Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 14 are related. Amendment No. 15 is an alternative to amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 14 and 15 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 17, after "Committee" to insert "of whom at least two shall be female and at least two shall be male and of whom at least four of these six persons shall be members of a local authority".
This is the same matter that I raised on the earlier Bill.
We have dealt with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 2, subsection (1) (d), line 38, after "Institute" 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 Institute)".
This relates to a registered student and was discussed earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 3, subsection (1), lines 7 to 15, 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 Institute.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 3, subsection (1) (g), line 9, to delete "that Committee" and substitute "the Institute on the recommendation of the Academic Council".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendment No. 14 has already been discussed with amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Amendment No. 15 has already been discussed with amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Amendment No. 15 (a) is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 16 is an alternative to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 15 (a), and amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related. Amendment No. 15 (a), amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 15 (a) and amendments Nos. 16, 22 and 23 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 15 (a):
In the second line of subsection (4), to delete "1st day of April, 1994" and substitute "date of the passing of this Act".
These new provisions were not in the original Bill. In this Bill the Minister wants to make the provision retrospective so that it will apply to anything which has happened since 1 April last. This relates to the case before the High Court I mentioned earlier — case number 208 JR 1994 which is concerned with the conditions in this section of the Bill. Twice before legislation was passed retrospectively to affect court cases in train and the courts took a a dim view of that. We are now trying to put through a Bill which will be retrospective and which attempts to pre-empt the case before the court. That is unacceptable and my amendment states that this section should not come into force until the passing of the Bill.
During the debate on Second Stage and at the beginning of the discussion of these Bills by the select committee a number of Deputies expressed concern that the element of retrospection in section 4 (2) of the Bills represented an improper interference by the Legislature in a case which is being heard by the High Court, and that has been reiterated by Deputy McGrath. In that case two members of staff of the Dublin Institute of Technology are challenging aspects of the regulations governing the elections to the governing body of the institute which provide for gender balance.
The then Minister assured the Deputies that there was no intention to interfere in the judicial area and undertook to have the matter considered further to leave no room for doubt on the matter. This amendment should provide comfort to Deputies who were concerned about this issue. The amended subsection will confine retrospection to the issue of eligibility, for example, who among the academic staff is entitled to vote in elections for governing body positions. The provision for gender balance in the staff elections which is also addressed in paragraph (b) will not be retrospective in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology and will, therefore, apply only from the date of passing the Act.
The issue of gender balance is the subject of High Court proceedings which, however, relate only to the institute. The regional technical colleges are unaffected as they are governed by separate legislation. There is, therefore, no need to amend the regional technological colleges legislation.
Section 2 (4) of the Dublin Institute of Technology legislation now makes it clear, as was always the case, that there is no intention to interfere with the court proceedings which will now be decided on the merits of the law as it stands. Retrospection in the case of eligibility in the case of the colleges and the institute is necessary as this issue precipitated difficulties earlier this year leading to another High Court case and judgment. Following that judgment, which related exclusively to a particular group of part time staff, there was uncertainty as to who among the part time staff was entitled to participate in the elections. Legislation was essential to clear up this doubt.
In the meantime the institute and colleges could not be left without governing bodies. The Government approved a proposal whereby elections would be held for academic staff positions according to regulations which would be given retrospective legislative effect as soon as practicable. The aim was to ensure that the decisions of the governing bodies cannot be challenged on the basis of the composition of the governing bodies from the date of their appointment to the date when legislation would become effective. Such a situation would have placed the institutions in an intolerable position and would have effectively paralysed the decision making process until legislation was passed. I hope I have made that clear.
Those with whom I have spoken expressed grave concern about making the provision retrospective — they feel that it is an interference with——
That has been gone into fully on the basis of a rigorous legal assessment.
I take the Minister's word and I look forward to getting the report of that statement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15 (a):
In page 3, lines 26 to 28. to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) shall apply, with effect from the 1st day of April, 1994, so far as it relates to the eligibility of staff to take part in any election to which that paragraph applies.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Amendment No. 18 has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, before section 4. to insert the following new section:
4.—Section 11 (2) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following paragraph:
‘(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this subsection, membership of the Academic Council shall rotate so that one quarter of the members are replaced after each term.'.".
One could get a static situation on the academic councils in some of the colleges with the same group of people on the councils year after year. I want to include some form of movement so that there would be different representation from within the colleges. A quarter of the members would retire after their term of office, there would be continuity and new people coming in. This would bring about a turnover of people on the academic council which is important to obtain new blood and new inputs to the bodies.
The amendment would negative the intent of section 11 (2) (c) of the principal Act which provides that members appointed to the academic council should hold office for three years. Most of us accept that it is not too long a period.
Yes, but they can be re-appointed and they often are.
I know they can but this amendment asks the State to intervene in something which should be arranged locally and democratically. There are circumstances in which it should not matter how long a person may serve as long as he or she has a contribution to make. In other circumstances other people should not serve for so long.
This involves planning, co-ordinating, developing, overseeing and educational work. We must have regard for the competence and judgment of the people concerned. We have set the period at three years and we would negatively affect that by getting further involved. Unlike Deputy McGrath I tend to have confidence in these people to make the right decisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 20 is out of order as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Amendment Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.