Select Committee on Social Affairs díospóireacht

Business of Select Committee.

Chairman

We resume consideration of the response of the Chief State Solicitor to our invitation to attend before the committee in the matter of the State's legal strategy in the case of the late Brigid McCole.

I remind Members of the committee of the preordained business of today's meeting which is the resumed consideration of the Education Bill, 1997. The Minister for Education has kindly agreed to delay her arrival to facilitate the committee. We should deal with the first matter as expeditiously as possible.

At last night's meeting Deputy Cowen circulated draft letters in relation to this matter and Members have had the opportunity to consider these overnight. Do Members wish to make any further brief comments on how it is proposed to proceed in this matter?

Mr. Flood

As we decided at such a late hour to deal with this issue at today's meeting, I want to put on record our appreciation to the Minister for Education for facilitating the committee in dealing with it.

Mr. Cowen

I have looked at the letter which it is proposed to send to the Chief State Solicitor. I presume that, while we await a response to that letter, we will also seek a response from the Minister for Health on the issues I raised in my letter to him. It was contended by committee members here yesterday that we should, while we are waiting for the Chief State Solicitor to come before the committee, call the Minister and other members of the Government before the committee also. They could waive their privilege in order that we could advance the issues under consideration here which have arisen from my initial effort to have this matter discussed. If we were to leave things as they are and merely seek the Minister's response to my letter, we could find ourselves running into the sand very quickly. I am proposing that, in addition to asking for the Minister's comments on my correspondence, he and other members of Government should attend our next meeting, waive their privilege and provide us with the information we are seeking. It is important that we ascertain who had information on this matter and at what stages they had it.

Miss Flaherty

We agreed yesterday that we would send the letters to the Chief State Solicitor and the Minister for Health and we should deal with that issue first. The matter of issuing invitations to the Minister and members of Government should be dealt with separately. Those letters seek the response of the Minister and the Chief State Solicitor to the points made by the Deputy. I suggest that we deal with them first and consider further action at a later stage.

Chairman

We will circulate the letters.

Mr. Cowen

We all know what the situation will be in the Oireachtas next week. The Tánaiste has acknowledged that we will have an election on June 6. If this committee is serious and genuine about its business, which I believe it is, we should be in a position to call Ministers before the committee next week to see if they are prepared to waive their privilege and tell us what they know. If the Chief State Solicitor can refer to us in time — and I see no reason he cannot — and if the Minister waives his privilege, we can complete our business next week. That is why I am asking that an invitation be sent. If we do not complete our business next week the Dáil could be dissolved and that would not be satisfactory.

Chairman

The invitation must be in the context of the Estimates for the Department of Health. It will be my duty to point out that questions put to them must be in the context of the Estimates. That is the only way we can proceed, even if it is narrow. However, they are the rules the House imposed on the committees.

Mr. Cowen

I accept that point. You said we would be allowed to discuss the impact of this strategy and to ask questions in so far as they are relevant to its impact on the 1997 Estimates and Estimates for subsequent years. Even if one defines that as a narrow remit, it gives us sufficient room for manoeuvre if there is genuine co-operation from the parties who have been invited to come before the Committee to give us the information we seek. That information need not be prejudicial to any other case but would allow us to focus on the strategy in the case that concerns us. While acknowledging the constraints on the Chairman and with the Committee's understanding of the Chairman's brief, I propose we issue invitations to the Members of the Government on that basis. We will see if they are prepared to come before the Committee, waive privilege and give us the co-operation we seek.

Mr. Martin

I support Deputy Cowen. Last week the Committee unanimously agreed to send the invitations. Committees are an important element of the Dáil reform package that was undertaken a number of years ago. If co-operation is not forthcoming from the Government on this matter, it would represent a substantial undermining of their status. This Committee has an opportunity to discuss issues of this nature in detail with the relevant people. The remit of the Committee is to find the truth of this matter and the background to it.

The terms of reference which the Chairman outlined in his letter to the Chief State Solicitor are fair and illustrate the efforts of the Committee to be reasonable about this issue. The Committee seeks genuine responses from all involved because this is an important issue. Transparency and accountability in the system were key factors in establishing the committees. If we find, in our pursuit of this matter, that the Committee is receiving no co-operation from the Government and those outside it, it has serious implications for the relevance, importance and status of the Committee. If Dáil Committees are to operate independently and with a sense of purpose, we should seek agreement from the Government on this matter. The Government should respond to our invitations.

Chairman

This comes under the remit of paragraph 22 of our rules which provides that Ministers and Ministers of State shall appear before the Select Committee to discuss current policies relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph 1. That paragraph refers to the Estimates for public services and the implementation of policies in Departments. The invitation to the Minister would be issued in that context. The last paragraph of the draft letter to the Minister for Health, which has been circulated, states:

In view of the contents of Mr. Buckley's reply, and noting the reference to your position in the matter contained in a letter to you (copy also enclosed) from Deputy Brian Cowen, a Member of the Select Committee, the Select Committee would appreciate your observations in the matter at your earliest convenience.

Is it the Committee's view that it should be changed to: "the Select Committee would appreciate your attendance at its meeting"?

Mr. Hogan

What precedent is there for the Minister to appear?

Chairman

It is provided for in the Standing Order. Under the regulations governing committees a Minister shall appear before a Select Committee to discuss current policies relevant to matters comprehended by paragraph 1. Those matters would be the Estimates for the Department of Health. This Committee has not yet invited a Minister to appear before it under that paragraph.

Mr. Hogan

Are we asking the Minister to give the legal advice in relation to the late Brigid McCole case?

Chairman

No. If the Minister appears before the Committee he would only have to deal with questions relevant to the Estimates for his Department.

Mr. Hogan

We have had previous experience of Ministers not appearing before Committees because of the rules for Select Commmittees laid down by the House, particularly with regard to the directive on equality payments to married women. It has never been the practice with regard to the legal advice offered to a Minister which was relevant to a decision he and the Government had to make. Many Ministers could come before the Committee with regard to decisions that were made on this issue over a number of years, if we want to ensure we have the full story.

Chairman

This Committee has no powers to involve itself in an inquiry. It can only involve itself to the extent that the matter is relevant to the Estimates for the Department of Health. Deputy Cowen said there is sufficient scope within that limited area to ask the questions he wishes to ask.

Miss Flaherty

The Minister came before the Committee on this issue previously. While he was here in the context of the legislation for the health care package, he also came before the Committee when the issue was unresolved and we had a discussion on policy matters. However, my memory might be confused. We could amend the letter to request his observations and his attendance at a meeting of the Committee.

Mr. Flood

The Minister and the Minister of State have been helpful in the past on other matters. I believe he would like to be able to make a decision on this request. We should ask him to come before the Committee to deal with the matters raised by Deputy Cowen.

There is no point issuing invitations to the Chief State Solicitor or to the Minister or to others if we do not set a date on which we wish them to appear, so I recommend Wednesday afternoon next week. Otherwise we are simply going through the motions in the knowledge that something else could happen at the end of next week which would put everything off the rails. We should issue the invitations based on our remit under the rules of the Committee and to meet the request set out by Deputy Cowen, and fix the date for the meeting with the Minister, the Chief State Solicitor and others for next Wednesday afternoon.

Miss Flaherty

There is a tradition that we must have regard to Ministers' availability when inviting them to attend meetings. If we set a date for the meeting, we can only do so in the hope that the Minister will be available. We considered our agenda for Thursday and Members are of the view that it would be unrealistic to commit ourselves to a set programme of business on that day. It was decided that the arrangement of business, namely, further discussion on the Education Bill, would be left to the Chairman and the convenors. It would be unrealistic to continue with ordinary business on Thursday next. Subject to that understanding, we can arrange a meeting but there has always been a tradition that committees consult with Ministers regarding their availability.

Mr. Cowen

The Minister and I will be involved in the debate on the Health (Compensation Tribunal) Bill which is due before the House next week. I suggest that the Minister be invited to appear before us at a time that is convenient to him and the committee, perhaps on Tuesday or Wednesday. We should be flexible so that he can attend at a time which is convenient but also realistic in order that he will be able to deal with the issues outlined by the Chairman. Yesterday, the Chairman stated that we are entitled to discuss the impact the legal strategy has had on the Health Estimates of 1997 and subsequent years. I would like to raise questions, I am sure other Members wish to do so, with the Minister in respect of that matter. It is within our terms of reference to do so.

In seeking to provide assistance, Deputy Hogan referred to the deliberations of previous committees. When the Government embarked upon the process of establishing the proliferation of committees, it claimed that they would have increased power and there would be more accountability, openness and transparency. We have a great opportunity to fulfil that aim. However, we will be placed in a difficult situation if the Minister does not waive his privilege. As Members of the House, we are entitled to call the Minister before the committee to state whether he will waive his privilege. He is entitled to do so, at the very least, before our deliberations proceed. I am hopeful that, having examined the situation and given that his publicly stated position is that the Government has nothing to hide in respect of this matter, he will have no difficulty in waiving his privilege.

I agree with the correspondence to be sent to the Minister, which was decided upon by the committee, and I ask that the Minister be given an opportunity to appear before us next week to answer questions that fall within the remit set out by the Chairman. I propose that he should be requested to do so at a time which will be relevant, namely, on Tuesday or Wednesday at a time convenient to himself.

Miss Flaherty

I agree with the broad terms of the proposal made by Deputy Cowen, who has a legal background. However, the letter from the Chief State Solicitor indicates that privilege is a two-way concept, namely, it involves lawyer/client and client/lawyer relationships. The issues to be resolved may not be as straightforward as those which exist in the political arena. I am not a legal expert but, from my reading of it, the Chief State Solicitor's letter hints that privilege is two-way. I anticipate that the likelihood of lawyers conceding that privilege is extremely unlikely. Therefore, it is correct that the questions raised should be taken a step further and answered in the context of the issues we are attempting to pursue.

Mr. Cowen

Would it be possible to obtain a reply from the Chief State Solicitor before our next meeting in order that we might consider his findings? If we can reach agreement in that regard, I am prepared to let the matter lie.

(b) Where the Minister proposes to make an order in respect of section 37(7) a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House.".

—(Minister for Education.)

Chairman

We can discuss the related amendments Nos. 138, 139, 140, 194, 195, 196, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207 and 209 to 213, inclusive, with amendment No. 1; amendments Nos. 197 to 200 are alternatives to amendment No. 196; amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 196; amendments Nos. 203 and 204 are alternatives to amendment No. 202 and amendment No. 208 is an alternative to amendment No. 207. We will discuss amendments Nos. 1, 14, 138, 139, 140 and 194 to 213, inclusive, together by agreement.

Mr. Martin

On the last occasion, Deputy Woods spoke on amendments Nos. 14 to 213 which deal with boards of management. The Minister made a considered reply but I am still unhappy with the notion of acting unreasonably and the legal definition of the term "unreasonable". The Minister said at the time that "unreasonable" meant unreasonable but that seems to me to be a loose term to include in a Bill. I also recall the Minister saying that amendment No. 139, which revises section 37(7), may never be used. She said the subsection would apply when a patron unreasonably refused to agree to the composition of a board of management in accordance with section 43(2). If, as the Minister said, it is unlikely it would ever be used, it should not be in the Bill.

These issues are about partnership. If something is rarely or almost never to be used, I do not see why the Bill should be jeopardised by inserting such a provision. Two Bills — the Employment Equality Bill and the Equal Status Bill — have been referred to the Supreme Court on education issues. There was considerable discussion on Committee Stage of both Bills when many Deputies and Senators referred to the doubtful constitutionality of certain provisions. We should be extremely careful about what we insert in legislation, especially in the area of education for which there are fundamental constitutional rights. The Constitution is strong in the area of education, especially as regards the rights of parents and groups of people to establish schools in accordance with their beliefs. The Constitution puts in place a framework for State aided schools as opposed to State controlled schools. This section moves in the direction of State control as opposed to State aid, a regressive step with which I disagree.

Having learned our lesson from the two Bills with the Supreme Court, none of us can be certain about the constitutionality of sections of this Bill. Last week, I read out legal opinion from senior counsel concerning the legislation. I have three separate sets of legal counsel's views on section 37(7), all of which are of the view that the subsection is unconstitutional and that the notion of requiring schools to establish boards of management of a certain format as a condition for receiving State funding is problematic. We would be foolish to ignore the published advice now available relating to the constitutionality of this subsection which is that it should be omitted from the Bill.

I recall discussing the Universities Bill line by line. Many amendments were rejected and reappeared as Seanad amendments when the Bill was discussed again yesterday in the Dáil. The Minister should be more accommodating with this type of legislation. There may be a reluctance to delete altogether section 37 against which there was a public outcry. It seems the Minister's amendments do not adequately satisfy people's concerns about this section. I believe we can achieve representative boards of management in all schools by agreement with the partners and without legislative compulsion for which there is no need.

I referred the last day to the deeds of variation of primary schools which were agreed between church, gaelscoil and multi-denominational patrons. A deed of variation was drawn up last November in which the INTO and parents' organisations were involved. This did not require any legislative compulsion and it showed that, with a proactive approach, the agreement of all sides can be achieved, although it might take time. The deeds of trust which underpin community schools, which celebrate their 25th anniversary today, were drawn up with difficulty and by a painful process but they have stood the test of time. They did not do so with threats hanging over them that if agreement was not reached we would freeze funds or refuse to appoint additional teachers. Precedents exist where agreements have been reached with the Department of Education concerning the composition of school boards of management which did not require legislative threats or sanctions. The deletion of this section will allow a commendable degree of flexibility in terms of the composition of school boards. There may be variations in school types.

We have to think how future Ministers may use this section to impose a particular type of board of management. Little work has been done regarding the composition of secondary school boards of management. Some schools have developed their own boards. Community and vocational education committee schools have boards of management, some of which work very well and include parents, teachers, vocational education committee representatives with the principal acting as secretary. Up to 70 per cent of schools in the voluntary secondary sector have established boards of management so there is no need for this section.

In the light of the Minister's statement that this provision may never be called upon, why is it being inserted? By doing so she is jeopardising the entire Bill because if one section is found to be unconstitutional, the entire Bill falls. There is a need for partnership without legislative threat.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

I am weary explaining to the Deputy that I disagree with him. I could stop at that. I am bringing forward legislation to put our education system on a legislative footing. This has not caused difficulties, revolutions or collapses of systems in any other country. Our system was established in the last century by another state. It served one section of society in a popular way. Eighty four per cent of young people complete second level and now these people have the chance to avail of third level.

This legislation is not a vagary. I will speak at length on this if the Deputy wishes. This legislation is being introduced because, prior to my appointment as Minister, the administration of the system was being examined. We have had a number of courts cases where parents have sought to establish their rights under the Constitution. The courts have stated that the education system should be put on a legislative footing. We cannot achieve this by a nod and a wink, putting words in legislation gives them a different meaning.

The Deputy said that one cannot define reasonableness. I am a school teacher and a Minister and I believe that those involved in the law and legislation are used to using the word "reasonableness". I am delighted the Deputy supports the concept. However, if the patron of a school unreasonably objects to a particular composition of that board, the other partners are being given the opportunity under law to question that unreasonable behaviour.

The Deputy said we should learn from the Constitution. Perhaps my willingness to prepare the education system for the third millennium frightens him. We spent ten days in Dublin Castle at a national education convention, two of which concerned constitutional rights. I have read Articles 40, 42 and 44 and there are competing rights regarding education. However, the partners in education — parents, teachers, patrons, owners, social partners — contributed to the preparation of the environment in which the White Paper was published and this legislation emerged. It was agreed that we would adopt a harmonious interpretation of competing rights as outlined in the Constitution. Out of those discussions parties in education became partners in education.

The Constitution was fashioned in the thirties in the expectation that legislation would follow in subsequent decades. This did not happen because there was an unwillingness to outline people's rights in education. However, there was no doubt among the partners that we would and could move forward with a harmonious interpretation of those rights. That was the birth of partnership. We knew this was not going to be easy but that did not stop us. The consensus of opinion between all involved was that we would be able to bring forward legislation to govern education.

The Constitution bestows inalienable rights on parents in the matter of education. That was not always reflected in the structures of boards of management. I cut my first teeth in a democratic election running for a board of management as a parent when the boards were established. Agreement was reached on the principle of partnership and legal documents were prepared. Partnership was built on the principle of harmony.

I accept that some of the legislation is before the Supreme Court. However, I am convinced that the partners in education, the spirit in the convention, the content of the White Paper and much of the reforms did not require legislation. It was agreed that there is a need to legislate for the rights, roles and responsibilities of those in education and that is what this Bill is about. It has proved difficult to move forward at this committee where a disagreement has required a third day of debate.

This legislation was prepared following much consultation and it will be passed because there is a need to put a Department with an expenditure of £2.3 billion on a legislative footing so that those involved, whether patrons, parents, teachers or the community, can look for legal certainty. If that certainty is established we will have moved forward. This is part of the framework of reform. I am sorry the Deputy has found it difficult to allow me to move forward with this legislation, particularly in view of his party's history in the Department of Education. This legislation is necessary because the courts asked us to introduce it. Those who had inalienable rights perhaps allowed other sections of the community to exercise their rights on their behalf but that option is no longer available.

This Bill provides a legislative framework for partnership. The Deputy said on three occasions that he agrees with it; he even told me I was not good at it. That partnership will be established at board of management level. The composition of that partnership will be reflected in the regional delivery of education to people who can take their own decisions. While I have nothing more to say on these areas, I have plenty to say on others.

Mr. Costello

This debate is endless. I chaired the first part of the debate and thought we would have dealt with the amendments by now. The question of regional and local structures in terms of boards of management and individual school structures are extremely important. I whole-heartedly agree with the Minister who articulated the situation on boards of management which are being given important functions. In the past there was a mixum gatherum of boards of management in various schools. There was the secondary school board of management, which is one animal, and the comprehensive sector, which is a totally different animal and within which there are weird and wonderful creatures. The vocational education committee sector is an advisory body to the committee rather than a board of management. It was set up as a statutory and advisory body in the 1930 Act. Its structures must be looked at in the context of the new legislation. We are changing an advisory body to a board of management.

The comprehensive sector needs to be looked at. There have been considerable difficulties in the past with some of the boards of management in the comprehensive sector. It is wrong for anybody to ignore the fact that boards of management are a homogeneous set of managerial structures. Deputy Martin's amendment No. 197 is fine up to the point of consultation. However, it is subject to agreement by all the relevant bodies — we are back to square one.

Section 43 states that the Minister shall make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement. It is only after that has been done that the Minister will become involved and will establish a structure in accordance with the requirements on the composition of the board. That does not undermine any constitutional provision but enhances and facilitates the establishment of structures which are in accordance with the legislation.

We must involve all the partners, although one of the partners may be unco-operative, particularly the patron. The patron may be a body or an individual or the owner of a school may be a patron. The enhanced role of the board of management requires that there must be a corrective provision for the Minister to ensure the composition of boards of management are as laid out in the legislation. The Minister has an obligation to do that. The amendment, which is the nub of the problem, cannot be tolerated if this provision is to be meaningful. I support the role of the board of management, its composition and the authority of the Minister to ensure that composition is in accordance with the provisions here.

Mr. Martin

I take offence at the Minister's tone and comments. This is not the third day we have discussed this; it is only the second day to discuss these amendments. On the first day we discussed amendment No.1, which dealt with the commencement of the Bill and the question regional education boards. Amendments Nos. 14, 138, 139 and so on deal with a critical and central part of the Bill — the boards of management. At the outset of the debate, Deputy Keogh and I outlined our unhappiness that 25 amendments had been grouped together. The committee met for an hour and a quarter the first day and one hour last week to discuss these amendments. It is meeting for one hour today. To suggest we are being unreasonable in debating these issues and endeavouring to tease them out is unfair and unacceptable. We make no apologises for arguing these issues. Committee Stage is to tease out issues and counter points made.

The Minister spoke about the entire Bill and the reason it was introduced but my contribution related to section 37(7) and the element of compulsion which will force schools to accept a certain type of board of management and that failure to do so will result in the freezing of funds and appointment of additional teachers to the school. I consider that unacceptable.

Fianna Fáil supports placing the education system on a legislative footing and does not need lectures from the Minister. The former Fianna Fáil Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, was popular and effective. Travelling around the country I have been struck by the response from the various partners in education to the time Deputy O'Rourke spent in the Department of Education in more difficult financial circumstances than those in which this Minister has been lucky to find herself. Deputy O'Rourke began this process which led to the publication of the Green Paper on Education under Deputy Séamus Brennan. Deputy Davern was also involved in this process.

It is not correct to suggest we have difficulty with the process. The type of Bill which emerged following the process is a cause of concern to us and many of the partners. Partnership died when the Bill was published. This committee sat for two weeks to listen to the partners in education. Almost all the partners objected to section 37(7). The Catholic Secondary Schools Parents Associations objected to section 37(7) as did the Church of Ireland schools and their representatives.

The parents of the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools objected to the issue of compulsion in section 37(7) as did the IVEA and the ASTI who object to a number of elements in this Bill and are extremely annoyed and angry about it. These associations' submissions left us wondering about the concept of partnership. How can one celebrate the concept of partnership if up to 12 partners tell this committee they are opposed to sections in this Bill? Partnership went missing somewhere in this process.

Our contributions to this debate and our amendments reflect the views of the partners in education on section 37(7) and others. That is the spirit in which we make our contributions to this debate. I would have preferred if the Minister had responded to the main point I made on section 37(7), that it may never be utilised. If it is never called upon, why insert it? I am not happy with the Minister's comments on the word "unreasonable". She may say she is advised it is a term used elsewhere. It is often used legally, but it can be also used to fudge issues. I think the Minister is being stubborn in maintaining section 37(7).

On Deputy Costello's point, my amendment No. 197 states:

"(2) Where the Minister proposes to make an order to provide for the alteration of the composition of a Board of Management from that which exists when this Act comes into operation, such an order may only be made after consultation and agreement with the relevant bodies.".

Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 198 provides likewise. All our amendments are designed to go forward with the partners. If the Minister believes in partnership, she should trust them and arrive at an agreement.

The word "partnership" does not sit well with the word "compulsion." It is wrong that there are threats in this Bill. I fundamentally object to any threat to withdraw funding. When the State withdraws funding or teachers from schools, the pupils suffer. The insertion of a section which effectively withdraws funds from a school is contrary to any educational philosophy and policy. This flies in the face of partnership and the true meaning of education. No measure in this Bill should be designed to undermine the quality of teaching and services available to children. We are strongly committed to deleting this section from the Bill.

There is a wide variety of school types. In my experience of boards of management of vocational education committees, their minutes are circulated to vocational education committees and adopted. There are no huge discussions in vocational education committees on every board of management, by agreement. The board of management consists of parents, teachers, members of the vocational education committee and the principal acts as secretary to the board. I have not experienced any difficulties in my time as a member of the City of Cork vocational education committee and a member of the board of management of Nagle community college, which is under the auspices of the vocational education committee. The system works very well.

Deputy Costello may be correct in suggesting that the vocational education committee Act, 1931, may need to be amended. We argued in the Dáil that this should have been done before the introduction of this Bill. There should be amendments to the Act in terms of the composition of vocational education committees — parents should have an automatic right to be members and there is a need to modernise elements to deal with the vocational sector.

I do not accept the argument that we do not have a right to make contributions to this debate. We are in favour of the wider issue of legislative framework. However, the type of Bill which has emerged has resulted in antipathy in the community. One can have an Education Bill without regional education boards and without inserting a section which intends to freeze funding to any school which does not accept ministerial diktat.

Ms Bhreathnach

We are talking about recognising people's constitutional rights and how this is reflected on boards. However, all rights come with responsibilities. We are talking about a State investment of £2.3 billion in schools. I ran as a candidate for a board of management when the board were initially established. Those involved were responsible for securing future funding. If people have a right to serve, they also have a responsibility in establishing a board which is in receipt of expenditure and investment. They cannot have carte blanche. The investment is intended to ensure the future of our young people. If a school is in receipt of public funds the board of management must be willing to become involved. That is my interpretation and it works well in the national school system.

There are different types of schools. The underlying core value is that where partnership is reflected in a board of management — and there are different types of boards — it will be facilitated.

It may not be decided by the Minister.

Miss Coughlan

I have grave reservations unless the meaning of "unreasonably" is strictly defined. The definition should be before us before we amend the Bill in this way because we have to know the criteria.

Mr. Martin

In a way the Minister has answered my point. I cannot understand why she insists on the amendment to section 37(7). Last week I met representatives from Presbyterian schools in Donegal who owe allegiance to Belfast in religious terms and whose methods and structures are alien to the Bill. We do not know who will be Minister in 30 years' time and the legislation may be in force that long. How it is used is critically important and I would hate to see a Minister formulate a type of board of management and force it on these schools.

It is all about agreement and partnership without legislative threat. The process is almost complete at primary level — it is with the Office of the Attorney General. It has already happened in community schools where it was done by agreement without legislative threat. It is happening in the voluntary education sector by consent — up to 70 per cent of those schools have boards of management. That leaves the lay voluntary secondary schools. Parents have a choice and many are electing to send their children to those schools, for whatever reason. They are fully cognisant of the schools' structures and are happy with their modus operandi and delivery and quality of education. Why should the State interfere unduly in that? There is considerable agreement among the partners that they are not against or antipathetic to the establishment of boards of management.

I believe in the right to freedom of association under our Constitution. People in our society, including parents, have the right to provide the education of their choice to students. Given that right I do not have the power or authority to tell them what management structure they should have. The Minister said that in acknowledging diversity in education there will be facilitation of that variety of school types but if that is the case, why do we need such an ugly section which does not fit into the spirit of the Bill? Let us do it by agreement and with the consent of the partners moving forward in a genuine spirit of partnership. Let us not pretend to engage in partnership while holding a big stick and telling people that if they do not play ball with the State, we will tell them what type of board of management the school will have, whether they like it or not. My fundamental objection is that this is undemocratic and unconstitutional. I make no apology for strongly articulating our opposition to it.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl 8.

Tá
Bhreathnach, Niamh.	Hogan, Phil.
Bradford, Paul.	Kemmy, Jim.
Bree, Declan.	Kenny, Seán.
Costello, Joe.	McGinley, Dinny.
Fitzgerald, Frances.	Pattison, Séamus.
Flaherty, Mary.

Níl
Brennan, Mattie.	Keogh, Helen.
Coughlan, Mary.	Killeen, Tony.
Flood, Chris.	Martin, Micheál.
Keaveney, Cecilia.	Woods, Michael.

Amendment declared carried.

Question, "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.

Select Committee on Social Affairs díospóireacht - Thursday, 8 May 1997

Business of Select Committee.

Select Committee on Social Affairs díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 May 1997