Amendment No. 128 is related to amendment No. 127 and No. 129 is an alternative to No. 128. Therefore, amendments Nos. 127, 128 and 129 are taken together by agreement.
SECTION 16.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 127:
In page 15, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Subsection (1), or any other section in this Act, shall not deprive the Fellows of Trinity College Dublin of their right to elect the chief officer of the University of Dublin.".
—(Deputy Martin).
The Minister indicated on amendment No. 127 that this subsection was not necessary. That begs the question of whether its inclusion would undermine or damage the section in any way. This amendment seeks to make clear in legislation that the Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, will continue to have the right to elect the chief officer of the University of Dublin. I see no great room for disagreement on that.
I indicated in the last committee meeting that I consider this unnecessary because there is nothing in the section that alters the selection process for the Provost of Trinity College. That should be a matter for the college. I am trying to establish that the principle of autonomy for the college is one I hold dear. I appreciate Deputies are trying to preserve a long tradition in the college but in doing so we risk restricting the future autonomy of the college in the matter by making statutory reference to election by the Fellows. This could have the effect of preventing future generations of Fellows from considering other options, effectively setting current practices in stone. I want flexibility for Trinity and other colleges so that they can make their own choices. As I said at the last meeting, to set something in stone is not necessary; we want to recognise the autonomy of the college within the framework of the legislation.
The Minister seems to envisage a future where the Fellows may not have the right to elect the chief officer. Legislation can be amended. If a university was anxious to change its procedures for election of the chief officer or provost it could make the necessary representations to the Oireachtas and have amending legislation put in place. The Minister's reply confirms suspicions that there may be an attempt in the future to undermine the rights fellows have in electing the provost. This is why we tabled the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 15, lines 27 to 32, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 32, after "statute" to insert "or regulation".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 131 is an alternative to No. 130 and amendments Nos. 132 and 133 are related. Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132 and 133 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 15, subsection (6), lines 46 and 47, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) ensure the promotion and extensive use of the Irish language and the cultivation of the rich and distinctive cultural resources of Ireland,".
The position of the Irish language and its place in the universities has been raised. The Bill includes a slight genuflection towards the language. This amendment seeks to enhance the attitude towards the language and to give universities a more active role in promoting it. The words "have regard to the promotion and use of the Irish language and the promotion of Irish cultures" is not a precise or active wording. "Have regard to" is like saying "have a passing reference to". It is not strong enough.
This amendment is not prescriptive. I wish to see a more active and precise onus on the universities in ensuring "the promotion and extensive use of the Irish language". That is much more active than "have regard to" which is milk and watery.
I support the amendment. Since its foundation the State has actively promoted the use of the Irish language in primary and secondary schools, third level institutions and various other areas. The Constitution accords it the status of "first official language". It is appropriate that the universities see the promotion of the language as part of their remit. My amendment is concerned with the use of Irish as a language of general communication, a medium of instruction and a subject of teaching and research. The universities are doing that already, some more actively and energetically than others.
We are all aware of the movement which has been gathering pace for some time for the establishment of an all Irish university. Such movements tend to develop from a perception that the existing institutions are not performing their duty. The best avenue for promoting Irish is through the existing university and third level institutions. The broad mass of students are in such institutions. The language can be actively promoted among a wider audience in our existing institutions than in an elite institution which not be as broadly based or have the same mass participation.
I pay tribute to some of the universities which have been extremely effective in promoting the Irish language. University scholarships to the gaeltachtaí have benefited many students, not only those studying Irish. The universities have particular resources and skills for promoting the language.
"Have regard to" is a weak phrase. It seems to say: "please have respect for the language but you do not have to do anything about it". "To ensure" is a better phrase. We could spend all day discussing "the promotion of Irish cultures". I prefer Deputy Keogh's phrase, "the distinctive cultural resources of Ireland". There is a rich diversity in terms of Irish culture but the language used in the Bill is deficient. A more effective promotional function should be given to the universities in the context of the Irish language.
Deputies Martin and Keogh want to have their loaf and eat it. On the one hand, they were critical of the Minister for being too authoritarian and looking over the shoulders of the universities. Now they want the Minister to be more authoritarian by laying down rules and regulations concerning the Irish language.
Universities, by their nature, should be allowed freedom. That is the whole basis of this Bill. Third level students, lecturers and professors must be given that freedom to promote the Irish language. All the Minister can do is provide an infrastructure within which that can happen.
She is promoting the Irish language in a very positive and energetic manner through the gaelscoileanna. That is causing many problems for the Department's budget because the more gaelscoileanna that are set up the more pupils are drawn from other schools thus endangering their viability. It is simply not possible to open new schools at a time when there is a declining number of pupils. The Minister has been trying to use existing unused school premises for gaelscoileanna. The same is true of school projects.
The universities should be active in encouraging people to use the language. By their nature they should do that. It would be wrong for the Minister to demand the use of Irish in all areas.
An Irish language university is totally impractical and should not receive support. The Minister cannot lash out money on opening universities like snuff at a wake. It would be tantamount to committing political suicide for anybody to promote the idea of opening another university for the Irish language. Deputy Martin will not get very far with that idea.
I did not say I was proposing it.
The Deputy said there was a movement afoot.
I was giving information to the committee.
That idea will not get support because it is a mad one. We do not have money to open another university for a minority group. We have already set up Teilifís na Gaeilge and we will find out after three years how it has worked. To set up a university——
I hope the Deputy is not criticising Teilifís na Gaeilge.
I am not. I said we will give it three years after which we will review the situation. I have always been fully behind the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht in this regard. Opening another university would be madness and I would not support it.
In addition to carrying out the functions with regard to the university community itself, a governing authority has a responsibility — Deputy Kemmy is right in this regard — to ensure the university engages with the wider community and contributes to the achievement of the social, cultural and economic goals of the society. The subsection provides that when carrying out its functions, the authority should have special regard to the promotion of the Irish language and culture, to the attainment of equality of opportunity in education and to the promotion of national, economic and social development. The words "special regard" in legal language mean more than saying these things would be nice. There is a statutory obligation on the authority to have a special regard.
Section 16(6), to which Deputy Keogh referred, states that the authority shall have regard to the promotion and use of the Irish language and the promotion of Irish cultures. Deputy Keogh suggested this wording was not particularly strong, but I would refer her to section 16 (6)(b) which states: "have regard to the attainment of gender balance and equality of opportunity among the students and employees of the university and shall, in particular, promote access to the university and to university education. . .". The authority must have special regard to the promotion of the Irish language. Section 16(6) adequately addresses the responsibility of the governing authority as regards the Irish language.
While amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132 are unnecessary, I fully support Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 133 to insert ", cultural" in subsection (6) (c). It is worth putting on record the proactive measures — I thank Deputy Kemmy for acknowledging them — which have seen the light of day since I took office. We have changed the rules for the three Gaeilge scholarships, and that has been welcomed by schools whose pupils do the leaving certificate through Irish. I was at Dublin City University when it launched the Japanese technology through Irish degree, which attracts high points and demands high academic excellence.
I opened more gaelscoileanna in my short term in office than any other Minister. I know the Deputy does not like to be reminded of that. Irish is very vibrant in education and I am confident the universities will be called on not only to acknowledge in their functions what this means, but also to provide education at third level for the emerging generation of well educated Irish speaking people who will seek it.
By including in the objects and functions of the university "regard" to the Irish language, there will be opportunities for this generation of young people as they face third level education. In saying amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132 are unnecessary, I am not saying I do not have a proactive record in promoting Irish at all levels as a medium of education and as the official language. My actions at times seem to speak louder than words. This matter has been adequately addressed in section 16(6), but I accept Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 133 to insert ", cultural" in subsection 6 (c).
I did not want to enter into a debate on gaelscoileanna because we had a difficult debate at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Irish Language on what happened to the gaelscoileanna which applied for recognition. They were told in late July that they would not be recognised, despite the fact they were under the impression for the previous 12 months that they were acting in accordance with the existing conditions. They were treated appallingly.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw that.
I will not.
I do not agree with the Deputy.
The Minister may not agree but I did not begin the debate on gaelscoileanna. I meet with those involved in gaelscoileanna last weekend and they again raised the issue of what happened with Gaelscoil Cluain Eois and the gaelscoil in Dún Laoghaire and identified the problems. Having looked at the documentation and correspondence, the fact they were only notified in July of last year was a scandal. They were treated badly. I do not want to get involved in this debate, although the Minister went on a propaganda solo run about the gaelscoileanna movement.
Reputable people involved in the promotion of the Irish language in the academic world asked us to table these amendments. While the Minister has accepted amendment No. 133, section 16 (6) (c) states: "ensure as far as it can that the university contributes to the promotion of the economic and social development of the State". Evidence to date suggests we are not resourcing the universities to enable them contribute to the economic development of the State.
There is a crisis in terms of manpower available to the multinational companies locating in this country. Most of the computer companies which have announced they are establishing here are now complaining that there are not enough graduates. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that one of the major strategic failures of this Government over the past two years has been to provide additional places, particularly in the computer and technology area, and to produce sufficient graduates to take up available job opportunities.
The supply of well-trained, qualified graduates is the key to attracting further industry to this country. There is little point including in the Universities Bill such a paragraph if it means nothing. The equipment in our universities is obsolete and, in many instances, is 30 years old. They were receiving an annual equipment grant of about £2 million over the past number of years, which was cut to nil in 1996. The universities received no annual subvention for replacing existing equipment in laboratories or for additional equipment. The £2 million was a derisory sum but it was cut to nil.
If we are serious about this, we need to wake up. It is scandalous. It is a fundamental strategic mistake that universities, particularly in an information society, have not played a key role in attracting industry to this country and have not provided qualified graduates to meet job and labour market demands.
What about the University of Limerick?
If the Deputy speaks to those in the University of Limerick, they will repeat what I have said.
Nonsense.
If the Deputy talks to any university head, as I have done over the past month, they will all point to a crisis in manpower policy.
This is nonsense.
It is not and the Minister knows that. Is it not true that the Cabinet is preparing emergency action to try to provide additional places between the private third level colleges, the universities and regional technical colleges? The Government has not had its eye on the ball in terms of manpower needs.
A library costing £15 million is being built for the University of Limerick.
We are providing 1,200 places.
I am speaking to the section.
Where?
Paragraph (c) provides that the governing body shall:
ensure as far as it can that the university contributes to the promotion of the economic and social development of the State.
That is lip service. It is hypocrisy to include such words if we do nothing about them and do not alter fundamentally the way we view universities. We use the IDA, FÁS and other agencies in the job/manpower area. We have entered the information society but the White Paper on Education barely refers to the technological revolution, whereas the European White Paper on Training deals almost exclusively with the challenge of the information society in today's world and the need to develop and invest in the intellectual rather than physical infrastructure of the State.
If we are serious about this provision we should increase the budgetary provisions for capital equipment in our universities and regional technical colleges so they can have proper, up to date laboratories. If multinationals were to look at our laboratories people would be worried about their condition. Likewise we should provide proper assistance for third level research because the future of this economy depends on investment in research, equipment and technology. Universities will have a far more important role in that respect in the future so we should marry these words with funding and resources if they are to mean anything.
The Minister spoke about gaelscoileanna and we must acknowledge the popular upsurge in support for the language. To a certain extent one wonders what reasons parents have for sending children to those schools. Some argue it is because they have a greater commitment to the school, therefore, pupils are more committed to educational excellence. Thankfully, a generation of school children will be able to speak Irish and have a facility for it in all subjects. However, unless universities actively take on this role when this generation reaches third level, their ability will go no further. It behoves universities to act, although I am not being prescriptive in this regard. Having gone through this expensive process, the last thing that should happen is that our efforts on the language should come to nought. When developing a language one must provide a facility for it to be used; the reason people lose a language is they have no facility to use it in their daily life.
I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment on cultural matters. So many people opposed the Bill as initially framed and the Minister has had to amend it so fundamentally because of the understanding of what a university's role should be in our society. It is part of our cultural make up and must be a dynamic source within our community. These amendments are interlinked; the university must be a place where we can ensure the promotion and extensive use of the Irish language. It must come from somewhere, and why not from the very centre of excellence within our society? Our universities have a fundamental role in promoting the distinctive cultural resources of Ireland. It may not appear to be fundamental to the Bill but it is crucial to the development of Irish language and culture that we do not cut off at third level a life spring from which people can draw.
I agree with Deputy Martin's remarks on paragraph (c), which requests governing bodies to ensure, as far as they can, that universities contribute "to the promotion of the economic and social development of the State". Following acceptance of my amendment it will read: "economic, cultural and social development". If they are to do that they will require resources. This relates to another part of the Bill which the Minister will change significantly. Obviously the State has a role but, unfortunately, there has been little help for research and development and no recognition of its importance for the future. This has been driven much more by the universities than by the State, which has only paid lip service to it. It is a huge area which must be examined and while there are economic considerations, universities must be given the resources, or the ability to raise them, to promote economic development. They cannot do it on fresh air and to some extent that is what they have tried to do for a number of years.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 15, subsection (6)(a), line 47, to delete "and the promotion of Irish cultures" and substitute "as a language of general communication, as a medium of instruction, and as a subject of teaching and research".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 15, subsection (6) (b), line 48, to delete "gender balance" and substitute "balance, including gender balance and balance as between the official languages of the State,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 133:
In page 16, subsection (6)(c), line 8, after "economic" to insert , "cultural".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 16, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
17.—(1) Where a university does not have a Visitor, the Government shall from time to time as the occasion requires, following consultation with the President of the High Court, appoint a Judge of the High Court, or a retired Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court, to be the Visitor for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where a Visitor resigns or otherwise becomes incapable of performing his or her functions the Government may appoint another person to replace that Visitor.".
This amendment was already discussed with amendment No. 16.
Can we discuss section 17 at this stage? We wish to oppose the section.
We must first deal with the amendments. All have been discussed already but they must be dealt with in turn before we can deal with the section.
Amendment put and declared carried.