Amendment No. 60 is consequential on amendments Nos. 61, 83, 94, 97, 100, 103 and 113; amendments Nos. 72, 74 to 76, inclusive, 80, 81, 84 to 86, inclusive, 88, 89, 95, 98, 101, 104 to 107, inclusive, 110 and 114 are related; amendments Nos. 62 to 70, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 61; amendment No. 77 is an alternative to amendment No. 76; amendment No. 82 is an alternative to amendment No. 81; amendments Nos. 90 and 91 are alternatives to amendment No. 89; amendment No. 109 is an alternative to amendment No. 108; and amendment No. 115 is an alternative to amendment No. 114. We may therefore discuss amendments Nos. 60 to 70, inclusive, 72, 74 to 77, inclusive, 80 to 86, inclusive, 88 to 91, inclusive, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103 to 110, inclusive, and 113 to 115, inclusive, together by agreement.
SECTION 14.
That is an astronomical number of amendments and though they may be related they are all over the place. Could we take them in order?
Let us move amendment No. 60.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 3, to delete "31" and substitute "38".
Deputy Coughlan is right; if we take this slowly we might shorten the debate. One of the main objectives of the Bill was to establish governing authorities and this section gave rise to a lot of discussion. I received representations from many places, as did Deputies. I will first show how we are dealing with the points made by the universities.
The first point was the upper limit on membership of the governing authority. Representations were made to change this from 31 to 38 and this is provided for in amendment No. 60. This will give greater flexibility to the universities, especially those with large governing bodies. Deputy Coughlan, Deputy Martin, Deputy Keogh and myself are in agreement and, compared with the Bill as published, this amendment generally provides for an increased number on the governing body from within the community, particularly from the academic staff. I welcome the discussion because it underpins the acceptance by the universities and the university community that the governing bodies should reflect their communities.
Amendment No. 61 provides that a university can have one or two senior administrative staff on its governing body rather than two as required in the Bill. Because of a difference of titles in universities I propose that these officers be referred to in terms of their duties — the amendment refers to "academic, financial or administrative affairs". Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan have similar concerns and they propose in amendment No. 63 that the registrar be on the governing authority. I do not disagree in principle with that approach but I think we should allow the university to decide which of the senior officers as defined should be on the governing authority. I think we have met the concerns expressed, we are not prescriptive and while this may change the emphasis for some university communities the senior staff are certainly mentioned.
Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan further propose in amendment No. 85 that the secretary to the university should be allowed attend governing authority meetings but not as a member of the authority. Again, we should be interested in the autonomy of the universities and we should allow them to decide what is appropriate rather than prescribe for them.
I do not agree with the approach taken by the Deputies in amendments Nos. 64, 86 and 88, which relate to the representation of academic staff on university governing authorities. I consider it appropriate that each university should be able to choose, from within ranges proposed in the Bill, what precise level of representation there should be. I do not consider that the University of Limerick or Dublin City University should be given separate provision in the Bill, as proposed by the Deputies, to give them much less academic staff representation than the other five universities. I feel strongly about this because it will take a number of governing bodies to be appointed for this legislation to settle and at a not too distant time I want to be able to regard the universities as entities without seeing them as new universities. The legislation covering DCU and UL will give them that different bases, rather than allowing them to make choices within their own communities.
My amendment No. 61 proposes to increase the ranges of academic staff outlined in the Bill, again giving greater choice to each university. I have not increased the number to the level proposed in Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 65 but I have gone some way to respond to that. Again, we accept her principle of movement.
Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan propose in amendment No. 66 that two members of non-academic staff should be on the governing authority. I propose an amendment which would allow a choice of between one and three such members. The communities will respond and we will keep the balance right through the governing bodies. Similarly, the Deputies propose in amendment No. 69 that three student members should be on the governing bodies. I propose to allow between three and four such members, which is the same as Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 68 and this has been welcomed by the student body.
I accept the thrust of the Deputies' concern about the election of staff and student representatives, as expressed in amendments Nos. 67, 70, 114 and 115. The Bill as published leaves the matter of how the numbers will be elected or selected in the hands of the universities. However, there seems to be little support for that approach so I propose similar amendments to those of Deputy Martin, Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Keogh in this regard. My proposal is that academic staff, other than professors and associate professors, and non-academic staff members of the governing authority will be elected from among permanent and full-time staff, while professors and associate professors will also elect their representatives. Different "chapels" of voters are being created here.
However, I do not propose that student union officers will necessarily be the most senior, as proposed by Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan in amendment No. 70. This would, in my view, be unnecessarily restrictive on both the students and the universities. I have faith in the good sense of both to work out at local level an appropriate solution to meet particular circumstances because this is not governed by similar rules across the institutions.
There is positive support from the national student body for this Bill. I would not be wary about taking this on board. I do not agree that there should be a limit of two in the number of wider community representatives on a governing authority as proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan in their amendment No. 72. I consider that representatives of organisations from business, agriculture and fisheries can have an important input into universities.
Likewise I do not support the suggestion of Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 76 to delete the requirement that at least one of the wider community representatives be nominated by an organisation representing business or industry. There is wide scope in that description. The present provision is in keeping with the recommendations of the Moriarty task force report on the implementation of the Culliton Report.
I would refer to the discussion we had the last day concerning the objectives of a university. We had a lively and positive discussion about the role of universities in economic and other areas of national growth. Deputies Martin and Coughlan suggested, in amendment No. 74, that the possibility of wider community representation should also include community organisations. I think there is merit in the proposal. The involvement of such community representatives could only enhance a governing authority and I support this. Representation over the community is something that the Deputies will find reflected in the other legislation.
As regards amendment No. 113, I propose to allow more flexibility for the universities in deciding on the number of wider community and ministerial representatives. This maintains a balance in not having only one group. Where a university has three or more ministerial nominees at present it can now have either three or four ministerial nominees due to this amendment, and the same number of representatives from the wider community. What they have will be balanced by representatives from the wider community.
I would not favour reducing to two — as Deputies Martin and Coughlan have proposed in amendment No. 82 — the possible number of co-optees that a university should have. I want to have as much flexibility as possible for the universities in this regard and no one sees any plot in that.
I support the proposal of Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 84 — that any graduate members should be elected. I would not be so proscriptive as to provide for the precise mechanism for election because we have not done that for other groups. In amendment No. 83, I propose the governing authority can have up to four graduate representatives. There is movement there and I have been listening to the debate as it developed.
I am examining the suggestions of Deputies Martin and Coughlan in amendment No. 89 — that in the case of Dublin City University there should be a member of a local administrative council on the governing authority — with a view to tabling an appropriate amendment on Report Stage. I will flag Members on that. However, I do not support their proposal to reduce the possible number of nominees from the trust on the governing authority. I am not asking for a price to be paid but I am taking on board the relevance of having that representation there.
I appreciate the objective underlying the proposal from Deputies Martin, Coughlan and Keogh in amendments Nos. 89 and 90, that the governing authority of Dublin City University should include a member of the academic staff of St. Patrick's in Drumcondra. I support the general thrust of the objective but I consider that the decision should be left within the university family of DCU.
Deputies will note that, in amendment No. 81, I am proposing that when deciding on co-opting members, the governing authority must have regard to the desirability of having as members employees of educational institutions which are associated with the university in accordance with an agreement between the institution and the university. That is modelled on the relationship between Dublin City University and St. Patrick's in Drumcondra. This will ensure that where such associations exist — they do not exist for all because all universities are not the same and will never be expected to be the same under this Bill — and have been freely entered into and developed by the university, there is scope for employees of the associated education institution to be members of the governing authority of the university. The invitation is there for them and no doors are closed.
Furthermore, if, under section 8 of the Bill, an educational institution is incorporated into a university — and of course the institution in question would have to consent to this — it would be an agreement between them. The employees of the institution would then become employees of the university and would be in the same body with the same entitlements as the other employees under this section as regards election to governing authorities. That leaves flexibility for a widening of the campus as such rather than it being a relationship between them. Now that it is there, I think I have addressed the matter. If the relationship develops into a full relationship then the employees will have the same entitlements as all other employees.
I am looking at the proposal in amendment No. 107 that, in the case of the University of Limerick, the chairperson of the administrative County of Limerick, or a nominee, should be on the governing authority. That, of course, is in no way taking from the chairperson or the mayor of Limerick. There will be a consideration on Report Stage that the county chairperson should be on the governing authority.
I do not support the proposal in amendment No. 106 to reduce the number of nominees from the University of Limerick Foundation on the governing authority. Neither, for reasons I have already outlined in relation to St. Patrick's and DCU, do I support the requirement, in amendments Nos. 108 and 109, that the governing authority of the University of Limerick should include a member of the academic staff of Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. The argument I have already made concerning St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra also applies to the University of Limerick.
Deputy Keogh's proposal in amendment No. 62, that an appointment of members under subsection (2) will be in accordance with statute, will now no longer be necessary following my amendment deleting the reference to members being appointed. That matter was represented to me by the university. They now believe that, having taken so much on board, that reference is inappropriate. Effectively, these members of governing authorities are automatically appointed once elected, and they owe their appointment to no other measure.
In the case of the constituent universities, I propose to increase to two the number of NUI representatives. This concerns amendments Nos. 94, 97, 100 and 103.
We are back to Deputy Keogh's amendments. Nos. 75, 77, 91, 95, 98, 101, 104, 105 and 110 concerning representatives of the Irish language to be included on the outside bodies under subsection (3)(a). The amendments relate to Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge and Údarás na Gaeltachta. We had an interesting discussion on the Irish language during the last day's deliberations. I accept those bodies could have a valuable contribution to make to the university, including one at governing authority level, but subsection (3)(a) is aimed primarily at the social partners. Cultural and other interests are adequately catered for under subsection (4)(a). I can assure Deputy Keogh that her objectives can adequately be met under that provision where a university considers this appropriate. This should be left to the universities to decide according to local circumstances.
Earlier we discussed UCG under the heading of objectives. My overall aim in relation to provisions for the composition of governing authorities is to strike a balance between ensuring that certain traditional stakeholders who have always been involved will be involved in all governing authorities but to leave a significant measure of flexibility and autonomy for universities thereafter. I say that because the university community has changed enormously since legislation was introduced. I do not think we should place a limit on the boundaries of imagination and how that could change in future. That flexibility and autonomy should be left to the institutions. We will then end up in a situation where the traditions and differences between institutions will be protected while, at the same time, reflecting the modern community in which each of them operates.
Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 77 would also have the effect of requiring Trinity College to have at least two members drawn from this category. Amendment No. 77 would also require that Trinity College has at least two members drawn from this category. Deputy Keogh opposed the Bill's provisions that there should be outside representation on the board of that college. There is a contradiction here. Amendment No. 80 represents an unnecessary level of detail as regards an education board putting forward four nominees from whom one will be appointed. This is a matter best left to the university to work out in the future. There will be no shortage of ability in the universities to work that out.
We must be pleased that the Minister has agreed to consider the amendments tabled by me, Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan. Which issues will the Minister consider on Report Stage? There is a better balance on the governing authorities now and that is to be welcomed. We must assume the universities, which will have greater flexibility, will use their powers appropriately.
Amendment No. 81 states: "the desirability of having as members employees of educational institutions . . . . .". We want a guarantee that the amendment will accommodate the needs of the academic staff in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra.
The Deputy asked me which issues I will consider on Report Stage. I will respond positively to the Deputy's concerns about County Limerick representation, the local authority of DCU and the possibility of bringing in someone from the community organisations.
As regards St. Patrick's College, facilities, not obstacles, are being put in place which will allow members of an associate college to be on the board. The college will be given the opportunity to discuss this issue with its community, including members of associate colleges. I do not want to prescribe which associate staff members should be on the board of Dublin City University. It would benefit all parties concerned if obstacles were not placed in the way of the university discussing this issue. I accept the general thrust of the objective. There will be objection to the proposal for a decision to be taken by the institution and the university, in consultation with the university's community. I do not want to prescribe who should be on the board. Everyone will benefit by the university turning its attention to the relationship between the employees of an associate college rather than the employees of the university. Giving them autonomy will mean it will happen from within the community rather than being laid down in statute. This debate should take place in the university. No obstacle will be placed in the way of the institution making a decision because the way forward is within the institution.
I accept the Minister wants to leave the decision to the individual institutions but that does not recognise the long established connections between the colleges of education, St. Patrick's College in this case, and the universities. I know we do not want to be too prescriptive because we are trying to give the colleges as much autonomy as possible. It is difficult to predict the future but the term "desirability" is not strong enough. St. Patrick's College is practically a constituent college of the university and that should be represented in the nominations to the governing body. I am not happy that we are going far enough to ensure that.
Amendment No. 81 states: "four persons appointed having particular regard to . . .". This issue will have to be addressed. The amendment also states: "the desirability of having as members employees of educational institutions . . .". There is not a plethora of educational institutions associated with all the universities. A discussion will have to take place in the colleges which have associated educational institutions. I am not laying that down. Universities which are associated with educational institutions are being alerted that they should have community representation on the governing body. The university and its community would consider the desirability of that representation. That is sufficient without being prescriptive.
Therefore the onus is on the university. What about the academic staff of St. Patrick's? They want the ability to decide which of their members should be a representative on the governing body. It is quite a different emphasis.
I have gone as far as I can without being prescriptive. In the future, there is the possibility of other institutions establishing relationships with universities. We cannot imagine how that will develop. This Bill will allow other educational institutions to have an input in the composition of the governing body. I am not limiting it. The staff in St. Patrick's have raised the issue and they will benefit from it. They are also putting a process in place which could be useful as the community of the universities develop and change. The last time legislation was adopted in this area was in 1908. I will establish a framework that allows communities to take these decisions.
We have progressed considerably on this matter. One of the most important things that has happened between the drafting of the original Bill and these amendments is the difference between "appointed" and "elected". That is critical and I am glad the Minister has introduced it in her amendments. To be elected and to have accountability is the epitome of democracy.
I do not have any problems with the majority of the Minister's new section in amendment No. 61, as it ties in with many of the amendments we tabled. The Minister spoke about amendment No. 61 (d)(iv) which is also mentioned in our amendment No. 70. In some universities there are different traditions within the student unions. The University of Limerick has post-graduates who are still in the students union. There was a problem with previous legislation about regional technical colleges where a directive had to be implemented as regards Sligo regional technical college. It is important that it is specific in the case of students. The president of a students union who has been elected is one.
Amendment No. 63 includes the registrar or equivalent officer. The Minister referred to senior officers who are responsible to the chief officer as regards academic, financial or administrative affairs. The registrar has a specific role within all the universities and can be pivotal. Perhaps the Minister might reconsider the inclusion of the registrar. As regards amendment No. 74, I accept what the Minister says and I thank her for her commitment to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 84 covers the increase in the number of graduates, which is also covered in amendment No. 83, with which I do not have a problem. There was a considerable amount of lobbying as regards amendment No. 85, particularly from UL, where there is a tradition that secretaries or their equivalent are part of the governing body but do not have a voting right. There is merit in that amendment and consideration should be given to that role. It has worked well in the case of many universities and changing it may cause some problems.
I do not want to labour amendment No. 89 and the similar amendment No. 90, tabled by Deputy Keogh, as regards St. Patrick's. In the future there may be many other institutions associated with universities. There is a long tradition of St. Patrick's and Mary Immaculate being associated with universities and they were among the first to progress that far. They have graduate programmes for which UL and DCU award degrees.
Universities have often been seen as academic institutions but their role within the community is wider and has not been recognised. One of the criticisms which emerged from an interesting forum in Boston was that while many people know where a university, for example, Trinity College, is situated not many of those who are in close proximity to it have any connection with it. That is why the association of a community organisation is important. We do not want to alienate those who may never have anything to do with a university. If someone in the flats was asked had they ever been in the garden or through the gates of Trinity College, it would mean nothing to them, which is wrong. The links and liaisons between community and the university are important. There was much criticism about this in Northern Ireland because people felt alienated and estranged from the universities. Good links with the community are important.
Will the Minister reconsider on Report Stage the matter of the chairperson of the county of Limerick being one of seven members on the governing authority?
Yes.
I welcome the recognition of the academic staff and the increased role they should have on governing bodies. We are trying to achieve a balance between the prescriptive and allowing as much freedom as possible. However, I think the Minister could review the role of the secretary and registrar within the governing body.
I am glad the Minister has accepted some of the amendments and I think much progress has been made since Second Stage.
The role of the registrar was raised. The difficulty is that we are entering the area of job description and in each of the universities there may be slightly different interpretations of what is the registrar's function. I am satisfied that the university heads feel that the existing phrasing reflects those different emphases. The Deputy will be glad to know that "undergraduate" has been eliminated in connection with student representatives, so concerns about postgraduate students have been taken on board.
Different practices also exist regarding the role of the secretary attending. There is no reason different practices in institutions should be changed. Do we really want to write into statute the specific people who can attend or restrict the practices of different institutions?
Will there be flexibility within the governing body to allow those non-voting members——
It will be their choice. There can be at least one but not more than two senior officers having responsibility for academic, financial or administrative affairs appointed by the governing authority.
Would the registrar have a strong academic role?
The registrar is the academic, "the chief officer". The secretary can attend in a non-voting role.
Is there flexibility for the governing bodies in the non-voting category?
It does not mention them, so if they want to continue the practice——
Is it provided for in the Bill?
No.
They may not have the legal authority to do it.
The practice which has developed will continue. I come from a very small institution, the training college in Sion Hill, which has a relationship with Trinity College. That relationship only developed after my association with it. None of us at that time could have envisaged that development. The Deputy has accepted the point that we cannot envisage what will happen in relationships but there is nothing preventing their development. There are possibilities for institutions to have closer associations and in the past these developments evolved quite well without legislation. In the absence of legislation the relationships between DCU and St. Patrick's Teacher Training College, Drumcondra, and UL and Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, developed. This Bill places no obstacle in the way of such developments and will allow the institutions to have a special relationship with an educational institution.
I accept the issues raised about the community. At times the pressure to forget about the community in Trinity College was enormous. I taught in a school up the road from Trinity College and I have not found anybody who has walked down that road and in the gates of the college. This is more than an aspiration and places the institutions within the context of the community.
The Minister spoke about associations between the governing bodies. Does this legislation restrict the governing body regarding the numbers of those who may be co-opted?
Up to four people can be chosen, the criteria for which are set out in section 14(3) of the Bill. That is a specific response to the concerns expressed without being prescriptive.
The word that is putting us all off is "desirability".
For Report Stage would the Minister consider strengthening the awareness of the universities in relation to their association with the colleges of education, particularly where there already exists a tradition of association?
Many of these amendments were put down for good reason.
I will look at it. I have asked if the word "desirability" can be replaced but words in a Bill are often interpreted in a different way than is usual. I have asked for flexibility. The Deputy is worried about the word "desirability" but the phrase "particular reference" precedes it. We are saying to institutions that it is their choice. To be prescriptive is an accusation that I have accepted from Deputy Keogh.
We must acknowledge the strong desire of St. Patrick's College. We cannot totally disassociate that because of the very close links between the college and a university.
The argument about St. Patrick's College and Mary Immaculate is that these were independent institutions up to recently, providing a specific form of training and education. When any institution like that becomes part of a bigger organisation, UL or DCU, there is a concern that its interests would not be represented, especially on the governing body. That is not being overly prescriptive. To some degree the entire Bill is prescriptive in that we are saying that there should be so many academic and non academic staff and so on. All we are asking for in amendment No. 89 is that one member be chosen by the academic staff of St. Patrick's so long as that college has an association by agreement or memorandum. This is a reasonable amendment and those moving it are not trying to be obstreperous.
Institutions such as St. Patrick's could be sidelined. It has always been the case that, at times, some faculties have been undermined by the prevailing governing body. I had experience of a governing body where the chair of one faculty was left vacant for three years. St. Patrick's needs to be represented on the governing body. A university is a microcosm of the world and there are many competing interests. We can be as altruistic as we like but we must also be practical and the reality is that if one is not represented one can be forgotten.
I have said that I will come back to this matter.
It was my impression from the Minister's comments that she did not want to come back to this.
Words can be put in my mouth but I cannot be made utter them. This is a complicated issue and I have taken the points made on board. I have mentioned another college and there could be many more. Our role is to draw up the legislative framework and we have to work on the presumption that it will be 3008 before anyone looks at this again.
3008?
I do not think the Deputy will be rushing to do anything in 3008. This debate has been difficult but we are not creating a cul de sac.
Does the Minister see my point about the fears of the institution that it may not be represented at governing body level?
The Deputy is trying to limit me in naming a particular institution.
Just one.
There is one institution that we have mentioned but there are others.
I have no difficulty with that. This can be worked out.
Then we name them all?
The shopping list is not huge and there is an amendment increasing the composition to 38.
It can be huge. As soon as one starts naming institutions one is limiting the development.
St. Patrick's is not just some ordinary college.
I will look at the word "desirability" but if we talked about this until 4 o'clock I would not change my mind.
I would prefer if the Minister said she would not.
I am not saying that I will not, but I will look at the word "desirability".
Where stands the previous agreements between DCU and St. Patrick's?
The agreements will stand as they are, but now they will have to make particular reference to any educational institution with which they have associations.
That is not what I meant.
Is the Deputy asking whether the agreements between DCU and St. Patrick's will be affected by this legislation?
Yes.
No, they will not.
Would this affect the agreement which is already in place?
It would have to supersede everything.
We do not expect that any sections will be superseded.
I have not read the agreement, but if it allowed for representation on the governing body, this legislation would dilute that agreement as this is the legislative basis for the governing body of DCU and UL. They could find themselves worse off.
We are talking about the legislative basis of DCU.
The governance of.
That does not make any reference to St. Patrick's.
We want it to.
The language of the Bill states that DCU must take into account the educational institution that it is related to in the formulation of its governing body. No one in DCU or St. Patrick's would suggest that the educational institution referred to is not St. Patrick's. I am suggesting that we should not be too prescriptive because relationships may develop between other universities. St. Patrick's association with DCU is by way of agreement and DCU must pay attention to that when selecting the four co-optees to its governing body.
C.P. Snow wrote a superb novel called The Masters about the president of a university.
I have read it several times.
Would the Minister agree that whatever the desirability of it——
Should we mention all the colleges we can think of?
Whatever motivates people to elect someone to a governing body——
Why will the Deputy not let them do it?
We are talking about a new situation.
They all got on well before.
Maybe we should have left them alone.
We are giving them a new governing body and a lot of choice.
St. Patrick's has been in existence for a long time and it could be excluded. No one would wish that but we all know what happens in elections.
In Cork, for instance.
Certain people were omitted from the recent governing body elections in Cork and this caused some surprise. The same could happen in St. Patrick's.
We should not be prescriptive. If one names one institution, one might as well name 12. We are drawing up a framework for universities who have an association with educational institutions. There is no way that DCU could say that it is not affected by this section. The education institution has a relationship with it, it has four co-optees on the governing body and, in selecting them, the institution must be considered.
I am not engaging in semantics, but that is not in the Bill.
I do not have any more to add to the Bill. The Deputy will be getting on the train to Cork shortly.
That is unreasonable. This is a huge area.
Yes, and the three of us have been here undisturbed since 2.30 p.m.
I was away at that stage which I was entitled to be.
I know, but I am staying longer, Deputy. I do not want to hold on for a second. I want to stay——
The Minister is completely out of order in making comments like that. She might be in a hurry but this Bill was published for two months before we even saw it. The Minister had heads of universities and everyone else drafting it. We are entitled to have a look at it as well and the Minister should not be trying to take that right from us.
I call on Deputy Keogh.
The Minister is losing patience with this.
I am not. I could stay forever listening to the Deputies.
That is not the objective; it is to discuss and tease out the Bill. An agreement is in place between St. Patrick's College and DCU that the former has three members on the governing body of the latter. What will be the standing of that agreement when this legislation is enacted?
The Deputy asked a specific question and the advice I have is that this legislation does not change the corporate status of DCU or any agreements entered into by it. The legislation covering representation on the present governing body of DCU is set out in the National Institution for Higher Education, Dublin, Act, 1980.
That means it falls when this legislation is enacted.
The current representation is changed. The purpose of this section is that the governing bodies in the institutions will change and one of my goals is that the legislation introduced which shapes governing bodies will reflect the communities in which they operate. That is one of the core values of this. An agreement has been entered into——
Is the Minister saying that the agreement will fall?
No, the agreement between DCU and the other education institution will remain. There is no representation under legislation. We do not have to draw up a new agreement to establish a relationship between the education institution and the university. When this legislation is enacted, the university will, in deriving the composition of its governing body, have four co-opted members and will have to have regard to the corporate agreement with the education institution and its association with it. That is where the section applies. It will not affect the association of the university with the education institution which will stand when it comes to drawing up the composition of the governing body but account must also be taken of the employees of the education institution.
Perhaps the Minister should include the wording "having regard to the corporate agreement" or a similar wording as an amendment to the section.
I have offered to read the debate and address the concerns. I ask that we do not specify institutions because it is limiting.
If in examining it, could the Minister take on board the fact that this agreement was in place?
It is in place and there is now a group of employees who cannot be disregarded. When it comes to selecting the four co-opted members, that institution must have regard to the existence of an education institution with employees.
The Minister referred to the submissions made by IFUT regarding an earlier amendment and welcomed its welcome of previous amendments tabled by the Minister, especially relating to academic freedom. IFUT has also made a strong case on behalf of the colleges of education. It has not done it lightly but on behalf of the academic members of these institutions. It is in that spirit that we have tabled this amendment. I am not sure if the Minister has had any up to date consultations with IFUT on the matter, but this Bill lays down new governing structures and bodies. In relation to colleges of education, I cannot see why there is such a huge objection——
There is no objection. The Deputy is not listening.
If the Minister constantly interrupts me——
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
The Minister constantly interrupts me. I am trying to make a point.
The Deputy does not listen.
We have tabled an amendment the wording of which is different from the Minister's.
I assure the Deputy that the wording of his amendment reflects the intention of mine.
If there is a legal obligation on someone to do something, they must do it; if there is none, they do not do it. That is the simple, legal situation. On any reading of the Minister's amendment, it is clear that subparagraph (ii) does not constitute a legal obligation on DCU.
Those requirements are not aspirational.
They do not constitute an obligation. They could be ignored. We may not like institutions to do so——
They cannot ignore it. They must make particular reference to it and that is what that means, it cannot be ignored.
Why not strengthen the wording so as to oblige them? Colleges of education have existed for a long time and have been centres of excellence in their chosen fields. We are competitive in the primary school sector compared to other countries because of what these institutions have brought to the area of teacher training. They have been superb. In a new framework and era, it is extremely important that their contribution is realised, and given expression in the Bill. That is all we say. I do not see the requirement of one out of 38 as being excessive or outrageous. We have listened to IFUT and other people. If we are talking about inclusion and giving recognition to historical institutions such as St. Patrick's and Mary Immaculate College, I cannot see the objections to it.
I am trying to be helpful. Aside from educational considerations, does artistic and cultural interests mean the Arts Council or Bord na Gaeilge?
The difference is that the Arts Council is a separate body.
I do not want to branch away but it is not fair——
It is not fair to put the Arts Council in the same context as the colleges of education. We are dealing with academic staff who have a long tradition and history and we want to ensure that they have an input into the new governing authorities which will be elected as a result of this Bill. Given their origins, history and evolution, there is a very strong case for it. That is all I am saying. As it is framed, it is not doing that.
I do not disagree with what the Deputy said except I am leaving it to the universities and the college with whom they have an association in the future. When one looks at the traditional relationship between the college and DCU we should see what other institutions can build up the same sorts of relationships. That is my reasoning. I do not want to be interpreted as putting down a sector in which I was trained and which I hold in very high esteem. I do not want this to be perceived as being anti St. Patrick's College. It is framework legislation. It is a particular reference. It is an institution and it cannot be ignored. This is not a manifesto; it is legislation. I say that to reassure the Deputy.
We might be going around in circles. We were trying to come to a compromise on this matter. I appreciate what the Minister is saying because there are many other institutions in this city which will have associations in the future with DCU or other universities. In saying that, St. Patrick's College is no longer an independent institution. Therefore, the Minister could look to amend on Report Stage what she has proposed in amendment No. 81, where it states "the desirability of having as members. . .", etc. That could be strengthened to the extent of having regard to a corporate agreement between DCU and St. Patrick's College, of which she spoke, until such time as that institution remains to have an association, etc. I am not aware that other colleges have corporate agreements with other universities. St. Angela's in Lough Gill, for instance, is attached to Galway. If it is specific, the Minister might look into it.
Then we do not have to look into the future.
It would give enough flexibility and freedom for the future but, at the same time, have regard to special contributions which have been made.
Deputy Coughlan might also like to think how I might do it.
We will get free legal aid on this side.
What is the Minister's particular objection? Is it that we are naming somebody?
It is limiting.
It is not limiting anybody.
The Deputy could be setting up some fabulous institution.
No. We are not talking about that now. What we are talking about here is a body. In fairness to St. Patrick's College and Mary Immaculate College, they have been in existence a long time. We are not talking about some new association but an established, historic institution with a large staff. It has many graduates. I cannot see the objection to it. It could be accommodated.
We should look at the permutations.
Let us come back to it on Report Stage.
I would put St. Patrick's College way ahead.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 11, lines 5 to 26, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) The members of the governing authority shall include—
(a) the chief officer,
(b) a person appointed under section 15(3) as the chairperson (if so appointed),
(c) at least one but not more than two senior officers of the university having responsibility to the chief officer for academic, financial or administrative affairs, appointed by the governing authority, and
(d) the following members elected in accordance with regulations made under subsection (10):
(i) not less than two or more than six members of the academic staff of the university who are Professors or Associate Professors, elected by such staff;
(ii) not less than three or more than five permanent or full-time members of the other academic staff of the university elected by such staff;
(iii) at least one but not more than three permanent or full-time employees who are not members of the academic staff of the university elected by the non-academic staff;
(iv) not less than two or more than three under-graduate students of the university who are elected officers of the students union or other student representative body in the university recognised by the governing authority, and
(v) one post-graduate student elected by the post-graduate students.".
Amendments Nos. 71, 78, 79, 111 and 116 are related, and amendment No. 112 is an alternative to amendment No. 111. Amendments Nos. 71, 78, 79, 111, 112 and 116 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 11, subsection (3), line 27, to delete "Subject to subsection (6)".
I will adjourn the proceedings because time is against us.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 13 February 1997.