the past because of the understandable short-term requirements of the Department of Finance.
The crisis the Bill attempts to address has not only been caused by outside forces, which are important, but also short-sightedness. This has been caused entirely by the consistent and prolonged short-term measures taken by the Department of Finance. Many people feel there must be another way to protect taxpayers money while addressing long and medium term interests. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, because he felt the same way and produced this creative response to the problem. He should be congratulated on the concept behind the Bill.
The Minister's announcement on 6 November in Dublin Castle was a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, it was snuffed out quickly and the amendments seek to redress that position. This is why I am concerned about the need for time between Committee and Report Stages. I fear the Minister is not in a position to take decisions on this matter alone and if he does not have sufficient time between Stages to make the case to the Department of Finance, it is unlikely he can consider accepting amendments. The objective outlined on 6 November has been snuffed out. The mandarins got to work on the proposals in the four weeks since the fund was announced and the introduction of the Bill. When they got the draft Bill, they went through it line by line, which is their job, but then inserted an element of control by the Department of Finance at every possible opportunity. It is similar to a control freak waking up on Christmas morning and saying, "Look what Santa brought me".
The Finance mandarins have effectively emasculated the Bill by removing its power and intention. They have done this so thoroughly that one wonders if any malice is involved. Are they setting out deliberately to punish a Minister who has dared to question their age old way of doing things? By making this point I am probably weakening the possibility of securing changes to the Bill. The legislation now includes a much tighter set of controls by the Department of Finance than would obtain if the money involved passed through the usual Estimates process. This is the measure of their achievement and they must be very pleased with themselves.
The Department of Finance will control every payment made from the fund on a daily basis. It will control to whom the money goes or for what it is used. It is done on a case by case basis, which is the opposite of what the Minister intends. I am not referring to auditing after the fact by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is right and proper. As regards decisions made beforehand, this is pre-emptive control and should not be done in an annual budget with a broad sweep but in a detailed way from hour to hour. That is how expenditures should be watched.
Every cheque from this fund must be approved individually by the Department of Finance. That was not the Minister's intention when he announced this measure last month. What will happen if the concerns expressed by these amendments are not recognised? Under this Bill, the Minister will have no effective control. He has put a brave face on this in the last couple of weeks, but it is a crushing defeat of the intentions and objectives stated last month.
On Second Stage the Minister stated that by establishing a fund and allowing a flexible procedure for planning, the Bill would give a stable medium-term base for developments as the insecurity which comes from the often fraught Estimates process would not affect this investment. He claimed it would allow our development agencies to attract employment and inward investment with confidence and would allow our institutions to seek to build on the State's funding. I was recently invited to the pantomime where, at some stage, a character always shouts something to the audience who shout back "Oh no it won't". That is what will happen with the Bill. It will not do what the Minister intends even if we were to shout "No it won't" at him. He will tell me that this will not happen but I believe there is a risk it will.
I agree with the Minister's worthy aspirations but his intentions will be in tatters if these amendments are not accepted. If they are accepted, would there be any lack of proper control of Government spending? There would not because other provisions in the Bill ensure adequate control of how the money is spent. For the first time in Irish education there would be a mechanism for going beyond the tyranny of annual budgeting. The mechanism would allow capital expenditure to be approached in the timeframe demanded for the money to be used properly. That mechanism would address the immense needs of education in the next century. The Minister has clearly foreseen those needs and has opted to act on them.
I watched a rerun of Yes, Minister recently, and I was reminded of an old politician once saying that all a politician could do was win the odd skirmish because civil servants always win in the end.
That programme showed this over and over again. When I spoke about this to a senior civil servant in a powerful Department, he laughed and said that civil servants had their own version; they said the Department of Finance always won. The last few weeks have shown this to be true. I am not so naive as to expect this to be borne out today but I am an eternal optimist, as are other Independent Senators, which is why I have tabled these amendments. I believe they will be considered and I urge the Minister to find a way to accept my case. These controls are unnecessary and undermine the objective of the Bill. I urge the Minister to consider the amendments, dig his heels in and make an exception in this regard.
I thank Senators for their contributions and their wonderful vote of confidence in my capacity to manage such large sums of money without any risk to the taxpayer and to disburse that money in an effective, efficient and fair way. I must disabuse Senators of the notion that someone got at us over the past five weeks and that we suffered a "crushing defeat".
The Minister did.
I did not. It is not about civil servants or the Department of Finance winning but about the country winning. The concept of this fund enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, from the outset. He took the idea on board, Minister to Minister, and said he would run with it as it was in the country's best interests.
We worked with the Department of Finance from the beginning, even before the 5 November announcement, on the drafting of the Bill. It was not a case of us producing a Bill and handing it over to the Department of Finance for them to do what they wanted with it. Both Departments collaborated on the Bill.
I did not see the Bill as an opportunity to fundamentally change the nature of Irish Government or the political system which has existed since the foundation of the State. While I have personal views on the reform of Government, the relationship between Departments and the centrality of the Department of Finance in almost all decisions, I had enough to do to secure the fund and sell the concept rather than engaging in a radical overhaul of Government procedures and practices.
What is proposed in this Bill is no different from the ongoing daily functional duties of the Department of Finance. The requirement for the Department of Finance's consent does not undermine the multiannual nature of the funding and the medium term planning. The projects will be financed over two or three years. One of the great difficulties with capital funding on a yearly basis is that the money for a project must be spent within 12 months, which led to money being wasted in the past. A medium term planning framework will help us to save money on many of the projects. I want to get the money voted through as quickly as possible so that I can give the green light to many projects in the institutions concerned. Many of those projects must go through the planning and tendering processes, which can take up to six months, but they can now do so in the knowledge that the necessary money has been allocated.
It is true the projects will require the consent of the Department of Finance but, to be frank, the Department of Education and Science would spend all the money it could get on education. We would go fairly close to breaking the bank if we could do so, and without apology, because our remit is to ensure educational needs are met. Those needs have always been greater than the funds available.
The Department of Finance has always had a role in the public control of funding. This is the case even with the annual programmes in terms of the vetting of projects and the spending of money. The Bill provides for the devolution of authority to manage the fund to the National Treasury Management Agency. The Department of Finance has that power under the NTMA Act and will also have it under this legislation, but it is intended that the NTMA will manage the fund.
I understand the Senators' concerns. I accept their bona fides in terms of wanting to improve the Bill and give me wider powers, etc. However, I do not see this Bill as an opportunity to effect a fundamental reformation of Government systems and structures which have been in place since 1924. I thank them for their contributions but I am not in a position at this stage to agree to their amendments.
Because of the enthusiastic support for the Bill by the Minister for Finance, I am satisfied that the fund will be applied in the spirit of the Bill and in the spirit of its establishment. I am also satisfied that there will be no difficulties in terms of the allocation of the fund for projects that meet the criteria of the Bill.
When the fund is established a special body will monitor its application. I am satisfied with the proposed arrangements. The seeking of all public money is subject to the bureaucratic constraints of the Department of Finance. Fortunately, the Minister for Finance is open to linking business and education. He will not split hairs over the sanctioning of moneys.
Coming from the world of education I am aware of what needs to be done to get money. However, in this instance the application of money is made by a management fund which will withstand any tests laid down by the Minister for Finance.
The Minister is correct in one sense in that the issue relates to the fundamental nature of Government. However, it is also one which affects our capacity to respond in the timescale necessary to matters such as skills shortages and changing the mind sets of young people regarding where they choose to pursue third level education. I am not sure if the Department of Finance sees things in this way. It still classifies education as social expenditure. That is a bad starting position. The Department disapproves of anything more than the minimum level of social expenditure and makes it clear in its reports that we are spending too much money. In this instance, £250 million is moved a little from its remit, yet it appears to have held on to it.
I know the Minister a long time. He is very capable and is well able to look after himself. The solution to the problem of inappropriate use of public money is transparency and accountability at every stage. Most of the huge errors or wastes of public expenditure were in secret. If there is a level of transparency throughout, which means that what is going on must be made known to an Oireachtas committee, local authority or such like, it is impossible to have schemes with which people run on their own. The problem is not one of control but of the distribution of power.
I am worried that before this fund is spent it will be used to reduce the national debt. It will be an asset for the State, the net effect of which will be to reduce the national debt marginally. I know how much that concept appeals to the Department of Finance. I am extremely worried that if there is a slow down in economic growth in a couple of years' time and there is £0.25 billion in a fund which could help to reduce the national debt, it might be difficult to get the consent of the Department of Finance to release the fund which is meant to be spent on something that would probably help us out of our economic difficulties because that is the way the Department works.
I am a little amused that I am more conservative than Senator Quinn on this issue. Senator Quinn wants to abolish all reference to the Minister for Finance, but I only want to reduce his role to that of consultation. That is a new experience for me.
I will be disappointed if the Minister does not understand our objectives. The Minister's original concept was praiseworthy because it was aimed at planning capital projects. The idea was to put aside a sum of money each year for specific projects which meant the Department of Finance would not have to decide how it would be spent. There would be no lack of control because the Houses of the Oireachtas would still decide the amount spent. Once the money was put aside, the details would not be decided by the Department of Finance but by the Department of Education and Science.
I know the Minister has great hopes that the Minister for Finance will enable that to happen. However, this Bill seeks to use the fund in a more dramatic way and it would be a shame if that was not taken into account. It would be a pity if, because the Minister will not accept these changes, we go back to the dull, boring tight control we have had for many years. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration between now and Report Stage to a system which incorporates the original objective.
Amendment No. 6 should have been included in this group of amendments. If the Minister retains control of the finances, he will also retain control of the investment and the fund. I congratulate the Minister on the dramatic progress in this area. This Bill will go a long way to meet the needs in this area provided he accepts our amendments.
Technology is changing so rapidly that a prompt response is essential. We saw what happened in Seagate which employed low level skills. Low level skill industries could move out tomorrow morning. However, it is more difficult to do that when skills are of a higher level because it involves a different investment programme. The Minister could respond more rapidly if he did not need the consent of the Department of Finance. I hope this Bill is implemented as soon as possible.
I support the previous two speakers. This fund was a huge morale boost for those involved in research. Anything which slows it down or restricts it will be unwelcome. The less referring back which is necessary the better. We are not asking the Minister to change the manner in which the State operates. Any delay would be unfortunate, especially when there is such rapid technological change taking place.
Section 2(7) deals with the interest on investments accruing to the fund, particularly in terms of private donations. The Department of Finance has a big role to play in selecting major projects. My Department has worked with the Department of Finance and the fund has enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the Minister for Finance from the outset. The Department of Education and Science will be responsible for the preparation, endorsement and acceptance of projects which come from the institutions. I would not wish to understate my Department's central role. It will not be the case that other Departments will tell us what we can or cannot do.
There will be discussions with the Department of Finance about large projects. We have delegated authority for day to day expenditure up to £3 million and I do not see any difficulty. Vetting public expenditure is part of the Department of Finance's role. Any moneys allocated under these funds fall into the category of public expenditure. It is not only about transparency and accountability. There is a strong team of experienced civil servants in the Department of Education and Science who have a long and understanding relationship with the Department of Finance. I have every confidence in their capacity to ensure that the projects which emerge will get the green light without undue delay. When we get the go ahead for the projects listed early in 1998 it will be all systems go.
Many projects already exist. People have been crying out for years for the updating and modernisation of certain facilities. I understand and appreciate the concerns of Senators that there would be an unbridled implementation of this Bill. However, there might be an element of overstating the Department of Finance's approach which will not be entirely negative. My experience to date has been all right in this regard. I am very confident.
Education is now defined as an item of social expenditure. In agreeing to this fund, the Government clearly stated that education and science are investment issues. This mindset has changed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 16, after "Oireachtas" to insert "not later than three months after the end of the relevant financial year".
The purpose of this amendment is twofold. It is to bring it into line with good business practice and with section 8. I have been in this House for five years and I have consistently upheld the principle that speed in reporting is fundamental to accountability. If a State body publishes its annual report a long time after its year end, it becomes a historical document, and the ability of the Oireachtas to exercise control is diminished if not removed entirely.
About this time last year I asked for the annual accounts of RTÉ for 1995, but in late November 1996 it was not published. It was only after I raised the matter that it was suddenly published in early December last year. It is very important we institute in legislation what is normal business practice. It was unknown five years ago for legislation to set down a date for publication of accounts. At first I was told it could not be done, but modern minded Ministers started listening to my arguments and now almost every Bill sets down a time limit for reporting to the Oireachtas. Since the Seanad managed to achieve that objective, that is one argument for keeping this House in existence.
There is, however, still some foot-dragging, as is shown by the subsection which I propose to amend. We have some difficulty getting amendments through today, but I hope the Minister will understand the case I make in this instance. The foot-dragging to which I refer is demonstrated even more clearly by the proposed Government amendment No. 4, which misses the point of my argument. There are two potential causes of delay in reporting: first, the outside body is slow to report and, second, the responsible Department, having received the report, fails to publish it on time. That happened in the case of RTÉ. When the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies asked for RTÉ's annual report last year we were told it had been given to the Minister six months earlier. It was published only after we raised the matter. RTÉ was not responsible for the delay because the report had been given to the Minister in May and he still had not published it in November.
The two potential causes of delay are that the organisation is slow in finalising reports and the Minister is slow in publishing them. My approach is to kill those two birds with the one stone by imposing an obligation that reports be laid before the Oireachtas by a set deadline after the end of the financial year. That would place an obligation on the organisation to finalise its report and give it to the Minister and would oblige the Minister to publish the report and place it before the Oireachtas within three months. If my amendment is accepted, the report of accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General would be laid before us within three months. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department would be aware they have to work within that timeframe.
Sometimes the practice of the private sector gives us a hint of what it is possible to achieve and what is desirable in the public sector. As is the case in Britain, the Stock Exchange compels publicly quoted companies to report within a very tight timeframe because it is aware that setting a time limit is the essence of accountability. As a result, vast global corporations have no difficulty reporting within a few weeks of their year end. Banks publish their reports within days and big multinational companies report on a quarterly basis. That is good practice. If we are to achieve good practice in the State as in the private sector we should regulate for that, and it is possible to do so.
Let us not argue about the practicalities of this proposal. It is done in much larger organisations. I am upset and astounded by the Government's amendment. It not only puts a deadline on when the report should be received but proposes to allow the Department a further leisurely three months to consider it before passing it to the Oireachtas. This timetable is more suited to the 19th than the 21st century. Section 8 states that the Minister shall report to the Oireachtas on the operations of the fund within three months of the end of the financial year — the exact timeframe I propose. It makes sense to consider the report and the accounts of the fund at the same time. It does not make sense to have one without the other. Of all the amendments tabled today, I am sure the Minister will see the sense of this one and accept it.
Section 8 states that the report must be submitted within three months. Surely the accounts should be included in the report. I have asked for the report to be published, not just laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Surely the accounts should be submitted within the same timeframe as the report.
We are talking about two different reports. We are talking about the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and a report the Minister will bring before the House regarding the operation of the fund. The Minister for Education and Science should have complete control over the compilation of the report on the operation of the fund in the previous 12 months and the timing of its release to the Oireachtas and the public.
My amendment seeks to meet some of Senator Quinn's concerns, but obviously it does not go far enough. It would not be appropriate to place a statutory obligation on the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Bill. I do not wish to dictate in an arrogant manner how that office should conduct its business. A variety of reasons could delay the preparation of a report of this nature. I want to stop short of placing an obligation on that office in the Bill. It is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the legislation governing that office to uphold good practice. I agree with Senator Quinn in terms of the good practices that are desirable in preparing reports.
I will make a verbal amendment to my amendment to reduce to one month the length of time the Department of Education and Science may take to consider the report before releasing it. Once the Comptroller and Auditor General submits the report to the Department of Education and Science, it will have control over its release and I am anxious that it should be released as quickly as possible. I am prepared to change the wording of my amendment from "three months" to "one month". Therefore, the report will be published one month after the Minister receives it. I would have a difficulty placing an obligation on the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of when it should finalise and present a report to the Minister.
Once again the Minister is to be congratulated on accepting Senator Quinn's amendment, specifying the time within which the accounts of the fund shall be submitted to each House of the Oireachtas. I welcome that stipulation because, as Senator Quinn rightly pointed out, in the business world, people compile and submit their reports expeditiously. Though it is a separate issue relating to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, perhaps the fact that Senator Quinn raised it might mean it could be attended to in another manner without the Minister appearing to be dictating to that office.
I thank the Minister for his consideration and understanding of the motivation behind my amendment. I agree that it would be difficult for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have the rules laid down for him by the Minister.
We must strive to have the timescale for the submission of accounts shortened. When I was chairman of An Post I discovered that, prior to my appointment, its accounts had not been published sometimes until a year or two after the end of the relevant financial year when, admittedly, it had come under the umbrella of the Department. Thereafter, we endeavoured to have them published very early but, having been prepared and handed over to the Minister, we discovered that sometimes he sat on them for a considerable period. I accept the Minister's understanding and, on the basis of his comments, am happy to withdraw my amendment for the Minister's amendment to the amendment specifying "one month".
I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment. I agree it is good practice.
If it is in order, therefore, I shall now move my verbal amendment specifying that, on receipt of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Minister for Education and Science will publish the accounts within a month.
Government amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 16, after "Oireachtas" to insert "not later than one month after the end of the relevant financial year".
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3, agreed to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 16, after "Oireachtas" to insert "within 3 months after receipt by the Minister of that report".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am confused — a favourite phrase of mine on Committee Stage over the years — because section 2 (4) states: "Without prejudice to the functions conferred on the Minister by this section and sections 3 and 4, the Minister for Finance shall manage the Fund". At the end of section 4, and I am not trying to reopen an old argument, it states that payments shall only be made out of the fund with the consent of the Minister for Finance. I have tried to play handball in my head with these two subsections. I am not sure what they mean.
The meaning of subsection (4) is that the Minister for Finance will manage the fund. The Minister for Finance has the delegated authority to allow the National Treasury Management Agency to manage the money, rather than leave it sitting as one block. The other section deals with the actual projects. The Department of Finance has consent in regard to the actual projects decided upon to be funded out of the fund. Once the fund is created, the overall authority for managing it rests with the Department of Finance. The consent of the Department is required in terms of projects.
I will keep my confusion to myself as I do not want to delay the House. Will the Minister clarify that it is the intention that this fund will be managed by the NTMA?
Yes, that is agreed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 40 to 43, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) in the financial years, 1999 and 2,000, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, such sums as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall determine and the sums so determined shall amount in aggregate to £150,000,000.".
Senators tabled amendments on this section which are disallowed on the grounds that they would constitute a charge on the Exchequer. In this amendment I am endeavouring to put to rest any lingering doubts about the Government's commitment to the £250 million fund. That is the reason we are revising the text. I know this matter was articulated on Second Stage by Senator Quinn, Senator Henry and others. We are including this amendment to strengthen that commitment, which is very solid. In fact, if one examines the National Prices Commission accounts for the next two years, one will see the money has been allocated in the no policy change Estimates.
My amendment was aimed at removing the difficulty where, on the one hand, the State was not committed to paying the money into the fund while, on the other, it was putting a limit on the amount that could be put in. I accept the Minister's amendment as a crumb from the table but it is a welcome crumb and I understand the point he made.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 inclusive, not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 16 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 3 as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 11 and 12, after "Minister" to insert "in consultation with educational partners and donors to the Fund".
I was asked to speak for Senator Coogan on this amendment. I welcome this important Bill which provides a dynamic way to get the business community involved in the running of education with particular emphasis on science and technology. This amendment is important because the payments from the fund will determine where the action will be in education.
Section 4(1) empowers the Minister to make payments from the fund without consulting the education partners or the donors. As the donors will play such an important part in this process, it is right and proper that the Department of Education and Science and the Minister consult representatives of the donors. The manner in which the donors should be selected and communicated with should not be bound up in bureaucracy which would delay investment that is essential at this time. It is critical that the business community and private individuals should be consulted on a dynamic basis to ascertain their needs. If individuals or companies invest in a specific way in a particular project there will be consultation in that event, but their wishes must be taken into account.
The term "education partners" is broad but it is important particularly in addressing how the fund may be used which is dealt with later in the Bill. The Bill states it will be used for "programmes the primary objective of which is to improve the ability of students in primary and post-primary schools to use computers and other types of information technology". Key individuals in that process will be the students, the teachers, the school administration and their representative bodies. It is important that those bodies be consulted and that should be written into statute.
The Minister has recognised an important aspect of science and technology. There is a surplus of jobs at present which we cannot fill because workers in the computer industry who have computer knowledge do not have the necessary language skills for telemarketing projects. We do not have enough qualified people with language skills and I hope this money will be used to develop further the investment the Minister is making in the creation of new courses in language skills.
The Minister acting on his own will not have all the necessary wisdom and, therefore, it is important that all the education partners, particularly the donors, should be consulted. I would not like to lay down the rules how that should be done, but I hope in his reply the Minister will outline a dynamic, efficient and simple way it could be done. That would greatly strengthen the Bill and Minister's approach by making this a community project in which everyone would be involved, which I know is his intention.
A number of amendments were tabled with that theme in mind. To accommodate the general thrust of those amendments I tabled amendment No. 43 which provides that, "In page 6, paragraph (b)(vii), line 42, after "Government" to insert "or other persons (including donors of gifts to which section 7 applies)". That amendment deals with the donors issue and provides that, if necessary, consultation with them will take place. Considerable consultation took place with a variety of interests and it is important that such consultation continues.
The Tánaiste and I will co-chair a skills forum which will involve Government agencies, the secretaries-general of the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the HEA. Although that forum will be involved in medium to long-term skills forecasting and identifying the needs of industry on an ongoing basis, its deliberations will have an impact on the application and spending of funds. There will be strong consultation between it and the Minister for Education and Science. There will also be an implementation group, chaired by Mr. Chris Horne, to implement the recommendations of the forum, and a high powered technical group which will deal with skills issues. We want to avoid another skills shortage, such as the one we are experiencing at present, occurring again in the future. I favour the consultation elements in amendment No. 43.
Senator Quinn asked that a panel of donors be established. There is no need for such a panel. Donors might have different requirements and I am anxious to keep the position as flexible as possible so we will be able to consult with any donor.
I am prepared to accept Senator Henry's amendment, No. 42, which proposes consultation with the Minister for Health and Children.
The logic behind the grouping of amendments has always been a mystery to me. I cannot understand why amendment No. 18 and amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 are grouped together.
Why does the Minister consider it necessary to refer to some Departments and not others? Amendment No. 38 provides that the Minister simply consult "if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, also consult with such other Ministers of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate". Why does the Minister not refer to a general power to consult?
The Minister has that power in section 6 (b)(vii).
I accept that. However, why list some Departments? Are ministerial egos being massaged?
Is the difficulty with section 6(a)?
No, I accept that.
That is a public acknowledgement of the synergy between the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science in the area of skills. The other Departments are mentioned because, in the process of drafting the legislation, they might have expressed the desire to be consulted. I am not keen to include the phrase "as the Minister considers appropriate".
There is no need to mention some Departments and not others.
Some are more relevant to the content of the legislation than others. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, for example, has a strong educational dimension through second chance education, mature students, second and third level allowances and PLC courses. The Department of Public Enterprise has a range of related responsibilities. The Department of Agriculture and Food also has an educational dimension through Teagasc. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has an interest through vocational education committees and so forth. If issues emerge which pertain to the responsibilities or areas of interest of these Departments, the Bill provides that the Minister for Education and Science can consult with the relevant Minister. There is no veto on consultation with other Ministers.
I accept that. I am just being a little awkward.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Some things do not change.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach's wit does not change either.
There is a problem for those who live in the Gaeltacht where there is an unwillingness on the behalf of State agencies to conduct business in the Irish language. This is a huge area of skills provision and there is no reference to any obligation to consult the Minister who is responsible for the Gaeltacht and its unique cultural heritage. This is an example of the silliness of including individual Departments. The Minister should have given himself the right to consult anyone he wants——
It is there.
Senator Henry has put forward an amendment from the advisory body on science and technology which is not mentioned here either. There is a need to consult bodies such as that.
I thank the Minister for indicating he will accept my amendment No. 42. On Second Stage I raised the fact that one of the most important features of research today is that it is inter-disciplinary. Some years ago I read an article on the value of coffee breaks in The Lancet. It discussed the fact that people who worked in research institutions only met at coffee where they discovered the valuable work being done in other areas with which they could become involved.
At one stage different institutions did not conduct research with each other. However, Departments and institutions now co-operate on a national and international basis. This inter-disciplinary effort in different areas is important.
I rise in a fit of pique and envy of Senator Henry because, like Senator Ryan I thought my amendment No. 41 was perfect in proposing to insert "if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, also consult with such other Ministers of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate.". However, the Minister said he will just consult the Minister for Health and Children. Amendment No. 43 is a good replacement for my amendment No. 39 and I will withdraw it. I made the point that donors were not included and it is important the Minister has now done so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, subsection (1)(b), line 27, to delete "special".
My amendment proposes to delete "special" in terms of the needs the Minister may address in making payments from the fund. At best, the word "special" is meaningless and at worst it is ambiguous. It could give rise to wrangling in future as to whether this project is special. I suggest we leave the use of the word "special" for when we really need it.
This is about focus and is the same approach as that given to the Title. The fund was established for specific purposes including special skills needs which may arise occasionally. We did not want the Bill or the fund to cover the generality of education provision which is normally covered by the Estimates process. To be frank, including it or not including it will not change the world.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 20 and 29 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, subsection (1)(b), line 28, to delete "need," and substitute the following:
"need:
Provided that such training programmes are carried out in or on behalf of a body, college, institute, school or other agency, the greater part of whose funding is provided by the Minister.".
On this occasion I understand why the amendments are grouped together. This is a difficult area for which to legislate, and I am aware that it is the intention that this money should be spent in the area of education funded by the State. It is not meant to assist private education institutions nor is it intended to assist FÁS which already has £0.5 billion to spend on projects, with limited public accountability. My endeavour is to make explicit the implicit intentions, namely, that these resources are to be devoted to improving the educational infrastructure within the area of education for which the Minister is responsible and which is currently funded largely by the Department of Education and Science. I refer to the primary and secondary sector and to the third level sector to the degree that it is funded by the State and includes universities, regional technical colleges and institutes of technology. I am not sure how many institutes of technology there are in the State, but when we come to the relevent section perhaps the Minister would clarify it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the money goes where it is meant to go.
I understand the purpose of the amendment and reiterate that is the intention. The fund is for capital projects in the State sector. I would not like our hands to be completely tied legislatively in terms of the application of this fund. I am not sure whether one could constitutionally do that in any event. We have identified the areas where we want to allocate the funds, and all those that have been identified to date are in the public sector.
Private sector colleges could have a role in meeting skills needs, but that would be on the current side of budgeting, for example, in terms of providing places in certain areas. Under the last Government, under the Lindsay Fund, a private college was invited to tender for places along with State colleges. That element of competition will always be there in terms of the current side. However, this is a capital fund so I do not see it arising in that case.
This is a huge amount of money which will generate considerable interest. It is the ubiquitous Department of Finance in the background that bothers me. A proposal from a private institution to provide half the capital funding for a project if the State would fund the other half might seem an extremely attractive bargain from the point of view of the State, but it would mean less money would be available to deal with the problems the Minister has identified in the currently underfunded State sector. Also, if FÁS was to propose using some of these funds to further develop its already extraordinary empire, what authority would the Minister have to tell the Department of Finance that he does not intend this money to be used in that area of education or training?
On Second Stage I identified the £60 million Lindsay Fund for computer software and technician programmes. The purpose of that £60 million is to meet skills needs in a variety of ways. Our intention is to do so via the technological sector, the universities and the post-leaving certificate colleges. However, I would not exclude the possibility of a private college meeting those needs. It could do this without capital money from the State in the sense that it may require a contractual arrangement with the State in terms of the current side. I would not wish to include a provision that would debar other institutions with national standards, for example, NCEA designated courses, etc. , from playing a role in meeting skills needs in the future.
I do not regard the allocation of half the money for a capital project as good value for money. The project would obviously remain in private control and the State would not get a great deal in that there would have to be a short-term cut in the number of places.
The Senator's amendment would not preclude FÁS which receives the bulk of its money——
The money is not provided by the Minister for Education and Science.
It is provided by the State.
My point is that it is not provided by the Minister.
The Deputy should not be too concerned as £80 million is being allocated to the technological sector.
That is not my only interest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, subsection (1)(c)(i), line 30, to delete "and" and to insert "and/or".
This amendment proposes a minor but extremely important change in the wording of the section. I say this as someone who became involved in research for the first time during my unfortunate absence from the House. Section 4(1)(c)(i) refers to the carrying out of scientific and technological research and development by or on behalf of a college, body, etc. I know precisely what research and development is but it is not necessarily what a third level institution does.
Development is separate from research and is an entirely different idea. It carries with it the implication of putting a commercial value on the consequences of research. Third level institutions sometimes carry out research and development but there is a need for fundamental research. There is also a need for research which will result in commercial developments. However, as one cannot guarantee this it would narrow the focus considerably to tie the fund exclusively to programmes of research and development. While we must facilitate research and development, we must also facilitate research on its own without the implication that it must have development attached to it. Research and development are two different jobs.
It is intended that pure research will be funded under the fund. For the first time ever there is a provision in the Estimates of £5 million for research to match some of the capital provisions in the fund. However, in the event of doubt I accept the Senator's amendment.
I am delighted the Minister is accepting the amendment as without State funding for basic research people involved in research will not receive funding from commercial sources. State funding is vital for much research and I am glad the Minister has clarified the position.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, subsection (1)(c)(ii), line 35, after "aforesaid," to insert "subject to established peer-review process and project excellence.".
I am glad I am speaking to such a discreet audience as some of my colleagues in third level institutions might think I have become paranoid about the research they carry out. This amendment is related to my later amendment which deals with the decision to make the Higher Education Authority the main body in terms of allocating the funding. I propose that the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation should be given this task.
While the Higher Education Authority is made up of very worthy people, it does not have a specific committee which can advise on scientific and technological research. There has been much discussion, particularly by Forbairt, on the need to rationalise all the boards in charge of research. I am concerned that the Higher Education Authority will have to set up another body to supervise scientific and technological research.
The reason I included the words "established peer-review process and a project excellence" was that there is no criteria in this section to indicate how worthy scientific and technology research must be. I do not know if the Higher Education Authority is in a position to make these decisions. I know the amendment looks clumsy but the Minister should be in a position to telephone somebody to ask if what is proposed in an institution is all right. In view of what comes later in the Bill, I could not devise a better way to put it.
As somebody involved in the other sector of education, I agree with Senator Henry. The Higher Education Authority is not the appropriate body to evaluate research proposals and proposals to fund it.
I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. The Senator more or less accepts that. I understand the intention behind the amendment — that there would be widespread consultation with experts in the field. The CIRCA and the STIAC reports and the work of STIAC will inform people of the Department's approach to the issues of research and the projects which emerge.
We must be careful in the context of the Universities Act, 1997, on which we all remember the celebrated debates. I was Opposition spokesperson and defended to the death the institutional autonomy of the universities and the fact that there is meant to be quality assurance procedures in the universities. We must be mindful that what we include in this Bill does not undermine basic autonomy in the institutes of technology, the regional technical colleges, and the universities. If we include a peer group which might not like what the universities say, we could end up with a situation which is contrary to the spirit and ethos of the Universities Act, 1997, as passed by both Houses.
Consultation and bringing on board expertise is the key. Research must have a certain relevance. The CIRCA report emphasises the need for rigorous evaluation of research projects and we will put in place structures to ensure this happens. In the light of Senator Henry's comments, it is an area which the Higher Education Authority should take on board. It should develop expertise in that arena as well.
I thank the Minister for his comments because he has taken the spirit of my amendment on board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, subsection (1)(d), line 37, after "students" to insert ", teachers and lecturers".
Obviously, it is the intention of the framers of the Bill that the professionals in the field, such as teachers and third level lecturers, will be consulted, perhaps even under section 4(1)(e). This amendment seeks to ensure teachers and third level lecturers are specifically involved with these programmes.
I understand from where Senators are coming. This subsection deals specifically with the Schools IT 2000 plan published recently. It is not intended to include third level but only primary and second levels. I am prepared to accept amendment No. 24 in the name of Senator Ryan which states "and teachers". Amendment No. 23 refers to teachers and lecturers, but "lecturer" has a third level connotation which is not applicable to Schools IT 2000 because we want to allocate approximately £25 million to Schools IT 2000 and I want to ring-fence that for the primary and second levels. That is not unreasonable in a fund of £250 million.
Amendment No. 25 would involve the insertion of "and third level institutions" and I explained why I am leaving that out.
Amendment No. 26, in the name of Senator Quinn, would involve the insertion of "including the training of new and existing teachers to facilitate this aim". The insertion of "and teachers" would cover that in so far as the capital requirements of that training is concerned, that is the provision of equipment, plus the provision of equipment to the education centres, because we envisage the education centres, being pivotal in the training of teachers regionally. For example, it is envisaged that the regional education centres would be given a specific ICT capacity in capital terms so that they can be provided with equipment.
On the current side of the Estimates, funding will be provided for training. This is a capital fund. We already have provided £3 million this year on the current side of the Estimate for 1998 for teacher training, but, on the capital side, some of the funds will be used to equip what were called teacher centres and are now known as education centres so that they can fulfil a key role around the country.
It is a little frustrating when the Minister accepts one's amendment before one gets a chance to speak on it. I accept the ringfencing to which the Minister referred and that is why my amendment proposes to insert the word "teachers". There is no level of education where the staff do not need resources to keep up to date but things are changing fast. This was a specific proposal to do with primary and second level education and I know it was intended that teachers would be involved. I simply want to make it explicit. I am glad the Minister accepted the amendment.
In particular, I am happy that this capital funding applies to education centres because they are an extremely important resource about which I am only vaguely familiar. I know of their value from what teachers tell me about them.
They are fantastic.
As a regional force in disseminating new ideas in education, they are obviously extremely important.
I understand that. Perhaps the Minister would repeat himself so that I will be clear on it. The reason behind my amendment was that the Bill should acknowledge that the training of teachers is a capital project. One cannot have computers unless teachers have been trained to use them.
Correct.
I want to clarify what the Minister said in that regard. It seems to me that training teachers in the use of computers is part of the capital project. I would hate to discover that computers were made available but we had not allocated money to train teachers to use them. The Minister has explained that but I want to hear him repeat it.
First, the Schools IT 2000 plan for the next three years, which we published recently, identified the training of teachers as a key essential ingredient. In other words, there is no point in providing computers for classrooms if the teachers are not trained to apply the new technology and are not able to use them for their subjects.
Teacher training will be provided through a range of in-service training programmes. Some will be carried out by university education departments and regional technical colleges. A more important permanent structural force for teacher training are the education centres, which are run by the Department of Education and Science. Teachers have always had a strong involvement in them and there are ten of them around the country. They were established with EU money, which financed the new buildings, etc. , but there is a specific capital provision in Schools IT 2000 to equip those centres on the IT front so that they can train teachers.
The current side of the Education Estimate provides £3 million this year and up to £15 million over the next three years to deal with the current aspects of pay, materials, resource packs, etc. I endorse the Senator's amendment in that sense and he is correct that it is covered in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (1)(d), line 37, after "students" to insert "and teachers".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 25 to 29, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 5, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(f) the maintenance and development of existing research expertise in order to keep the standards of scientific and technological educators at or above international levels,
(g) developing new strategic research areas where Ireland can exploit its research resource to develop new technological and research skills which may be of commercial importance."
Because of what the Minister said to Senator Quinn about training, I fear this amendment will receive similar treatment. However, like Senator Quinn, I am concerned that the skills of those working in these areas would be upgraded as this can be as important as the equipment bought. Will the Minister specifically mention these areas to ensure that what exists in the way of research expertise will be upgraded, and that those already involved in research will also be given the resources to develop new technological research skills?
I would like to think that paragraph 4(1)(c) encompasses many of the ideas behind the Senator's amendment. The provisions of section 4 are phrased in general terms and constitute the broad headings under which support will be provided. Research and development are included in this section in paragraph 4(1)(c). Extensive consultation will be undertaken with all interested parties to ensure decisions concerning allocations under all headings, including research and development, are informed by the views of leading experts and organisations in the various fields. Section 4 is general and should not be seen as excluding other groups or people. It is not exclusive and is meant to be general to provide for flexibility in taking expertise on board.
As the Senator states in her amendment, new strategic research will emerge. Things are moving rapidly. The idea of the skills forum, to be co-chaired by the Tánaiste and me, and the implementation group and technical working group operating under it is that if a dramatic invention or innovation occurs in the next three years which dramatically changes the way the world works, and the signs are there will be one especially in the area of communications, we will have a strategic response on research grounds to meet that.
As the Minister states that it is covered by paragraph 4(1)(c), I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) (i) The Minister shall consult with the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation as the forum representing all the major parties in Irish Science and Technology, with the Higher Education Authority and with such existing public research support agencies as are relevant as to what is international best practice in allocating resources for research under the Fund. In particular for allocations to be made under subsection (1) paragraphs (c), (f) and (g).
(ii) The Minister shall also examine whether using the existing research support structures provides the most cost effective method for achieving the aims of this Fund, with particular reference to subsection (1) paragraphs (c), (f) and (g)."
I will not delay the House. This has caused me much concern because I cannot understand why it is the Higher Education Authority rather the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation which is to be the major player in this area. The Higher Education Authority does incredibly valuable work but I did not know it has a subcommittee in a position to examine the areas of science and technology. We have been berated by Forbairt and asked to try to rationalise the various number of research boards. However, in the Bill the Higher Education Authority is being asked to set up a subcommittee, which I presume it will have to do, when the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation could have done this work and advised the Higher Education Authority on it.
I accept that, but the Higher Education Authority has statutory functions in terms of dealing with third level institutions, especially the university sector. That said, there is a provision in the Bill to consult with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under whose aegis the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation operates. I have no difficulty consulting with the council, but I would have difficulty inserting the requirement "shall consult" in the Bill. I do not think the council should have a veto in terms of research projects which come before the Minister or the Department at any given time. The amendment implies that that should be done and that the council, as opposed to anyone else, would have to be consulted for the duration of the fund.
Is there not another problem relating to the HEA? The regional technical colleges are not under the authority, nor are many of the private colleges mentioned by the Minister.
The Minister has considerable powers to deal with bodies such as regional colleges. I want to leave a degree of latitude to give the Minister the power to consult a wide variety of organisations and groups in the field who may have a view to offer. An institution may have special expertise in microelectronics, biotechnology, etc. and on a given council people may have particular interests which they wish to push. In naming certain organisations, we must be careful not to give them a status over others, or exclude some who may have a genuine interest in being available for consultation. Having said that, we accept the importance of the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation in terms of investment and research and we will consult it. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will rely heavily on the council's assessments of a number of projects in that area which would be coming up for agreement.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Could the Minister introduce an amendment on Report Stage which mentions the council, as it is the main body? The HEA does not cover all the institutions with which we are dealing and while I would not suggest it has a bias towards those instutions it covers, it could be so perceived by others.
The problem is that the Bill currently states: "the Minister shall consult . before making a payment". If we include another provision to state that the Minister shall consult the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, that more or less gives the body a veto over the making of a payment. Perhaps we could include a provision that the Minister "may" consult the body.
I would be perfectly happy with "may"; I do not want a veto.
It would require an amendment, which we will draw up between now and Report Stage.
That will be satisfactory.
If I may throw in a dissenting word, the process of developing a science and technology policy has been characterised by the exclusion of the science and technology sector of education. The initial advisory body set up about five years ago had no representative of that sector of education. It tends to be a forum for industry and the universities. I referred to this on Second Stage in a contribution which so upset Senator Fitzgerald, although perhaps he misunderstood me. There is a need to assert equal status if that is what we intend, which means involvement in policy formulation, consultation and proper participation, not adjudication on one sector by people who are deemed to be more competent because they work in a separate sector. If we are to mention the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation — I have no problem with that in principle — the council should represent all those involved in the area, including in particular the science and technology sector of third-level education.
I take the Senator's point and if it is any consolation to him, that sector influenced me when I was in Opposition, hence the policy departure. Many of the complaints are being addressed, at least initially, in the fund. For years people have been complaining about the absence of a fund for scientific research. Senator Quinn raised the funding of equipment and laboratories. A fund of £30 million is being established with £15 million being provided for research and technology. This represents a meaningful response to many of the representations from the council and the various interests involved in scientific research. We will seek to insert an amendment to meet the issues raised.
In view of what the Minister has said I will not be pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 6, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following new subsections:
"(7) Before making payments under this section the Minister shall prepare and make public detailed criteria under which he or she proposes to make such payments.
(8) All representations, whether in writing or otherwise made to the Minister by or on behalf of a body, college or institute referred to in subsection 1(a) shall be published when any payments under this section are approved by the Minister.".
This amendment is superfluous to an extent because from 6 April 1998 the Freedom of Information Act will apply to the Department of Education and Science and a considerable element of what I am concerned with here will have to be made public. I am offering the Minister an opportunity to anticipate the obligations he will have under the Freedom of Information Act.
As a public representative from Cork perhaps I should not be encouraging a Minister from Cork to do this as I was hoping he might be biased towards our institutions. If he does produce objective criteria we will only receive that to which we are entitled. However, in the interests of fair play for the rest of the country, we Cork people will not be part of any conspiracy.
It is important that, subject of common sense, the criteria should be objective and stand up to scrutiny.
On the other hand it is necessary to be flexible. The reference to detailed criteria could unnecessarily place us in a straitjacket in allocating money from the fund. Therefore, I am not inclined to go down that route. Unusually, the Bill contains general and broad parameters regarding allocation of funding in the context of meeting the skills needs of industry and business. In the primary sector the Schools IT 2000 Project concerns computers and the apparatus people will require to participate in the information society.
There are existing criteria concerning the spending of public money. I am not inclined to accept the proposed new subsection (7) while the proposed new subsection (8) is superfluous in the context of the Freedom of Information Act. We would need another 20 civil servants for monitoring purposes if we were to catalogue every telephone call and discussion we had with an institution about a project. This would be nonsense and we would get nothing done. I am as committed to freedom of information as the Senator. I earned a mention in his book some years ago for moving a section 4 motion to force a city manager to release certain documentation.
That is correct.
I note the Senator's self-confidence regarding the institution to which he is attached and its ability to meet any detailed criteria which I might apply.
A huge sum of money is involved and it is important there be public confidence that the money is used correctly. Most of what I am seeking under the amendment will be in place once the Freedom of Information Act comes into operation. The information will be made public instantaneously, not a year later. The public will have the right to know the criteria which the Minister uses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Given that the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, is mentioned, I cannot resist asking the Minister whether he proposes to sign an order under that Act before Christmas to change the name of a particular institution. I do not wish to get involved in a commercial argument, but there is a need to ensure that the State does not become part of a movement by one software supplier to dominate the Internet. Steps have been taken by a court in the United States as recently as yesterday to prevent Microsoft insisting its web browser should be included on every computer sold that has the Windows '95 programme. The web browser being installed on Members' computers this month is Microsoft's version.
We should be careful not to use large resources of the State to reduce competition in the market-place. This point has nothing to do with ideology, but the fact is that the degree of competition in these areas is lessening all the time. The State should use its resources subject to good quality to optimise competition. This would be better for everybody and we should bear this aspect in mind regarding the installation of Internet connections in schools.
I am intrigued by the wording of section 4(2). It states that any payments of moneys from the fund shall be made to the person who has incurred or will incur the capital expenditure. This is peculiar wording because the Bill relates to institutions, colleges and schools. I did not table an amendment on this matter because it would be technical. However, I am not happy about the use of the word "person". I do not intend to be awkward but it is not the right word to use.
Is the Senator referring to section 4(2)?
Yes. Is the term defined elsewhere?
No, I wanted to clarify the subsection to which the Senator is referring.
Why are the terms "body corporate", "institution" or "college" not used? The word "person" is a peculiar term. Who is the person in UCD, Trinity College, Dublin, or the Waterford Institute of Technology?
I understand the term "person" means——
The body corporate?
Yes, or the legal entity.
I am sceptical.
I am not a legal expert but my advice is that it refers to the third person. I will send the Senator a note on the matter.
I thank the Minister. Will he explain why the Minister for Finance must give his consent to the guidelines for the commercial exploitation of research in third level institutions? This escapes my understanding.
To which subsection is the Senator referring?
Section 4(5) states that no payment shall be made from the fund in respect of an activity referred to in subsection (1)(c)(ii), which relates to using the results of research for commercial purposes, other than in accordance with guidelines issued by the Minister. That is fine but it also states that this must be with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
That is consistent with the rest of the Bill. We argued this point earlier when I said I would not use the Bill as a mechanism for changing the system. The Senator should not panic.
I am not panicking.
It is consistent with the Department of Finance's role not only in the context of the expenditure of public money under this Bill, but the control of public expenditure generally throughout the system. This role has existed since 1924. All moneys spent under the fund will be with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
The Minister misunderstands me. Subsection (4) states that payments shall only be made out of the fund with the consent of the Minister for Finance. That has been debated. Subsection (5) states that the guidelines to be issued by the Minister for commercial exploitation of research must have the consent of the Minister for Finance. This is not about expenditure of public money but the guidelines for that expenditure. I do not understand this. We have accepted the arguments for other provisions whether we like them or not.
Section 4(1)(c)(ii) states:
the making by or on behalf of such a body, college or institute for commercial purposes, (including by way of any process of manufacturing), of the results of any research and development aforesaid.
Subsection (5) states:
Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, no payment shall be made out of the Fund in respect of an activity referred to in paragraph (c)(ii) of subsection (1) if the activity is carried on otherwise than in accordance with the guidelines as may be issued by the Minister.
Subsection (4) states:
(4) Payments shall only be made out of the Fund with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Finance must approve the Minister for Education's guidelines. I do not see the Minister for Finance's role in that.
The Minister for Finance must approve my guidelines in relation to capital expenditure. If I decide that a regional technical college must build a laboratory, my Department decides if it deserves funding and forms a proposal which is submitted to the Department of Finance. The same applies to other areas of the fund.
I agree totally with Senator Ryan on the software issue. It is our intention to maintain competition. Senator Ryan might allow me some extra time to deal with his first question.
I would rather not.
Before Christmas?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 6, line 25, after "account" to insert "or provided by the Oireachtas under section 3(1)."
This amendment relates to a concern I raised on Second Stage. Section 5 provides that money paid to the fund by outside donors cannot be used for anything other than funding. That is proper. However, we need a safeguard that would apply the same provisions to State payments to the fund, which is what my amendment proposes.
This Bill makes it possible for the Oireachtas to vote money into the fund which could then be spirited away by the Department of Finance before being paid out in accordance with the fund's purposes. This is not an implausible scenario. If we suddenly fell on hard times, which is not impossible given the uncertainties around us, it would be easy to imagine a situation where the Department of Finance would be seeking to hold spending down in every way possible. As it stands, this legislation empowers the Minister for Finance to frustrate the express will of the Oireachtas.
If anyone thinks this will never happen, they will have no difficulty supporting the amendment. If anyone thinks it might happen, they can prevent it by supporting the amendment. This seems to be a recipe for 100 per cent support. I may be too optimistic, but I am envious of my colleagues who have had amendments accepted. I cannot see why the Minister would refuse this amendment, as it can be accepted whether he believes this situation could arise or not.
I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. It would require amending legislation for moneys to be spent on matters other than those detailed in the Bill. This Bill details the areas where that money must be spent; section 4 breaks down the areas where the money will be allocated.
The National Treasury Management Agency will manage this fund as well as the other Exchequer funds it manages. For example, the £100 million which will be allocated immediately the legislation is passed will be held by the NTMA but it will not just sit there doing nothing. The amendment could affect that aspect of the NTMA's operations.
The money can only be drawn down when the Minister for Education decides which projects are to be financed out of the fund and presents that to the Department of Finance. No one, not even the Minister for Finance, could later circumvent this legislation by using money from that fund for other purposes.
The subsection states:
Moneys standing to the credit of the investment account shall not be used for any purposes other than those specified in this Act.
I propose to——
The Senator wants it to be public sector money.
Yes, I want to ensure it is public sector money. I do not understand how that could not happen under this scenario. The investment account is not necessarily public sector money.
The investment account is separate in that the donors may attach certain conditions. Therefore, one would wish to have a clause enshrined in the legislation to respect and protect the right of donors to have their money in a separate section. The NTMA is managing the public side of it, which is somewhat separate from the private sector donors' account. I do not want to insert a clause which could impede the NTMA's management of the fund, as could happen if the amendment were accepted.
That is not my intent. However, if we were to fall on hard times I could see the beady eyes of the Department of Finance regarding this as spare money and taking it back. Senator Ryan referred to this earlier in a different context.
The only consolation I can give in that regard is that by the end of 1998 there will be enough projects to use up all the funds. The idea of the fund is to allow us approve projects far in advance, although the payments may not be due until the second or third year. The fund will meet bills arising from commitments which were entered into a year or two previously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) Moneys standing to the credit of the Fund after the end of the financial year 2000 will be disbursed according to the mechanisms established by this Act and for no purposes other than those specified in this Act.
I am becoming crazed with power, having had an amendment accepted and another being considered for Report Stage. I share Senator Quinn's suspicions about what could happen if we fell on hard times. However, I also would not like the money in the fund to be disbursed suddenly to meet the deadline on spending. I realise the money in the fund can be used only for the purposes of the Bill. Will whatever money is left in the fund after 2000 be retained for the use of this special project?
Yes.
I would not like the money to be used for other purposes just to meet the 2000 deadline. That money could be vital in hard times.
Such moneys will be used for the purposes of the fund. I like to think that a one line amendment will be enacted in 2000 to increase the fund. I hope the Department of Finance is not listening.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 6, between lines 40 and 41, to insert "(vii) the Minister for Health and Children,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 6, paragraph (b)(vii), line 42, after "Government" to insert "or other persons (including donors of gifts to which section 7 applies)".
Government amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 43:
After the word "applies" to insert "and the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, being a body of persons established by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment".
The purpose of the amendment is to address the point raised by Senator Henry regarding consultations.
I thank the Minister for the amendment.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 43 agreed to.
Amendment No. 43, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 44 to 47, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 52 and 55 are related and all may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 6, after "property" to insert "including equipment".
These amendments relate to donations in kind. The Bill allows only for donations in kind which are to be sold and turned into cash for the fund. It does not permit donations of useful property to be used within education. However, the arrangements facilitate the donation of equipment or other kinds of property which can be used in education and by the fund.
Surplus but potentially highly valuable equipment is often available to companies who would donate it far more readily than cash. Hospitals, offices and churches have come across this issue.
The amendment seeks to insert "including equipment" after the word "property" in section 7(2) so that we leave no doubt that donations of equipment fall within the scope of the fund. Amendment No. 49 allows donations to be used "to further the purposes" of the fund rather than just being sold. Amendment No. 52 allows the Minister to sell donated property but does not require him or her to do so. Amendment No. 55 provides for the Minister to lease donated equipment to an educational institution. These amendments cover all eventualities if the practice of donating useful equipment is encouraged. It would be mad to sell such equipment at a knock down price when it could be put to better use in education. If we are serious about this fund becoming a vehicle for private donations, we should also provide for the donation of equipment.
I accept that the fund will cover the donation of equipment but the Bill already covers that. The phrase "gift of land or other property" covers other capital donations, including equipment. We know the fund will consist of two accounts. The word "property" includes "equipment" which is also identified as capital. The fund will not only be spent on buildings but also on equipment.
Senator Quinn has a point. Section 7(2) states that the Minister "may accept a gift of land or other property, the purpose of the making of which is to enable the State to realise its value for the benefit of the Fund". I am not sure IBM, for example, would be happy to donate £10 million to this fund to enable the Department of Education and Science to buy Dell computers.
There is no difficulty with that. A company can donate computers instead of money to the fund. Some are already doing that. If a company says it will provide £0.5 million or £1 million worth of equipment for schools in a disadvantaged area provided we match it out of the fund, we could get added value for the fund. Companies are not barred from donating to the fund. The idea of IT 2000 is to generate added value for the fund. In other words, if we use the money imaginatively, we can draw down further moneys from companies such as those mentioned by Senator Brendan Ryan. We are in discussions with a number of companies with a view to using some of the money in the fund to match their contributions. The equipment issue is of particular importance to IT 2000 and to third level institutions in terms of what is required for research and laboratories. There is nothing to stop a company from making a donation of equipment. However, it will not be held in the fund as it will go directly to the institution concerned.
The word "property" did not seem to cover equipment. I know we should not use the Bill to encourage the Minister to sell property. I also want to ensure that the Minister is not obliged to sell property to get funds. I will be satisfied if the Minister is convinced this gives him an opportunity to avail of the best use of the equipment and encourages investment in equipment. I am trying to ensure that we encourage this. I am not using the Bill to sell a concept but it seems an ideal opportunity, both in education and elsewhere. I will not press the amendment if the Minister in convinced that it is already included.
I am convinced of that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 9, after "donor" to insert "subject to the condition that the donor does not exclude any of the purposes set down under section 4(1)(a) to (g)."
I can understand why section 7(2) is worded as it is because there may be donors who wish to fund a particular area such as health research, polymers or plastics research. I would not like to think that the donor could specify areas which are not covered by the Bill. This is why I am proposing that the donor could make suggestions as to where the money goes but that they could not exclude any of the purposes set down under section 4(1)(a), although not as far as 4(1)(g) now that my other amendments were not accepted. Is this covered in the Bill?
In endeavouring to attract donors we do not wish to appear too restrictive in terms of telling them where and how they can direct the money. Money donated must be used within the parameters of the fund. If donors wish to do something else, presumably they will do so. I cannot see a situation whereby we would receive money without the consent of the donor — the donor will have control over his or her money.
There would be a degree of dialogue and negotiations between donors and the Department. We expect that many donors will deal directly with institutions. There could be a three-pronged approach whereby an institution which has received private money for the construction of an IT room or a research laboratory, in addition to its own money, may go to the Department and ask for finance from the fund. The fund can be used creatively to give added value and to steer private donations in the direction of scientific and technological areas which we feel require funding in order to generate continued economic growth and meet the needs of industry. I would not wish to include a clause which would appear overly prescriptive or tie the hands of donors to the extent that they would have no rights. The fund is being established for a specific purpose. People who wish to donate will do so cogniscent of the Bill. I do not see the necessity for the amendment.
If a donation is not covered by section 4 will the Minister refuse it?
I would be reluctant to refuse any donation.
What if a donor specifies that the money is not to go to any of these areas? What will the Minister do then?
I would ask them where they wished the donation to go.
What if they had a hare-brained scheme?
It is their money. People do not have to donate to the fund if they wish to do something other than what is provided for. For example, if someone wishes to donate money to a veterinary laboratory which is not covered in the fund, that is their prerogative. We would steer them in the direction of institutions or universities which were not in the fund but which suited them.
Having been involved in raising money for research, I realise how difficult it is to attract funds. I do not wish to do anything which would circumscribe matters. While I presume there will not be much influence on donors, I understand why the Minister believes that donors should not be circumscribed.
Our experience is that consensus is arrived at either between the Department and donors or the institutions and donors. There has been a good record among third level institutions in recent years, with donations of up to £30 million. One must pay tribute to the institutions concerned because they sought much of that funding without encouragement from the Department. Generally, the experience has been that a consensus approach has developed and we should allow that position to remain.
Sometimes research funds are sought by institutions, but the donor sets down a caveat that the money should go towards a pet project, which may be of little value to anyone else. The result is that the time available for research is compressed. I understand the difficulties, but I hope the institutions and the Department will monitor this matter.
Much depends on the relationship between the donor and the recipient. The recipient or institution should endeavour to secure funding for purposes it considers valuable. Ultimately we are not in control of the private donor. Ideally we would like to direct donations to worthwhile projects.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments Nos. 51 to 55, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) Nothing in the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, or The Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992, shall prevent any college or Institute from taking such steps as the Minister deems appropriate to solicit gifts of money, land or property for any of the purposes prescribed in section 4.".
I put down this amendment because of a remark made by Senator Jackman about the fund-raising achievements in the United States of the University of Limerick, which the Minister welcomed. In passing, the Senator said that the president of that institution spent most of his time in the United States. My immediate reaction was that if a director of a regional technical college or president of the Dublin Institute of Technology spent most of his time in the United States the Department of Education would wonder why they were not doing the job they are paid to do.
No, it would not.
I put down this amendment to invite the Minister to give his views on that matter. The amendment states that institutions should be allowed put resources into a proper professional operation to solicit funds. Because of fears of repetition of what happened in Letterkenny, the regional college sector is in a financial straitjacket and people have become extremely wary in this regard. International bodies will not be persuaded to make donations to colleges unless funds are sought, and institutions should be encouraged to put significant resources into an operation to solicit funds.
I thank the Senator for allowing me the opportunity to make clear that we will be encouraging regional technical colleges and technological institutes to seek private funding, in the same way as universities have done. Preliminary steps have been taken to encourage those who invest in third level education to consider regional technical colleges as potential recipients of donations. We have already taken preliminary steps in that direction. We did not lose an opportunity during the past six months to inform potential donors that the regional technical colleges are doing valuable work to meet the needs of industry and that they should consider making donations to them.
The colleges must also display self-confidence in their product and actively seek funds. They are not doing that at present. Some directors may feel they do not have plush offices or dining rooms like the heads of universities and that may be a restraining factor. However, the people who donate money to colleges or to education are not concerned about such issues. They are concerned about the end product and the types of graduates who emerge from colleges. The private sector is practically oriented in this respect. It is the purpose for which people seek donations, rather than wining and dining, that is important.
I would applaud any directors I met in the United States hunting down companies and trying to get investments. Nothing in the legislation precludes them from doing that.
I did not intend to press the amendment. I simply wanted to hear the Minister's view and to concentrate the minds of some people who should have thought about this before now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 7, line 25, after "Oireachtas" to insert "and published".
I accept this amendment.
I thank the Minister for that. This is my lucky day.
I feel genuinely sorry for Senator Quinn.
May the Minister's reign be long.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
On the Order of Business this morning some Members sought time between Committee and Report Stages. Do Members deem that necessary now? The Minister has an engagement but we do not want to rush the Bill.
The Minister has been very forthcoming and we do not feel the Bill was rushed through. We are happy to take Report Stage now. Has the Minister tabled an amendment on that Stage?
No, it was dealt with earlier.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Senators for the time and effort they obviously put into considering the Bill. I accept they were endeavouring to improve the quality and purpose of the Bill to give me added strength as we implement it. I have enjoyed our exchanges on this, the first Committee Stage I have handled in either House. It has been a particular pleasure and privilege for me.
I also want to thank my officials who have moved at a very quick pace co-ordinating all the necessary preparatory tasks, including Assistant Secretary, Mr. Jack O'Brien, Mr. Dick Sweeney, who is involved with the third level sector, and Mr. Tom Boland. I thank them for the incredible number of hours they have invested in the Bill's preparation.
I compliment the Minister on having initiated the Bill in this House and given us such an opportunity for a positive, wide-ranging discussion, enhanced enormously by the Minister's acceptance of many amendments. I thank the Minister most sincerely for the manner in which he dealt with a huge raft of them. At no stage was there any attempt on his part to railroad or take short-cuts through anything. His grasp and understanding of the subject was of such a quality it enabled him to reach out to Senators on the far side of the House in a very fair and generous manner, which has been reflected in the manner in which they accepted the taking of subsequent Stages.
I too should like to comment on the spirit in which the Minister dealt with this Bill. When Senators opposite asked me this morning whether there would be any divisions I had to respond that I did not know, that that would depend on the Minister's attitude. As it transpired, there was absolutely no need for any because of the spirit in which the debate was conducted. Very often the spirit in which Bills initiated in this House are dealt with is such that excessively political confrontations do not take place. That being said, we are well able for them whenever they prove necessary, but not in circumstances in which a Minister is as constructive and co-operative as the Minister has been today. I compliment him on his first handling of a Committee Stage in this House, but I doubt that he will find the atmosphere as convivial on its presentation in the other House.
Lest I be misunderstood, I want to make it quite clear that I consider this a very useful, positive Bill which will be of enormous benefit to our educational system and technological development generally.
I reiterate the sentiments of other Members, particularly on the spirit in which the Minister dealt with the discussion, took note of our comments and satisfactorily answered them.
I should have realised that it was his first Bill and I congratulate him on his imaginative and innovative approach. Anything we have attempted to do today has been by way of the Bill's improvement and the Minister has given us a very fair hearing.
I, too, congratulate the Minister. He will readily realise that we Members were just as concerned as was he about its provisions. Indeed if he encounters any problems from Members in the other House, he might refer them to Senators Brendan Ryan, Feargal Quinn and me, when I have no doubt we will be able to put them on the right track. I congratulate him on the introduction of the Bill and the establishment of this fund.
I also congratulate the Minister on this Bill. Perhaps it was Senator Quinn's introduction of the Christmas pantomime spirit that afforded the Minister such an easy ride.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 2.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Wednesday 17 December, 1997.