When we adjourned before lunch we had been dealing with amendment No. 6, specifically with the definition of the word "schools" contained in that amendment. I had put it to the Minister that a more appropriate model for the circumstances prevailing in Cork and in other circumstances that could arise, would be the Dublin Institute of Technology model, that is the institute and the colleges of the institute. My amendment No. 12 provides for the insertion of enabling powers to cater for these types of circumstances. Since the Minister may have had some time to consider the matter would he say whether he has anything further to add to his earlier comments?
Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 19 to 22, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) Coláiste Ealaíne agus Deartha Crawford (the Crawford College of Art and Design) and Ceol Scoil Chorcaí (the Cork School of Music) are hereby established as schools of the Regional Technical College, Cork, established by subsection (1) (a) and each of them shall continue to bear and to be known by, the name in the Irish language or in the English language by which it is referred to in this paragraph."
—(Minister for Education)
Thinking the matter over during lunch, since we have the School of Engineering and various other schools, I contend this would not amount to any diminution. In fact one of them is called a school already. This amendment has been tabled in agreement with the people concerned in Cork city, people who are in authority in that area, who discussed the matter and agreed with this amendment only on Friday last.
I understand there was substantial agreement to the tabling of the amendment. However, I gather that the representatives who met the Minister would have preferred the Dublin Institute of Technology model. I do not have a particular problem with the word "schools" but I do have a problem with its definition and the fact that it appears in the Bill without definition. I should prefer to see this problem dealt with in terms of a Schedule to the Bill so that if similar circumstances arose in the future, as arise now in Cork, say, in circumstances in which sections of a college wanted to formally divide into schools, having the Schedules and enabling provisions in place would be much more effective than dealing with the problem in a piecemeal fashion.
The effect of the amendment would be to make two separate Regional Technical Colleges. That is the advice I am given. In all, we would have three regional technical colleges in Cork rather than one. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Regional Technical Colleges and give them autonomy which will allow them to reach even greater heights and greater achievements.
I take issue with the Minister. The thrust of my amendment, No. 12, is that the regional college could become an institute with its own colleges, as distinct from its schools. That is a much more appropriate model than that proposed.
I agree with Deputies Ahearn and O'Shea. There is a risk that in calling these two colleges a school and putting them in a tier under the management of the regional technical college they will be subordinated and that the vital work they are doing in the arts and culture area will be lost. The managers of these colleges fear that their ethos will be subsumed in the wider areas of engineering, mathematical sciences, computer studies and so on and that the College of Art and Design and the College of Music could disappear. By calling them schools they become subordinate animals of the larger body. They would prefer to retain their own boards of management as full colleges.
To give three regional technical colleges to Cork city would defeat the whole purpose. We could not declare schools which have 200 students each to be regional technical colleges.
They have their own buildings and structures.
They will have their own principal and their structure will be left to them. One massive regional technical college in Cork city and two smaller ones, each with 200 students, does not make sense. There is divided opinion but I believe people are quite happy with the proposal. They will retain their own principals and staff.
But not their boards of management. There will be a board over them.
There will be a governing body. It gives increased status to these institutions.
That is not so.
It will bring them later on into the degree awarding area.
Perhaps the House will agree that in the matter of definitions or nomenclature we have spent enough time.
When we were discussing FÁS and CERT some years ago a very strong case was made that CERT should be kept separate in order to retain the identity of the kind of work they were doing. I would see much the same correlation here. Because art and design and music are seen as very distinct areas of expertise, there is a danger that they will be subsumed in the more "popular" student choices. Not everybody has the talent for art and design or music. My fear is that those talents will not find voice if they were part of a bigger regional technical college. I am surprised that the Taoiseach has not taken an interest in this area since he is so interested in the arts and culture.
When he takes an interest, he is criticised; when he does not, he is criticised. What should the poor man do? On the question at issue, either they are in the regional technical college system or they are not. I will not create two more regional technical colleges in Cork. They want to be in, therefore the conditions of the governing body apply. They will retain their own principal and ethos. That is specifically given to them in the Bill.
The Minister is indicating now that he is not prepared to consider adopting the Dublin Institute of Technology model and we still have the problem as to the exact definition of the word "school". There are schools in other regional technical colleges and there is need for a tidying up. There are schools in Cork already, but now extra schools are being implanted in the Cork Regional Technical College. There is a need for clear definition. The Minister may talk about colleges with only 200 students in each, but we must look to the future. Colleges may want to create schools and give them a particular standing. I instanced earlier Waterford Regional Technical College, where about 46 per cent of students are pursuing degree courses. It could be in the interests of the evolution of the college that a school would be provided for the degree area, enabling it to grow in its own right, while protecting the basic functions of the college which would relate to certificates, diplomas and business awards. There is a need to tighten up terminology and to put provisions into the Schedules. This question does not relate solely to Cork. We must consider the future development of the colleges. This legislation must not be designed to suit the interpretation of the current Minister. It will be operated by future Ministers and by officials of the Department.
I referred on Second Stage to section 7 (5) which enables the Minister to instruct a college by way of letter not to provide a certain service or to desist from a certain service. If the colleges are in conflict with the universities, for instance in certain degree areas, I am concerned that the sympathies of the Department will be on the side of the universities. There is also a problem regarding apprenticeships and I hope the Minister will expand on this matter at a later stage. Apprenticeship training will, I believe, move more and more towards FÁS and away from the colleges, if present Government policy is followed.
I remind the House that we are on Committee Stage. Deputies are admitting that they are repeating what they said on Second Stage. This is not the Stage in which we indulge in educational philosophising but rather we apply ourselves to the section and the amendments thereto. Unless we do that, we will accomplish very little.
On a point of order, the amendment may look inconsequential but we must project it and see where we are going. This is legislation which will be on the Statute Book for many years. Therefore, we have to ensure that the structures and terminology are right. The fears and misgivings I expressed on Second Stage are just as valid now and in the light of the Minister's response are worth repeating.
While what the Deputy has said it very meritorious, in respect of Committee Stage one must act in the living present, and it is presumed that if amendment of the legislation is required it can occur. If we were to indulge in the kind of exercise engaged in by the Deputy we would be here until the cows came home and we would not have achieved the purpose Committee Stage is intended to serve.
We might have a better Bill.
In defending his amendment the Minister stated that he did not want to create three regional technical colleges in Cork. I fear from that statement that the Minister may view this Bill as a means by which he can amalgamate or rationalise these institutions. This Bill should have nothing to do with amalgamation or rationalisation. This Bill should be about giving autonomy to institutions which provide third level education so that they can operate more effectively and efficiently. I would regret if Crawford College of Art and Design was not regarded as a separate entity. I am very fearful that any attempt would be made to amalgamate or rationalise that college in this Bill, and I infer that from a statement the Minister made.
Like other speakers on this side of the House, I am not happy with the proposal to establish Crawford College of Art and Design or the College of Music as "schools of the Regional Technical College, Cork". I think all of us on this side of the House have reservations about this proposal. We are worried about the terminology used in the Minister's amendment No. 6 and I again ask him to reconsider it.
I should like to complete the point I was making when progress was reported. I was commending him on the large number of amendments he has put down. In particular, I want to thank him for including the proposed regional technical college in Tallaght in the Bill. I could not understand why this college was omitted in the first place.
We need to be given some latitude in this debate as we are dealing with 12 amendments, some of which deal with the sections and others which deal with the Schedule. It is a question of trying to relate these amendments to the Bill. Much more thought needs to be given by the Minister to his amendment No. 6 which simply is a statement and does not relate to any other sections of the Bill. The Minister said that this amendment would give the institutions in Cork a certain amount of independence or status — I cannot remember the exact word he used — and they could call themselves anything they liked. If they are given this independence will they have a separate building? How will they relate to the governing body? Will they be able to appoint somebody to the governing body to represent their interests? The same applies in relation to the academic council. If the Minister's amendment is agreed Crawford College and the Cork School of Music will not count: they will be amalgamated into Cork Regional Technical College and will not have any say at any tier. If they are lucky they may have a staff representative on the governing body. Where exactly will they stand and what type of independence will they be given?
Giving these institutions some status in their own right would require amendments to other sections of the Bill. Otherwise they would be no different to the regional technical colleges. Cork Regional Technical College will run the show and the Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork College of Music will be regarded as other faculties. If they are not to be merely other faculties of the regional technical college how will they be different and what extra functions will they have? No reference is made to this in section 5 which deals with the functions of colleges or in section 2. The only place reference is made to these colleges is in the Minister's amendment No. 6 which proposes to delete section 3 (1) (b) and replace it with a new paragraph. I do not think this amendment has been properly thought out. The Minister should go back to the parliamentary draftsman and see if his own proposals in regard to giving these colleges extra functions and powers can be included in other sections. As the Bill stands they will have no independence or extra functions, and we will be opposing the Minister's amendment No. 6. He should leave section 3 as it stands if he does not intend giving these institutions extra status.
Deputy Mac Giolla has praised the Minister for tabling a large number of amendments to the Bill. Prior to the break I also had attempted being nice to the Minister in the hope that it would produce a positive response in relation to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. However, I have to say that his response so far has been less than satisfactory. As of now the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design is not being included in the Bill and is consequently not being considered as a third level college. For all of the reasons I stated earlier, for example, historical reasons, this is not acceptable.
I indicated my willingness to listen to any firm commitment the Minister might give to including the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design in column (1) of the First Schedule. No commitment was given by him in relation to this college other than a statement that perhaps it could be considered for designation as a constituent college of the Dublin Institute of Technology, which is a new issue. The people of Dún Laoghaire are understandably reluctant to be lumped in with a greater Dublin scene. We pride ourselves on having a certain degree of independence from the Dublin scenario. There may well be other implications in that.
The only reason the Minister offered for not including the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design in the Bill and for rejecting my amendment was that my amendment would make the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design a regional technical college. I do not understand that explanation because while the short Title says that this Bill is the "Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991" the long Title says that it is "An Act to Provide for the Organisation and Development of Regional Technical and Other Colleges ...". Clearly the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design would not be a regional technical college but could be regarded as an "other college" for the purpose of this Bill. It is clearly the intention of the legislation to add colleges other than the existing regional technical colleges and to give them the same status as regional technical colleges by including them in column (1) of the First Schedule.
My objective is to get the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design covered by this Bill and to secure for the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design the formal recognised statutory third level status to which it is entitled and which it has earned over the years. The only way open to me to do that was to table an amendment which I have done. The Minister has so far shot down that amendment although, in the course of a later contribution, he conferred deserving praise on the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design and acknowledged that it was a third level college but a Minister's acknowledgement here in the House that it is a third level college does not make it a third level college. I am afraid we will need something more than that.
I am quite happy to await any further good news the Minister may wish to give me or some further reason as to why I should not press this amendment. I am surprised to find myself in the situation where I will have to press this amendment if I do not get a commitment from the Minister. I am sure he would not want to have conveyed to the staff, the students and the supporters of Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design and the local people, the view that the Government had shot down and defeated an amendment which would have Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design covered by this Bill and made a third level college. I cannot imagine how the Minister's local parliamentary colleagues will be able to explain that, even to colleagues in their own party, many of whom, particularly those who are members of the vocational education committee, have worked very hard over the years on behalf of this college. It would be a kick in the teeth for those people if this amendment were defeated or for me to have to leave this House without a firm commitment and a time limit as to when the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design will be designated and granted third level status.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have asked us to avoid repetition and I hope I have complied with that request. If the Minister has not something satisfactory to say to me about the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design I will have no option but to press my amendment.
During lunch I inquired about a commitment which the Deputy said the Minister gave. I understand that my predecessor did not give any such commitment as alleged by the Deputy but said that under the provisions of section 3 (2), what was being proposed could be considered at a later stage of the development of the college. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this point.
Perhaps we could stick with the Dún Laoghaire problem before we go on to deal with Cork and elsewhere.
That is what I am doing.
I appreciate that. Section 3 (2) states:
Whenever the Minister considers that this Act should apply to any other educational institution, the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and following consultation with the vocational education committee, amend the said First Schedule by inserting in column (1) thereof the name of the institution and any other particulars ....
Is the Minister saying he will include, in column (1), under the provisions of that subsection, reference to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design because that is what I understood him to say? If that is the case can he give me some indication as to when that might be done? If I can have clarity on that issue perhaps this issue will be resolved.
I said that was a way by which it could be done. It will be done when certain goals have been achieved.
That is no use at all.
Excuse me, the Deputy asked me to clarify what I had said. That is as far as I can go today.
That is much too conditional.
In regard to what Deputy O'Shea said concerning the establishment of schools in Cork, I would repeat again that they are either in or out; they cannot be separate regional technical colleges. If they are in, they are in the system where they have their own heads and their own particular ethos and conditions. Deputy Mac Giolla asked whether anyone would represent these schools on the governing body. Of course there will be the vocational education committees. Their principal vocational education committee will be Cork City vocational education committee to which four representatives of the colleges will be appointed. I am sure they will be pleased to continue to represent Crawford College and the Cork School of Music and they may, as the Deputy said rightly, have people from the staff side selected for the governing body.
That is only a chance.
Deputy O'Shea referred briefly to section 7 (5). That subsection would only be used in last minute circumstances, if negotiations did not succeed, so that the Minister would have the right to interfere at any stage.
With respect, that is the Minister's opinion but while I do not question the Minister's bona fides in terms of the answer he gave, this is legislation which will be on the Statute Book to stay. The Minister indicated this morning that he would look at the definition of "school" with a view to putting something in the definition section. In that regard I will await the Minister's comments on Report Stage.
I am afraid the very conditional reply the Minister has given in relation to Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design is not satisfactory. It is too nebulous, too much in the distance. He made passing reference to fulfilling certain conditions but he did not specify what those conditions were. His promise is much too long fingered to be of any use to me as a Deputy from Dún Laoghaire, to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design or to the people of Dún Laoghaire. I am very sorry that that should be the case. I did not expect to be in the position of having to press the amendment but it would appear I am not being left with any option.
We must take amendments seriatim. We will take the Deputy's amendment at the appropriate time.
This Bill is about establishing regional technical colleges only.
No, it includes other colleges.
Yes, it is all set out in the First Schedule. It is about establishing the regional technical colleges and giving them an autonomy of their own.
What is wrong with that?
Once that is done, the method for taking others in is in place.
In his discussions with various representative groups and those representing Crawford College of Art and Design, the Minister gave the impression that he had obtained their consent to go ahead with what he is proposing. I got the impression that he had assuaged their fears and sent them away happy. I understand that a representative of Deputy O'Shea's party met the Minister also.
Two people.
The impression I had — I did not meet them directly — from various correspondence and petitions we have received is that they would much prefer the existing arrangements. Naturally, they would like autonomy as envisaged for other regional technical colleges. They would much prefer the existing arrangements, that is, their link with the Cork City Vocational Education Committee, rather than this new relationship outlined in Schedule 1 whereby they would have an indirect link, whereby they would be a constituent school of the regional technical college and thereby have only vary tenuous links with the vocational education committee.
The Deputy is saying that they want to be under the vocational educational committees. They cannot be half-way in and half-way out. One of their submissions, which was circulated to all Deputies in the House, was that there should be a federal solution, a federation of various schools and colleges, which is a different matter. I am happy that this is the better way to go, for the two places to be brought under the regional technical college. When degree awards and facilities are there it will be a much better situation for them.
It is now appropriate to put the question. We will take it amendment by amendment.
On a point of order, I suggest that it might be more logical to take amendment No. 7 first because ——
That logic has never been accepted in this House. We must accept the amendments seriatum.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford.)
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Owen, Nora.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) This Act shall apply to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design.".
I would like to join with my colleague in reiterating everything he said in support of this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gilmore and Byrne; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 10 are cognate. It is proposed, therefore, with the agreement of the House, to take amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together for the purposes of discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 23, to delete "Minister considers" and substitute "vocational education committee recommends".
Our point is in relation to a local democratic input. The power rests with the Minister in terms of making orders relating to this section. We are seeking in both amendments that the recommendation should emanate from the vocational education committee in the first instance and not from the Minister. I should like to hear the Minister's response.
This is a very simple, short amendment but it enshrines a very important principle, that the decisions should be made at the lowest effective level. That is the principle of subsidiarity which I think is accepted by all parties in this House and which is particularly dear to the heart of The Green Party (Comhaontas Glas). Surely there is no greater example of the principle of subsidiarity than this subsection? It is a fairly simple matter of educational administration and yet the Bill does not provide for this. The vocational education committee, a democratically elected body, should make decisions at local level but the mandarins in the Department of Education have, presumably, persuaded the Minister that they must have power over the smallest detail in this legislation. There are many examples of excessive power being taken by the Minister and this is just one of them. I feel very strongly about this matter and I hope the Minister will consider the amendment very seriously.
Amendments No. 10 is in my name; it relates to subsection (3) and I fully agree with amendment No. 9. In the promulgation of these Bills last June the former Minister made it quite clear that their purpose was to retain the regional technical colleges within the vocational education committee structure while establishing them as self-governing institutions.
These two subsections do nothing for the regional technical colleges; they do not give them any powers, they are not even mentioned. However, they take power from the vocational education committees. In other words, they do not adhere to the initial purpose of the Bill, which was to give them a structure within the vocational education committee while establishing them as self-governing institutions. The power is given to the Minister. There are phrases like: "Whenever the Minister considers that this Act should apply to any other educational institution, the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance...." etc., and "whenever the Minister considers that an educational institution or part of such an institution should form part of a college the Minister may, by order...." etc. Neither the colleges not the institute - presumably the Dublin Institute of Technology — have any power to make a recommendation or decision. The same applies to the vocational education committees. The Minister should look into this matter because it is not in accordance with the previous Minister's intention.
I have commended the Minister on introducing amendments — some of which we have not yet reached — and if the Minister examines this matter he will see that it is an area in which the vocational education committees can make a recommendation. They know the educational institutions in their areas and what colleges or parts of educational institutions should form part of a college. They know the score in their own regions.
There is a great growth in some second level institutions which are now almost third level institutions through the development of the post-leaving certificate. The vocational education committees will know where the growth is, which institutions have taken on such courses and what is happening in an area. They should be able to make the recommendations to the Minister. It is consistent with the purpose of the Bill and the vocational education committees and the very rapid development of the regional technical colleges. Consequently, this should be altered. "The Minister considers" should be deleted and "The vocational education committee recommend" inserted in its place. In other words, when the vocational education committee recommend that this Act shall apply to another educational institute the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, act on that. The position is similar in subsection (3). I support amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.