Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 1

Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 81:

In page 8, subsection (4), lines 6 to 9, to delete all words from and including "bear" in line 6 down to the end of the subsection and substitute "have due regard to the preservation, promotion and use of the Irish language and to the preservation and development of the national culture.".

—(Deputy O'Shea.)

Mr. J. Higgins

Nuair a bhíomar ag plé anuraidh an Bhille speisialta ar Ollscoil Luimnigh, bhí díospóireacht an-suimiúil againn ar áit na Gaeilge sa chóras oideachais: bunscoil, dara leibhéal agus tríú leibhéal, go háirithe an ollscoil nua i Luimneach. Mhol an Teachta Mac Giolla agus mé féin leasuithe agus ghlac an tAire ag an am sin leo nó ghlac sé le spiorad na leasuithe a leagamar os comhair an Tí. Nuair a scrúdaítear an dá leasú inniu, is é sin, an chuid den Bhille é féin agus an leasú in ainm an Teachta O'Shea agus na dTeachtaí eile, is léir go bhfuil an leasú in ainm na dTeachtaí O'Shea, Mhic Ghiolla agus Garland i bhfad níos láidre.

When we were debating last year the Bill to change the title of the NIHE in Limerick to the University of Limerick and the NIHE in Glasnevin to Dublin City University, there was an omission from the Bill relating to the role of the Irish language. Deputy Mac Giolla and I tabled an amendment very much in the same vein as the amendment before us. It is very important from the point of view of image, ethos and ambience of a university or any institution that we should stitch in a very clear commitment to the Irish language. Section 7 (4) is rather bland. It states:

(4) In performing its functions, a governing body shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims.

The amendment is much stronger. It provides that the governing body shall have due regard to the preservation, promotion and use of the Irish language and to the preservation and development of the national culture. The commitment to preservation presupposes that the language is an integral part of the college. Promotion implies a pro-active role for the language within the college. The language should be used as a medium for teaching and a general vehicle of communication within the college. There should prevail within the college a general atmosphere of things Gaelic, cultural and Irish.

As we face into the final week of the referendum campaign when people will, I hope, decide substantially in favour of going into a more united Europe, it is important to remember that one of the strengths of the Community will be the diversity of culture within it. There will be a bringing together of the cultural mosaic of language and tradition. We should preserve and enshrine in any legislation, but particularly legislation dealing with education, a very clear commitment to the Irish language.

That is why I support the spirit and thrust of the amendment. It is stronger, more forceful and more committed than the well-meaning but rather bland aspirations in section 7 (4).

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister indicated last Thursday that he was willing to take this amendment on board. I will not delay by addressing it further, except to compliment the Minister on his openness to improving the Bill and improving the position of the Irish language within the colleges.

Mr. Gilmore

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú atá os ár gcomhair anois agus leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta Higgins. Fáiltím freisin roimh an ráiteas a rinne an tAire an lá faoi dheireadh nuair a dúirt sé go raibh sé chun glacadh leis an leasú. Ach ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire, cén bhrí atá leis an alt atá os ár gcomhair, agus go háirithe leis na focail "cultúr náisiúnta". Chuala mé dhá rud ar an raidió ar maidin: rud amháin faoi chóisir atá le bheith ag Prince san RDS roimh i bhfad agus bhí roinnt daoine ag caint faoi na focail a úsáideann an duine sin, go háirithe na focail a bhaineann le gnéas. An dara rud a chuala mé ar an raidió ná úsáid an fhocail "maighdean" ar thraenacha DART. Tá sé an-deacair a rá cén tuiscint atá againn faoin chultúr náisiúnta, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs an reifrinn a bheidh ann roimh i bhfad. Ba mhaith liom, mar sin, go míneodh an tAire an bhrí atá leis an alt sa Bhille seo.

Mr. Garland

I strongly support this amendment. It is important that we write into these Bills on education a very clear commitment from this House to the promotion of the Irish language. It is sad that the Irish language has fallen into neglect in average daily usage and that is to be deeply regretted. I hope there can be improvements in this area in the future. Obviously we are dependent on the school system at every level to encourage and promote the use of the Irish language which is an inherent part of our culture. I note the Maastricht debate comes into everything these days. Deputy Higgins referred to the need for cultural diversity and so on. I would like to echo those sentiments. However, I do not share his optimism that national culture in this country or, indeed, in other European countries, can survive the cold winds of Euro-conformism which undoubtedly will be blowing even stronger if, and when, the Maastricht Treaty is approved next Thursday.

Successive Governments have paid lip service to the Irish language. They had a unique opportunity some years ago to have Irish made an official accredited language of the European Community but they did not avail of that opportunity. That set a marker which, unfortunately, has continued for some time; in other words, successive Governments have demeaned the national language. Basically, they have said to the EC: "Do not bother about the Irish language, it is only spoken by a few cranks, it is not important". That is the message that is getting across and I think it is a very wrong message. So far as I know, the Maastricht Treaty is not readily available in the Irish language. This is deplorable. The information leaflets which we are putting out in connection with the Maastricht Treaty is printed in both languages. I commend this amendment to the Minister.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Aontaím freisin leis an leasú seo. Tá sé riachtanach go mbeadh gach duine dáiríre maidir le cur chun cinn agus labhairt na Gaeilge. Ní haon mhaith leasú a chur isteach sa Bhile seo mura mbíonn na daoine atá i gceannas ar na coláistí seo dáiríre faoin gceist seo. Táimid go léir ag labhairt faoin Ghaeilge ach níl go leor daoine ag labhairt Gaeilge — sin an fhadhb atá ann. Tá suim ag gach duine sa tír sa Ghaeilge ach ní labhraíonn siad í. Tá sé fíor-riachtanach, ó thaobh lucht ceannais na gcoláistí de, go mbeadh an dáiríreacht seo faoin Ghaeilge ann mar ní féidir dada a dhéanamh gan sin.

Tá sé soiléir anseo sa Dáil: mura mbeadh Gaeilge ag an Cheann Comhairle bheadh sé an-deacair labhairt as Gaeilge mar ní bheadh a fhios aige cad a bhí ar siúl. Nuair a fheictear do dhaoine go bhfuil Gaeilge ag lucht ceannais is mór an spreagadh é sin dóibh an teanga a labhairt. Rinne an Teachta Garland tagairt do Maastricht agus sílim, de bharr an dlúthcheangail leis an Eoraip, gur mó an meas atá againn ar ár gcultúr agus ar ár dteanga. Nuair a théann Éireannaigh thar lear is mó an fonn a bhíonn orthu Gaeilge a labhairt lena chéile mar cloiseann siad daoine eile ag labhairt a dteangacha féin. Mar sin, ní aontaím leis an Teachta Garland ar chor ar bith mar creidim go ndéanfadh sé maitheas dúinn bheith páirteach ann. Tá súil agam go gcothófar labhairt na Gaeilge i ngach col-áiste agus, in ionad óráid bheith á tabhairt as Laidin, mar a tharlaíonn go minic nuair a bhíonn céimeanna á mbronnadh sna hollscoileanna, b'fhéidir go bhféadfadh an chaint tosaigh bheith as Gaeilge.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Aylward)

Mar a dúirt mé cheana, tá áthas orm glacadh leis an leasú seo. Tacaím go hiomlán le cur chun cinn úsáid na Gaeilge sna coláistí tríú leibhéal agus tríd an chóras oideachais i gcoitinne. Freisin, ar ndóigh, tá dualgas ar na coláistí ár gcultúr náisiúnta a chaomhnú agus a fhorbairt. Leagann an fhoráil seo sa Bhille an dualgas sin ar na coláistí.

I share the Deputies' concern that appropriate provision should be made with regard to Irish. Therefore, as I said the last day I am pleased to accept this amendment. However, I would not accept that progress towards closer European integration, as has been pointed out by some Deputies, poses any threat to our distinctive national identity. On the contrary, closer contact with the variety of European languages and cultures should, and I am confident will, reinforce the esteem and respect in which we hold our unique culture. It is my duty today to deal specifically with the amendment. I would welcome a fuller debate on the use of the Irish language. I, like many others, could improve my own Irish, which has become rusty over the years. I support completely the sentiments expressed. Perhaps when we launch the Green Paper that is a matter that could be addressed at that stage. However, I am delighted to accept the amendment as put forward by Deputy O'Shea.

Mr. McGinley

Ba mhaith liom tagairt ghairid a dhéanamh do leasú 81 ar mhír 7 sa Bhille agus is cúis áthais dom an méid atá ráite ag an Aire Stáit, go bhfuil sé dearfach ó thaobh an leasaithe seo de. Mura nglacfaí leis thabharfadh sé ísliú gradaim agus stádais don Ghaeilge sna coláistí réigiúnacha. Mar sin is ábhar dóchais agus áthais dom go bhfuil an tAire sásta glacadh leis an leasú seo.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Aylward

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 8, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) In performing its functions, a governing body shall have due regard to promoting the attainment of equality of opportunity in education.".

The Green Paper which will be introduced shortly will stress the need to ensure gender equity and equality of opportunity throughout the education system. These are matters of the highest priority for me and I am pleased, therefore, to have the opportunity to enshrine this principle in this Bill. I am also pleased to respond to the view expressed by Deputy MacGiolla on Second Stage that the Bill should have a clause promoting equality of opportunity.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I welcome the amendment. Nevertheless, I regret that the committment to gender equity and equality of opportunity is not stronger. I appealed earlier to the Minister to put it in plain writing that there would be equal representation of men and women. However, we have just got a general commitment to encourage gender equity. We have been getting such promises for a long time and they have not brought the results we would all welcome. That experience should tell the Minister, if he is really serious about gender equity, that it is necessary to take the radical step of providing for equal opportunity in the Bill and not just a provision which states it as a principle.

Mr. Gilmore

I welcome the amendment. However it reminds me of the kinds of clauses which were promoted some years ago, particularly by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, in relation to employment agreements where employers and trade unions were encouraged to build equality clauses into employment agreements stating an aspiration to gender equity and equality of opportunity. It is certainly very good that aspirational clauses of that kind are built into legislation and employment agreements. However, experience has shown that it is necessary to do more than simply state an aspiration.

I welcome the fact that the Green Paper is, apparently, to deal with this because nowhere more than in the educational system does the question of gender equity need to be examined. I do not know offhand the proportion of women teachers but I think that in the primary area it is of the order of about 70 per cent; it is not quite as high as that at second level although it is very high. When one moves outside the ranks of the teaching profession and through to posts of responsibility and the areas of principalships and vice-principalships, and even through the teacher unions to the composition of executives, the administration of the educational system and the Minister's own Department, one finds that the bulk of the people in those areas are men. The Minister must ask himself why that is the case. Why is it that although the vast bulk of teachers are women the vast bulk of principals and vice-principals are men. One cannot say that it is a historical inheritance because for many years women have out-numbered men in the teaching profession and yet have not managed to come through in the areas of promotion. Let us look, for example, at the generation of teachers now coming to the stage of promotion, teachers in their thirties and forties. Where the overwhelming majority of teachers are women one still finds that it is the man who is promoted.

I know that the teacher unions have done some study of this and have made a number of recommendations in relation to it. However, it is time that the Minister had a serious look at this to find out why it is that so few women are promoted in a profession in which they are in the majority. It does not make sense. In other professions where women are under-represented it is perfectly understandable that women do not hold the majority of managerial positions. In a profession where women are in the majority and have been so for a very long time, where it is women teachers who are very often running the show — and I mean no disrespect to principals and vice-principals — why is it that they are not being promoted? This is something that must be tackled urgently. The Minister should be asking his inspectors who are sitting on interview boards why it is that more women are not being promoted to posts of responsibility, to principalships and to managerial positions in a profession where they are clearly in the majority and have been for quite some time.

Mr. O'Shea

I, too, welcome this amendment. However, the whole area of equity needs to be looked at. Equity has many faces. Gender equity has been dealt with by a number of speakers and it is something to which I am totally committed as are the Labour Party. Equality of opportunity in the context of students is another area that needs to be addressed.

There is a certain hypocritical side to this amendment in as much as the Government have already decided that the ESF maintenance grants are now to be means tested along the same lines as the higher education grants. That will certainly have two effects. First, it will divert people away from the colleges and towards the universities and, second, it will mean that there will be students who will not get any third level education. One wonders about the sincerity of the Government in introducing this amendment when they are following this road outside the House.

The recent letter from the Department to vocational education committees in relation to the course provision for 1992-93 spells out clearly that the Government wish to pursue a policy of restricting the number of students following degree courses in RTCs to 10 per cent. Students are disadvantaged in many ways in terms of equality of access. There are factors that could broadly be called socio-economic factors and there are also geographic factors. To a very large extent, the area in which one lives determines whether one will be able to avail of third level education, whether at a regional technical college or at a university.

I should like to make a general comment about the use of the term "chairman" throughout the Bill. If we are serious about gender equity the term "chairperson" should appear. I understand that the term "chairperson" would cover a man as well as a woman in the legal context. A commitment to gender equity must be demonstrated in every way possible. I have a subsequent amendment in relation to this matter and I hope the Minister will recognise the sense in using the term "chairperson" as distinct from that of "chairman".

In general terms I support the amendment but it is my view it is aspirational. I ask the Minister to consider making provision for the introduction of regulations on Report Stage to give stronger statutory effect to the aspiration of the amendment.

Mr. Garland

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I support this amendment. The Green Party are totally committed to gender balance and, where possible, gender equality. That has been part of our policy since 1982 and we were the forerunners in ridding our vocabulary of sexist language. Deputy O'Shea referred to the use of the word "chairman", which is very offensive when used in the context of appointing someone to chair a meeting. The term used should always be "chairperson". I am glad the other parties are coming around to the Green Party point of view. I assume that this amendment will be adopted with acclaim.

Mr. J. Higgins

I support the thrust of the amendment. I agree with Deputy Gilmore, however, that it is slightly platitudinous. I also agree with my colleague Deputy Ahearn that more forcible wording should be built in to strengthen and copperfasten the role and entitlement of women.

The figures speak for themselves. The regional technical colleges in Sligo, Letterkenny, Galway, Cork, Waterford, Carlow and Dundalk all have male principals. All nine regional technical colleges have male principals. Time and again it has been shown the higher the management grade, the fewer the representation of women. We have 3,200 primary schools and, as has been said, the preponderance of women in the profession of late is self-evident. Despite the fact that there is a huge female dominance in the primary teaching profession, of the 3,200 principals only 1,400 are women. A similar representation is found in the grade of vice-principal, both A and B posts, although the number increases for the B post category. There is a need for positive discrimination. Of course, there is the concern that if an inbuilt regulation for one to one is copperfastened doubt could be expressed as to whether merit has prevailed, that the objective of equality is not always achieved. Nevertheless, in light of the under-representation of women and the clear discrimination against women in the profession, there is a need to enshrine in legislation the one to one provision, "at least one of whom shall be a woman".

In consideration of the general withdrawal of males from the educational profession, the figures speak for themselves. Of the 100 under-graduates taken into St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra last year there were 90 women and ten men. I understand that similar figures apply to Mary Immaculate College in Limerick. Those figures point to a most unhealthy imbalance. While it is very important that we have a meritorious entry system, boys are making a conscious decision not to participate in education. A specific study should be carried out on the reasons boys are not entering the education profession. A 9:1 ratio in favour of females would mean that our schools did not have the extension of the home unit that is important in the classroom. A balanced representation in the classroom is vital from the point of view of role model. However, that is a separate issue for another day and it is one worthy of special study.

I support and accept the spirit of the amendment. It does not go as far as the Fine Gael Party would like but we look with considerable appetite and anticipation for the long-awaited Green Paper on education.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I also should like to support the amendment. To elaborate on the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Higgins, I consider that there is an imbalance in the number of women appointed to the posts of principal and vice-principal, especially at primary school level. For many years the balance was quite in order. Many of our older teachers will not be replaced by men teachers. Primary school male teachers will become the white blackbirds of education — they just will not exist. If 90 per cent of the entrants to our teacher training colleges are female it is obvious that women will dominate the education system. At the moment the figures give a distorted picture in that in recent years women have completely dominated our colleges yet older male teachers are still in positions of power.

Mr. Aylward

As I said, the Green Paper on education will stress the need to ensure equity and equality of opportunity in the education system. They are matters of the highest priority for the Minister.

This amendment is a significant step forward. It enshrines in legislation the responsibility of the governing body to promote gender equity and equality of opportunity. The governing bodies will, accordingly, be answerable to the Minister and, through him or her, to the Dáil as to the way they discharge their responsibilities. The aim will be to attain gender balance on governing bodies.

Those responsible for nominating persons to the governing bodies must consider the balance between men and women. That will apply to vocational education committees, students, academic staff and industrial interests. Overall the Green Paper recognises the need to tackle gender equity and sets out specific proposals. The Government are fully committed to gender equity and equality of opportunity.

Deputy O'Shea suggested the provision of regulations on Report Stage. The Minister when formally appointing governing bodies has power under the Bill to review the gender balance. If the Minister is unhappy he or she can ask the nominating bodies to review the nominations.

The Deputy also mentioned use of the term "chairman". The Deputy is correct in what he said in that regard. The issue is covered under the Interpretation Act. That question was raised at drafting stage but was not acceptable. Deputy O'Shea's concerns can be dealt with through the Second Schedule, which provides that the chairman may be designated by such title as the governing body may determine. Over a number of years I served on various bodies headed by women and it was my experience that women were often offended at being called "Chairperson". Some women insisted on being called "Chairman".

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I would hate to be called a chairperson. A man should be called “chairman”. I have also had the experience of one of our very able women councillors insisting on being called “madam chairman”. I do not mind referring to her as “chairwoman” but “chairperson” means nothing.

Mr. O'Shea

On the matter of "chairperson", it may very well be that people who developed their attitudes in a certain culture may look on "chairperson" or "chairwoman" in a certain context. However, I prefer to look at attitudes which have developed in the younger generation, a man or a woman is a "chairperson" and that is how we should proceed. The Minister's response has given room to cover the problem which I raised and I ask him to do something specific on Report Stage which would insert a recommendation that boards of management should look at the title "chairperson" when this office is being filled.

Mr. Gilmore

I should like to introduce the subject of marriage to this interesting discussion. I suggest that we marry amendments Nos. 81 and 82 and do what Dún Laoghaire Borough Council did many years ago — call the chair of the council "the Cathaoirleach".

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 82a. Amendment No. 89 is an alternative and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 82a and 89 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Aylward

I move amendment No. 82a:

In page 8, lines 10 to 14, to delete subsection (5).

During the course of Committee Stage debate on the amendments concern was expressed about the apparent over-centralisation in the Minister of functions in relation to the college. I have already made it clear to the House that there was no such intention and to emphasise this fact I have already moved a number of amendments, particularly in relation to section 5, to clarify my intent in this regard. The amendments have been widely welcomed.

The purpose of the Bill is to give colleges autonomy in managing their affairs on a day-to-day basis within the framework of agreed programmes and budgets. These programmes and budgets are provided for in section 13 of this Bill which also provides for the roles of the vocational education committee and the Minister in this matter. Having further considered subsection (5) and taking into account strong representations received on the matter and the views of Deputies as expressed through amendments to this Bill and to the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, I have concluded that the provision is not consistent with the intention of giving colleges appropriate autonomy. The intent of the subsection can more appropriately be achieved through the provisions of section 13.

As I have said already, the purpose of this Bill is to give colleges appropriate autonomy while defining the respective roles of the vocational education committee and the Minister. I reiterate that this Bill provides for a strong continuing role for the vocational education committees in the RTC sector: they have the single largest representation on the governing body; they have the continuing power to nominate the organisations they consider require representation on the governing body and they have the power to approve or modify the programmes and budgets of the colleges. Concern has, nevertheless, been expressed in the House and through representations to me that the role of the vocational education committee has been "written out" of the Bill or at best that its role has been considerably diminished. I have demonstrated that this is clearly not the case. However, I am prepared to clarify the position further in the following important respects.

I have already undertaken to come back on Report Stage regarding the Minister appointing ordinary members on the recommendation of the vocational education committee. I will be accepting an amendment from Deputies Higgins and Ahearn on section 3 (3) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill to the effect that the vocational education committee may make recommendations with regard to other institutions to be covered by that Bill and I will be introducing a corresponding amendment to the RTC Bill on Report Stage. I am also proposing to accept amendment 145 from Deputies O'Shea and Garland to substitute "approved" for "determined" in relation to the format of the operational programmes in section 13 (1) and amendment 149 from the same Deputies and from Deputy Mac Giolla to delete "with the agreement of the Minister" from section 14 (2).

I trust the House will recognise from what I have said that the role of the vocational education committee is appropriately provided for. The Bill, however, has to strike a balance between this role, the role of the Minister and the objective of establishing these colleges as third level educational institutions with the necessary authority to manage their affairs as intended, in line with all other third level institutions. It is a balance which, I believe, all sides of the House wish to see succeed. It is, however, a delicate balance and I believe that the position as I have now outlined it is the best way of achieving it.

Mr. O'Shea

Obviously the Minister is going some way to meet the fears which a number of Members expressed on Second Stage and Committee Stage. However, section 7 relates to the functions of the governing bodies and, whereas section 13 is being put forward as an area where improvements can be made, I submit that the proper amending of subsection (5) to section 7 is a productive road to follow because the role of the vocational education committees —even with the changes which the Minister is proposing — has been reduced very dramatically. Subsection (5), as stated, and which the Minister now proposes to delete gave the Minister far too tight a grip on the colleges. However, amendments tabled in my name and in those of other Deputies sought to put academic freedom back into the system — I mean academic freedom in terms of the vocational education committees and parents' bodies who have developed those colleges for over 20 years and who are responsive to local needs. They are an important part of the local community and instead of subsection (5) stating that a governing body could be directed to cease providing specific courses or services, one of the amendments in my name and in those of Deputies Mac Giolla and Garland, seeks to amend subsection (5) so that the vocational education committee could direct the governing body to provide for specific courses or services.

The basic flaw in the Bill is that the colleges are looked on as being similar in all circumstances but this is far from being the case. For instance, colleges in Waterford and Cork have a high incidence of degree provision while others do not confer any degrees. We are now tightening the system, a letter has already gone to the vocational education committees directing that the degree content in student numbers would relate to 10 per cent of students. It is important for the local vocational education committees to respond to a need which they identify in their own areas. I make no apology for referring to Waterford; there is a strong consensus that the college in Waterford should be allowed to develop to a point of providing degrees, not just in the narrow based approach of business technology and so on, but degrees which would take in the liberal agenda.

In relation to the future of the colleges — the Bill and the recent letter from the Department to the vocational education committees would seem to support this view — I fear that the liberal agenda will be sidelined. If that happens we will lose sight of the essence of education; people should be allowed to develop to their full potential. While we can train people in the areas of business and technology we should also allow them to develop their faculties so that they will be able to relate to other people and play a much fuller part in the community in general. If we narrow the basis of the curriculum we may do considerable damage. As I stated earlier, students have a tendency to remain in the sector from which they graduated.

If the regional technical colleges are confined to a curriculum and ethos which does not cover in a meaningful way the liberal agenda of education, they will provide a lopsided education service which would be to the detriment of areas outside Dublin and the other university cities. Therefore, rather than delete the section the Minister should accept the amendments which have been tabled in my name and that of other Deputies in order to meet the need for local democratic control.

The business studies degree at Waterford Regional Technical College is probably the most popular degree course in the country. However, in 1985 the Department did not want this course to be provided but the local vocational education committee who were aware that there was a need and a demand locally for this course and aware of the excellence of the staff who would provide the course, went ahead with it. It is now without doubt the most popular degree course in the country.

While, on the one hand, the Minister is trying to meet our reservations in relation to centralisation I put it to him strongly that we should refer in this section, which deals with the functions of the colleges, to their ethos given the ability of the vocational education committees to tap into the various sectors of the local economy — trade unions, employer organisations and so on.

The vocational education committees have been in existence since 1930. The Minister was very generous in his praise of the committees last week. At second level they have developed an excellent and comprehensive programme not only for those of schoolgoing age but also for those who wish to avail of second chance education and develop their skills and ability, for example to read and write. Indeed, I am aware that the Minister is grateful to the vocational education committees for providing the literacy service. Therefore I ask him to look again at the amendment which was tabled to the Bill initially in the context of amendments which have been tabled in my name and that of other Deputies. We contend that the regional technical colleges should have a say in terms of the academic freedom of these institutions. An educational institution which does not have academic freedom does not fit in with any definition of an educational institution that I know of.

The problem with the Bill is that it relates to unit costs and the need to produce people who can fill slots in the market place only. While courses must be relevant and improve the chances of graduates of obtaining employment once they qualify there is also the wider agenda in relation to the input and responsibilities of these graduates to their local communities. Those who have benefited from third level education can make a large contribution to voluntary, community and sporting organisations in their local areas. However, if they are to make this necessary and desirable contribution they must be allowed to develop their faculties to the full so that they will be able to analyse, criticise, relate to other people, to be compassionate and see the other person's point of view. If this section is deleted, I am afraid we will lose sight of the need to cover all aspects of education in these colleges.

The recent letter from the Department to the chief executive officers is quite clear in relation to the role of the universities as distinct from the regional technical colleges. As a former member of two vocational education committees and as someone who has always been committed to the system, I reacted angrily to that letter. If the role played by any educational establishment is to be meaningful they must have academic freedom to respond to ever-changing circumstances. The Department, and all the facts seem to support this view, want to remove the vocational education committees from the third level scene immediately, to direct achievers in the direction of universities and to restore the mandate that these colleges had 20 years ago.

I am not happy with the amendment and I will oppose the proposal that this section be deleted. The Labour Party wish to see this section retained in the Bill and to see the amendments made to the section to ensure that the colleges would retain control and so that we will not lose sight of the liberal agenda of education. There is a school of thought within the Department, which is reflected in the additional amendments which have been tabled by the Minister for Education, which suggests that while it is the function of these colleges to produce people with qualifications, courses should not cover the liberal agenda; in other words, they should not be in keeping with the comprehensive definition of education.

Mr. J. Higgins

I welcome the assurances given by the Minister in relation to the proposal that subsection (5) be deleted and to some extent accept the points made by Deputy O'Shea in relation to amendment No. 83 which proposes an input by the vocational education committees in relation to programmes. However, section 13 provides for a considerable input by the vocational education committees in relation to (1) the budget and (2) the operational programmes. It reads:

The college shall, on or before the 1st day of March in each year, prepare and submit to the vocational education committee in such format...

It will thus be seen clearly that the operational programme goes to the vocational education committee.

Section 13 (3) says:

The vocational education committee may, in respect of the programmes and budget submitted to it under this section, either approve of such programmes and budget without modification or following appropriate consultation with the governing body approve of the programmes and budget with such modifications as it thinks fit to make.

Again the vocational education committee would appear to have a considerable input there. We have also managed to increase representation of the vocational education committee on the governing bodies. Therefore, there is an indirect input by members of the vocational education committee in the devising of programmes and so on.

What I do not like are the provisions of section 13 (9) which appears to introduce the heavy hand of the Minister, in that it says:

Any material departure from the programmes and budget as approved or imposed by the Minister under this section may take place...

I do not like the phrase "imposed by the Minister" in this subsection, which continues:

only with the prior approval of the vocational education committee and the Minister.

I am reasonably happy that the vocational education committee are being given a considerable input in relation to the devising of programmes, both directly by way of programmes being submitted to them, through their right to make suggestions and recommendations, and of course, by virtue of the presence of the vocational education committee members on the governing bodies themselves.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I have always believed that the essence of and basic principle underlying this Bill should be given greater autonomy to regional technical colleges, allowing them run their day-to-day affairs. It is my belief that the Minister's proposed deletion of section 13 (5) does afford the governing bodies greater autonomy. I contend they should have that autonomy, that it was not to their benefit that they did not have sufficient power to take day-to-day decisions themselves.

There are to be six members representing the vocational education committee on the governing body who should be able to adequately represent the committees views. I am satisfied that the vocational education committee are not being totally isolated since they will have their six members serving on the governing body. It will be up to the Committees themselves to ensure that those six members adequately reflect their views whether about programmes or courses to be provided in the regional technical colleges. The most important aspect is that the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges do have autonomy to conduct their affairs in the interests of their students and education generally. It is a step in the right direction to give them power to take such day-to-day decisions themselves. Like my colleague, I am satisfied that the vocational education committees are not isolated, and that they will have their six representatives who will, hopefully, reflect their views.

Mr. Gilmore

I was appalled at the provisions of section 13 (5) when I first read them, that the Minister would have the right to give a direction to a governing body requiring them to refrain from providing or to provide particular courses, with which direction the governing body would have to comply. I consider that to be gross interference on the part of the Minister for Education in the day-to-day flexibility one would normally wish for the governing body of a regional technical college. Consequently, I am pleased that it is proposed to delete that subsection.

In a way Deputy O'Shea's amendments argue for much the same thing although it is to be achieved in a different manner. As I read them, they argue for the Minister continuing to have a role in directing a regional technical college in the provision of courses where, in the opinion of the Minister, the vocational education committee fails to do so. I hope I am not misrepresenting Deputy O'Shea but it seems to me he is making a case that the vocational education committee, in some way, should have a role in directing the governing body on the provision of specific courses.

I have argued here very strongly that the role of the vocational education committee must be maintained in the context of the provisions of this Bill. The role I perceive for the vocational education committee in relation to these two Bills is one which provides for a degree of public, in particular local, accountability on the part of regional technical colleges. I would not agree with the vocational education committees participating in the day-to-day running of the regional technical colleges or in the day-to-day decisions of the governing body with regard to whether given courses should be provided. Although having the height of respect for vocational education committees — and I was a member of a vocational education committee up to about a year ago — I think there is a tendency on the part of some vocational education committees to over-extend themselves into areas of detail within schools and colleges, which is precisely the kind of thing that has created resentment among some principals and staff in the regional technical colleges. There is a role for the vocational education committees in the areas of accountability, general policy-making and general control. But there is a line to be drawn — some times it can be difficult to ascertain exactly where that line should be drawn — beyond which the governing body, the board of management or the principal and staff of the schools or colleges concerned should be allowed to get on with the job. The decision whether individual courses should be provided is one that should be taken within the colleges themselves. There is a procedure under which programmes and so on are submitted to the vocational education committee for approval, which role should be left to the individual colleges. I am glad the Minister is proposing the deletion of this subsection.

Mr. Aylward

I am glad that the spirit of my amendment, No. 82 (a), has been generally well received by Members. In this amendment I was endeavouring to achieve a fair balance as a result of the concern expressed by Members here last week, on Second Stage, and by other interests outside. It was for that reason we endeavoured to facilitate their view-points.

Deputy O'Shea referred to the Minister having too tight a grip, but he does not appear to have any problem whatsoever with the vocational education committee having too tight a grip, which may be somewhat unfair.

I might reiterate that the overall aim of the Bill is to give autonomy to the regional technical colleges within an agreed policy framework, on which there is general agreement. For example, the annual programmes and budget will provide the vocational education committees ample opportunity to make an input into the provision of courses and their direction. Therefore I am not willing to accept the amendments of Deputies O'Shea, Mac Giolla and Garland in this regard.

On the involvement of my Department in the provision of courses, I should say the aim is to move away from that involvement. Indeed I am confident that the new governing bodies will be fully receptive to local needs. Again, Deputy O'Shea suggests that all colleges are being treated similarly without regard to regional variations. That is not the case, because the vocational education committees, through their direct nominees and their selection of regional, industrial and commercial interests, clearly can reflect local and regional interests and dimensions. In fairness it can be said that we have moved a considerable distance from the amendments tabled last week. It was because of concern expressed by many interests that my amendment No. 82 (a) was tabled.

Mr. O'Shea

I should like to deal with a point raised by Deputy Ahearn in regard to reportage back to the vocational education committees. As I understand the system, there is provision for reporting back to the parent vocational education committee, but in my experience with vocational education committees who at present have one nominee on the governing body, there is not a set report-back procedure. The Bill does not provide for a report-back on a monthly basis, for example, to vocational education committee meetings, so the role of the vocational education committees, who will not have information given to them on a regular basis by the colleges, will go into decline.

Other Members talked of the autonomy of the colleges in terms of day to day running of their affairs. The Labour Party have no problem in making them more autonomous, certainly in the day to day running of their affairs, but the difficulty arises at the level of general policy-making. I do not envisage colleges being at odds with their vocational education committees very often, but in terms of general policy making the vocational education committees should have a very definite input in the direction of programmes. That is not adequately covered in the Bill. The college must submit an annual programme and budget one year in advance to Marlborough Street. There is some reference procedure in relation to the vocational education committees, but there is no definite or meaningful role in relation to the development of general policy. The role of vocational education committees as buffers between the Department of Education and the colleges, has been very fruitful in relation to the development of colleges and, in particular, colleges who wanted to move away from the basic mandate to expand the range and number of qualifications they were making available.

I do not wish to diminish the autonomy of the colleges in the day to day running of their affairs. That makes good sense. It makes for economy and it eliminates all kinds of duplication. My problem is about the general policy area, the directions colleges will take, how a college will develop over a period. In certain instances, it may suit a college to provide certain courses which may attract students from all over the country as distinct from responding to a particular and clearly defined regional need. The vocational education committee with the closest link with the college, would have sometimes a more objective or possibly subjective view of the local need and requirement, and how educational services should be provided in the area.

Does the Minister see the colleges as being national institutions? The CAO-CAS operation seems to indicate that the thinking in the Department is they are national institutions. Is the mandate of the colleges to provide courses that will attract students from any part of the country or is it to produce a range of courses, be they for certificates, diplomas, degrees or other professional qualifications? Are the colleges to respond to regional needs or are they to respond to the body of students nationally?

Mr. Aylward

I shall deal with some of the points raised by Deputy O'Shea. I mentioned a balance earlier and spoke of facilitating the vocational education committees and the Minister to oversee the overall thrust of the college while, within that framework, allowing the colleges to get on with the job, that is to give them the necessary academic freedom to do so, which I presume Deputy O'Shea would fully agree with.

The Deputy mentioned the involvement of the vocational education committees with the colleges. Amendment No. 82a provides that the vocational education committee can request information directly from the college. This is an important change. I emphasise again that the annual plan comes through the vocational education committee who can approve or modify it. If day to day intervention by the vocational education committee was to become the norm it would totally defeat the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. O'Shea

Section 14 (2) states: "The governing body shall supply to the Minister and to the vocational education committee with the agreement of the Minister...". In other words, if the vocational education committee want information they must get the agreement of the Minister. I would like the Minister to say if this amendment will further entrench centralisation. Does it mean that the vocational education committee may obtain information only if the Minister of the day agrees?

Mr. Aylward

I thought I made the position clear that we intend to delete the Minister's name and that the vocational education committee can request information directly. That is what section 14 (2) emphasises. There may have been some misunderstanding about it, but that is the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

Amendments Nos. 83 to 89, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 82a. As amendment No. 82a has been agreed those amendments cannot now be moved.

Amendments Nos. 83 to 89, inclusive, not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 8, subsection (1) (b), line 20, after "order" to insert "of the vocational education committee".

This section deals with the dissolution of the governing body, the doomsday situation. The role of the vocational education committee is the point that gives rise to this amendment. Subsection 2 (1) reads:

(1) If—

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the functions of the governing body of a college are not being duly and effectively discharged, or

(b) a governing body wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order, direction or regulation of the Minister,

or

Here again there is mention of the "Minister". This is centralisation, and side-lining the role of the vocational education committee. The amendment which is in my name, and that of Deputy Garland's seeks to amend subsection (1) (b) to read:

(b) a governing body wilfully neglects to comply with any lawful order of the vocational education committee, direction or regulation of the Minister

In other words, if the governing body of a vocational education committee are not performing their functions properly or are defying the Minister or an order of the vocational education committee, they may be dissolved. I put down this amendment because I believe that vocational education committees, the only locally elected democratic bodies in our education system, should have a role to play if a governing body act in a way which is inimical to education in an area or, more importantly, to the interests of the students attending the college.

Mr. Aylward

Section 7 already sets out the functions of the governing body to be carried out subject to such policies as may be determined by the Minister. Consequently, I am satisfied that the subsection as it stands covers all possibilities, particularly when the power of dissolution could only be exercised following consultations with the vocational education committee.

Mr. J. Higgins

I accept the spirit of what Deputy O'Shea is trying to do, that is, maximise the influence and role of vocational education committees. I am trying to conceive of a situation in which a governing body would wilfully neglect to comply with the lawful order of a vocational education committee. There would seem to be a clear conflict of interest here. In the first instance, six people will be nominated directly onto the governing body by the vocational education committee. In addition, five persons shall be nominated by such organisations as the vocational education committee consider require representation. Such organisations shall be representative of various sectoral interests, for example, agriculture, industry, etc. Therefore, the vocational education committees will have an input in regard to direct nominations. The interests of the vocational education committee will be doubly represented by virtue of the nominees from the other organisations. Consequently, I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which a governing body would be in conflict with a substantial body of opinion within itself, the vocational education committee members, and the indirect nominees of the vocational education committee. In these circumstances I would have difficulty in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I think the problem here relates to the section as a whole. I can understand the inclusion in the Bill of a provision which provides that in certain exceptional circumstances there could be a procedure whereby a governing body could be dissolved if an individual member or members became impossible and their continued membership was inappropriate. I think there are some provisions in the Bill which cover that type of situation. However, what we are talking about here is a procedure whereby the Minister will only have to consult with the vocational education committee — it might be no more than a telephone call or a letter giving them a date by which they can state their views — before he can sack the entire governing body and appoint another governing body in their place who could stay in office for up to two years. The circumstances in which the Minister can do this are quite extensive. For example, he can sack the governing body of a college if he is satisfied that their functions are not being duly and effectively discharged. This could mean a number of things; there are a very wide set of possibilities contained within the phrase "duly and effectively discharged". He can also discharge them if they wilfully neglect to comply with any lawful order, direction or regulation of the Minister; in other words, the Minister can sack the governing body if they displease him. Finally, he can sack them if they fail to comply with any judgment or order of any court of competent jurisdiction.

I do not understand why this section is included in the Bill. I should like the Minister to indicate to us the kind of practical situations which he envisages arising which require a provision like this to be included in the Bill. The governing body will have to be reappointed in any event. If the governing body are not fulfilling their duties or individual members behave in a way with which the vocational education committee are unhappy, the vocational education committee has a recourse open to them whereby they can replace that person the next time round. Presumably the various staff representatives, student representatives and the representatives of the various nominated bodies can also be replaced when the time comes round. This section provides for a set of circumstances where the Minister can sack the governing body if he does not like what they are doing and replace them for up to two years with nominees of his own. That is an extraordinary power to give the Minister. I do not see the necessity for this provision and I should like the Minister to give us a few examples of what he envisages could happen which would require him to behave in this very powerful way in relation to the governing bodies.

Mr. Aylward

I would not envisage any difficulties arising. Section 8 is broadly in line with a somewhat similar provision in the 1930 Vocational Education Act, which so many people are anxious to protect at present. I am not aware that that provision has ever been used. Similarly, I hope that a doomsday scenario will never arise in the colleges. I do not anticipate that the provisions in section 8 will ever have to be used; they will not be used as an ordinary day to day mechanism. As I said, I do not envisage any problems arising.

Mr. Gilmore

I am trying to recall where such circumstances did arise. I know that not so very long ago when the board of management of a primary school in County Kildare made a decision which displeased the parish priest, the parish priest petitioned the Minister to disolve the board of management and the then Minister, much to my surprise, complied with his request and dissolved them. Therefore, there is a precedent where a governing body who make a decision which displeases somebody can be dissolved. As far as I can recall, the only other time something like this was done was almost 20 years ago when a Government dissolved the RTE authority. We are still reeling from that decision 20 years later. We are still seeing a degree of timidity and deference to Government by RTE, particularly in regard to their news and current affairs programmes.

If the provision in the 1930 Act has never been used then why is it necessary to repeat a similar provision in this legislation? The Minister has not given any instance of where he expects this provision might be used. I do not think this section should be included in the Bill at all. I believe a case can be made for the House opposing this section or for the Minister withdrawing it, unless he has more compelling reasons, for its inclusion than he has expressed so far.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I agree with Deputy Gilmore's comments. We on this side of the House also question the need for section 8 of the Bill, probably because the Minister has not outlined circumstances that may arise to necessitate the dissolution of a governing body. For example, it is very clearly spelt out that if a local authority fail to strike a rate the Minister for the Environment can dissolve the local authority. Under what circumstances could the dissolution of a governing body of a regional college occur? If the Minister explains the position we might be able to accept the need for the section, but on logical grounds I cannot see the need for it. As regards failure to comply with any lawful order, I would like clarification on what is a lawful order. If the Minister clarifies this it might give us reason to believe that there is need for section 8 but as it stands, I find it difficult to comprehend the position.

Mr. Aylward

Deputy Glmore made the point that rarely has a provision such as this been used. There have been only two examples over a long number of years. The reason this section is in the Bill is that the Minister would have power in the event of this extreme situation arising. As I have said, it is highly unlikely and I would not envisage any such development.

Mr. O'Shea

I, too, would like clarification from the Minister on this section. Is a lawful order as presented in the Bill an order of the Houses of the Oirechtas? Are regulations of the Minister regulations that would arise following the enactment of this Bill? When talking about a direction are we talking about, for example, a letter or a phone communication from the Department? I can see conflict arising in this area. I asked the Minister about this matter during the debate on the amendments to section 5. Do the Department see the colleges as being national or regional institutions. For instance, if a governing body wish to pursue a certain line of action in line with regional need but the Minister takes the view that the college should respond to a national agenda, a conflict could arise. There is need for clarifying this section.

Obviously if a body are to be dissolved provisions must be made for that. I asked the question last week — to which I did not receive an answer — whether in the event of a governing body being dissolved and a college ceasing to function, the lands and buildings vested in the governing body would revert back to the Department, or what would happen them. We need clarification as to what an order constitutes and whether it is an order of the Houses of the Oireachtas, whether a direction would need to be written or whether a telephone communication would suffice and whether regulations as laid down in the Bill would have to be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. J. Higgins

My initial comments were addressed solely to the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Shea, which relates to a governing body who wilfully neglect to comply with any lawful order of the vocational education committee or regulation of the Minister. The reasons I am not inclined to agree to this amendment are twofold. I am unsure as to whether or not a vocational education committee should have the right to order a governing body. In view of the fact that they are represented on the governing body, there is dual representation.

We are trying to envisage circumstances in which the Minister would invoke this section to dissolve a governing body and set up a governing body nominated by him.

The more orders that are made and the more sources from which orders are made the more we increase the possibility of bringing about these circumstances. For example, difficulties may arise in the case of both the Minister and the vocational education committee making lawful orders. I would like to know what constitutes a lawful order of the Minister or of a vocational education committee. Who would arbitrate as to whether or not an order of a vocational education committee is lawful? The vocational education committee may decide to issue specific instructions to a governing body, which in their reasoned opinion might seem fair and equitable, but they may not be acceptable to a governing body. In those circumstances could the vocational education committee seek the dissolution of the governing body? The more sources from which orders are made the greater is the likelihood of this section being invoked.

Like Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Ahearn, I would like the Minister to outline the circumstances that may arise in which a governing body would be flagrantly in breach of a lawful order of the Minister, thereby incurring the wrath of the Minister. As Deputy Ahearn said, the Minister for the Environment can exercise his power to dissolve a local authority, as happened in the case of Dublin Corporation when the late Deputy Frank Cluskey was Lord Mayor of Dublin. Dublin Corporation refused to strike a rate and the Minister for Local Government, Kevin Boland, used his absolute powers to dissolve the corporation and appoint a manager to manage their affairs until such time as the expiry of their term of office. If the Minister gives examples of circumstances in which this section would be used we may be able to accept the powers enshrined in the section.

Mr. Alyward

I forgot to respond earlier to Deputy O'Shea's question about whether regional technical colleges are national institutions. They are regional colleges by definition and orientation. However, the CAO-CAS arrangements were introduced to respond to student and parental pressure for simplification of procedures, and they are widely welcomed. As regards the general concern about section 8, lawful orders relate to, for example, programmes and budgets where there is perhaps total overspending and, second, they apply to national norms of pay and conditions of staff. As regards the position of programmes and budgets, if there is total overspending under section 13 and no account is taken of programmes and budgets it would be time to act. In order to clarify the position further I will come back on Report Stage and spell out in detail where these problems may arise and where section 8 might be invoked.

Mr. Gilmore

I am glad the Minister has said he will come back to this matter on Report Stage. When he is doing so he might look at the possibility of coming back with some amended version of section 8. Where a governing body fail to comply with a court order, there will obviously be a remedy, presumably through the courts. The implementation of the functions of the governing body under this legislation is an area that could be looked at.

I am concerned that the governing body could be removed if they differed with the Minister on a policy question. Much of the criticism of this Bill relates to the degree to which policy matters are being taken from vocational education committees and the colleges and are effectively being given to the Minister, and the degree to which the Minister has control over the colleges. If the Minister gave an unreasonable direction and the governing body were exercising independence and courage in facing up to the Minister whose direction might not be in the interests of the college, it would be wrong to give the Minister power to dissolve the governing body. The Minister should consider restricting the application of this section to the exceptional circumstances he intends to outline to us on Report Stage.

Mr. Aylward

It was not the intention under section 8 to enable the Minister to abuse the powers. Having taken into consideration all the views expressed here, it would be better to come back to this on Report Stage and tidy it up somewhat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

Amendment No. 92 is an alternative to amendment No. 91 so by agreement we will discuss amendments Nos. 91 and 92 together.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 8, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "after consultation with" and substitute "on a recommendation of".

This amendment also relates to the possibility of dissolving the governing body. The Minister gave us some examples as to how he envisages problems arising. Here we are essentially talking about court orders, national norms on pay and salary budgets and programmes. Those areas are covered either statutorily or close to it and as Deputy Gilmore pointed out there is other recourse to the Minister to deal with the problems outlined.

Difficulties could arise with regard to policy, and policy here allows conflict to develop. The CAO-CAS system provides for students from any part of the country to take up courses in any regional technical college. There is no geographical boundary. If a governing body decide to provide courses to bring in students from all around the country, as distinct from courses with a particular relevance to the needs of an area, conflict could arise with the Minister. If a Minister wants to dissolve a governing body of a regional technical college this amendment seeks to provide that it is done not after consultation with the vocational education committee but on the recommendation of the vocational education committee. The recommendation of the vocational education committee would apply specifically to policy areas that relate to regional development as distinct from colleges which are becoming national institutions.

If a Minister dissolves a board of management there is provision here whereby the Minister may appoint any person or persons that he so desires. That would be different from the dissolution of a county council or a corporation. Where a governing body of a regional technical college is dissolved, the vocational education committee remain. It would make sense for the vocational education committee in question to assume the role of the Governing body for the time being, instead of perhaps bringing in somebody from outside. Commissioners who have been appointed when local authorities have been dissolved are generally retired civil servants. I put it to the Minister that such a person would not be as knowledgeable or as experienced in relation to local needs as the vocational education committee. The recommendation of the vocational education committee is extremely important. It can be argued that the vocational education committee is represented on the board of management but the board of management could be at odds with the Minister and they need not necessarily include any of the members of the vocational education committee. It is in that context that the amendment has been put down.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

How binding is a recommendation from a vocational education committee? What difference is there between "consultation" and "a recommendation"? It is not really clear that a recommendation from the vocational education committee would have to be honoured by the Minister. Changing the amendment from "consultation" to "a recommendation" will not make as much of a difference as we might wish. Deputy O'Shea's amendment may be relevant if his amendment to section 8 (1) (b), "to comply with any lawful order of the vocational education committee" had been accepted. The Deputy is saying that the vocational education committee would recommend that the governing body be dissolved because they failed to comply with a lawful order of the Minister. I would accept the need for the amendment if it were accepted that the governing body could be dissolved by any lawful order of the vocational education committee. It would logically follow that the vocational education committee should make a recommendation. Because that is not included, I could not support the amendment. It is not logical that the vocational education committee should recommend the dissolution of the governing body because they wilfully did not comply with a lawful order of the Minister.

Mr. O'Shea

There is need for further clarification. As the word "consultation" appears in this section it is open to wide interpretation. Could it mean, for instance, that an official of the Department could telephone the chief executive officer or make contact with the chairperson of the vocational education committee or that a Department official could meet a group from the vocational education committee or the whole vocational education committee and hear their views, which could be given individually? Recommendation is about decision and about a vocational education committee taking up a very definite position. A recommendation has standing in law as the legal view of the vocational education committee. The term "consultation" is loose and capable of wideranging interpretation. Perhaps the Minister could tighten up what he means by "consultation". As the Bill stands, the requirement on the Minister in relation to consultation would be met by answering a letter or adopting the opinion of a chairperson or of a chief executive officer. It is too vague. Even after recommendation, the Bill states that the Minister may take certain action. It does not mean that the Minister must act on the recommendation of a vocational education committee but such a recommendation obviously implies a decision of the vocational education committee.

Mr. Aylward

The subsection as it stands, or even amended as proposed by Deputy O'Shea, would still leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to whether a governing body should be dissolved. This has been pointed out by Deputy Ahearn. This amendment and amendment No. 92 would not alter the position. Consultation is the correct approach. It will be genuinely used to get the views of the vocational education committee. However, in circumstances where, for example, programmes and budgets or staff norms were ignored the Minister would need the discretion to act directly after consultation with the vocational education committee. It would be wrong for the Minister to be dependent in this case on a vocational education committee recommendation. This is not intended as a device to enable the vocational education committee or the Minister to run the colleges on a day-to-day basis. I will look at this matter for Report Stage. Consultation is the proper way.

Mr. O'Shea

The word "consultation" would certainly be applicable where, for instance, the governing body of a college were in breach of statute. Consultation would obviously take the form of the Minister getting confirmation that this breach had taken place. In the broader area of policy, I would ask the Minister to consider the question of conflict arising regarding policy and the seeking of the recommendation of the parent vocational education committee. I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment pending the Minister's reconsideration before. Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 8, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "recommendation" and substitute "the appointment".

This amendment relates to the dissolution of the governing body, Section 8 (1) states:

...the Minister may, after consultation with the vocational education committee, by order remove the members of the governing body from office and direct the nomination and recommendation of new members or, as the Minister thinks fit, dissolve the governing body and transfer the functions of the governing body to any person or persons.

We are seeking that the word "appointment" be substituted in place of the word "recommendation". In the context of the Minister's agreement to come back on Report Stage in relation to the whole section, I would simply ask him to respond briefly on this point.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I support this amendment. The reason for the amendment is that if the governing body are dissolved new members will have to be appointed. If people are nominated by the Minister they should be appointed.

Mr. Aylward

Section 6 provides that members of governing bodies are appointed by the Minister. This amendment, if accepted, would provide for the Minister to make these appointments. Because the entire section is being looked at, I will take on board what has been said before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 95 is in the name of Deputies O'Shea, Mac Giolla and Garland. Amendment No. 96 is related. These amendments may be taken together, by agreement. Agreed.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 8, subsection (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete "any person or persons" and substitute "the vocational education committee".

I alluded earlier to the background to amendment No. 95. It relates to the dissolving of a governing body and the trans-ferring of the functions of that body to any person or persons. The amendments seeks to provide that in the event of dissolution the functions of the governing body would be transferred to the vocational education committee. When a local authority is dissolved, such as a county council, a county borough council, a corporation, an urban council or town commissioners, there is not a ready-made framework for maintaining the functions of that body in any kind of democratic structure. It would make a great deal of sense for the parent body to assume the functions of the governing body pro tem.

Regarding the question of replacing the governing body by way of, say, commissioners, as I understand local government legislation, when a local authority are dissolved when they have refused to bring in an estimate the Minister can appoint as commissioners those members of the local authority who actually voted in favour of a balanced estimate. There should be a similar provision in this Bill to provide that where members of a governing body were voted down but were not in favour of the line which would give rise to conflict with the Minister the members of the governing body could, if the Minister of the day so desired, be reappointed and the other places could then be filled.

Essentially the amendment seeks to have the parent body, in relation to regional technical colleges, remain in that capacity and take over those functions which are within their general remit. Where a governing body has been dissolved the Minister of the day may require time to arrive at a more permanent solution as to which group of people should replace the governing body removed from office. I do not favour in any circumstance the idea of one single person, be it a commissioner in a local authority, or wherever, taking the place of a group of people who, through an extension of the local democratic process, as in this case, are elected to do the job. I do not have a difficulty with the idea of persons. In the highly unlikely event — I do not foresee it happening — of the governing body of a regional technical college being dissolved the proper course of action would be to have a new governing body put in place as speedily as possible but in the short term the functions of the governing body should be assumed by the vocational education committee.

Mr. J. Higgins

I can appreciate the spirit of what Deputy O'Shea is trying to achieve by means of his amendment. I take his point in relation to the undesirability of a single individual assuming the role of elected representatives in situations where disbandment or dissolution takes place. It is most undesirable that such a circumstance should be allowed to persist for a long period. Essentially if elected bodies are guilty of some misdemeanour which is sufficiently grave to have them disbanded it would be desirable that a replacement democratic body come to be appointed as soon as possible. It would also be desirable that the body that would replace the previous dissolved body would be as representative as possible. This is a matter on which we hope to introduce amendments on Report Stage. A key to this dilemma may be found in section 8 (2), part of which reads:

and may fix the tenure of office, duties and remuneration of all such persons.

I would like, particularly, to focus on the words "fix the tenure of office", because we will be introducing on Report Stage suitable amendments to have that tenure of office as short as possible. In a situation where a governing body is suspended the period of office for the replacement agency, or person — it can be one person, as has been rightly stated — should be specified. It should be for the shortest possible period to allow for a transition period and a new governing body to be put in place as soon as possible. I would, however, have some anxiety in relation to who should be the caretaker during the interim period. Does it make sense on the one hand to dissolve a governing body, a large component of whom are members of the vocational education committee, and hand the powers over to the vocational education committee — a body which is substantially represented by vocational education committee members or by agencies or organisations nominated by the vocational education committee — and on the other hand give the powers directly — in the interim, for whatever the period may be — to the body from whom they have been taken? This is a matter on which I would like to focus.

All of us here have defended the rights of vocational education committees, their role and their input into vocational education at all levels in relation to bringing on board the entire regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology system of education and the very responsible manner in which they have discharged their remit and responsibilities. Vocational education committees are essentially second level management structures who, until now, also had a high input into third level management. This is something we are trying to enshrine in this Bill. I agree with Deputy O'Shea that we have whittled away many of their powers in an earlier section of this Bill, for example, in relation to the nomination of chairman. Originally, it was intended that the chair of the governing body would come from within the membership but that has now gone and it will be by means of nomination. I have doubts as to whether in the interim the powers should be given to the vocational education committee. The way out of this would be that on Report Stage we should fix a specified period within which the alternative body would be nominated.

Mr. Aylward

The subsection as it stands provides that the function of a dissolved governing body could be transferred to any person or persons. Such persons could, of course, include the vocational education committee, but not exclusively as proposed in this amendment. I would have the same fears if there were six members of a vocational education committee on a body that had to be dissolved, obviously that would leave a question mark over that membership. For that reason I would not be prepared to accept this limitation. Amendment No. 96 from the same Deputies proposes the deletion of subsection (2) and would not be acceptable on the same basis in that the subsection sets out the conditions under which a governing body appointed, in lieu of a dissolved body, should function. However, I would agree that in the event of dissolution a new governing body would be appointed as soon as possible. In making interim arrangements I would try to ensure that all relevant interests were represented. I agree it would be wholly exceptional for one person to be appointed. This is a matter we could look at when reviewing this entire reaction on Report Stage to ensure that the least possible time would pass before another governing body would be put in place.

Mr. J. Higgins

I would ask the Minister to fix the tenure of office and to flesh out for us, in the clearest possible fashion, what he envisages as the broad composition of the alternative body. For example, would it be composed of chief executive officers within the functional area of the regional technical college — or whatever it may be — or the chairpersons of the vocational education committees? We would like to see a representative qualified body appointed in the interim.

Mr. Aylward

I accept that.

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister has responded in a way that is helpful and constructive. He has indicated that he will be looking at the whole section on Report Stage. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment and will not press the other one either.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 96 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Acting Chairman

The next amendment is amendment No. 96a in the name of the Minister. Additional and substitute amendments are amendment Nos. 110a, 115, 117, 123a, 124a, 128a, 132, 134a, 137, 137a, 138a and 142a. Amendment No. 112 is an alternative to 110a. For discussion purposes, then, we will take amendments Nos. 96a, 110a, 112, 115, 117, 123a, 124a, 128a, 132, 132a, 134a, 137, 137a, 138a and 142a together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Aylward

I move amendment No. 96a:

In page 8, lines 46 to 48, and in page 9, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) Each governing body shall, with the approval of the Minister, from time to time appoint in a whole-time capacity a person to be the Director and chief officer of the college.".

The Bill as initiated envisaged that staff, including the Director, would be appointed by the vocational education committee on the recommendation of the governing body, to be officers and servants of the college. The selection of such staff would be a function of the college and staff would hold office on such terms and conditions as the college may determine.

Staff would also be officers and servants of the vocational education committee for the purposes of certain sections of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act, 1944 and the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1980. The 1930 and 1944 Acts references related mainly to suspension and dismissal of staff. Action on these matters could, however, take place only on the recommendation of the governing body.

These references however, have caused considerable confusion as to the intent of the provision. The problem was most recently raised by Deputy O'Shea at the earlier part of the Committee Stage of this Bill. He sought clarification as to who the employer was and expressed concern in relation to the operation of Labour legislation in particular the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act.

In order, therefore, to clarify this matter my amendment No. 96a provides that the college will provide a person to be director and chief officer and amendment No. 110a provides that the college will appoint other officers and servants subject to the usual approval requirements. Consequently suspension and dismissal will be a matter for the college subject to the standard provision at amendment No. 116a that a college shall not remove or suspend any of its officers from office without the consent of the Minister. Amendments 123a, 124a and 125a are consequential to this change.

The Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1980, will continue to apply to staff as it applies to vocational education committee staff.

These changes do not represent any disimprovement in conditions of service of staff. Such conditions are copperfastened in section 12 of the Bill which stipulates that they may not receive less remuneration or be subject to less beneficial conditions of service than that to which they are now entitled.

Mr. J. Higgins

What is the reason for the change of heart in relation to these amendments introduced on 3 June? The Bill as originally drafted provides that the vocational education committee shall, on the recommendation of the governing body of the college and subject to the approval of the Minister, appoint a person to be the director of the college in a whole time capacity. Now there is a complete change of emphasis in that each governing body shall, with the approval of the Minister from time to time appoint, in a whole time capacity, a person to be the director. The prerogative is being taken from the vocational education committee and given to the governing body. I am not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, but why the change? Why have the draftsmen who created this Bill decided now to make a fundamental change in relation to who actually would nominate the director?

Mr. Aylward

Many of the changes brought about in the Bill were at the request of people who were concerned about the direction in which the Bill was going. However, this change was made-following various representations which I have referred to and in consultation with interested groups.

Mr. J. Higgins

Is the Minister at liberty to divulge to the House whether the interested groups would be the principals of the regional colleges?

Mr. Aylward

There appeared to some people to be a lack of clarity in the Bill. There was a process of consultation and all interested groups were consulted.

Mr. O'Shea

With amendment No. 96a, we have reached a fundamental point. Obviously this amendment did not emanate without consultation. As I understand it there was not, up to this morning, any consultation with IVEA, a body who represent the vocational education committees. I too, would like to ask the question put by Deputy Higgins. Was this amendment sought and achieved by the principals of the regional technical colleges? Obviously it is not something that was sought by the vocational education committees and it was certainly not sought by their parent body. This raises the question of why there was no consultation with the IVEA. I understand that the IVEA are greatly concerned about the lack of consultation. In view of the fact that this amendment effects such a large change and affects hugely the constituent bodies of the IVEA, was it right, proper or fair that such a change should be brought about without any prior consultation with the IVEA? The IVEA responded to the amendments that were circulated at the end of last year. There was no further consultation with them. Other bodies did have consultations with the Department in relation to the changes. I would like the Minister to clarify why the IVEA were not consulted. Until the publication of the 40 amendments last Wednesday they understood that the Bill would go forward as it had been published and as amended by the amendments of the then Minister, Deputy Davern. The IVEA are the body representing employers who are part of a democratic process which provides for the only such educational group in this country. I should respond to Deputy Higgins' statement that the vocatioal education comittees deal essentially with second level education. Certainly I would not agree with him in that respect. The proof lies in the fact that regional technical colleges have developed to the extent they have.

The Minister owes the House an explanation for the non-consultation with the IVEA about amendment No. 96a, which deals with a fundamental point concerning the respective functions of the vocational education committees and the IVEA, which, as the Minister knows, is the body that acts on behalf of vocational education committees in conciliation and arbitration.

Mr. Aylward

I emphasise that the concerns of the IVEA in relation to the Bill were discussed with successive Ministers for Education. They also held discussions with officials of the Department, including the Secretary of the Department. Furthermore, the IVEA made a written submission in this matter and their submissions were taken fully into account. The IVEA themselves stated that it was inconceivable that staff could be officers of both the colleges and the vocational education committees. I might add that last Wednesday night, on the adjournment of Committee Stage, I met members of the IVEA with the Assistant Secretary of the Department, and once and for all I want to refute the suggestion that the IVEA have not been met or consulted. Indeed, every other interested group was also met and consulted.

Mr. O'Shea

I accept that the Minister did meet representatives of the IVEA last Wednesday. However, it must be stressed that the amendments make profound changes to the Bill. The Bill now before us, with the amendments circulated by the Minister, is certainly not the same Bill introduced by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, and progressed by the former Minister, Deputy Davern. It became an entirely new Bill on the publication of the 40 extra amendments last week. My point is that consultation with the IVEA did not take place before the amendments were circulated. As I understand the matter, the IVEA made a submission to the Department but the Department did not respond to their submission. The IVEA have made several submissions down through the years.

Last week we all received amendments that were published on Wednesday morning. Deputies contributing to the debate had to absorb those amendments very quickly and relate them to both the Bill and amendments that had been tabled previously. It seems that other groups had access to senior departmental officials in the run-up to the drafting of the amendments but the IVEA did not. I compliment the Minister of State for meeting representatives of the IVEA on Wednesday but, with the utmost respect to the Minister of State, surely that was rather like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. The amendments had been published and circulated and it was obvious that they had the full support of the Government. A great deal of consultation is necessary in respect of all levels of education and it cannot be denied that the IVEA were bypassed in the run-up to the drafting of the amendments.

Deputies who have been dealing with this Bill and with the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill since their introduction did not have physical possession of the full amendments before last week. However, it seems that some members of the news media had prior knowledge of the 40 extra amendments. As a Deputy and as someone committed to the democratic process and to the carrying out of the proper procedures at all times, I feel that that was a negation of the rights of Members of this House. Changes proposed in legislation should not be leaked and published in the national press before those of us dealing with the Bill in the Dáil — indeed, all Deputies — are made aware of the changes. That action was an extremely regrettable departure on the part of the Department.

I recognise that the Minister of State became involved very late with the presentation of the Bill on Committee Stage, due to the unfortunate incapacity of the Minister. Once again, I take the opportunity on behalf of us all to wish the Minister a speedy recovery. I should like the Minister to put on the record of the House an explanation for the drafting of amendments that have a profound effect on the future of vocational education committees without the Minister or the Department consulting the body responsible for conciliation and arbitration on behalf of the colleges and their staffs. As the IVEA represent the parent bodies they are the representative of the regional technical colleges. Why were they bypassed? Who had the ear of the Minister and who encouraged him in the direction of including the amendments, following whatever representations were made, and why was the group most affected not consulted?

Mrs. T. Ahern

On a point of clarification, does the amendment change the vocational education committee from being an employer of the staff of the regional technical colleges? Is that the intention of this amendment?

Mr. Aylward

I shall first respond to the matters raised by Deputy O'Shea. The fact that the IVEA and, indeed, the Deputy himself find so many problems in relation to staff highlights the difficulties in this regard. Formal discussions on this aspect specifically did not take place with other interests, such as the principals. Again I point out that the IVEA met the Minister for Education before the finalisation of the amendments. As I said, I also met the IVEA last Wednesday. The Secretary of the Department offered to meet the IVEA yesterday but they were not available for a meeting.

An examination of the number of amendments that I personally have made to the Bill as a result of my meetings and of the other representations made to me and also the amendments to the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, which were published this morning and will be taken this afternoon, is a further indiction of my goodwill towards the IVEA and of the steps we have taken to try to satisfy many of their needs. That is indicative of what will happen the Bill on Report Stage. The process of consulation has taken place. As I said, the Minister for Education met the IVEA before finalisation of the amendments, the written submission was taken into consideration fully, the secretary offered to meet the IVEA yesterday and, as we all know, having been members of the House for a long time, the IVEA, like any other group, know how to lobby Members of the House. Their message has come across loud and clear to me over the weekend and since.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I am glad and satisfied that adequate and full consultation was given by the Minister and his Department to all the interested parties. However, it is regrettable that amendments must be tabled at the last minute. On a matter of clarification, will the director and staff be employed by the Department of Education or the vocational education committee? Will this amendment mean a change of status in the vocational education committees as employers of the director and staff?

Mr. Aylward

I meant to clarify that point. It was provided in the Bill introduced by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, that the vocational education committee would appoint staff as officers and servants of the college. The college were to be the employer and the vocational education committee links were only for the purposes of certain provisions of the VEA Bill, mainly relating to suspensions and dismissals. In effect, staff were being treated as vocational education committee staff for purposes of pension and dismissal procedures.

Mr. J. Higgins

Section 9 (1) states: "The vocational education committee shall, subject to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Third Schedule to this Act, on the recommendation of the governing body of a college and subject to the approval of the Minister, appoint to the college in a whole-time capacity a person to be the director of the college". In other words, there would be a recommendation from the governing body to the vocational education committee and, therefore, the governing body would decide essentially who the director would be; that would be sent to the vocational education committee and approved by them, it would then receive the imprimatur of the Minister. From the point of view of semantics, from the point of view of vocational education committees, the strong representations which the Minister received from the IVEA, and the recognition of the contribution which the vocational education committees make to third level education — I take the point that they are a vital element and component in this regard — will the Minister agree to withdraw this amendment and allow the original section 9 (1) to stand?

Mr. Aylward

I will point out the reasons for the change; it is agreed on all sides that colleges should have autonomy, we have been saying that consistently and we should not lose sight of it. Indeed, sometimes, I wonder if we are losing sight of it. The fact that colleges appoint their own staff is an important, essential element of this autonomy. The recommendation of the vocational education committee in this case was one without any discretion, the vocational education committee could do nothing except appoint the person recommended by the governing body. It has been widely agreed that there was a fundamental ambiguity in the fact that staff were employed in vocational education committees and colleges at the same time. This amendment seems to clear up this matter. The role of the vocational education committee is very well covered by giving colleges the necessary autonomy to get on with the job, including the appointment of staff.

Mr. Gilmore

In this amendment we are dealing with the same theme which we have been debating all through Committee Stage, the extent to which the vocational education committee should be involved in matters relating to the colleges, the extent to which the Minister should be involved or the extent to which the governing bodies should have freedom of autonomy. While we have been debating those issues in the House I have been informed that, this morning, the Taoiseach informed his parliamentary party that it is now intended to defer Report Stage of this Bill to allow for a further period of consultation with educational interests, particularly in relation to the role of the vocational education committees. I have also been informed that it is intended to introduce a further set of amendments to this Bill at a later stage.

Some Members asked for a deferral of the Committee Stage debate over the past couple of days. To deal with the Minister's amendments in relation to the vocational education committees, is a waste of time and a nonsense exercise. The decision of the Minister to excise the vocational education committees from a whole range of areas in relation to the regional technical colleges is, apparently, now to be the subject of further discussions — quite properly, since those discussions had not taken place in the first instance — with educational interests over the coming period. In response to that apparently a further set of amendments will be introduced in this House. Therefore, the amendment introduced by the Minister may not be included in the final version of the Bill.

The Bill was originally introduced, we then had the mark II Bill and the Minister for Education, Deputy Seamus Brennan, tabled a whole series of amendments excising the role of the vocational education committees. Apparently, as a result of this morning's meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, there will be mark III Bill. It is like the Maastricht Treaty, we are debating something that may not come to pass. I appreciate that the Minister of State may not be aware of the facts but this debate is absurd and perhaps in the lunch break the Minister will find out whether we are debating the real colleges Bill.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

This is a bombshell to those of us involved in the colleges Bill which has gone through so many stages. First, the Bill was presented, amendments were introduced by the former Minister for Education, Deputy Davern, further amendments were introduced on 3 June and again today. However, we now hear that further amendments will be introduced. We are doing the regional technical colleges a disservice by not being able to proceed with a Bill relating to them without introducing so many amendments. Deputy Gilmore said it resembled the Maastricht Treaty, I had just said the same to my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins. It is about time the Taoiseach dealt with something in a straightforward manner without procrastination and making up his mind day by day on every issue which comes before us. I can imagine the consternation of the staff and students in the regional colleges when this news is relayed to them. It is devastating for those Members who have put so much work into the amendments and who are also working in the best interests of third level education. It certainly raises the issue of the use of the valuable time of this House. It must be pointed out that the Taoiseach created the mess and it is regrettable, in the interests of education, to have such a bombshell dropped.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.