Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 19 Dec 1996

SECTION 2.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 30, after "made" to insert ", after consultation with the existing governing bodies of the universities referred to in section 4,".

This is a straightforward amendment which I am confident the Minister can accept. She has spoken about the importance of consultation. When this Bill comes into operation, the Minister would be sending out a good signal if she consulted with the governing bodies of the universities. If there is to be a partnership in education and the Minister is to send out the right signals with regard to the Universities Bill, she should enshrine that in this section. It is simple and straightforward. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Martin

I support Deputy Keogh. It is a basic and straightforward amendment.

Ms Bhreathnach

I will not accept the amendment on a number of grounds. It would be extraordinary and inappropriate if the Oireachtas, having enacted legislation, had then to depend on the outcome of consultations with other bodies before effect could be given to its will. To provide a statutory and open ended requirement for consultation could delay the introduction of the legislation indefinitely. The consultation process has taken place but now it is time to note the will of the Oireachtas.

Ms Keogh

I am quite amazed at the Minister's response. It is a simple, straightforward consultation. The governing bodies would not have a veto over the Minister's actions. I am sure the Minister will need to give a specific date and will need the co-operation of all involved. It makes sense that there be some degree of consultation. I am not suggesting we have lengthy consultation as there are not many institutions involved. I am sure a process of consultation could be accommodated within a period of two weeks.

Mr. Martin

Deputy Coughlan caused some laughter when she said she would never attempt to read the Minister's mind because it changes so often. A short while ago, I heard the Minister say that she was enriched by the process of consultation and that it gave her an enhanced view of life. I am at a loss as to how, suddenly, consultation has gone out the window in terms of leaving the Minister enriched and with a feeling of well-being. This is a relatively straightforward amendment. Consultation does not mean anyone has a veto or can prevent the enactment of legislation. In the spirit of the amendments and the new partnership that allegedly the Department and the Minister want to forge with the universities, this would be a basic process to set in train. There would be consultation with the universities in terms of the implementation of the Bill because there will be varying interpretations of the Bill. There is a broad framework, for example, in terms of the composition of governing bodies etc. for different institutions and this amendment would not impede the implementation of the Bill but would reflect the spirit of the debate which is that there be a genuine partnership. The Minister's tone indicated to me that the institutions are being told the consultation is over, this law is being introduced and they better implement it; I do not like that. It is not the type of approach we should adopt in any sector of education. The White Paper continually refers to partnership but it is not seen on the ground.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.

Tá
Coughlan, Mary. Flood, Chris. Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire. Hughes, Séamus. Keaveney, Cecilia.	Keogh, Helen. Martin, Micheál. Power, Seán. Woods, Michael.

Níl
Bhreathnach, Niamh.	Kemmy, Jim.
Bradford, Paul.	Kenny, Séan.
Connaughton, Paul.	Lynch, Kathleen.
Crowley, Frank.	McGinley, Dinny.
Fitzgerald, Frances.	Moynihan-Cronin, Breda.
Hogan, Phil.	Mulvihill, John.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 2 agreed to.