Institutes of Technology Bill 2006: Committee Stage.
This select committee meeting has been convened for the purpose of considering the Institutes of Technology Bill 2006. I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials to the meeting. It is proposed that the select committee consider the Bill today until 10 p.m., if it has not been disposed of previously. A further meeting can be arranged in that case. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The list of amendments has been circulated. We will now proceed to consideration of the Bill.
I wish to raise a slight technical issue before we consider the first section. On page 4 of the Bill, the list of Acts includes "Dublin Institutes of Technology Acts 1930 to 2001". I presume this should read "Dublin Institutes of Technology Acts 1930 to 1992".
That is a mistake. We have spoken to the Bills Office and it can be corrected administratively without going through an amendment process.
SECTION 1.
As amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are alternatives they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 20 to 23, to delete all words from and including "on" in line 20 down to and including "provisions" in line 23 and substitute ", within 18 months of its passing into law".
I tabled this amendment because if the legislation is passed before the summer recess, the stipulation of an 18-month period would ensure it would be enacted just before January 2008. If the Oireachtas does not pass it over the summer and the process goes to October, it would be enacted by the first term of 2008. It would enable the law to seamlessly pass into operation.
It is my intention to commence the legislation as soon as we enact it. The Higher Education Authority already has the resources in place to enable it to take on the extra responsibility. I do not intend to delay it. I am not sure the amendment is necessary. If the Deputy wishes, I would be happy to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to cover the matter.
Is the Minister indicating the legislation will be in force long before an 18-month or 12-month period is up?
The HEA already has the necessary resources and it is my intention to enact the legislation immediately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (7), line 1, after "and" where it secondly occurs to insert"section”.
The purpose of this amendment is to correct an oversight in the published Bill. It will insert the word "section” before the number denoting section 54.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, to delete lines 36 to 45 and substitute the following:
"(b) Coláiste Ealaíne agus Deartha Crawford (Crawford College of Art and Design), Ceol-Scoil Chorcaí (Cork School of Music) and Coláiste Náisiúnta Mara na hÉireann (National Maritime College of Ireland) are declared to be schools of the Cork Institute of Technology and each of them shall continue to bear, and to be known by, the name in the Irish language or in the English language by which it is referred to in this paragraph.
(c) (i) Coláiste Turasóireachta Na Cealla Beaga (Tourism College Killybegs) is declared to be a school of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology and it shall continue to bear, and to be known by, the name in the Irish language or the English language by which it is referred to in this paragraph, or by such other name as the governing body, subject to the consent of the Minister, may determine.
(ii) Every person who, immediately before the commencement of this paragraph, is—
(I) an employee of County Donegal Vocational Education Committee, and
(II) working for the college referred to in subparagraph (i),
shall, on such commencement, become and be a member of the staff of Letterkenny Institute of Technology and shall not, while in the service of that college, receive less remuneration or be subject to less beneficial conditions of service than the remuneration approved by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance to which that person was entitled and the conditions of service approved by the Minister to which the person was subject before such commencement.", and".
The Tourism College at Killybegs currently functions under the auspices of the County Donegal Vocational Educational Committee. It operates programmes under the Letterkenny Institute of Technology and is funded by the higher education section of my Department. The purpose of this amendment is to formally transfer the college from the VEC and make it a school of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology. This has been agreed with the college staff, the County Donegal VEC and the governing body of Letterkenny Institute of Technology.
The amendment will also have the effect of transferring staff working in the college from the VEC to Letterkenny Institute of Technology. The normal protections for existing terms and conditions of these members of staff will be enshrined in the legislation. The governing body of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology may, with the approval of the Minister of the day, have power to rename the college. This is being sought by the institute of technology and allows a degree of flexibility in the event that the tourism college expands or diversifies into other sectors in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
As amendments Nos. 5 and 64 are related, they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, to delete lines 11 to 35 and substitute the following:
""(e) in relation to any of the following companies or undertakings and in accordance with the following law, namely—
(i) a limited liability company in the State — in accordance with the Companies Acts, or
(ii) a company or undertaking (the liability of members of which is limited) in a state other than the State — in accordance with the law of that state,
to—
(I) promote and take part in the formation of it,
(II) acquire, hold or dispose of shares or other interests in its capital, or
(III) participate in the management or direction of it,
but only if the objects of the company or undertaking include the carrying on of such business, trading or other activities, as the college thinks fit, for the purpose of promoting or assisting in the performance of, or in connection with, the functions of the college;";".
These are technical amendments dealing with the increased power which is to be granted to institutes of technology to establish or participate in limited companies. In the published version of the Bill, the references to the power of an institute to promote a company, acquire shares or another interest in a company and participate in management and direction only applies to paragraph 2, that is, companies formed outside the State.
Equally, the reference towards the end of the new paragraph to the objects of a company also come under paragraph 2 only. This is an error. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the power to form and participate in companies applies to those within the State and outside it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 65 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, lines 31 and 32, to delete all words from and including "For" in line 31 down to and including "functions" in line 32 and substitute the following:
"For the purpose of the appointment of the Director".
This provides that for the purpose of appointing the director and other staff of each institute of technology, the governing body must develop procedures to best ensure that high quality candidates seek selection. The new section 11A(1)(b) provides that the recruitment and selection of members of staff other than the director must be carried out in accordance with procedures determined by the Minister. There is a potential for conflict here and the purpose of these amendments is to clarify that section 7(2) applies to the director only.
Amendment agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 8 and 66 are related they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, lines 4 and 5, to delete ", unless the governing body otherwise directs".
I am concerned that any committee would be given much authority by the governing authority. It would be better if a committee had to return to the governing authority with recommendations, proposals, etc., rather than having sole authority.
That may be too prescriptive. It is important to allow the governing body a degree of latitude in how it decides on governance issues with regard to committees. If every action of the committee, small or major, was subject to confirmation by the governing body, the advantages enjoyed by the committees would be taken away. The governing body can circumscribe the extent to which a committee can act without formal approval. These amendments are probably unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 68 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, line 24, after "by" to insert "persons who have disabilities,".
This amendment would ensure greater recognition among the institutes of technologies and that they would be more prescriptive with regard to persons with disabilities. As the Minister recognises, a report was issued recently by AHEAD on the services for students with disabilities in ITs from 2004 to 2005. Some 14 of the 15 institutes of technology responded. There was a significant variation in the numbers of students with disabilities attending the institutes of technology against those attending universities.
In Cork IT, only 0.52% of those attending were students with disabilities. The best figure was 5.5% in Tralee. These figures do not compare favourably to universities. There are clearly issues of funding, as the average sum for this issue in universities is between €500,000 and €1 million, whereas the institutes of technology have approximately €50,000. If we are including issues such as disadvantage — which will be referred to in a later amendment — it would be a good idea to include persons with disabilities and ensure there is a clear emphasis on this in the institute of technology sector.
I support Deputy Enright's amendment. Despite the will and wish to include people with disabilities, the reality is that they are not included to the extent that they should be in general higher education. This is also true with regard to participation in many other sectors. I imagine the Minister will reply that these issues are addressed in other areas of legislation but I would prefer if people with disabilities were included specifically in this section.
Deputy O'Sullivan is imagining wrong because I agree with the two Deputies that every governing body or committee should be promoting access to education in the institutes. It is interesting to see the work of the access office of the HEA, for example. The institutes will now come under the remit of the HEA and will be able to benefit from its promotional activities. If Deputy Enright is willing to withdraw this amendment I will speak to the Parliamentary Counsel and come back on Report Stage with an amendment that has the same effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 9, lines 41 and 42, to delete "the Director and chief officer of the college" and substitute the following:
"the chief officer of the college, and that person shall be known as the Director, or by such other title as the governing body, subject to the consent of the Minister, may determine".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, lines 43 and 44, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) in subsection (2) by substituting—
(i) "An tUdarás" for "the Minister", and
(ii) "President" for "Director", and".
The amendment relates to a point I made on Second Stage in regard to the Title. I accept the Minister has tabled a related amendment. I am happy for the governing body to have discretion, subject to the consent of the Minister. In view of her earlier amendment I wonder whether she is open to the head of an IT being given the title, "president". I am not particularly hung up on this issue but, internationally, the title "president" is more widely used than that of "director". Elsewhere, a university director is often the head of research within a college, as distinct from the head of the college. In the context of competing at an international level it is important that the heads of institutes would be recognisable as such.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". My amendment seeks to achieve the same end by allowing heads of colleges to use a title other than director. My only intention was to ensure they would not call themselves "high chief commander" or some such title and that, at least, it would be a recognised title of status. Although some institutes consider that it is not necessary, a number of them asked that this would be done. My amendment provides flexibility to allow institutes to determine the title themselves, subject to ministerial permission, rather than imposing one on them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 27, inclusive, and 69 to 75, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 11, to delete lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following:
"(2) Subject to section 12, the members of the staff of a college shall be employed on such terms and conditions as the college (subject to the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance) from time to time determines.".
The purpose of amendments Nos. 18, 27, 69 and 75 is to make it clear that power to suspend or dismiss staff without the need for ministerial consent or a local inquiry will only apply to new staff appointed after the commencement of the provision. The right of an institute to set terms and conditions of both existing and new staff, subject to the consent of the Ministers for Education and Science and Finance, is retained.
I presume my amendments are grouped with the Minister's amendments. I am especially concerned with the proposal to alter the conditions for staff. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that staff of institutes of technology would benefit from the provisions of tenure outlined in the Universities Act. It is important that protection is provided for staff. The provision for a sworn inquiry prior to the removal of a staff member is being abolished. In effect, the tenure conditions of staff of institutes are being changed and are different from those outlined in the Universities Act.
Why does the Minister not accord similar rights of tenure to staff of institutes of technology as those enjoyed by university teaching staff, especially given that institutes of technology are being brought under the remit of the Higher Education Authority? One would expect that both sets of staff would have the same kind of tenure rights.
I am also concerned by amendments Nos. 18 and 69 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 18 reads, "the members of the staff of a college shall be employed on such terms and conditions as the college (subject to the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance) from time to time determines". The wording is very open-ended in terms of giving a college powers to determine the conditions of employment of staff.
Deputy Crowe has tabled a similar amendment to mine in regard to consultation. Significant powers are being given to the governing bodies of institutes in terms of staff conditions. The Minister stated this measure will only apply to new staff but surely we should be equally concerned about new staff as well as existing staff? Perhaps the Minister will address these issues.
I have nothing in principle against amendments Nos. 18 and 69, in that the Minister ultimately calls the shots. I would not expect an institute to put forward something that would be unacceptable to the committee. I support the amendments tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan. Similar terms and conditions of employment should be applicable. I hope the Minister will take this on board and produce an amendment to this effect on Report Stage.
I reiterate, the change only applies to new staff. When the sworn inquiry was introduced in the earlier legislation it was probably the only protection that was available at the time, whereas currently that has been supplemented by other strong employment legislative rights. The necessity to hold a sworn inquiry is very much out of step with the norm in terms of removing a member of staff. We are not changing the status or conditions of existing staff who will retain their rights under the original legislation, in addition to benefitting from all the employment legislation that has since been passed. While new staff will not avail of a sworn inquiry, their conditions will be in line with other employees.
"Tenure" is a word that gets bandied about a great deal. New staff will have academic freedom and security of employment as set out in the legislation. Ensuring the permanence of posts would remove any flexibility in terms of the subjects offered and would prevent change if it were required. Given that protections exist in the wider context of employment, I do not propose to accept the amendment on tenure.
Deputy O'Sullivan also tabled an amendment on the employment conditions provided by a college. That measure is contained in the Regional Colleges Act 1992. The reference to an officer or servant of a college holding office on such terms and conditions as the college, subject to the approval of the Minister may give, is not a new provision. That is already the position since the 1992 Act.
In regard to institutions' obligation to involve recognised staff associations and trade unions in devising the procedures for the dismissal of staff members, my amendment proposes to replace the wording "following consultations by it with" in subsection (3) with the phrase "with the concurrence of". There are concerns among teaching staff in regard to job security. It is important that there should be agreement from teachers and their union representatives before railroading through any dismissal procedures. There is concern among some members of the teaching unions that the existing protections which apply to current members may not be enjoyed by future members. It is a question of allaying people's fears and I am not sure the current wording is adequate in this regard. My amendment aims to strengthen the section from this perspective.
The institutes of technology will have the power to draw up procedures for appeals of dismissals or suspensions. Those arrangements must be drawn up in consultation with all stakeholders in the institution and must be adhered to all in cases. This allows staff a right of appeal in addition to all the protections afforded to them under employment legislation. The TUI and other unions recognise there is absolutely no change of status for existing members. The only change is that the sworn inquiry has been replaced by strong employment legislation.
To clarify, we are discussing amendments Nos. 18 to 27, inclusive, and 69 to 75, inclusive.
The Minister has not adequately addressed my point that while the Universities Act provides for the issue of tenure, this Bill includes no corresponding provision in regard to the institutes of technology. One would expect the same conditions to apply in respect of employment in either type of third level institution.
There are several concerns in this area. The issue of academic freedom is vital, particularly for those teaching staff who may want to express different views to those of members of the governing body or director, for example. We must protect the long tradition of freedom of thought and expression within our third level institutions. Security of tenure is seen as providing some guarantee of that freedom for the person who wishes to express a potentially divisive opinion — ideological, political or otherwise — without the fear that his or her course might be sidelined. These are some of the concerns about the lack of a provision relating to tenure. I do not understand why the same guarantee in this regard should not be provided for institutes of technology.
There are concerns about the increasing incidence of private funding within the third level system and, in particular, that institutions are being encouraged to rely on such funding for research and development activities. I am aware of cases where academics have experienced pressure to accommodate the objectives of companies which provide funding for research. What is the Minister's view on this? What guarantees are there that academics will be free to issue research findings that may not correspond to the purposes of a private company that has provided funding for that research?
Tenure in universities is one of the issues creating a stranglehold on reform in that sector. It is the universities rather than the institutes of technology that are out of step on this matter. The omission of such a provision in this Bill is a progressive approach in terms of facilitating ongoing change within the institutes of technology. Such change can be more difficult to achieve within the university sector because of the tenure provisions. That is why some university presidents had to introduce major structural reforms and changes before their institutions could be modernised and reformed. It is a positive aspect of this Bill that it includes no provision on tenure.
I fully accept what Deputies said about academic freedom. Section 7 refers specifically to academic freedom where it states: "A college, in performing its functions, shall have the right and responsibility to preserve and promote the traditional principles of academic freedom in the conduct of its internal and external affairs". The section further states:
A member of the academic staff of a college shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the college, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions and shall not be disadvantaged, or subject to less favourable treatment by the college, for the exercise of that freedom.
Given the increasing involvement of private companies in third level research activities, it is vital that effective codes of ethics are in place to govern that relationship. The institutes must be able to vouch for the independence of their research methods and must provide the results of that research warts and all.
The Minister's point about tenure being a stranglehold on change in the university sector is interesting. I accept it is undesirable that members of staff should enjoy a type of sinecure that requires little contribution on their part. The other side of the coin, however, is that there might be a temptation to get rid of certain people because they do not fit in with the overall ethos of the institution or their views are unacceptable to powerful people within it. It would be appalling if such a situation arose.
I hope the Minister will engage with the TUI and other representative organisations, in both the universities and institutes of technology, on this issue. People have strong views on it. I understand her point that tenure may in some cases facilitate stagnation. On the other hand, however, we must give people the freedom to be genuinely independent in their thinking and ensure they are not squeezed in any way by college authorities who may object to their views. Greater consultation should have taken place on this matter.
There is much merit in what Deputy O'Sullivan has said. However, we should bear in mind that employment legislation provides such persons with rights and protections to ensure they cannot simply be summarily dismissed. Moreover, I intend to develop a protocol between the Department and unions on disciplinary matters. When this has been agreed, it will be documented and registered with the Labour Court. This will provide added protections and securities.
I welcome that but I am not sure how much clout it will have.
The type of situation to which the Deputy referred cannot arise under existing laws. This protocol will provide an added focus because it is particularly targeted at persons in the academic world.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(3) Terms and conditions under subsection (2) shall provide for a right of appeal for a member of staff in the case of any dispute with the college.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 11, line 11, to delete "following consultations by it with" and substitute "with the concurrence of".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 11, line 11, after "consultations" to insert the following:
"through normal industrial relations structures operating for the college,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, lines 12 to 15, to delete all words from and including "; those" in line 12 down to and including "Director" in line 15.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 11, lines 12 to 15, to delete all words from and including "; those" in line 12 down to and including "Director" in line 15 and substitute the following:
"; the procedures shall provide for the right of appeal for the member of staff. Those procedures and conditions shall provide for the tenure of members of academic staff".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 11, line 16, to delete "Subsections (2) and (3)" and substitute "Subsection (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 13, line 6, after "year" to insert "but within 3 months".
This amendment aims to ensure that the reports are published as soon as possible after the end of each academic year. By inserting the phrase "but within 3 months" we are trying to ensure that reports are published within a reasonable period of time. Three months is reasonable because after that period, the governing body should be focusing on the coming year. The amendment aims to ensure that publication of the report is not delayed until the end of the year.
I agree with the thrust of these amendments. I will check the drafting of them and revert to the Deputy on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 14, to delete lines 5 to 13 and substitute the following:
"20.—The Minister—
(i) following consultation with An tUdarás, and
(ii) subject to the approval of a majority of least two thirds of the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, where such approval shall not require that the Joint Committee be convened,
may authorise any person or persons as he or she may deem appropriate to report to the Minister on any matters regarding the operation of a college, and such person or persons shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter the college concerned and shall be afforded every facility by that college, including access to all records, to perform their functions.".
This amendment is similar to an earlier one I tabled, with which the Minister disagreed. I appreciate that the Minister can authorise anyone to carry out an investigation into activities at the college but, with no disrespect to the current Minister, I would not like to see a situation where a Minister could interfere too much in the working of an institution if he or she was of a mind to do so. I am not seeking to give the committee the power of initiation but power to approve an investigation that any Minister would sanction. The amendment aims to ensure that the freedom to which we referred earlier remains. I agree that there may be a need at some point in the future to launch an investigation but I would prefer that it would be done with the approval of at least two thirds of the committee. The committee would not necessarily have to be convened but the approval of two thirds of its members should be secured.
It is not appropriate for the Legislature to be involved at that level of the running of an institute. The initiation of an investigation is an Executive function that is appropriate to the Minister of the day and not to the Oireachtas.
In that case, could the Minister be more prescriptive regarding the type of investigations that might be carried out because the potential for interference exists?
Investigations will only be initiated following consultation with the HEA, which is a broadly based group, representative of the various relevant bodies and stakeholders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 77 and 78 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 14, line 21, after "Act" to insert "or by the governing body".
I am concerned that the governing body does not have the right to decide that certain functions are reserved functions. The section prescribes certain reserved functions that are the function of the director. The governing body should be allowed to oversee some of these areas and possibly decide that some of them should be under its authority.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 78 are in my name. Subsection (3) of section 22A of the RTC Act provides that any dispute as to whether a particular function is a reserved function shall be determined by the Minister. If governing bodies were to have the power to also declare what functions were reserved, it would inevitably lead to conflicts. There can only be one arbiter of this and the Minister of the day should have that responsibility. For that reason, I do not propose to accept Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment.
The Bill in its published form provides that the functions of an institute, provided for in section 5(1) of the 1992 Act are reserved functions. Those functions include the provision of courses of study, engaging in research, consultancy and development work and with other institutions to provide joint courses of study or research programmes, managing the assets of the college and the acquisition of land. All of these are, quite appropriately, to be designated as reserved functions. However section 5(1) also states that a principal function of an institute of technology is to provide vocational education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State, with particular reference to the region served by the institute. I am concerned that by including this principal function as a reserve function, almost any function of an institute of technology could be construed as reserved. The purpose of my amendments, Nos. 35 and 78, is to narrow the scope of the functions that can fall into the reserved category.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 14, line 24, to delete "sections 5(1)" and substitute "sections 5(1)(a) to (j)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 15, line 7, after "practicable" to insert ", but not later than 12 months".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a reasonable timeframe applies, that is, that the strategic development plan should be created not later than 12 months from the commencement of this section. The third and fourth level sectors have become more competitive and more international. Once this Bill is enacted, the strategic plan should be in place almost immediately. The institutes in existence at present have plans in place, but once they come under the auspices of the HEA, a degree of co-operation will be required in implementing such plans. It is important that time is not lost and in that context, a year from the commencement of this section is perfectly reasonable.
I agree with Deputy Enright's amendment but wish to make a minor amendment to it. I wish to remove the comma to make it consistent with the next section dealing with the equality policy. I therefore propose to make the following amendment to Deputy Enright's amendment:
In page 15, line 7, after "practicable" to insert "but not later than 12 months".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 15, line 8, to delete "section" and substitute "section,".
This is a technical amendment.
It appears to be a drafting issue. Rather than go into it, in the interests of consistency and clarity I propose not to accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
As amendments Nos. 43 and 79 are related, they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 43:
"(2) Where a Gaeltacht area is in the catchment area of a college the governing body of the college shall ensure that one of the principal aims for operation and development of the college set out in each strategic development plan prepared after the commencement of this section is the provision of education at the college through the medium of the Irish language.".
To ensure the rights of Gaelgeoirí, those whose first language is Irish or students who received their education in Gaelscoileanna, they must be protected and their educational needs provided for through the medium of Irish. The proposal before the committee will, I hope, give people a choice. For instance, NUI Galway's strategic plan gives Irish a positive position.
I acknowledge that the Bill already affords protection to Irish, but we must ensure that people's language rights are respected so that they have the choice to study subjects in the institutes of technology through Irish. The language should be an integral part of any such plan or legislation. The amendment's basic purpose is to enhance the role of the language, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Section 7(4) of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 and the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 provide that, in performing its functions, the governing body of each institute of technology must have due regard to the preservation, promotion and use of Irish and the preservation and development of the national culture. As a result of this Bill, preparing a strategic development plan will be a function reserved to the governing body. Under 7(4) of the 1992 Act, in doing so each governing body must have due regard to the preservation, promotion and use of Irish and will be free to include the aim expressed by Deputy Crowe or other, related ones.
Deputy Crowe's amendment would narrow provision to Gaeltacht areas. Most Gaelscoileanna and Gaelcholáistí are outside such areas, and there are probably more students being educated through Irish in Dublin than in the Gaeltacht. The legislation gives us protection, but the sentiments behind Deputy Crowe's amendment are right. It would encourage the college, as far as practicable, to make provision, but the legislation already provides protection in the area, without being too prescriptive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.
As amendments Nos. 46 and 80 are cognate they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 15, line 32, after "college" to insert ", including a time scale for implementation,".
This is about the timescale for implementation. It is fine to have the institutes issue a statement on equality policy and so on, but if there is to be any real meat and we are to have achievements along the way in meeting policy aims, it will be important to have a timescale. I am not suggesting that we prescribe one but that the institutes do so themselves. One must be realistic that they cannot achieve everything overnight. There would be no penalty for not keeping to the timescale either. They should remain cognisant that they should try to achieve equality within a certain period. I believe that the amendment merits consideration at least.
Two subsections in the Bill do precisely what Deputy Enright wishes. Her sentiments are correct. Section 21D requires the governing body to prepare the statement of policies in respect of access to education by economically or socially disadvantaged people, those who have a disability and those significantly under-represented in the student body. The policy must also provide for equality in all activities of the institute. However, subsection (3) is the one that requires each institute to implement those policies. Once they have made the policy and included it in the statement, it must be implemented without delay, meaning that the question of a timescale does not arise. The amendments are unnecessary.
What is meant by "without delay"? I will have to accept the Minister's contention that the institutes must implement the policy, but that cannot be done overnight. From that perspective, a timescale would be better, since it would provide a measurable goal to live up to rather than merely a broad statement that the institutes will have to enforce equality at some point in the future without a definite deadline. The goals will be set by the colleges themselves; no one else is telling them to do it. If they include something in their strategic statement, surely they will want to achieve that. Having a timescale would provide a spur for them to reach their goals by a given point.
We are talking about governing bodies, which also alter their composition and have their own timeframes. Once they have laid down the policy on access, the college must implement it. If the current governing body has set the goals, the college is hardly likely to leave implementation until the advent of the next one.
With no pressure and no definitive timescale, it can be left in the belief that it will be done eventually. The alternative is to have governing bodies mention it in their end-of-year report as not having been achieved when they said that it would be done by the end of 2007 or whenever. Timescales focus people's minds on what needs be done. It is definite in the sense that the college commits itself to doing something, but it still does not say when it will be done.
One must consider the access office programmes and this legislation. The wording "shall implement the policy" is reasonably strong. That does not signal an intention to delay, since it gives force of action to the policy set out by an individual governing body.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.
As amendments Nos. 49 and 81 are cognate they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 16, to delete line 22, and substitute the following:
"persons, as appropriate.
21F.—An tÚdarás may review—
(a) the strategic development plan prepared in accordance with section 21C, and
(b) the policies set out in the statement prepared under section 21D and their implementation by the college,
and may, following consultation with the college, publish a report, in such form and manner as it thinks fit, on the outcome of any such review.".".
These provisions are based on section 49 of the Universities Act 1997 and confer power on the HEA to review the strategic development plans and equality policies that institutes of technology will be required to prepare. The HEA will also have the power to report on the outcome of such reviews.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 59, inclusive, not moved.
As amendments Nos. 60 and 83 are cognate and No. 82 is an alternative to No. 83, they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 19, line 3, to delete "10" and substitute "5".
I will be withdrawing these amendments, since I drafted them incorrectly.
I had already raised this question on Second Stage. It relates to the term of office of the chairperson of a governing body. Perhaps the Minister might give it consideration on Report Stage. I know that it has not happened in the last two years that someone has chaired a governing body for a 20-year period, but that has happened in the past. The Bill provides a good opportunity to rectify that situation and limit the time for which a person may chair a governing body.
Things now change very quickly in universities and institutes, and we are competing much more broadly, making it important to have someone very much up to date. Chairing a body is different from being a director, but it is still important that someone be very much aware of what is going on in the third and fourth level sector. If someone held the position of chairperson for even ten years, it would be excessive. While we need consistency, a change would be better. I would like the Minister to consider that point.
I am sure that the Deputy will have noted the calibre of people who chair institutes of technology. There are senior people from Waterford Crystal, Dell, Vistakon, HP, the IDA and so on. People in those large companies, which are very significant for economic investment in Ireland, have willingly accepted the role of chairing the governing bodies of institutes of technology. Senior public representatives have also brought broadly based knowledge and expertise. The problem does not lie with leaving people in office for longer than ten years. It involves persuading people, particularly people of this calibre, to give of their time in the first place.
The amendment as drafted refers to the director so I take it that this one has gone. I am not sure if it is appropriate because it is possible to end up with a top calibre individual who is a direct link with industry, education or the community in the area and who is doing a very good job. It would be wrong simply to throw them out of office on the basis of a time limit when the college at that particular time might be going through a major development or new strategy. I would not like to apply the same brush to all of them throughout the country. In reality, this will not happen in the future.
I am concerned because it has happened in the past and it has not always aided the progress of a particular institute of technology. I accept that the calibre of the vast majority of people today is high. It is wonderful that people from industry are willing to assume this type of function. Even if it relates to a highly qualified individual from a company like Dell or the IDA, after ten years serving in a particular position in any walk of life, refreshment is needed. A person can only hold the position of director for ten years but he or she is to some extent told about the policies of the college. A period of over ten years is too long even for the position of chairperson. I accept that people from industry in particular are unlikely to serve more than ten years and will probably have been moved from their current position within their companies. However, other individuals could remain for longer than that.
Appointments are made for a period of five years at a time.
This relates to amendment No. 82. Given that the President of Ireland can serve two seven-year terms and remain in office for 14 years, it is not unreasonable to expect someone in an institute of technology to serve for a similar length of time. I oppose cutting the ten-year period to five years and would favour the opposite route. Stability is sometimes needed and experience is in short supply, so the possibility of someone being able to sit for a maximum of 15 years could be desirable, subject to ratification on a five-year basis so that if a person is not doing his or her job particularly well, a change does not need to occur in the middle of the term but the term could be reviewed every five years, subject to a maximum of three terms.
A period of ten years is probably the happy medium because a period of five years is too short to initiate change and bring about the type of work in which the institutes of technology are engaged. Being the head of any organisation would be difficult with such a time limit. A time period of 15 years would probably be too long for the same reason, while ten years is the period of time used for the term of office of a university president. I accept that a Taoiseach can serve for 20 years if he or she so wishes.
Is the Minister looking to the future?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 61 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 62, 84, 87 and 89 are cognate, while amendments Nos. 88 and 90 are cognate and alternatives to amendments Nos. 87 and 89, respectively. Amendments Nos 62 and 84 and amendments Nos 87 to 90, inclusive, are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 62, 84 and Nos. 87 to 90, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 19, to delete lines 34 to 38.
My reasons for tabling this amendment, which I imagine will be very similar to those of Deputy O'Sullivan, relate to my belief that we should not prevent directors of institutes of technology from having views on Government policy. I am not tabling this amendment to cause difficulties for the Government. An institute of technology can have a significant impact on the area in which it is located. On Second Stage, I cited Athlone Institute of Technology, which serves a large proportion of the midlands and parts of Galway, as an example. Institutes of technology have an immense impact on their localities through educating students, attracting industry to particular regions and providing skills needed for these industries.
Institutes of technology try to achieve balanced regional development. Therefore, if the director of an institute of technology has a strong opinion on how Government policy affects a particular area, it is ludicrous to stop him or her from voicing this opinion. It may be a positive or negative opinion, but it is still only an opinion and the Government has the right to agree or disagree with it. If directors of institutes of technology are brought before Oireachtas committees, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, they should have the opportunity to discuss their views on how different policies affect what they are trying to achieve.
I am aware that this provision in the Bill is standard fare in much impending legislation but that does not necessarily make it right and I strongly disagree with it from that perspective. We should not be afraid of the views of people, particularly when they are appointed by governing bodies and the Minister has considerable input into this process. Therefore, one would imagine that the Minister trusts the person appointed and believes he or she is capable of doing the job properly. If the Minister has faith in the person appointed, she will surely respect the opinions which that person may wish to express.
The Government could change after the next general election so this amendment will not affect one Government more than another. If I was a member of Government, I would still believe that it is important that these people have the opportunity to voice their opinions because they are highly qualified and have a legitimate contribution to make. We should not be afraid to hear what they have to say.
Since I also tabled these amendments I agree with Deputy Enright's comments. As a result of further amendments, the Universities Act 1997 will also be amended so the provisions will also apply to people representing universities, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, the Further Education and Training Awards Council and the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. All of these bodies are bound by the restriction in the Bill whereby they cannot criticise Government policy when appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts. I understand that there were no proper negotiations with the universities in respect of the amending of the Universities Act in this Bill.
It is wrong to equate heads of academic institutions with heads of Departments because the head of a Department does not, and should not, criticise Government policy. It would not be appropriate in that case. However, universities and institutes of technology have a tradition of academic freedom and there appears to be no reason why they should not express their views. Obviously, they will discuss financial matters when they appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to account for how they spend the money allocated to them out of the public purse so anything they say must be relevant to this. I do not envisage that they would deliver a broadside against Government policy in respect of another area; it must be within the confines of the rules of the Committee of Public Accounts.
The pausing of funding for the programme for research in third-level institutions, PRTLI, a few years ago had financial implications for universities and institutes of technology. If heads of these institutions were to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to discuss this issue or the announcements made last week by the Minister, they should feel free to express views about, for example, the pausing of funding for the PRTLI and its effect on how they run their institutions. These people are in an entirely different category to that occupied by heads of Departments who should not criticise Government policy when they appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.
It is not that they would launch a broad attack on Government policy but they should be free to express how some aspect of Government policy might affect financial aspects of how they run their institutions. These amendments should be accepted and the muzzling of the representatives of universities and institutes of technology, the Further Education and Training Awards Council and the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland should be removed from the Bill.
When members of the Department visit this committee they perform great works of mental gymnastics to avoid answering direct questions. They have done their line manager, the Minister, very well in that regard. The Minister has referred to section 7. It would insert a new section 5A(2) of the RTC Act and states: "A member of the academic staff of a college shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the college, to question and test received wisdom". That spirit should be extended to all relevant personnel operating within the remit of the Bill. While I did not table an amendment in respect of page 19, line 34, I should have in hindsight.
On amendment No. 90 on the chief executive of a relevant body, a fair and equitable compromise would be a situation wherein someone appearing before a committee, such as the Committee of Public Accounts or this committee, would not necessarily be allowed to voluntarily give a personal opinion. If a Member specifically asks for such, the person should be able to answer honestly. People should not be muzzled. They are not working for Departments and should be able to give honest opinions. This compromise might straddle the two arguments.
To clarify a slip of the tongue, the Minister does not appoint the director of the colleges. The Irish Universities Association was consulted on these matters. People are not being muzzled to the extent believed. The colleges' directors can appear before this committee and comment as they wish. They can speak to the media, criticise or whatever.
However, the Committee of Public Accounts deals with financial accountability. In presenting their cases, to use Deputy O'Sullivan's examples, the directors could say they were not able to do something because of the pause in PRTLI funding or that they were able to construct buildings thanks to the €3.8 billion invested under the new science and technology initiative. What they could not say is that a policy is disgraceful because it does something or other. In the context of the Committee of Public Accounts, which is specifically intended to hold colleges to account for their financial dealings, directors can discuss what they were able to do as a consequence of Government policies, but they cannot criticise the merits of those policies.
This provision can be found in other legislation. For example, the Ombudsman for Children has been very vocal, but this is an element in the legislation establishing that position. The provision is not as confining as Deputies believe, as it only relates to financial accountability before the PAC.
The Ombudsman for Children has a clear legislative remit for what she is supposed to do. When she appears before the PAC, it is easy for her to produce her budget, explain the spending and comment that such was all she could do with the budget provided her. In that context, commenting on Government policy would be a different matter than what we are discussing.
When PRTLI funding was stopped, research and other projects in institutions suddenly ceased or were not able to proceed at the pace that should have been the case. A number may have been able to continue while others were not. The latter would need to give a better explanation to the Committee of Public Accounts than stating that PRTLI funding was stopped. No member of that committee would accept this explanation alone. Therefore, the institutions would need to expand on the consequences of the policy, but this Bill will not give them the proper opportunity to explain the policy's effects.
The PRTLI example is a good one because, at the time, we could clearly see the policy's effects on universities in particular. The issue would need to be teased out further by the Committee of Public Accounts and it would be wrong to attempt to stop such from occurring. There is nothing to fear and it is difficult to understand why the Minister is so strong in her belief that this provision should be included in the Bill.
The wording is "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government". Returning to the PRTLI example, if a member of the PAC asked how that situation affected someone's college or spending on a particular course, the person should be able to say the college was not able to do something due to the Government's decision. I would not like to believe that the person in question would subsequently be considered to have criticised Government policy. This provision muzzles people. The Committee of Public Accounts teases out issues, but this legislation will be a controlling mechanism placed on the representative of the college. It will narrow what people can say.
Will the Minister clarify what the penalties or ramifications would be should someone express an opinion?
The Standing Orders of the Dáil provide that the Committee of Public Accounts must refrain from inquiring into the merits or demerits of a policy's objectives or the policy itself. As to how to penalise the committee if it breached those standing orders, níl fhios agam.
On the examples cited by Deputies Enright and O'Sullivan, the director before the Committee of Public Accounts could proceed to speak about the consequences of a policy. For example, he or she could describe how work stopped on a half-finished building without a roof as a result of a pause in funding, which meant the college could not have a research team, but now that the funding is back on stream, the building can be finished. However, he or she could not say the roof was not put on the building because of an outrageous decision of the Minister. The directors cannot speak on a policy's merits, only its effects on their financial accounting.
It is not a matter of whether they can do such. If we pass this legislation, it would be for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to decide whether a director can comment on a policy's effects. That directors can discuss the effects is not clear in the legislation. They cannot do so.
They cannot speak on the merits and demerits of a policy only.
The demerit is that a director could not put a roof on a building. The Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts could easily say that, as stopping funding was Government policy, the matter cannot be discussed. The directors would be muzzled.
No. Directors could not say whether they agree with the decision taken or if they would have taken a different policy direction.
What would be wrong with saying that?
One could give the factual situation, the results of a policy and how that policy has impacted on a college without commenting on whether one agrees with the policy. This provision only applies to the Committee of Public Accounts. Directors could appear before this committee and comment on a policy. Likewise, they could comment outside the Houses. I referred to the Ombudsman for Children because this provision is included in that legislation. However, it has not confined her in her comments outside the Oireachtas on particular policies.
She has not been before the Committee of Public Accounts to test that provision.
Would the Minister not rely on the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to conduct business in such a way that directors do not attack Government policy? As the Minister said, such a confinement is in that committee's rules.
That applies only to Ministers, whereas the legislation would apply the situation to directors also. Standing Orders apply only to Members.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 7.
Tá
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
Níl
- Andrews, Barry.
- Curran, John.
- Carty, John.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moynihan, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 63 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Sections 27 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 20, to delete lines 36 to 38 and in page 21, to delete lines 1 to 22 and substitute the following:
""(f) in relation to any of the following companies or undertakings and in accordance with the following law, namely—
(i) a limited liability company in the State — in accordance with the Companies Acts, or
(ii) a company or undertaking (the liability of members of which is limited) in a state other than the State — in accordance with the law of that state,
to—
(I) promote and take part in the formation of it,
(II) acquire, hold or dispose of shares or other interests in its capital, or
(III) participate in the management or direction of it,
but only if the objects of the company or undertaking include the carrying on of such business, trading or other activities, as the Institute thinks fit, for the purpose of promoting or assisting in the performance of, or in connection with, the functions of the Institute;";".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 22, lines 15 and 16, to delete all words from and including "For" in line 15 down to and including "functions" in line 16 and substitute the following:
"For the purpose of the appointment of the President".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 24, line 32, after "given" to insert "with".
This is a technical amendment to correct an oversight in the Bill. The word "with" is missing from section 12A (1)(a).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 24, to delete lines 47 to 51 and substitute the following:
"(2) Subject to section 13, the members of the staff of the Institute shall be employed on such terms and conditions as the Institute (subject to the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance) from time to time determines.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 24, after line 51, to insert the following:
"(3) Terms and conditions under subsection (2) shall provide for a right of appeal for a member of staff in the case of any dispute with the college.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 25, line 4, after "consultations" to insert the following:
"through normal industrial relations structures operating for the Institute,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 25, to delete lines 6 to 8, and substitute "unions.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 25, line 9, to delete "Subsections (2) and (3)" and substitute "Subsection (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 40 and 41 agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
Sections 42 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 28, line 27, to delete "sections 5(1)" and substitute "sections 5(1)(a) to (k)””
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 30, to delete line 25 and substitute the following:
"persons, as appropriate.
21F.—An tÚdarás may review—
(a) the strategic development plan prepared in accordance with section 21C, and
(b) the policies set out in the statement prepared under section 21D and their implementation by the Institute,
and may, following consultation with the Institute, publish a report, in such form and manner as it thinks fit, on the outcome of any such review.".".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 48 and 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 31, lines 42 and 43, to delete all words from and including "the" in line 42 down to and including "years" in line 43 and substitute the following:
"the President shall hold office for an initial term of five years. Subject to ratification by the Minister and the Governing Body at each five-year interval, a second and third five-year term of office may also be permitted, up to a maximum tenure of 15 years".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 83 not moved.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 32, to delete lines 26 to 30.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 50 agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 are related and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 33, to delete line 15 and substitute the following:
"(g) Royal Irish Academy,
(h) such educational institutions as may be designated by order under section 5;”,”.
The new section 5 will provide a process through which the Minister of the day can designate educational institutions as institutions of higher education to which the Higher Education Authority Act will apply. It takes account of legal advice received from the Attorney General's office in regard to the application of an Act to additional institutions not covered by the original Act by laying down a procedure or criteria through which recognition may be granted.
The Minister for Education and Science will be empowered to establish a body to advise the HEA on whether an educational institution should be designated as an institution of higher education. The body will be composed of national and international experts recommended by the HEA, including employees of institutions already covered by the HEA Act. The Minister may, following the advice of that body and the HEA's recommendation, order that an institution be designated under the Higher Education Authority Act. Before such an order takes effect, it must be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The new section 12A is designed to ensure that the HEA has legal capacity to fund bodies other than institutions of higher education as commonly understood by the Act but which play an important role in promoting, developing and supporting higher education in Ireland. These include the Irish Universities Quality Board, An Cheim, AHEAD and HEAnet.
The effect of the new paragraph (24) to be included in the Schedule to the HEA Act is that the term of office of the existing members of the HEA will expire on the commencement of section 52 of this Bill. This is to allow the Minister to reconfigure the membership. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate this. The normal limit of two consecutive terms of office will not apply in this instance and a person who is in their second consecutive term will be eligible to be reappointed during following the Act's commencement.
Will the Minister explain the last part of that?
When a person was appointed for his or her second term, they would have anticipated being there for a certain period of time. That has now been cut short by virtue of this amendment. That period of time will not be considered to be a full second term. A person is therefore eligible for reappointment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 34, to delete lines 3 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(e) by substituting for section 5 the following:
"5.—(1) The Minister may, at any time, appoint a body, the membership of which shall be recommended by An tÚdarás and shall include international experts and national experts, including employees of institutions of higher education to which this Act applies, to advise An tÚdarás on whether, having regard to the objects and functions of institutions of higher education currently in being, an educational institution should be designated as an institution of higher education.
(2) On the advice of the body and the recommendation of An tÚdarás, but subject to subsection (3), the Minister may, by order, provide that the institution shall be designated as an institution of higher education for the purposes of this Act and, on the making of the order, it shall be designated accordingly.
(3) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (2) unless he or she has first caused to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a draft of the proposed order and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.",
(f) by inserting after section 12 the following:
"12A.—(1) An tÚdarás may make payments to a person providing support services for the purpose of enabling or assisting that person to provide such services.
(2) Any such payment shall be made in such manner and subject to such conditions as An tÚdarás thinks fit.
(3) For the purposes of this section 'a person providing support services' means a body whose objects include the promotion, development or support of higher education and which the Minister, following consultation with An tÚdarás, designates as a body to whom this section applies.",
and
(g) in the Schedule—
(i) by substituting for subparagraph (2) of paragraph 4 the following:
"(2) An ordinary member of An tÚdarás shall be appointed for a term not exceeding 5 years and his appointment may be renewed for a further term not exceeding 5 years, but after 2 consecutive terms in office, of whatever length, he shall not be eligible for further appointment until a period of 2 years has elapsed.", and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph 23 the following:
"24. The ordinary members of An tÚdarás who held office immediately before the commencement of this paragraph shall cease to hold office upon such commencement, but any such member shall, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4(2) (as substituted by the Institutes of Technology Act 2006), be eligible to be reappointed for a term not exceeding 5 years as a member of An tÚdarás.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 53.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 35, to delete lines 1 to 5.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 35, line 5, after "policy" to insert the following:
", unless asked for such an opinion on a specific matter during questioning at a meeting of an Oireachtas Committee".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 35, to delete lines 47 to 51.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
Section 54 agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank members for their co-operation.
