Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1998

Vol. 157 No. 12

George Mitchell Scholarship Fund Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendment No. a1 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 form an alternative proposal to the related amendments Nos. 1 and 2. All may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 3, subsection (1), to delete all words form and including "in the State" in line 27 down to and including line 29, and substituting the following:—

"at—

(a) a university or college to which the Universities Act, 1997 applies,

(b) the Dublin Institute of Technology,

(c) an educational institution to which the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992 applies,

(d) the Irish School of Ecumenics, situated, for the time being, at Milltown in the city of Dublin, or

(e) a university in Northern Ireland."

I hope the House will consider the possibility of not coming to a final conclusion today and perhaps taking Report Stage at a later date so that we can return to this matter. I do not understand my amendment to mean that we are legislating for Northern Ireland. The wording of my amendment may be rushed and my reference to "a university in Northern Ireland" may not be the best way to achieve my objective. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 proposes to substitute the words "in Ireland" for "in the State". I cannot believe that presents any problem.

We are discussing funding. When we fund overseas development we do not ask countries for permission to give money to projects in their territory. We did not ask permission of Honduras or Rwanda when we allocated funds to be spent in those countries. We did not legislate for Honduras or Rwanda. We must not place a barrier on these funds by telling students they must not cross the Border and this is what we do if my amendments are not accepted. I am not convinced that this amendment is necessarily the correct way to proceed. It may be that the Attorney General is correct when he says that to use the term "Northern Ireland" in this legislation is wrong. However, I do not understand why it could be.

I have accused others who do not come from near the Border or who do not have family on the other side of the Border, of not going close to the Border often enough. A colleague was aghast when he saw me buying Irish linen because it was manufactured in County Down. I had to coax him into accepting that County Down was part of Ireland. In my company we place a shamrock symbol on merchandise manufactured in Ireland. I have been surprised at the number of people who ask if we should put these symbols on goods which come from one of the six counties of Northern Ireland. We should not even think of asking that question. The belief persists that Northern Ireland must be kept separate from us. I know that is not the Minister's intention and I realise that the Attorney General has advised that we cannot legislate for Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that we legislate for Northern Ireland. I simply ask that we not exclude it. This money is to be spent on education. If a student decides that as part of that education he or she wishes to study across the Border, we should not debar him or her from doing that. I do not believe that constitutes legislating; it is merely the allocation of money, just as development aid is.

The motive behind this amendment encapsulates everything for which George Mitchell worked. We are setting up an institution which creates a void between the two sides of the conflict while he worked to bring them together. If my amendments are not the solution to this problem, then let us seek a better one. We are passing legislation to set up a scholarship which will enable students from the United States to study in Ireland but at the same time telling them they can only study in one part of Ireland and not the other.

I urge the Minister to consider my amendments. If he cannot accept them on Committee Stage, let him take advice from the Attorney General and seek a solution to the problem he sees. I am sure his heart is in the same place as mine. Both amendments have the same objective, to make sure we do not debar students coming to study in Ireland from spending some of their funding north of the Border.

For the information of Senators I point out that Government amendments on the yellow sheet and additional amendments of the white sheet are all being discussed together.

Senator Quinn has raised a fundamental point, one which did not occur to me although it should have done. I am sure there is no disagreement among Senators with what Senator Quinn seeks to achieve.

I was not impressed by the Minister's argument about presuming to legislate for Northern Ireland. Let us look at what will happen in practical terms. A board will be established which will be responsible for the disbursement of the scholarships. If a student decides that an institution in Northern Ireland is best suited to his or her purpose the granting of a scholarship to that student could not be seen as presuming to legislate for another jurisdiction. In my view the Attorney General's interpretation is not merely unduly but almost unreasonably restrictive.

We live in a difficult age where litigation arises very easily and where people are prone to take constitutional challenges. I accept that the Minister is right to be very sensitive. Someone in Northern Ireland could challenge this legislation.

I accept the logic of what Senators Manning and Quinn say but it could be claimed by some people that we are presuming to legislate for another jurisdiction.

The Attorney General is a former student of mine which makes me feel very old. In this regard he is being unduly restrictive and common sense must be brought to bear on this question. For example, let us say somebody from the United States comes to UCD to study Celtic studies. They may be told that the expert in one aspect of Celtic studies is in Wales, Brittany or Sweden and they would have to spend part of their time there. If one of the terms of the scholarship was that the person could pursue a necessary part of their studies outside the jurisdiction in Sweden or in Brittany, no one would say that the French or the Swedish Governments would presume we were legislating in their jurisdictions.

Senator Quinn has raised a fundamentally important point. I know the Minister is in a hurry and he will get every co-operation from us. I do not wish to obstruct or delay the legislation in any way, but I suggest that we postpone Report Stage, even until tomorrow. The Minister will have full co-operation from us, but I would like to hear other opinions on this matter. Given our role in scrutinising legislation, we would be remiss if, on a point where we all want the same objective, we did not postpone Report Stage. The common sense approach, which all of us can see straightaway, is one which could be legally copperfastened.

In light of today's debate, I would like the Attorney General to look at this matter again and perhaps other legal advice could also be sought on it. It would be a pity if we missed such an opportunity in a Bill as important as this. We all want the same thing and, as Senator Quinn rightly said, the spirit of what George Mitchell did embraced all the cultures of the entire island. If the Minister can persuade me on reflection that there are hard reasons, I will not be obstructive. However, I would like to have 24 hours to reflect on this.

There is no question that we are legislating for the United States even though the Bill states several times that "a fund shall be set up in the United States".

We have the consent of the United States Government.

I know, but we are now asking to spend money. Therefore, it could look as if we are being ungenerous in that we would not fund scholarships to an institution in Northern Ireland. This is the paying out part. We are offering to give something so that, instead of being spent here, money could be spent in Northern Ireland. Senator Quinn has made an extremely important point.

In all the earlier discussions, I thought I heard the words "Queen's" and "the University of Ulster" mentioned at some stage. I was obviously wrong, but I thought there would be some consultation with Queen's about the possibility of people going there. The fund is paying for people; it is not as though someone is being asked to give us something. Some of the universities are being very generous about allowing fees, but no university is obliged to do that at the moment.

We should adopt the approach Senator Manning put forward and let his pupil have a night's sleep to think about whether we could not also encompass the Northern institutions. It would be worthwhile to do so.

I am anxious to find a common sense route out of this. The legal advice is very strong about not legislating for another jurisdiction. It is as basic and as simple as that. I am not coming in here with a hidden agenda.

No, we are not saying that.

People can nod their heads furiously. Last week in the Lower House, we accepted amendments which we had to change because of the wording.

There is pressure of time on this legislation in the sense that if we postpone any Stage of the Bill it will not pass through both Houses of the Oireachtas before Christmas. It is as simple as that. We have the Technological Bill coming back, etc.

Senator Manning made an interesting point, concerning someone who goes to UCD and discovers that the expert in Celtic studies is in Brittany. The person could travel to Brittany, but that person could still be based at UCD. The scholarship would be based at UCD, but universities and other institutions often make bilateral arrangements to facilitate joint approaches. There are practical ways out of such situations which would facilitate people having access to experts.

At the end of the day, we would require the agreement of the British Government because we are passing legislation. It would be all right if it was just a fund. I mentioned this point already in connection with Project Citizen which ran in tandem with this initiative at the time of President Clinton's visit. We went through the full round of consultations but only two Governments coughed up for Project Citizen — the United States and the Republic. That still extends to students on both sides of the Border, but no legislation is required. It is a matter of co-operation and funding joint initiatives.

Our ambition is that this will serve a number of fronts. It is wrong to raise the spectre that somehow this is a partitionist Bill. That is a very unfair appellation.

I am not saying that.

It was not the intention.

It was certainly inferred that people who were far away from the Border had a certain partitionist view of life which somehow found its way into this Bill. That was not the background to this. As the situation evolves we can accommodate and incorporate the views expressed by Senator Quinn and others. In time we can bring in the Northern higher education institutions, but I do not think we can do so this week or next week.

We are due to take all Stages of the Bill in the Seanad today and it goes to the Dáil next week. We want the funding in place to get the scholarship up and running. I have no problem with the desires articulated by Senators. It should be within our capacity to work out ways of accommodating them and having them come on board, with the agreement of the authorities in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We can work that out. As I said, it is important to have the funding in place to get the scholarship up and running.

I accept the bona fides of what Senators are proposing and their desire that all institutions on the island would participate. However, there are legal restraints on what we can legislate for. That is the advice I have been given.

I apologise if any words I used gave the impression I was suggesting it was a partitionist attitude. I did not intend it to mean that. I meant the outcome of it was sending a message to those in the North who might think they are not being looked after or that they are being debarred from the scholarship fund.

I have huge difficulty with the Minister's belief that because we do not restrict where this money may be spent we are legislating for something else. I took the example of development aid. When we allocate something for development aid, we do not have to seek the nation's approval for using that money where a hurricane might strike next. In this case, we are talking about spending money.

I am not sure about the background to that. There probably are agreements with the United States where it is direct Government to Government aid, but it is a different kettle of fish with non-governmental organisations.

I can understand that.

I do not have the full details.

That is one of the reasons I support Senator Manning's proposal. Is it not possible to delay Report Stage until tomorrow or Thursday? It will only take 15 minutes for the Bill to go through and in that time I could understand better if the Attorney General came up with an answer, having listened to the arguments.

I will agree to delay Report Stage if Senators have time to debate it tomorrow.

We will arrange time for it.

We have a very full day tomorrow, but I do not think there is any great problem in allocating a quarter of an hour or a half an hour, if the Minister is in agreement.

I would be glad to defer it on condition that I definitely get time because I have to go to the Lower House with the Bill next week.

I am not being obstructionist. I think it is a wonderful Bill and I am anxious to get it through the House. I would like to have my mind at rest that every aspect has been checked to see what opportunities there are.

I am just worried about my time scale.

I will give an assurance on behalf of my party that there will be no obstruction. In fact, the Bill will go through very quickly tomorrow. It is an important point, however, and I would like to hear the legal advice. The Minister may not wish to answer this question, but was the British Government asked if it would like to participate? What is the position concerning the all Ireland organisation of university heads? Were their views sought and, if so, what were they?

I will check the latter. I was hoping we could organise this through that body because the director and the heads of the various universities meet on an all Ireland basis. There were consultations at the time of President Clinton's visit. I have already spoken about how far we have progressed. Different people are slower to come on board in relation to certain initiatives. We can discuss tomorrow what can be done in terms of contacts with various groups.

I want to clear up any misinterpretation which may have arisen. There is no dissent on this side of the House; we empathise with the general thrust of what Senator Quinn and Senator Manning said. As someone who comes from a Border county, I would not wish to be seen as acquiescing in legislation which would be interpreted as being exclusive rather than inclusive.

I accept the Senator's point and I apologise if any of the words I used suggested otherwise. That was not my intention. This is a worthy Bill which the Minister wants passed. If the House considers Report Stage tomorrow, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), lines 27 to 29, to delete all words from and including "at an" in line 27 down to and including line 29 and substitute the following:
"at——
(a) a university or college to which the Universities Act, 1997, applies,
(b) the Dublin Institute of Technology,
(c) an educational institution to which the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, applies, or
(d) the Irish School of Ecumenics, situated, for the time being, at Milltown in the city of Dublin.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (2) states that the "Fund shall be managed and controlled, in the United States, by such person or persons (other than the Minister) as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, considers appropriate.". Does the Minister have any firm views on the type of body which will take overall control of the management of the fund?

Senator Henry mentioned a person in the United States who is central to this issue, Ms Trina Vargo. We will discuss with our American counterparts the type of people who could be brought on board in terms of the management and control of the fund. We are open to suggestions.

I agree with Senator Henry about the qualities of Ms Trina Vargo. However, I have a conflict of interest in that I am on one of her boards as, I understand, is Senator Henry, although she did not declare her interest in this matter. There may be a reference to the ethics committee.

On a point of information, I mentioned the considerable amount of e-mail messages some Senators, including myself, had received.

That will get by the tabloids. I join with Senator Henry in paying tribute to the work of Ms Trina Vargo, who has been a driving force in this area and a great friend to this country for many years.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 14 and 15, and substitute the following:
"RESEARCH IN THE STATE IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN AGREEMENT IN THAT BEHALF BETWEEN THE MINISTER AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.".
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Tomorrow, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9 December 1998.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 December 1998.

Top
Share