Amendments Nos. 147 to 149, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 151 to 159, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 146. Amendments Nos. 160, 161 and 163 are consequential and amendment No. 162 is related to amendment No. 146. Therefore, amendments Nos. 146 to 149, inclusive, and 151 to 163, inclusive, may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 146:
In page 17, lines 46 to 48, in page 18, lines 1 to 42 and in page 19, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsections (1) to (4) inclusive and substitute the following:
"(1) Pursuant to subsection (2), the governing authority that is in office prior to the passage of this Act, shall remain in office for a period of not more than four months from the coming into effect of this Act.
(2) As soon as practical after the date of the passing of this Act, and in any case, not any later than 4 months from that date, the governing authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of section 14, confirm the composition of the governing authority by written communication to the Minister.”.
This section deals with the interim arrangements and the determination of the composition of the first governing body following the passing of this Bill. Section 20 gives power to the Minister, after the establishment under section 9 of any additional university, to appoint a commission for the university. The commission would consist of a chief officer, the registrar, a person nominated by the governing body, the Chancellor of the NUI, for example, and the chairman of An tÚdarás which would put in place the first governing authority. This amendment seeks to delete subsections (1) to (4) which contain these provisions.
The Bill creates a framework for the composition for the governing bodies and the outgoing governing body is charged with bringing in the new framework. Our aim was to have a truly democratic approach to the election of the first governing authority — the members would be elected by their respective constituencies. I do not see the need for the establishment of a commission as outlined.
In our discussions on the Bill a couple of universities expressed the fear that the commission could have an undue influence over the composition of the first governing body. It may be that a group of people could determine the state of play. I am aware that additional safeguards are in place because the concept of elections has been included. We felt the matter was extremely important and a number of our amendments in that regard have been accepted.
To safeguard against the possibility of undue influence the outgoing governing body should organise the transition to a new governing authority in accordance with the framework outlined in the Bill. The new body could co-opt new members in accordance with the relevant sections in the Bill.
I do not support these amendments which propose that the commission should be removed and its function should be exercised by the outgoing governing authority. The structure of the new governing authorities under the Bill represents a significant departure from the bodies which are already in place involving a core value of the Bill — a broadening and democratisation of representation. In this context, it is desirable that there should be an objective way to determine the composition of the new governing authorities which will clearly signal a break with the past.
It was in the Irish Universities Act, 1908, that we found the model for the provision contained in this section. Under that Act a commission was established to assist in the establishment of the present NUI colleges which, except in the case of UCD, were the successors to the Queen's Colleges established in 1895. The commission's work will be to establish the precise structure for the governing authority and to oversee its appointment. The commission will then be disbanded and, thereafter, the composition of future governing authorities of the universities will be a matter to be determined within the framework of the legislation by the governing authority immediately preceding a new authority.
In providing for the membership of the commission for each university I consider it desirable in the interests of autonomy that it should contain a strong representation from the university itself. This will be provided by the chief officer, another senior officer and a nominee of the present governing body. I will amend the membership of the commission for each university to strengthen the representation from the university itself. My amendments Nos. 147, 151 and 154 will increase the number of members of each commission by one so there will be two nominees from the present governing body. Furthermore, the amendments will ensure that both nominees will be members of the present governing body and that at least one will be a member of the academic staff of the university.
My amendments will address the concern raised in Deputy Keogh's amendments Nos. 148, 149, 152, 153 and 155 to 158 about the possible lack of a member of the academic staff on the commission. I cannot support Deputy Keogh's proposal that such a person be elected as it would be excessively prescriptive. My amendments provide for a nomination by the governing bodies. It will be up to them to decide on their nominee however they deem fit. It can be different for each university and can include an election, if necessary.
It is also desirable that there should be some presence on the body from outside the university. The chairman of the Higher Education Authority or his nominee will provide this and in addition the chancellor of the NUI or a nominee will sit on the commission for the constituent universities. The commission thus formed will be able to objectively determine, having regard to the history and traditions of the university, a governing body which would best suit the interests of each university.
Amendment No. 159 provides that, when someone is unwilling or unable to be a member of the commission, the Minister would consult as appropriate before appointing a replacement. Any such person would be a nominee of the remaining members of the commission. In the circumstances, I consider the amendment unnecessary and it would complicate the process. I have also proposed in amendment No. 162, where the commission fails to determine the composition of a university's first governing authority, that it will then be the visitor rather than the Minister for Education who would appoint the person or body to perform the commission's functions. This amendment will minimise the involvement of the Minister in this area.
The function of the commission put forward by the Minister in section 20 is extremely important. I have a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Martin's view that it is not necessary. I am glad the Minister has acceded to justifiable requests to amend this section. There should be wider representation particularly from academic staff. I do not accept that amendment No. 149 is prescriptive. I can think of a few things less prescriptive than engaging in an election. It should be acceptable and I do not see why there is an objection. If the wording in the Bill allowed that to happen it would be worthwhile. The initial thinking on this section was seriously flawed but at least it is now better than it was. We are going through cumbersome procedures which might not be necessary.
When the new regional technical colleges were established, a commission was not set up with the involvement of the Minister. The colleges came up with a formula for the board. Having amended previous sections, is there need for a commission other than for dealing with administration? What is the argument in favour of a commission? The governor and the boards will be in place. Why can they not carry out that function?
The reason is that there are options. Governing bodies need not be the same size. There was a great deal of reference to the 1908 legislation and the commission which was then established. We decided to apply the mechanism in the 1908 Bill as we believed it could exercise this function. I am sure the Deputy received representations about the composition of the commission.
Deputy Keogh asked about the election. People on the governing bodies are elected; some governing bodies may wish to use an internal election or an agreed nominee. It will not be prescriptive. The governing bodies exist under old legislation and the model is being changed to give them a different composition. There is a facility in the Bill to choose an appropriate number of members. Each university's governing body will be different. However, they will be balanced.
Governing bodies exist at present. When this legislation is introduced those people will be removed and the Minister will introduce a commission. The Minister would rattle fewer cages with the legislation as the guide. It could be the final function of a governing body that it implements the legislation. Although the legislation is broad and allows manoeuvrability, there are set structures and procedures. Ultimately, officials in the Department will help people in their deliberations on what happens to the Bill but it might be a better idea to give that role to the existing governing bodies as it would be less acrimonious.
I do not shy from acrimony.
We do not need to encourage it.
When we talk about the composition of the commission, we talk about the desirability of having an outside presence on it, such as the chairman of the Higher Education Authority or a nominee and the chancellor of the NUI or a nominee on the commission for those constituent universities. The commission will decide the history and tradition for each university or governing authority and I intend to pursue this avenue. One of the new universities was concerned about the representation on the commission and my amendment addresses that.
I see no need for the Higher Education Authority to be involved. That will get up everybody's nose.
The Deputy has picked up a vibe.
I have not picked it up. I have not spoken to anybody on this matter but when one gets down to basics one realises these establishments have an ethos in that many of them are established longer than others.
Given that the Minister has provided a good deal of latitude in that she listed groups which should be allowed to elect people, she has provided for checks and balances and for gender equity in legislation she has introduced in the past number of years.
Instead of imposing a commission on the universities, they should have a role in choosing the governing body. It is an alternative angle as opposed to setting up a commission to do the work because many members of existing governing bodies may become members of the new governing bodies. For example, a university in one part of the country would have a great affinity with agriculture, the marine, etc. and can decide if a person elected from a specific group would contribute to the development of the university. Since the Bill has been improved by our deliberations over the past number of weeks do we need a commission?
One of Fianna Fáil's fundamental reasons for opposing the Bill on Second Stage was the notion of democracy and the idea that people would be elected to governing authorities in accordance with ongoing practice, in other words, the academic staff, graduates and students would have the right to elect their representatives on the governing body. Will it now be the job of the commission to determine the number of representatives from each group on the governing body? To take UCD as an example, will it be the job of the commission to determine, first, the size of the governing body and, second, the number of graduates, students, academic staff and other members? Will it be up to the various groups to elect the people in accordance with the framework determined by the commission? Will the commission actually appoint people?
No. It will be providing the shape.
That is an important point. We have actually determined the shape in the Bill. I would accept that there is some, not a lot, room for manoeuvre: there can be between 31 and 38 members, two or three students and so many county councillors. There are bands. It should be within the capacity of the existing governing bodies, which would be constrained by the Bill, to apply its terms in a way which would be relevant and sympathetic to their needs and aspirations and to those of the region. We were told initially that we were all trying to move in the same direction, preserving autonomy and independence and allowing the universities to grow. I do not see why we cannot trust the governing bodies with the simple mechanism in the Bill which is specific in regard to the make up of the governing bodies.
The points raised are extremely interesting. Deputy Coughlan has opened up a very important area for discussion. It is true that sometimes we get bogged down with the detail of the Bill and perhaps we are not responsive enough in this section to the amendments which have been made already. The Bill has been amended considerably. We need to examine this section more carefully. I blame myself for this too. I got bogged down in the detail of this Bill and, unfortunately, we do not have the back up which is available to the Minister. We must do most of this work on our own.
I did not look at this as objectively as I might and I am struck by the points made by Deputy Coughlan. The Minister should look at this again because we now have an unwieldy commission and a section which is unnecessary. It may be possible to look at this again in terms of what is needed. Can the existing bodies dovetail into the new governing bodies? That should be possible. It should not create huge problems. For instance, I did not see the necessity for the chairman of An tÚdarás, or somebody nominated by him, to be involved in a process; they were not involved before. Establishing the commission will prolong the agony and create a longer process.
There will be seven commissions.
It will be a wonderful, exciting and new departure. The Deputy has not convinced me because I have studied the implications.
Whether we convinced the Minister, it is unnecessarily unwieldy now bearing in mind the changes which have been made. We cannot look at this in isolation. We are not taking into account sufficiently the amendments which have already been accepted.
The 1908 commission was seen as one which signalled the new departure. There is the facility for each university to have a different shape with the presence of the people from the existing governing bodies and the chairman of the Higher Education Authority or a nominee and the chancellor or a nominee, of the NUI.
Why can the existing governing body not do that now that we have set the framework in the Bill?
An important step for each of the governing bodies in choosing the membership of their commissions with the chairman of the Higher Education Authority and the NUI, if it is one of its colleges, is that they make the decisions on the formulation of completely new governing body structures and that this commission, as used in 1908, is a mechanism which can and will be used to introduce this legislation.
The Deputy has already said she has been taken a little by surprise by this section. I have not been taken by surprise. I have referred back to the 1908 Act and studied the relevance of the commission. That Act was certainly a stormy conclusion to a long debate. The commission was a mechanism which was used by the universities at that stage and in one way it looked back to tradition and signalled the next stage of legislation. It has taken 90 years for this to happen. That commission will now carry out the functions of the new legislation which will include all new and old universities.
It was a new departure in 1908. However, we have progressed since then in so many aspects of life, including education, with or without legislation. I have been in the House for the past ten years during which time we introduced legislation for regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. Developments have taken place within the governing bodies which mean they are well capable of doing this job. The situation is not the same as in 1908.
In rejecting this proposal, the Deputy will exclude the presence of an outside nominee, the chairperson of the HEA, the chancellor of the National University of Ireland or a person nominated by the chancellor. The governing body is well represented on the commission. There is also an outside presence on it — two nominees in the case of the constituent colleges of the NUI.
The Minister is not convinced by our arguments. Perhaps a way around the difficulty of wide representation would be to state: "the existing governing body, in consultation with certain people as nominated".
It is ludicrous to say we need outside people to implement the legislation. We have more than enough legislation.
Not for education.
Perhaps we over-legislate and tie our hands. I would understand the reason for establishing a commission if the Minister had not accepted the legislation as regards the composition of the governing body, but she has amended it. There are enough checks and balances in the legislation to ensure it is comprehensive and properly implemented.
The commission is narrowly based in relation to DCU and the University of Limerick in that the chairman of the NUI is not represented. Its members will include the chief officer, the registrar of the university, one person nominated by the governing body of the university, the chairman of An tÚdarás and perhaps one person from the academic staff. We have said there must be a minimum and a maximum number of representatives on the governing body. I suspect the reason the Minister wants to press ahead with the establishment of a commission is that she does not trust the existing governing bodies to interpret the Bill properly.
The Deputy is reading my mind again.
The Minister wants the new governing bodies to reflect the membership outlined in the Bill. She must be afraid that if this is left to the existing governing bodies, they may not do it properly. I do not understand how they could not do it properly because it seems they could only nobble the Bill in a minimalist way if they wanted to be awkward. On the other hand, people within the universities are arguing that the commission is narrowly based and that it could be a compliant structure which would suit a chief executive of a university in the future. All existing presidents have been guaranteed that nothing will happen to them, which I am sure makes them enthusiastic about the Bill. Their positions have been ringfenced, which is right. There is no convincing reason we need to establish a commission now. Existing governing bodies could mess around with it in a minimalist way if they wanted to be obstructionist. However, there must be a certain number on the board and they must be elected to represent students, post-graduates and graduates. I cannot understand why the Minister wants to set up a commission to do that.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Will the Minister consider consulting with existing governing bodies before Report Stage?
The commission will be important and, like the commission under the 1908 Act, it will signal a new beginning. Four of the five people on the commission will come from the existing governing bodies. The presence of an outside nominee will reflect the views of people outside the college communities and it will be of benefit to the commission. That is an important signal which shows the changing face of university education which has been called upon to play a central role in this country's development. As the Deputy said, there are no major decisions to be made. The commission will reflect the communities the universities serve. I have listened to what the Deputies said but I am pursuing my wish to establish a commission.
I would prefer if amendments could be tabled on Report Stage because this is an undemocratic procedure which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. We must agree to disagree.
Democracy allows us to agree to disagree, provided we listen to each other.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 147:
In page 18, subsection (2)(a), to delete lines 8 to 11 and substitute the following:
"(iii) two members of the governing body (by whatever name known) of its corresponding constituent college holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part, at least one of whom shall be a member of the academic staff of the university, nominated by that governing body,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 148:
In page 18, subsection (2)(a), to delete lines 14 and 15.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 149:
In page 18, subsection (2)(a), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(vi) one person elected by the fulltime permanent academic staff of the corresponding constituent college holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 18, subsection (2), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(b) in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology—
(i) the chief officer,
(ii) the Director of Academic Affairs,
(iii) one person nominated by the governing body (by whatever name known) holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part,
(iv) the Chairman of An tÚdarás or a person nominated by the Chairman,
(v) one member of the permanent academic staff, and
(vi) one full-time student,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), to delete lines 20 to 22 and substitute the following:
"(iii) two members of the Governing Body of the university holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part, at least one of whom shall be a member of the academic staff of the university, nominated by that Governing Body, and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), to delete lines 23 and 24.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 153:
In page 18, subsection (2)(b), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(v) one person elected by the fulltime permanent academic staff of the university holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 18, subsection (2)(c), to delete lines 27 to 29 and substitute the following:
"(ii) two members of the Board of the College holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part, nominated by that Board, and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 155:
In page 18, subsection (2)(c), to delete lines 30 and 31.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 18, subsection (2)(c), between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(iv) one person elected by the fulltime permanent academic staff of the college holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 18, subsection (2)(d), to delete lines 38 and 39.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 18, subsection (2)(d), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"(iii) one person elected by the fulltime permanent academic staff of the institution holding office immediately before the commencement of this Part.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 159:
In page 19, subsection (3), line 2, to delete "accordingly" and substitute "following such consultations as may be appropriate".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 19, subsection (5), line 6, to delete "A commission" and substitute "An outgoing governing body, board or authority".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 161:
In page 19, subsection (6), line 12, to delete "a commission" and substitute "an outgoing governing body, board or authority".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 19, subsection (6), lines 13 and 14, to delete "the Minister may appoint any person or body of persons as the Minister thinks fit" and substitute "the Visitor shall appoint such person or body of persons as the Visitor thinks fit".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 19, subsection (7), line 16, to delete "A commission" and substitute "An outgoing governing body, board or authority".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question, "That section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put."
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 5.
|
Tá |
|
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh. |
Kemmy, Jim. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Kenny, Seán. |
|
Bree, Declan. |
McCormack, Padraic. |
|
Crowley, Frank. |
McGinley, Dinny. |
|
Flaherty, Mary. |
Sheehan, Paddy. |
|
Hogan, Philip. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Brennan, Matt. |
Keogh, Helen. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
Martin, Micheál. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Question declared carried.