Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 14 January 2016

Committee on Education and Social Protection: Select Sub-Committee on Education and Skills

Technological Universities Bill 2015: Committee Stage

10:00 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The topic for debate today is Committee Stage of the Technological Universities Bill 2015. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of technological universities which is a new type of higher education institution to be formed through the consolidation and merger of existing institutes of technology. The Bill also provides for the revision of the governance arrangements of the Dublin Institute of Technology and the institutes of technology, under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 and the Regional and Technological Colleges Act 1992, respectively. The Bill is comprised of 117 sections that are divided into seven Parts together with two Schedules. Members will recall that the joint committee considered the proposed Bill in 2014 as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny procedures. After that committee heard from a range of witnesses it produced a report which included recommendations for consideration by the Minister.

I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and officials from her Department to the meeting. I reiterate that members and guests should place their telephones on aeroplane or safe mode or completely switch them off for the duration of the meeting. I propose that if possible, the sub-committee concludes its consideration of Committee Stage during today's meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. I refer members to the list of grouped amendments for the purpose of debate which has been circulated. We will now commence consideration of the Bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2

10:05 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:" "academics" means tenured officers of the institute;".

I think the amendments are self-explanatory. They seek to insert definitions.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny. Many of the points made at the time have been taken on board in the drafting of the Bill. A number of amendments relate to more general issues rather than to the specific purpose of the Bill and certainly will be considered in the context of other legislation. It is probable that there will not be any other legislation in the lifetime of this Dáil but certainly the Quality and Qualifications Ireland Assurance (Education and Training) Act has to be amended and a higher education reform Bill is planned. They may be appropriate places for some of the points that will be raised during the course of the debate. For the technological universities and the consortia that are interested in becoming technological universities, they need this legislation before they can move to the final stages.

As the Deputy has said, he is seeking to insert new definitions into section 2 while amendment No. 6 would have the effect of deleting the phrase "or appointed" from the definition of "student" as currently set out in the Bill. However, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 would insert definitions for words which are not actually used in the Bill nor in any of the other amendments tabled by the Deputy, and for that reason I believe they are unnecessary. Amendment No. 3 would insert a limited definition for the word "programme", a word which is used in the Bill. However, the term "programme of education and training" is defined in the Bill, by reference to the extensive definition of the term set out in the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. Introducing an additional definition of the word "programme" would, therefore, introduce uncertainty with regard to the correct definition of the term. Amendment No. 6, which would have the effect of deleting "or appointed" from the definition of "student", would unnecessarily limit the scope of that definition. For these reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be pushing the amendments.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy have any further questions or comments?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does any other Member wish to comment?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from the Minister's general comments, I understand - correct me if I am wrong - the mergers can go ahead but there is no guarantee they will get the status of a technical university following the merger. Therefore, is there a possibility that we could have mergers without status?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The criteria originally announced were that there were various stages that had to be gone through. One of the stages is the merger of the relevant institutes of technology. The stage beyond that is attaining the status of a technological university. It was always very clear in the criteria that the mergers would happen prior to attaining the status of a technological university. As people will have a very good idea of how they are progressing, I do not think that should be a deterrent to the progress of the institutions that want to become technological universities and are progressing well.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a danger they could merge and not get technological university status and then the smaller ITs would be subsumed into bigger ones. There is that possibility.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When institutes of technology were invited to consider this proposal, they would have been fully aware of the criteria. I do not think it is appropriate that we would change the criteria at this stage.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One would have to acknowledge that the criteria have caused huge issues particularly among staff.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will address the issue further when we discuss amendments on issues that are of concern to staff. I do not know how much further the Chairman wants this conversation to continue, as we will come to it later.

10:10 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been an extensive consultation process. I understand the issue. I have received the representations the same as the Deputies from unions representing staff. We will come to all of this later. I am certainly aware of the considerations.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy O'Brien pressing his amendment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The advantage of withdrawing the amendments is that he can table them again.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the six amendments on the understanding that I can table them on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, not moved.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 7, 18 to 20, inclusive, 24 and 26 are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 12, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:" "Trade Union" means registered representative body with a negotiation licence.".

Amendment No. 7 is self-explanatory. Amendment No. 9 seeks to delete-----

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 is not included in this list. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are on the list.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 18 to 20-----

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to comment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All the amendments are connected with trade unions.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have to do with trade unions and staff associations. The Bill, in sections 63, 67, 79 and 83, provides that members of staff of bodies dissolved under the Bill shall automatically become members of staff of the relevant merged institute or technological university. In addition, those sections ensure that transferring members of staff shall retain their existing conditions of remuneration, unless those conditions are varied in accordance with a collective agreement "negotiated with a recognised trade union or staff association". This is a standard provision which can be found in a wide range of legislation dealing with the transfer of staff from one body to another, including the Education and Training Boards Act 2013, the Roads Act 2015, the Local Government Reform Act 2014 and the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014. Amendments Nos. 7, 18 to 20, inclusive, 24 and 26, tabled by Deputy O'Brien, would have the effect of varying this standard wording and, for that reason, I cannot support them.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the transfer of staff, I want to ensure that conditions and service will also transfer in terms of pensions and superannuation schemes. I am aware there are a number of superannuation schemes although the Bill refers to a superannuation scheme. I wish to flag that it does not refer to schemes.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The intention is that all of those things would be fully taken on board. As I have said, they have been incorporated in other legislation. That is the system that has worked. I will look at the issue of "scheme" versus "schemes" but I do not think it should cause any material problems.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will table an amendment on Report Stage listing all the various schemes.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. We will check to ensure the wording is correct.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any other comments or questions on that issue?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek clarification on the term "staff association".

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We say "recognised trade union or staff association". In most cases there would be recognised trade unions but maybe in a small number of cases they would be described as staff associations. We say that in order to be comprehensive in terms of what is included.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have any particular example of a staff association?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the standard terminology that is used in all legislation. There may not be any relevant ones in this case but it is used in general to ensure that we do not leave anybody out.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could it lead to a staff association-----

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some professional bodies would have associations rather than unions. There may not be any in this case. I can check it before we come to Report Stage to see if there are any specific associations.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have the trade unions queried that wording?

10:15 am

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unless this is where this is coming from, it may well be. I have received representations from the trade union but I do not recall seeing that as a particular issue but it may well be and it may well have been raised by them.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have concerns around the inclusion of staff associations.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, we can check and see if there are any specifics available on that. Certain trade unions would have negotiating rights that cannot be in any way modified. We are just putting it in because it is a standard term used in legislation to ensure we are being comprehensive. It is not designed in any way to water down the role of trade unions.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would one of the issues relate to the freedom of association provisions in the Constitution? Would it be to cover those provisions?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We try to be consistent in all legislation when using these terminologies. Sometimes that prevents problems arising later and legislation being challenged. It is entirely designed to be comprehensive and in conjunction with standard procedures for legislation in general.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any other comments or questions on that amendment? How stands amendment No. 7?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any questions or comments on the section?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Deputy O'Brien give us some indication of the amendment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be looking to amend the proposal that the dissolution would be made by the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are opposing this section.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Brien wish to make any comment on the section?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section provides, "The Minister shall, by order, appoint a day." This power rests solely with the Minister and we think it should be not just the Minister's call but that it should be done on the recommendation of the governing body or that there should be some mechanism within the institutes themselves to indicate that they are ready for dissolution. This section does not allow for that. I will flag now that the same objection applies to section 10.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to make any comment?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment of technological universities, which is a new type of higher education institution, to be formed through the consolidation and merger of existing institutes of technology. Chapter 3 of Part 2 provides a general mechanism for the merging of consortiums of institutes of technology to form new institutions of greater scale. This mechanism includes assessment by an expert panel of their application to merge. In 2014, consortiums in Dublin, made up of DIT and the institutes of technology in Blanchardstown and Tallaght, and in Munster, made up of Cork Institute of Technology and the Institute of Technology, Tralee, were assessed by an international expert panel and found to be on a clear trajectory to meet the very robust performance and quality criteria that had been set down for merging institutes which wished to apply for the new technological university status.

Therefore, these consortiums have already completed the stage of the process set down in Chapter 3 of Part 2 and are working towards a full merger in the near future. For that reason, Chapter 1 provides for the merging of DIT with IT, Blanchardstown and IT, Tallaght while Chapter 2, including sections 10 and 11, provides for the merging of CIT and IT, Tralee, as the next steps of the process on which those institutions have embarked. To be clear, these are not forced mergers, as characterised by some. Each of the consortiums has of its own accord come together to work towards achieving technological university status. The purpose of Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 2, including sections 10 and 11, is simply to ensure that these consortiums are not required to go back to square one and be reassessed by an expert panel. For that reason, the proposal by the Deputy that sections 7 and 10 be deleted from the Bill cannot be supported. Essentially, it is to facilitate the process which is ongoing.

10:20 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, it does not appear that there was a submission by Deputy O'Brien to oppose the section. It is not listed here. It is listed for sections 10 and 11.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that but I am just saying that when section 7 is-----

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you saying-----

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be putting forward an amendment on Report Stage in respect of section 7 but I will also oppose it today. In relation to sections 10 and 11-----

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come to those in due course, Deputy, if you do not mind. I am trying to be helpful. Do you intend to table an amendment to the section as opposed to opposing it?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ideally, I would like to see it deleted but if not, I will table an amendment to provide that the dissolution day would only happen following an application by the governing bodies and-or the president. The application would be accompanied by a statement that the terms of the merger have been agreed with staff trade unions. This would be the basis to the amendment.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The points that I made on section 10 apply similarly to section 7, so when we come to section 10, I have already covered the response. I understand Deputy O'Brien will propose an amendment rather than just oppose the section.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An amendment will more than likely be tabled.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To go back to that point, I know that extensive discussions have taken place but the main trade union, which is the TUI, has concerns. While it is not opposed to the idea of a technological university, there are concerns. One of those concerns is that a merger can go ahead without agreement from the staff trade union. The amendment will be to ensure that those issues are addressed before a merger can go ahead.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can debate those points on Report Stage. There are no amendments before us right now but it is helpful to know what are the Deputies' concerns.

Question put and declared carried.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section is being opposed by Deputy O'Brien. Does he wish to say anything further on it?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we have covered it.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to add anything?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

10:25 am

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend to bring forward amendments to sections 10 and 11 on Report Stage.

Question put and declared carried. SECTION 11 Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Brien opposes section 11.

Question put and declared carried. Section 12 agreed to. SECTION 13 Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage in respect of the phrase, "Two or more colleges".

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy seek a response from the Minister on that at this stage?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, this is just to indicate an amendment will be tabled on Report Stage in this regard.

Question put and agreed to. Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.SECTION 17 Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to indicate I intend to table an amendment to section 17(2) regarding the applicant colleges and the need to provide that other stakeholders such as, for example, staff may make representations to the Minister.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy seek a response from the Minister at this Stage? Is the Minister in a position to respond to that suggestion?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I suppose "colleges" is an inclusive term although I acknowledge the Deputy's particular concern is for staff. The question that will arise is whether one should name other elements of the college. If one names one element of the group, should one name students or others? That would be my concern, whereas "colleges" is an inclusive term.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also intend to table an amendment on Report Stage in this regard.

Question put and agreed to. SECTION 18 Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from the previous matter raised in respect of section 13, I wish to indicate I also intend to table an amendment to section 18 to amend "colleges" to "college".

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to respond?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will be on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I am not supposed to be partisan, if there is an amendment from the Opposition that can be taken, it should just be taken. Perhaps there could be some liaising in this regard if the principle is conceded. While it is not my call to make, as someone who has tabled amendments previously, I believe that if an amendment from the Opposition can be taken, it should be taken if there is no disagreement on its substance.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 22

10:30 am

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 19, line 32, to delete “, as it sees fit,”.

Section 22 sets out the functions of technological universities established under the Bill, including the provision of programmes of education and training, the making of awards and undertaking high-quality and relevant research. In keeping with the distinctive mission of these institutions to provide high-quality, enterprise-focused higher education for their regions, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure those technological universities engage fully with regional stakeholders in the effective transfer of knowledge arising from research.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to indicate my intention to table an amendment on Report Stage on the functions of a technological university.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to do likewise. I am a member of some of the bodies overseeing the Grangegorman development and the nature of the amendment will be to indicate the extent of the community and the social engagement between the college, that is, the Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, and the communities. There is a need to consider social communities and cultural activities and as this should be specified, I also intend to table an amendment in this regard. It is a matter the Minister might take on board in the meantime.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 21, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following:“(i) be established following consultation with trade unions representing employees of the technological university, where the matters in dispute relate to staff, or with the Students’ Union where the matters in dispute relate to students,”.

These amendments are self-explanatory. The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to delete lines 21 and 22 and to substitute them with provisions for consultation with the trade unions representing employees where the matters in dispute relate to staff or with the student unions where the matters in dispute relate to students. The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to delete lines 25 and 26 and to substitute them with the phrase "be published in such manner as the technological university considers appropriate jointly agreed by the parties concerned".

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is about keeping the wording similar to other legislation in the sector. Section 22, which sets out the requirement that technological universities establish procedures for the resolution of disputes, largely mirrors the wording of the relevant provisions of the Universities Act 1997, the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 and the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992. Amendment No. 9 would remove from that section the standard reference to staff associations, as well as trade unions. I acknowledge members already have had some discussion on this and I have indicated that I will get specific information as to whether there are any staff associations that might have relevance to this legislation. I will revert with that information on Report Stage. The amendment also unnecessarily distinguishes between the dispute resolution procedures which would apply to staff and those which would apply to students.

Amendment No. 10, in providing that the method of publication of those procedures must be jointly agreed with "the parties concerned", goes further than is necessary. Institutes of technology and universities currently make those procedures available both in hard copy and electronically. This also would be the case for technological universities and this is why I do not believe it is necessary to have that.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does the Minister oppose the procedures being jointly agreed?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand it pertains to their publication. In the current situation, they already must be agreed in the colleges and that also would apply in technological universities. My point is it already is catered for and covered.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In section 22(k)(iii), the word "practicable" is a very loose word. When the word "practicable" is used, it provides too much of an out clause, as opposed to the words "must" or "shall". Consequently, I intend to table an amendment in this regard on Report Stage.

Amendment put and declared lost.

10:35 am

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 21, to delete lines 25 and 26 and substitute the following:"(iii) be published in such manner as the technological university considers appropriate jointly agreed by the parties concerned.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Minister is not going to take on board any of my proposed amendments to the Bill but I hope some of the concerns we are raising today will at least be addressed on Report Stage.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have taken a note of the indications Deputies O'Brien and O'Sullivan have given of some amendments that they might put forward. We will examine those during the time between now and Report Stage as well as the ones of which we are already aware.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I indicated on Second Stage that unless some amendments are made to the legislation that we could not support it, even though we support the concept of technological universities. As the Bill currently stands, some changes must be made to it.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the Deputy's point and, as I said, I have taken notes on the extra issues that have been raised today.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 23

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 22, to delete lines 12 to 17 and substitute the following:"(2) A member of the academic staff or a student learner of a technological university shall not, subject to the provisions of any enactment or rule of law, be disadvantaged, or subject to less favourable treatment by the technological university, arising from his or her questioning and testing received wisdom, putting forward new ideas or stating controversial or unpopular opinions in his or her teaching, research and any other activities either in or outside the technological university.".

I will not go into the detail of the proposed amendment because the Minister will not be supporting it. It proposes to delete lines 12 to 17 and substitute the text set out.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment is about academic freedom. The principle of academic freedom is a defining characteristic of high quality, higher education and research throughout the world. The Bill rightly ensures that academic freedom shall apply in technological universities in the same manner as it applies in universities. However, it is understood internationally that academic freedom applies to academic staff of higher education institutions and both this Bill and the Universities Act 1997 reflect that understanding.

Amendment No. 11 in extending academic freedom to students would put technological universities in a different position to their peers, both within the State and internationally. That would be a real issue in terms of how we are consistent across the sector. That is my concern there.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the disadvantage to it?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The principle of academic freedom is a very cherished one in terms of academics being able to express viewpoints that may be contrary to Government or to the leadership in the particular academic institution and that is really valuable. If one was to change that in any way, we would need to have a conversation across the sector and engage with the entire sector.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not proposing to change it but to add a provision that students can also have that same freedom.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one were to say that for technological universities, one would have to say it for all universities and all institutes of technology.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No bother.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One would have to amend other legislation as well as this legislation. I do not think that we are in a position to do that in the context of what is relatively narrow legislation in that this is specifically about the establishment of technological universities.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is the Minister and she can amend any legislation she wants.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter that can certainly be discussed. As I said, other Bills are coming down the tracks in regard to this whole sector. This is an example of one of the areas where I said at the outset that some of the proposed amendments relate to the entire sector and that it would not be appropriate to have what they propose apply only to technological universities and not to the other institutes of technology or universities.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I indicate that I intend to bring forward an amendment in this respect on Report Stage. I want to press this amendment but clearly it will not be accepted.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the clerk to the committee would clarify the position. If the Deputy presses his amendment, he cannot submit the same amendment on Report Stage.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be a different amendment because I would include all the other items of legislation to which the Minister referred.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know about that.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like clarification on that point.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not be able to get it at this time but it is my understanding-----

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman is saying that if I press this amendment I cannot bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that would be-----

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be very similar.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----more extensive with respect to including other legislation.

10:45 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is talking about it being a different amendment. I would not be able to make a ruling on that now. That is something the Deputy will have to follow up later.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Chairman cannot make a ruling on it, how-----

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I can intervene, I would certainly be disposed towards accepting that Opposition members could put forward amendments on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a ruling about this and to be sure, I would advise the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be sure, I am willing to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that on Report Stage I will be bringing forward an amendment along these lines but also extending it beyond technological universities.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Once the Deputy withdraws the amendment, there will be no problem with that.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that fair enough?

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, is the Minister saying that if I wanted to change the text to include students, I would have to apply that change to all of the other items of legislation?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was making a general point that amendments proposed to this legislation should be applicable across the sector. It would be more appropriate to first have a consultation with the sector and to ensure then that we can amend various other items of legislation. It might be easier to do it in a further piece of legislation rather than try to tag on to this legislation issues that are relevant to other items of legislation. We have not tried to change anything in other parts of that particular sector through this legislation. It is probably an inappropriate place to change general points. That is my view. The Deputy is entitled to have a different view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24

Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to indicate that I will be tabling an amendment because I believe the governing body needs other representation. For example, the trade unions will be anxious about this one. With respect to the communities where the institutes have been located, I know the extent of the relationship they have had with communities. I would like to see that community social environment also represented. Is there not a role for the local authorities to be represented on the governing body? My experience in Dublin is that the local authority does have a significant role to play.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support what Deputy O'Sullivan said regarding the governing body. I, too, will be bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to respond on those points?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will comment on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 12 is in the name of Deputy O'Brien and involves the deletion of section 25. This is complex but I will try to guide people through it. Amendment No. 12 and the amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 12 will be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 12 are proposed by Deputy Clare Daly and Deputy O'Sullivan is substituting for Deputy Clare Daly.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 22, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Membership of governing body of technological university

25. (1) A governing body, having not fewer than 11 and not more than 20 members, shall consist of—
(a) the president,

(b) a chairperson (in this section and Schedule 1 referred to as the "chairperson") who shall be an external member, appointed by the governing body,

(c) three members of the academic staff of the technological university, elected by the academic staff of the technological university,

(d) two members of the non-academic staff of the technological university, elected by the non-academic staff of the technological university,

(e) two undergraduate students of the technological university, nominated by the student union in accordance with its own procedures,

(f) one post-graduate student of the technological university, nominated by the student union in accordance with its own procedures, and

(g) ten external members, at least one of whom has expertise in standards and practice in higher education outside the State, nominated by a committee of the governing body comprising the chairperson and 2 other external members of the governing body formed for that purpose including—
(i) two external members nominated, in accordance with its or their own procedures, by the education and training board or boards in whose education and training board area the campuses of the technological university are located,

(ii) two external members of local authorities nominated, in accordance with its or their own procedures, by the local authorities in whose area the campuses of the technological university are located,

(iii) two external members of Seanad Eireann nominated in accordance with its or their own procedures, and

(iv) two external members from trade unions nominated in accordance with its or their own procedures whose members work in the technological university.
(2) (a) The term of office of a member of the governing body, other than the president, shall not exceed 4 years and such a member may not serve more than 2 consecutive terms of office.
(b) A member of the governing body who is a student at the technological university shall hold office for such period, not exceeding one year, as the governing body may determine but may be re-appointed for a further period not exceeding one year.
(3) Before appointing members under subsection (1)(g) the governing body shall agree with An tÚdarás the competencies required of such members relating to areas such as business, enterprise, finance, law, corporate governance, human resources, community organisation or other areas relevant to the functions of the technological university.

(4) (a) The governing body shall, for the purposes of this section, make regulations of a technological university relating to conduct of elections, seeking of nominations for appointment and appointment of members to the governing body.
(b) In making regulations of a technological university under paragraph (a) the technological university shall have regard to the objective that at least 40 per cent of members of the governing body shall be women and at least 40 per cent shall be men.
(5) In this section, “external member” in relation to a technological university means a person who is not—
(a) the president,

(b) a member of the academic council,

(c) a member of staff of the technological university, or

(d) a student of the technological university.".

Given that there are amendments to amendment No. 12, I am willing to withdraw the amendment but I indicate that I will bring forward a new amendment on Report Stage which will include, particularly with respect to subsection 1(g) of the existing legislation in regard to external members of the governing body, that they should be appointed by the Minister for transparency and accountability reasons. I will be incorporating that into a new amendment on Report Stage. I am quite willing to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy formally withdrawing it?

10:55 am

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I formally withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will mean the amendments to the amendment will fall, but does Deputy O'Sullivan wish to comment on these?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, we have an interesting amendment included in this group. It is interesting at a time when there are concerns about political appointees, that we are seeking a role for the Minister to make appointments and that these appointees will be accountable to the Minister. This is a concern and I will raise the issue again on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to comment further?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments relate to the membership of governing authorities and the various bodies that should be included. The joint committee conducted pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill and there was significant discussion on the issue of how the governing bodies should be constituted. One of the principles is that they should not be too large so that they can be effective in terms of size. There were Seanad Members on that committee. I have nothing against Seanad Members but I am concerned a number of proposals in these amendments would add to the size of governing authorities.

In regard to the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan, I understand the intention is to provide that certain members of the governing body would be appointed by the Minister rather than by the governing body. There are differing views on that. One of the purposes of the reform of the governing structures of higher education institutions in the technological sector is to grant governing bodies greater autonomy in the appointment of their members, within the parameters of a competency framework to be agreed by the governing bodies and the HEA. Providing that the Minister, rather than the governing bodies, is responsible for those appointments diminishes that autonomy.

With regard to the second proposed amendment to amendment No. 12, the Bill currently provides that each governing body shall have between one and three academic staff as members. Those members will be elected by the staff themselves. As I said earlier, this proposal could serve to increase the size of the governing body, which runs counter to the policy for governing authorities of higher education students to be smaller and more effective. The suggestion that staff representatives be appointed from each of the institutes of technology involved does not accord with the establishment, through the merger of institutes of technology, of multi-campus technological universities with unified and integrated management and governance structures.

In regard to the point made about members being "recommended" rather than "nominated", this might create uncertainty. Where a person is nominated, it is clear he or she should be appointed. However, where people are recommended, it is unclear whether the governing body is required to appoint them or whether it can reject the recommendation. We could spend a lot of time discussing whether we should have more autonomy for institutions or whether the Minister should have more power, but I hope the Deputy accepts the point I am making in regard to "nominated" rather than "recommended".

In the context of decision-making, we do not want the governing bodies to be too cumbersome. At the same time, we want the competencies to be provided for on them. Anybody with responsibility for an institution as large and as important as this needs the competencies required for good governance. The governing body will also have between one and three academic staff as members. These will be elected by the staff themselves, which is important.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are concerns about the low number of academics who might be on the governing bodies, although these are the people who are actively engaged in working, teaching and doing research. There is a concern there might only be one academic on the body.

I understand the point the Minister has made regarding a merger and about the creation of a new entity, but for an interim period each of the merged colleges should have a representative on the governing body.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come to amendments I have put forward relating to interim arrangements later. One of the reasons there is a merger before full university status is granted is to ensure it is genuinely one institution on day one of becoming a technological university. This is preferable to having two or three separate institutions merging afterwards. The intention is to ensure they become a unified institution.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be very difficult to achieve a successful merger if the individual colleges do not have a voice on the governing body.

I wish to indicate, therefore, that I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage on the need for representation, even for just a period of time.

11:00 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that, our committee made a recommendation regarding representation from local authorities. This was a key recommendation of the committee, which was a cross-party committee. I am aware that as Chair, I cannot be partisan, but it was a recommendation of our report. The thinking behind local authority representation previously was the need for democratic accountability. This is part of our second level system where State schools such as ETB schools have such representation. Local authorities represent the community, which provides democratic accountability of the institution for the community. What is the Minister's thinking behind not including such a provision in the legislation?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We considered all of the recommendations, including the recommendation that we should consider the composition of the body in regard to governance issues generally. There have been many different proposals in these amendments regarding different bodies that should be represented.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The recommendation was the cross-party view of the committee.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The competency-based approach is what we seek.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the issue of democratic accountability arise? That was always the basis of the understanding and the reason for local authority representation. This provides for democratic accountability for the community and has been the practice to date. Why, therefore, is the Department deciding to do away with that principle?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have a look at that before Report Stage. I have provided a general response in the context that we have had a number of different proposals. Also, the amendments before us today seek different kinds of representation. We must be conscious of the size of the governing body and ensure we have the various competencies required. However, I understand the point being made by the Chair.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The legislation is very open in the context of what the Minister proposes. It does not state that governing body members must come from a particular sector. Therefore, we could have a situation where a majority of the external members could come from the business community or some other sector. What we are trying to do is to define membership. My amendment suggests it should include X number of members of local authorities. It should also include X number of members from ETBs to cover the technological university area. If we are to have a wide range of competencies on the governing body, we need to take this into account.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Page 23 of the Bill, which relates to subsection 25(3), states:

Before appointing members under subsection (1)(g) the governing body shall agree with An tÚdarás the competencies required of such members relating to areas such as business, enterprise, finance, law, corporate governance, human resources, community organisation or other areas relevant to the functions of the technological university.

Deputy O'Sullivan raised the community issue earlier. In regard to external members, we refer to one external member earlier in the section: "one external member nominated, in accordance with its or their own procedures, by the education and training board or boards in whose education and training board area the campuses of the technological university are located."

That ETB point is incorporated there, but the ETB itself would identify the external member. That is taken into account but I am not sure whether that covers the Deputy's point.

11:05 am

Photo of Jim DalyJim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to support the Chair's comments. I think a recommendation from the committee should carry more than just that. I welcome the Minister's commitment to review it and I also share the Chair's passion for it. Community representation is not exactly the same as democratic local authority representation. I would like to see local authority representation on ETB boards. Previously, VECs have served us well. It is not just a tradition but something that has stood the test of time. I would like to see it continued and not eroded.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision needs to be more specific because a governing body could decide the competencies it needs are purely in business and enterprise, and nothing else. The governing body could reflect that. It needs to be stronger to ensure democratic accountability.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments to amendment No. 12 fall because it has been withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 12 not moved.

Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.

SECTION 27 Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to give notice that I will table an amendment on Report Stage to state that the conditions of service should be subject to normal industrial relations mechanisms with the recognised trade unions.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do the same on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are proposing to table an amendment on Report Stage on that issue?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 28

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 25, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following:“(iii) not less than 4 or 10 per cent (whichever is greater) of student representatives of the technological university, nominated by the Students’ Union, in accordance with its own procedures.”.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This section reflects the relevant provisions of the Universities Act 1997, so we are trying to be consistent across the sector.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a concern about the definition of "academic staff". It should refer to those academic staff who are directly engaged in teaching and research. We will be tabling an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will also be tabling an amendment on Report Stage to tighten up that.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to say anything else?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have responded. It is helpful that the Deputies have indicated what their amendments on Report Stage are likely to be about.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will press my amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 28 agreed to.

SECTION 29

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 26, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:“(a) ensuring that the technological university has a quality assurance system that complies with European standards and guidelines,”.

On Report Stage, I will table an additional amendment to section 29(3)(c) to include the community, social and cultural sectors in "promoting the involvement, in a programme, of business, enterprise, the professions and related stakeholders".

11:10 am

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will also table an amendment on Report Stage on that matter. There are not enough specific references to the social, cultural and community sectors. Without these references, there is a danger of the work that is done by institutes of technology with their local communities being lost.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to know what amendments will be proposed, so I will not comment on them now. My concern about the terms "quality assurance system" and " European standards and guidelines" is that they are not clearly defined. Their insertion would create legal uncertainty in that regard. The relevant legislation - the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 - is to be amended by section 117 of the Bill to ensure that its provisions, including those relating to quality assurance, apply to a technological university in the same way as they do to universities and institutes of technology. As such, each technological university must establish the relevant procedures for quality assurance and enhancement and be subject to periodic review by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of each technological university as a whole, including its governing body and academic council, to ensure that effective quality assurance systems are in place. I hope that this has covered the Deputy's point.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I will withdraw this amendment and table a more extensive one on Report Stage to cover cultural and social inclusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 29 agreed to.

SECTION 30

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will table an amendment on Report Stage to the effect that the technological universities will consult all relevant and regional stakeholders to ensure that regional provision is maintained at all levels.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 28, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:"Charters

32. (1) A technological university may have a charter, including a Student Charter agreed with the students’ union, not in conflict with this Act, setting out all or any of the following:
(a) its objects and functions in respect of its academic and administrative affairs;

(b) the arrangements it has for the promotion and use of the Irish language and the promotion of Irish culture;

(c) the composition of the governing authority and its functions;

(d) the rights of its employees and students and their responsibility towards the university and the responsibility of the technological university towards them;

(e) the arrangements for review of, or appeals against, decisions of the governing authority or the academic council which affect employees or students;

(f) its policy in respect of the promotion of equality of opportunity among students and employees;

(g) its policy in respect of adult and continuing education and the arrangements in place for the provision of that education, including part-time and evening courses; and

(h) any other matters the governing authority may consider relevant.
(2) In preparing a charter, the governing authority shall consult, in such manner as it thinks appropriate, with the academic staff and other employees of the technological university, any recognised trade union or staff association, any recognised student union or other student representative body, or with any other person or group, both within and outside of the technological university, it considers should be consulted.".

This amendment is self-explanatory. I will not waste the committee's time because it will not be accepted. I have concerns about the issue in question.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This relates to the charter.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Rather than introduce the requirement that technological universities alone should have a charter, we intend to address this issue in a separate higher education reform Bill, the general scheme of which is to be published this year. This will allow time for broad consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including students, governing bodies, management and academic staff, on the application of such a requirement to all higher education institutions, including institutes of technology and universities.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am satisfied with that. Charters are necessary. For example, the promotion of the Irish language and Irish culture is not included anywhere in the legislation to the best of my knowledge but it should form part of a charter for a technological university.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This legislation is primarily designed to facilitate the consortia - the three that are up and running and a fourth that has indicated an interest - in moving forward. However, there are broader issues across the sector. The higher education reform Bill, which is being worked on, seems to be the appropriate venue for dealing with them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 32 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 36

Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

11:20 am

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the section that deals with fees.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Power is already provided in the Universities Act 1997 to charge fees. The same wording is being used in this legislation. I am aware of the need for a broad debate on the funding of education. The report on the matter is almost complete and will be the topic of discussion at a future date. It should be noted that while universities have authority under legislation to set their own fees, the Department of Education and Skills can only provide grants in lieu of tuition fees funding based on fee level increases agreed with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This will also be the position in the case of the technological universities. In this legislation we are only doing what is already provided for in the universities legislation. The issue of fees generally is one for discussion at a future date.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This legislation reiterates the current position on fees in general.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy suggest, for example, that international students should not pay fees? There is a broad discussion to be had on fees generally. Whether fees should be eliminated completely is not a matter we can decide today.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When does the Minister expect the report to which she referred to be published?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the group is to have one more meeting on the report, following which it will be presented to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 16 and the amendment to it in the name of Deputy Clare Daly, for whom Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is substituting, are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 34, to delete lines 18 to 21 and substitute the following:"(iv) that it develops and has procedures in place for development of programmes that respond to the needs of business, enterprise, the professions, learners and other stakeholders in the region in which the campuses of the merged institutes are located, in a time, place and pace in which to suit their needs,".

This is a minor amendment which seeks to delete lines 18 to 21 and substitute the text outlined in the amendment. In relation to the word "merged", I would like to inform the Minister at this point that I propose to bring forth an amendment on Report Stage.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16:

In the second line of subparagraph (iv), after “learners”, to insert “, Local Community Development Organisations”.

I, too, propose to table an amendment on Report Stage to section 38(k)(iv) to include the words "local community development organisations". It is important that there be a specific reference to them and the work they are doing in the communities in which these colleges are located.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments relate to the criteria set out in the Bill which are based entirely on the original criteria set out in the landscape document published by the Higher Education Authority. I do not think it would be appropriate to introduce additional requirements to the criteria at this stage as that would be unfair to the consortiums that have been working towards reaching the appropriate standards.

It would seem unfair to alter the criteria at this stage in the process when they entered into it knowing what was required. Expecting them to reach higher or different standards at this stage probably would not be very fair.

I also draw attention to the functions of technological universities set out in section 22. Those functions include, at section 22(1)(b), a requirement that technological universities provide programmes of education and training that reflect the needs of citizens and facilitate learning by flexible means. This element in the legislation might address the concern of Deputy O'Brien in particular, as well as Deputy O'Sullivan. The general point is that the criteria were set out at the start and changing that now might cause some to say that the process was entered into without knowing about reaching that level. It may well be a laudable criterion but if the parties did not know about it from the start, there might be a difficulty. I know the Deputy made another point about communities and it may be easier to incorporate that.

11:25 am

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise as I am not a member of the committee but I am deputising for Deputy Clare Daly. I was not involved with the discussions about the criteria. It is almost incredible that community, social and cultural elements were not taken into account in a much more specific way. Equally, the local community development organisations should have been included. From being a guidance counsellor and from the fact that Grangegorman is in my constituency, I know the extent of the engagement, and it does not seem to be reflected in this. I accept the comment that I was not involved with the pre-legislative scrutiny but it is strange that this does not play a stronger role.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not in my current position either when the original criteria were set out. They were made public and the general point is that changing them now might be difficult. I know the Deputy made the point about community in another space that might be easier to address.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must deal with the amendment to the amendment first.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, if I press this amendment, does it mean I cannot include it on Report Stage?

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cannot be repeated.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw my amendment to be on the safe side. I will bring forward an additional amendment to this section on Report Stage that will seek to remove the word "merged".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 38 agreed to. Sections 39 and 40 agreed to. SECTION 41

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 36, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:"(5) A student representative shall be nominated to the advisory panel by the Union of Students in Ireland, in accordance with its own procedures.".

I will be bringing forward an amendment on Report Stage relating to section 41(4) that will seek to include staff in trade unions. If I press this amendment and it fails, may I include it on Report Stage?

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The danger is if the substance of the amendment is repeated as it could then be ruled out of order.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could bring forward a more extensive amendment.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is possible. I am not able to say for sure, so the safest action may be to withdraw it. It could then be changed or repeated on Report Stage.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The correct procedure would mean I would know if I could bring forward an additional amendment on Report Stage if I pressed this one.

11:30 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy wants to cover the same ground-----

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not see what the issue is, because with other pieces of legislation I have seen plenty of Deputies repeat the same amendments on Report Stage.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They usually do not press the amendment. My experience is that if Deputies want to repeat an amendment, they would withdraw it. Deputies are not allowed to repeat an amendment. Deputy O'Brien might be making some changes to the amendment, but if the substance of it is still there, he would be in danger of having it ruled out of order. The main thing is that he gets to press the amendment again.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be pressing this amendment, because the amendments I bring forward on Report Stage will be completely separate and will deal with trade unions and staff, whereas this one deals with student representation.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Brien want to say anything on his amendment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is self-explanatory.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment applies to the advisory panel, which is just three persons. My concern is that if we state specifically who one of those persons should be, will other sectors say they should be on it as well? The advisory panel on qualifying as a technological university is a very small group. I have some concern that we should be specifying what group any one of those three would represent. With all due respect to students, there would be others who would feel that if others are given a particular status here, they should be as well.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy going to press the amendment?

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 41 agreed to.

Sections 42 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 52

Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to indicate that I will be bringing forward on Report Stage an amendment to include staff and trade unions.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also give notice.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 53 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 57

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 44, to delete lines 30 to 32 and substitute the following:
""recognised trade union" means a trade union.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 57 agreed to.

Sections 58 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 63

11:35 am

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 47, line 25, to delete "or staff association"

This amendment relates to staff associations. I will withdraw it, but I will wait to see what the Minister has to say first. I will bring forward an amendment to the section on Report Stage. The section gives protection in respect of remuneration, but assurances on the protection of conditions of service, including the protection of superannuation, also need to be given. It concerns schemes rather than just the scheme provided for within the Bill.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The trade union which represents the people who work in the institutes of technology have major concerns about this section. That is something the Minister should examine between now and Report Stage. It would pre-empt many difficulties and controversy if it could be examined in order that all conditions of service would be included. I will also bring forward an amendment to the section on Report Stage.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is specifically about general terms and conditions rather than the issue of staff associations.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have been mentioned already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 63 agreed to.

SECTION 64

Question proposed: "That section 64 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring forward amendments to this section on Report Stage to indicate that it refers to schemes rather than one scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 65 and 66 agreed to.

SECTION 67

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 50, line 36, to delete "or staff association".

Again, this amendment relates to staff associations. I will withdraw it having heard what the Minister had to say.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 67 agreed to.

Sections 68 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 72

Question proposed: "That section 72 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we move on to Chapter 4, I wish to indicate that I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to propose the insertion of a new section on collective agreements based on the original head No. 55 of the Bill, which I presume will be in Chapter 3, which deals with superannuation schemes, remuneration and services.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have any comment to make or question to ask?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, it is an indication of what the Deputy intends to do on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 21, in the name of the Minister, proposes the insertion of a new section. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 21 in the name of Deputy Clare Daly and amendment No. 27 are related. Therefore, all three amendments may be discussed together.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 53, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"Arrangements for suspension or dismissal of staff following order under Part 2

73. (1) Notwithstanding section 6(1), where an order has been made under section 7, 10 or 18 and a process that may result in the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff of a dissolved body has, before the designated day, been commenced but not completed immediately before that day in accordance with procedures made or conditions determined under section 11A of the Act of 1992, the process shall, on or after that day, be continued by the dissolved body under those procedures or conditions, and the dissolved body may suspend or dismiss a member of staff, as if the order had not been made.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), if procedures or conditions referred to in that subsection provide for the delegation of powers relating to dismissal or suspension to the Director and a process that may result in the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff of a dissolved body involves such delegated powers and is commenced but not completed immediately before the designated day, the process shall notwithstanding section 67, on or after that day, be continued by that Director who may suspend or dismiss a member of staff.".

The Bill provides for a number of situations where an existing institute of technology is dissolved and its staff functions, property and assets are transferred either to another institute of technology or a technological university. This may occur where institutes of technology are merging, where an institute of technology is being dissolved and re-established as a technological university or where an institute of technology is being incorporated into an existing technological university.

The Bill makes specific provision for the transfer of relevant staff, functions, etc., to the new institution, and also sets out a range of transitional arrangements relating to the continuation of superannuation arrangements, the provision of programmes of education and training, the making of awards, quality assurance and enhancement and the international education mark.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 21 and 27 is to set out additional transitional arrangements for any processes relating to the suspension or dismissal of staff that are ongoing in an institute of technology at the time of its dissolution. Amendment No. 21 inserts a new section 73 into the Bill, which provides that where a process which may lead to the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff is ongoing in an institute of technology which is to be dissolved under Part 2, that process shall continue in accordance with the same procedures, as if the institute of technology had not been dissolved. Similarly, amendment No. 27 inserts a new section 87 into the Bill to provide for the continuation of relevant processes in institutes of technology dissolved under Part 3. This ensures that there is legal certainty around the continuation of such processes.

In regard to the amendment to the amendment, amendment No. 21 provides for the continuation of any processes relating to the suspension or dismissal of staff which may be ongoing in an institute of technology at the time of its dissolution, so that those processes can continue. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment to amendment No. 21 does not relate to such situations, but to the ongoing arrangements which would apply to staff of a technological university and for that reason I cannot support it.

11:40 am

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 21:

To insert the following new subsection (1):“(1) A Technological University may suspend or dismiss any employee but only in accordance with procedures and subject to any conditions made following consultation through normal industrial relation structures operating in the technological university with Trade Unions which procedures or conditions may provide for the delegation of powers relating to suspension or dismissal to the President and shall provide for the tenure of officers.”.

This brings us back to the concerns of people who are working currently in the institutes of technology. In the event of any case of dismissal, is there a commitment the normal industrial relations structures will be followed? The concern is that this protection is not there and that is the reason we were asked to put forward an amendment.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that concern, but as far as I am concerned, the issue is covered in the general terms and conditions of the Bill. It is not part of the specific amendment I propose, because that is only tidying up an element of the Bill. The issue is already covered and is part of normal practice and procedure. If the Deputy has any further doubt, I can be more specific on Report Stage, but the issue is covered in the Bill.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be okay for us, therefore, to submit an amendment on Report Stage for clarification on that so that we can be assured there is no reason for concern in the event of such dismissals.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy suggesting the amendment will be resubmitted for Report Stage?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The Minister has said that she feels the issue is covered elsewhere, but I want to be assured it is so that the concerns of those people working in the institutes of technology will be allayed that the procedures in place over many years in a case of dismissal will be followed.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment to the amendment therefore?

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw it for checking and resubmission.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anybody else wish to comment on these amendments?

Photo of Brendan  RyanBrendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment to the amendment, the Minister's amendment is about dismissals or suspensions that are in process going into the merged entity. Therefore, the amendment to that seems to concern itself with how suspensions in general are dealt with and the procedures to be followed. It seems inappropriate in terms of what has been proposed and I do not see its relevance to the Minister's amendment.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It deals with the concerns of people working in the institutes of technology in the event of dismissal. I would not have supported it but for that reason. I am withdrawing it now and it can be checked.

Photo of Brendan  RyanBrendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If people have concerns, I would agree with dealing with them. However, it seems out of place here in the context of the Minister's amendment.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister any further comment to make?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point I was making, that the amendment to my amendment is not relevant to the amendment I submitted, but I understand the Deputy's concerns.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 21 put and declared carried.

11:50 am

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 22 and 28 are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 53, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:“Arrangements for academic council following order under Part 2

74. (1) Any recommendation made before the designated day appointed by order under section 7, under section 10(3)(c) or (g) of the Act of 1992, by the academic council of a dissolved body shall, on or after that day, be taken to be a recommendation, under section 11(3)(d) or (j) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992, of the academic council of Dublin Institute of Technology.

(2) Any recommendation made before the designated day appointed by order under section 10 or 18, under section 10(3)(c) or (g) of the Act of 1992, by the academic council of a dissolved body shall, on or after that day, continue in being, as a recommendation, under that section 10(3)(c) or (g) of that Act, of the academic council of the merged institute.

(3) Notwithstanding section 6(1), where an order has been made under section 7, 10 or 18, and a recommendation has, before the designated day, been made under section 10(3)(d) of the Act of 1992 by the academic council of the dissolved body but a final decision has not been made by the governing body of the dissolved body in relation to a student immediately before that day, the academic council and recommendation shall continue in being as if the order had not been made until a final decision of that governing body is made in relation to the student.”.

Amendments Nos. 22 and 28 set out additional transitional arrangements. Amendment No. 22 will apply where an institute of technology is dissolved under the Bill and its functions are transferred to another body. In this case those arrangements relate to recommendations made by their academic councils. Amendment No. 22 inserts a new section 74 into the Bill which ensures that any recommendations of the academic council of an institute of technology to be dissolved under Part 3 relating to research, the award of scholarships or prizes, or the admission, selection or exclusion of students, shall continue in force following its dissolution. Similarly, amendment No. 28 inserts a new section 88 into the Bill to ensure that relevant recommendations of an academic council of an institute of technology to be dissolved under Part 3 shall continue in force.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 53, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:“Arrangements for certain procedures where order under Part 2

75. Notwithstanding section 6(1), where an order has been made under section 7, 10 or 18 and any process for—
(a) the selection, admission, retention or exclusion of students of,

(b) the conduct of examinations or the evaluation of academic progress of students

of, or

(c) the awarding of scholarships, prizes or other awards to students of, or other
persons by, a dissolved body is commenced before the designated day by the academic council or governing body of the dissolved body under any—
(i) academic regulations made under section 10(3)(e) of the Act of 1992, or

(ii) conditions determined or regulations or, as the case may be, rules made for the conduct of the affairs of the college under the Second Schedule to that Act, but not completed immediately before that day, then the process concerned shall, on or after that day, be continued by that academic council or governing body as if the order had not been made.”.

Again, these amendments are around the transitional arrangements. Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 insert new sections 75 and 89 to ensure continuity where any process relating to the selection, admission, retention or exclusion of students, the conduct of examinations or the evaluation of academic progress of students or the awarding of scholarships, prizes or other awards has been commenced but not completed in any institute of technology to be dissolved under the Bill. Both new sections ensure that such processes shall continue in the same manner and in accordance with the same procedures as applied before the dissolution of those institutes of technology. This ensures there is legal certainty around the continuation of those processes.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 73 to 78, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 79

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 24 has already been discussed with amendment No. 7.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 56, line 36, to delete “or staff association”.

This amendment relates to staff associations but I will withdraw it. However, I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage on a number of issues. This will be in consultation with TUI. The application of TUPE legislation needs to be mentioned. We will propose an amendment to insert "the conditions of service and remuneration" after "less beneficial" in section 79 and to insert "the conditions of service and the conditions of remuneration which he or she was subject to immediately beforehand."

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I contend that those issues are covered. TUPE is automatically covered; it is standard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 79 agreed to.

SECTION 80

12:00 pm

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 57, line 20, to delete “A pensionable” and substitute the following:“Subject to section 48 of the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012, a pensionable”.

Section 48 of the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 provides that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may, by order, adjust the circumstances in which a public servant can be exempted from membership of the single public service pension scheme. Amendment No. 25 is a technical amendment required to ensure the provisions of this Bill relating to the superannuation arrangements of existing public servants who are appointed to be members of staff of a technological university do not conflict with those provisions. To be clear, this amendment relates only to new staff appointed following the establishment of a technological university. It does not apply to those staff who will automatically transfer from an institute of technology to a technological university in accordance with the provisions of section 79, where a technological university is being established or where an institute of technology is being incorporated into an already existing technological university. The superannuation arrangements applying to those staff are preserved by section 80.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing new staff. Existing staff will not have superannuation varied. Is that correct?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, exactly.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 80, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 81 and 82 agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Section 83 agreed to.

Sections 84 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 61, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“Arrangements for suspension or dismissal of staff following order under Part 387. (1) Notwithstanding section 6(3), where an order has been made under section 46, and a process that may result in the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff of the dissolved body has, before the appointed day, been commenced but not completed immediately before that day in accordance with procedures made or conditions determined under section 12A of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992, the process shall, on or after that day, be continued by the dissolved body under those procedures or conditions, and the dissolved body may suspend or dismiss a member of staff, as if the order had not been made.

(2) Notwithstanding section 6(2) or 6(4), where an order has been made under section 46 or 53, and a process that may result in the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff of a dissolved body has, before the appointed day, been commenced but not completed immediately before that day in accordance with procedures made or conditions determined under section 11A of the Act of 1992, the process shall, on or after that day, be continued by the dissolved body under those procedures or conditions, and the dissolved body may suspend or dismiss a member of staff, as if the order had not been made.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), if procedures or conditions referred to in those subsections provide for the delegation of powers relating to dismissal or suspension to the President or Director of a dissolved body to which an order under section 46 or 53 refers, and a process for the suspension or dismissal of a member of staff of the dissolved body involves such delegated powers and is commenced but not completed immediately before the appointed day, the process shall notwithstanding section 82 or 83, on or after that day, be continued by that President or Director who may suspend or dismiss a member of staff.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 61, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“Arrangements for academic council following order under Part 3

88. (1) Any recommendation made before the day appointed by order under section 46 or 53 under section 11(3)(d) or (j) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 or section 10(3)(c) or (g) of the Act of 1992, by the academic council of the dissolved body shall on or after that day, be a recommendation of the academic council under section 29(3)(d) or (g).

(2) Notwithstanding section 6(3), where an order has been made under section 46, and a recommendation has, before the appointed day, been made under section 11(3)(e) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 by the academic council of the dissolved body but a final decision has not been made by the governing body of the dissolved body in relation to a student immediately before that day, the academic council and recommendation shall continue in being as if the order had not been made until a final decision of that governing body is made in relation to the student.

(3) Notwithstanding section 6(2) or (4), where an order has been made under section 46 or 53, and a recommendation has, before the appointed day, been made under section 10(3)(d) of the Act of 1992 by the academic council of the dissolved body but a final decision has not been made by the governing body of the dissolved body in relation to a student immediately before that day, the academic council and recommendation shall continue in being as if the order had not been made until a final decision of that governing body is made in relation to the student.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 61, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“Arrangements for certain procedures where order under Part 3

89. (1) Notwithstanding section 6(3), where an order has been made under section 46 and any process for—
(a) the selection, admission, retention or exclusion of students of,

(b) the conduct of examinations or the evaluation of academic progress of students of, or

(c) the awarding ofscholarships, prizes or other awards to students of, or other persons by,
the dissolved body is commenced before the appointed day by the academic council or governing body of the dissolved body under any—
(i) academic regulations made under section 11(3)(f) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992, or

(ii) conditions determined or regulations or, as the case may be, rules made for the conduct of the affairs of the Institute under the Second Schedule to that Act,
but not completed immediately before that day, then the process concerned shall, on or after that day, be continued by that academic council or governing body as if the order had not been made.

(2) Notwithstanding section 6(2) or (4), where an order has been made under section 46 or 53 and any process for—
(a) the selection, admission, retention or exclusion of students of,

(b) the conduct of examinations or the evaluation of academic progress of students of, or

(c) the awarding of scholarships, prizes or other awards to students of, or other persons by,
a dissolved body is commenced before the appointed day by the academic council or governing body of the dissolved body under any—
(i) academic regulations made under section 10(3)(e) of the Act of 1992, or

(ii) conditions determined or regulations or, as the case may be, rules made for the conduct of the affairs of the college under the Second Schedule to that Act,
but not completed immediately before that day, then the process concerned shall, on or after that day, be continued by that academic council or governing body as if the order had not been made.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 87 to 93, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 94

Question proposed: "That section 94 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek some clarification on section 94. The section repeals sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 and section 69(b) of the Education and Training Boards Act 2013. One of the concerns is that the original head 59(7) would represent a stronger position in respect of this provision. I have spoken to the trade unions on this point. They maintain that, as it stands, section 94 takes away the protection of the 1930 and 1944 Acts for pre-2006 staff in respect of ministerial inquiries.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a complicated question. My understanding is that it does not, but I will have to clarify that for Deputy O'Brien. The purpose of the section is to transfer the various existing arrangements and procedures.

It is the same procedure as was used when the vocational education committees were dissolved and became the education and training boards.

12:10 pm

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We may bring forward an amendment on that issue on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 95 and 96 agreed to.

SECTION 97

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 30 to 34, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 73, line 12, to delete “make rules” and substitute “make, amend or revoke rules”.

As well as providing for the governance of technological universities, the Bill provides for a number of related reforms in the governance of the Dublin Institute of Technology and other institutes of technology, including the reform of the composition and manner of appointment of their governing bodies. It also replaces the Second Schedule to each of the relevant Acts, the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 and the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992, which provide for matters relating to the governing bodies. Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are technical amendments which make it clear that, as well as making rules, governing bodies can also amend or revoke these rules. Similarly, amendment No. 34 ensures the governing bodies of technological universities can also amend or revoke such rules. Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 are technical amendments which ensure rules made by an institute of technology before the revision of the relevant Schedule shall continue in operation and may be amended or revoked as if they were made under the revised Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 73, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“(2) Any standing orders for the regulation of its procedure and business or regulations for the conduct of the affairs of the Institute, made under the Second Schedule to the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 and in being immediately before the coming into operation of subsection (1), shall continue in being after that coming into operation and may be amended or revoked as if made under that Schedule amended under subsection (1).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 97, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 98 to 104, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 105

Question proposed: “That section 105 stand part of the Bill.”

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to delete this section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 106 and 107 agreed to.

SECTION 108

Question proposed: "That section 108 stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage in respect of pre-2006 staff. I know that the Minister says this issue is covered, but I will bring forward an amendment to deal with it.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will also bring forward an amendment, but if the concerns about pre-2006 staff are addressed in the meantime, there might not be a need to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 109 and 110 agreed to.

SECTION 111

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 87, line 6, to delete “make rules” and substitute “make, amend or revoke rules”.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 87, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:“(2) Any standing orders for the regulation of its procedure and business or regulations for the conduct of the affairs of the college, made under the Second Schedule to the Act of 1992 and in being immediately before the coming into operation of subsection (1)shall continue in being after that coming into operation and may be amended or revoked as if made under that Schedule amended under subsection (1).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 111, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 112 to 117, inclusive, agreed to.

SCHEDULE 1

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 93, line 24, to delete “make rules” and substitute “make, amend or revoke rules”.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

SCHEDULE 2

Question proposed: "That Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill."

12:15 pm

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will bring forward an amendment to Schedule 2 on Report Stage. According to subsection (9)(2), "the president 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." It may not be the current Minister, Deputy O'Sullivan, who is criticised, as any of us might be the Minister of the day. The president should at least have the ability to question and express his or her opinion.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy O'Brien on this. It goes back to the principle of academic freedom. There are concerns for the presidents of the colleges with regard to the ability to express an opinion. It is undermining their academic freedom. I will also be tabling an amendment in this regard.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to hear a further comment from the Minister on the matter.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This provision is standard and mainly applies to the president's function in respect of accounts and so on.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister agree that the president should have the ability to express his opinion on policies?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure the Deputy's interpretation is fully correct.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Schedule states: "In the performance of his or her duties under this paragraph, presidents shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy." Would the Minister not agree that a president should have-----

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The subsection states "in the performance of his or her duties under this paragraph". It is related to this particular paragraph and is not a general statement. Subsection (3) of Schedule 2 provides that "the president may make proposals to the technological university on any matter relating to its functions." The Deputy is specifically addressing a particular paragraph that deals with reporting to the Comptroller and Auditor General, a particular function of the president, rather than the role of the president in general.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It still says that he or she is prevented from commenting on the merits of any policy of Government.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, this is in the context of financial accounting. We see it in the Committee of Public Accounts when, for example, we have Secretaries General who, when acting as accounting officer in that context, do not talk about the policies but specifically about the financial and accounting element. I think the Deputy is forming a more general interpretation than the actual wording of the Schedule suggests. "Under this paragraph" is a crucial element.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The fact that it raised alarm bells when people read this suggests that it needs to be looked at again to ensure that the principle of academic freedom is respected. People's concerns should be addressed in that they feel the president will really be controlled and prevented from expressing an opinion.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing subsection (9) of the Schedule here. Subsection (9)(1) states: "The president shall, whenever required in writing 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". It specifically applies to the context of reporting to the Comptroller and Auditor General and, presumably, the Committee of Public Accounts.

12:20 pm

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about giving evidence to the committee on such matters as the economy and efficiency of the technological university in using its resources and the systems, procedures and practices employed by it. It is appropriate that the president should be able to give an opinion where, for example, Government policy is, in the president's view, hampering those efficiencies.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is really a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts, which has very specific procedures for dealing with such matters. The provision does not mean the president cannot express views on a variety of issues outside of that context but we are dealing here with a very specific context of accounting for the spending of moneys within the institution. I do not know the Standing Orders of the Committee of Public Accounts but I assume they relate to how the committee does its work.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to flag the issue and give notice of my intention to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of more general questions on the Bill. Does the Minister intend it to be passed before the Dáil rises?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope it will be but it must, of course, undergo the proper scrutiny in both Houses.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, hope that happens. Given the significant number of amendments Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and I have indicated we intend to bring forward on Report Stage, might it be possible for us to sit down with departmental officials to get clarification on some of the issues we raised? If we had that clarification, there might be no need for some of the amendments. Given the importance of the legislation, I hope we are allocated sufficient time to submit Report Stage amendments and that the subsequent debate is not guillotined. Will the Minister indicate to the Chief Whip the importance of giving ample time in the Chamber on Report Stage to debate all the amendments we propose?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made notes on all the issues raised by Deputies today, as have my two officials. Between us, we have detailed notes on the proposed Report Stage amendments. In so far as we can deal with those in the meantime, we will do so. The officials already have a job of work to do in preparing for Report Stage but we certainly will give consideration to the issues raised by the Deputies.

Photo of Jonathan O'BrienJonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When does the Minister hope to take Report Stage?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked the Whip's office to give us time for the debate but I do not know which week it is likely to be. I am seeking time as early as we can get it while also allowing Deputies and my officials and me sufficient time to prepare for it. I have not indicated a specific date, just that I will need time.

Apart from the amendments Deputies indicated they intend to bring forward on Report Stage, I have also made notes on points they raised that are not dealt with in the Committee Stage amendments. We will try to come up with responses on those. Some involved clarification of matters to do with staff associations, terms and conditions of work and so on.

We will try to get as much clarification on that as we can. We will also try to clarify the question of the pre-2006 staff. They are three items of which I have made a note. There were probably others, which we will go through after today. I will come back to the Deputy as soon as I can on the question of engaging with the staff.

12:25 pm

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I still have questions on the timeframe. Following this morning's discussion there are areas that, if clarified, would prevent further amendments. I hope there will not be a guillotine as it is such a major piece of legislation and it will have such implications at third level that it deserves better than being guillotined.

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will certainly look for appropriate time so that we will not have to guillotine it. That does not mean bringing it in at the earliest possible moment.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the event of it not coming through in this Dáil, where will it stand?

Photo of Jan O'SullivanJan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that it has to start all over again. Is that correct?

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It can be taken up again if the Government agrees to reintroduce it. I do not think we necessarily have to start from scratch.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.