It is proposed to adjourn today's meeting at 4.15 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and his officials.
Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 18 are consequent on amendment No. 19 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 28 and 29, and substitute the following:
"7.—The Principal Act is hereby amended by—
(a) the substitution of the following section for section 8:".
These technical amendments are necessitated by the changes to the composition of the VEC, which I have introduced in this Bill. The 1930 Act provides for eight members of each VEC to be drawn directly from the appropriate local authority and the remaining members to be nominated by the local authority from groups with an interest in the objectives of a VEC. Section 12 of the 1930 Act provided that, where a member left office before the completion of the term of office, the local authority would appoint or nominate another member to replace that person. This Bill changes that formula. For the first time, a right of nomination has been provided to a VEC, directly to the educational partners, namely the staff of the committee and parents of students attending, as well as the wider community. These provisions are set out in section 7.
To complete this change, it is also appropriate that this should apply in the event of a vacancy on a VEC. Where a parent representative, for example, leaves a VEC it will be the appropriate parents' representative body that will act to replace that member. This is provided for in amendment No. 19. Amendments Nos. 1 and 18 are technical amendments designed to accommodate amendment No. 19.
Amendment agreed to.
I regret that amendment No. 2 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the revenue.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 9 form a composite proposal and amendments Nos. 4 and 11 form an alternative composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 11 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, to delete lines 10 and 11 and substitute the following:
(d) 2 members elected by members of the staff of the committee, one of whom shall be a member of the teaching staff and one of the non-teaching staff member, and".
The intention is that, wherever the power balance lies in terms of the right of staff of the VEC to have nominees, whether they are teaching or non-teaching, it should not be a case of "winner takes all". The position provided for by here are "2 members elected by members of the staff of the committee" either being entirely representative of teaching staff or, on the other hand, the administrative staff, which is unlikely to be entirely representative of the administrative staff in the VEC. What the amendment seeks is to ensure equity and make sure that on the one hand teachers' voices are represented on the VEC but that equally and as importantly, the administrative staff would have a position ring-fenced for them as well. In its present construction I would imagine that the balance of numbers would favour the teaching staff taking all the positions and that would not be a good idea. The amendment has considerable merit and I am sure the Minister will recognise that.
We all appreciate the difficulties in getting the numbers right in the composition of any body. There are a few principles that should be borne in mind. With regard to a body like this, it is important that there is an equal number of members representing the teaching interests and the parents' interests. There are two parents proposed, and on that basis two teachers should be proposed. Two places are reserved for staff representatives. There is no question but that the teaching staff will take those two positions. It would be a good principle to have the same number of parent and teacher representatives.
However, there are ancillary and administrative staff involved who are critical to the successful operation of the vocational education committees and they should be represented. There is no doubt that they will be squeezed out if it is just left as two representatives for the staff, because the teaching staff will take those two positions and all of those other important categories of staff will be excluded. For that reason I suggest that we have an additional place, that we retain the two staff places for teaching staff and that there would be an additional place for the other ancillary staff.
Amendment No. 4 reads "2 members elected by members of the teaching staff of the committee and 1 member elected by other members of the staff of the committee, provided that expenses and allowances shall be payable in respect of 2 members only pursuant to this paragraph . . . ". The Chairman will appreciate why I had to suggest that only two would receive payment because of the restrictions on Opposition Members in tabling amendments that would result in a charge on the Exchequer. We have to be creative in trying to achieve our objectives. However, there are principles that must be accepted. There should be equality of representation between teachers and parents and we should provide for the other categories of staff who will not have any representation under the existing proposals.
I note the points made by the Deputies. It is important that all the partners are afforded an opportunity to be represented on the VEC. I have made such provision in the present structure of the Bill. This provision ensures that all staff of the VEC will have an opportunity to be consulted on and to vote their own representatives to serve on the VEC. I appreciate the Deputy's point that there is no guarantee that there will be a non-teaching member of staff on the committee. Deputies will appreciate that there are limited spaces available on the committee and that it is not always possible to ensure that every concerned group be represented on a body like this. There are dangers in reopening a complex form of representation, such as that which is provided here, when it was done by negotiation, discussion and agreement in the first instance.
In this Bill, I believe we have an opportunity to address this problem. The present structure of the Bill requires that each VEC draw representation from a wide group of representative bodies, set out in section 7(1)(e) and (2)(d). I think it would be beneficial if those subsections could be adapted so as to ensure that even if a certain category of staff was not represented as part of the staff nominees, they could still have representation under this wider grouping. Subject to the agreement of the Deputies, I will revisit this issue with a view to providing for an amendment at Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's willingness to consider this and his recognition of the points being made. The voices which are possibly excluded, those of principals and deputy principals, are equally significant. We have had this debate previously in the context of the Teaching Council Bill. It is a voice that is different to the voice of teachers per se, and perhaps the Minister might consider this issue when looking at the Bill for Report Stage. As I understand it, he is now looking at adding in some provision in section 7(2)(d) to facilitate non-teaching staff but he might also look at the issue of principals and deputy principals.
We will certainly look at that issue but the difficulties of broadening it too far may be appreciated. Principals and deputy principals are part of the staff, admittedly an important element, and I can assure the Deputy that I will look at the issue.
I welcome the Minister's indication that he accepts the principle of what we are saying. The four outside members are very important in the make-up of the board. I do not believe we can afford to lose any of those places, presumably a lot of consideration and consultation went into coming up with the figure of four, and it could not easily be reduced to three if one of them was to be allocated to the other staff. Would there be serious problems if the number was to be reduced by one? All kinds of different partners make up the education system and ancillary staff are a very important element in that, particularly in the VEC schools. It is only right that they have representation and a voice, and a proper mechanism for electing a representative to sit on the board. Would the Minister foresee any particular problems in creating an additional place?
A formula has been carefully prepared and agreed, and ends up with 9:8, which is the essential element in the formula.
Would the Minister indicate what is wrong with that?
Anything that disturbs that subsequently is obviously disturbing the whole formula.
That is assuming that the nine and eight are always at loggerheads.
I know. But in any event we will look at the points raised for Report Stage. I think there may be a way we can make some provision in the general wider grouping.
I am prepared to hold off on this and revisit it at Report Stage. I have reservations which I will come to later about the nomination of the four outside members. For that reason I would not be happy with the Minister proposing that one of them becomes a staff representative. I earnestly ask the Minister to look at that for Report Stage when we can return to the issue again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 12, will be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, to delete lines 12 to 19 and substitute the following:
"(e) 4 members appointed by those elected at paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) after consultation with the council of the county borough, being a borough vocational education area or with the council of the county, being or including a county vocational education area as may be appropriate, from among those persons nominated by such bodies as in the opinion of the paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above are representative of—".
The Minister may have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, when he referred in the last amendment to the 9:8 balance. This seems to suggest that at all costs, the elected members nominated by local authorities should have control lest the eight lose the run of themselves. If we are serious about realistic partnership in education, then that thinking is rather dated and unfortunate.
I spoke on Second Stage on the issue under specific consideration in amendment No. 5 in that it equally gave hostages to fortune, so to speak, with regard to those who look with jaundiced eyes at the vocational education committees and, perhaps, somewhat datedly accuse it of excessive political interference. That is an unfortunate and dated perception, by and large, but nonetheless every effort has to be made to put the final nail in that coffin.
Long term, I would like to see a greater democratisation of education generally. I previously made the point that the mistake this Administration made was to throw the baby out with the bath water in terms of the proposal by the former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, for regional education boards. The VEC structure requires a change of name because VEC has dated connotations. They are providing a range of academic opportunities, from the highest academic level to vocational education, which other schools outside the VEC sector are equally providing. There is an opportunity here to create a model which could be applied in the future to the overall purpose of putting a greater democratic structure on education generally covering primary, secondary and third level.
That was the reason I tabled this amendment and the point I made on Second Stage was that in this section specifically was the issue of the local authority having the right to almost veto the nominees of students, voluntary organisations or persons operating within the vocational education sector, such as concerned trades, professionals or industrial activities. The import of the amendment is that the four members appointed at section 7(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) after consultation with the council would give effect to the nominees of those categories to whom I just referred rather than having this control which implies veto. For example, if there are two nominees from, let us say, voluntary organisations, or two from students, the elected members would be able to say "we will run the slide rule over them and check out their political affiliation and on that basis we will approve them". That is the worst case scenario and perhaps in many respects, as I said earlier, it is dated, but if one involves the nominees of staff and parents in this right to approve, then at least a greater effort is made to remove the allegation and taint of political interference.
I agree with all the points made by Deputy Creed. We need to start giving the partners in education a far greater say. There has been undue political influence in the VEC sector through the years. Whether it is still the case, that perception persists and we should aim to remove any hint of it. There already are nine elected members in addition to parents and staff. They should form the core group of the committee from which further nominations should be made. Allowing further nominations to be made by the county councils runs the risk of being seen to be overtly political.
There is a real danger that members of political parties will be nominated. That is not in anyone's interests in the long run because we want to conclude agreements to keep party politics out of the functioning of the various education bodies and ensure that their members are genuinely interested in the diverse elements of education. It would make for a much healthier composition of the committee if that core group of public representatives, teachers and parents was allowed to be the nominating body for the outsiders. That small measure of control and influence should be given to the core group.
I have noted what the Deputies have said. Their points concern the place accorded local government in this legislation generally and in the VEC sector in particular. It is true the elected members have a major role in this system but they have received an electoral mandate at the polls. One of the things we have been trying to do is bring representation down to directly elected members of local authorities. When we reach the point where TDs do not also serve as councillors, we will have an even greater local input and people will be able to express a view on the performance of councillors.
I have provided for three broad categories of VEC membership. These are the local authority members, the education partners and the members drawn from the wide group of community interests appointed by the local authority following consultation with the other two groups. These amendments would mean that the latter group would be chosen instead by the local authority appointees to the VEC together with the educational partners.
In revising the composition of vocational education committees in this Bill, I have provided for a major enhancement of the role of vocational education committees through the inclusion on vocational education committees, for the first time on a statutory basis, of the partners in education, not as a means of displacing the local government members but of complementing them. The voice of the partners is a welcome and necessary addition to vocational education committees. However, the VEC must remain the servant of the local community and not necessarily that of any particular interest group.
We have in this sector a unique opportunity to give direct expression to the voice of the local community by means of the judgment of their democratically elected representatives. Where such an opportunity exists, it should be utilised to the full. Accordingly, responsibility for the appointment of the community interests of the VEC should remain with the representatives of the local community, that is, the local authority members.
One of the areas that caused friction and difficulty in the past is staff appointments. As Deputies will know, that is now the responsibility of the Local Appointments Commission. That decision removes much of the controversy surrounding appointments. This Bill gives the role of managing staff to the chief executive officer, thus removing a further cause of contention. Either one believes in local democracy or one does not. We are allowing local democracy to operate and complementing it with other groups as part of an overall system of management.
Lest there be any confusion, I fully support the principle of elected members being involved in the vocational education committees. In any structure that puts democracy into education, elected representatives should have a voice equal in importance to, but not greater or lesser than, those elected by staff associations, teaching bodies, etc. This amendment, and related amendments, tries to achieve an equality of membership among the various groups on the VEC once it is finally constituted. We either recognise that parents per se have a right to be on the committee or we do not. Likewise for students and representatives of commercial interests. The amendment aims to ensure that the wider group is not nominated but subjected to further scrutiny before being approved by elected members of the committee.
It goes back to the point the Minister made earlier about the 9:8 balance, nine being a majority able to control the eight. It will be very rare for members to divide along those lines. They will be equal partners and should have equal rights to sit on the committee by virtue of the fact that they have been nominated by their respective organisations and approved by the entire core of membership as previously outlined instead of by local authority members only.
I accept some of the points made by the Minister but one has to be honest and face the reality of what has happened to local government. Rather than giving it additional powers, it has lost powers in recent years and despite all the talk of reforming local government, it has not happened. All the political parties found it extremely difficult to get people to come forward and stand in the 1999 local elections. One has to ask who in their right mind would stand for election to a local council now. We have not tried to make it a real job for people, nor have we given local councillors real powers. Local government is very much in limbo at present.
What we need on the vocational education committees are people who have expertise on all aspects of education, in particular local knowledge. The elected public representatives, with nine representatives, already have a majority. They are, therefore, very well represented. We are arguing for equality to be given to the other members. There is a core group and the elected representatives are in a huge majority compared to teachers or parents. We are supposedly talking about partnership, but there is no great equality with those kinds of numbers.
In order to recognise the role of the parents and teachers, it is only democratic that the core group works together and nominates the members from outside bodies and that the council is not given a controlling hand, which already exists in so far as there is a majority of elected members on the committee. The Minister seeks to increase that even further by leaving the control of an additional four places with the council. Let us be honest, we will not necessarily get the best people by taking that route nor get people with real expertise or who have a contribution to make in this important area.
The core group of elected representatives, teachers and parents are in a far better position to nominate people with a genuine commitment to education. Sadly nominations have not always been based on that criterion whether in health or education or other areas of public life in which public representatives have been nominated. Very often they do not have any expertise in that area. For that reason, there is a greater chance of getting the right calibre of people if they are nominated by the core group.
For the first time staff and parents are being given rights. We are giving them new rights. There will be no veto over parents. The Deputy talked about real powers for the VEC. Here, we are giving real powers to the VEC and its members. VEC members in partnership with various other groups will have the key power. This is at the core of the Bill. While I do not see a problem arising in that regard I will look at the matter again before Report Stage.
The distinguished contribution the VEC sector is making is clear. It is rising to the challenges and has led the way in many respects, including flexibility and meeting the needs of modern pupils. The position of the local authorities was enshrined in the original VEC legislation for which there were sound reasons. At the time the local authority sector provided the bedrock for the development of what was then a new and untried experiment in Irish education. This inclusion provided the VEC sector with a direct link to local communities, a link constantly reinforced and revitalised by local elections. It, in turn, created the moral authority for the vocational education committees to undertake, and continue to undertake, their pioneering work in the field of local education, not least in the development of adult education and the institute of technology structures as they have evolved.
I do not see a problem in this area although I understand the point being made. It is important to keep elected representatives clearly in charge.
The comment that elected representatives should remain in charge is unfortunate. Given that he has indicated a willingness to consider the matter further for Report Stage will the Minister look at the model used in the health boards where there are various rights and representative groups, including psychiatric and general nurses, consultants, general practitioners and dentists? They have a right to elect members without elected representatives having a further say. That could be usefully looked at.
That is provided for in the Bill for parents and staff.
What about other partners?
That is the point the Deputy is making. I will look at it for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, line 21, after "organisations" to insert "including those involved in the promotion of the Irish language, arts and culture."
Comhdháil Náisúnta na Gaeilge is a vigilant group when it comes to proofing legislation from a cultural and linguistic perspective. It has been in contact with all Members in this regard. For this reason it is not a bad thing to make specific reference to organisations involved in the promotion of the Irish language, arts and culture.
I represent a constituency where the VEC is actively involved in the provision of education in the Gaeltacht area. I talk in particular about post-primary schools in Ballyvourney and Béal Átha an Ghaorthaidh. Their track record and commitment are exemplary in County Cork VEC. A case could easily be made that because of the size of the schools they should be amalgamated. However, they have been innovative in their approach to education and are acutely aware of the special needs of the Gaeltacht community. It would copperfasten this new era of vocational education to include a specific reference in the Bill. While the VEC with which I am most familiar has not been found wanting in this respect it would useful to state in the Bill that these organisations have a right to be represented.
Amendment No. 8 is similar to that in the name of Deputy Creed. All Members welcome the representation of outside bodies and local interests in education. However, the bodies suggested in the Bill are somewhat outdated. It mentions "persons carrying on, in places within the vocational education area concerned, trades, professions or commercial or industrial activities." That is fine and it is right that the people concerned should be represented but it is a narrow view to take of the vocational education sector. In recent years the sector has expanded enormously into a wide range of different educational and cultural activities. The suggested representation does not reflect the many varied activities in which the vocational education committees are now involved which range from arts to general culture. It is a welcome development that these areas have been included in the huge number of courses now available through the vocational education committees. The world of arts should also be represented in the composition of the committees.
I agree that the promotion of the Irish language is a key concern of each VEC and educational institution. VEC schools around the country play an important part each day in the teaching and promotion of Irish. In some vocational education committees, including those in the Gaeltacht, there will be specialised provision for the needs of the Irish-speaking community.
I have made provision for each VEC to take into account the needs of the local community it serves through the appointment by the local authority of up to four members to the VEC to represent interests connected with the objectives of the VEC, including those with an interest in the promotion of the Irish language, arts and culture. I am assured that section 7(1)(e) and section 7(2)(d) fully comprehend such organisations. However, to specify organisations other than in a general way would cause different groups to feel that they should be represented also. Groups representing people with disabilities are one example. This is a matter for individual vocational education committees to decide.
While I accept the Minister's point about the difficulty in deciding where to draw the line between the various groups which could make a case for involvement Deputy Shortall has made the point that education should be increasingly all-embracing of arts and culture. Given the special significance of the Irish language — recognised in the Constitution — it would be worthwhile; whether it is included in section 7(1)(e)(ii) or (1)(e)(iii), it is a voice which should be heard.
There is provision for that. It is then a matter for each VEC——
Where?
In section 7(1)(e) and (2)(d).
Under voluntary organisations, commercial organisations or industrial activities? Voluntary organisations will comprehend the ones the Minister mentioned.
I am sure that this is the case. I can check that if the Deputy is concerned about it. It leaves it to the individual VEC to decide which ones are important in their areas and maybe to vary them from time to time.
I feel the Bill as drafted does not reflect the wide range of activities undertaken by vocational education committees. The suggested bodies which would make nominations to committees reflect a very narrow view of the vocational education committees.
I do not know if the Irish language is referred to at all in this Bill; I cannot recall it being referred to. It is the first official language, it is taught in all the schools. There are other cultural and artistic activities associated with the Irish language and with Irish life that are very much tapped into now in the modern vocational education committees. The Minister's emphasis on trades, commercial and industrial, does not reflect the modern vocational education committees. I would like to see him giving recognition to the first official language and our national cultural interests which are reflected in modern vocational education committees but unfortunately are not reflected in the Bill.
This Bill is not about that. The Education Act does that. We have the section 31 body to advise on the promotion of the language and that is not repeated in every Bill. This is a Bill with certain purposes and in that context it is a matter of national policy which is carried in national legislation. Section 6(i) of the Education Act, 1998:
to contribute to the realisation of national policy and objectives in relation to the extension of bi-lingualism in Irish society and in particular the achievement of a greater use of the Irish language at school and in the community;
That applies to everything. It does not have to be carried forward into every Bill.
The point is about the suggested nomination bodies.
The question is, is it broad enough to cover all those bodies? We will look at that again to make sure it is. It covers persons involved in places within vocational education, trades, professions or commercial and industrial activities, voluntary organisations and students. We will make sure it is. My advice is that it is comprehended.
How will the Minister ensure that if it is not referred to? I am not suggesting that this Bill should deal in any detailed way with the place of the Irish language or cultural issues. With the Minister suggesting those nomination bodies he is taking a particular view of the activities carried on in the vocational education committees. That is a narrower view that what is the reality of modern vocational education committees.
They are very broad groupings and categories, and purposely so. In so far as there might be any deficiency, I will certainly look at that. I am advised that the arts, culture, the Gaeltacht and the Irish language will all be comprehended in those bodies. We must make sure that is so. I will make sure of that for Report Stage.
In view of the Minister's commitment to look at it for Report Stage, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.
Amendment No. 10 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, line 3, after "with" to insert "the Irish Vocational Education Association and".
It is important that we recognise the very central and critical role of the IVEA within the VEC executive. If we have a new Bill which will consult with the Minister on every aspect of the operation of the committees, it does not make sense not to consult with the IVEA. We are back to the question of whether we are serious about partnership. If we are serious, it means the Minister of the day takes the time to consult with all those involved and we see an end to a time when decisions are taken by ministerial diktat. If we have representative bodies in place which speak on behalf of a particular sector, they must be consulted. It is for this reason that I want to give explicit provision to consultation with the IVEA in this important Bill.
The IVEA is the umbrella body for the employers. It represents 33 vocational education committees around the country who are involved in the provision of education to more than 240 second level schools. The concept of partnership is well established nationally where the Government consults with employers, employees and the recognised social partners. To give the same recognition within this legislation would require that the employers' body, the IVEA, be consulted.
Amendment No. 16 reads:
In page 7, line 11, after "Government" to insert "and the Irish Vocational Education Association".
Amendment No. 17 reads:
In page 7, line 25, before "recognised" to insert the Irish Vocational Education Association,".
Amendment No. 16 is the same as Deputy Creed's and provides for consultation with the IVEA in the preparation of any regulations made for the appointment of local authority members to the VEC. The Deputies have proposed a further right of consultation in respect of parent and staff representations. It would not be appropriate to take that step at this time. The IVEA has a clear historic link with the local authority sector, a product of the close historic link between the VEC and local government sectors. I am happy to ensure they would be consulted in the preparation of any regulations in respect of elections for local authority members.
Where the interests of parents and staff are already well catered for by their own representative bodies I consider it is sufficient to provide for consultation with those groups alone in respect of any regulations to be made governing their procedures for elections. The Deputies stated that they would like explicit provision to be made for this consultation. I will consider this before Report Stage.
We are going to have a long Report Stage debate.
Not if we are in agreement on the amendments.
As an act of faith I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Minister will accommodate the desires of Members.
The Deputies will recall that on Second Stage they raised the question of the title "vocational education committees". There was concern that this title may need to be revised in view of the many changes that have taken place in the sector since 1930. I have some sympathy with this view. Accordingly, I have requested that a further amendment be prepared for Report Stage to allow the Minister, by order, to provide for a change of name of vocational education committees as a whole. This would only be done following close consultation with the many interested parties concerned, including Members of the Houses. Where a consensus emerges this provision would allow the Minister to make an order to achieve such a change of title.
To what amendment is the Minister referring?
This issue was raised on Second Stage.
But there is no specific amendment.
No, that is the reason I stopped after my contribution on the amendments. I will deal with this matter on Report Stage but I thought I would refer to it now.
My understanding is that the Minister has given a commitment to include provision for consultation with the IVEA in this section and that it is only a matter of agreeing the wording to be used. I will withdraw my amendment on the basis that he will bring forward a more satisfactory wording on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, line 11, after "Government" to insert "and the Irish Vocational Education Association".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 8, line 14, to delete "thereunder.'." and substitute "thereunder.', and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 8, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(b) the substitution of the following section for section 12:
'12.—If a member of a vocational education committee dies, resigns, ceases to be qualified for office and ceases to hold office, or is removed from office a person shall be elected or appointed, as may be appropriate, to fill the casual vacancy so occasioned, in the same manner as the member of the vocational education committee who occasioned the casual vacancy was elected or appointed, as the case may be.'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wish to raise a question on the overall composition of the vocational education committees — I am sure the Minister is probably more au fait than me with this matter — about the right of members of religious orders to representation on vocational education committees. I do not know if the Minister has given consideration to this matter or whether he intends to consider it for Report Stage.
This is an important matter and I am glad the Deputy referred to it because I was going to do so at some point in order that I could consider it for Report Stage. There are different views on it. There is a view that it would be comprehended by the existing wording, for example, "voluntary organisations" would include religious orders. However, we will consider it further before Report Stage. It is a question of whether we can deal with it by order or whether we need to specify it more clearly in the legislation. If it is comprehended already we can involve religious orders by order.
Let us consider the example of a VEC and a school run by a religious order where it is agreed that the institution will become a community college. If it becomes a community school there is provision for the involvement of the VEC. However, if it becomes a community college there is no provision. It is done in certain instances without there necessarily being a statutory base in place. It could be comprehended under the section but we will make this clear on Report Stage and, if necessary, we will bring forward an amendment. To return to my example, this would mean that there would be a representative from the religious school on the board of management of the community college.
Given the fact that the overall membership will be confined under the legislation to 17, of which nine will be nominated by local authorities, is the Minister indicating that he will return on Report Stage having considered the question of those entitled to nomination — principals and deputy principals, linguistic and cultural organisations and, possibly, members of religious orders — and state that these will be appointed from the eight not nominated by local authorities? I have no objection to elected members being in a minority if a voice for bona fide partners in education to whom I refer will be provided.
To clarify, they would be comprehended by the titles in place under which they could be included. That was the point I made in respect of cultural and linguistic organisations. I am advised that they could be included as one of the four. In relation to religious orders, the Deputy is also asking that it would be made clear that they could be included under the heading of, for example, "voluntary organisations".
I am also making that point that if, to give a specific voice to principals and deputy principals — I tabled an amendment on the matter but it was ruled out of order — the Minister feels overwhelmed by the strength of my argument and wants to accommodate them I do not believe he should feel he is hamstrung. I see no compelling logic why elected nominated members should be in the majority. That is just a general point.
As already stated this has emerged on foot of a long period of discussion, consultation and negotiation. We would not be anxious to upset the overall balance but we will consider the position before Report Stage. The principal requirement is that certain groups can be comprehended by and included under the provisions of the existing sections.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, 32 and 38 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 8, paragraph (a), line 30, after "committee" to insert "and to contribute to the realisation of national policy and objectives in relation to the promotion of the Irish language through the educational system in so far as it relates to those schools and centres".
These amendments relate to the place of the Irish language and the lack of any reference in the Bill to the promotion of the language within the VEC sector. It is appropriate that, under the section dealing with the functions of a VEC, along with the other functions referred to, it should be a function of a VEC "to contribute to the realisation of national policy and objectives in the promotion of the Irish language through the educational system in so far as it relates to schools and centres". It is important to give specific mention to the place of the Irish language and Irish cultural matters and their promotion within this sector of schools. That is the intention of these amendments.
I refer specifically to amendment No. 38 which is designed to deal with VEC schools in Gaeltacht areas. I suggest a new section be inserted stating that it will be an additional function of a vocational education committee to "promote the development of the Irish language and culture in so far as it relates to its functions, and in the case of schools in a Gaeltacht area shall contribute to the maintenance of the Irish language as a primary language". There is the old idea that VEC schools are concerned with trades, have a narrower remit and are essentially urban based. That is not the case with modern VEC schools, many of which serve Gaeltacht areas. In such areas it should obviously be a function of a school to maintain the first language and to contribute to it. For that reason, we should make explicit reference to the place of the Irish language, especially through amendment No. 38 which relates to VEC schools in Gaeltacht areas.
Section 9(c) places an onus on a VEC to adopt and submit an education plan in accordance with section 26. In tabling amendment No. 21, it appeared to me that an education plan was something over-arching in terms of all the functions of a VEC and, therefore, might be a useful vehicle to place an obligation on a VEC in the context of preparing and implementing the plan to be aware of its obligations in respect of national objectives in the promotion of the Irish language and culture. It is perhaps an oversight on my part that amendment No. 21 should have read "in relation to the promotion of the Irish language and culture". If the Minister is prepared to consider the amendment, he might consider amending the wording on Report Stage to the effect I have outlined.
The education plan will obviously have a trickle-down effect on each VEC school. It will also inform the administrative side of the VEC and I thought it would be a useful vehicle to achieve many of the objectives. If the Minister grants the right to language and cultural organisations to become members of the VEC, possibly as one of the voluntary organisations, their objectives in respect of language and culture could be pursued through the education plan.
Generally speaking, there is no reference to functions. They are carried elsewhere and come through from the Minister and, by arrangement, from the plans. I am conscious the vocational education committees should bear in mind constantly Government policy towards the maintenance and promotion of the Irish language. This is and will continue to be a key aim of Government. It will be the responsibility of each VEC to shape its activities through its service and education plans to meet this objective. I do not regard it as appropriate that the type of amendments envisaged by the Deputies would be placed in this legislation. I am only too well aware that provision of this type with a general and somewhat vague aim and ambition can sometimes fall short of expectations. Instead, I propose to address this issue more directly.
As Deputies will be aware, I recently established a specific body to consider and investigate all issues relating to the teaching and learning of the Irish language. This body, recently established under section 31 of the Education Act, has a duty to report directly to me on the best means of promoting the use of Irish in all recognised schools, including VEC schools. It is my intention that this body should provide the basis for the informed development of strategies to maintain, develop and promote the use of the Irish language in a structured manner. It will be my role as Minister, following consideration of the advice of that body, to direct the implementation of its advice and strategy in each school.
I have noted Deputies' concerns about the consultation process provided for under section 9(e). The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the body established under section 31 of the Education Act will be involved at national level in the preparation of any policy developments regarding the Irish language. That Minister will be consulted as part of normal Cabinet decisions made regarding education policy while it is the specific role of the section 31 body to advise me on a wider range of issues relating to the Irish language. My intention in section 9 is to provide for a local rather than a national process of consultation to allow vocational education committees the flexibility to consult and respond appropriately to local needs and concerns. All vocational education committees are and will continue to be bound by national educational policies in the overall performance of their functions. The process of consultation under section 9 will allow them to tailor their individual policies within these parameters to meet local needs.
From the drafting point of view, the recognition of the policy on the Irish language is already included and vocational education committees are obliged under the Education Act to take note of it. Any repetition of that in the Bill is unnecessary.
I accept what the Minister says. His explanation covers my points.
My concern is the mindset which has given birth to the Bill. It is one which probably derives from a middle class, privately educated background. It is that type of thinking which is being brought to bear on this legislation and gives rise to the narrow view taken of vocational education committees, namely, that they are concerned with training people to be carpenters and plasterers, whereas the reality is infinitely wider and more vibrant than that and includes the Irish language and Irish cultural matters and subjects. That vibrancy is not reflected in the Bill, unfortunately. I withdraw the amendments on the basis that the Minister is not going to concede on this point.
While we will examine the inclusion of language and culture in the other section for Report Stage and while the Deputy has at least raised the concept, the danger is that whatever is included in the section under discussion could be taken by the vocational education committees as being all they have to do when in fact what they will have to do will derive from the Education Act and the advice of the section 31 body.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, subsection (5), line 18, after "staff." to insert "The performance by the chief executive officer of the functions outlined in this section may be the subject of an appeal to the vocational education committee by an interested party or their representative.".
What avenues of redress are available to VEC staff members who may feel aggrieved by decisions made by the chief executive officer in the performance of his duties? Is the conventional industrial relations machinery available? In the past, has it been the case that a member of staff who felt he had a grievance had access to the VEC? If so, does the Bill change matters, given the demarcation between executive and reserved functions? What changes does the Bill make to an aggrieved party who wishes to pursue an industrial relations issue? Should we not make provision for access to the VEC by an aggrieved party?
The provision of an appeals process is an important part of any administrative procedure and should be accommodated. I assure the Deputy that the absence of a specific appeals procedure does not prevent a VEC from establishing an appeals process. I consider this to be an essential part of any staff management function. However, I would not propose to prescribe a particular form of process in this legislation.
I have made provision that the management of staff in the VEC will henceforth be an executive function for the chief executive officer. As such, it will be the responsibility of the chief executive officer of a VEC to ensure that all staff functions will be carried out in an efficient, effective and fair manner. As part of that process the chief executive officer must build into the staff management process, provision for appeals against any decisions affecting staff members. Some vocational education committees may choose to provide for appeals to the VEC committee itself and some may decide to use the services of an agreed arbitrator. Alternatively the sector as a whole may agree procedures in this regard. It is not appropriate that we should, at this point, make a final decision as to how the appeals process would be structured.
I assure the Deputy that the existing processes will continue. The 1944 Act, provides for very strong protection for teachers. That Act continues and overrides anything in this legislation. The existing protections for staff, which are already contained in the body of VEC legislation, particularly in the 1944 Act, remain and will be unaffected by this legislation.
I am also looking at the appeals provisions set out for students in the Education Act. The amendment would allow certain categories of appeals previously reserved for hearing at a national level to be heard at local level, initially. I hope to make an amendment to this provision on Report Stage.
By not placing a specific obligation on the chief executive officer is there a danger that he may refuse to establish an appeals procedure? If the Act does not specifically grant an injured party a right of access to the VEC we might find chief executive officers playing God and injured parties having no access to independent arbitration or to the VEC committee itself.
An injured party can go beyond the VEC if he wishes.
With regard to the chief executive officer, the provisions of the 1944 Act continue to apply and everyone must comply with those. Furthermore, the chief executive officer must carry out his management functions in a fair manner. This includes fair provision of appeal.
That is not specifically included.
That would entail re-writing legislation which is of general application. The chief executive officer must comply with general legislation.
If a third party wished to go to the Labour Court or to use other industrial relations machinery the VEC would be obliged to defend its case there. However, it would be preferable to have an internal appeals mechanism.
The Minister, while not wishing to be prescriptive, says the chief executive officer should provide for independent arbitration within the VEC system or that an aggrieved party should have access to the VEC committee. It is surely preferable to resolve such disputes at a local level rather than clogging up the industrial relations machinery of the State with trivia or minor matters which could be resolved locally. The Bill does not place an obligation on a chief executive officer.
There is an obligation to manage in a fair manner. That includes the fair treatment of staff, particularly of teachers. There is also the teachers' conciliation and arbitration facility, if it should be necessary to take a matter that far. That machinery is outside the internal machinery.
I withdraw the amendment with leave to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 13, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
17.—(1) The chief executive officer of a vocational education committee shall, whenever required to do so by the Committee of Dáil Éireann established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, give evidence to that committee on—
(a) the regularity and propriety of the transactions recorded or required to be recorded in any book or other record of account subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General that that vocational education committee is required by this Act to prepare,
(b) the economy and efficiency of the vocational education committee in the use of its resources,
(c) the systems, procedures and practices employed by the vocational education committee for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its operations, and
(d) any matter affecting the vocational education committee referred to in a special report of the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 11(2) of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993, or in any other report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (in so far as it relates to a matter specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)) that is laid before Dáil Éireann.
(2) In the performance of his or her duties under this section, the chief executive officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy.".
These three amendments are all inserted to copper-fasten the accountability of vocational education committees to committees of this House, particularly the Committee on Public Accounts. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are based on provisions in other legislation recently passed: the Human Rights Commission Act and the Employment Equality Authority Act, 1998. Amendment No. 27 is made on the basis of the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office and clears up any potential misunderstanding about the position of the chief executive officer of a VEC as accounting officer in the context of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993. The amendment ensures that the chief executive officer will act as accounting officer.
These are substantial amendments and one asks why they were not included in the original Bill. I would like to have had more notice of them.
To what extent has the Minister discussed these amendments with the chief executive officers' representative body? I have no difficulty with amendment No. 25 which I understand to impose the same accountability requirements as apply to chief executive officers of health boards. Given our experience in relation to health boards I wonder why this provision was not included in the original Bill.
Amendment No. 26 seems to be an unusual way to go. It strikes me that this is a substitution for compellability legislation. Many Dáil committees have run into difficulties in calling various people from whom they wish to hear. People have refused to attend but there is no legislative basis on which to compel them to do so. Is it the Government's intention to take this route in order that a section would be inserted in legislation applying to any public bodies imposing a requirement to attend all Dáil committees and answer questions? Will the Government take this route on the issue of compellability rather than introducing compellability legislation? I do not have a difficulty with it but amendment No. 26 is a strange way to go about achieving accountability and ensuring attendance and answerability to Dáil committees for chief executive officers of public bodies.
Like Deputy Shortall, I would like to have had a longer time to consider these amendments even though on face value they appear to be sensible. The Comptroller and Auditor General should be in a position to query the financial probity of vocational education committees. God knows, there have been some flare-ups in the VEC sector which provide good reason to have this level of accountability. That deals with amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 26 is the more interesting one. Only a week ago this committee was considering the recent Labour Relations Commission report on the Dublin Institute of Technology. As it transpired the committee was not in a position either to invite or oblige Dublin Institute of Technology management to give an account to this committee of matters which are the cause of some considerable concern given that the Dublin Institute of Technology is the largest third level institution in the country. In that sense I welcome the provision that the vocational education committees should be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas not only for their financial probity but also for the delivery and execution of their other educational functions. Does the Minister have any comments to make about the Dublin Institute of Technology? Is any retrospective legislation being considered that would oblige all educational institutions to be accountable to this committee for the discharge of their educational functions?
These amendments are to copper-fasten the accountability of vocational education committees to committees of the House, particularly the Committee of Public Accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General Act, 1993, gives those powers to the holder of that office. The amendment copper-fastens them in this Bill and makes the accountability aspect quite clear. It is very important.
The Deputy asked how it came about. It came from consultation with various people, including the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, following publication of the Bill. People have had experiences of different kinds with committees in recent times. It is important to make clear the fact that the chief executive officer is accountable to the House, being responsible as the accounting officer.
The Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin Institute of Technology, was also mentioned. Incidentally, there has never been a problem with the vocational education committees of which I am aware. There was a difficulty with the Dublin Institute of Technology however in calling in the chief executive officer who is called the president of the institute. By making things specific, as has been done in this legislation, there is no subsequent doubt about the matter. This is something that may have to be done in forthcoming legislation concerning the Dublin Institute of Technology to explicitly make the point very clearly as the Deputy has said.
That will have to be done. Last week this committee received advice that it could not summon the Dublin Institute of Technology to discuss what the dogs in the street knew about problems in the institute where legal writs are flying. The problems give cause for concern about the delivery of educational services in what is the most popular destination for third level students. In the context of this Bill it is welcome that individual vocational education committees can be summoned for reasons other than their financial probity, including the delivery of their educational services. In the short-term does the Minister foresee any mechanism, legislative or otherwise, whereby this committee can investigate further what is happening in various institutes of technology and universities? Does he believe this committee should have a role in that respect as he is now giving the committee a role in respect of vocational education committees?
As regards the Dublin Institute of Technology specifically the Deputy will be aware that I have recently appointed a new chairman of the institute, Professor Patrick Fottrell, formerly president of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Professor Fottrell recently retired from that position and I asked him to take over the post as chairman of the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is a huge institute with some 21,000 students. The Dublin Institute of Technology is very flexible and covers a wide range of subjects. It has over 10,000 full-time students and just over 2,800 apprentices in the current academic year. I appreciate that the Dublin Institute of Technology has developed to meet all current needs and I have seen what it is doing. The Government is trying to acquire property to bring many of the separate campuses together as they are currently spread around the city. The Dublin Institute of Technology has experienced growing pains in expanding rapidly to meet the demands. It has done a great service for the public and the country generally in that regard.
I told the incoming chairman who has now been appointed that I would give him any support he wishes to have. In other words, if he wants to undertake any special investigations or studies I will give any support to ensure the management and other mechanisms are brought up to the highest possible standards. That is all taking place at the Dublin Institute of Technology.
As regards having discussions with the Dublin Institute of Technology the institute is an independent body in its own right. The committee could, if it wished, invite the chairman of the Dublin Institute of Technology to come and discuss the developments and policies of the institute. One would have to see what the response to such a request would be.
I wish to finish this point because we may be straying slightly from the provisions of the Bill. Arising from the Labour Relations Commission's investigation into the issues at the Dublin Institute of Technology, the committee was under the impression that it could not oblige the Dublin Institute of Technology to come here to discuss on-campus matters. I have no reason to disbelieve the legal advice we received. The legislation will give us the right to request vocational education committees to attend meetings of the committee to account for their delivery of services similar to the right being accorded to the Comptroller and Auditor General to ask them to account for their use of public funds. Does the Minister envisage the introduction of legislation that will enable us to carry out the same function in regard to third level institutions?
Normally legislation is published and consultations are undertaken in regard to it for a period before it is debated. These amendments are substantial but they were only circulated to Members this morning. Has there been any consultation with VEC chief executive officers on this? Have they even been informed of the Minister's proposed amendments given that the Opposition spokespersons did not receive them until earlier today? It is not a satisfactory way of doing business. I hope the Minister has undertaken consultations.
I repeat the question I asked earlier regarding compellability. Is this the way the Government intends to proceed to deal with the issue of compellability rather than introducing separate legislation?
The amendments will insert in legislation what is the practice and will copper-fasten the accountability of vocational education committees to committees of the Houses. The question of compellability is being dealt with by the Government in separate legislation. There are many aspects to it which would override anything contained in these amendments in terms of what people could be compelled to do or provide and so on. The amendments will make clear in the legislation what is the position.
Has there been any consultation with those who will be affected directly by the legislation?
The consultation was conducted primarily with the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the mechanisms required. It was similar to a drafting issue. While this practice has been in operation, it should have a statutory basis so that there is no misunderstanding in future.
It is a little disingenuous to refer to amendment No. 25 as a drafting change. It is a substantial amendment, although I do not have a difficulty with any of the principles involved. Introduction of the amendment on the day Committee Stage of the legislation is to be taken is not a good way to do business, particularly as there has been no consultation with those who will be directly affected. The Minister should wait until Report Stage to give Members an opportunity to consider the amendment in greater detail and to allow consultation with the people who will be directly affected, namely, the chief executive officers.
The amendment copper-fastens what has been good practice for the past 20 years.
There is a difference between good practice and legal obligation.
The legal advice is that the obligation always existed. The amendment clarifies the position. That is why it is a drafting change. The position is being clarified in case an objection is raised at any stage by people attending committees of the Houses.
Will the Minister agree to give us until Report Stage to canvass opinion on the amendment? I suspect the chief executive officers and interested groups will not have a difficulty with it but it is a little unfair to ask Opposition spokespersons who read the amendment only half an hour ago to agree to it.
If the Deputies wish, I do not mind waiting until Report Stage, but I have every intention of making the amendment.
We are not asking for that.
The committees or the House——
Our intention is not to delay the amendment. We want to clarify the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 14, lines 5 to 8, to delete subsection (2).
The amendment relates to the procedures for the application of financial limits to the spend being undertaken by the vocational education committees. In line with the Health (Amendment) Act, 1996, the Bill sets out in sections 19 to 24 a revised procedure for the management of the finances of vocational education committees and the updating and modernising of the existing financial structures of vocational education committees. It will also ensure vocational education committees have regard to overall annual financial limits. However, it is not my intention that this new structure should mean massive and detailed examination of VEC activities by my Department. vocational education committees are, and will continue to be, autonomous institutions. While I, as Minister, may set financial limits, vocational education committees have the right and responsibility to use available funds to meet the needs of their local communities.
Section 19(2) would have meant an overly restrictive and bureaucratic hold on the operation of vocational education committees. Not alone would the Department have examined overall spending by a VEC, it would also have considered spending per programme. This would have meant in some vocational education committees the examination of possibly hundreds of programmes, which would have been impractical and inappropriate. I have provided that the subsection be deleted and I am confident the structure set out in sections 19 to 24 contains adequate safeguards for the operation of vocational education committees.
This is a significant amendment and it is difficult when one receives such amendments at short notice. There have been examples in the past of vocational education committees acting in an inappropriate fashion with public funds. Has the subsection been withdrawn on foot of consultation or has the amendment been inspired within the Department? I am in favour of lifting the shackles of the Department from vocational education committees, where appropriate, but putting a realistic ceiling on expenditure over which vocational education committees would be obliged to obtain ministerial approval was a prudent move. Given that the previous amendment provided the Comptroller and Auditor General with the right to quiz vocational education committees regarding their financial dealings, I do not see where the amendment is coming from or why it is considered necessary. I would like more information.
The amendment relates to auditing and good accounting procedures. The Deputy said the legislation related to giving vocational education committees the freedom they should have by not being overly bureaucratic in the way in which they are controlled. The amendment resulted from advice from the Comptroller and Auditor General based on his experience of handling the accounts. It refers to auditing and accounting procedures.
How stands the amendment?
We had experience in the past of a VEC that was involved in property transactions abroad, although I am not sure of the figures involved. This appears to be a reasonable safeguard. I am not sure that I buy the argument that it has to do with good accountancy and audit practices. This was a protection for the public purse. There is little point in crying over spilled milk when the money has been spent with the imprimatur of the VEC, however that may have come about, but if it is above a certain amount, at least there will be a double check procedure in place whereby the Minister would have to give approval. I am not talking about small amounts of money in terms of the operation of vocational education committees, but there was some merit in that provision. It is not in any way contradictory to argue that the shackles of the Department should, in many other respects, be removed from vocational education committees and schools, where possible. I do not understand the logic that this is for good accountancy or audit practices. It is a safety measure for the public purse. There will be little point in the Comptroller and Auditor General poring over accounts, having been given a specific right to do so, when he uncovers expenditure of significant sums which is questionable. At that stage it will be too late, whereas this measure provides some kind of a safety mechanism.
I find it difficult to understand why the Minister is suggesting that this would be deleted. It appears to fly in the face of the accountability legislation introduced in recent years for the health boards in which it is stated explicitly that a health board may not exceed the determination allocated by the Department——
That is still here.
——and, if it does, it is deducted from the following year's allocation.
This amendment would mean we would have to go into every individual programme. It means going into the minutiae——
No, that depends on the ceiling.
No. We are talking about global figures, are we not?
There is still a limit on the borrowing. There is still a service plan which has to be prepared and pursued. There are still the expenditure limits, which will continue to apply in the same way, and there is the detailed auditing and accounting done by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is all there so I would be happy to accept the advice of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this regard.
Is it at his behest that this is being done?
It is; that is what I said at the outset. It is on his advice.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, before section 21, to insert the following new section:
"21.—(1) A vocational education committee may, in relation to monies standing to the credit of such committee—
(a) make a deposit within the meaning of Part 3 of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act, 2000, on such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to the payment of interest) as it may agree with—
(i) the Minister for Finance, or
(ii) in circumstances where the function conferred on the Minister by section 20(1) of that Act stands delegated to the National Treasury Management Agency by virtue of an order under section 23 of that Act, the National Treasury Management Agency, or
(b) deposit any such monies with a credit institution on such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to the payment of interest) as it may agree with the credit institution concerned.
(2) In this section "credit institution" means a credit institution within the meaning of the European Communities (Licensing and Supervision of Credit Institutions) Regulations, 1992 (S.I. No. 395 of 1992), authorised and approved by—
(a) the Central Bank of Ireland, or
(b) the competent authority (within the meaning of those Regulations) of a Member State of the European Communities other than the State.".
This is a technical amendment relating to the position of the National Treasury Management Agency. The recent National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act, 2000, provides that the NTMA may offer treasury management services to a range of State bodies, including vocational education committees. However, that provision will be rendered redundant as it was based on the principle of the maintenance by each VEC of a vocational education fund. I am proposing in this legislation to repeal the basis of this fund.
The original intention behind the creation of the fund in the 1930 legislation was to provide a means for allowing an outside agency, in all likelihood the local bank, to take on the general accountancy role of the VEC. That was a sensible provision at the time when vocational education committees, by and large, would be relatively small organisations. The use of the local bank to undertake this function would provide real savings in costs and administrative resources. Clearly, however, that is no longer the case. Today vocational education committees combined have a budget of approximately £300 million and may maintain substantial amounts of moneys on demand.
VECs should be entitled to get the best return on such moneys just like any other organisation. Accordingly, I have repealed the requirement for the maintenance of a single fixed fund. Under this section, vocational education committees will now be able to seek the best terms for their deposits either through the NTMA or some other agency.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 30 is in the name of Deputy Shortall. Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 are related. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 34 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 15, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) A service plan shall be available in both the Irish and English language.".
These amendments refer to the education plan. I am requesting that the education plan would be produced in both Irish and English. I understand that is a constitutional entitlement anyway in respect of a publication from a State agency. It has to be made available in Irish but we should state it explicitly in the Bill.
Both the service plan and the annual report are produced in both Irish and English. On balance, I consider this a matter for each individual VEC to consider having regard to the needs of the community it serves. Each VEC operates as an autonomous institution, a feature which meant that vocational education committees have been able to respond to and be proactive in meeting the needs and wishes of the local community they serve, not just in relation to their policies on the Irish language but generally in their operation.
A requirement, such as that proposed by the Deputy, imposed on vocational education committees centrally in this legislation would run counter to that particular spirit and could even, on occasion, do harm to the overall policy. For example, there would be occasions when a VEC will wish to decide that considerably more of their documentation should be produced in both Irish and English. In such a situation, I would not wish the legislation to convey the impression, however unwittingly, that a VEC might be constrained in so doing because only the service plan and the education plan were specifically mentioned in the legislation. It is my view, therefore, that decisions on such issues are best made at local level in response to the local needs.
Whatever about the service plan, will the Minister confirm that any user of a VEC service, employee or member of the public, is entitled to a copy of the education plan in the Irish language?
They probably would be, if they asked for it. There was a recent Supreme Court decision which would, certainly indirectly, affect it because it applied to all the publications coming from the Oireachtas.
Perhaps the Minister would confirm that with me later. I withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 18, line 7, after "subsection (2)(d)" to insert ", the adoption (with or without modifications) of an education plan under subsection (4)".
This is a technical amendment which corrects an error in the publication initially.
I wish to raise a question regarding education plans on which I omitted to table an amendment. Five years is a long period for an education plan given the pace of developments in education and the world of work. I am involved in City of Dublin VEC in which there have been great changes in the past five years. Is it enough to require an education plan every five years? Would, for example, a three year requirement not be more appropriate?
Given the timescale about which we are talking and the fact that people currently in school will have left in five years the profile of an area can change quite a bit in that period depending on staff and whatever innovations might take place. I am inclined to think that five years is a little too long and that we should consider a three year education plan to ensure a greater level of responsiveness to local needs.
Five years was chosen to fit in with the term of office of the incoming body. However, the chief executive officer has an obligation to review the implementation of the plan on an annual basis and submit a report on it to the VEC and the Minister. vocational education committees may amend plans in the light of such reviews, and I presume they would. Therefore, there will be an ongoing amendment and redirection of plans which will probably meet the requirement.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 18, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, after "subcommittees" to insert "(which shall include members nominated from the various constituent groups of the committee)".
There is a need to enshrine in the Bill the principle that any sub-committees of a VEC should reflect the composition of the overall VEC. This has not always been the case and certain categories of members have tended to dominate sub-committees. The principle of the various partners being around the table at committee level should be reflected in the composition of the sub-committees and the legislation. This would ensure everyone has a say at all stages in the workings of the committee.
I agree with the principle of the amendment regarding the composition of sub-committees. There may be cases in which, for example, there are one or two student nominees which could give rise to a situation in which the overall VEC becomes a sub-committee in some respects. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this principle. No group should, by virtue of numbers, be able to control sub-committees which would then not operate on the basis of the partnership approach required.
The alternative is to create a situation in which the VEC will no longer have the right to determine the composition of a sub-committee. There may be good reasons behind the amendment but I foresee practical difficulties when one tries to form committees.
The Bill will continue to allow for the establishment of sub-committees of vocational education committees. It will also provide for new features such as the power to advise the VEC on the performance of its functions, in addition to the direct performance of functions. The Bill allows the VEC or the Minister to establish a sub-committee.
Deputies have proposed that where a VEC establishes a sub-committee the VEC will no longer have the right to determine the composition of that sub-committee. Deputies do not necessarily wish to tie the hands of vocational education committees in this regard. There may be situations in which a VEC will wish a sub-committee to be a mirror image of itself. However, there will be other occasions in which there will be good reasons to desire otherwise. For example, if a VEC merely wishes a sub-committee to explore at a tentative level a new proposal and report back as to whether further action is justified such a sub-committee might comprise only two or three members. This is the kind of scenario referred to by Deputy Creed.
What if a sub-committee considering a technical issue only had one or two representatives of the VEC and a number of outside experts? I appreciate that Deputies have provided that VEC members can voluntarily waive their right to inclusion. However, the alternative of leaving the matter to the discretion of a VEC is preferable. vocational education committees are autonomous bodies comprised of representatives of local government with a direct electoral mandate and representatives of parents, staff and the wider community. It is preferable that vocational education committees should organise their own business and the legislation should accommodate them in so doing. The alternative would be too limiting on the flexibility and freedom of vocational education committees. I understand what the Deputies are trying to achieve but they will not do so by this means.
I am not sure we will achieve our objective by the Minister's means either as has been shown by practice. If he is serious about partnership the various partners should be represented at all levels of decision-making. There have been examples where political members have taken over and made up the entire membership of a sub-committee to the exclusion of other interests. This is unacceptable and bad practice. The amendment would ensure the membership of sub-committees would include members nominated by the various constituent groups.
It is bad practice to allow a situation in which there may be no representatives of teachers, parents or outside interests on some sub-committees. We spoke earlier about the need to ensure accountability. The Bill, as presently worded, will not ensure that kind of accountability at all levels in vocational education committees. For this reason I am pressing the amendment.
In order to go some way towards achieving balance on sub-committees will the Minister consider a prescriptive measure which stipulates that, on any sub-committee, there can only be so many members of local authorities and that a specified number of members have to be from the nominating bodies? This would at least ensure we would not have a winner takes all situation — the 9:8 argument referred to by the Minister. I do not understand the reason elected members nominated by local authorities have to hold a majority. If we could achieve a balance on sub-committees between elected members and non-local authority members at least that would provide some balance even if every interest was not represented.
Deputy Shortall hit the nail on the head when she referred to bad practice. I agree but the problem is that one cannot legislate for bad practice.
Of course one can.
That would become too restrictive. That is when bureaucracy starts to run mad. We might be able to include a provision to the effect that when establishing sub-committees regard shall be had to partnership. At least that would clearly indicate the intention. Each situation as it arises can then be judged on that basis. This is preferable to being prescriptive because I am sure many situations will arise where, for good reason, they will not want to proceed on this basis. I would be prepared to consider something like that for Report Stage.
My amendment strikes a fair balance in ensuring that sub-committees will include members nominated from various constituent groups. That does not mean they all have to be represented or that there should be a prescribed number, but it would provide for representation from those groups. The idea is to ensure there is an outside influence.
We will consider how to frame it without being too prescriptive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 19, subsection (11), lines 9 and 10, to delete ", save where the Minister otherwise directs".
Under what circumstances could the Minister envisage that a sub-committee of the VEC would be established that would not be subject to the higher authority of the VEC body per se? This provision in the legislation gives the Minister considerable powers if he decided to use them.
The question of adult learning boards comes to mind. The subsection remains an important safeguard in the operation of a VEC and, as such, I would be reluctant to remove it. The role of the sub-committee is to assist the VEC in its work. It should not become a vehicle for the displacement of the VEC itself. A VEC has a distinct legal and social status. It is accountable to the Minister and to the local community. There are defined responsibilities and obligations in respect of the funding vested in it. Sub-committees, though important, do not occupy such a status, nor are they subject to the responsibilities of the VEC. For these reasons I consider it wise that where it is considered that a sub-committee should by itself carry out direct functions for its VEC, the safeguard of ministerial sanction be first sought. This safeguard was originally contained in the 1930 legislation and it has proven to be a useful and valuable asset. I am not aware of any other calls for its removal.
I am also considering further amendments to the Bill to allow vocational education committees and institutes of technology to establish limited companies in pursuit of their functions. In such a situation, while the establishment of a limited company under the VEC would require ministerial sanction, the company would then act in an autonomous fashion. The objective of the company would have to be in accordance with overall VEC policies. I hope to be able to introduce this on Report Stage.
It is also my intention to provide for amendments to those provisions governing the establishment of bodies corporate under the Education Act. I will return to this on Report Stage. I am conscious that I am proposing a number of amendments for Report Stage, some of which are in response to points raised by the Deputies. I assure them that I will make every effort to ensure that these amendments will be published well in advance of Report Stage to give Deputies the maximum opportunity to consider them and allow for full debate.
I do not understand the Minister's concern about displacing the vocational education committees. There is no surer way of facilitating their displacement than to provide a direct link between sub-committees and the Minister and the Department. If we are serious about devolving powers to public bodies there is no rationale for allowing a situation where sub-committees can deal directly with the Minister or the Department. The umbrella body over the sub-committees or colleges within an area is the VEC. A similar system operated in the health services where various hospitals could liaise with the Minister and were often given preferential treatment. There was often no logic to the way funding allocations were made as they were too dependent on the political persuasion of the Minister of the day. A serious problem was recognised resulting in the decision to create an over-arching body to deal with health issues in local areas. Such bodies have responsibility for ensuring the implementation of strategy and would deal directly with the Department.
I understood we were trying to achieve the same objectives in education. vocational education committees serve the function of overseeing the developments of education in a local and administrative area in respect of all its constituent schools. Given this, the current provisions in the Bill amount to bad legislation and I strongly oppose them.
I am still no wiser as to why sub-committees should be established that are not accountable to the VEC but are connected directly to the Department. The Minister referred to adult learning boards. Why should the sub-committees of these boards not be accountable to the VEC structure? Why should such boards be independent of the vocational education committees? What other sub-committees does the Minister envisage being independent of its parent body?
It is proposed that the adult learning boards be established as statutory sub-committees of the vocational education committees and that the Minister approve arrangements that will enable boards to act as autonomous sub-committees. In line with these proposals the Bill is designed to facilitate both the establishment of the boards and the granting by the Minister of the necessary autonomy to local adult learning boards once established. That provision is included in the 1930 legislation.
The Minister is proposing legislation to cover ad hoc decision making in his Department.
It provides for flexibility.
Flexibility can often provide opportunity for abuse. I would not be in favour of allowing that.
I am still unclear about the Minister's intent. He has said adult learning boards will be put on a statutory basis but he has not explained why, as sub-committees of the VEC, they will not be obliged to report back or be accountable to them. I am open to be persuaded if the Minister can make a coherent argument.
The adult learning boards would constitute a sub-committee of the vocational education committees but they would also report annually to the National Adult Learning Council on the delivery of the services in their region. That is part of the integration of activities with the council.
Why not specifically mention that board rather than giving carte blanche to establish further sub-committees?
The reason is history. Vocational education committees have been innovative and taken different integrated approaches. Consequently, there is a need for statutory support for that flexibility.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."
The Bill makes provision for the establishment of independent sub-committees. Has the Minister given any thought to placing an obligation on each VEC to create a finance sub-committee? This would assist in bridging a gap that may exist between management and the members in terms of creating financial policy for any given year. A VEC can create a sub-committee, but should the Bill contain a specific reference to the establishment of a finance sub-committee?
That may be the case. I will consider the matter between now and Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
SCHEDULE 1.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 20, column (3), line 5, to delete "42,".
This amendment seeks the deletion of "42" in line 5 of column (3) while amendment No. 40 seeks the insertion in line 7 of column (3) of "PART VIII" after "PART VII". Regarding amendment No. 39, the repeal of section 42 would sever the financial link with the local authority. There is some concern that this could remove the basis for local authority involvement in vocational education committees. For this reason, there is no rationale for stating that this section should be repealed. It should remain in place.
Regarding amendment No. 40, there is no reason for the retention of Part VIII of the parent Act. It is important that the Minister outlines the rationale for retaining it because there does not appear to be any clear logic for it. I ask the Minister to respond to these points.
In regard to Part VIII, I agree with the Deputy with the exception of one point. Part VIII contains certain protections for staff who have transferred jobs as a result of an amalgamation of two vocational education committees. These are important employee protections that apply to staff who moved position after the most recent amalgamation of urban vocational education committees with their county counterparts in 1996. I hope these protections will not be called on and I have no indication that they will be necessary. However, it would not be wise in the circumstances to remove the protection entirely.
Regarding section 42, the financial link between vocational education committees and local authorities in the form of a local authority contribution has been so greatly diminished by the passage of time that it has become negligible. I was concerned recently to hear that the cost of operating the link has become greater than the contribution. In this context, I have provided for the repeal of this section, removing the link between local authority contributions and VEC funding. The link will continue to be maintained in a real way through the direct presence on the vocational education committees of local authority members.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.