Is section 1 agreed to?
Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
May I refer to the Acts at the beginning of the Bill, that is, before section 1?
Not at this stage, Deputy; you will have an opportunity later.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
We come now to section 2. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 in the name of Deputies Jim Higgins and Therese Ahearn are out of order in that they involve a potential charge on Revenue. The Deputies have been informed accordingly. Amendment No. 2 is in the name of the Minister.
In relation to the non-acceptability of our amendment No. 1, you said it is out of order because it involves a charge on the Exchequer.
That is so.
Not wishing to be argumentative in this regard — and I shall be very brief — may I draw your attention to the wording of the amendment which proposes the insertion of the words "in addition to the proposed colleges in Thurles and Castlebar" in line 18, section 2 (1), in other words, something of a futuristic nature? We are talking about enshrining a general principle on the basis that there has been a clear commitment by the present Government to establish three regional technical colleges, one in Tallaght, at present in course of construction for which we are very grateful, and two others in the provinces, one in Thurles, County Tipperary, and the other in Castlebar, County Mayo. What we are seeking here is not in any way to impose a charge on the Exchequer, not to obligate the Government to any further revenue raising, but merely to enshrine in this Bill the general principle that it is Government policy that they would establish — hopefully in the not too distant future, but certainly not today — regional technical colleges in Thurles and Castlebar.
I have given the Deputy some latitude, as I normally do, in relation to matters concerning an amendment or amendments deemed to be out of order. While the Members concerned must accept my ruling in the matter, my ruling is clear, specific and sustainable in every sense in that I said that amendments No. 1 and 4 in the name of Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn involve a potential charge on the Revenue. That is clear. The Deputy may comment on my ruling, as he has done, but my ruling stands.
I respect your decision that we are not allowed to move amendment Nos. 1 and 4. I agree with the comments of my colleague, Deputy J. Higgins, that our proposal is not something new in that it has been long accepted that regional technical colleges are planned for Thurles, Castlebar and Tallaght. The provisions of this Bill do not refer to the past but to the future, the future plans for third level education here. In that context it would be remiss of us not to comment on future plans for the extension of third level places.
May I interrupt the Deputy. There will be an opportunity for all Deputies to comment on future plans for education on section 2. Would Deputies please allow us to go through the sections seriatim? As I have said, amendment No. 1 is out of order and we should now proceed to amendment No. 2 in the name of the Minister, then amendment No. 3 in the names of Deputy J. Higgins and T. Ahearn when they will be given an opportunity of commenting on the programme for the establishment of regional technical colleges or whatever in the course of the debate on this section.
I support my colleague, Deputy J. Higgins in this matter.
Let us now proceed to amendment No. 2 in the name of the Minister. I would ask the Minister to move his amendment. Deputies will be afforded an opportunity of reverting to the matter again on this section.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"‘elected local representative' means a person who, for the time being, is an elected member of the council of a county, a county borough or an urban district;".
During the Second Stage debate a degree of concern was expressed with regard to what was seen in the Bill as a diminution of the role of democratically elected local representatives. I have taken note of these concerns and, accordingly, I am prepared to prescribe that at least five of the eight vocational education committee nominees to the governing body shall be elected local representatives. This definition is to cover that provision in section 6 dealing with the governing bodies. It is a move in the direction of meeting the criticisms expressed.
We welcome the general thrust of this amendment. Vocational education committees are made up of 14 members. Then additional people are added from urban district councils and other autonomous bodies within the area of the vocational education committee. There is a minimum and a maximum elected requirement, thereby enabling people to be co-opted as distinct from elected. For example, it is established that there should be one clergyman, and sometimes one clergyman for each persuasion. As a result of the stimulus applied by the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act, 1981, introduced by Fine Gael, a letter was sent from the Minister to local authorities exhorting them to include a parent and a teacher in vocational education committees. That request has been observed by most vocational education committees. There is a differentiation between elected members and co-opted members. Would it not be more appropriate to include the phrase "elected or co-opted local representative" to put the matter beyond doubt and ensure that it is technically correct?
The total is eight and five are to be elected. The criticism raised earlier was about the lack of representation of elected members. That was the criticism from the vocational education committees and other bodies. We have made a genuine effort to include members of the county council, the county borough and urban council, but the right belongs to the vocational education committee to nominate people to the three remaining vacancies. That is a matter for local democracy and we should not decide how it should be done.
The phrase "elected local representative" means a person who, for the time being, is an elected member of the council of a county, a county borough or an urban district. If a member of a county council or an urban district council dies, there is not a by-election; instead there is a co-option. The person co-opted is not elected to the council and, therefore, cannot be one of the three members designated here. A co-opted member would not seem to be eligible under the wording of the proposed amendment.
Deputy Higgins is looking at all sorts of possibilities. A person who is co-opted to a council is elected by the councillors. That is one interpretation. The person co-opted would not necessarily replace the deceased person as a member of the governing body.
I maintain that when the Minister is advised further in relation to the reservations raised by this side of the House, he will be advised that I am technically correct in what I am saying. I am seeking to have the wording made watertight. We will consider tabling an amendment on Report Stage to make it absolutely clear that there will be no prohibition on a co-opted member of a local authority being covered by the terms of this amendment.
It is an unnecessary addition. Already on the county councils there are members who have been co-opted and, therefore, deemed to be elected. They are also members of the vocational education committee. Co-option has not prevented any councillor from being a member of a vocational education committee.
Deputy Higgins is probably correct on this point. A Bill must stand up in court and a judge's decision as to who is an elected member might be different from ours. I would agree with the Minister that we could deem a person co-opted to take the place of an elected member as being elected by the councillors. The parliamentary draftsman might consider the wording to ensure that it will accomplish what we all have in mind. The wording should cover a person who is a member of a local authority, either elected or co-opted.
I share the concern expressed by Deputy Higgins and I fear that the wording of the Minister's amendment would be taken to exclude persons who are co-opted. I had the experience of being a co-opted member of South Tipperary County Council. On the day we were waiting for President Ronald Reagan to arrive at Ballyporeen, Deputy Davern — now Minister — pointed out to me that I was only a co-opted member rather than an elected member of South Tipperary County Council.
There is a difference.
There is most definitely a difference, in the view of the Minister, Deputy Davern. It was clearly pointed out to me on that occasion. I wonder if the Minister recalls it. The question needs to be clarified and I see no reason the word "co-opted" cannot be inserted to remove any doubt. I agree with Deputy Higgins that the amendment should cover an elected or a co-opted local representative. It was pointed out to me that I was only a co-opted member and the same could be pointed out to any other person. The section needs to be clarified.
Deputy Ahearn is referring to a bantering exchange on a joyous occasion in the town of Ballyporeen. She is being over-interpretive.
I am repeating the words as they were said.
It was an entirely different matter. Elected members are appointed from the council to the vocational education committee. If somebody is co-opted, it may be a non-elected person. I will have another look at the matter between now and Report Stage but I honestly think the Deputy's fears are groundless. The suggestion may only complicate matters as a person who is co-opted to a vocational education committee may be entitled to be a member of the governing body. It could be interpreted in that way if I included the words "co-opted or elected representative".
The amendment does not refer to "co-opted or elected representative". It refers to an "elected local representative" which is very different. The Minister has omitted the word "co-opted" which is the distinct difference. He should bear this in mind when he is considering our suggestion.
I will have a look at the point raised between now and Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is in the names of Deputies Jim Higgins and Theresa Ahearn. I observe that a number of other amendments are related. I suggest, therefore, that amendments Nos. 3, 4, 41, 70, 77, 78, 93, 97, 111, 118, 126, 129, 133, 135, 144, 147, 148, 156, 160 to 171, inclusive, and 174 be taken together as they are cognate and very largely identical. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 5, after "the" to insert "principal".
No distinction is made in the Bill between what we term the principal vocational education committee — the vocational education committee of the area in which the college is located — and associated vocational education committees. Many of those involved in regional colleges and the vocational education sector have expressed fear that little or no cognisance has been given in the Bill to associated vocational education committees. We must remember that we are talking about regional colleges which are supposed to represent the region in which they are situated and surrounding areas. It is very important that a distinction is made between the principal vocational education committee and more important, that the role of associated vocational education committees be defined.
There is little or no mention of the associated vocational education committees in the Bill. These vocational education committees rightly feel that this will lead to a diminution of their role within the regional technical colleges structure. We wanted the Bill to be clear and precise and it is for this reason we believe the word "principal" should be inserted where reference is implied to the principal vocational education committee. Reference is made throughout the Bill to the vocational education committee and I cannot see why the word "principal" cannot be inserted. This would clearly define that reference is being made to the vocational education committee in whose area the regional college is located. It is most important that we define the associated vocational education committees. The Minister should avail of this opportunity to set out the associated vocational education committees who will be associated with our regional colleges.
We put down these amendments to clarify this point and ensure that the associated vocational education committees are given a well defined and clear role within the regional colleges structure. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments which seek to clarify the difference between the principal vocational education committees and he associated vocational education committees.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure an appropriate balance on the governing bodies between representatives of vocational education committees in whose area the college is located, that is, the principal vocational education committee, and other vocational education committees in the college region, or associated regions. I have sympathy with the general sentiments behind the amendment which seek to ensure the involvement of all vocational education committees in the college region. However, section 6 (4) (b) provides that up to four of the eight governing body members nominated by the vocational education committee can, by direction of the Minister, be nominated by other vocational education committees in the college region. It is my intention to use this provision to ensure that the appropriate vocational education committees will be represented on the governing bodies of all colleges — there will be two in some areas and three in others. This provision provides for flexibility and at the same time can be used to ensure appropriate representation.
The difficulty of enshrining in the First Schedule the names of the associated vocational education committees is that this would relate to the present geographical distribution of the colleges. If a further college or colleges were to be established, as was referred to earlier, the schedule of associated vocational education committees would still apply but would no longer be relevant and the Act would have to be amended to alter it. I do not think we should lock ourselves into this position. I assure the House I will use the existing provision in section 6 (4) (b) as intended so as to ensure representation on the governing bodies of the appropriate vocational education committees. The governing bodies will be responsible for the preparation of the operational programmes for the colleges required under section 13. Accordingly, all the vocational education committees represented on the governing body will have an input into this process. I should point out that the amendment should relate to line 6 and not line 5 on page four.
As one of the co-sponsors of this amendment I should say that our intention is entirely honourable — I think the Minister accepts that. Furthermore we are seeking to establish a clear differentiation between the vocational education committees within the catchment area of the regional technical college in question and the host vocational education committee, the principal vocational education committee. By giving a minimum of four places to the host vocational education committee the Minister is, and we accept this, achieving a numerical balance in relation to the other vocational education committees within the catchment area. We are seeking to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the associated vocational education committees and the principal vocational education committee.
For example, in the case of Galway, the City of Galway Vocational Education Committee are the host vocational education committee for the Galway Regional Technical College. The vocational education committees of counties Clare, Mayo, Roscommon and Galway come within the catchment area of the college and are represented on the governing body. However, there is a clear difference in that Galway Vocational Education Committee are the host committee and they, numerically, have the greatest number of representatives on the governing body. Therefore, in terms of the precise technical wording of the Bill they would seem to merit the title "principal vocational education committee" as distinct from the other vocational education committees within the functional area of the college.
I will take the example of the south-east region with which I am most familiar. There will be a representative from each of the four associated vocational education committees on the governing body of Carlow Regional Technical College. Similarly there will be a representative from each of the four associated vocational education committees on the governing body of Waterford Regional Technical College. If in the future it is the dearest wish of Deputy Lowry, for example, or someone else, to have a representative from Thurles on the governing body it will be easier to do this under the provision as it stands. It is our intention to ensure that four associated vocational education committees will have a representative on the governing body. It would be wrong to enshrine the names of the associated vocational education committees in the First Schedule as this would relate to the present geographical distribution of the colleges. Rather we should be able to adjust them later.
Section 6 (4) (b) provides that up to four of the eight governing body members nominated by the vocational education committee can, by direction of the Minister, be nominated by other vocational education committees in the college region.
If a college has more than four associated vocational education committees how does the Minister propose to ensure they are represented?
No case comes to mind of any college which has more than four associated vocational education committees. If we include the principal vocational education committees, five vocational education committees would be represented on the governing body. We are not aware of any one case. If the Deputy has one in mind and would let us know we would have a look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 deals with definitions. There is a number of specific points I would like to raise in relation to amendment No. 6 which is being introduced by the Minister, where the Crawford College of Art and Design in Cork and the Cork School of Music will be established as schools.
I thought we were dealing with section 2.
I am coming around to section 2. The term "school" is used and these two colleges will now be schools of Cork Regional College. There is a need to define what is meant by "school" in section 2.
We use that terminology as they exist at present and are being brought into the Regional Technical Colleges. There is a definition in the Bill where they can change their own names to "institution" or whatever they want. That can be done at a later stage by themselves.
The Minister said they can change their names but I put it to him that the definition I am seeking here is what exactly is "a school" in terms of this Bill?
The word the Cork School of Music and the Crawford College of Art and Design use is "school". If the Deputy feels there is a problem regarding whether they are called schools or institutions I would be prepared to look at it between now and Report Stage.
I accept what the Minister has said but I put it to him that it is a new concept brought in to suit a particular case. I would ask him to look at this in a general context. For example, in future if a particular college wished to break into schools or to move a certain section into a school it would be important that a statutory framework and a clear definition exist. On the basis that the Minister will look at it between now and Report Stage I am prepared to accept that and await the outcome.
There were some other points on sectin 2 that I wish to raise. Section 4 deals with members of the college. It tells us who members are and what category of person can become a member of the college but the Bill does not define what a member is. I realise that sometimes this type of terminology is a matter of prestige more than anything else. If that were defined in section 2 it would be clearer and would give more prestige to what a member is. A major problem relates to the looseness of drafting and who the employer is under the terms of the Bill. For instance, the vocational education committee appoint and can dismiss members but only on the recommendation of the governing body. My concern is in relation to the Department of Labour Acts, but particularly the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989. This Act places very stringent and onerous responsibilities on an employer. The Bill is vague and as drafted it is not clear who is the employer. This legislation does not allow for the following through of the safety of people employed in a particular college. A definition of "employer" should be contained in the Bill and some reference made to it at a later stage.
In regard to the first point raised by the Deputy, the members of a college shall be the members of the governing body, the members of the academic council, the members of the staff, the registered students of the college, the graduates of the college and such other persons as the governing body my appoint to be members. Membership of a college under subsection (1) (f) shall continue until the governing body otherwise declare. The Deputy referred to the safety legislation: that will be the responsibility of the colleges and staff, not of the vocational education committee.
Section 4 tells us who the members are and what categories of person can become members but what does it mean to be a member? Does that carry responsibility?
Would it be more appropriate to tease out that matter on section 4 in view of the reply given by the Minister?
With respect, I do not think so because I am seeking that a definition be included in section 2.
Acting Chairman
If the definition refers to section 4, would it not be more appropriate to section 4?
Section 4 does not define it.
Acting Chairman
It does not apply to this section either so far as I am aware. I would ask the Deputy to continue and to make his point.
The terms of reference of any legislation are very important because when words are used later on they must be clearly defined and it must be clear to us what they mean. Can the Minister tell us what exactly is a member of a college? In regard to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, is the Minister telling me that the college governing body is the employer?
Acting Chairman
I will allow the Minister to reply on this point but I would advise the Deputy that it is more appropriate to section 4. Having debated section 4 it is possible for you to submit later any amendment you may wish.
The college would be the employer.
Acting Chairman
I would remind Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Therese Ahearn that as the amendment which they proposed has been ruled out of order, they may now debate it on the section, if they so wish.
The amendment we sought has been ruled out of order on the basis that it would have involved a charge on the Exchequer. Basically, the amendment refers to the definition of college in section 2 which reads:
"college" means an educational institution established by or under section 3 of this Act as a regional technical college or as a college to which this Act applies;
The colleges in question are those defined in the First Schedule to the Bill. As regards the word "college" and its definition and the locations enshrined in the First Schedule to the Bill, in the cases of Athlone, Carlow, Cork, Dundalk, Galway, Letterkenny, Waterford, Sligo, Tralee and Limerick, the existence of a college in each of those locations has proved to be a catalyst for growth in those areas. Despite the fact that up to now they have technically been barred from embarking on joint ventures or research and development, it is well known that many of the colleges use their ingenuity to involve themselves in a certain amount of dialogue with enterprise in their areas. It is not a coincidence that in Athlone there are some industries involved in plastics and that there is a plastic research unit in the regional technical college. In this Bill we are trying to broaden the remit of those colleges to allow them engage in these areas.
A clear commitment was given by Fianna Fáil and by the previous Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government that they would establish three further colleges. One of those colleges is well under way and nearing completion but the other two seem to be as far from reality as on the day they were promised. I am delighted that the college in Tallaght is going ahead and we look to it to provide an appropriate level of certification and diploma and degree awards in the Dublin area. There should be another regional technical college in Dublin's inner city. It should not have been the spending of £9.7 million of taxpayers' money that we will debate at Question Time today. We should be debating areas more appropriate to the Taoiseach, but because of a personal intervention that is what we will debate at Question Time today. That money should have been spent on another regional technical college.
A site for a third level college was bought in Castlebar. Every September or October about 3,000 students are involved in a mass exodus from the county to Galway, to Sligo, to Letterkenny, to the various colleges, Dublin Institutes of Technology and universities. In Mayo we have the highest level of participation in third level education. For a county that has not an industrial base we look to education to fill the vacuum, to exploit our best resource, our young people. We have a cast iron case for a third level college in Mayo and for a third level college in Tipperary. Anywhere a third level college has been built it has proved to be the catalyst for development in the area. If one looks at the population graph, apart from the locations where the colleges are, the west of Ireland seems to be in inevitable decline. Galway and Sligo, because of their colleges, are the only two areas which have managed to swim against the tide. The establishment of the colleges in those areas and the liaison that is developing between the colleges and industries in the areas, has been the main stimulus for growth.
If industrialists are considering coming to an area they will look at all the infrastructure in the area and educational facilities are of paramount importance because it is from third level institutions mainly that they will get their graduates. It is third level institutions with whom they will liaise in terms of research and development, which is sadly absent from a lot of our industries. We have a lot of torso industries — the body being here but the head and feet elsewhere so that when the pressure comes on they leave the country. The two counties which have particularly chronic unemployment problems and which have a high level of participation in third level education need a serious commitment to the establishment of third level colleges. It has been argued that people have been well catered for in the comprehensive range of faculties provided. However it is very hard to get into some of the faculties. We train 20 opticians per year in Kevin Street College of Technology. It is the only college which provides this course and one cannot get into it. There is a chronic shortage of opthalmic opticians and people have to wait for from six to 12 months for opthalmic services. The people in opthalmics do particularly well but we could open up the market and train more opticians. In a regional technical college in either Castlebar or Thurles this is a prime faculty which could be developed. We could open up another faculty of opthalmic optics. In this country we do not have any faculty in astronomy. People who wish to study astronomy must go to England or Scotland. We are not a nation of star gazers but this is an area of considerable growth.
Acting Chairman
Whereas the Deputy is entitled to comment on his amendment which was ruled out of order, he is going a little bit further than that and is making a Second Stage type speech.
I cannot think of any area which requires a college with a tourism faculty more or which would gel more with the local environment and potential than Castlebar. During the course of this debate I wish the Minister to make a clear unequivocal statement that it is the Government's intention to introduce regional technical colleges in Castlebar and Tipperary.
I congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in the House. I wish the Minister good luck in his tenure of office in the Department, a Department in which I had some experience in a junior role.
Deputy Higgins's amendment called for the inclusion of Thurles and Castlebar in section 2. In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 17 December 1981 the Minister for Education, Deputy Boland, said in volume 331, column 2446, of the Official Report:
The question of providing such a facility to serve Castlebar and the adjoining region has separately been raised with me some time ago and, as a result, I wish to reiterate my commitment to the provision of such a facility in Castlebar.
In response to a further Parliamentary Question on 17 February 1983 the Minister for Education, Deputy Hussey said that she was aware of the decision of her predecessor and that she was satisfied as to the validity and the strength of the case for a regional college in Castlebar. From that time on all inquiries and representations with regard to a regional technical college in the town were answered on the basis that such projects were being considered in the context of third level investment programmes. Subsequently decisions on priorities in regard to the various projects would be made in the forthcoming national plan. At that time the document which laid out the educational requirements, Building on Reality said at paragraph 7.85:
New Regional Technical Colleges in Tallaght, Dun Laoghaire and Blanchardstown, and the commencement of planning of new Colleges in Thurles and Castlebar have also been proposed. Subject to further examination of the need for each project, and to availability of finance, as many as possible of these projects will be commenced in the Plan period.
On 16 May 1985 the Department of Finance issued formal sanction to commence planning and design of the Castlebar and Thurles projects and on 7 June 1985 the then Minister, Mrs. Hussey, announced the go-ahead for both colleges at Castlebar and Thurles.
On 28 June 1985 a design team, architects, a services engineer, a structural engineer and a quantity surveyor, were appointed. The college was designed to cater for 800 students with a price tag at that time of around £9 million. There were subsequent meetings with the vocational education committee and the curriculum was determined and various other matters in that regard.
I myself was appointed as a junior Minister in the Department in 1986 and something like 14 different sites were examined in the town area. Eventually agreement was reached between the county council, the IDA and the urban council on a very suitable site. The then county manager, the late Mr. O'Malley, in a letter of 2 February 1987 said:
I can now state that a site is available located between Travenol Laboratories and Davitt House on the main Castlebar-Claremorris Road. The site is about 18 acres in area and has a frontage to the main road of 650 feet.
He went on to indicate the services that were available. I know the Chair is anxious about this and I will finish quite soon.
Facilities for sewage disposal, facilities for surface water disposal, public water supply, road frontage and footpath access from the public road, public lighting, three phase current and telecommunication services were also available immediately adjacent to it.
He then went on to issue details of the cost per acre.
Subsequent to that on 28 January 1987, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bruton, said in a letter to the then Minister for Education, Mr. Cooney:
I am also agreeable to the purchase of a site for the proposed Castlebar Regional Technical College. As soon as an appropriate application is received my Department will sanction it.
That official reply from the then Minister for Finance is on the record.
On 16 November 1989 after further negotiations the then Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, said in reply to a parliamentary question:
Pending receipt of the committee's report, a number of capital projects were deferred, including the proposed regional technical college at Castlebar, County Mayo.
It went on from there until her colleague the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, changed tack slightly with the Minister for Education and they proposed third level courses in the town. In the course of an interview given by the then Minister, he said "Negotiations are going on and it is my intention to further these talks and hopefully to bring them to a happy conclusion with courses starting at the end of this year". That was last year. In a reply this year the Minister for Education said:
With regard to course approval, any outcentre provision of courses would have to be under the aegis of a regional technical college. Therefore, the question of approval of specific courses does not arise at this time. I will be keeping an active interest in this matter.
I have no doubt that Minister Davern will maintain an active interest both in Castlebar and Thurles. As a person who has served on vocational education committees, who understands the complications and the pressure that is placed on parents in sending their children to third level institutions, I ask the Minister, during his tenure as Minister for Education, to look seriously at this and, if he is not in a position to take up the commitments that were there initially, to have a purpose built regional technical college and at least see to it that third level courses would be allocated under the aegis of Galway Regional Technical College or Sligo Regional Technical College in the shortest possible time. There are facilities provided and County Mayo has the third or fourth highest participation level in third level institutions. This is of great concern and imposes financial pressure on many students. I would ask the Minister to look at this matter very seriously.
Coming from Tipperary which was promised a regional college, and which now seems to be in the distant future, I cannot but view with a certain degree of envy the contents of Schedule I. I congratulate those centres on the work they have done. Nevertheless there is a compelling case for the establishment of regional colleges in both Castlebar and Thurles.
As in the case of Castlebar, a regional college to provide technical education in engineering, science and technology was approved for Thurles in 1982. Because of that a 20 acre site was bought in 1987 and a design team was appointed. Unfortunately, as a result of Government cutbacks, Thurles was one of the places to suffer.
Despite the disappointment in 1987 a very interested group, the Regional Technical College and Rural Development Institute Action Group, have not rested on their laurels but have continued to plan for the proposed regional technical college in Thurles. Their studies and planning for that college makes an even more compelling case for a college in Thurles as a priority. There would be no overlapping with the colleges mentioned in Schedule I because Thurles intends to go down a separate road with a rural development institute, a new and unique concept and one that is urgently needed in this country.
There are several reasons that justify the establishment of a regional technical college and rural development institute in Thurles. There is a shortage of third level places in this country. In 1989 the Minister for Education said there would be a need for an extra 10,000 places by the year 2000. Steps must be taken to provide those places in strategic locations. If the Minister decides, as I hope he will, to have Thurles as a priority, 800 extra places could be provided there.
The most important point I want to make in the case for the college at Thurles is that it is a unique concept. It would be a rural development institute serving Tipperary, West Laois, South Offaly and West Kilkenny. More important, we also intend to have sub-centres based in second level schools in the catchment area. The proposals for Thurles are based on community development. The proposed courses are based on agriculture, forestry, alternative income generating farming enterprises and technology transferred to rural Ireland.
It is important to have an institute that provides courses in rural development. Now, more than ever before, we need such an education centre. We need education courses based on our natural resources which, in our catchment area, are agriculture, forestry, peat and coal. The proposed rural development institute would provide post-leaving certificate courses to cater for the growing demand which is not being met outside the large urban areas. It is also proposed that this college should provide a mix of programmes which could be adapted to meet changing national needs and demographic trends in the area.
Acting Chairman
I remind the Deputy that she is tending to make a Second Stage speech.
I am keeping to the amendment which refers to the proposed college in Thurles. It was pointed out in the 1988 Clancy report that Tipperary had the fourth lowest participation rate nationally among the lower socio-economic grouping. We, in South Tipperary, did not need any report to point out that fact to us because we knew it already. We note also that in those areas where a college is located a greater number of students move from second level to third level education. It is no surprise, therefore, given that we have no regional technical college in Tipperary, that we have the fourth lowest participation rate among the lower socio-economic grouping.
The proposal submitted on behalf of the action committee spearheaded by the chief executive officer in North Tipperary, Mr. Luke Murtagh, and the Leas-CEO in South Tipperary, Mr. John Slattery, is unique in that there would be a mix of development and education. Not only would this project be of benefit to South Tipperary it would help to exploit the potential of not alone Tipperary but the country as a whole and lead to a very important link between education and rural development.
The Minister should commit himself to implementing this proposal and provide regional technical colleges in Castlebar and Thurles. I will leave it up to him to decide which should be given priority. We should take this opportunity in discussing the Regional Technical Colleges Bill to identify those areas where there is an urgent need to establish a third level college. Given that the proposed development in Thurles would be unique and is urgently needed, I ask the Minister to give Thurles and Castlebar the attention and priority they not only require but deserve.
Acting Chairman
There is a number of Deputies offering. I propose to call the Deputies in the order in which they offered — Deputy Deasy, Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Lowry.
I wish to refer to secton 2 and the definition of the word "college". For snob value, a high class secondary school can be, and is, referred to as a "college". In this Bill it is defined as a regional technical college. We also have the National University of Ireland, which includes Dublin, Cork, Galway and, belatedly, Limerick, formerly the NIHE. The definition of "college", therefore, is extremely loose. If one is a mere secondary teacher in a high class school one classifies oneself as a "professor" but in the local CBS or run of the mill school, one is an ordinary teacher.
A brat walloper.
We need a clear definition of "college" given the wide variation in interpretation from the ordinary secondary school to university level, and it has not been clearly defined which has the greater status. In this instance, we are talking about regional technical colleges.
I can sympathise with the representatives in this House from Thurles and Castlebar who have been promised new regional technical colleges for many years. There should be a system for grading colleges. They should be upgraded, or downgraded on the grounds of their performance. Not alone should we have a system of regional technical colleges but we should have also an organised system of make sure that those colleges do the best work possible in the national interest. In other words, what I am saying is that each college should provide basic courses but, they should specialise in a particular area because what we have at present is a mixum-gatherum. There is no planned format. For instance, the set of courses available in Dundalk might also be available in Athlone and Waterford. I am saying that each should provide a core of subjects, to give everyone living in a particular locality a reasonable chance of availing of advanced education courses in those colleges, but in addition they should specialise in areas such as agriculture, business studies and computer training to ensure there is no overlapping which is happening to present.
If a college shows by its excellence and performance that it should be upgraded then it should be upgraded. We should have ratings — to draw an analogy, we could call them TAM ratings — between colleges which are performing exceptionally well and those which are not. In particular, I am thinking of the performance of the NIHE, Limerick, which is due in no small measure to the leadership of Dr. Edward Walsh who brought that institution from what was considered ordinary to the status of university college. His work and the work of the staff has been recognised.
I wish to make the point, very briefly, before you rule me out of order, that the performance of the regional technical college in Waterford has been seen to be so effective that it deserves a higher grading. It should be included as one of the colleges of the National University of Ireland. The Minister should appreciate this given that the college is located in his own region. Each region, if it has not already got a university college, should have one.
Those living in the major centres of population — Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick — can avail of third level education at a relatively cheap price — economics form a major part of education. It is heart-rending to see brilliant students being precluded from taking up advanced courses because their parents cannot afford to send them to college where they can pursue their particular vocation and duly qualify.
Each region should have its own college associated with the National University of Ireland if its excellence justifies that standard. People who cannot afford it should not have to pay in the region of £4,000 to £5,000 per year to stay away from home. The cumulative cost of educating to degree standard a student not resident at home is in the region of £15,000 per annum. If two or three children in the same family are attending university simultaneously one can well imagine the financial burden involved. It is beyond the means of most people, especially when our tax system does not allow relief for educational expenditure.
Where excellence is shown, as in the case of Waterford Regional Technical College, the Minister should use his influence and seek the advice of his senior officials in the Department of Education to ensure that the people in the region benefit from the institution's excellence. The people of south Tipperary, Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford and Waterford city and county would applaud his decision. We should not be in a straitjacket in so far as colleges and universities are concerned; we should have an open mind and be able to adapt, change and upgrade. The system is too rigid and because of that it is downright unfair.
Acting Chairman
I have allowed the Deputy a little latitude. I will call Deputy Gilmore and then Deputy Lowry.
In this debate Members have pulled on their constituency jerseys and made a case for the educational needs of their own areas.
The Deputy must assist us.
I have no hesistation in making a case for Dún Laoghaire because I was interested to hear the spokes-persons for Fine Gael referring to commitments given in the mid to late eighties to Thurles and Castlebar about the construction of regional technical colleges in those areas. The promises to which I am referring in relation to Dún Laoghaire go back much further than that, to 1980, when a firm commitment was given that a regional technical college would be provided in Dún Laoghaire as one of four new regional colleges which were to be built in the greater Dublin area to address the under-representation of Dublin people in third level education. It has already been well documented in the Benson and Clancy report and others which have documented the extent to which participation in third level education is under-represented in the greater Dublin area.
I have seen practical evidence of this as in my own constituency people travel to Waterford — which, if Deputy Deasy's wish is granted, may soon be a university — to participate in courses which they cannot get in Dublin. Young people, neighbours of mine, get up at 6 a.m. to travel on the DART from Shankill to Connolly station to connect with a train going to Maynooth because they cannot get places in the greater Dublin area. I know of many cases of young people having been deprived of the opportunity of getting into third level education in the greater Dublin area because of the shortage of places. It is an established fact that it is much harder for a young person to get into a third level course in Dublin than elsewhere.
The idea was that the new regional technical colleges — of which Tallaght was one and I am glad it is now going ahead — were to redress the balance and one was to be located in Dún Laoghaire.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 8 to section 3, in the name of Deputy Gilmore, deals with that specific question and he will have ample opportunity to refer to it then.
The amendment refers to the specific case of the College of Art and Design and I am now addressing the promise to establish a regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire which is separate from the subject matter of my amendment. I do not wish to try out patience in this regard but, in fairness, other Members have made the case for their area in respect of a regional technical college.
If Deputy Gilmore was a member of Fine Gael he would have a much better chance.
As Deputy Deasy mentioned Fine Gael, I may say I am surprised that their amendment omitted the promised regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire because at one stage Dún Laoghaire was regarded as the home of Fine Gael. The Cosgraves and the Dockrells pulled the biggest votes in the country——
The culchies have moved in and they need to be educated.
I am surprised and disappointed that the Fine Gael Party appear to be abandoning Dún Laoghaire. However, I am sure that its citizens will take that into account in due course.
Acting Chairman
We are debating section 2.
It is bad enough that Fine Gael did not make the case but it appears they are now trying to prevent me from making it.
We support the case.
The promise to establish a regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire was made in 1980.
Acting Chairman
I hesitate to remind the Deputy again that he has an amendment tabled later on and I am sure he can elaborate on the matter then.
That is a separate matter. I am now talking about a specific promise to establish a regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire.
The first priority is Dún Laoghaire.
It was promised in 1980 and a site was bought. The vocational education committee prepared their plans and submitted to the Department of Education estimates of student numbers and the courses which would be involved. In 1985, just before the local elections, the then Minister for Education, the former Deputy Hussey, stated that the Dún Laoghaire regional technical college would go ahead. When the local elections were over the plan was shelved and we have not heard a word about it since. The 25 acre site is still there, there is a building on it, and there is still no information from any Government quarter as to what will happen in regard to the promise to establish a regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire. When the Minister is replying to the case made for Thurles, Castlebar and other towns, will he say what happened in relation to the promise to establish a regional college in Dún Laoghaire?
I contributed to the debate on Second Stage and I wish to re-emphasise a number of points which should be made.
Acting Chairman
I wish to remind the Deputy that I have allowed a lot of latitude in this debate.
I will not speak for long. I am disappointed that the amendment was ruled out of order on the basis that it imposes an additional charge on the Exchequer. I question the validity of that decision because we are not asking for an immediate charge on the Exchequer in the current year. Any charge on the Exchequer would apply in the future. Therefore, it is unacceptable that this amendment is being ruled out of order. It is the only mechanism available to us to persuade the Government to come off the fence and make a decision on the establishment of a college in Thurles.
I am disappointed that the amendment has been ruled out of order when I see an advance business school in Carysfort College getting funding, particularly when there was such a waste of public funds. I have no doubt it would be better that there be a charge on the Exchequer to establish a college in Thurles than to waste money on speculators and or on lining the pockets of individuals.
The case for a regional college in Thurles has been well documented and proven. We have identified an niche in the educational market and that was to be encompassed in the concept of a rural and business development institute. The Government parties, particularly Fianna Fáil, for the past 14 years have been making promises in relation to a college in Thurles. Every positive and constructive move that was made in regard to such a college was made by Fine Gael Ministers in the Coalition Government and every negative step — every time the college was put on the back burner — was by a Fianna Fáil Minister in Government.
A regional college is badly needed in Thurles. The town is geographically well placed and a college there would cater for a hinterland which is at present disadvantaged in terms of access to a third level college. Thousands of young students from Tipperary and adjoining counties travel long distances to attend third level colleges, at enormous inconvenience, hardship and considerable expense to them and their families. Establishing a college in Thurles is of vital importance in filling that educational need and in catering for the additional places that are required.
When there were industrial closures in Thurles the Government emphasised that a regional college would be provided there in the future. That commitment was reiterated at the time of the closure of Thurles sugar factory. We were told we would get something to replace that factory. We were told that we had ministerial clout, a voice at the Cabinet table and that the Government would deliver. We did not get an industry or a college. As a result the unemployment level in Thurles is about average, there is massive emigration and we are faced with industrial stagnation. The establishment of a college would be a major boost to the educational, economic, industrial, cultural and social life of the area, and the Minister for Education recognised that a long time ago.
I accept that the Minister is genuine in his concern for the establishment of a college which would benefit not only Thurles but the county of Tipperary. This project has received the unanimous support of all parties, educational and industrial interests in the area. On a number of occasions I attended committee meetings with the Minister at which the establishment of a college in Thurles was advocated. While I accept he is concerned about this matter he is now in a position to do something about it. I hope that in response he will outline his commitment to the college, the role he sees for Thurles in the third level education sector in the future and, particularly, the time scale for the setting up of a college in the town. I am disappointed that the amendment has been ruled out of order because there were no real grounds for doing so.
I too am surprised that the amendment has been ruled out of order because it simply refers to proposed colleges. I am also disappointed that the proposers of the amendment did not include all the proposed colleges as read out by Deputy Kenny. The college in Tallaght has been already accepted but there are four other proposed colleges — Castlebar, Thurles, Dún Laoghaire and Blanchardstown — and a good case can be made for all of them. I agree that the best case can be made for a college in Castlebar. There is a very active group there who lobbied Deputies last year, and previous years, and put forward an excellent case for a regional technical college in the town. The case has now been made for colleges in Thurles and Dún Laoghaire but no case has been made for a college in Blanchardstown, a new town with 55,000 people. A proposal for two second level schools for this area has also been turned down.
A strong case can be made for these four regional technical colleges. In each case there are different reasons why a regional technical college is essential. The strongest case can be made for Castlebar and that should receive priority. Blanchardstown in my constituency, the most rapidly growing town in the country, is a very deprived area. Houses are being built there at a faster rate than in any other area in the country, and the need for a regional technical college is increasing daily. I agree that an amendment of this kind is not necessary because there is provision in the Bill to include any colleges that come on-stream in the future. However, the Minister should take cognisance of the points made in the debate and make a strong case to the Minister for Finance that it is bad economics to cut back in this area of education.
Regional technical colleges have proved very important economically for the areas where they are located and for the country as a whole in attracting industries and expanding existing concerns. This Bill is an indication of the role of regional technical colleges in the economy and in the cultural life and development of local areas. The Minister should make a strong case to the Minister for Finance and the Cabinet for these regional colleges, particularly for the four mentioned. I hope the Minister will take on board the points made and, even if he does not accept the amendment, he should keep them in mind in debates on Estimates and in the provision of funding. He should push for the establishment of these colleges.
I am slightly confused because I thought we dealt with section 2 and we are now dealing with a Fine Gael amendment which was ruled out of order.
Acting Chairman
We are concluding section 2 before adopting the section as amended. All Members have a right to speak. Though the amendment was ruled out of order the proposer is entitled to refer to it.
I thought we were discussing the ruling out of order of amendment No. 3 put down by, Deputies Higgins and Ahearn.
Acting Chairman
We are dealing with section 2. Amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order.
Section 2 defines a college and section 4 outlines the constituents of a college. The Deputy has referred to the provision of colleges in Thurles, Castlebar, Dún Laoghaire and Blanchardstown and, as far as I am aware, no other place was mentioned. The content of the amendment is unnecessary because provision is made in section 3 (2) to bring future colleges within the scope of the Bill. I respect what the Deputies are trying to do but the Bill makes provision to bring new colleges within its scope.
Deputy Lowry asked about the time schedule for the proposed regional technical college in Thurles. Deputies Mac Giolla, Gilmore and others asked about the capital allocation for the proposed colleges. Capital resources, as Deputies are aware, have been very limited since 1987 and are fully committed up to 1993. Let me say, particularly to Deputies Lowry and Ahearn, lest they should try to bring it out under another pretext, prior to my assuming office, capital moneys were committed up to 1993. The provision of extra student places is ongoing. Since 1987 the number of third level places has increased from 56,000 to 75,000 and when the proposed college at Tallaght is completed there will be an additional 8,000 places provided. We are very concerned about the increasing need for third level places up to the year 2000 and we will continue to make efforts to ensure that additional places are provided. The capital moneys for an expansion of third level facilities are committed up to 1993. I cannot be any more helpful than that.
We are now only twelve and a half months away from 1993. Could the Minister give some indication whether it is still the Government's intentions to proceed with the proposed regional technical colleges and the order in which it is proposed to proceed? We are not expecting miracles but we need to have some indication of the state of play. Have the Government abandoned their proposals for all or some of these regional colleges? Is it still the Government's intention to proceed with them, and if so in what order is it envisaged that the colleges will proceed? I think we are entitled to know where we stand and have some idea of what the future will hold.
I support Deputy Gilmore's point. It would be a very bad policy if we did not plan for when money will become available. In the context of the establishment of a new regional college it would not be considered an extraordinary length of time to have to wait until 1993 for the allocation of funds. While all capital is fully committed until 1993, now is the time to plan for post-1993. I hope the Minister has turned his attention to this in the short time he has been Minister for Education. I, too, join with Deputy Gilmore in asking the Minister to give us some indication on the proposed regional colleges in Thurles, Castlebar, Dún Laoghaire and Blanchardstown and the order of their priority. The local action committees are continuing to work with the same degree of determination and commitment, but in fairness they deserve some indication of the plans for the proposed college in their area. Although capital is not being injected into these projects, a great deal of time and energy is being put into the project by the local action committees in order to prepare their case for the establishment of the college. The Minister should tell us his plans for proposed regional colleges.
In response to the amendment tabled by Deputy Higgins and myself regarding the associated vocational education committees, the Minister asked whether there were more than four associated vocational education committees in any one location. Carlow comes to mind because, as far as I know, there are five associated colleges together with Carlow Regional Technical College, which makes six. The reason we tabled the amendment was to ensure that associated vocational education committees would have a place on the governing body. Let me pose the question: how will the representation from the associated vocational education committees of the Carlow Regional College be assured?
I am disappointed that the Minister has not reaffirmed the commitment to the establishment of a regional technical college in Thurles. The fact that all capital resources are committed up to 1993, serves to highlight the fact that even when we had two Ministers from North Tipperary sitting at Cabinet, they were not able to have Thurles included in the proposals for funding under the EC Social Fund. That is the past but it highlights the neglect in their attempts to further the idea of a college for Thurles. What concerns me is the Government policy as outlined by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke. What, in effect, has happened is that the need for additional places was identified. However, additional places were made available by the expansion of the existing colleges. Millions of pounds have been spent in expanding the facilities at the existing colleges but this in effect is undermining to a great extent the proposals put forward for additional places to be provided in the proposed new regional colleges in the four places mentioned, and particularly Thurles. I can see the situation arising where, in a year or two, the Government will say that considerable resources have been spent in expanding the existing colleges and that the necessity for the new colleges no longer exists. I have no doubt that was the strategy behind the Minister's proposals.
I hope the Minister will reaffirm the commitment to the establishment of a regional technical college in Thurles and give us some indication of the priority of Thurles in relation to the four other centres. Are there any interim proposals for providing third level courses in other colleges in Thurles, such as St. Patrick's College, or some other centres? Finally, the schedule of courses to be provided in Thurles has been identified; a site has been purchased and all that needs to be done is to commence the physical planning of the college. I believe this could commence immediately irrespective of whether the capital has been committed to 1993. If something tangible happened, it would be a source of hope for the future establishment of the college. I ask the Minister to be more specific on his commitment to the proposed college in Thurles.
We can all appreciate the Minister's difficulties in the present tight financial situation. However, my specific request does not require any financial expenditure whatsoever. On the basis of their record and achievements and the number of degree courses which are on offer in Waterford Regional Technical College I am asking the Minister to upgrade their status from that of regional technical college to a university college. No expenditure whatsoever is involved. There is no cost to the Exchequer. It just involves a recognition of their achievements.
Before we move on to the next section could I again endeavour to extract from the Minister a clear statement that it is Government policy to proceed, when resources become available, with additional regional technical colleges in Thurles, Castlebar, Dún Laoghaire and Blanchardstown? While appreciating the difficulty in relation to scarce resources, I ask the Minister to undertake — as a definite indication that it is part and parcel of government thinking — at least stage one of the commitment given by his predecessor and start third level courses in those areas? I understand that there is adequate rental accommodation available in Thurles. In Castlebar there are vacant, top-quality buildings that would be functional and could be used to provide third level courses.
If there were to be a definite commitment that come next September-October at least an embryo of third level courses would start, that would do a lot to allay the anxieties that have been expressed by various Members about a lack of clarity in Government thinking and policy in this regard.
The House will appreciate that on Committee Stage debate must be confined to what is in the section. The debate cannot stray beyond that to the subject of Government policy. That subject might be introduced on Second Stage but it would not normally be a matter for discussion on Committee Stage.
Members do appreciate that we are dealing with Committee Stage on which the minutiae of the Bill are considered and relevant amendments teased out. However, in ruling out an amendment in the name of Deputy Therese Ahearn and myself, the Ceann Comhairle indicated that he would permit a discussion on the proposed regional technical colleges as envisaged in the amendments notwithstanding the fact that he was not in a position to take them because they imposed an additional charge on the Exchequer.
I am sure the Deputy realises that every occupant of the Chair would interpret the position as they find it. I must remind the House of what is ever constant, that in respect of Committee Stage debate is confined to what is in any particular section. I ask the Minister to recognise that before he is tempted to indulge in any policy statements.
He is going to tell us.
I wish to point out that since I have taken office there has been no change from my predecessor's statement on this matter. As regards time and which college is to be provided first, that is not an issue that I shall go into, but Deputies may be assured that it is an issue that will not be judged on any grounds other than the urgency and necessity for any one college at a time.
Is it still intended to go ahead with all four colleges?
I said that the position had not changed. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said that I may not go into policy matters, but I can assure Members——
It is a simple question.
Excuse me, I have just said that there has been no change by the Government since I came into office.
What is the position? Is it that Thurles and Castlebar have been cancelled?
I beg your pardon.
What is the position? Is it that they have been cancelled?
No, they have not been cancelled. There is a lack of funds but they have not been cancelled.
Have they been cancelled?
I have told the House that funds have been committed up to 1993. Please, Deputy Lowry, do not try to twist that in any direction. The matter will have to be looked at as funds become available, but it has yet to be determined whether funds are still available from Europe and various other sources — it is not just a matter of our own funds.
And if they do become available?
Great things will happen in our time.
I think the House has sympathy for the Minister on the question of funding. At this stage all we are looking for is a clear statement of the Government's intention. I am still not clear from what the Minister has said that it is still the Government's intention to go ahead with the four regional technical colleges. If the Minister could just state clearly that it is the Government's intention to go ahead with the four regional technical colleges I think Members would all be reasonably happy and would leave the question for a while.
What I have said, Deputy Gilmore, is that since I came into office there has been no change in the Government's intentions in relation to the regional technical colleges.
But we do not know what the intentions are, that is our problem.
Yes.
The Deputy has already said they were enunciated, and promised.
Four are still promised anyway?
Yes. Since I took office I have been well aware of the urgency of providing moneys for more places in third level institutions, and particularly in regional technical colleges. I am acutely aware of the need at this time. The position is unchanged. We will be able to further consider the matter before the next budget — and by the "next" budget, I do not mean the budget due in January, but the one after that.
I wish to speak on a matter that I raised previously in the debate, a matter that also relates to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989. In the context of that legislation I asked the Minister who the employer would be. I asked on the basis that the employer is not defined in the Schedule. The Minister told me that the employer would be the college. I ask the Minister how he reconciles his answer with section 2 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989, which states:
In this Act—
"employer" in relation to an employee, means the person by whom the employee is employed under a contract of employment; for the purpose of the definition a person holding office under or in the service of the State or of the Government shall be deemed to be employed by the State or the Government (as the case may be) and an officer or servant of a local authority or of a harbour authority, health board or vocational education committee shall be deemed to be employed by the local authority, harbour authority, health board or vocational education committee (as the case may be);
How does the Minister reconcile that definition with his assertion that the governing body of the college is the employer?
The Deputy is quoting from legislation that I do not have in front of me. I presume that the position would be the same as applies to schools generally; the principal of a school carried out the orders for the officers elected by the staff. The Deputy mentioned harbour authority, I am not aware of the position in that regard. Staff will be officers of the college and only for limited purposes will they be staff of the vocational education committee. Therefore, I presume that it is the college authority themselves who will decide on that question.
I raise this matter in the context of either the Minister bringing in an amendment on Report Stage or my bringing in an amendment myself. I do not believe that the position is clear legally and I ask the Minister to consider that matter before Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 130, 131, 136, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180 and 181 are related. All of those amendments deal with the issue of which institutions should be defined as regional technical colleges. It is suggested that for discussion purposes they be taken together. Separate questions may be put when we reach the amendments in questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move 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.".
In this Bill, as initiated, provision is made in section 3 (1) (b) for the amalgamation of the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs with the Letterkenny Regional Technical College, the Crawford College of Art and Design and the courses of higher education in the Cork School of Music with the Cork Regional Technical College.
In the course of the debate on Second Stage, strong views were expressed and good arguments advanced by Deputies Coughlan and McGinley as to why the Killybegs amalgamation should not go ahead. This matter was raised with me also by way of private representations around the House by other Members. At the time I indicated that I was impressed by the arguments advanced and would table an appropriate amendment.
Concern has been expressed to me also that a mechanism should be found so that the Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music, institutions of long standing, could retain their individual indentities.
This amendment seeks to delete section 3 (1) (b) which, with the consequential amendment No. 179 to the First Schedule, ensures that the Killybegs amalgamation will not go ahead. The paragraph proposed to be inserted by this amendment, together with amendment No. 177 to the First Schedule, provides that, while the two institutions in Cork will become schools of the Cork Regional Technical College, they will continue to be known by their present names.
Amendment No. 173 in the heading to column (2) of the First Schedule is required since the Schedule does not now include any institution being amalgamated with a regional technical college on its establishment under this Bill. An entry under this column could arise in the future if an order is made under section 3 (3) amalgamating an institution with a regional technical college.
There are also consequential amendments to section 12, for example, amendment No. 130 proposing to delete from section 12 (1) (a) the words "or part of an institution" in relation to the First Schedule. Those words are no longer relevant since the amendment provides that the Cork School of Music, in full, and not only the higher education courses provided there, will become a school of the regional technical college. Amendment No. 131 to section 12 (1) (a) provides that those employed in the two institutions in Cork, which are being established as schools of the regional technical college by this amendment, will become employees of the Cork Regional Technical College.
The final consequential amendment, No. 136, to section 12 (1) (b) proposes the insertion of a new subsection (c) to provide that the persons who are heads of the two institutions in Cork will continue to be heads of the two schools of the Cork Regional Technical College being established by this amendment. The rights of existing staff in relation to salary and conditions of service, of course, are protected under section 12 of the Bill.
Deputy O'Shea in his amendment No. 7 to section 3 (1) (a) and the associated amendment No. 175 to the First Schedule, seek to establish the three institutions I have mentioned as regional technical colleges by inserting them in column (1) of the First Schedule. All three are far too small to be included in that area. Therefore, I consider Deputy O'Shea's amendment to be inappropriate and cannot accept it. In addition, The Workers' Party amendments seek to do the same with the Crawford College of Art and Design but are flawed since amendment No. 7 seeks to delete section 3 (1) (b) but yet makes no provision for the two other institutions, that is, Killybegs and the Cork School of Music. I might add that Deputy Gilmore, in amendment No. 8, effectively is seeking the establishment of the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design as an Regional Technical College. I cannot accept his amendment either.
I wish to refer specifically to amendment No. 8 in my name. I was surprised and disappointed when I saw the Bill published in that there was no reference in it to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. The Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design is now located in Carriglea House in Dún Laoghaire, which was the site for the proposed regional technical college in Dún Laoghaire. It is a college that has 250 full-time students specialising particularly in the design and communications areas and has achieved much commendation and awards, particularly in the arena of film and animation. Indeed, films produced by students of the college feature regularly on RTE, BBC, Channel 4 and many other television stations and are of a very high quality. The college is located strategically in terms of the film and communications industry, being close to RTE, to Ardmore studios, linked into the developing industry of animation which has been improving for some time past.
There is a very high demand for places in the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design, with approximately ten applicants for every place. There is scope for the expansion of that college into the existing Carriglea House building which has been left virtually derelict for ten years by the Department of Education since the building and the grounds were bought in 1980 for the proposed regional technical college. I have seen evidence of the building having been subjected to vandalism, for example, evidence of an attempt to set it on fire. It is a fine building which, with the limited resources available to the Minister, could be put to very good use because the College of Art and Design have already indicated their anxiety to develop into that building contending that, if they were given access to it, they could expand. I know they and the vocational education committee have put proposals to the Minister to the effect that given access, they could expand to accommodate 50 full-time students catering for a very high demand in this area of art and design, particularly in the communications arena.
I know there were discussions with the Minister's predecessor about the inclusion of the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design in section 3 (2) of this Bill. My concern is that the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design will not be forgotten. The purpose in tabling my amendment was to seek to have the College of Art and Design, at this stage, listed properly as a third level college. I am disappointed at the flat rejection of that by the Minister. I hoped he would have offered some prospect of a future commitment, at the very least, in relation to the College of Art and Design. I am disappointed, he has given what appears to me to be a firm, flat refusal that the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design is not to be included. I await his response.
I welcome the Minister's decision to remove the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs from Column (2) of the First Schedule. I acknowledge that he has listened carefully to the views of people in the area in that regard. Nonetheless, I regret that the views of the Cork School of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music have not been listened to and regarded as important.
I question the wording of the Minister's amendment in that he seeks to establish the Crawford College of Art and Design and the courses of higher education provided in the Cork School of Music as schools of the Cork Regional Technical College. I believe they should remain separate entities in that the ethos of the colleges is different, the first being artistic whereas the regional technical college is technical. In addition the staff, students and the TUI are fearful that these small colleges will not be adequately represented on the governing body which could be to their disadvantage.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider his terminology establishing those colleges as schools of the Cork Regional Technical College because, I suggest, in so doing, one is diminishing their status. For example, could they not be described as constituent colleges of the Cork Regional Technical College? It must be noted that the Minister is relabelling the Crawford College of Art and Design as a school of the Cork Regional Technical College. We are talking here about third level education, about third level institutions that deserve to be termed colleges.
I have reservations about regarding those establishments as schools. They should remain separate entities, but the Minister has not conceded that point. I ask him to reconsider the word "school". It lowers the status of the colleges concerned and the students, the staff and the unions will not be satisfied with this terminology. It would be regrettable if we used this Bill to reduce the status of some colleges. On the one hand we are giving the regional colleges greater status as third level institutes of education, but on the other hand we are reducing the status of the Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music. I would regret any dissatisfaction caused by such a minor error in the wording of the amendment.
We are dealing with a number of amendments here. The purpose of amendment No. 177 in my name and that of the Minister for Education and Deputy O'Shea is to delete the entry at column (2). I have an amendment providing that the Crawford College of Art and Design be put in column (1). If my amendment were not accepted, I would be happy if references to both the Crawford College and the Cork College of Music. were deleted from the Bill.
The Minister should drop amendment No. 6 and accept amendment No. 177. Amendment No. 6 means absolutely nothing. There is no such thing as a school of a regional technical college. It simply gives them a name but they are in effect amalgamated with the regional technical college. The Minister is trying to give the impression that he is conceding to the pressure for independence. I suggest leaving them as they are and dropping references to them in the Bill, unless the Minister is prepared to include them as separate colleges. What exactly does the Minister mean by establishing them as schools of the regional technical college in Cork?
Why has Killybegs been treated differently? There are many questions which require to be answered. What demands is the Minister responding to? Has he spoken to people in the Crawford College or the College of Music? What is their response to their being established as schools of the regional technical college? My impression is that they do not like it. Let us leave it as it is and drop amendment No. 6 completely. It will not do any good. He should agree to drop from column (2) the Crawford College of Art and the Cork School of Music. I do not know what the Minister means by making them schools of the regional technical college.
Amendment No. 7 proposes the deletion of column (2) in the First Schedule. It opposes the amalgamation of these colleges. This is another example of over-centralisation. We need far more independent schools, technical colleges and so on. The Minister in amendment No. 6 is endeavouring in a kind of way to deal with two of the three colleges mentioned, the Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music. He proposes to set them up as a kind of hybrid. The Minister's amendment refers to them as schools of the Cork Regional Technical College. That is just a veneer. They will have a name but no status and no independence.
In so far as there is just a little gesture towards these colleges, I note that in the case of the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs even that minimal gesture has been omitted. Under the Bill as it stands, that training college will disappear as a separate entity, very much to the detriment of County Donegal.
I commend amendment No. 7 to the House. If it is not accepted I will with great reluctance, have to accept the Minister's amendment No. 6.
I mentioned earlier that I am not sure what exactly a school means. This is a new concept to deal with a legitimate problem which has arisen in Cork. Unlike Deputy Mac Giolla, I am not aware of the response of the people in Cork to amendment No. 6, but I urge the Minister to deal with the matter with much greater clarity, bearing in mind that legislation catering for exceptional circumstances makes bad law.
This amendment is being made to the Bill, not to the Schedule. Would it not be better to deal with this problem in another Schedule rather than by bringing in this amendment, which gives the impression of something that was cobbled together? He is leaving column (2) in the First Schedule, which allows for the listing of institutions which can be amalgamated into regional technical college's. If this provision is made for one college in particular circumstances, the provision should be there for any other college which might be in a similar position in the future. In Waterford there is Kildalton College, a third level college under the control of the Department of Agriculture and Food. It could happen at a future date that the college would want to become involved with Waterford Regional Technical College and, like the Crawford College of Art and Design and the Cork School of Music, would wish to retain their individuality and independent identity. I ask for a clear definition of what exactly a school is.
I support the basic thrust of the amendments put down by the Opposition parties. I concur, in particular, with the observations made in relation to the Minister's amendment which deals with the Cork College of Art and Design, Crawford College. As Deputy McGiolla said, the amendment is little more than window-dressing in terms of playing around with terminology. Instead of engaging in an exercise in semantics, I ask the Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Essentially what we are doing here is setting up first and second division colleges. As my colleague, Deputy Ahearn, said, the term "school of the regional technical college, Cork", will further denigrate the status of one the oldest colleges in the country. I want to point out to the Minister that long before the regional technical colleges were established, Crawford College was in existence, was developing and had established itself as a third level institution, albeit under the management of the vocational education committee. It has carved out a niche for itself in the education area and it is essentially a third level college. The minimum which should happen in terms of designation is that it should be described as a constituent college of the regional technical college, if not as an autonomous body.
I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment which deals with the status of the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. This college has evolved to the level where it is essentially a third level college. It is doing excellent work and should be recognised in its own right as a third level college in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. I do not have any great problem with the other amendments and I ask the Minister to be receptive to them. The spirit and intention behind the amendments are positive and there is no reason the Minister, in his inaugural Committee Stage presentation to the House, should not be receptive to the points made by Opposition speakers.
I wish first to refer to the points made by Deputy Gilmore in regard to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. I did not rule out the possibility of giving third level status to this college in the future. I simply said this could not be done under this Bill which seeks to give autonomy to the regional technical colleges so that they can improve their position. The question of giving third level status to this college could perhaps, be considered in the context of another Bill. For example, it could become a constituent college under the Dublin Institute of Technology. This Bill deals with the regional colleges and seeks to clear up the anomaly in this area.
I am satisfied from representations I have received that the people of the area are happy with the decision not to amalgamate the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs with Letterkenny Regional Technical College. There were logistic and distance reasons for this. The college is carving out a niche for itself in education and is happy that the proposed amalgamation will not go ahead. There may be other difficulties involved——
It is the same in Cork.
I appreciate the arguments put forward by the Deputies opposite in regard to the Cork School of Music and Crawford College. We discussed the title "school" with the relevant people in Cork, including a member of Deputy O'Shea's party, and they are happy with it for an interim period: when they decide on a different title it can be changed. The Cork School of Music has a high standing throughout the country. The words "school" and "institution" are regularly used.
I put my amendments to the people who are directly involved with these institutions and they are happy with them in the knowledge that their titles can be changed at a later stage. Too much emphasis is being put on the word "school". I am prepared to change it if the institutions involved want to. It has been implied that these institutions should not be part of Cork Regional Technical College. We cannot have a separate set-up for institutions which have only 200 students. This has to be done on a practical basis.
I have to stick with the proposal in my amendment. We all agree that the amalgamation of the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs with the Letterkenny Regional Technical College should not be ahead. The amalgamation of the Crawford College of Art and Design and the course of higher education in the Cork School of Music with the Cork Regional Technical College is being done for the best reasons. If the word "school" suggests any diminution in their standing or status within the regional technical colleges structure, I will examine this matter on Report Stage. I have already pointed out to the people concerned that this title can be changed. It is not my intention to demean them in any way; rather I am seeking to give them status within the regional technical colleges structure while at the same time ensuring that they keep their own individuality.
I suspect that much of the debate on these amendments will centre on the proposals dealing with the institutions in Cork and Killybegs. I do not wish to go into this except to say I support the points made by Members of this side of the House on the amalgamation of the colleges in Cork with Cork Regional Technical College and the decision not to proceed with the amalgamation of the Hotel Training and Catering School in Killybegs with Letterkenny Regional Technical College.
I want to concentrate for a moment on the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. This college, which has had a long and difficult history, has evolved into a third level college. It effectively operated for many years as a third level college but without the Department's expressed recognition as a third level college. For many years, the teachers in this college provided third level courses of an extremely high quality while they were paid second level salaries and without recognition as a third level college. This college has survived as a third level college because of the extraordinary commitment of its staff and the support it received over the years from the Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Committee and the local community. This first class third level college is about to take off in an area of educational endeavour which will expand in the future, that is, films and communications, and this college can be the flagship of that expansion.
Because of the denial of third level status to this college and the denial of the appropriate salaries which go with third level status for the teachers in the college, there is concern that there is no reference in this Bill to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. I have been informed by the staff representatives in the college that at a meeting with the Minister's predecessor the Teachers' Union of Ireland obtained a commitment that the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design would be added to the First Schedule under section 3 (2) which provides that:
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 relevant to the Schedule ...
My understanding is that a commitment as given by the Minister's predecessor to the Teachers' Union of Ireland that the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design would be added to the First Schedule under the provisions of section 3 (2) within 12 months. I am surprised the Minister did not make reference to that in the course of his contribution. Had he done so I might have been disposed towards withdrawing the amendment and settling for a firm commitment on the record that the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design would be added in the way that was originally intended. The suggestion that it might become a constituent college of the Dublin Institute of Technology is new and one that raises a number of other issues. We are talking about two different vocational education committees: for example, Dublin Institute of Technology comes under the City of Dublin vocational education committee and Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design is under the Dún Laoghaire Borough vocational education committee. That suggestion, what ever merit may be in it, is raising a number of other issues which may have to be teased out. Will the Minister address himself to the commitment I was given? If he can do so in a way that gives some satisfaction it will determine my attitude to the amendment.
I support amendment No. 8. We are talking about a college which in essence is a third level college but there appears to be a reluctance to give that recognition. That is regrettable. Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design has an excellent reputation due to the quality of the courses but, more important, the quality of the graduates. By excluding it entirely from the Bill we are retaining it as a second level institute of education. There is no reason this amendment cannot be accepted in view of the arguments put forward by Deputy Gilmore and the reputation of that college. It is extraordinary that it did not merit getting into column (2) of the First Schedule. The Minister for Education would be doing a good day's work in accepting this amendment.
I regret that at different times this morning we were told that something can be done tomorrow or at a different time. Now is the time to deal with these issues. If we do not they will not be dealt with. While we are debating the Bill is the best time to deal with the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that it is a third level education college in totality. We must do it a service by giving it the recognition it deserves and has earned. I am opposed to deferring any decision on this matter. We have waited long enough to get this Bill on the floor of the House and now is the time to deal with every college that relates to it. If the Minister says it can be done tomorrow or at some time in the future I appeal to him to do it now. This amendment should be accepted on those grounds and Fine Gael support it.
I understand the principal that the Crawford College of Art and Design in Cork has a difficulty with the use of the term "school". I put it to the Minister that the Dublin Institute of Technology model be used so that we would be talking about an institute and colleges rather than the regional college and schools. In its own context the word "school" does not present a problem. It can be defined as part of a university or part of a regional college. This amendment deals with a specific problem and appears to have been cobbled together without taking an overview of what this model could produce in another context. The School of Music at Waterford Regional Technical College was a separate entity but became absorbed in the college long before this Bill was heard of. Another argument is that at present in Waterford Regional Technical College 46 per cent of the students are pursuing degree courses but if this trend continues and the number of degree courses increases — the Minister and everybody else in the region would like to see a greater degree provision in the south east — it could well be at the expense of the basic services provided by the college: in other words, diplomas, certificates and other education awards.
Should provision be inserted in the Bill to enable a regional college to divide into schools at a particular stage, or if a school could be formed or if the degree courses were advancing rapidly? Such a school could be taken out of the main stream and left separate and at the same time the main college could provide the full range of certificates and diplomas as required.
The amendment has not taken into account the overall context. I take my direction in regard to the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design from Deputy Gilmore who knows the areas. If the Minister gives an undertaking to put the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design into column (2) of the First Schedule — and Deputy Gilmore considers that that covers the situation in his constituency — I will be happy.
The difficulties I see arising unless the school concept is put solidly in context are immense. This amendment came late. I take the Minister's point that the people from Cork were happy with it. I do not want to be obstructive of that position but we are dealing with legislation. For example, the Minister said the school could be changed at a later stage. The name of a school can be changed but should the amendment be accepted established schools of the regional college would remain. That concept would be framed in legislation albeit for a single instance but it could be only changed by amendment.
I was not impressed by the Minister's response to amendment No. 7 and I will be pressing my amendment.
We recognise Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design as a third level institution and my understanding is that the staff are paid accordingly. No aspersion is being cast on the excellence of the Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design. To the best of my knowledge the commitment referred to by Deputy Gilmore was not given by my predecessor. I am not aware of it. The Dún Laoghaire College of Art and Design could be brought under the provisions of section 3 (2) but other than that I cannot do anything at present. I will have to look up the record. In regard to Cork I should like to say that the people I met were reasonably happy. The name may be changed later. I appreciate the point raised by Deputy O'Shea about leaving it open in the Bill. The name "school" can be changed if they so wish to "institution" or whatever they decide.
At the outset I intended to commend the Minister on the number of amendments he has tabled.
I am sure the Minister regrets that I must interruput the Deputy as he was about to embark on a complimentary comment but the order requires that we adjourn now.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.