Amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following definition:
"‘the Students' Union' means the student representative body which is recognised by the governing body for the purposes of representing the students of the college.".
I get the feeling that this amendment is something of a curtain raiser for the main act. I wish to address the way in which students are elected to the governing body. The arrangement in the existing legislation is that two students are elected in separate elections from those for the officers and the executive of the student unions. As I pointed out when the original legislation was going through the House, this has given rise to difficulties with duality of representation and problems of accountability.
The Minister's solution in this Bill is most unsatisfactory. She is proposing an arrangement which would effectively abolish elections to the governing body for students, and the student representatives would be chosen in accordance with regulations made by the governing body for the purposes of this legislation. A governing body might be in conflict with a student union or body at a particular time and there is a possibility the Minister might direct the governing body as to what regulations they could make. Alone of all the categories of representatives on the governing body, the legislation proposes the abolition of the principle of election to the governing body for student nominees.
My amendment proposes that the nominees to the governing body should be the president of the student union, and where the president of the student union is male there should be a second student union representative chosen by the executive of the student union who would be female and vice versa. This would include the principle of election — these people would be elected in the first place through the normal student union elections and then appointed to the governing body, ex officio in the case of the president of the student and elected in the case of another member of the executive of the student union. That would be a much simpler way of dealing with the matter.
Deputy Gilmore's proposal is reasonable. My amendment indicates that we need to define a registered student. In many of these colleges we have part-time students, students doing occasional courses, students attending for one or two hours a week. I am anxious to define a registered student for the purposes of student elections.
My amendment suggests that a registered student be defined as one who follows an approved course of study of not less than six hours duration per week in the relevant academic year at the institution. It is important to define this matter as it closes down the issue of who is entitled to vote and I hope the Minister accepts this amendment.
I would also like the Minister to define what is a student and, in particular, what is a sabbatical student. In my reading of this a sabbatical student is a student who has taken leave of studies for one year but this is not always the case.
I understand the basis for the amendments put forward by Deputy Gilmore but they present practical difficulties. My aim in amending the procedure whereby student members of governing bodies are appointed was to ensure certainty and a degree of unity in the representation of students at the level of student representative bodies and at the highest governance level within the colleges — the governing bodies.
Concerns were brought to me by management of the colleges and, in particular, by the Union of Students in Ireland to the effect that the provision of separate elections for governing bodies could seriously fragment students' representation, to their detriment and that of the colleges. In consultation with the colleges and USI a number of positive alternative mechanisms were proposed, and that which found most favour is the one now contained in subsection (1) (e).
This is modelled on a system which is considered successful — and which has not done away with student elections — in the University of Limerick and the Dublin City University. The method of selecting student members of the governing bodies is left to the governing bodies. The governing bodies include two student members. This gives flexibility to the governing bodies and to the student representative bodies and it allows them to work out between them a system which best suits their interests.
The need for flexibility and the impracticality of the amendments is borne out because in some of these colleges there are a number of student representative bodies recognised by the college authorities. Examples would be Limerick and Cork where colleges were amalgamated into the system when the regional technical colleges were formed. Deputy Gilmore bases his amendment of the premise that there is only one student representative body in a college. This is not so: it may be due to the history of some colleges and the amalgamation of colleges, or may be due to local concerns in the student community. Even in those colleges where there is only one student representative body nobody can be certain that this would remain the case. Students and colleges need the flexibility to respond to local conditions and changing circumstances and the provision as contained in the Bill will provide this and has been discussed with the USI.
It would not be appropriate for me to define in legislation what is a registered student in the detail set out by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy McGrath. The question of registration is a function of the college and I should not usurp their functions. I will not be accepting the amendments.
The Minister describes as "practical difficulties" her reason for not accepting the amendments. I do not know what the practical difficulties are. As I understand it there is a range of student organisations, clubs and societies in each of the colleges, but there is only one student union which has universal membership and through which each student is entitled to vote in student union elections.
The Minister is suggesting that there are conflicting bodies. The only case of which I am aware where there is more than one body as such is where colleges had amalgamated. In Limerick, for example, the various vocational education committee colleges came together to form a single college. Each of those colleges had its own student union and, as I understand it, there is a co-ordinating body for those unions so there is not a separate rival organisation. In the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges where the various student representative bodies in the separate colleges came together, there are not conflicting or rival bodies. It is wrong of the Minister to give the impression that that is the case. In each of the colleges there is only one students union recognised. I see no reason it cannot be recognised that officers of the students union can be members of the governing body in the way I described. That would provide for single representation.
In examining the Minister's arrangement we should remember to learn by our mistakes. Deputy Blaney is right — in 1992, when the original regional technical college and Dublin Institute of Technology legislation was going through, many Members warned that some provisions would lead the colleges and the Department of Education into trouble. The same will happen under this Bill. All that needs to happen for this to go wrong is a row in one college between a students union and a governing body, and for the governing body to draw up different regulations for election of student representatives.
I do not want to pre-empt the discussion on Letterkenny regional technical college but at the centre of that was a row between the students union and the chairman of the governing body. One issue involved was an attempt by the son of the chairman to establish what he called an "entertainments committee", or a rival body. In a similar situation, such a committee might be established and the governing body could decide to recognise it and arrange elections to it. Outside the regional technical colleges, in University College Galway recently there was a row about who was the recognised president of the students union.
These matters can arise if it is left to the colleges to write the regulations. One would not ask an employer to write the regulations governing the election of shop stewards in its firm. It is inappropriate to leave it to the governing bodies to write the regulations. Students unions, like other organisations, value their autonomy. They should be allowed have it and it should be incorporated in the legislation. Students unions have existed longer than many of the governing bodies.
Following discussions with Members and in order to facilitate the committee, I propose that the we adjourn at 5 p.m. today and resume on Tuesday 15 and Wednesday 16 November, two full days — that is the week following the Cork by-elections. That is subject to accommodation being available. That is the only point which has to be clarified.
The Tuesday meeting will probably start in the afternoon. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister may have misunderstood the purpose of my amendment. Section 2 (1) (e) refers to a registered student of the college. I am not asking the Minister to intervene in the registration of students, rather to define a registered student. Does the category include someone attending a part time or night course for only one hour a week, or does it only include full time students? Are post-graduates, who may only be taking short courses of lectures or working on a thesis, registered students? I am anxious to establish what the Minister considers to be a registered student and I believe the definition in my amendment is adequate. Perhaps the Minister can improve on it but to avoid future court cases we need to establish what a registered student is.
The college determines what a registered student is and I do not believe there is any benefit in usurping the function of the colleges. The regional technical colleges register students and it is those students who are recognised as registered.
Deputy Gilmore mentioned student elections. I have taken as best practice the models functioning in the University of Limerick and Dublin City University. This was done in consultation with the Union of Students in Ireland. The practice in those universities allows me flexibility. I never suggested any bodies were rivals and I would not like anyone to have that impression. There are parallel bodies of which I gave examples and there was no suggestion of rivalry. I took advice and looked at existing models with the support of the USI. I wish to go forward with this proposal.
The Minister mentioned the USI on a number of occasions as giving her the authority for proceeding with this. She seemed remarkably reluctant to meet this union when it requested a meeting. I have a letter from the Minister dated 17 October in which she refused to meet the USI.
I have not refused to meet them.
The Minister has refused; I have the letter with me. Shall I read it?
I do not think it is relevant and I do not want the USI to think I will not meet their representatives. I intend to meet them this term.
That is not in the letter.
I have given an undertaking.
In the letter the Minister said her diary is fully booked for the foreseeable future and that she is immersed in the details of the White Paper.
I do not think this is relevant. I intend to meet the union but that has nothing to do with the point I am making.
It is relevant. The Minister mentioned on several occasions that she had consulted with USI.
I have taken the example of two universities, the University of Limerick and Dublin City University. I made the point because one should consult with the body recognised as the representative body. Having put that on record, I am sorry the Deputy feels that by bullying me into a commitment about my diary——
Far from it; that will be the day.
I do not see the connection between his point and the case I put forward.
The Minister has put great emphasis on consultation but the only way to consult with people is to meet them. She has written to them to say her diary is full and she cannot meet them for the foreseeable future. The last Minister for Education who did that was Mr. Dick Burke. I cannot imagine the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry writing such a letter to the President of the IFA. It is quite outrageous.
A single system of representation is necessary. The Minister has offered no reason for not accepting the amendment, other than practical reasons she has not explained to us. There is an issue of principle. The existing legislation on the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology provides for the election of student representatives. Whatever the intent may be, this legislation removes that. I will not support that and I am surprised that in amending the provisions on elections, the Minister has abolished them.
Is that the path we will follow? Will we now abolish elections and set up a system whereby governing bodies of individual colleges can write the rules by which student representatives are appointed? Why does the Minister not do the same for the staff? The Minister has great difficulty in defining a registered student but has no difficulty in defining a member of staff. Is a registered student somebody who does a course for one night a week? Are such students eligible under these arrangements or will the governing body pick the student representatives?
I have answered all those points.
I object to this.
If the Deputy wishes me to repeat, I will do so but my answers will be no different.
I do not want the Minister to repeat because her repetition is quite tedious.
I was asked by members of the committee to give an answer. I cannot be bullied into giving the Deputy the answers he wants. I can only answer the questions I am asked in the best way I can. I have answered the Deputy's questions. He evidently does not agree with the answers. We may have a difference of opinion. Asking me to repeat what I have said will not get me to change my mind. I have given thought to the matter because it was raised when we discussed this in the House. I have replied to the amendments which were put down. If the Deputy wishes, I will repeat my reply.
Chairman, perhaps you might advise the Minister that it is not the function of this committee to ask questions. This is not Question Time. One of the limited functions left to representatives of the Opposition is to try to persuade a Minister to accept amendments. The proposals we put for the improvement of legislation are intended to do this. If the Minister wants to adopt the kind of inflexible attitude she is now adopting, we will divide on these issues but I try to progress amendments like this in the hope that the Minister will agree to them and see reason in them. The Minister has come here with a very fixed view on how students should be appointed to the governing bodies. She does not appear to be listening to the arguments being made or prepared to respond to us.
I will of course respond. Once amendments are tabled, they are given consideration by the Minister and the officials in the Department. In the amendments the Deputy has put forward, he seems to be indicating a concern about how students are elected. We have this system in place. It is flexible and has not given rise to any difficulties in the two institutions I mentioned. We have also discussed this system with the national body which represents students. The amendments are tabled because of the genuine concerns of the Deputy about democracy and the election of students, with which he and I are very familiar. My familiarity with student politics made me consider, in particular, the Deputy's amendments.
Having considered them, I reassure the Deputy that these matters have not given rise to concerns where this system exists. Its existence reassured me and I would like to share this reassurance with the Deputy. Although I am asked not to mention the Union of Students in Ireland, I think it is relevant to other Deputies who may share Deputy Gilmore's concerns that not only have I been reassured that this is the best practice in existing institutions but also I have been involved in discussions with the overall body. I say this in all courtesy to the members of the committee. I will give continuing consideration to any proposals put forward. I may agree with the Deputy but I must also retain the right to disagree. I can listen and consider amendments. The responses to some may be slightly different from the responses to others. I gave this amendment consideration and must conclude that I cannot accept it.
The governing bodies will make regulations for the selection of student representatives. Is there anything in this legislation to prevent them from making regulations which provide for co-option by them of student representatives?
That is hypothetical. The system is in operation. We have a very lively students movement. The nominating process is our main concern today. The student body has responded very well to this. There are students on the governing bodies. I do not share the Deputy's concern because I have confidence in the student body.
Hypothetical or not, what is in the legislation to prevent this from happening?
I have taken the model which is in operation in the University of Limerick and Dublin City University. There have been no claims by the Deputy or anybody else that this is not working. I recommend it because, despite earlier disbelief on the Deputy's part, there are student representative bodies in colleges, particularly where there has been co-option. I adopted a model which I thought would be flexible and would respond to needs which already exist. As the Minister responsible, I have every confidence that what is proposed in the Bill will work.
This legislation will be in place long after the Minister has departed her office. The many laudable concerns she shares with all of us will not be of much use when it comes to deciding what is in the legislation. What is there to prevent a governing body in a college where there has been an amalgamation of previous schools from deciding that students would be selected by rotation instead of being elected? For example, what is there to prevent the Dublin Institute of Technology from deciding that this year a student from Rathmines will be selected, next year a student from Bolton Street and the following year a student from Kevin Street, even though the students may want to have the right to have elections? Has the Minister given any thought to this possibility?
The regulations would be agreed with students and the governing bodies.
This is not what the Bill says.
The governing bodies have to act within reason. If they do not, the Minister has the power, without the need for any amendment, to intervene. I do not share the Deputy's concern.
With respect, we have to deal with what is in the Bill. It does not say that the regulations are to be agreed with the students. It says the regulations are to be made by the governing bodies. I accept that in 95 per cent of cases there will be no difficulty but there will be occasions where a governing body will be in conflict with the student body. It is in the nature of representational work that a student union or body will fall foul of the governing body. Different governing bodies, as we have seen, take differing views on how these matters should be dealt with and have different relationships with their student colleagues. Not all members of governing bodies will decide the most democratic means of selecting student representatives. There are nine regional technical colleges in the country, but will we have nine sets of regulations for the election of students, for example, one set of regulations for Tralee and another for Carlow? Let us consider the question Deputy McDaid raised about a sabbatical officer. For example, if a student — I suspect I know the issue which prompted Deputy McDaid's question — completes a three years' national diploma, elected president of the students' union at the end of this time and is then a full-time student union officer for the following year, the governing body in Letterkenny Regional Technical College could decide that he or she is not a student because they are no longer pursuing a course, but Sligo Regional Technical College could decide that a sabbatical student is a student. That is possible under this legislation.
The governing body is obliged to make regulations according to the Minister's policy. There is an onus on the governing body to make reasonable regulations. As regards the different colleges the Deputy mentioned, there is a co-ordinating body among the colleges. If the governing body makes regulations which oppose the role of the student officer, that would not be in accordance with the Minister's policy and I would consider it unreasonable.
It is a college's function to register students. It would serve no useful function if the Department of Education got involved and usurped the power of the colleges.
Does the Minister not realise that a difficulty could arise because each college will have one set of regulations about who is a registered student, whether they are part-time, full-time, or doing a specific course one day a week? Is it not reasonable that this committee should try to pre-empt difficulties which may arise and which may lead to court cases? The Minister must face up to the fact that we have had too many court cases during the past year as regards aspects of the Department of Education. Too many cases of faulty legislation have been referred to the courts. It is our job to try to ensure that we reduce the possibility of difficulties or ambiguities arising in relation to who is or is not a registered student. A registered student is defined for the purposes of this section and if the Minister wants to define it differently, I will not object. However, it is important for her to set out and clarify what she means by a registered student.
There is a distinction between the Minister's policy or the policy of the co-ordinating body for regional technical colleges and this legislation. We are dealing with what will become law. I am surprised this is a difficult issue because I did not expect it to be so. The Minister and her predecessor got this wrong which is why she now must have a second bite at it. However, the second bite will not resolve the problem either. We would not be discussing this issue if the Minister's predecessor had accepted my amendment over two years ago. This will not work because colleges will have different regulations for selection of students to the governing body. Someday there will be a row and, as happened already in a different context, it will go to court. I ask the Minister to reconsider her position on this issue. I do not have a problem changing the formula I proposed, if it is not acceptable. However, the Minister's formula will not work and it will lead to trouble.
We are having a second discussion on this because the Deputy put down these amendments.
I am sorry to bore the Minister, her boredom threshold must be low.
I did not ask to return to this issue. The Deputy drew the committee's attention to it and I have considered it and responded in full to the same arguments which were made before. It is under discussion because the Deputy asked us to reconsider it.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Higgins, Jim. |
|
Deasy, Austin. |
Keogh, Helen. |
|
Flaherty, Mary. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Gilmore, Eamon. |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Kitt, Michael. |
|
Bell, Michael. |
McDaid, Jim. |
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
|
Brennan, Matt. |
O'Hanlon, Rory. |
|
Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly). |
Pattison, Seamus. |
|
Kenny, Sean. |
Ryan, Sean. |
Amendment declared lost.
We will now discuss and agree the timetable for the resumption of the committee.
How was Deputy Bell's vote recorded?
Deputy Bell voted Níl.
Before the Members left, I wanted to indicate the agreement we had. I said Níl.
The Deputy voted in Irish. He said Tá.
I distinctly heard him vote against.
I voted quite clearly against.
The question is lost.
I am absolutely definite that I voted against.
As chairman, I followed closely and certainly heard him against.
I said quite clearly against.
I heard what he said.
Do you want to rectify it?
I do not want to rectify it, I voted against.
Is that agreed? It is quite clear.
That is the way I voted. There is no point in making an issue out of a thing like that. I know what way I voted.
Before the Members go could I make a suggestion? Deputy Bradford and I have been trying to reach agreement and the arrangement is that because all the other rooms are booked, we have the Seanad Chamber on Tuesday 15 November from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Lunch will be from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., and the remaining session from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Before we leave that, one Member states that for transport arrangements, 11.30 a.m. would suit.
On Wednesday, 16 November we only have room G2 from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m. If it goes on after that we will have to find accommodation elsewhere.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.15 p.m.