We dealt last day with amendment No. 1 to this section in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Other amendments in my name were discussed with it and we have not disposed of those. Will we reach them?
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
We will reach them at a later stage.
We have discussed them already.
We will come to them and allow you every opportunity to deal with them. It is not my intention to hurry the discussion on this important Bill. I am in the committee's hands as regards the time we take. I propose we proceed until 1 p.m. and then take a decision about resuming in the afternoon and what time we wish to finish. If the business is not completed we can then consider when we will proceed further.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments No. 2 and No. 24 can be discussed together. The third additional list of amendments, dated 23 November 1994, contains a substitute for the original amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
2.—(1) Where the Minister is satisfied, after considering the report of a person appointed under section 20 of the Principal Act, that the affairs of a college are not being managed in an effective manner, the Minister may by order appoint a person or a body of persons, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, to carry out such and so many of the functions of any or all of the governing body, the chairman or the Director or of any of them as the Minister may determine and upon such appointment that body or person shall cease to exercise the functions thereby vested in the Commission.
(2) A Commission appointed under subsection (1) shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out the functions so vested and shall be appointed on such terms and for such period as the Minister decides, provided that in no case shall a Commission be appointed for a period longer than two years.
(3) Upon the appointment of a Commission the governing body, the chairman and the Director shall be informed of the reasons therefor and that body or person may, within fourteen days from the date of the appointment of the Commission show cause to the Minister why any functions vested in the Commission should not have been so vested and request the Minister to revest those functions in that body or person.
(4) A Commission in carrying out its functions may consult with and request information concerning the management of the affairs of the college from the governing body, the chairman or the Director, and in any such case that body or person shall provide any such information as is requested.
(5) The Minister may—
(a) remove a Commission, or any member thereof, from office, or
(b) vary the number of persons on the Commission.
(6) Where a Commission or a member thereof is removed from office within the two year term referred to in subsection (2), or where a member resigns or dies in office, the Minister may appoint another Commission or member as appropriate for the remainder of that term.
(7) Upon the termination of the appointment of a Commission, unless the Minister appoints another Commission, and in any case at the end of two years from the date of the first appointment, the functions vested in the Commission shall revest in the then acting governing body, chairman or Director.
(8) At any time prior to the termination of the appointment of a Commission, the Minister may by order revest any of the functions to which an order under subsection (1) applies in the body or person to which the order relates.
(9) The remuneration, if any, of every person appointed under subsection (1) or subsection (6) shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas under the Principal Act.
(10) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".
On 28 October the report of Dr. Miriam Hederman-O'Brien into the management and governance of Letterkenny regional technical college was published. Dr. Hederman-O'Brien had been appointed as an inspector to inquire into aspects of Letterkenny regional technical college in January and she reported to the Minister at the end of July. Her report outlines a position which causes serious concern and worry. In particular the report raises concerns about the financial management of the college, the selection procedures for staff appointments, the provision and authorisation of courses and the provision of services for students.
Since receiving the report detailed consideration has been given to its contents by the Department of Education. Steps have been taken to ensure a comprehensive audit is carried out of the financial and reporting systems in the college. Revised staff selection procedures have been approved and the college has been instructed not to provide any new courses pending a complete evaluation of its operation and management. Letterkenny regional technical college has also been instructed to issue a code of conduct to all students entering the college this academic year.
Consideration of the report is not complete and will continue, especially in so far as consideration must be given to what, if any, disciplinary action needs to be taken. At this stage, the specific issues I outlined combine with the findings of the inspector to create the gravest concern about the present management and operation of the college which has been further heightened by developments since Dr. Hederman-O'Brien's report. Investigations by officials of the Department suggest that student enrolments in the college are falling at a time when there is unprecedented demand for places elsewhere in regional technical colleges and the third level sector as a whole.
On receipt of the report the chairman of the college's governing body resigned. Subsequently he accused senior management in the college of being responsible for a range of management failures. The chairman made these accusations publicly and in writing and they include having a crude system of allocating budgets; an overrun on the pay budget of over £200,000; a major deficit in the adult education budget of over £100,000; paying commission to staff members; incorrect submission of student numbers to the Department; and careless if not haphazard approaches to course accreditation. I cannot over-emphasise the seriousness of these allegations, which must be investigated thoroughly and objectively.
Furthermore, subsequent to the finalisation of the inspector's report, it has emerged through the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General that there is a fraud in the accounts of Letterkenny regional technical college, the full extent of which has not yet been quantified but is potentially major. Officials of my Department have now brought the matter to the attention of the Garda, after some delay in doing so by the college. This fraud and the way it has been handled by the college are further significant factors in my decision to bring this legislation forward.
My first and overriding concern is to safeguard the reputation and operation of this college by ensuring it is brought to the highest standards obtaining in a third level educational institution. In the present circumstances I cannot have confidence in the capacity of the management structures to achieve that. Dr. Hederman-O'Brien's report and subsequent developments call into question the competence of senior management in that college and demonstrate a series of failures to adhere to established good practice.
Final conclusions can only be made when the report's findings and the views of management and of the director of the college have been fully considered. In the meantime, in circumstances where there is strong prima facie evidence that the management and governing structure has failed, I consider it to be my duty as Minister with ultimate responsibility for this college to take immediate steps to remedy the position.
This provision will enable the Minister for Education to appoint a commission to direct and control the college for up to two years. On appointment the commission will immediately take on the role and functions of the governing body and the director. At present there is no governing body in the college but after the commission's appointment the director will stand aside. He will remain in this position while the commission is in place or until his future position in the college is determined in the light of full consideration of the report and his response to it.
The appointment of a commission will ensure an effective management structure for Letterkenny regional technical college can be put in place immediately. This will allow time for full consideration of the report, especially in the context of affording a full and compete opportunity to those named in it as having responsibility for the position outlined to have their view considered. This appointment should not be seen as prejudicing that process, but as an assurance to others with interest in the college — such as staff, students and the public — that in the meantime their interest will also be protected.
This new section 2 (1) provides for the appointment of a commission, which may be one person or a number of people. This provision is drafted to provide considerable flexibility to the Minister, both as to the composition of the commission and the precise functions vested in it. For instance a commission may replace a governing body, a director or both. The Minister could appoint one commission to take over the role of a governing body while another takes the role of director.
Protection from unreasonable or arbitrary action by a Minister is given to the governing body, chairman or director by the requirement that a commission can be appointed only on the making of a report by an inspector appointed under the Principal Act. Further protection is accorded in the new subsection (3) where the governing body, chairman and director are given a statutory right to be informed of the reasons for the appointment of a commission and an opportunity to show cause why the functions vested in a commission should be revested in them.
The third protection for the normal management and governing structure of the institution is provided in subsection (2), which makes two years the maximum period for which a commission may be appointed. Other subsections give the Minister power to remove a commission earlier and restore the functions to the governing body and director as circumstances allow.
This provision is proposed in the context of the position obtaining in Letterkenny regional technical college. I have every confidence that high standards of management and governance apply in the other regional technical colleges and in the Dublin Institute of Technology. However, this provision is drafted in general terms to cover all the institutions, which is advisable. Events in Letterkenny regional technical college have shown how circumstances can move seriously out of line in terms of management and operation.
The public has a right to ensure, if this happened again in this or any other institution, that the institution can be rescued, the interests of the many people involved — including staff, students and parents — guaranteed and the significant investment by the State protected. The granting of power to the Minister for Education in the carefully balanced way now proposed is the most effective way of giving the public that assurance.
I and my party have no difficulty in recognising the major difficulties experienced in Letterkenny regional technical college, and many activities there were shameful. We are also disappointed that the faith placed in a governing body at a specific time has been misplaced. We are anxious that the situation is resolved as quickly as possible. That is why we agreed, at such short notice, to this committee meeting today and to proceed until the business is finished, however long that takes.
There is an apparent deception in presenting two Bills to the Dáil on 23 September 1994, the Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Bill, 1994 and the Dublin Institute of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 1994, when the Department of Education had received the Letterkenny report in July 1994. The Department should have been aware when these Bills were presented to the Dáil that action was required. However, nothing to this effect was included in the Bills. Indeed, Second Stage was taken in the Dáil on 11 and 12 October 1994, and there was no mention then that amendments would be introduced to deal with the Letterkenny problems. We proceeded in good faith to Committee Stage, and on the morning it was to begin we were presented with a set of amendments, the report having been made public two or three days previously.
There has been much talk recently regarding delays in offices in dealing with various problems. The Department which the Minster inherited in the past few days has something to answer in that there was a long delay from the presentation of the report by Dr. Hederman-O'Brien in July 1994, to the publication of the two amendment Bills, to which I referred, on 23 September 1994, to the Second Stage reading on 11 and 12 October 1994, followed by the disclosure that there was a need to introduce proposals to address the problems in Letterkenny. An explanation is required from the Department, and the Minster's predecessor, as to why it took so long to introduce the necessary action, which we all welcome and will support.
The situation in Letterkenny must be addressed firmly, effectively and quickly. The report by Dr. Hederman O'Brien, despite serious procedural and presentation faults, details an alarming picture which betrays all that is expected from a regional technical college. The issues raised must be dealt with quickly and effectively. We will support a special Letterkenny Bill, rather than the amendments proposed by the Minister, to give appropriate temporary emergency powers to the Minister, provided it is seen to be fair and goes to the nub of the matter.
The amendments proposed by the Minster are wide reaching and apply to any of the 11 regional technical colleges around the country. They would enable the Minister to take out, after receipt of an inspector's report, all the members of a governing body, or any specific members thereof, of any regional technical college around the country.
The regional technical colleges have generally been very good third level institutions and have grown by approximately 1,000 per cent in the past ten years. This — and their need for independence — must be recognised. We must not rush wide-ranging legislation to solve the problems in Letterkenny, which could be used at any time by any other Minister to take out any person who may be involved in a regional technical college. Such legislation is too wide ranging, and I will oppose it.
Hard cases make bad law, and this is something which the Minster would accept. The reaction to the report presented by Dr. Hederman O'Brien has resulted in dictatorial legislation, and the amendments presented to the committee today will give the Minister wide ranging powers. For example, such legislation will enable the Minister to appoint a commissioner to oversee, perhaps, all the functions of a governing body, or the functions of any member of a governing body, or the director, but there is no mention as to how the commissioner will be chosen. We have no information as to who the commissioner is likely to be, or what experience they are likely to have.
This causes me concern, because in considering the appointments to the original governing bodies — and their chairmen — around the country, by a predecessor of the Minster, Deputy Séamus Brennan, I note that all chairmen of regional technical colleges are active Fianna Fáil supporters. Most of them carried out their work effectively, and in an exemplary fashion in many cases. However, there has been a disaster in County Donegal with regard to the appointment to Letterkenny regional technical college.
The report presented by Dr. Hederman O'Brien refers to an over reaching chairman of the governing body who has appeared to interfere in all aspects of college life. Page 53 of the report states: ". . . the Governing Body has seen itself as the final arbitrator of all matters, including financial control, personnel matters, leave of absences etc". I am aware that two people of the management body of the college which submitted it to Dr. Hederman O'Brien. This quotation is a damning statement on the level of interference within the college. For example, there was interference in financial control, which is surely a management function, and where surely it is the job of the governing body to establish the necessary procedures in this respect, and not to be personally involved on a day to day basis. However, there are several instances of this having happened.
With regard to personnel matters, the governing body had a hands on approach and appeared to have been much too closely involved in the day to day running of the college. The report presented by Dr. Hederman O'Brien details the question of the leave of absence applied for. Despite the refusal by the Department to grant it, the chairman and the governing body of Letterkenny regional technical college did so, with far reaching consequences. The report points out that this man was on the staff for a certain number of teaching hours in a year when he was in Brussels. This is questioned by the inspector in her report and I hope the Minister will be able to respond today, state if it has been investigated and, if so, to what extent. The report states: "....Councillor McGlinchey has executed actions which are not specifically prescribed for that office in the 1992 regional technical college Act." It also states that he did not fulfil his role regarding the conflict of interest which arose between his actions as chairman of the committee and his own personal interests.
Many of the difficulties experienced in the college have been detailed. The registered number of students may be the fraud to which the Minister referred. I hope he will outline further the fraud known to be taking place in Letterkenny; 1,515 students were registered by the college for 1993-94 and some months later the college revised this figure to 1,497. It is intolerable that a regional technical college would behave in a way which appears to be fraudulent in its dealings with the Department. The figure for November 1992 was 1,474 but this was later revised to 1,458.
There was controversy regarding student activities outside the college grounds. Many of the difficulties seem to have emerged at this time, when the student accounts for 1992-93 were rejected, sabbatical students were declared ineligible for election to the governing body and letters were sent to all students — the question remains as to how their addresses were known. It has been alleged to me that during this period many of the students received threats to their personal safety. One student was told he would never be able to work in Ireland because certain people would see to it that he would never again get a job. It has even been alleged to me that the fall-out from Letterkenny affected the commercial world miles away from it. The networking system within Fianna Fáil had commercial repercussions far away from there. We cannot tolerate this and I hope we move on from it quickly and effectively. This is why we are anxious to help the Minister to move forward with this legislation.
We will move an amendment to the Minister's amendment to indicate that we will support the tenor of his amendments if he makes them specific to Letterkenny. Hard cases make bad law and problems in Letterkenny urgently need to be solved. Perhaps there are problems in other colleges about which the Minister wants to tell us which may help to focus our minds on the broader legislation but, as things now stand, I have grave reservations about such dictatorial powers being given to any Minister. I am not saying that this Minister would abuse them but his successors, whoever they may be, may use them in a way not in keeping with what we intend. Therefore, I have reservations about this and will bring forward an amendment.
The Deputy asked an important question, whether the Minister would accept an amendment which could have a bearing on the discussion. Before we proceed I ask the Minister to reply to this.
Deputy McGrath said that there may be an inordinate delay in the Department of Education in bringing forward a provision to deal effectively with the problems detailed in Dr. Hederman O'Brien's report. It is clear that the impact of this report, the necessity for considering it and the legal aspects of this consideration were very important and had to be dealt with extremely sensitively and with due consideration. It is also clear it was necessary for the report to be first given to the director and chairman of the governing body for their consideration so that they had an opportunity to see it before it was published. All these matters were dealt with carefully by the Department of Education and the necessity to meet the legal requirements was taken into account. In the consideration of the report and in the context of allowing the director and the chairman to have access to it, there was no undue delay.
Before Deputy McGrath asked whether I could accept his amendment, he would have known what my answer might be. I accept that sometimes specific cases can make bad law. However, we all appreciate the present situation and the Deputy expressed his agreement about the seriousness of the position and his support for the type of measures proposed. It is necessary that these measures are put in place as soon as possible. This power would not be invoked capriciously by any Minister and I guarantee that it would not be invoked without a debate in the House and an order being put before it in the event of this power ever having to be used in future for any purpose. I assure Deputy McGrath that there are no other pending cases of which I am aware which would necessitate this kind of intervention. I am equally satisfied that neither the Deputy nor I can forecast with certainty for all time. I appreciate the Deputy's point but we would look foolish if a similar problem arose in the future and we again had to resort to particular legislation to resolve it. I cannot accept the type of amendment Deputy McGrath proposes.
The inspector's report is a very damning indictment of the way Letterkenny regional technical college was run and Deputy McGrath outlined a number of incidents. The report does not make for happy reading. We are all concerned that measures should be adopted so that such things never happen again but I have some reservations about the style of the legislation proposed.
On a day when everyone's attention was directed elsewhere it was inappropriate to try to put through a second amendment Bill without a debate in the House. We objected to it because it was inappropriate and undemocratic to try to put any measure, particularly a Bill, through the House without a discussion, not because we objected to the case being dealt with.
On a point of order, my understanding is that a discussion took place between the Whips and it was agreed to do this because of the necessity to take appropriate action in the circumstances. There was no wish or desire to deprive the House of full participation and discussion in the normal way.
Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding as regards this matter, but I accept the Minister's good faith. He is in a difficult position because he has just taken over this ministry.
I have grave reservations about this amendment. We have already spoken on other Bills about giving wide-ranging powers to particular Ministers. This is not a personal matter, but a point of principle because a Minister's powers should not be as wide-ranging as they will be if this section is passed without an amendment.
I am concerned about the commission's make-up. The amendment states that a person or a body of persons will be referred to as a commission. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the commission's make-up will be because that might alleviate some of our difficulties. The problem of political appointments has been seen in Letterkenny regional technical college. At a time when we are talking about public accountability, we should be open and direct as regards setting up a commission. It is not satisfactory at this stage to say there will be a commission. The powers which will be invested in the Minister, if this amendment is passed, will be draconian. The appalling sequence of events, particularly fraud, in Letterkenny regional technical college must be addressed. However, we must be the guardians of democracy as regards a Minister's powers.
The amendment on the third additional list of amendments is in substitution for amendment No. 2 which was shown to us at the last committee meeting. An addendum to it states that "every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made". Obviously, some effort has been made to address the issue of powers vested in the Minister. Does this also include an order for the commission and how will it be laid before the House? I want to know more about the mechanics of putting this before the House. A college cannot be left to flounder if there is no governing body. Perhaps the Minister could be more forthcoming about the details.
I was disappointed when the Minister told Deputy McGrath that he could not accept an amendment we might table because we have not formulated one. We have agreed to table an amendment according to the terms he outlined. Perhaps the Minister might consider our amendment on Report Stage?
The situation in Letterkenny regional technical college is probably the most appalling chronicle of jobbery, fraud and abuse of position in a public institution for a long time and I congratulate Dr. Miriam Hederman-O'Brien on her thorough examination and report. I also compliment the former Minister for Education, Deputy Bhreathnach, for initiating this investigation after these issues were raised in the House by my party.
This story covers a period of less than two years when jobs were fixed. The inspector, Dr. Miriam Hederman-O'Brien, mentions interviews where only one applicant was called for what she calls "teaching posts in subjects which were less than esoteric". She mentions another case where 20 people were interviewed in one day and although Dr. Hederman-O'Brien does not bluntly state it, the clear inference in her report is that the person must have already been selected because one could not interview that number of people in one day and give them a fair crack of the whip. She cites a further case where a member of staff, whose leave of absence was refused by the Department of Education, was granted leave of absence by the college which continued to make returns to the Department of Education as if the person was still teaching there. The relationship with the staff is described in the report, which I will quote because it gives us a flavour of the type of regime in operation in Letterkenny regional technical college under Mr. McGlinchey. It states: "I cannot ignore the representations which were made to me that staff were "intimidated" and fearful that they would be "victimised", their careers jeopardised or that they would find it difficult to get support for teaching or other activities if they challenged the manner in which the College was being managed".
She also states: "there is a perception that the Chairman of the Governing Body of Letterkenny regional technical college wields an inordinate influence over the staff." We are talking about people in permanent jobs who had a certain degree of security, but who felt terrified by the manner in which the chairman of Letterkenny regional technical college ran the college.
It seems that Councillor McGlinchey was running Letterkenny regional technical college in a manner inappropriate to his role as chairman. The role of chairman of the governing body of Letterkenny regional technical college would, as I understand it, have confined itself to the wider policy and direction of the college. Most chairpersons of governing bodies would be happy to allow the principal or director of the college to deal with the day to day management of such matters. However, the report refers to the fact that the chairman of the college, Mr. McGlinchey, had his own office in the college with a nameplate on the door, thus giving the signal that he was in command and running the college as a personal fiefdom.
Serious issues are raised in this report. The first, which must be mentioned, is the extraordinary courage of the two officers of Letterkenny regional technical college Students' Union, Mr. Colm Keaveney and Mr. Michael Greene, who blew the whistle on this matter. The issue which caused them to do this was when they decided, what in normal circumstances would not be a particularly extraordinary event, to move the entertainment business of the students' union from the Golden Grill, currently run directly by Mr. McGlinchey's son, to a different venue. This caused Mr. Paul McGlinchey, the son of the chairman of the governing body, to write to every individual student in the college encouraging them to set up an alternative organisation to the students' union for the purposes of running entertainment and to bring this business back to the Golden Grill. This in turn raises issues relating to a conflict of interest by the chairman of the governing body and how the owner, even if he is the son of the chairman, managed to get the home addresses of the students of the college and was then able to write to them in that fashion.
One also had the attempts made subsequently, clearly at the behest of Mr. McGlinchey, to browbeat the officers of the students' union. He summoned the Garda by making allegations that the accounts of the students' union were not in order — a rich irony given what the Minister has told us about fraud in the college's own accounts. We were told about the way in which the student representatives to the governing body were elected was interfered with so that it produced a result in which the student who was ultimately declared elected happened to be a member of the alternative body Mr. McGlinchey's son had set up in rivalry to the students' union. Given the degree of small town politics in operation here and the degree to which the staff who held permanent jobs were frightened of Mr. McGlinchey, the courage of Colm Keaveney and Michael Greene must be acknowledged.
Before we get into the question of the appointment of the commission and how the college is to have its reputation restored after these appalling events, I would like the Minister, when responding, to address a number of issues. First, as I understand it, all these events date exclusively from the appointment of Mr. McGlinchey as chairman of the governing body as I could not find any evidence in the report of Dr. Miriam Hederman-O'Brien of any serious mismanagement in the college prior to his appointment. Second, and I know Mr. McGlinchey has resigned as chairman of the governing body, will any further action be taken or contemplated as regards these events? Clearly, if there was jobbery and people were being placed in jobs, in some cases for which they were not qualified and in other cases were people were unfairly treated, then clearly those who were unfairly treated and should have qualified for the jobs in the first place have a grievance. Some of them may well be seeking redress.
Could someone explain why Councillor McGlinchey was appointed Chairman of Letterkenny regional technical college? The councillor has a long record in public life and I know he served for a short period of time as a member of the vocational education committee. However, I would like to know — I would also like to hear from the former Minister involved, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who made the appointment — what qualities Councillor McGlinchey had as an educationalist that made him so eminently suitable for the chairmanship of Letterkenny regional technical college. It must rank as one of the most disastrous appointments in a long time. It does underscore, and previous speakers referred to this, the unsuitability of appointing political hacks to senior posts of this kind for which they are clearly unsuitable. In this case, it resulted in the most appalling abuse that we have seen in a long time. Letterkenny regional technical college was described here during Second Stage by Deputy Blaney who served with distinction of the board of management of the college when it was under the auspices of the vocational education committee. It had established a fine reputation and was doing excellent work in this region. With enrolments falling, as the Minister said, the reputation of this college, apart from the immediate damage to the staff, students, its accounts and so on, has been seriously damaged because the former Minster, Deputy Séamus Brennan, appointed a Fianna Fáil hack as chairman of the governing body, who in turn abused his position to the point that we have seen here. That must never happen again.
The other question is the suitability of the regional technical college legislation. When this legislation was before the House, I and other Members questioned the wisdom of taking the governance of the regional technical colleges out of the hands of the vocational education committees. To my knowledge, this type of abuse never happened when an regional technical college had its normal organic link to a vocational education committee. The argument was made at the time that there was a wish, which I can understand, especially on the part of the staff of the regional technical colleges, to establish them on an autonomous basis, to enable them to do research and set up new courses and I have some sympathy with that approach. However, a certain amount of concern was expressed that the method of appointing the governing bodies of the colleges, especially of appointing the chairman, was leaving too much power in the hands of a Minister and that is clearly what happened here. Councillor McGlinchey's authority and the extent to which he could intimidate the staff resulted from the perception in Letterkenny that not only was he the local Fianna Fáil bigwig, but as chairman of the governing body, was also the Minister's man and that has also contributed to the problem.
This amendment covers a wide area and gives the Minister power to put a commission into any of the Regional Technical Colleges. In fairness, the other regional technical colleges should not be tarred with the Letterkenny brush. We have a problem with Letterkenny regional technical college and there is a need to deal with it urgently. I am not opposed to this method of dealing with the problem but it should be confined to Letterkenny regional technical college. There are provisions in the Principal Act which deal with the power to send in an inspector. The Minister has extensive powers in the Principal Act to oversee the management of regional technical colleges. A slur should not be cast on the other regional technical colleges because of the activities of a bad chairman of one regional technical college. This amendment should be confined to Letterkenny.
As Deputies McGrath and Keogh said, we have not drafted a specific amendment but we would be much happier and could do our business more quickly today if he would agree to recast this amendment in a way which would confine it to Letterkenny. I would not like the message to go out that there is something wrong in the regional technical colleges that requires action. There was certainly something wrong in Letterkenny but in fairness it does not apply beyond that and the rest of the regional technical colleges should not be tarred with the Letterkenny brush.
Listening to the previous three speakers, Deputies McGrath, Keogh and Gilmore, it is quite obvious that this is an urgent matter. We have seen the appalling list of abuses in Letterkenny, as the Minister stated, fraud in the accounts, a conflict of interests, the question on the approval of courses, fixing appointments, disparity of student numbers and the role of the chairman in the affairs of the college. It is a serious matter which has to be addressed urgently. Everything that has been said so far brings home to us the importance of having this legislation enacted quickly.
In relation to the question of alleged criminal offences, the Garda in Donegal stated publicly that they have not been called in to investigate the latest fraud allegations. That is a matter that should be dealt with and perhaps the Minister might respond to it. It is right that the appropriate authorities should be called in to deal with serious allegations of fraud as a matter of urgency.
The question has been asked as to whether this proposed mechanism, namely the commission, should be limited to Letterkenny or extend to the other colleges. That seems to be the nub of the differences between the Minister and those who have contributed so far. My view is that it should, and that the legislation here is correct. It is important that there should be public confidence in the operation of our third level institutions. We have 11 regional technical colleges and one Dublin Institute of Technology. As chairman of the City of Dublin vocational education committee, I have not received any representation that this legislation should be amended to exclude either the Dublin Institute of Technology or any regional technical college. If, in one case out of 12, matters of this nature can occur, we must reassure the public that we are putting in place a protective measure or safeguard to prevent it happening again. Without casting any aspersion on the way in which the other colleges are managed, the Minister should ensure that a mechanism is put in place — and seen by parents, students and the public at large — to ensure that no abuses of this nature can take place again or that, if they do, an early warning mechanism can be put in place to ensure that a management structure is operating in the college. In the case of Letterkenny, such a management structure is urgently needed. The last thing we want is an institution which was spoken of so glowingly at the time this legislation was going through — a vibrant institution in the north west that was providing much needed third level education facilities — undermined in any way because of the perception that it has been badly run in the past and that there is now no management structure to run it adequately. It is important that we should not have a haemorrhage of students because of the perception that is now common knowledge in the public arena.
The safeguards in relation to this legislation are adequate; the provision that the commission, whether it consists of a person or a number of people, would not sit for more than two years and that, in the meantime, if the management matters have been resolved it would cease to exist. It is quite clear there is no intention to put a permanent structure in place; the Minister has already stated that there would be a debate and that an order would be placed before the House before any commission could be established. It ensures that the widest range of information would be made available to the Oireachtas so that there could be no question of a Minister abusing his or her powers by imposing a commission unnecessarily. We do not have anything to worry about in that regard and it should not take up too much discussion.
In respect of the question raised by Deputy Gilmore about the vocational education committee committees and the new Dublin Institute of Technology legislation taking away their powers, a fairly democratic structure has been put in place. The vocational education committees have power to nominate six people from their numbers, and five nominating bodies which will be selected by the vocational education committee, which makes a total of 11. There is representation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the students' union and the college staff. The only person who is selected, one might say, out of turn is the chairperson who is selected by the Minister. Strong criticism was made of the manner in which the previous Minister selected people who belonged to a particular party which was unsatisfactory, particularly when some of those selected had no role or track record in the educational arena. That is something that must be looked at in view of what already happened. I have no doubt that the democratic structure for the governing bodies is satisfactory at the present time, and that there is a significant role for the vocational education committees.
I would like to refer to the question of how confidential information, namely a database, was made available to the chairman. As I understand it, it was made available to the son of the chairman by a member of staff who had recently been appointed through the good offices of the chairman. The Minister should respond to this matter because where student files, including addresses, are made available in an unauthorised fashion and used in an unauthorised way it is certainly a breach of confidential data.
We have urgent legislation to deal with which the Minister could not have brought before the House much sooner considering that the report was made in July, the legalities of what we would do had to be looked into, and the existing management — the governing board and the chairman — had to be invited to respond. Now that it is before us, it is appropriate to deal with it in an expedient fashion and to ensure that we put in place a mechanism that can come into operation if any such abuses occur in future.
We are not all such purists as to think that such abuses may not occur in the future. It does not in any way cast aspersions on the integrity of the existing governing bodies, chairmen or presidents. We should go ahead with this legislation without introducing any amendment to this section and pass it as quickly as possible.
I have been notified by the staff that due to some technical difficulties there is a change in the channel on which this committee is being broadcast. It is now being broadcast on channel 24.
It is a remarkable coincidence that we should be discussing this legislation at this juncture because it goes to the very core of the ongoing political crisis that unfolded last week, which is about abuse of privilege and power and the whole culture of "cute hoorism".
This amendment and the Letterkenny saga is a prime example of dej� vu. I was the Fine Gael spokesman for Education when this legislation was going through and Deputy Rabbitte, Deputy Brian O’Shea and I warned that if the power was taken from the vocational education committees, which were a manifestation of accountability and local democracy in action, and given to the Minister there was a very grave prospect of this happening. It has happened.
The Minister instituted the Miriam Hederman O'Brien commission rather late in the day. Deputy Rabbitte and I raised the frightening situation in Letterkenny over a considerable time. The Minister initially commissioned an inquiry, which constituted a request to Mr. Fitzsimons, the director of the college, to carry out his own inquiry.
When we brought the matter before the House again we were told all that had transpired was an exchange of letters. It was only after considerable political pressure in the House, only after the personal details and the frightening feeling of claustrophobia prevalent within the college was demonstrated to us individually by people like Colm Keaveny in the students' union, that the Minister relented and finally brought in somebody of the status and capacity of Miriam Hederman O'Brien to cut through the morass of charges and counter charges. I commend the Minister for doing the decent thing and sending in somebody capable of doing the job. I commend the students. Had they not doggedly stuck to their guns in this regard the situation in Letterkenny would still be ongoing.
The chairman was definitely in charge. Bernard McGlinchey ran a hands-on operation. He had his own office and nameplate and exercised day to day management responsibility. This is a fundamental example of ministerial indiscretion. It was obvious that Councillor McGlinchey did not have the qualifications for the job. It was obvious that there were strong political undertones in his appointment. It was obvious that Councillor McGlinchey's only qualification was that he was politically well connected.
It was quite obvious that Councillor McGlinchey was one of a spate of appointments made in the dying days of the last Government when a caretaker administration was in place, similar to that which is in place today. On that occasion the chairmanships of all of the regional technical colleges were filled in a rush to put the right people in the right places. Councillor McGlinchey was not the only appointment made. People were appointed to the VHI and to Coillte Teoranta. Some 400 appointments to key positions were given to Fianna Fáil personnel, councillors, hacks, well connected people on the ground in a classic example of the kind of culture we are purportedly trying to root out now. Not alone did the Government not root out that culture but things have become worse. Today's legislation is in the nature of a belated but necessary fire brigade action.
Before we agree to this, I wish to ask a number of questions in relation to what happened in Letterkenny. Who pays the legal fees in the High Court case brought in relation to the appointment of the finance officer, Mr. Morrow, who was plucked from Donegal County Council where he was housing officer? Mr. Morrow had a pass leaving certificate, he did not have any of the qualifications that were needed for the position of finance officer and he was parachuted into that highly paid position. Considerable legal costs have been incurred in that case. Will Mr. McGlinchey and Mr. Fitzsimons pay those costs, or will Johnny Citizen pay them, as in the beef tribunal? Must the taxpayers pay those costs? We should not make changes to the administration of regional technical colleges until we sort these matters out. Who will pay the cost of the legal proceedings arising from the appointment of the finance officer, an appointment which was at the personal bequest of Mr. McGlinchey?
I was on the advisory body and on the management bodies of regional technical colleges in the good old days when we started from very humble origins. From a very small beginning, as in Letterkenny, we built up a system that we are very proud of. The regional technical colleges can now stand shoulder to shoulder with the best universities in the country. As well as awarding certificates and diplomas they now award degrees. They have built up very strong liaisons with overseas institutions, which are a fundamental mechanism in the entire third level structure.
I saw the manner in which the regional technical college system grew from small beginnings where the vocational education committees were very involved in an extremely democratic manner. We bemoaned the fact that the old regime was passing, but we were moving on to new and greater things, to more representative and balanced boards of management. I sat on the management body of Galway. I do not want to see Galway, Sligo, Athlone, Dundalk, Carlow, Cork, any of the regional technical colleges besmirched with the kind of allegations that have been the focus of this legislation. This is an emergency measure designed specifically to deal with the problem that has arisen in regard to the abuse of privilege and power in Letterkenny. To introduce this kind of mechanism across the entire spectrum of the regional technical college system is wrong. It is a fire brigade action which should apply only to Letterkenny regional technical college.
The composition of the commission is vital. While the Minister might not be able to indicate the proposed membership of the commission in relation to the present saga, we are entitled to know who he has in mind. We are asking the Minister to name the individuals he will put on the commission for Letterkenny. On the last occasion we warned that if the decisions were totally in the lap of the Minister then the Minister could abuse that power. That is what happened in Letterkenny. It is happening again.
The Minister can hand pick the commission. While it has to go before the House for final ratification, because the Government has a majority it can and will ram the decision through if we have any reservations in relation to the commission's composition. I would like the Minister to spell out who exactly he has in mind as being appropriate to this commission. I do not want to see this provision applied to any other regional technical college. It is a matter of accident more than anything else that the other regional technical colleges are working well and doing their job. There is no stain, slur or question mark over them. This fire brigade action is designed to redress the abuses that took place in Letterkenny and it should apply to Letterkenny.
I have been handed further amendments in the names of Deputies McGrath, Keogh and Gilmore to amend amendment No. 2. I suggest the committee adjourns for half an hour to allow time to consider them. It is unusual for amendments to be circulated at a meeting and to be dealt with on that basis. In view of the urgency and importance of the matter, it would be appropriate and fair to adjourn for half an hour to consider them. I am anxious to reach a consensus rather than put this to a vote.
I would like to deal with some of the questions raised in the past half an hour and then comment on the amendment. I do not intend to take up all the issues raised. However, there were references to a number of matters in the report, which is a public document, and I would like to refer to them. Deputy McGrath referred to possible fraud. An official of the college apparently made a payment of ESF student grants into bank accounts in the names of students who had left the college. He then apparently used the funds involved for his own purposes. The director of the college indicated that the amount involved was approximately £1,300 which has been repaid by the official. The matter was brought to light by officers of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in an audit. The Department of Education brought this matter to the attention of the Garda authorities and in normal practice in those circumstances my Department would write to the Department of Justice which, in turn, would put in train the necessary Garda activities. It would not be a direct grant of authority from my Department to the Garda Síochána, it would come directly from the Department of Justice.
I am sorry the debate which began in an amicable way changed quite dramatically because of the contributions of Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Higgins. Both Deputies know that the names of individuals who belong to political parties and who have from time to time been involved in misdemeanours and illegal activities are on the files in a number of Departments. It has never been my practice to make an issue of those matters or to impugn the integrity of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House, although they appear to have no difficulty impugning the integrity of my party by association with individuals who, from time to time, make mistakes. They do no service to the House by making that association. My party usually represents up to 40 per cent of the public and when they impugn my colleagues and me, they impugn those people. They want to make an association between a party and a particular culture, which I reject.
In the context of the Bill, it does no service to this House to selectively — with a blinkered approach — cite all the difficulties associated with Letterkenny regional technical college with one person, the chairman of the governing authority. Although these may be matters which he will have to answer, I believe appropriate actions, which will be considered in the context of the directors and chairman's response to the report, the audit to be conducted and the views of the commission, will be taken. It is a wrong interpretation of the report to make that selective presentation to this committee.
We all know a number of things went wrong and that there were interventions by the chairman — I am not making a defence for his or any other chairman's actions. Most chairmen would try to intervene in such circumstances but I do not want to get involved in whether the appropriate action was taken by that intervention. However, I do not want to let that selectivity and impugning the integrity of the party I represent, which was done in a deliberate, intentional and wrong way, stand on the record of the House.
I want to be as helpful as possible in relation to Deputies' anxieties regarding the generality of the application of this provision. Deputies Keogh, McGrath and Gilmore were anxious that it would be confined. The council of the directors of the regional technical colleges in a letter to the Secretary of my Department dated 22 November, stated that having regard to the above and because of the extraordinary circumstances in which the legislation is being introduced, the council of directors supports the above amendment on the understanding that it will only be invoked by a Minister for Education to remove a director from office where there is prima facie evidence of failure by the director to discharge his duty. That should ease the minds of Deputies who believe this provision in any way injures or has implications for other colleges.
I have been asked to spell out the composition of the commission and I would like to do so. Although the commission has not yet been established, we are dealing with amendments and I am expected to say something about it. Normal practice in such circumstance would be to hesitate. I have only spent a few days in the Department of Education and I need to consider this matter more fully. However, I believe it will comprise a small number of people, perhaps no more than five. There should be no question about their competence and integrity and they should have considerable experience in systems management, control and in the public sector. If Deputies have ideas which could add to that dimension or composition, I would like to hear them. Like most Deputies, I am anxious, because of the circumstance obtaining there, to ensure these decisions are taken as quickly as possible. I will have regard to the views expressed. We want this commission to work effectively and to be in place quickly, to restore the integrity of the college and for the issues arising from the report to be dealt within the most appropriate way.
The problem with the amendment is that the Minister must be in a position to take appropriate action immediately. As Deputies know, in the normal course of events an order would be placed before the House following a decision by the Minister. An opportunity to annul that decision would then be available. The position I outlined and the paragraph from the letter from the directors of the regional colleges should allay the fears of colleagues who are anxious in this regard. That is why I intervened, Chairman, rather than to dissuade you from taking the action you deemed appropriate at that time. The paragraph in the letter from the director of the regional colleges should allay the fears of my colleagues who have an anxiety in this regard. That anxiety relates to the question of how we would in other circumstances use these extraordinary powers. The people who are directly involved in the management of the other colleges, because of the necessity which arises in Letterkenny, are happy to see that proceed. It should allay the fears that exist and, perhaps, such an amendment is not necessary. It is born out of the anxiety which Deputy McGrath and others expressed earlier.
Before we proceed, I wish to comment on some of the points raised. I am most anxious that we avoid repetition of what, in my opinion, will lead to insulting remarks about other political parties. We are not meeting for the purpose of insulting each other but, rather, to try to get the legislation through. I would appreciate if we could confine ourselves to dealing with the matter which is before us.
If the Minister looks at the amendments proposed by Deputies Keogh and Gilmore, and myself, he will see that to a certain extent it strengthens his hand. We are saying that "this section shall, in relation to Letterkenny regional technical college have immediate effect and the Minister shall make the necessary order not later than two weeks after the enactment of this Act". That gives him the power to move ahead in regard to Letterkenny. We have all agreed that he needs to do something urgently and that amendment strengthens his hand in that regard.
The second part of the amendment states that "every other order made under this section shall be laid before and debated by each House of the Oireachtas and shall only have effect after a resolution endorsing the order has been made by each House of the Oireachtas". In other words, we are saying that any order made by the Minister to remove a person involved in one of the 11 regional technical colleges is obviously a very serious matter and warrants debate in the House. If the Minister is going to make such an order, it should be debated in and endorsed by the House.
We all have been worried in the past — as has the Minister — about orders laid before the House which may not come up for debate. An Opposition Member has to table an annulling order and many of us do not see those orders going through. They may go through before we realise it or there may not be time to debate them, as happened recently.
This would allow for a more positive response to problems in those colleges and for greater openness and accountability. The best way forward is to have the report debated in the House and the order clarified and endorsed by the House. Perhaps the Minister might reconsider that. It is a very positive move by our side.
I will consider the amendment but on a slightly different basis. We all agree that if a similar problem arises it should be dealt with very quickly and the power to act quickly is now being put in place rather than having a three or four month delay. However, if such a problem arose during the summer recess this amendment would tie the Minister's hands to take appropriate action at that stage.
I will look at the second part of the Deputies' amendment to see whether a clause could be inserted which would take account of circumstances such as I have outlined. There is no wish on my part, or on the part of whoever will succeed me as Minister for Education — that goes for all political parties — to suggest that any Minister for Education will be anxious to invoke capriciously serious provisions of this kind. Nonetheless, I will look at the amendment in my anxiety to try to get agreement but I want whoever holds this office to be in a position to act immediately where the circumstances require. We need some leeway on that. It is hard to see how we can marry these in the way we are approaching it now but I will certainly look at the suggestion.
Is the Minister's explanation satisfactory?
Subsection (10) of the Minister's amendment states:
Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly...
In other words, the scenario which the Minister is painting about something happening during the summer recess cannot be covered by his amendment.
No, because a decision will be taken. That is the difference.
No.
The decision will have already been taken and implemented.
The Minister states that the order will be made. There is a difficulty in relation to the amendment which he is proposing. I do not think that either way we are going to be satisfied with this amendment. We are trying to ensure, first, that the section shall relate only to Letterkenny and, second, that if another order is to be made it should be debated by and agreed by the House.
I said earlier that, obviously, there was some attempt to have more accountability in relation to subsection (10). However, if I understand the Minister correctly, what in fact happens is that the order is made and, for example, during a recess, as the Minister referred to, there would not be an opportunity to have a resolution annulling the order.
The Chair's suggestion that we adjourn for a short time to look at this amendment is a good one. One of the difficulties is that we are dealing with this somewhat on the hoof. The amendment itself was drafted while the committee was in session. I confess that it may have some imperfections which we may wish to refine. With regard to the comments made by the Minister and by the Chair, I was not conscious of having insulted anybody and I would not wish to so do.
I accept the Deputy's apology.
I am not apologising, the Minister should not run away with himself. There are two issues which I would like the Minister to address and it is not by way of insulting him or his party. First, is it not the case that the problems in Letterkenny date from the appointment of Mr. McGlinchey as chairman?
I will have to interrupt the Deputy again. He has made that point and it is on the record. I gave him a fair amount of scope and I ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment.
For the record, the appointment of Mr. McGlinchey was made in January 1993 and the problem first developed in the college in 1988.
The Minister is rewriting history. That is not the case. The problems which are documented in this report date from 1993.
I am only interested in what is happening here today. What happened in Letterkenny is a matter to be dealt with under the legislation. I propose that we suspend for 20 minutes to allow for consultation and consideration.
Sitting suspended at 12.10 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.
I believed it was important to break and try to get agreement on this rather than have a division. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2 have been circulated. The Members have had an opportunity to reflect and discussions have taken place. Perhaps the Minister would outline if agreement has been reached on the problem.
I am glad to report that, following the brief adjournment to give us an opportunity to consider the amendment and the spirit of what was required in the amendment, we have reached agreement.
There was a clear anxiety, which I shared, that in circumstances where we are obliged to introduce provisions to deal with an extraordinary situation — such as that in Letterkenny — such powers should be used only in exceptional circumstances in future. There was a general feeling, with which I agree, that such provisions are not necessary for the majority of the regional technical colleges. They have been flag-bearers throughout the country for the last 20 years in terms of their progress, the number of courses they offer, their ability to adapt and change courses, the increase in the number of students and their fantastic work. It is right that the House expresses its confidence in the management, supervision and development of these colleges.
Members were anxious to introduce a suitable amendment to ensure as far as possible that these provisions — exceptional and necessary in the case of Letterkenny — could not be used or invoked except in extreme and exceptional circumstances. The amendment will be prepared for Report Stage next week. We hope to conclude Committee Stage tomorrow and I can outline the principles of that amendment. I expressed the worry that ministerial responsibility to take appropriate action to deal with a serious matter could be curtailed when the House was not sitting. However, I also wished to take into account the wishes of my colleagues. We are suggesting that the appropriate decision for the circumstances will be made by the Minister but it will not be implemented unless it is confirmed by the Dáil within 28 days. That will be the spirit of the amendment we have agreed and it will be expressed in legal terms suitable to the draftsman.
I thank the Acting Chairman for providing the opportunity for the brief discussion with my colleagues. I also thank the Opposition spokesmen for their co-operation.
I thank the Minister and my colleagues for the efficient manner in which they reached agreement about a difficult technical problem. I take it that Deputies McGrath, Keogh and Gilmore are not proceeding with their amendments?
Yes. I thank the Minister and look forward to the publication of the amendment. The Minister made it clear that he has taken on board the spirit of what we wished to achieve — that where a major problem arises in a college it will be debated in the Dáil before an order is made to implement a commission or other body, which I welcome. We will not proceed with the amendment on the understanding that we can submit it again on Report Stage if the Minister's amendment does not meet our requirements.
We will wait to see the text of the Minister's amendment on Report Stage although the Minister outlined his thinking on it. Obviously, the letter, which the Minister read, from the principals of the colleges must influence our thinking. I am surprised that the principals take that position on this issue. However, we must take their views into account.
Lest there be misinterpretation of the position of the regional colleges' directors, the letter referred to the specific urgency of the case with which we were dealing. It is not to say that they generally welcome the provision but they understood the necessity to deal with a specific urgent case in this manner.
I am glad the Minister clarified that and I confess I was also surprised. The pertinent text of the letter has been read into the record by the Minister. Like my colleagues, I await the amendment on Report Stage. The Minister stated his willingness to go as far down the line with us as possible. I hope we will be accommodated and I am willing not to proceed with the amendments at this stage.
I thank the Minister for his co-operation in this matter. However, I seek clarification. The Minister wishes to ensure that, if the occasion arises, he can act urgently, quickly put a structure in place and then allow the matter to be debated in the Dáil. The problem, however, is that unless the action taken by the Minister is confirmed by the Dáil within 28 days it will not be valid. It means that a month must elapse before any action is taken in the first instance. Secondly, the Dáil might not sit within 28 days so it might not be possible to confirm the action within the time limit. There will be a problem, therefore, in drafting the amendment in that context.
Would it not be better for the Minister to have the power to take immediate action without waiting for a month and provide that it would be obligatory to debate that action at the earliest possible opportunity without prejudice to the decision taken by the Minister? The Minister would have greater flexibility and it would have the same effect.
Perhaps the Minister might bear that in mind when considering the matter.
That suggestion would be fundamentally different from what was agreed. I do not want Deputy Costello to be under any misapprehension. We are dealing with two issues: the immediate application of these provisions in respect of Letterkenny and any future problem of this serious nature. Until now the Minister has had the power to make a decision for immediate implementation and to put an order before the House. Under the provision sought by my colleagues — with which I agree — the Minister would have the power to make the decision but it can only be implemented 28 days later following its confirmation by the Dáil. There is a delay but we have tried to take account of the different circumstances so that we can proceed. I have gone as far as I can to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition. That is the nature of the agreement reached.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 2 not moved.
The Select Committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 25 November 1994.