Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 1
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
" "voluntary contributions” means a standard charge requested by a non-fee-paying school to parents or guardians of each student attending;".
The purpose of amendments Nos. 4, 5, 17 and 20 is to amend the current legislation in order that schools be required to make information available to parents about voluntary contributions in the same way they are required to make information available about State funding allocations. Voluntary contributions are used extensively by schools to charge parents to plug the gaps left by cuts to their funding. Some schools might charge €50 per student while others charge hundreds of euro, effectively making the schools fee-paying. We raised this matter during the previous Minister's tenure and he said no school could prevent a child from attending or participating in activities if this so-called voluntary charge had not been paid. However, we know from speaking to parents that students are regularly excluded from activities or have lockers withheld from them where such a charge has not been paid, and the Department does not keep a record or monitor how much each school is charging parents; nor does it take anyone to task about these fees. Some parents find it difficult enough to put children in school uniforms without having to deal with this charge also. I would prefer if this matter could be dealt with through specific legislation, but there has not been any interest in addressing it. That is why I am availing of the opportunity provided by this miscellaneous provisions legislation to make these amendments.
Amendment No. 20 would further compel the Minister to report to the Dáil on the practice of voluntary contributions with a view to gradually phasing them out.
I thank the Senator for her contribution. I agree that we need to ensure parents and the wider school community are given as much information as possible on the funds available to schools. They need to be accountable to parents and we need greater levels of engagement, communication and transparency in how schools serve their community. The Government approved in March the drafting of the education (admission to schools) Bill, and the general scheme has since been referred to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting. We will bring forward legislative proposals relating to school admissions and they will prohibit the charging of any fees or contributions as part of a school's admissions policy. In addition, a parent and student charter will be introduced and this is probably a more appropriate context in which to address the issue the Senator has rightly raised. While I do not propose to accept the amendments, I assure Senators that information for parents, including information relating to the collection and use of voluntary contributions, is an issue I will examine in the context of the charter and the proposed school admissions Bill. That is a more appropriate way to address it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 1, to delete "referred to in subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments No. 8 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 4, to delete lines 12 to 14 and substitute the following:
“(4) An education provider which is granted a university authorisation under this section shall not describe itself, or cause itself to be described, as a university otherwise
than—
(a) outside the State, and
(b) for a specified purpose.”.
Amendment put.
Will the Senators claiming a division, please, rise?
Senators Sean D. Barrett, John Crown, David Norris and Feargal Quinn rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the amendment carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61, the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, line 15, to delete “within 3 months of” and substitute “upon”.
As it stands, the section states: "The Minister shall, following consultation with an tÚdarás, within 3 months of receipt of an application from an education provider under subsection (1), determine that application". I would like to give the Minister more time. That is far too short a period of time. These are major issues, as we found this afternoon when we discussed the international dimension to Irish medical education, and to have them decided upon within three months is too restrictive a timeframe from which I am offering to release the Minister. These matters deserve full and deep consideration and it is a not a question which any Minister should be asked to answer within three months.
We are discussing amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
I support amendment No. 12. I have argued for many years that it takes a long time to get things done in this House and the Lower House. I am one of those who has argued for speed and alacrity in this area but in this case Senator Sean D. Barrett is exactly right.
The three-month period provided for is too short and should be extended.
I agree with Senators Feargal Quinn and Sean D. Barrett and support the amendment. I assume we are also discussing amendments Nos. 13 and 15.
No, we are discussing amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together.
With regard to amendment No. 13, this returns me to and reflects on a point I made earlier about the Minister taking a decision to recognise an institution as a university without consultation. I had not realised that Senator Sean D. Barrett had tabled this amendment, which would impose a requirement on the Minister to seek the observations of the universities and publish them thereafter in order that they could be presented to Parliament and members of the public for discussion. I strongly support amendment No. 13.
I do not propose to accept amendment No. 12 as I consider the period of three months to be reasonable.
On amendment No. 13, it is not appropriate that one particular interest group, namely, the universities, should be consulted. I will, however, consider the second element of the amendment which proposes that the Minister should cause the observations of an tÚdarás, given under subsection (5), to be published. I would like to accommodate the Senator by publishing these observations and will ask my officials to examine whether it could be done. I hope to table a Government amendment on the issue on Report Stage.
Did the Minister indicate, in respect of paragraph (a), that there would not be any point in having one particular interest group represented? The whole Bill is about a single interest group - the universities are the only interest group in this case. The grocery federation of Ireland is not poking its nose into this issue. It is the reputation of the universities that will be affected by whatever decision the Minister makes. If he or she recognises an institution that is not properly a university and this decision causes difficulty, it will inflict reputational damage on the universities. As the institutions that are recognised as universities, they should have a say in the matter. Universities are not some kind of Johnny-come-lately rushing into the fray; they are centrally and directly involved in this issue. I refute the Minister's statement that one cannot have various and diverse interests involved. The universities are the central theme of the legislation.
A number of considerations arise. There should be some distinctiveness among the names of universities. We do not want confusion between the title of a new university and that of an established university. It would be useful to obtain the views of the universities and an tÚdarás on that issue. There are signs of such confusion in the Dublin area where there will be a technological university of Dublin, University College Dublin, Dublin City University and Trinity College Dublin. It would, therefore, be a good idea to ensure some differentiation between the names of new places and those of existing ones. It may reflect badly on an incumbent if it is confused with a new entrant that has been approved under these proposals. I am glad that the Minister has accepted that the observations of an tÚdarás should be published. Let us have distinctive institutions, rather than allowing many to have much the same name, as has tended to be the case until now.
I will examine the issue before Report Stage. The universities have many opportunities to express their views. This, however, is the formal consultation with an tÚdarás, which is incorporated into the legislation. As I stated, on Report Stage I will return to the issue of publishing the consultation findings.
Is amendment No. 12 being pressed?
I had hoped the amendment would be of assistance. However, as it is not required, I do not propose to press it. I will not move amendment No. 13 as the Minister has indicated she intends to consider it before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(c) that the Minister is satisfied that the name of the proposed university is distinct from any existing university in the State.”.
We have discussed this issue. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure there would be no confusion in titles. It is self-evident that there should not be any such confusion.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I understand a university's name is protected if it is a registered trademark. To ensure university names are protected, I have asked my officials to consider the amendment in greater detail. If it is appropriate to do so, I will table an amendment. I am being constructive as I realise the Senator's amendments are also designed to be constructive.
I am not sure about the advice provided for the Minister. I was involved in a legal case some years ago. The fact that I had registered a name did not do me the slightest bit of good as it did not stand up in court. Perhaps the legal position has changed or the Minister's advice mkight be a little more tenuous than usual.
As I stated, we will examine the issue again. I am coming to the Bill in the middle of the legislative process.
The Minister is doing so very ably.
I want to ensure we get the wording right and protect the universities. As I stated, Senator Sean D. Barrett has tabled a number of highly constructive amendments, as have other Senators. I will examine the issue and perhaps we might have a more detailed debate on it on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister for her response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators David Norris and Ned O'Sullivan.
Question declared carried.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, line 19, to delete “a special interest or” and substitute “an international reputation and”.
I welcome the Minister back to the House.
The Bill states, "The chairperson and ordinary members of an Appeals Board shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons who have a special interest or expertise in, or knowledge of, matters relating to higher education". It is not enough to have a “special interest”, which is why I have proposed the amendment to strengthen it. In deciding whether a place is a university or not, an international reputation is required. While I might have a special interest in medical matters, I am not equipped to say whether Senator John Crown’s operation is of university standard. We must be more rigorous about this important decision.
I strongly support the amendment because anybody can claim to have a special interest in higher education, for example, if he or she reads about it in the education supplement of the newspapers in the back of a car on a Sunday afternoon. This is tacitly acknowledged in the drafting of the legislation where it says the chairperson and ordinary members of an appeals board shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons who have "a special interest or expertise". They are given as alternatives. Phrasing it as "a special interest and expertise" might be another way of addressing it. It is very flabby to specify just a "special interest".
Again, the Senators are making valid points and I will examine them before Report Stage. I prefer to keep in the "special interest" but will consider the suggestions of the phrase "and international reputation" and the word "and".
We will examine it. I am not sure we will come back with the exact phrase "international reputation", but we will see what we can do to meet what the Senator is trying to achieve.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 16, 21 and 22 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Amendment of The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Charters Amendment) Act 2003
7. Paragraph (a) of section 30 is amended by the deletion of “determine;” and the insertion of “determine, subject to section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014.”.”.
The RCSI has been like Banquo’s ghost in the legislation. It is not mentioned in the Bill. I propose that we end the secret. We know we are talking about the RCSI’s wish to be a university outside Ireland but not within the country, which requires the college to amend its charter. The amendment would get the purpose of the Bill into the Bill. I do not know why it has been a secret up to now that this is what we have been discussing. The word on the street is that this is what the Bill is about. There is an RCSI (Charters Amendment) Act from 2003 and this will allow the RCSI to have its wish.
Are we to return to this amendment after the half hour discussion on the State board appointment?
It will be adjourned to another day.
Is it possible to continue with the few amendments and finish them today?
The Order of the House is to take statements at 6 p.m.
The Order of the House cannot be amended again.
It is a foolish waste of time dragging the Minister around, however it is up to the Leader, who is in government. Again, I strongly agree with Senator Sean D. Barrett. It is astonishing and bizarre that although the Bill emerged as a result of pressure from RCSI, the college is not mentioned in it. It is appropriate that the college be mentioned in the Bill. If it just wants to be able to market itself in various countries in the Middle East, it should show its face.
I do not propose to accept the amendments because the application process for authorisation to use the title of university outside the State is open to any institution that fulfils the strict criteria outlined in the Bill. While the Senators may be correct about the purpose of the Bill, the criteria are very strict and it would not be right to have the legislation for one particular institution. It should be open to any institution in the future. If we put this in, it would pre-empt any application and ministerial authorisation via the strict process set out in the Bill.
I accept the Minister’s decision. In the era of openness, transparency and accountability I would have thought she should have accepted the amendment. It might kill the section because if the RCSI does not amend its charter to get permission to be a university outside but not within Ireland, it might not be able to go ahead. It is regrettable in a democracy to keep such a matter secret. I do not regard the Minister as having responsibility for this aspect of the legislation and will not press the amendment.
Section 7 agreed to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
SECTION 8
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, lines 18 and 19, to delete all words from and including “deletion” in line 18 down to and including line 19 and substitute “substitution of “authorised” for “administered”.”.
Despite what happened to be in the previous section, this is an era of openness, transparency and accountability. While we have freedom of information legislation tabled for debate on Thursday, here we have a section entitled “Refusal of access to certain information”. It is essential that, as with HIQA in the health field and consumer bodies in many other areas, people have information on issues such as non-performing teachers and people teaching mathematics who have no qualification in the subject. These are vital decisions in the future of the country where we, as legislators, should act on behalf of young people in these schools who ought to know what is happening.
Why do we have such a section for such a vital decision when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, is introducing more freedom of information legislation this week and it is the ethos of our time to open places where information is closed and let people see what is happening and take better informed decisions? I oppose the section. The opposition to league tables in education is wrong. For example, we must have information on which 400 of the 4,000 schools in the country, are designated as Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, schools. Why would we want people not to know what is happening in schools? The section is very old-fashioned and goes against the spirit of modern education and the rights of children. Every time we have tried to cover things up we have got into more trouble afterwards. We should let all this information go out as part of reforming education on behalf of the next generation. I was very surprised the Bill specified that we did not want information about schools being available to parents and pupils.
I strongly support Senator Sean D. Barrett. When we discussed it, we agreed it as astonishing. Last week, the Freedom of Information Bill 2013 was brought before the Oireachtas, and I strongly queried some aspects of it because it would open to the public communications between Cabinets Ministers. How is that for facilitating freedom of discussion? On the other hand, the Government is clamping down on information which parents would value in terms of deciding where to send their children. The question of performance of schools in terms of success in examinations, education or training facilities in respect of the academic achievement, the result or outcome of students and comparative overall results are things that inform parents’ decisions as to where to send their children. It seems extraordinary that this would happen. While part of the motivation may be to try to stop a drift away from schools that are already in trouble into schools that have a better rating of educational excellence, that is the marketplace.
God knows I am not a capitalist, but this is the system we are under. As we have marketing involved in this legislation, it does seem-----
As it is now 6 p.m., I ask the Senator to report progress.
What happens if I refuse?
I will have to get somebody else.
The Senator will not be mentioned in the Minister's next interview if he refuses.
As I was trying to save the Minister, we could get rid of the couple of amendments that are left and let her be free.
There are a number of amendments left.
Yes, I know, but there are only about two or three left.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
