The first business of the select committee is the election of a temporary Chairman. May I have nominations, please?
Business of Select Committee.
Clerk to the Committee
I propose Deputy Bell.
Clerk to the Committee
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Kavanagh sends his apologies.
Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Bill, 1994: Committee Stage (Resumed).
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"3. Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection:
‘(4) Where an office of Director becomes vacant, the Minister may appoint a person to be the Director temporarily until a permanent appointment to the office is made and such temporary appointment may be terminated by the Minister at any time.'.".
This provision will enable the Minister for Education to appoint a person as director of a regional technical college in an acting capacity. The director of a college is a key person in its operation and management. He or she is described by the 1992 Act as the chief officer of the college and is charged by that Act with the control and direction of activities of the college, the direction of staff and the efficient and proper management of the college.
The Act at present provides for the appointment of a director by the governing body of a college with the approval of the Minister for Education. Given the key role of the director in the college's affairs, it would be extremely damaging for the college to be left without a director for any significant period. In the normal course this will not occur as the governing body of a college will carry out its statutory duty and make an appointment. However, if a governing body cannot, for any reason, act or fails to act, then the legislation should provide for a fail safe method of appointing a director at least on a temporary acting basis.
The need for this provision has been underlined by two recent events. For the first four months of this year, colleges were without governing bodies because of difficulties which arose on the subject of gender balance and a High Court challenge to regulations relating to elections of members of academic staff to governing bodies. If, during that time, an office of director had become vacant there was no statutory power enabling the Minister for Education to make any appointment in the absence of a governing body. A college in that situation would have been left without a chief officer.
The second event relates to difficulties we have already discussed which arose in Letterkenny regional technical college. It would be inappropriate to appoint a governing body until the full nature and extent of the problems in the college have been established and the college substantially returned to a satisfactory standard of good government. In the absence of a governing body, however, during the period of an inspector's inquiry and until a commission can be appointed I, as Minister for Education, have no direct power to appoint a person to fill the post of director should it become vacant.
These difficulties, although exceptional, demonstrate the vulnerability of the colleges and the oversight in the 1992 legislation. This provision is proposed as a safeguard for colleges to insure against a damaging vacuum in their management and operation at critical times.
I do not have much difficulty with what the Minister has said as it makes sense. However, questions arise from his statement. What timescale is envisaged by the Minister when he refers to an appointment being made temporarily? I would not like to see a director appointed indefinitely for a year or two years. We should try to tie it down. I realise that there would be a difficulty until the problems are sorted out but I would like some indication, maybe on a longer time scale.
Perhaps the Minister would also clarify his definition of "director". What type of person does he envisage? Will he consult other directors around the country about who might be a competent person to take this job or who might want such a job on a temporary basis? It will not be easy to find a person with the necessary expertise and management skills to become a director of such a college. If the person is in a full time job already it might be difficult to attract him or her to a temporary position. Does the Minister envisage consultations being conducted with the other directors or with the representative or governing body of directors? Would they be in a position to perhaps advise the Minister about people who might be able to undertake the job? Does the Minister envisage somebody being seconded from the Department or from another college to take on this job on a temporary basis?
I would be happy to agree to this matter if the Minister clarifies these items.
My questions are similar. What timescale is meant by "temporary"? Obviously, there could be a difficulty in that regard if there were a problem within a college. The selection of a director, according to the Regional Technical Colleges Act, is a function of the governing body in accordance with procedures. Is there any intention to consult the governing body? What procedure would be adopted to select the person on a temporary basis as director? As Deputy McGrath said, it is an important position and would require somebody with particular skills and qualifications. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on those aspects. I do not object to the amendment.
I am grateful to the Deputies for their support for this provision, the purpose of which is twofold. It remedies a defect in the 1992 legislation to cater for circumstances which have arisen since then, and not necessarily in Letterkenny, for which there was no legal remedy in that it was necessary to appoint a director. Secondly, arising from the developments in Letterkenny, it provides for the power to appoint a director. It is based on local government legislation which gives local authorities the power to appoint an acting county manager.
The question regarding the meaning of "temporary" is fair. Deputies will appreciate that it should be the shortest possible time consistent with getting the problems resolved and having a permanent position filled. However, Deputies will also appreciate it will not be possible to say precisely how long that will be. There are circumstances where it could be a short time as in the context of the High Court case and the gender balance problem when the period involved was just a couple of months. Sorting out the problem in Letterkenny might involve a longer period. I do not want to be specific about time beyond saying that it should be no longer than necessary given the particular circumstances.
The Deputies also asked how the Minister for Education would decide the suitability of the person. That question is not easy to answer. Until now, whenever there have been real difficulties we have been indebted to personnel who have always tackled such problems and helped us. We need somebody with a range of skills. I cannot say who, if I am making the decision about this matter and it is a decision I would not like to delay, I will consult. Clearly there are people experienced in running colleges and other places and their advice could be helpful. I do not want to be tied down except to say that range of skills, competence, integrity and ability to cope with the running of a college must be augmented by the ability to establish a rapport and standards in management, which have been broken in this particular case. The timescale will be as short as consistent with solving problems. I cannot go further than that.
It might be possible to say, not necessarily in the Bill, that the Minister would review the situation if it has not been resolved on, for example, a three monthly basis. These situations have a habit of running on because, perhaps, there is no exact time limit. I am not suggesting that the Bill should provide that within three months somebody must be appointed to the permanent position. However, it should be reviewed or there should be an agreement to review it on a three month basis.
There will obviously be constant contact with the Department of Education. However, I want to bear in mind the responsibilities the director will undertake. It is one thing to ask somebody to do a difficult task; it is something else if the person is not given the flexibility and freedom to do the job. The person is appointed for his or her ability, competence and integrity and I do not want to be seen to be hovering over them on a constant basis. I understand the Deputy's concern but I do not want to tie the hands of somebody who is seen to be capable of doing the job.
That is fair enough.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he will have discussions with interested parties and people with competence in such areas to find the right person for nomination to the position. I am glad the Minister has given a commitment to holding such wide ranging discussions. I agree with Deputy Keogh that we do not want a situation that is allowed to drift forever. Subsection (7) provides that a commission should not hold power after "the end of two years". Perhaps such a timescale might be appropriate for an acting director.
I am concerned that we would have an acting director. I welcome the Minister's statement that he will appoint the director. In the vocational education committee system at present there are about nine acting chief executive officers and many of them do excellent work. However, there are no guidelines about how those acting chief executive officers were appointed. The 1930 Act states clearly how a chief executive officer is appointed to a vocational education committee but there are no rules or regulations governing either how one appoints an acting chief executive officer or who that chief executive officer should be. This has led to difficulties in some situations. I would not like to see the same thing happen in this context.
The spirit of this legislation is that "acting" means temporary for as short a period as possible. The re-establishment, permanence and strength of the recovery of a college from these problems depend on these positions being filled on a permanent basis as quickly as possible. In this context — I will not get into the subject of acting chief executive officers — we are dealing with a particular case. "Acting" means temporary and only for whatever period is essential.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—The Director of a college as defined in the Principal Act shall, from 1st January, 1995 be called ‘the President of the college'.".
This technical amendment may appear unimportant. Under in the original Act, the person in charge of an regional technical college is defined as the "director" of that college. "Director" is a fine term and has served the colleges quite well. However, I would prefer the director to be called the president of the college. "President" is a more widely accepted international term.
To a great extent, the regional technical colleges are now dealing with their counterparts in the rest of Europe. They receive funds from Europe and interact with colleges across the EU. The term "director" is not recognised in the European context and applies to a person who is in charge of a department of a school. The term "president" would add to the status of the person who is doing the job of director at present and make their position more widely recognised in the European context. As the EU expands, becomes more accessible and there is increased contact with educational institutions across the continent, it would be worth changing the title "director" to "president".
As far as I know there is no uniformity in the titles of the heads of institutions internationally; a range of titles prevail. A decision on the title "director" was made when the Act was passed and the governing bodies were established. It is only in operation for 18 months. I do not have fundamental arguments one way or the other. It should be kept under review in the operation of the Act. It is premature to make a change. We should review the position at some stage in the future.
Perhaps academic sensibilities are involved in this issue. The head of a university is described as a president. I do not know if we wish to suggest that there is a type of academic discrimination. Perhaps the Minister would accept the point if the directors of the colleges were to request that their title be referred to as "president".
In those circumstances, I would be quite happy to review the position. I expect that the humility of the people in those posts would mean they would not write such a letter to me.
I am sure they are just as humble as the Minister.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
No, he is not. Counties Westmeath and Tipperary are always able to deal with problems
When this point was discussed in the context of the original legislation in 1992, the principles — as they were then known — of the six Dublin Institute of Technology colleges were happy with "director" as distinct from any other title. Deputy Keogh's point is valid. If representations are made by the directors they can be accepted. As the Minister said, there is no hard and fast rule on the matter. During the debate two years ago, there was a view that separate institutes of education were being set up. The same may not hold true for the regional technical colleges, but, at that time, they were considered separate from the universities and a separate nomenclature would be found. The heads of the colleges and, perhaps, also of the regional technical colleges may wish to have a say in the matter. We should not hastily seek to change something that has just been put in place. If there is a request for a change, it should be accepted.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking that he will examine the position. Will he agree to contact the directors, ask their opinion and report back to us on Report Stage.
I do not think we should process legislation on that basis.
A proactive role?
On occasions I am outmanoeuvred but on this occasion I was wide awake.
There is a more friendly atmosphere this morning. Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes but I maintain the right to resubmit it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are out of order.
May I speak on those amendments?
The Deputy may refer to them on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 19 are related to amendment No. 20, which is an alternative to amendment No. 19. Those amendments may be taken together, by agreement.