I was making the point before Question Time that a person who has been appointed a member of the council has expertise starting off and has developed expertise as a member of the council. He or she does not necessarily lose that expertise when constrained to leave the council. Deputy Horgan supported my view. He mentioned that, in the case of a person who left the institution because of some misdemeanour, misconduct, or something like that, there would be a case for the removal of that person but I think that point is covered in section 8 (5). There are sufficient controls built into section 8 to ensure that a person may be removed from membership if it is considered that he or she should be so removed.
National Council for Educational Awards Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 45:
In page 5, subsection (3), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) Where a member ceases to be a member of the body or institution which he represents, that person shall also cease to be a member of the Council.".
—(Deputy E. Collins).
I take the point the Minister has made. I put down the amendment merely to allow discussion on the problems raised by the representation of various colleges and bodies on the council. There may be a grievance felt within a college, a body, or group of persons who are represented by a person on the council. If for one reason or another that person leaves the nominating body, if a member of the council ceased to be a member of the representative body or group of persons, I felt for that reason he or she should also cease to be a member of the council. However, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 as amended stand part of the Bill."
As far as I am concerned the section is still not satisfactory. I am not happy even with the Minister's amendment and in particular with amendment No. 36 (g) because it deprives the most important sector governed by this Bill, the RTCs and Dublin colleges, of proper representation on the Council of the NCEA. That is very wrong because the bulk of the work done under this Bill will be carried out by the RTCs and the Dublin Institute of Technology group of colleges. For that reason perhaps the Minister would reconsider the structure of representation before he finalises this on Report Stage. The manner in which the Minister has approached the question of representation resolves some problems but raises others. I accept that whatever system is evolved it will be unsatisfactory in certain respects but certainly I am not satisfied with the Minister's approach.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 46 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 76 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(b) the chairperson shall be appointed initially for a five year period and this appointment may be renewed only for a further period not exceeding five years.".
This amendment refers to the tenure of office of the chairperson, or chairman, whichever is the word used, which I contend should be limited. The initial chairperson should be appointed for a five-year period and should be entitled to not more than a second period of five years. There is need to specify this in the Bill. It is not done in section 6 to my satisfaction. Ten years is long enough for any chairperson to hold office. Any further term is unnecesary and undesirable. The term of office of such a person should be limited.
Amendment No. 76 states that members of the first council shall be appointed for a period of five years and that the Government shall not attach restrictive terms or conditions to the appointment of any member of the council. The latter part of my amendment denotes the serious disagreement I have with the Minister's wording in relation to section 8. I accept that the amendments are related in regard to the terms of office but not in regard to the terms of appointment. I would prefer if amendment No. 76 was discussed separately, if the House agrees.
If the House agrees we will leave amendment No. 76 for separate discussion. I accept that two major points arise in that amendment. It can be discussed later.
The provisions in the Bill permit the chairman's appointment to be a term which will not exceed five years which can be reviewed for a further term not exceeding five years. There is no restriction on eligibility for further re-appointment. The idea in not putting any restriction on the re-appointment of the chairman and leaving the option to the Minister to re-appoint that officer is to give the Minister the maximum freedom to appoint the chairman, even after a ten-year period, if he thinks at that time that the holder of the office is the best person to perform the job. It would be loss-making and restricting the freedom of the Minister to pick the best person if one brought in a provision which disallowed the re-appointment of a chairman after two periods of five years. I suggest that the wording in the section should remain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 49 to 57, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 87 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 5, lines 41 to 43, to delete subsection (5) and substitute:
"(5) The chairperson shall be removed from office by a special resolution of the Council having the support of at least two-thirds of the numbers present and voting at a meeting at which the chairperson shall be present or represented.".
Amendment No. 58 deals with the chairperson while amendment No. 87 deals with any member of the council. They are not quite related but I accept the ruling of the chair. In amendment No. 58 I am seeking the deletion of subsection (5) because I do not believe the Minister should have the powers he is being given in that subsection. That subsection states that the chairman of the council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, be removed from the office of chairman by the Government. That gives the Minister carte blanche to remove the chairman who may not, for example, have the same political affiliations as the Minister. The Minister may also take exception to the handling of the development of the NCEA by such an officer, No Minister should have such over-riding power in relation to a chairman of such an important academic council. Under this subsection the Minister is given inordinate powers.
In my amendment I seek to give the power initially to the council to remove such an officer from office by a special resolution having the support of at least two-thirds of the numbers present and voting at a meeting at which the chairperson shall be present or represented. A chairperson should have certain security of office. The heavy hand which the Minister can use under subsection (5) is unnecessary and undesirable. A chairperson should be allowed to pursue his or her policies in accordance with ordinary procedures. I would not like to see a chairperson receiving a note to the effect that the Minister had recommended to the Government that he be removed from office without a full explanation. In the light of the Garvey decision by the Supreme Court I wonder if that subsection is constitutional. A person being removed from office by a Government is entitled to a full explanation and, perhaps, compensation. Under this subsection it is not necessary for the Government or the Minister to give a full explanation. That is not just and it may be contrary to the Act which deals with unfair dismissals. I do not think this Minister would act in a political fashion but I cannot say that other Ministers would not act in a political fashion and dismiss a chairperson without an explanation. The Garvey case may indicate the necessity for a change in the wording of that subsection.
I want to see subsection (5) changed. In my amendment I have tried to put on the council the responsibility for removing the chairman from office because they are the people who are involved in the working of the council and they see the good work or bad work a chairman is doing. If two-thirds of the members of the council feel that the chairman is not good enough or for some reason or other that he should not be in office, they have the right to remove him from office. That is a fair treatment of the chairperson of the council. I am very dubious about subsection (5) of this section.
I have a couple of points to make which are more appropriate to the section and I will make them when we come to discuss it. With regard to Deputy Collins's amendment, I feel it does not achieve the effect he would like to achieve. It means that, effectively, the chairman could avoid being sacked by simply boycotting the meeting which is held to sack him.
Of course, my amendment could be amended by putting in the word "may". It would then state: "at which the chairperson may be present". That could be done on Report Stage.
If the Deputy wishes to do that it would be much better to do it on Report Stage rather than do it across the House.
I would like to comment on the statement Deputy Collins made that, if the chairman had not the same political affiliations this might be a reason why he could be removed by the Minister. I do not accept that this is a hazard. The office is a part-time one and is unpaid. One might be inclined to give it to one's enemy rather than one's friend because the duties are so onerous and it takes great dedication on the part of the person appointed to devote his time and considerable energies to this position. The chairman, basically, is appointed by the Government and it follows logically that the power to remove him from office should rest with the Government rather than with the council. It is accepted practice in the public service that the authority who have the power to remove from office should be of a rank at least as high as the authority that appoint.
With regard to the chairman or chairwoman, the difficulty he or she would have presiding at the council would be all the greater if there was the possibility of a gang-up and two-thirds of the members voting him or her out of office. I believe for those reasons that the powers given to the Government to remove the chairman or chairwoman from office should remain with the Government. I do not believe it would be abused by anybody holding the office of Minister for Education. Therefore I will maintain the position as outlined in the Bill.
I am disappointed with the Minister. I withdraw my amendment with a right to re-enter it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 5, to delete lines 44 to 46.
This relates to subsection (6) of this section. I wish to achieve a mechanism which allows the chairman who for one reason or another ceases to be chairman of the council to become an ordinary member of the council. I do not see any reason why such a person could not become an ordinary member of the council and I do not see why the experience and wisdom he has gained while chairman of the council should not be put to good use. It seems to me rather harsh to remove him from the scene altogether and not allow him the facilities of being an ordinary member of the council. Surely if the chairman, who might be an excellent man and a relatively young man, has served his time as chairman on the council, his wisdom and experience should be harnessed rather than dispensed with. It is very unfortunate if we are dispensing with good men. My amendment allows a procedure which would permit a chairman who has retired from that position to become an ordinary member of the council. That is very desirable.
Twenty-five is the fixed number for the council. If acceptance of Deputy Collins's amendment meant a council of 26 it would contravene the position of the 25 on the council. I see no reason why a chairman who ceases to be chairman at the end of one of the quinquennial periods should not come under another provision of the Bill and that after two years he could become a member of the council again. He would not have lost his expertise and possibly would have sharpened his perceptions by the two years rest and could have a look at the council from without rather than from within.
I see the difficulty in relation to the number, but it seems to me that it may be faulty. Suppose in mid-term a chairman reached the end of his tenure of office and at that time there was a casual vacancy to be filled, a possible interpretation of subsection (6) might mean that he could not be appointed as a representative either by the Minister or by one of the nominating bodies to fill this casual vacancy.
As chairman he is also a member of the council and consequently the two-year provision would come into play as soon as he retired as chairman.
It is unfortunate that he is penalised for two years. While I accept that ten years seems to be a long period, if the chairman is a good person there may be a very valid reason, especially in mid-term, to allow him to continue as an ordinary member if there is a casual vacancy to be filled. This subsection and another subsection seem to exclude that possibility.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 61 to 65, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I want to know why the Government and the Minister saw fit to include in subsection (1) the restriction to a part-time capacity of the person who is to be chairman of the council. I am not saying I oppose this in principle but it seems odd to write this in in such a restrictive way. The Minister does not give himself the freedom to appoint a full-time person if he decides a full-time person is necessary for the proper functioning of the council.
The second point on which I want the Minister's advice relates to subsection (5) and removal from office. Since the Garvey case, removals from office by the Government are subject to different considerations than they were beforehand, to make the mildest commentary on it. One would like to know if a person appointed as chairman under this section by the Government is an employee and, if so, of whom is he an employee? If he is an employee, what conditions of service might be reasonably expected to attach to his employment? If he is not an employee, what is he? Will he get remuneration for his services? Can he receive remuneration without being an employee? There are all sorts of questions like this about the role of a chairman and other members of the board, and in particular in relation to any provisions about dismissal or removal from office. I would be glad to have the Minister's observations on those points.
This Bill restricts to a part-time capacity the position of chairman. If there is a growth in this section, we hope there may be a need for a full-time chairman and that possibility should not be excluded. I disagree emphatically with subsection (5) which gives a Government a free hand to remove a chairman from office on the recommendation of the Minister. The subsection does not allow for the Government, the agent of the Government, or the Minister to discuss with the chairman the reasons why he was removed from office. That is antidemocratic. It is bad Government, socially unjust and may be illegal, as a result of the Garvey case, or in the context of the Unfair Dismissals Act. The least one would demand of the Government is that they remove a person from office after giving the reason for taking that action. That is the minimum legal and social requirement. It would be most unfortunate if we were to continue to give a completely free hand in the removal of chairman from office to the whim of the Government of the day.
We have an opportunity now of ensuring that this Bill is airtight, both constitutionally and legally. We should take the opportunity of being generous in matters of dismissals from office. Before Question Time the Minister accused me of 1937 thinking——
Constitutional?
We have come a long way since that time and I do not wish to dwell on it or to talk about it. Subsection (5) may be illegal and even unconstitutional. Leaving those considerations aside, the minimum requirement in social justice is that the Government be required by law to give reasons for the removal from the position of chairman of any person. If that is not in this subsection, it is socially wrong and legally dubious.
Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins asked why we are restricting the office to part-time only. I notice that Deputy Horgan put down and amendment in relation to this. The reason is obvious. We want to have as chairman of the council a first class person. In order to qualify for consideration as chairman of this very important council the person will be one who has made his mark elsewhere and will be mid a successful career and would not be available to us as chairman if we made it a full-time job. It is important also in the context of the remarks we made before Question Time and since, that we want in the technological sector people who have made their mark in research, commerce and industry. If we cut out part-time people we would be narrowing the field very much. The kind of experience and prestige a person acquires from achieving a significant position in commerce, industry or research is very badly needed in the chairman.
Deputies raised the point about the Government's power to remove from office. Deputy Horgan asked if the chairman was an employee. He is appointed by the Government and is removable by the Government. As of now there is no remuneration for the chairman. Subsection 8 (3) is a permissive subsection which deals with the matter. Deputies do not have any real cause for worry on the score that any injustice could conceivably be done to the chairman of the NCEA. All the relevant precautions would be taken by the Minister and the Government in this instance.
I cannot accept the assurances of the Minister. I fully accept his goodwill and his personal position in the matter. He would be above doing any person an injustice but I have serious legal reservations and reservations in social equity about the wording of subsection (5). I urge the Minister to refer the matter to the Attorney General, to the Chief State Solicitor's office or to the parliamentary draftsman's office in the light of the Garvey case. If I am not mistaken, the heads of the Bill or the Bill itself may have been published prior to the Garvey judgment. That should be taken into account. We all recall when a whole authority were dismissed at the whim of the last Fianna Fáil administration and there was public outrage at the offhand dismissal. This approach is being retained in this subsection and it is unacceptable politically, legally and in social justice. I will move an amendment on it on Report Stage but the Minister should take advice on it before then.
We are all in the dark here. The only reason I can imagine for it is that the Minister, in relation to whether or not chairman are employees, does not want or perhaps is not in a position to make a statement which might be regarded as an interpretation of the law rather than a statement on the legislation. However, if that is the way it will be, that is the way it will be. The Minister will have to live with the consequences of it for the next two years.
In relation to the question of whole time or part-time, the Minister seems to have got me slightly wrong. I was not arguing that one should not appoint on a part-time basis but that one should have liberty to appoint on a part-time or full-time basis. For example, if the Minister were to appoint a retired public servant as chairman of the NCEA——
I would be condemning him to death.
Surely the Minister has more confidence in the NCEA.
Hard work.
The Minister is making my case for me when he says it would be condemning him to death. It would effectively be a full-time job. The chairman of the Higher Education Authority is not in a part-time job. He is an excellent person who does the job in an excellent fashion. I am sure the same would be true of any other retired public servant.
On a point of information——
I know the public servant was transferred to the HEA before he retired.
Yes.
I am sure the same would be true of any other public servant who found himself in a similar situation. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister cannot be permissive to himself in this regard.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 90 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 6, line 6, to delete paragraph (a).
This relates to the requirement for eligibility for membership of the council. Section 7 (a) states that if he is for the time being not ordinarily resident in the State he is not eligible for membership of the council. That is an extraordinary provision from a Minister of Deputy John Wilson's standing. Is this the Minister's attitude to the evolution of an all-Ireland education policy or his contribution to the reunification of the country? Does this represent Fianna Fáil's attitude to cross-Border co-operation or the Government's attitude to co-operation between this State and European countries? If it is, it is the most disastrously negative attitude I could envisage in an Education Bill. I was appalled when I read it. I put down an amendment simply to delete it and Deputy Horgan subsequently put down a similar amendment. Our two names now appear on the one amendment. We are at one on this.
I am appalled that the Minister for Education could come into the House and positively promote a situation in Irish education which excludes Irishmen from Northern Ireland partaking in the evolution of policy affecting third level education in the Republic. It is distasteful, disgusting and politically most undesirable. I do not know if the Minister is talking to his civil servants in an effort to try to amend this policy or whether he is doing so so that he does not have to listen to me. It is at the Minister's discretion but he is not achieving much by it.
There is at present a professor in Queen's University, Belfast—I think his name is Cathcart—who is on the staff of NUU and who prior to that was teaching in a comprehensive or community school in the Republic.
Sandford Park.
Not a stone's throw from the Minister's——
He was in Raphoe before that.
If he moves his ordinary residence to Belfast, which is a reasonable thing for a professor to do, he is ineligible to serve as a member of the council. If the Minister can defend that I would be shocked. It is a slur on the House that this provision should be allowed to appear in a Bill. It is an extraordinary political decision to put paragraph (a) into the Bill. Surely the Minister has more commitment to cross-Border co-operation at least in education although from a reply I received from his Minister of State, Deputy Tunney, on the extent of his visit to the North to meet his corresponding No. 1——
What is his name?
Lord Melchett.
Thank you, Deputy Horgan.
It would have come to mind. The depth of the discussion between those two gentlemen seems to have been in rambling around on walks and so on. If that is the extent of the commitment of the Education Ministers to the development of an all-Ireland education policy it is small and superficial to say the least. I wonder how many visits the Minister has made to his counterpart in Northern Ireland to discuss the evolution of an all-Ireland education policy even at third level.
I cannot accept paragraph (a) of section 7 and I doubt very much if Deputy Horgan on behalf of the Labour Party can accept it. It is certainly an indictment of the Minister and of his party in regard to their concern for North-South relations and it is a slur on this House if that provision is enshrined in a statute emanating from this House. I cannot imagine anything more disgraceful than purposely to exclude a person who is ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland from the NCEA. I did not believe my eyes when I read it and when the amendments came from the Minister's office I was certain that he would have seen the light and moved to delete this. It must be deleted because, leaving aside the question of our relationship with the North, there must surely be an interest in involving one or two people from England or a European country when we might like to develop a certain discipline in the non-university sector. There may be an excellent professor with Irish connections living in England and who might even have taught here but he is excluded from membership of the NCEA under this Bill. Equally, he could live in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg and might have contributed enormously to the development of education policy within the EEC but he is now excluded from NCEA membership. That is a disastrous and disgraceful attitude. Politically it can only be described as a Fianna Fáil attitude. If it reflects Fianna Fáil thinking especially in relation to our Northern fellow countrymen I shall not stand for it and it will be voted against either on this Stage or on Report Stage.
I am shocked and appalled that the Minister for Education from County Cavan should come here and purposely rule out the possibility of an Irishman in Northern Ireland because of his residential situation being a member of the NCEA.
If I had an indication from the Minister that he was prepared to accept the amendment I would not weary the House with a speech on it.
I should like to hear the Deputy.
I suspect the Minister is not likely to accept the amendment and more is the pity. I have no shyness in this matter; I was just anxious to proceed with the business of the House. It is one of the peculiarities of Fianna Fáil genius and especially of their founder that they should have chosen two aims which they identify as national aims—the unification of the national territory and the revival of the Irish language—which have been of inestimable advantage and act as a powerful unifying force with large groups of people whose interests in virtually all other respects may be totally opposed to each other. They are aims which seem with the passage of time and with Fianna Fáil Government after Fianna Fáil Government to be if anything further from attainment rather than closer. One would have thought that by now, whatever the constitutional or legal complexities of making any reference in any legislative instrument to the entity that begins just above the Minister's constituency and ends where you meet the North Atlantic, we would not at any rate be excluding that area deliberately from our activities and our legislation. Effectively this excludes the possibility that anybody from Northern Ireland can become a member of the NCEA and the possibility that anybody who is a council member and who subsequently goes to live in Northern Ireland can remain a council member despite his willingness to serve and to travel to attend meetings. Incidentally, I presume he would have to put up with the fact that his travelling and other expenses would be paid in Irish pounds but no doubt his keenness and dedication would overcome that minor handicap.
He would travel by CIE.
There is a national reason for deleting these provisions and there is an educational reason which should appeal to the Minister. In a sense, education is a seamless web; it does not stop at national frontiers. Educational expertise and disciplines traditionally relate across national frontiers; the exchange of knowledge is a fundamental part of the transmission of knowledge. It seems strange that the Minister is excluding the possibility that even one out of a council of 23 should form the visible embodiment of that educational and philisophical principle. I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I admire the performance of Deputy Collins who worked himself into a lather over this provision expressing doubt as to my commitment to education on the basis of section 7 (a). I should like to point out that there is no intention of excluding the services of people who live in the Six Counties, in my native province, nor is there any intention of excluding any other expertise. The Deputy mentioned Dr. Cathcart and there are many others whom I know personally—I attended a university college in the Six Counties. What the Deputies failed to realise is that where the real value lies and the real need is is on the board of studies. There is no such exclusion of anybody from the Six Counties, from Britain or any EEC country or even from the US from the board of studies.
That will not do.
There is a matter of convenience as regards attendance at meetings; there is a question which Deputy Horgan raised and about which he was both convincing and eloquent, about the development of a mandarin class, people on committees of committees until, as he colourfully put it, they take off into outer space. He did not mention that they shed pieces of themselves as they ascend, but they do.
One of the arguments used in the context of the NUI for the setting up of independent universities at Cork and Galway is the waste of time of members of a faculty travelling to meetings of the NUI. The point about the inconvenience of such a situation has been made repeatedly. The point I made about the boards of studies is very important. The boards of studies will have a maximum impact on the work of the council. This has been the experience up to now. The quality of the people on a board of studies is of great importance. I should hope that those who have particular strength in the Six Counties will continue to be utilised by the NCEA. There has been very strong contact with the technological sector in the Six Counties and there has been very close contact with the director of the CNAA in Great Britain with whom I have had meetings. There is no question of our becoming exclusive or insular. Such a situation in this case would be damaging to education. Therefore, I refute the suggestion that anything in this Bill puts outside our availability the best we can get in this country or in any other country. The section of this Bill which deals with membership of the council is similar to section 9 of the Higher Education Authority Act.
And the same party are in power this time.
Of course. There has not been any advance made in education by any other Government. Therefore, we must not express surprise.
There was the Vocational Education Act.
We are not supposed to refer to that.
It is provided in the Higher Education Authority Act that a number of an tUdaráas shall be disqualified from holding and shall cease to hold office if he is adjudged bankrupt or makes a composition or arrangement with creditors or if he is sentenced to imprisonment or ceases to be an ordinary resident of the State. It is significant that Deputy Horgan found it necessary to refer back to 1930 in order to be able to remind us of any advance by any other political party in the field of education.
There has been also the setting up of the primary schools boards of management.
As requested I shall have another look at the point with which I have been dealing, but I must emphasise that all the expertise in the country will be availed of in the context of the NCEA. There is no exclusion clause so far as the utilisation of the services of experts on the boards of studies is concerned. If and when there is need for expertise from Britain or from any of the other EEC member states we shall avail of such expertise. The history of the studies on education here will prove that such expertise is always available. There is a great freemasonry in education.
Deputy Horgan rightly made the point that frontiers in education in the political sense do not mean very much. This is my belief also and I am maintaining that within the terms of the Bill such expertise as we have or as is available in any of the other countries referred to will be available to the NCEA.
I differ fundamentally from the Minister. It was interesting to hear that other people consider attendance at meetings to be a waste of time.
On a point of information, I said that one of the arguments advanced for the breaking up of the NUI and the granting of independent status to the universities at Cork, Galway and Dublin is that a great deal of the time of faculty members was spent travelling to and from meetings in Dublin. I went on to say that boards of studies where experts are making inputs will have members from wherever the expertise can be found.
In the context of the Minister's contribution the implication is that these people from outside the State will be wasting their time coming to Dublin to attend meetings and that they are much more valuable on the subordinate boards of studies. The Minister cannot get out of the situation as easily as that. The policy-making body under this Bill are the council. Membership of the council should be prestigious and should be open rather than shut to experts from Northern Ireland especially. I say Northern Ireland because I regard the Six Counties as part of this country in spirit. We should do everything possible to encourage participation by people from the Six Counties in every sphere of interest which is a cross-Border interest and which can be used profitably and constructively to encourage co-operation in both parts of the country.
The arguments put forward by the Minister are spurious. His attitude is to put the experts on the boards of studies, that that is where the real work will be done, but the boards of studies are subordinate to the council.
The Deputy has a hierarchical type of mind. He talks about subordination as if a subordinate is in some way inferior to someone else.
I am talking about the board of studies being subordinate to the council. In the matter of policy making it will be the concern and the function of the council to lay down policy. That will not be a function of the board of studies. Their function will be to advise the council in relation to a specialised discipline. The Minister's decision, which apparently has been reinforced by his speech here, is that people ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland should not be allowed to be members of the council. I object to that political decision because it is one which even de Valera would not have stood over. Although I disagreed fundamentally with the man, God rest his soul, if he were still alive I doubt very much that he would deny membership to people living in Northern Ireland. This is a politically insane move which may give some consolation to bigoted people in the North, who will be able to say that we do not want to consult with them or to give them the opportunity of minor participation in the evolution of an all-Ireland education policy.
As an Irishman and as spokesman for my party I object to this measure. It must be removed. The fact that it was included in the HEA Act does not make it any better. I reject the Minister's snobbish statement that the only good educational moves are made by Fianna Fáil, which is as inaccurate as it is ungenerous.
No progress was made except under Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Horgan has already reminded the Minister that the boards of management in primary schools were established by the previous Government. The Minister does not want to hear me because he is gabbing with his civil servants.
We are not going to discuss the achievements of Governments on an amendment. We will not have personal remarks across the House.
The Minister made a personal attack on former Ministers. The fact is that a Minister for Education does his best for education in this House.
He does what he is allowed to do.
The Minister's standing as an Irishman will fall rapidly if he is allowed to do this.
If there is a competition for Irishmen I cannot see that I have anything to lose with Deputy Collins.
I object to that remark and I ask that the Minister retract it.
I said that if there is a competition for Irishmen I cannot see that I have anything to lose with Deputy Collins.
The Minister did not reflect on the Deputy. The Minister and the Deputy should keep away from matters that do not arise on the amendment.
The Minister made the allegation that I may be less Irish than he is and I would ask him to retract that allegation.
The Minister did not say that the Deputy was less Irish than the Minister. The Chair hears everything.
If the Minister allows the words in section 7 (a) to stand, if he debars people living in Northern Ireland from becoming members of the council, he is less of an Irishman than I am.
The Minister made the most eloquent argument——
How much of an Irishman is Deputy Horgan?
Are we on an equal basis?
Deputy Horgan is in possession. Whether Deputy Horgan is a good Irishman or a bad one does not arise on this Bill.
Not only Irish but free as well.
The Minister made an eloquent argument in favour not only of the possibility but the likelihood of having people from Northern Ireland or from any quarter of the globe on the board of studies of the NCEA. I agree with that argument despite the fact that the board of studies, if anything, will meet more frequently than the full council. There will be heavier demands on members of the board of studies, and for those members who live abroad there will be more likelihood of difficulties in the way of their attendance.
I fail to see the logic of a ministerial position which advocates the possibility and predicts the likelihood of the membership of people from abroad on the board of studies and at the same time positively excludes even the possibility of the likelihood of membership of exactly the same kind of people on the council.
Among other things, we are talking about the international standing and viability of the council. I believe that one of the beneficial political or psychological side effects of such membership might be to enhance the international acceptability of the awards of the council. As things stand at present, it is impossible for the Minister to appoint any person, regardless of his standing or his expertise, to the council. I fail to see the logic of the Minister's position if he is not only allowing it but encouraging it in one area of the activities and specifically excluding it in another.
In so far as putting the courses together is concerned, the most important place for international input is on the board of studies. If the board of studies get it right and the council make the award, the very best possible work is being done with a view to having awards that will gain international recognition. The logic of that argument seems to be clear. I am fully convinced that people with expertise in the various fields covered by the board of studies who live in the six counties of my province, who live in Britain, who live on the Continent or in any other country, and whose services are required, will be available on the board of studies. The Council will be acting on the packet that the board of studies put together. The board of studies will be having a look at programmes in institutions and it is here that the importance of knowledge of what is happening elsewhere in the field is very important. There is no exclusion of any part of this country or of any other country. As Deputy Horgan said, education is something that crosses national frontiers.
The kind of heat that is being generated by Deputy Collins is artificial. He is getting himself into a sweat about this matter——
It is better than no heat at all.
——which is not necessary because Bill after Bill has passed through this House with that particular phrase and it did not excite Deputy Collins. He is not on record as objecting to that phrase in any Act which has been passed by this House since he became a Member.
Put through by the previous Government?
The Employment Equality Act states that a member of the agency shall be disqualified from holding and shall cease to hold office if he is adjudged bankrupt or makes a composition or arrangement with creditors or is sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to suffer imprisonment or penal servitude or ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State.
That is wrong there just as much as it is wrong here.
It is not hypocritical for the Deputy to come in and get into a sweat and try to condemn me for doing something which the Deputy would find acceptable in other Acts? In my opinion it is. If it lay so near the Deputy's heart we would have heard from him already.
If it came to my notice, I would object to such a provision in any Bill. Within my party I happen to have the responsibility for education and I object to this provision. The Minister is doing a disservice to his office by continuing something which may have been done by a previous Government and in so doing he is perpetuating an injustice in the context of cross-Border co-operation. I withdraw my amendment but I will re-enter it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 70, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 70a and 90a are cognate. Amendments Nos. 72 and 91 are related. We will discuss together amendments Nos. 70a, 72, 90a and 91.
I move amendment No. 70a:
In page 6, paragraph (d), to insert "under the protection of procedure of a court," after "has" in line 11.
As this section stands it has wide connotations. For example, now there will be allowance for a private arrangement made with creditors which, if acceptable to the creditors, should not disqualify a person from membership.
It was certainly very weak as originally phrased. We all make arrangements with our creditors. I have a mortgage on my house.
The arrangement is to run from them.
That is political creditors.
It is an arrangement we are all forced to make on occasions and I put down amendment No. 72 to clarify the arrangement. The Minister has now put forward his own amendment. It is welcome because it defines the arrangement to be under the protection or procedure of a court. That is more or less what we tried to achieve and we are willing to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 92 are related and they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 6, line 14, after "jurisdiction" to insert "for a term in excess of six months".
This amendment refers to section 7 (e) which states:
within the immediately preceding period of five years he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Under that wording, if I squatted on Wood Quay and were taken to court under the Forcible Entry Act and sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to one week's imprisonment, I would then be debarred for five years from being a member of the council. I wonder if that is the intention of the Minister. That is certainly the effect of this paragraph as it now stands. Sometimes we are inclined to give support to a good cause which may be slightly outside the law and we could not support causes such as Hume Street and Wood Quay without coming into contact with the law. I am trying to make this paragraph more reasonable by ensuring that one must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of six months before becoming ineligible for appointment to the council. That would be a more reasonable attitude. The paragraph is too punitive. Some misfortunate person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a misdemeanour and he should not be debarred from membership of the council. I am seeking a more liberal attitude in this matter.
I do not propose to speak at any length on this amendment because the nature of our society and system of justice is such that persons who tend to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment are very unlikely to be the sort of persons to be considered for membership of the council by any Minister for Education. Whether that is a good thing or not is another day's work.
I cannot accept this amendment. I understand the humanity that prompted it. Generally speaking, prison sentences are not imposed except for serious offences, though there are exceptions of course. This provision is a harsh one, but there is no precedent for allowing a jail sentence up to a certain limit so that a person serving such a sentence could be a member of the council. Deputy Horgan, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Begley were interested in the Údarás na Gaeltachta Bill. A similar provision was put in there and it did not attract any comment at all.
Perhaps I am more humane. May I ask the Minister when we will continue with the Committee Stage of this Bill? He will appreciate that we are becoming a bit disjointed in our consideration of it. There are time lapses between the various dates for consideration of it. Next week will be taken up fully by the Finance Bill and the motion on price increases.
I would hope that we will get in next week. I am pressing to get in as soon as possible.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.