Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill 2011: Committee Stage
The select committee is in session and no apologies have been received. This meeting has been convened for the purposes of considering the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill 2011, which was referred to the select sub-committee by order of the Dáil on 23 May 2012. I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and his officials.
As there are relatively few amendments, we will consider the Bill until Committee Stage is concluded this afternoon. Is that agreed? Agreed. I refer members to the grouping of amendments for the purposes of the debate. It is proposed to group amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5, 9, 11 to 14, inclusive, 16 to 25, inclusive, and 28 to 35, inclusive. It is also proposed to group amendments Nos. 2, 8, 10, 15 and 27. All other amendments not grouped will be discussed individually. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On the grouping process, would it be possible to in future supply information on the groupings prior to coming to the committee for the purposes of best practice? It would make the process much easier. I have no difficulty if the groupings are not available before the meeting. I have made this suggestion when dealing with previous legislation as well. It would be helpful and smooth the process for the Chairman and everybody else.
We will pass on the comments to the Bills Office and we hope it will change the practice.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 1 will be discussed with amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9, 11 to 14, inclusive, 16 to 25, inclusive, and 28 to 35, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, lines 17 and 18, to delete all words from and including " "award" " in line 17 down to and including "that" in line 18 and substitute the following:
" "award" means an award, including a joint award, for education or training, or both, made by an awarding body or in the case of a joint award, by two or more awarding bodies, to a learner to record or certify that".
I congratulate the Deputy on her election to the post of Chairman of this committee. The purpose of these amendments is to make explicit the authority's power to make awards jointly with other awarding bodies. A joint award refers to a single award which is jointly made by two or more awarding bodies. Such awards are an important feature of the higher education landscape both in Ireland and in an international context. They allow for flexibility in higher education provision and can also avoid potential duplication of provision across institutions.
On the international front, the development of joint awarding between institutions, whether in the same or in different countries, has been promoted through the Bologna Declaration process and also through the work of the Lisbon recognition committee in supporting the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. In particular, the Lisbon recognition committee has urged parties to the convention, which include Ireland, to remove any legal obstacles to the recognition of joint degrees and introduce legal provisions that would facilitate such recognition.
On a national level, there are some very good examples of inter-institutional co-operation. One such example is the memorandum of agreement that was agreed between UCC, Cork Institute of Technology, CIT, and the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, in November 2010, whereby UCC and HETAC jointly validate programmes of higher education and make awards jointly in respect of such programmes that are delivered in collaboration between UCC and CIT. The specific programmes are a master of science in biomedical science and a bachelor of science (honours) in architecture.
Amendment No. 19 introduces a new section to the Bill which empowers the authority to enter into a joint awarding arrangement with an awarding body and the provider of the programme of education and training where the programme of education and training leading to the joint award is not provided by the awarding body. A joint awarding arrangement can only be made where a programme of education and training has been validated by the authority.
The other amendments I am proposing to make with regard to joint awards are intended to ensure that the same procedures apply to educational provision leading to joint awards as in relation to all other awards. These provide for, inter alia, the validation of education and training programmes, the issue of quality assurance guidelines and effectiveness review procedures, and the establishment of standards of knowledge or skill to be acquired by a learner, where successful completion of those programmes leads to a joint award of the authority and another awarding body.
The Minister referred to the Bologna process and a Lisbon context. Do those processes have a remit that applies in a wider context than EU member states?
I recently returned from a triennial monitoring conference of the Bologna process. It is a process that goes across Europe and in some cases there are up to 46 countries sharing certain common standards. Reference to Lisbon means the process is confined to the European Union. The Bologna Declaration process, named for the city in which it originated, is a standardisation across international frontiers of educational practice and observance. Reference to Lisbon is specifically within the EU context.
I welcome the amendments being introduced to the original legislation.
If anybody wants to comment on the grouped amendments, it should be done now.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 is grouped with amendments Nos. 8, 10, 15 and 27.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, subsection (1), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
" "institution of higher education" has the same meaning as it has in the Higher Education Authority Act 1971;".
The Bill provides for consultation between the authority and the Higher Education Authority, HEA, when the authority carries out certain functions in respect of institutions supported by the HEA. These functions include: the issuing of quality assurance guidelines and effectiveness review procedures; carrying out reviews of quality assurance procedures in institutions; undertaking quality reviews; and reviewing the implementation of procedures for access, transfer and progression in those institutions.
These are technical amendments that clarify the precise institutions concerned by referring to the definition of higher education institutions used in the Higher Education Authority Act 1971. There are no substantive changes being proposed here to the provisions that are already contained in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
" "joint award" means a single award made jointly by two or more awarding bodies;
"joint awarding arrangement" has the meaning assigned to it by section 51(1);”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, subsection (3), line 42, to delete "for an award by the designated" and substitute "for an award of the designated".
This is a minor technical amendment that provides for the replacement of the term "for an award by the designated" by the words "for an award of the designated" in section 2(3). This simply provides a grammatical correction to the original text used in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 11, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) A provider of a programme referred to in subsection (3) is not a linked provider where the award referred to in that subsection is a joint award of the provider and the designated awarding body.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 12, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The National University of Ireland shall be merged into the Authority.".
I raised this particular issue on Second Stage and it was contained in the original legislation prepared by Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. Subsequently, the Department decided to leave the NUI as a stand-alone body. The Minister referred to its international brand and reputation from the point of view of associated colleges located outside of this jurisdiction. I now seek clarity on the issue. Let us take as an example a third level institution with international involvement whose awards are validated and awarded by the new authority. Can its status, rank and reputation be queried because there is another, different awarding body? If, for example, the Dundalk Institute of Technology had foreign participation and established a school abroad that specialised in a particular discipline, could the fact its awards would be validated and have international recognition through the new awards authority be misrepresented in a way that the college would be seen as not being in the premiership in its own country? Will the Minister give an assurance there will not be an effective loss of status through the NUI brand being seen as superior to the new authority's brand, were such an issue to arise?
The Deputy has asked a valid question. The policy change was political and not made in the Department. The change was made in the programme for Government in which we chose to extract it from the draft legislation my predecessor had prepared and chose not to eliminate the NUI. The reason for doing so was to protect the international dimension of the National University of Ireland rather than the domestic one. The original three constituent colleges in Galway, Cork and Dublin had their degrees validated by the NUI but now that includes Maynooth and it was changed by the Universities Act 1997.
In fairness to the people in the Department, there seemed to be no real function for the NUI with one exception, the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland which has a massive international programme. As much as 67% of all foreign students here study medicine. I ask Deputy Seán Crowe not to listen to the following background details. The RCSI was established by the British Parliament and the British Army in the 1870s to train doctors for its army. In the 19th century the only place to study medicine was in Trinity College and Catholics were not allowed to go there. That is why the RCSI was established - to provide medical education. It has a long-established international reputation and its location is placeless. It also has joint recognition with the NUI. It was at the request of the RCSI that I made some changes. There was very close co-operation and dialogue between the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, the NUI, and the Department, including the Higher Education Authority, HEA, on the matter.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to double the number of international students. The Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland now has a campus in Bahrain and Malaysia. Theoretical medical education is provided in Dublin for Malaysian students and clinical work, where students deal with patients and the like, occurs on a campus in Malaysia where students can talk to their people in their own language.
I can clarify specific queries on courses for the Deputy. There is good cross-checking between the two measures in instances of joint recognition. We have created a situation where the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland can grant a degree or, alternatively, it can place the NUI's name on the degree and that provides quality assurance and an internationally recognised brand.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 18, lines 37 to 39, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) For the removal of doubt, the rights and entitlements in respect of tenure, remuneration and superannuation enjoyed on commencement by persons who are employees of the amalgamating bodies shall not, by virtue of the operation of this Act, be any less beneficial than those rights and entitlements enjoyed by those persons as employees, or former employees of HETAC, FETAC and NQAI, immediately before such commencement.".
I tabled this amendment due to concerns that with the amalgamation of HETAC, FETAC and NQAI the working conditions of staff could or would be diminished or downgraded. I note the Minister made it clear that this was never the intent of the Bill. He said it is an attempt to ensure the harmonisation of working practices across the bodies listed and that the concerns affected fewer than 50 people in total who will be working together in the same office. I am supportive of any arrangements that help harmonise management and improve the efficiency of existing work practice, but this must be done in a way that does not undermine or diminish the working protections and conditions in respect of salary, pension rights and related matters. The amendment removes the reference to expenses and allowances, which the Minister was concerned about, and would ensure entitlements are standardised across the bodies.
I note the Minister's comments about the intent of the Bill, but the Minister might not be in office in the future so I am trying to make it explicit in the Bill that there will be no loss for the staff who are moving. It is to secure the working conditions of the staff. The wording of the amendment speaks for itself. I am trying to strengthen the Bill, so I am not hung up on the actual wording. I accept the Minister's assurances but it would be useful to have it in the Bill. That is the basis for putting forward the amendment.
The Bill contains provisions to protect the existing remuneration and superannuation entitlements of staff transferring to the qualifications and quality assurance authority of Ireland, QQAAI. It is appropriate that the Oireachtas would protect remuneration and pension entitlements and these are covered in sections 21 and 22 of the Bill, respectively. Section 21 deals with the transfer of staff from the existing bodies, the NQAI, FETAC and HETAC, to the QQAAI. Section 21(2) explicitly states that the staff transferring to the authority from the dissolved bodies shall not be subject to less beneficial conditions relating to remuneration as a result of the transfer to the new body. Section 22 provides for matters relating to superannuation, and subsections (8), (9) and (10) of that section provide for the continuation of existing terms and conditions in that area.
In respect of tenure, and as is the case with remuneration and superannuation, there are no changes being proposed in this legislation that will affect the tenure of staff transferring to the new body. Indeed, all contracts of the dissolved bodies are transferred to the authority in section 73, and this includes contracts of employment. That means the terms and conditions of the contract are taken up legally without alteration by the new entity. There is no legal alteration with the transfer of the contract, so when the contract is transferred from body X to body Y, there is no change in the terms and conditions.
It should be noted that the provisions in the Bill mirror those of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2010 that cover the transfer of FÁS and HSE staff to the Department of Social Protection. It is not, therefore, proposed to amend them. As I indicated previously, when bringing together three existing bodies in a single new agency issues will inevitably arise over small variations in work practices between the different organisations; for example, there is some variation in the detail of flexi-time arrangements in each of the bodies to be dissolved. For the new body to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible it is important to achieve as much coherence as possible in working arrangements. In my view, management and unions are best placed to agree common practices and approaches in any issues that arise and this will be done within the framework of the Croke Park agreement.
For this reason, I do not wish to enshrine in primary legislation what the Deputy's amendment proposes. I will look at it again before Report Stage and the Deputy can consult if he wishes. I do not believe it is necessary. In fact, the difficulty with primary legislation is that it is difficult to change if one encounters a problem. We are talking about common practices for the three bodies with regard to holidays, time and procedures. It is a relatively small organisation of 50 people. Their existing terms and conditions in terms of remuneration and superannuation are absolutely protected and not affected by this.
A number of people have lobbied me about this. Some are suggesting that up to 90 people are affected, although I do not know where they are getting that figure. The Minister is saying he does not have a difficulty with the spirit of what I am suggesting but that it might create difficulty.
I wish to correct something. I used the figure 50 earlier. That was ill-informed. It is closer to 85 or 90. I am satisfied that we are not altering their statutory rights, but there has to be flexibility for management to alter or harmonise working practices. That appears to be reasonable. The Deputy is free to table an amendment again on Report Stage and I will respond to it, but I am satisfied with the information I have. If the Deputy has received representations that he wishes to bring to my attention, we will certainly look at them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 22, lines 14 to 18, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) Where—
(a) quality assurance guidelines and effectiveness review procedures apply to providers, and
(b) any or all of those providers are institutions of higher education,
the Authority shall consult with An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas before issuing those guidelines and establishing those review procedures.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 22, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Authority may consult with an awarding body before issuing quality assurance guidelines and establishing effectiveness review procedures where—
(a) the quality assurance guidelines and effectiveness review procedures apply to a provider of a programme of education and training, and
(b) successful completion of that programme of education and training of that provider leads to a joint award of the Authority and the awarding body under a joint awarding arrangement.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 27, lines 4 to 6, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following subsection:
"(4) The Authority shall consult with An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas in carrying out a review under subsection (1) where—
(a) that review relates to a relevant provider, and
(b) that relevant provider is an institution of higher education.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 27, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where a proposal under subsection (1) is made in respect of a provider who has entered into an arrangement referred to in section 52(14), the Authority shall, by notice in writing, inform the awarding body referred to in section 52(14) that—
(a) it proposes to withdraw its approval of the quality assurance procedures established by the provider under section 28 and state the reasons for the proposed withdrawal, and
(b) if the Authority withdraws its approval, it shall also withdraw any authority to make awards delegated to that provider under section 52.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 27, subsection (2), lines 44 and 45, to delete all words from and including "A notice" in line 44 down to and including "provider" in line 45 and substitute the following:
"A notice under subsections (1) and (2)* shall state that the relevant provider, and the awarding body, if applicable,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 27, subsection (2), line 47, to delete "on the provider" and substitute the following:
"on the provider and the awarding body, if applicable".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 28, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Where the Authority withdraws approval under subsection (3) in respect of a provider referred to in subsection (2), the Authority shall, by notice in writing addressed to the awarding body referred to in that subsection, notify that awarding body of a withdrawal under subsection (6) of that provider’s authority to make awards delegated to it under section 52.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 42
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 31, lines 26 to 29, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following subsection:
"(2) The Authority shall consult with An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas in carrying out a review under subsection (1) where—
(a) that review relates to a provider referred to in that subsection, and
(b) that provider is an institution of higher education.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 32, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Authority may consult with an awarding body before establishing policies and criteria for the validation of programmes of education and training where successful completion of those programmes leads to a joint award of the Authority and that awarding body under a joint awarding arrangement between the Authority and that awarding body."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 45 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 49
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 36, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Authority may consult with an awarding body before determining standards under subsection (1) for a joint award of the Authority and that awarding body to be made under a joint awarding arrangement between the Authority and that awarding body.”.
body to be made under a joint awarding arrangement between the Authority and that awarding body.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 50
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 37, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(9) In this section, "award" does not include a joint award of the Authority made under a joint awarding arrangement.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 37, before section 51, to insert the following new section:
51.—(1) The Authority may, for the purposes of making a joint award to an enrolled learner in respect of a programme of education and training, enter into a joint awarding arrangement (in this Act referred to as a "joint awarding arrangement") with—
(a) an awarding body, and
(b) the provider of the programme of education and training where the programme of education and training leading to the joint award is not provided by the awarding body.
(2) A joint awarding arrangement under subsection (1) may be made only in respect of a programme of education and training which has been validated by the Authority under section 45.
(3) Where the Authority enters a joint awarding arrangement, the provider of the programme of education and training leading to the joint award may apply in respect of an enrolled learner of that programme to the Authority to make a joint award to the learner where the provider is satisfied that the learner has-
(a) completed the programme of education and training concerned, and
(b) acquired and where appropriate, demonstrated, the appropriate standard of knowledge, skill or competence as determined by the Authority under section 49(1).
(4) Where the Authority receives an application referred to in subsection (3), the Authority shall make a joint award with the awarding body with which it has entered into a joint awarding arrangement in respect of the programme concerned to the enrolled learner where the Authority is satisfied that the enrolled learner has-
(a) completed the programme of education and training concerned, and
(b) acquired, and where appropriate, demonstrated, the appropriate standard of knowledge, skill or competence as determined by the Authority under section 49(1).
(5) An application under subsection (3) shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be determined by the Authority under section 79.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 40, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(14) Where a provider has delegated authority to make an award under this section and enters into an arrangement with another awarding body to make a joint award in respect of a programme of education and training of the provider, that provider shall notify the Authority of the arrangement within 14 days of it being made.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
SECTION 54
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 41, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where a proposal under subsection (1) is made in respect of-
(a) a provider who has entered into an arrangement referred to in section 52(14), and
(b) a programme or class of programmes which lead to a joint award referred to in section 52(14),
the Authority shall, by notice in writing, inform the awarding body referred to in section 52(14) that it proposes to withdraw or vary the authority of the provider to make an award in respect of the programme or class of programmes specified in the notice and state the reasons for the proposed withdrawal or variation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 41, subsection (2), line 23, to delete "The notice under subsection (1) shall state that the provider” and substitute the following:
"A notice under subsections (1) and (2) shall state that the provider, and the awarding body, if applicable,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 41, subsection (2), line 26, to delete "on that provider" and substitute the following:
"on that provider and that awarding body, if applicable".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 41, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Where the Authority withdraws or varies authority under subsection (3) in respect of a programme of a provider referred to in subsection (2), the Authority shall, by notice in writing addressed to the awarding body referred to in that subsection, notify that awarding body of the withdrawal or variation of authority under subsection (3).”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 41, subsection (4), line 36, to delete "subsection (3)” and substitute “subsections (3) and (4)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 41, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) Where the Authority withdraws delegated authority to make an award under subsection (3), each programme of education and training leading to that award shall, from the date specified in the notice referred to in that subsection, be taken to be validated under section 45 and the provisions of this Act shall apply to each of those programmes accordingly.”.
This amendment is introduced to address a gap in the Bill as currently drafted. It is designed to make it explicit that if the new authority withdraws delegated authority to make an award in accordance with section 54, the programmes of education and training leading to that award shall be deemed to be validated under section 45. Therefore, the authority would assume award-making responsibility for those programmes until and unless it withdraws validation of those programmes in accordance with section 47. The purposes of this is to ensure that withdrawal of delegated authority in respect of a programme or programmes does not necessarily result in the withdrawal of all awarding arrangements for that programme or programmes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 54, as amended, agreed to.
Section 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 43, lines 11 to 14, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The Authority shall consult with An tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas in carrying out a review under subsection (1) where—
(a) that review relates to a provider referred to in that subsection, and
(b) that provider is an institution of higher education.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 43, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where a proposal under subsection (1) is made in respect of a provider who has entered into an arrangement referred to in section 52(14), the Authority shall, by notice in writing, inform the awarding body referred to in section 52(14) that-
(a) it proposes to withdraw its approval of the procedures for access, transfer and progression established by the provider under section 55 and state the reasons for the proposed withdrawal, and
(b) if the Authority withdraws its approval, it shall also withdraw any authority to make awards delegated to that provider under section 52.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 43, subsection (2), line 41, to delete "A notice under subsection (1) shall state that the provider” and substitute the following:
"A notice under subsections (1) and (2) shall state that the provider, and the awarding body, if applicable,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 43, subsection (2), line 44, to delete "on the provider" and substitute the following:
"on the provider and the awarding body, if applicable".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 44, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Where the Authority withdraws approval under subsection (3) in respect of a provider referred to in subsection (2), the Authority shall, by notice in writing addressed to the awarding body referred to in that subsection, notify that awarding body of a withdrawal under subsection (6) of that provider’s authority to make awards delegated to it under section 52.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 59 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 66
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 51, subsection (1)(a)(i), line 9, to delete “awarding body which will make” and substitute the following:
"awarding body or, where appropriate, awarding bodies making".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 67 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 78
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 58, subsection (2)(a)(ii), line 1, to delete “the awarding body which makes” and substitute “the awarding body, or where appropriate, awarding bodies making”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 58, subsection (2)(b)(v), line 13, to delete “the awarding body” and substitute “the awarding body, or where appropriate, awarding bodies”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 79
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 59, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following paragraph:
"(h) an application under section 51(3),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 79, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 80 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 67, paragraph 2, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
"(4) The Union of Students of Ireland shall be designated as a nominating body to nominate a person for appointment by the Minister to the Authority.".
In the existing legislation there is provision for membership of the new Authority to have a representative of learners. In recent years, student representatives of different governing bodies of universities and institutes of technology have played a very important role in a representative capacity. It is very important that the views of the student community are heard where decisions are being made and where the content and quality of courses is being considered.
Some institutions have developed a very good relationship and good procedures for involving students and it is very important we build on the partnership with learners. I know the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, contributes handsomely to the work of the Higher Education Authority and to other bodies as well. I know from attending its members' congress and listening to their discussions at different times that they are practical and have put forward very important viewpoints on behalf of the student community. It is for this reason that the Union of Students in Ireland should be designated as a nominating body to nominate a person for appointment by the Minister to the authority.
I join Deputy Smith in asking the Minister to consider this amendment, as many public representatives have been requested to support it. I concur with Deputy Smith's acknowledgment of the practical and pragmatic approach of the Union of Students in Ireland and we have seen its members try to engage and grapple with many of the difficulties facing the third level sectors in terms of funding and reforms. It would be useful if a USI representative had a seat at the table. If the Minister cannot consider this now, perhaps he will consider it on Report Stage.
I support Deputy Smith's amendment. I think the Minister recognises the need for student representation on the board of the HEA, as he has increased the membership of the board from his original proposal of six members in order to strengthen it. This cohort needs to be represented at the table.
I, too, agree with the spirit of this amendment. If it is possible to accommodate this request, I recommend the Minister to do so. I ask him to look favourably on this proposal.
Schedule 1 outlines the detail of the board of the new Authority. Apart from the Chair, it is currently provided for in Schedule 1 that the board will also comprise a chief executive, an international expert and a representative of learners. I have signalled previously the importance of a strong voice to represent learners on the board of the new Authority. I also indicated in my speech on Second Stage my intention to invite the Union of Students in Ireland to nominate a representative to sit on the board of the authority.
Upon considering this issue further, I acknowledge the merit of providing for this specifically in the Bill. However, the Authority will be dealing with a very diverse set of learners, particularly in the adult and further education sector. To reflect this, I propose to introduce an amendment on Report Stage, which will allow for two learner representatives to sit on the board, one of which will be nominated by the Union of Students in Ireland.
I am also of view that an eight member board would be too small to be effective, if a total of five places are reserved for the chair, the chief executive officer, an international expert and now two learner representatives. I therefore propose to allow for an increase in the size of the board to ten members and I will come back to the House with an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
I share the views of the broad consensus. I may have said in the Seanad or elsewhere that there have been two stages so far in the student movement but it is now moving into the third stage. The first stage was when students were out on the streets. As John Hume famously said, the trick about street politics is knowing when to come in off the street. To a certain extent students have been recognised; they were tolerated. Now they need to be recognised properly and formally and explicitly recognised in legislation. I will bring forward an amendment to increase the overall size of the board to provide for diversity, to have explicit representation for two learner representatives, one of whom will be prescribed in legislation to be nominated by the USI and the other to come from the broad body of students. It will be a matter for my successor or somebody else to decide on that. There will be some diversity. There is not the same institutional organisation such as the USI for further education or adult education, given the nature and spread of those involved. I will explicitly recognise the Union of Students in Ireland in primary legislation as having the right to nominate one of the learner representatives.
I welcome the Minister's decision. My colleague, Senator Averil Power had suggested in the Seanad that there should be two student representatives. I thought she was being too optimistic but I am very glad the Minister is adopting this approach. This important provision will be productive.
I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has considered this issue and for recognising the cross-party consensus on it. His assurance that the USI will be included in legislation is a significant step forward and a move that will be welcomed by the student movement. I thank the Minister for taking this very progressive step.
I am informing members as elected temporary representatives that the permanent establishment hates formal legal statutory recognition of any organisation.
The farm organisations have secured that for many years, as I know well.
In view of the Minister's comments, does Deputy Smith wish to withdraw the amendment?
I will consult informally with Deputy Smith on the wording of the amendment as Report Stage is very constricted. I would be quite happy to share a draft wording of how we propose to do that in order that we will have genuine consensus and the Deputy does not reluctantly give his consent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 69, paragraph 7(1), line 43, to delete "who are members of the Authority" and substitute the following:
"who are either members of, or members of the staff of, the Authority".
As currently drafted, the Bill states: "The Authority may establish committees, consisting wholly or partly of persons who are members of the Authority". In our view now, upon reflection, this is overly restrictive and could place an excessive burden on members of the authority, particularly as the board, even with the increase in numbers or proposed increase, is relatively small in size. This amendment therefore proposes to enable the authority to establish committees that do not include board members providing that those committees include staff members. This is line with similar provisions in the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. This is ensuring flexibility at the primary legislation stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 3
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 77, lines 21 to 39, to delete item 9, and substitute the following:
"
|
9.
|
Universities Act 1997
|
New Section 47A
|
Insert the following new section after section 47:“Degrees and qualifications of Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.47A.— (1) Where—(a) degrees and qualifications awarded by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland are approved by the National University of Ireland, and(b) the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland is a Recognised College of the National University of Ireland, those degrees and qualifications shall be degrees and qualifications of the National University of Ireland and shall be so designated.(2) If at any time the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland ceases to be a Recognised College of the National University of Ireland, a degree or qualification referred to in subsection (1) awarded at any time prior to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland ceasing to be a Recognised College of the National University of Ireland—(a) remains a degree or qualification, as the case may be, of the National University of Ireland, and(b) shall be so designated, notwithstanding that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland has ceased to be a Recognised College of the National University of Ireland.”.
|
".
This is an amendment that seeks to provide clarification in relation to an amendment that was made to Schedule 3 on Committee Stage in the Seanad. It is an amendment to the Universities Act 1997 dealing with the designation of degrees and other qualifications of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI. The previous amendment that was made to Schedule 3 on Committee Stage provided for degrees and qualifications of the RCSI to be degrees and qualifications of the NUI where they are approved by the NUI and for so long as the RCSI remains a recognised college of the NUI. This could be interpreted as meaning that if the RCSI was to cease to be a recognised college, the degrees and qualification awarded while it was a recognised college would no longer be degrees and qualifications of the NUI. This was not the intention of the original amendment. To provide clarification on this issue, therefore, this amendment provides that degrees and qualifications which are awarded by the RCSI while it is a recognised college and which are approved by the NUI shall be degrees and qualifications of the NUI in perpetuity - belt, braces and bicycle.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
In the coming days the Department will proof the Bill, which is extensive and contains 84 sections and three Schedules. If any technical corrections are required, I will introduce the necessary amendments on Report Stage. However, I will write to the spokespersons of Sinn Féin and the Fianna Fáil Party and members of the sub-committee to alert them in advance of any amendments. I assure Deputies that any proposed amendments will be technical or drafting amendments for the purposes of polishing the text and ensuring it is correct.
Widespread consultation on the Bill took place with various groups. Was the Office of the Ombudsman consulted, specifically on changes in respect of the Freedom of Information Act?
I am not aware of any such consultation taking place but I will ascertain if some other section may have-----
It emerged on Committee Stage that the Ombudsman for Children had been critical of the Department. While the Department indicated it has a good relationship with her office and consulted it on a regular basis when Bills were going through the House, the Ombudsman indicated such consultation was haphazard. If elements of the Freedom of Information Act are affected by the legislation, perhaps-----
Is the Deputy referring to the Ombudsman for Children or the Office of the Ombudsman?
I am referring to the Office of the Ombudsman.
I will make inquiries and communicate directly with the Deputy on the matter. I will also inform the sub-committee of the position on Report Stage.
Question agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
