No. I move amendment No. 8:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 16, to delete "three" and substitute "two shall be women and at least two shall be men and of whom at least four (of the said six persons)".
SECTION 2.
I propose that Deputy Keogh speaks against the amendment at this point.
I am concerned about gender equity.
The amendment deals with the appointment of members to the governing bodies of regional technical colleges. The Bill sets out clearly the terms under which various people can be appointed to a governing body. The former Minister, in her Second Stage speech, indicated that the main purpose of the Bill was to provide gender equity within the governing bodies of regional technical colleges. She set out the terms under which she proposed to have gender equity. Only a few sections specify that there must be a man and a woman — those in question relate to where the academic staff and the students are appointing two people and, in both cases one must be a man and one a woman.
In this section six persons may be nominated by the vocational education committee of whom at least three shall be members of a local authority. People are being nominated in this case from within the vocational education committee system — not elected to the position. It should be much easier for the governing body to obtain gender equity on the board where nominations are made rather than in a direct election. This is an ideal opportunity for the Minister to build gender balance into the nominations. Deputy Keogh may well support me on this matter although she may have difficulty with later amendments.
Of the six nominated by the vocational education committee there is no reason a number of them cannot be made to meet the gender equity criteria laid down by the Department. My amendment proposes that we delete the word "three" from the subsection and substitute "two shall be women and at least two shall be men and of whom at least four (of the said six persons)" shall be nominated by the vocational education committee. It is possible that the nominees from the vocational education committee should also have this gender equity and balance towards which we are striving and anxious to accommodate. The Bill imposes gender equity on normal democratic elections, but where the vocational education committee is making appointments it is not being asked to share in the gender equity arrangements on the governing body.
I have a strong case for support on this matter; it was probably an oversight by the Minister's predecessor in making this arrangement. There should be gender equity at the level of appointments to the governing body and, in many cases, gender equity at that level would be much more acceptable than gender equity imposed in other areas. It is seen by many of the college staffs that the Minister is prepared to impose gender equity on normal democratic elections whereby academic staff must vote for one woman and one man at college level. At the same time, however, the Minister is saying that the same gender requirements do not apply to the vocational education committee appointees. They feel that there is a gross interference in the democratic process by the Minister imposing the gender equity criteria on them in the workplace, while there is no such imposition on the vocational education committee nominees.
The City of Dublin vocational education committee, with which I am involved, seems to differ greatly from those with which Deputy McGrath has been in contact because the opposite position is adopted by the City of Dublin vocational education committee. The Principal Act makes it obligatory on the Minister for Education to provide gender equity. The Minister must fulfil that duty but the constitution and mechanism for putting together the governing body does not put an obligation on the various constituent bodies which provide the members.
The vocational education committee has authority to appoint six of its own people but there is no obligation on it to provide gender equity within those six. Furthermore, it has authority to appoint five nominees from outside relevant bodies in the area of education but with no gender equity obligation. There are two student nominees and there is no gender equity obligation on the students, there are also two academic staff and, again, no gender equity obligation on them.
The whole purpose of this amending legislation is to provide a mechanism to ensure that the Minister for Education can fulfil his duties under the 1992 Act. There has been an ongoing problem for the last two years of getting gender equity. It is no use deleting the provision for one woman and one man and then expecting to get it right, and on the other hand. to say in amendment No. 8 ‘delete "three" and substitute "two shall be women and at least two shall be men . . ."'. Deputy McGrath is adopting a contradictory position. What does that mean? Does it mean that there cannot be more than two women?
At least.
It does not say "at least" for women; it says it for men. In other words there is one set of gender equity provisions——
It says "at least" in the original subsection and I am not deleting that.
Deputies should direct their remarks through the Chair. Deputy McGrath will have an opportunity to explain.
We are referring to two separate amendments. Amendment No. 8——
That is the one we are discussing.
——which says ‘delete "three" and substitute "two shall be women and at least two shall be men . . ."'.
It would read "at least two shall be women".
Deputy McGrath did not have to include the "at least" in the amendment.
"At least" is in the original.
I take the point on that matter — there is not an inbuilt discrimination. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy in Deputy McGrath's various amendments.
The Bill tries to ensure equity and there is already an onus on the vocational education committees, which are public bodies, to conform to the wishes of the Principal Act. We do not need to include a specific obligation on the vocational education committees. The vocational education committees' problem was not that they would not conform but that they were not in control of the other nominating bodies so that when five bodies provided nominations all those might be men and the vocational education committee had no choice but to forward them to the Department of Education. The new legislation enables the vocational education committees to request nominations but to have the discretion to accept or reject the nominations to ensure equity.
The provisions as laid out in the Bill will enable the Minister to obtain the desired gender equity. Deputy McGrath's proposal would only recreate the state of confusion whereby we would leave the vocational education committees in a difficult situation and we would leave the possibility of the people nominated by the academic staff and the students all being of one gender. This would not enable a governing body to be provided with the gender equity required by the statutory provisions of the Principal Act.
I will call Deputy McGrath as it might be helpful for him to give an explanation.
Deputy Costello seems to be confused by my amendment. The aim of all Members is to ensure gender equity within the governing bodies of regional technical colleges. Provisos are set out in the various subsections of section 2 in the hope of achieving this. Section 2 (1) (c) and (e) provide that there will be one man and one woman. Those people are elected democratically and I will discuss that shortly. In the main subsection, where six persons are to be appointed by the vocational education committee, there is no provision that any will be women.
That can cause difficulties in some areas, In County Westmeath, only one member of the local vocational education committee is a woman. However, that difficulty was created because appointments were made to the vocational education committee by a well known national movement which happens to control the county council. In its wisdom that movement decided there should be only one woman member on the committee.
It is unfair to impose gender equity within the academic staff of the colleges while at the same time the political appointees — and we should face the fact that they are political appointees——
There is nothing wrong with that.
No, but if we allow this to continue we are indicating there is no need for gender equity among the political appointees but that it is necessary among the democratically elected representatives of the staff. There is a contradiction and my amendment will help to overcome this problem. We will be seen to be fair and equitable to every section and representative group on these governing bodies. The amendment is reasonable.
There is only one woman on the vocational education committee in County Louth, who happens to be my good wife.
I am surprised and disappointed that the amendment tabled by my colleague, Deputy McGrath, should lead to any debate. People here have short memories; to see an example of how a ministerial aspiration towards gender equity did not become reality we only have to look at the county enterprise partnership boards.
The Minister wanted gender equity but it was never indicated whose responsibility it was to provide it. It was the responsibility of everyone except the nominating bodies. There was no gender equity on the boards nominated but, thankfully, the Minister took steps to rectify that. It led to the embarrassing position that nominees had to withdraw so that women could be substituted in their place.
Unless gender equity is stitched into the legislation it will not happen. It is useless to aspire to it and support it if one draws back from putting it in the Bill. If one is for gender equity why fear putting it in legislation? Why be satisfied to have gender equity in the provisions for elected representatives and not for nominees? It must be guaranteed throughout the Bill. Members should recall the county enterprise partnership boards where aspirations never became reality until the Minister took action.
Deputy Costello said the Minister has an obligation; at this stage it seems to be just a wish.
It is a statutory obligation.
In that case the Minister should pass on that obligation to anyone who will be involved in this legislation. We must work at this to ensure it will happen. As long as gender equity remains an aspiration it will not be implemented. As Deputy McGrath rightly said, the provision dealing with nominees is the correct place to implement equity. I support Deputy McGrath's amendment. When the Bill was first introduced I tabled a similar amendment but did not succeed in having it accepted. I ask Members to consider it seriously; it will ensure gender equity, which is a positive step.
I apologise to Deputy McGrath; when speaking earlier I was thinking of a different amendment. I have been speaking about gender equity for so long people are sick of hearing me.
There is a statutory obligation on the Minister but, as Deputy Ahearn said, nothing happens unless one makes it happen. It is appropriate to have such an amendment incorporated in this Bill. There have been and probably will be difficulties within the vocational education committees on this issue and there is no harm in drawing attention to that now.
Nonetheless, the principle of gender equity must be stressed at every level in the Bill and I would be fearful of anything which leads to a dilution of that principle. I see no difficulty in accepting this amendment; it confirms the principle in the Bill. I apologise to Deputy McGrath for misinterpreting it earlier but we had been talking about a different amendment, as he knows.
Deputy McGrath wants to speak about other matters contained in the amendments we are currently discussing together. I propose we take the Minister's reply to this amendment and I will then call Deputy McGrath to speak about the other issues.
Amendment No. 8 would impose a gender balance within the nominees of vocational education committees and increase the local authority representation among the six nominees from three to four. I believe these amendments would be unnecessarily restrictive and I favour the model put forward in the Bill, which allows for overall gender balance except in the cases of academic staff and students. Those groups have two places on the governing bodies and a specific gender balance in their nominees is appropriate and reasonable, given the gender makeup of the staff and students.
Section 2 (2) (a) is specifically intended to address the problem which arose when governing bodies were appointed earlier this year. The Minister for Education has an obligation under the 1992 Act to ensure the appropriate gender balance. However, as the vocational education committees pointed out to the then Minister in refusing to implement this provision, there is no obligation on them to make recommendations to the Minister which reflect gender balance. As the Minister can appoint governing bodies only on the recommendation of the vocational education committees the scope for stalemate is obvious. This paragraph will fill the oversight in the 1992 Act and will ensure the gender balance provisions can be implemented as intended. vocational education committees will be required to ensure that at least seven of the people they recommend are women and seven are men.
The aim of section 2 (2) (b) is to allow the Minister for Education to exercise some control over the process of making recommendations for the appointment of governing bodies. As the legislation stands the Minister appoints the governing bodies as recommended by vocational education committees. The difficulties caused by the gender balance issue demonstrated how the Minister can be prevented from imposing any criteria on the selection process, even where the Minister is obliged by statute or Government policy to impose such criteria.
The Minister also has an obligation as the appointing authority to ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented. This was not the case in some instances in nominations to governing bodies from relevant organisations.
Some colleges were concerned that these nominations were made with little reference to the relevance of the organisation from which they came. The provision in the Bill will enable the Minister for Education to exercise some control over the nominating process and avoid damaging disputes with vocational education committees or other nominating bodies. It does not widen the Minister's power beyond this, because a governing body will still have to be composed from the groups set out in the legislation.
This is not a question of aspirations. Section 2 (2) (a) states:
ensure that not fewer than seven of those so recommended are women and not fewer than seven are men,. . .
If this is not fully in place and adhered to strictly the default provisions are invoked.
Deputy Ahearn referred correctly to the difficulties with the county enterprise boards.
There certainly were.
The underpinning legislation for the enforcement of the provisions——
Discussion on the county enterprise boards is not relevant to the subject under consideration.
Such legislation is required to ensure that the difficulties referred to by Deputy Ahearn can be remedied. This is what is proposed and it is the reason I am unable to accept the amendment.
I am disappointed at the Minster's response, because the amendment is reasonable and worthwhile. Section 2 (2) (a) states:
ensure that not fewer than seven of those so recommended are women and not fewer than seven are men....
At this stage it is too late if the Minster has received the nominations from the vocational education committees. If there is no gender equity built into those nominations, the vocational education committees will have to say it is unable to accept new nominations. If the criteria that there must be women included in the nominations from the vocational education committees is built into law this difficulty will be avoided in the future.
Section 2 (2) states:
In making recommendations to the Minister pursuant to subsection (1), the vocational education committee shall—
It is clear they do not have the facility to do less than is required without the Minister then having to avail of the default provisions.
It is not so clear to me. The vocational education committees will then be seeking to make up the gender balance from other nominating bodies and will be forcing them to nominate women, whereas under the vocational education committee nominees there is provision that there be gender balance. This is an issue on which I feel strongly. If it is conceded that there should be gender equity within those nominations, the vocational education committees must live by that decision and nominate a proportion of women and men to a governing body. I will, therefore, be pressing the amendment.
I suggest that the committee adjourn for 20 minutes to consider matters. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.
Before we adjourned Deputy McGrath was in possession. As we had adjourned for about 20 minutes, the Minister had a chance to reflect on the points made by Deputy McGrath and others and may now wish to reply.
I am not sure if we have any immediate solutions. Last November the then Minister for Education issued guidelines which specifically requested the vocational education committees to have regard to the gender balance requirements. In those circumstances some local authorities were able to comply because their composition enabled them to do so — this can be seen from their subsequent nominees to vocational education committees. In the greater majority of local authorities this was not possible because their composition did not allow them that freedom. However, as the situation developed since then, a number of local authorities, where, for instance three or four counties could be grouped together, have moved towards meeting the guidelines, which they were requested to do.
Section 2 (2) (b) states that the Minister, instead of issuing guidelines, will "make such recommendations subject to such directives as may be issued by the Minister from time to time". That covers the problems outlined by Deputy McGrath and others. I would like to look at this issue again between now and Report Stage to see if I can take it any further. I do not want to make a commitment which I cannot stand over because present circumstances do not allow me to meet what I am being asked to do. However, I would like to take into account these provisions and the experience we have gained since the guidelines were issued to see if I can go further. I would not like Deputy McGrath or others to take that as a commitment. but I will go as far as I can.
We feel strongly about this issue. The Bill is hypocritical — and I do not mean that personally — because it asks academic staff and students to abide by a gender equity balance, yet it does not impose any restrictions on the nominees from vocational education committees. It is difficult to accept these two points of view. For example, if a democratic election is held among the academic staff of a college to nominate two people, we are saying they must create two panels, one male and one female, and elect only one from each panel to the governing body of that college. On the other hand. we are saying to vocational education committees, which will also nominate members to the governing body, that there are no restrictions on who they nominate to the governing body. That is hypocritical and it is not fair to impose such a restriction on one group, without imposing restrictions on the other. That is why we feel strongly about this issue. Although the Minister has given us a commitment to look at this matter, we will put the amendment to a vote.
We had discussions on this Bill and on the various changes and yesterday we reached a compromise. Although I am taking this Bill in circumstances which most of us wish had not happened, I have still endeavoured to be as accommodating as possible. I reject the fact that the Department or the previous Minister adopted a hypocritical stance on this Bill. A requirement for gender balance among the students in circumstances where they are probably as close as makes no difference to having equal numbers in their composition is not a difficult problem. As regards staff, there may be — I do not have figures — a sizeable number on both sides of the gender equation. However, when we look at the composition of local authorities following the last local elections and their subsequent nominees to the vocational education committees, a different picture emerges in a number of local authorities. As the vocational education committees do not have the same opportunity to meet that directive, it is not practical. Nonetheless, the strict legal requirement in section 2 (2) (a) is that the overall nominees must have seven men and seven women. In that context, it is not fair to say the Bill is hypocritical.
I have tried to be accommodating in the debate on this matter and I am prepared to consider a way to tidy this up bearing in mind the existing practicalities. In any modern democracy such a commitment in that context, and bearing in mind what I have done on the Bill, should be acceptable. I will do all I can to avoid dividing the House on such questions when we are trying to find the best possible solutions. We should not have a vote on this issue.
I sympathise with Deputy McGrath, but I also sympathise with the Minister's position because there is no gender equity in the representation on local authorities, arising from the last local elections, and, as a result, there is no gender equity in the representation on vocational education committees. I am delighted the Minister says he is prepared to consider this to see what can be done as regards the representation on vocational education committees in a number of counties.
Will the Minister — although I am not sure if he is in a position to do so as Minister for Education — look favourably at the Vocational Education Act, 1930, with a view to introducing an amendment, because the appointment of vocational education committees is dependent on the provisions of that Act, which were there prior to any requirement for gender equity? We had problems operating the 1992 Principal Act because of a responsibility on a Minister, although there were no provisions in the Act to ensure that. We also have trouble operating the 1930 Act because it contains no obligation to constitute a vocational education committee with gender equity. I suggest that the Minister should consider this. Although it is separate from this legislation, we should start here. Perhaps the Minister could take on board the remarks by Deputy McGrath that the local authority should be bound in the same way as any other constituent body. However, that it is difficult because the Act provides no statutory mechanism and, therefore, an amendment to it could be worthwhile.
The Minister directed our attention to section 2 (2) (a) which ensures "that no fewer than seven of those recommended are women and not fewer than seven are men". If that is not fulfilled, the Minister can then "make recommendations subject to such directives". The intention is to ensure equity. The purpose of section 2 is to get gender equity, but we can only do that to the best of our ability with the existing material. That is why the Minister is looking for one person out of two from the students and from the academic staff and why he has given discretion to the vocational education committees as regards the five people who will be nominated from relevant educational bodies so that they do not have to take the nominees, but that they will have the discretion to ensure that the nominees represent a gender equity. There is also the moral obligation on the local authorities to fulfil the requirements of having gender equity throughout the system.
We should look at this matter from two angles. The Minister said he will report back to us on Report Stage, but can we get some indication — I am not sure if the Minister will be able to give it — that he would look favourably at amending the 1930 Vocational Educational Act by putting in place a mechanism that gender equity will be represented on the vocational education committee committees?
I am delighted Deputy Costello considers I may be staying on in the Department of Education to overhaul the 1930 Vocational Education Act. I am sure that if he had a chance to consider all aspects of that Act he would like to make more than one recommendation.
That matter will have to be faced up to, not just in relation to gender balance. Times have changed. There is no argument in the House against the need for such an overhaul. Various aspects of that are being considered in the context of Green and White Papers and educational reviews being conducted at present. I do not want to say any more about that aspect, beyond reiterating that I would be very anxious, in the circumstances in which I find myself in this portfolio, to do the best I can to solve the issue.
Deputy Keogh is aware we have fought these battles before to try to bring this to a resolution without a division and I have been outmanoeuvred on many occasions in the past. I cannot say whether the Deputy will succeed in doing this on this occasion, but I am anxious to get agreement and to find solutions.
We have had a fair innings on this issue.
The Minister referred to section 2 (2) (a), under which the vocational education committees must ensure that not fewer than seven of those so recommended to the Minister for appointment to the governing bodies are women and not fewer than seven are men. I accept what is built into the legislation. Of the seven women nominated by the vocational education committees, one will probably come from the academic staff and one from the student body. Should the other five not come from the bodies that nominate to the governing body? The implication there could be that they must nominate the five women and the vocational education committees would then not have to nominate a woman, which would be unfair. The Minister suggested that one may have a 50-50 representation between males and females on a student body, although in many colleges the majority is usually women.
He went on to say that the same may be the position among the staff of these colleges and that is where his argument falls.
I did not make a direct comparison.
The Minister did.
I said there would be significant gender equation on both sides.
That is where the Minister's argument falls. While there is currently an inequity on the colleges' staff there will be many more women than men on the staff in ten years time. This issue will have rectified itself by then.
I will not hold my breath.
Section (2) (b) states: "make such recommendations subject to such directives as may be issued by the Minister from time to time". That specific requirement was laid in the guidelines to the vocational education committees. Some were implemented, some could not be in any practical sense and others, as Deputy McGrath said, were optional. These will now become directives. Any resolution I achieve between now and Report Stage will copperfasten that absolute requirement. I take the point that there are circumstances — it is hard to imagine them — where the position outlined by Deputy McGrath could occur and vocational education committees could conceivably take the option he has outlined. I assure the House they will not have that option.
Is the Minister saying that before Report Stage he will introduce a provision whereby the vocational education committees nominations will contain some form of gender equity? Will he give me that assurance? Is that what he is saying?
I did not go that far.
Nominees do not have to be members of the vocational education committee.
I accept that. I do not wish to take this matter any further at this stage. The directive properly imposes that provision.
What the Minister has indicated is clear. Other than tabling an amendment, we can go no further at this stage.
Amendment No. 9 states:
In page 2, subsection (1) (c), line 27, to delete ", one of whom shall be a woman and one a man,".
Deputy Costello was confusing this amendment with the previous one when he suggested they were contradictory. On first reading that may appear to be the case. The amendment states it is not democratic to ask the staff of a college to vote for one man and one woman. That is interfering with the democratic process. When we stand for election, there is no stipulation that the electorate vote for Michael Bell as distinct from Mary Bell, for example, or that they must cast a vote for each of them. The electorate can vote for whoever they like in the order and preference of their choice; that is the essence of democracy. We uphold democracy here and guard, and hopefully continue to guard, it jealously. In a democratic election, voting for one man and one woman is interfering with the democratic process. It interferes with the democratic process. The academic staff in the colleges, who are the nerve centre of them, will be affected in this way when nominating people to the governing body. The students' position is different because they will be nominated rather than elected. However, we must not interfere with the only so-called democratic election that will take place. The next logical step is to say that Dáil Éireann must comprise at least 83 women and 83 men.
It is a brilliant idea. Why not?
If the argument against the provisions is based on fears that that other obligation might subsequently apply in the Dáil then Deputies are on weak ground. I thought they could make a better case than that.
There is a woman TD in my constituency so I know what it is like.
I do not want you going down a cul de sac.
I think the point is well made.
I have been contacted by women working within academic institutions who are opposed to this provision. They feel it puts them into a slot and that they could only be the staff representative if they happened to be a woman. They feel their ability to represent the staff and to win their place as the representative of the staff is diminished by the fact that they would have to be nominated because they are a woman. Some of them are opposed to that and feel it is a downgrading of their status as women in their own right. In fact, there is a case before the High Court at the moment which revolves around that situation, where two panels were created within the Dublin Institute of Technology system. If you check on case number 208 JR 1994 you will find that a judicial review is pending as to whether the elections at a particular institution were carried out in the correct manner because of the imposition of a "one man and one woman" rule. Even though it may appear to be a frivolous attempt to change something in the Bill, it has serious implications for our democratic process. That is why I moved the amendment even though I realised I would run the risk of being seen as anti-woman, which is not my intention. My intention is that women should certainly be represented and I tabled a later amendment specifically in that regard. I am afraid that we are going to start interfering with our prided democratic system and that is what worries me.
Deputy Keogh has been holding back with tremendous patience and obvious anxiety. To ensure that she will be properly restrained when she makes her contribution, I should say that it is hard to justify in all circumstances — and I say this as honestly as I can — absolute requirements for gender balance. We must remember we are coming from a position where the participation of women in various areas within our democracy and our various organisations is far too low. If you take the full text of Deputy McGrath's argument in a real spirit of having things perfect, I accept you would not have these kind of requirements. However, we are not coming from that position, we are coming from taking a stance and putting in provisions that make these requirements necessary. However much they may on some occasions offend certain women, as I know they do, they are nontheless necessary to break from what has been a constant feature of how nominations are made, and the dominance of men in those circumstances. I have not had the facility the Deputy had as a Front Bench spokesman on education to check its veracity, and I accept her word. However, every one of those women who contacted you — saying that they were embarrassed by those provisions — would be matched by another woman, serving in the same place, who would have a directly opposite view.
It is unusual to find the Minister on the same wavelength as myself.
It happens occasionally.
Occasionally but not very often. I understand Deputy McGrath's reasons for putting down this amendment. I do not condemn him and realise that he is committed to the idea of gender equity, but I disagree with him in this particular instance. We must achieve balance by making it happen and I do not believe it is anti-democratic. I look forward to the day when there will be at least 83 women in the Dáil but I do not think that it will be in my lifetime, unfortunately. If we had not been members of the EU much of our equality legislation would never have been introduced. There was certainly not a will among many people to make it happen. If you look at what happened in relation to representation on the various bodies there are some circumstances in which you have to make the difference.
I agree that this section of the Bill should stipulate two persons "one of whom shall be a woman and one a man". I believe Deputy McGrath when he says some women feel uncomfortable about this. It goes back to the fact that we are all too equitable, and sometimes we do not like to rock the boat and feel uncomfortable about that, preferring to achieve things by consensus. However, in some circumstances you just have to change the situation and insist that something happens. That is why I am delighted to hear the Minister being such a champion of gender equity.
When I was general secretary of the Shoe and Leather Workers' Union many years ago, we proposed that two places should be set aside for women to which they would be elected. The same arguments were made at that stage but, later, women were thankful it had given them the opportunity to break through the barriers, even though they would have preferred to have been elected by men.
We have had a fair airing of this section and the Minister has tried to meet the points. Whether that is acceptable to Deputy McGrath is a matter for him. Is the amendment is being pressed?
With the Minister's assurances, I am prepared to withdraw it at this stage and resubmit it on Report Stage on the understanding that he will come forward with a suitable amendment. Amendment No. 19 in my name sought the withdrawal of the section the Minister referred to. section 2 (2) (a) and (b). This section would not have been necessary if those other amendments had been accepted, so we can proceed with those as well.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendments No. 10. 11 and 13 are related and 11a is an alternative to 11. Amendments No. 10, 11. 11a, and 13 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 2, subsection (1) (c), lines 29 to 32, to delete all words from and including "are" in line 29 down to and including "August," in line 32 and substitute the following:
"on or before the 1st day of November of the academic year in which the election takes place, this academic year being defined as the period beginning on the 1st day of September preceding the election and ending on the following 31st day of August, have a written contract".
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection 1 are drafted with two objectives in mind as regards the electorate for staff elections. First, it was necessary, following the High Court judgment earlier this year, to provide with some precision who among part time staff were entitled to participate in the elections. hence the provision of a threshold of 280 hours in the case of academic staff and 50 per cent of full time hours in the case of other staff. The precise provision of 280 hours is necessary to ensure that the group of staff who were the subject of the High Court judgment could benefit from that judgment. The figure is based on 50 per cent of the hours worked by a lecturer grade 1 in the institutions.
The second aim is to avoid a situation where the provision is so prescriptive as to deny some part-time workers who might otherwise be eligible to participate in the elections the right to participate. The provision, therefore, does not refer to written contracts proposed by Deputy McGrath. The contractual position of part time staff, as the Deputy knows, varies in the colleges and the institute. They do not always have written contracts. I want to avoid a situation where staff would be denied the opportunity to participate in the elections merely because of a formality or a procedural issue relating to their contracts. Accordingly, the provision as now drafted refers to staff who are required to work a certain number of hours. This will be a matter of fact in any individual case and will be less a cause of controversy than the existence of a written contract. Members will appreciate that because I wish to give that flexibility and to maintain it, I am not in a position to accept their proposal.
I thank the Minister for his response. My colleague Deputy Keogh and I have been contacted by the Teachers' Union of Ireland who expressed concern about this. I have also been contacted by people working in colleges who see difficulties with the provision as drafted, hence my amendments.
The first difficulty is in relation to the full time base. The Bill specifies members of the academic staff who are required during the period beginning the first day of September preceding the election and ending on the following 31 August to teach not less than 280 hours. A number of questions arise from that. By whom are they required to work? If they do not have a written contract, how are they required to work for a specific period? Surely everybody in this situation working within the colleges must have some form of written contract.
No.
I am amazed that the Minister is telling me they do not, they should have. It would be good practice and it should be put in place. I realise that occasionally part-time staff are employed in emergencies or for specific jobs, but those working on a part-time continuous basis should certainly have written contracts. Perhaps the Minister should stipulate this while he is still Minister. Any other basis for employment is too uncertain and nowadays when the public is so litigation conscious it should be clarified. If there is an election in November. what is the status in regard to that election of someone who started out as a part time lecturer the previous September? My amendment ties that down more tightly.
Amendment No. 10 tightens the definition of the academic year and who will or will not be entitled to vote. Amendment No. 11, which is very similar to Deputy Keogh's amendment, raises the difficulties inherent in the Minister's requirement to work for 280 hours per year. The difficulty is that different rankings of staff members of lecturers in the colleges are required to work different hours. For example, a grade I lecturer will be required to work 760 hours per year whereas a senior lecturer will be required to work a reduced number of hours. If their required working year is taken as a base, the possibility then exists that a part-time staff member at grade 1 level may work 279 hours and yet not qualify to vote for or go forward for election as a representative on the governing body, whereas somebody else who would have slightly more hours may well be able to, even though they are not working 50 per cent of the full time hours taken as a base.
I understand what the Deputy is saying.
A part-time worker could clock up 40 per cent of the time required at his level of lectureship in part time hours and be eligible to vote, and somebody who would clock up up to 49 per cent at a different grade would not be eligible. That is an inequity within the system which needs to be clarified. There is also great concern that if the 280 hours requirement is written in stone, it will create many problems at other times in terms of defining and working an academic year. We should avoid this. The stipulation that 50 per cent of the number of hours which a full-time member of staff at that grade is required to work as specified by the Minister takes into account the different grades of people working within the colleges. A worker clocking up 50 per cent of the hours of that particular grade then becomes eligible, rather than using this magic cut off point of 280 hours which will cause problems in other areas in terms of industrial relations perhaps in the future. A figure of 50 per cent of the requirement for that staff level is much safer.
My amendment refers to the same point and I submitted it on foot of correspondence received from the Teachers' Union of Ireland in which they pointed out this anomaly. Although they welcome the thrust of the Bill they think this amendment is necessary. Their understanding is that it is intended to reflect half the hours of a full time lecturer. They do not find fault with that but they point out that there are six academic grades, from college teachers to director, all of which have different timetable requirements, ranging from 20 hours per week in the case of a college lecturer to three in the case of a senior lecturer. Deputy McGrath made the point that under the proposed provision a part time college teacher on 40 per cent of the equivalent whole time grade could be entitled to vote and stand for election. while a part time lecturer grade 1 on 49 per cent of the whole time hours would not be entitled to vote. My amendment proposes that the clause used in section 2 (1) (c) for non-academic staff should be followed, that is. 50 per cent of the number of hours a full-time member of staff is required to work.
The position in relation to my amendment is that it covers the two lecturer teaching grades, LI and LII, and 280 hours covers both. The four grades, lecturer I and II and senior lecturer I and II, are management grades and are filled by permanent staff who are covered. It is better to base the right to vote on the actual number of hours rather than on the percentage. It is clear that the number of staff who could lose out is infinitesimal. regional technical college directors have expressed a preference for 280 hours over 50 per cent and they seem happy with my amendment.
Does the Minister have that in writing? Perhaps he could tell us the date of that letter and circulate it to us. I believe 280 hours is a cause for concern in some colleges and I would like a copy of that letter from the directors if it is available.
If I can be any more helpful in terms of elucidating how that arose, I will be.
The amendment is withdrawn subject to resubmission on Report Stage.
The reason I put down this amendment was because of representations on behalf of the TUI. Obviously, I would like to consider what the Minister has said and return to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 11a not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 2, subsection (1) (d), line 38, to delete "are" and substitute "is".
I am sure the Minister will accept this technical amendment. For grammatical purposes, subsection (1) (d) should be amended to one person being a member of the staff of the college "who is employed" rather than "who are employed".
Far be it for me to lecture Deputy McGrath on this matter other than to say the word "who" in this paragraph relates to the word "staff", not to one person.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 3, subsection (1) (e), line 8. after "college" to insert "(a registered student is one who follows an approved course of study of not less than six hours duration per week, in the relevant academic year, at the institution)".
This amendment relates to registered students and I mentioned this to the Minister yesterday. There is a difficulty about the interpretation of a registered student. Dr. Hederman O'Brien's report on Letterkenny regional technical college mentions a dispute which arose there about what constituted a registered student and this led to some of the problems which subsequently arose. The Minister said that perhaps each college should have its own interpretation. However, I believe this will lead to difficulties. I would prefer to see such a fundamental aspect of college life, the entitlement to vote, etc., defined so that there is a uniform interpretation. That is why I wish to include a definition.
I have a problem in principle with usurping the real function of the college. On many occasions we are apt to try to legislate across frontiers which would perhaps be served by the personality of the college or the region expressing itself in terms of how it wants to proceed. I do not believe it would be appropriate to do this in legislation. The question of registration is a function for the college. Although it looks tidy to have the type of registration to which Deputy McGrath referred, I have a fundamental principled objection to what I call "slide rule" application of what is interpreted at national level as being suitable for each college because each has its own regional identity which should be expressed in the way it does things. If bottom up proposals are acceptable to me and the masses or if X or Y might be better, I am happy to let them have that power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 17a are alternatives to amendment No. 16 and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 3, subsection (1), lines 16 to 24, to delete paragraph (g) and substitute the following:
"(g) five persons shall be nominated by the Minister from among persons nominated to her by such organisations as a sub-committee of the academic council (called the Search Committee) shall identify as being appropriate to the academic and research activities of the college".
This amendment concerns how nominating bodies are to be chosen and their nominations to the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges. It is a crucial amendment to the operation of the colleges and I feel strongly about it for reasons based, to a certain extent, on experience gained since governing bodies were introduced to regional technical colleges. At present vocational education committees select five nominating bodies which decide whom to nominate to the governing bodies. Different interpretations have been taken to that and in some cases it has been badly manipulated.
In the case of one college, a vocational education committee when choosing nominating bodies was anxious to look after a particular crony. He was not elected because he was not a member but the vocational education committee wanted to ensure that he got a position on the governing body. It manipulated the choice of the five nominating bodies to the governing body. In this case it nominated the past pupils' union of a secondary school which was some distance from the regional technical college as a nominating body to the board of the regional technical college.
Was it a boys' school?
Yes.
Was that accepted by the Department of Education?
Yes.
Shame on both of them.
It was not as if a huge number transferred from that school to the college. Only a small number transferred and they did not represent a large proportion of the students at the college. It was done simply to accommodate one of the cronies.
At another regional technical college the same situation arose where somebody had to be accommodated. Again, they manipulated the choice of nominating body to accommodate an auctioneer. One of the bodies chosen to nominate people to the board of the regional technical college in that area was the auctioneering association of that county so that this man could be nominated to the board of the regional technical college. That is wrong. It is manipulating the system and results in nominating bodies which have no relationship with the college and no input into its academic life.
In another case, a member of staff in the college became the nominee of one of the nominating bodies. That is against the spirit of the legislation and should be eliminated. In that spirit I brought forward this amendment which says that the academic council — which, in effect, manages the college — should look around their own area and decide which bodies should be chosen to nominate candidates for the board of governors. They are in the best position to see which bodies should have an input into the college, would have an interest in the college and be of help to it.
My amendment is elaborate but well thought out. It states: "Five persons shall be nominated by the Minister from among persons nominated to her by such organisations as a subcommittee of the academic council (called the Search Committee) shall identify as being appropriate to the academic and research activities of the college." It is a very good amendment and gets over the problems which have arisen. It ties it down very clearly and the boards of the individual colleges would benefit from such an amendment.
I also submitted an amendment. We discussed this on Second Stage, the Minister said she would look at this issue and that she was open to doing something about it. There is an amendment here in the Minister's name.
My amendment is slightly simpler than that of Deputy McGrath. I do not have a great problem with his amendment, except that he says "five persons shall be nominated by the Minister". My amendment says: "the college shall, in consultation with the academic council, determine" who should be the representative bodies. I do not want to involve the Minister for Education in this. I would prefer to rely on the autonomy of the college.
I explained why.
Yes, it is a moot point. The principle which we are trying to establish here, and which should be very firmly established, is that we must get away from the perception and, in fact, the reality that there is some sort of political jobbery in relation to anything to do with these colleges. I will not rehearse the unfortunate circumstances in Letterkenny but the perception in relation to this is very important. The onus must be on the college to determine the particular organisations. We should be able to rely on the professionals, the educators, who are aware of the particular bodies which would be of relevance to the type of work done in the college. Whichever amendment is accepted, it will be an improvement to the Bill.
I would love to know where the conscience of the country was when what Deputy McGrath referred to went on. It is very easy — but hypocritical — to make allegations. Where was the Fine Gael membership of that committee and what did it do when that matter went through? vocational education committees are made up of all political parties, but that is their problem.
On a point of order, I do not think I indicated when I was speaking on that occasion whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anybody else was involved in those appointments. I did not say or imply that so the Deputy should not——
The Deputy referred to political cronies.
The Deputy obviously knows her party very well.
Deputy Coughlan obviously feels sensitive on this issue.
The allegations are always made by those across the way——
We have had a very productive and friendly discussion this morning and——
I realise that but it is very easy to pick bones——
The point has been made that political cronies are not confined to one political party.
I am glad the Acting Chairman said that because that is not always what is reflected in other areas
The Minister also proposes an amendment with regard to the college and the academic council under this section. I have serious reservations about the role of the vocational education committees with regard to regional technical colleges. Deputy McGrath's amendment No. 16 refers to organisations being nominated by the academic council. That was the role of the vocational education committees and will now be taken from them.
It galls me on occasions to see the work done by vocational education committees not being recognised. There was a great deal of criticism — when we introduced the original legislation, as we all know, with regard to how the vocational education committees felt about their input to regional technical colleges. Many people were aggrieved by the situation. If Donegal vocational education committee was running the regional technical college in Letterkenny there might not have been half as much hassle because it was politically accountable and made up of elected Members of the Dáil and Seanad as well as elected members of the council. That is only a personal opinion and that mess will not be sorted out until the Minister gets his legislation through.
I am very worried about the slippage. In a number of years the vocational education committees will have no role with regard to regional technical colleges and no input to the development of education. We do not know what will happen with regard to vocational education at the moment——
The Deputy is in Government.
A week is a long time in politics.
Is this another message?
It is not up to me, I am a mere backbencher.
Well then do not blame us.
Perhaps the Minister will say that this is not so, but I feel that the role of vocational education committees is being totally eroded with regard to regional technical colleges. We have come to the stage where we will have nominees from the vocational education committees but that is it. It should be at least one role of the vocational education committees to be able to nominate the political organisations which they feel contribute to the development of the college. Perhaps, it should be in consultation with the college academic council. The vocational education committees will be able to nominate their own members to the regional technical college but in a couple of years that will also be gone. Will the Minister advise us on the situation?
On Second Stage in the Dáil, and again today, a number of Deputies expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the regional technical colleges did not have sufficient input to selecting members of the governing bodies. They referred in particular to section 2 (1) (g) of the Bill and the then Minister indicated she found the proposals interesting. That is why I am introducing this amendment which will enable the colleges, through their academic councils, to have a role in the identification of those organisations which should be represented on the governing bodies because of their connections with the academic and research activities of the institution. I have taken on board recommendations that it is acceptable international practice for institutions to set up search committees as this is a sound procedure from an educational viewpoint.
The academic council of the college is likely to be very much aware of the organisations and personnel who can contribute to the activities and development of the college. My amendment, therefore, requires the vocational education committee to seek proposals from the governing body of the college as to the organisations it considers require representation on the governing body. These proposals will come from the academic council of the college to the governing body for transmission to the vocational education committee. The organisations in question will be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests as appropriate to the activities of the college and excludes interests otherwise representing the governing body.
Deputy Keogh's amendment contains the words "in consultation with". In those circumstances the college could ignore the recommendations of the academic council. In Deputy McGrath's amendment the vocational education committee's role is diminished. I believe the vocational education committee should have a role. In that sense one is talking about a tripartite arrangement which involves the academic council, the governing body and the vocational education committee. This is a sounder way to proceed and therefore, the amendment put forward in my name embraces the main case made on Second Stage, gives the academic council a proper role and includes the vocational education committee and the governing body in the tripartite arrangement.
Is that agreed?
No, I am not happy. Following the Minister's amendment the subsection will read: "five persons shall be nominated by the vocational education committee from among persons nominated to the college on the recommendation of the academic council by such organisations as that committee considers require representation. . .". Is the Minister saying that the vocational education committee will still choose the organisations from which nominations will be sought?
Only after they have the recommendation.
That is not how it will read. It will state that five persons are to be nominated from among persons nominated to the college, on the recommendation of the academic staff by such organisations as that committee considers require representation etc.
No, the words "that committee" are gone.
The Minister is eliminating the second "that committee"?
Yes, on line 18.
Let us see how it reads now. My problem was the other "that committee".
Does the Deputy see how thorough I am? There are no grey areas. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Too little, too late.
When I was a teacher certain youngsters, when they got annoyed, said: "Do not start me". I could refer to something which would cause us to break into fisticuffs so do not start me now.
With reference to Deputy Coughlan's point, I am happy to say that we have erred and sinned but we are prepared to admit it.
That is very philosophical for this time of the day.
The section would read: "five persons shall be nominated by the vocational education committee from among persons nominated to that committee by such organisations as the college, on the recommendation of the academic council considers require representation . . .". It goes some way towards meeting the point. My colleague, Deputy Keogh, wondered why I said that the Minister should choose. I was putting the onus for gender equality on the Minister who would then be responsible for it within the nominating bodies as well as everywhere else.
It is approaching 1 p.m. and we have two choices. We could continue until 2 p.m. and try to complete the Bill as there is not much work left. Many of the remaining amendments have already been discussed. I suggest that the committee considers going to 2 p.m. at the latest and finishing the Bill then. There is not sufficient work left to justify coming back tomorrow morning, Monday or Tuesday.
We agree and we could make an effort to complete the Bill in half an hour.
I will have to push the committee to achieve that.
I have a final comment on the amendment. I appreciate the comments by Deputy Coughlan in relation to the powers of the vocational education committee. There is a general view among vocational education committee members that their powers have been eroded by the contents of the 1992 legislation. There is also a perception that there is no great wish to preserve the vocational education committees in any authoritative fashion. However, I do not believe that the amendment proposed by the Minister undermines the role of the vocational education committees. The vocational education committees will still nominate the five persons but the college, on the recommendation of the academic council, will make the selection process for the relevant organisations.
There was considerable dispute as to what relevant academic and educational organisations would fulfil the terms of the legislation. The Bill states that such organisations shall be representative of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests as appropriate to the activities of the college. This caused a major problem for the Dublin Institute of Technology which does not engage in agricultural education and yet there is an obligation to have an agricultural body. Numerous bodies were recommended and then rejected by the Minister because they did not fulfil the requirements. It will avoid much of the trouble that was experienced recently. I am reasonably happy with the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 3, subsection (1) (g), line 18, to delete "that committee" and substitute "the college, on the recommendation of the academic council".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17a not moved.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—Section 9 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after ‘college' of ‘for a term of five years, renewable, on the recommendation of the academic council, for a further five years'.".
These posts have been wholetime permanent posts. The last appointment was made in 1993 in respect of the Dublin Institute of Technology. We should not get involved, in the context of this legislation, in an interpretation which could affect permanent posts.
I do not intend the amendment to be retrospective. It would apply to future appointments so perhaps I should insert a clause to that effect.
It is a policy matter. It is not a matter for the academic council.
Future appointments to colleges in the Dublin Institute of Technology or in the regional technical college system should be for five years at the end of which the contract would be renewable for a further five years if recommended by the academic council. However, it would not be renewable after the 10 year period.
The Minister mentioned the ten year contract appointment of the president of the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is crucial that such academic appointments be given to people who are dynamic, have a vision for education and who will do a good job. In the past, people were appointed for life and most appointments worked out well. However, some did not and we are stuck with them. The formula I propose would mean that future appointments would be for five years. At the end of five years we will know whether the person is doing the job properly. The appointment could only be renewed for a further five years if the academic council suggests as much to the governing body and the governing body approves.
The academic council is, in essence, the management body of all colleges. It is at the hub of what is happening within the college. If a director or president does not fulfil his obligations the academic council will be aware of that and will not recommend appointment for a further five years. This amendment proposes that future appointments will be finite. There will be an opt out option if the president or director is not functioning correctly. Thus we will not impose on generations of students somebody who is not carrying out his or her function and is adversely affecting the students' academic qualifications and college activities generally.
The council of directors of colleges around the country would probably agree with this amendment. The Minister should seek their opinion on it. It will not affect incumbents but in making future appointments it is a means of ensuring that we get the best people for the job.
I interjected earlier because I did not want this discussed in this way. However, that is a matter for the House and I will not interfere with that.
I have fundamental problems with this proposal. In the 1992 Act, section 11 (2) gives the Minister the right to decide the terms of the general provisions for staff. That could include providing for a five or ten year tenure. There are two problems in proposing to give virtual authority to the academic council in this matter. The governing body's position is undermined and the independence of the director could be severely undermined. I am aware of problems in a college where, if this amendment applied, it would result in an absolute disaster. For that reason, I was anxious not to discuss this.
I am familiar with that problem.
I realise that the Deputy has genuine reasons for making this proposal. However, I ask him not to pursue this amendment.
I do not have a problem with the principle of a renewable contract although the period of five years is quite short. I wish to refer to the selection of the director. The Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, section 9 (2), states that the selection of the director shall be a function of the governing body in accordance with the procedures, etc. I have misgivings about the academic council having a role, as the selection of the director is a function of the governing body.
I also have misgivings about involvement of the academic council. The academic council is an appropriate body in naming suitable educational organisations to provide nominees to the governing bodies. However, I do not agree with involving the academic council in the role of choosing or recommending the director——
It only refers to retention.
——or in renewing the director's position. I understand that secretaries of Departments are employed under seven year contracts. Perhaps that might be considered in the future although it should not be included in this legislation.
I will withdraw the amendment although I might submit it in different form on Report Stage.
That is the Deputy's prerogative.
The Minister should consider this issue for the long term. Perhaps this is not the time to implement it. However, there has been a move in this direction with the appointment of the president of the Dublin Institute of Technology on a ten year contract. We must move in that direction in the regional technical colleges also.
Deputy Keogh is probably right that five years is a little short. Ten years might appear to be somewhat long. Permanent posts are probably not——
That is why I proposed the renewable contract.
How to achieve the objective is the problem.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Regional Technical Colleges (Amendment) Bill, 1994 and made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Is that agreed?
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I thank the Minister, his staff and my colleagues for their co-operation. There was an excellent debate on Committee Stage of this important Bill.
I thank the Chairman for the arrangements which were made at short notice to conduct this important business. I thank Deputies McGrath, Keogh and Gilmore and our colleagues on both sides who contributed to the debate. There was a fair degree of compromise on all sides and I hope the legislation is improved as a result of the way it was approached. There are still a number of relatively small outstanding commitments which must be honoured as far as possible between now and Report Stage. The principal one from yesterday is virtually dealt with and I must look at another important one between now and next week, when we hope to deal with Report and Final Stages. The Dublin Institute of Technology Bill is a twin to this Bill. The provisions are similar.
I thank the Chairman for the efficient running of the meeting and I thank the Minister for accepting amendments. I ask the Minister to consider a point in relation to amendment No. 23 to the Regional Technical Colleges Bill which was ruled out of order. Is it possible for the Minister to consider this? It is causing a problem in the day to day running of the colleges regarding their submissions to the Minister for new courses, budgets, etc. This is why I was anxious to discuss it and perhaps the Minister will examine it in his own time.
I undertake to look at it.
Dublin Institute of Technology (Amendment) Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
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 21 of the Principal Act, that the affairs of the Institute 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 the Governing Body, the Chairman and the President 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 President 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 may consult with and request information concerning the management of the affairs of the Institute from the Governing Body, the Chairman or the President, 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 President.
(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 (5) 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.".
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 21 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 2 is similar to the earlier amendment with which we have already dealt.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2:
To delete subsection (10) and substitute the following:
"(10) Every 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 passed by each House of the Oireachtas.".
The addition to the amendment was discussed yesterday. The Minister said he would examine it in relation to the regional technical colleges, in terms of reporting back to the Dáil and having it debated.
We will be absolutely consistent on that. The Deputies are Doubting Thomases on these matters.
Experience.
They should let Fianna Fáil's openness brush off on them.
Is the amendment to the amendment withdrawn?
Yes, on the same basis as the amendment to the other Bill.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 3 is related to amendment No. 18 and they may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
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 President becomes vacant, the Minister may appoint a person to be the President temporarily until a permanent appointment to the office is made and such temporary appointment may be terminated by the Minister at any time.'.".
I note that he is called the "President" in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.