SECTION 14.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 71:
In page 11, subsection (3), line 27, to delete "Subject to subsection (6)".
—(Deputy Martin)
It is agreed that we will adjourn at 4 p.m. It is proposed that the committee sit on Wednesday, 19 February, from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. Deputy Seán Kenny will be Acting Chairman on that day and four members of the committee will not be in attendance as they will be attending a meeting in London. The committee will resume on Thursday, 20 February, at 2 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We will resume our deliberations on amendment No. 71. Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 111, 116 are related and amendment No. 112 is an alternative to amendment No. 111. Amendments Nos. 71, 78, 79, 111, 112 and 116 are therefore being taken together.
Section 14(6) states:
Except in the case of a person appointed under subsection (4)(b) where the governing authority has waived the restriction otherwise imposed by this subsection, a member referred to in subsection (3) or (4) shall not be an employee or a student of the university.
The other amendments deal with similar matters. There appears to be an attempt to ensure that nominees from outside bodies or other representative constituencies should not be employees or students of the university. This is an unnecessary intrusion on the process. We do not have a principled objection to the idea of somebody representing, for example, a proposed authority.
The Bill deals with the potentiality of people from regional education boards, if they are established, having a representation on a university, subject to the qualification that such people must not be students or members of staff at the university. That should not necessarily be the case. If a member of a university is also a representative on a regional education board and if the board decides that such a person should be on the governing body we should respect its wishes.
The amendment is concerned with allowing those who have the right to nominate and the right to put people forward for inclusion on a university's governing body to have an unfettered right in this regard and to trust them in their judgment. People should not necessarily be debarred on the grounds that they are employees or students of the universities.
Amendment No. 78 deals with the deletion of line 45, page 11, of section 14(3)(b), which states: "(i) employees of the university, or". Amendment No. 79 proposes the deletion of the following words from section 14(3)(b)(ii):
the Dublin Institute of Technology established by section 3 of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992, or regional technical college established by or in accordance with section 3 of the Regional Technical Colleges, 1992,
Read in conjunction with the section, this wording proposes the debarring of members of the governing authority or employees of such bodies. The amendment proposes that they not be debarred.
Amendment No. 111 proposes the deletion of section 14(6). It should be left to the bodies concerned to make nominees. Amendment No. 112 proposes the deletion of "(b)" from section 14(6), page 13, line 35.
One of the aims of putting forward the revised governing structure was to widen the representation base of the governing authorities. Unless there are provisions that will ensure this, moves could be taken which could result in increasing numbers of members under different headings of the universities becoming members of the governing bodies.
A major aim of the legislation is to ensure that the governing bodies reflect the communities in which they are established. I do not, therefore, agree with the deletion of subsection (6). It is a principled part of the Bill. Regarding the reference in amendments Nos. 71 and 111 tabled by Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan to the non-application of subsection (6), I will not agree to the deletion of that subsection. In amendment No. 112, I propose to allow each university to decide, if it wishes, that co-optees representing other artistic and cultural interests could be drawn from academic staff, non-academic staff or the student body. This is important in the interest of diversity of backgrounds and it will enrich the membership of the governing authority if we do not move towards a tendency which may prevent people from outside universities serving on the board. It is reasonable and balanced that checks are imposed on a position which could result in practically no outside representation.
It is also reasonable in the context of the representatives of the wider community, the education board representative and the ministerial nominees, and in the interests of that diversity and richness which should be involved in the governing bodies. These bodies are big and it is not unreasonable that the governing bodies, which will be established under this modern legislation, should reflect more than just the university community. I propose that subsection (3)(b) should remain covered by subsection (6). Deputy Martin, Deputy Coughlan and I tabled amendment No. 78. Subsection 3(b)(i) is an unnecessary restatement of the provision excluding members of staff of a university from the education board nominees.
I propose in amendment No. 112 to allow each university to decide, if it wishes, that the co-optees representing other artistic and cultural interests could be drawn from academic staff, non-academic staff or the student body. However, I do not accept that members of the university community could represent the wider community as a nominee of the education board or that a member of the university should or could be one of the ministerial nominees. Amendment No. 112 would not cause an imbalance because it involves checks and balances.
I do not support amendment No. 79 that the provision of subsection (3)(b)(ii), which excludes employees of the regional technical colleges or the Dublin Institute of Technology from nomination, should be deleted. This is not in any way derogatory to the institutions. In addition to areas where various third level institutions will co-operate, it is accepted, and must always be accepted, that there will be competition. The universities should not, as a consequence of this legislation, be uncomfortable at meetings of the governing bodies if employees of other universities or colleges are included on the authorities. It would be much more appropriate for an education board if the nominee is a representative of first or second level education or further education because the board will have statutory responsibility for these areas.
The fear is that universities, by machiavellian means, will manipulate the other bodies with the effect of getting more university people on the governing bodies. This is an unnecessary fear which is probably overstated. An example is the regional education boards, notwithstanding my difficulties with those bodies. However, if a staff member of a university is a parents' representative on a regional education board, people may regard that person as having particular expertise on the board, and not just in terms of representing parents. If the board reached a democratic decision that he or she was the best person to represent it on a governing body, I am not sure the legislation should state that is not possible.
It is often the case that outstanding people emerge in given situations. Legislation such as the Bill, while well intentioned, can often have an impact subsequently which was not originally intended. Occasionally capable and effective people emerge who would be an asset to a university or a governing body and an effective representative of outside agencies. For example, if the regional education board was established in the south-east area along the lines suggested in the Education Bill, I estimate that it would have approximately 42 members. I am not sure the universities in that area will be in a position to manipulate that body given its size in terms of ensuring that somebody from the university is on the board. It should be left to the groups themselves because that would be more democratic. It also provides an opportunity to include an outstanding person who emerges and who can make a major contribution.
I was a member of a vocational education committee which had to make nominations under the legislation governing regional technical colleges. However, as a result of certain legislative restrictions and parameters within which the vocational education committee had to work, the danger arose that a capable person might not have been appointed to the governing body of the regional technical college. Given the person's talents, capabilities and experience, that would have been a tragedy for the college because that person has a positive contribution to make to the development of the institution. The motivation behind the legislation which was put in place was good but its consequence was to keep a person off the board who should have been included.
Is the Minister being unnecessarily restrictive? I listened carefully to Deputy Martin's comments and it may be that well qualified people, who the governing bodies consider could make a genuine contribution, are unwittingly excluded. The fact that such a person is a member of staff should not mitigate against them. If there is an opportunity to include a person who is outstanding in their field, is it wrong to deliberately exclude them? I am not convinced this is the right approach. I understand the reason behind it but it unnecessarily excludes people.
Core principles remain intact in the Bill and I am generous in terms of considering amendments. However, I am adamant about the point that the governing bodies will be richer as a result of the diversity they attract. Given the size of the governing bodies which will emerge and the possibility of lecturers, students and senior and junior staff coming through to represent those areas on the boards, it is a core principle that the governing bodies under modern legislation should reflect areas other than the mainstream people of the university. The other education sectors in terms of the education board or the ministerial nominees would contribute to the board. While I have moved in terms of not excluding people in universities from artistic or cultural backgrounds, the matter involves the wider community being represented on the board and the ministerial nominees as representatives of the community.
Following this legislation there will be members on the board who will not come from the universities. They will contribute to the diversity of opinion and experience that will guide the governing bodies as they take decisions. I will not accept what is proposed by the Opposition.
Is it the Minister's intention that there could be representatives from the Dublin Institute of Technology or the regional technical colleges on the university bodies?
Does the Minister not want them on the bodies?
There is a healthy competition between the institutions. We would put the governing bodies in an uncomfortable position if the employees of other institutions were members of that body.
That is understandable to a degree. Historically there have been too many gaps between the universities and the regional technical colleges.
The Deputy should not forget the HEA's new role.
I am talking about local level. In Cork there is a degree of competition between the regional technical college and the university but there should be far more co-operation than competition. The ladders of progression between the two are not what they should be. There has always been an element of snobbery between different institutions and it is desirable that we get rid of it. The Dublin Institute of Technology has a good relationship with TCD. We should not put a bar in the legislation on a person from an regional technical college being on the governing board of a university. Universities may benefit from the input of someone from an regional technical college or the Dublin Institute of Technology. It would create a clear channel of communication. I know the respective governing bodies can meet as and if they wish.
This is not a positive legislative provision. While accepting competition we are effectively saying that these bodies are separate and should remain so. Until recently students who pursued a diploma option in an regional technical college found it difficult to get suitable accreditation for universities. There must be more openness and harmony between the third level institutions.
The Deputy asked a question and perhaps I gave too simple an answer. The proposal is that the education board nominees would not come from that sector but the governing body will have the co-optees. It is repeating the point I made about the education interests that would be nominated from the education board.
Of course, what the Deputy said is true; there must be healthy competition, not savage competition. The Deputy referred to Cork where there is a regional college and a university. I do not seek in any way to instruct the university or the college. In defining the wider community and the education board interests, putting them on the board would be too narrow a focus. There is nothing in the provision to prevent what the Deputy wishes from happening. The provision narrows the focus of the education board nominee and I believe that is something we should encourage for the future. Where plans and decisions are made for third level education we should not turn our backs on the first and second level or the further education sectors, which would bring in the vocational education committee network.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 11, subsection (3)(a), line 30, to delete "four" and substitute "two".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 11, subsection (3)(a), line 32, after "members" to insert "one of whom shall be drawn from the academic staff and the other a student, these members having been duly elected under the terms of the relevant subsections of section 14 of this Act".
Subsection 3(a) referees to business and industry which, given the nature of the modern economy, is too specific. How does one define business? It can include the food, fisheries or any other industry. The reference to ". . . representative of employers, trade unions, agriculture, fisheries, the professions, business and industry . . ." seems broad enough and there is no need to include the extra reference to business and industry.
The level of detail which the Deputy seeks is something I wish to avoid. The governing authority's subcommittees, which will select the wider community members, should not be so restrictively defined. The governing authority should be able to select the members of the subcommittee in any way it considers fit. I have been warned against entering into such a level of detail by the Deputies opposite on other occasions. However, we will support amendment No. 74.
Our main issues of concern initially were on the principle of Government intrusion into the life of a university. With this amendment we wish to ensure correct representation at all levels because there are fears among certain groups within the university system that they could potentially be undermined by those above or below them. For example, we keep talking about the rights of students to be involved in university life but I am not so sure whether much of it is lip service or we really mean it. I imagine students would like a say in this and I do not see why they should not be on such an important committee.
Under statute students are on the governing body.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 11, subsection (3)(a), line 34, after "fisheries," to insert "community organisations,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 75 not moved.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 11, subsection (3)(a), line 38, to delete all words from and including "of" in line 36 down and including line 38.
Question put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 11, subsection (3)(b), to delete line 45.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 12, subsection (4), lines 20 to 22, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) four persons appointed having particular regard to—
(i) the extent to which artistic and cultural interests are represented among the members, and
(ii) the desirability of having as members employees of educational institutions which are associated with the university in accordance with an agreement between those institutions and the university,
and".
I did not think we finished that discussion at our last meeting. That is why I asked for clarification.
The Minister said she would come back on this issue.
It is a very strong issue for the people concerned. We have the liberty to re-enter these on Report Stage.
The Minister also indicated that she would accept amendments from the Opposition on that issue. If we put down amendments, will they be thrown out?
They must arise directly from the discussions.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 12, subsection (4)(b), line 23, to delete "three graduates of the university" and substitute "four graduates of the university, elected by such graduates".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 12, subsection (4)(b), line 28, after "College," to insert "and the said graduate members shall be elected by the electoral system of proportional representation by the graduates of the university,".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 12, subsection (4), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(c) one person, who shall be the secretary of the university, or the equivalent employee or officer, who may attend meetings of the governing authority but only in a non-voting capacity,".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 12, subsection (5), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(a) in the case of the universities of the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin, the governing authority shall also include
(i) not less than two or more than six members of the academic staff of the university who are Professors or Associate Professors,
(ii) not less than six or more than eight members of the academic staff of the university, including both junior and senior staff, who shall be elected for the purposes as specified in this section,".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 12, subsection (5), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(b) in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology, the governing authority shall also include not less than four and not more than nine members of the permanent academic staff of the university who shall be elected for that purpose by the said members of the permanent academic staff,".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 12, subsection (5), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(c) in the case of the University of Limerick and Dublin City University, each governing authority shall include seven members of the academic staff of each university who shall be elected for that purpose from among the academic staff,".
Question put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 12, subsection (5), lines 35 to 40, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) in the case of Dublin City University—
(i) one person drawn from one of the following administrative councils: Fingal, South County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown,
(ii) at least one person but not more than two persons who shall be chosen by the governing authority, from among persons nominated to that authority for that purpose by the Dublin City University Educational Trust, or its successor body,
(iii) one member chosen by the academic staff of St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, so long as that college has an association by agreement or memorandum of understanding with the university,".
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá
|
|
Brennan, Matt.
|
Martin, Micheál.
|
|
Coughlan, Mary.
|
Moffatt, Tom.
|
|
Flood, Chris.
|
Smith, Brendan.
|
|
Keogh, Helen.
|
Woods, Michael.
|
|
Kitt, Tom.
|
|
|
Níl
|
|
Bell, Michael.
|
Flaherty, Mary.
|
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh.
|
Lynch, Kathleen.
|
|
Bradford, Paul.
|
McGinley, Dinny.
|
|
Costello, Joe.
|
Nealon, Ted.
|
|
Creed, Michael.
|
Pattison, Séamus.
|
|
Fitzgerald, Frances.
|
Ryan, Seán.
|
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No: 90:
In page 12, subsection (5)(a), line 40, after "body," to insert "and one member chosen by the academic staff of St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, for so long as that college has an association by agreement or memorandum of understanding with the university,".
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá
|
|
Brennan, Matt.
|
Martin, Micheál.
|
|
Coughlan, Mary.
|
Moffatt, Tom.
|
|
Flood, Chris.
|
Smith, Brendan.
|
|
Keogh, Helen.
|
Woods, Michael.
|
|
Kitt, Tom.
|
|
|
Níl
|
|
Ahearn, Theresa.
|
Flaherty, Mary.
|
|
Bell, Michael.
|
Kenny, Seán.
|
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh.
|
Lynch, Kathleen.
|
|
Costello, Joe.
|
McGinley, Dinny.
|
|
Creed, Michael.
|
Nealon, Ted.
|
|
Fitzgerald, Frances.
|
Pattison, Séamus.
|
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 91 not moved.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 12, subsection (5), between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(b) in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology—
(i) one person nominated by the University of Dublin,
(ii) one person nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,
(iii) two persons drawn from one of the following administrative councils: Fingal, South County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown,
(iv) not more than four persons who shall be nominated by the Vocational Educational Committee,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 12, subsection (5)(b), line 41, to delete "The" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 12, subsection (5)(b)(iii), line 44, to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 95 not moved.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 13, subsection (5)(c), line 1, to delete "The" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 13, subsection (5)(c)(ii), line 3, to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 98 not moved.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 13, subsection (5)(d), line 8, to delete "The" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 13, subsection (5)(d)(i), line 9, to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 101 not moved.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 13, subsection (5)(e), line 16, to delete "The" and substitute "the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 13, subsection (5)(e)(i), line 17, to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 13, subsection (5)(g), to delete lines 28 to 33 and substitute the following:
"(ii) at least one person but not more than two persons who shall be chosen by the governing authority, from among persons nominated to that authority for that purpose by the University of Limerick Foundation, or its successor body,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 107 not moved.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 13, subsection (5)(g), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(iv) one member chosen by the academic staff of Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, so long as that college has an association by agreement or memorandum of understanding with the university.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page, 13 subsection (5)(g), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
(iii) and one member chosen by the academic staff of Mary Immaculate College, for so long as that college has an association by agreement or memorandum of understanding with the university.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 110 not moved.
I move amendment No. 111:
In page 13, lines 34 to 38, to delete subsection (6).
Amendment be made put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 112:
In page 13, subsection (6), line 35, to delete "(b)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 13, subsection (7), line 46, to delete "four" and substitute "three".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 14, lines 11 to 15, to delete subsection (10) and substitute the following:
"(10) A governing authority shall admit those members specified in subsections (2)(iv) and (v), (4)(b), (5) (a) and (b).".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 14, lines 11 to 15, to delete subsection (10) and substitute the following:
"(10) A governing authority shall make regulations providing for the election of members of the governing authority from the categories of persons specified in subsection (2)(b)(ii) to (v) and for the selection, election, nomination or appointment of the category of persons to be members of the governing authority; and the election, selection, nomination or appointment (as the case may be) shall be carried out in accordance with those regulations.".
Amendment be made put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 14, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(11) Subsections (6) and (7) shall not apply in the case of the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
