Amendment No. 13 is in the name of Deputy O'Shea. Amendment No. 14 is an alternative. I suggest we debate these amendments together, if that is satisfactory. Agreed.
Estimates, 1992. - Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following:
"(a) the vocational education committee,".
The rationale behind this amendment relates to membership of the college. Membership of a college is a rather vague term. None of us is quite clear what it means. It would seem to be an inexcusable omission that the parent body of the college should not en bloc be members of the college. As the Bill stands, members of the college will be the members of the governing body. Six of them will be members of the vocational education committee. There will also be members of the academic council, members of the staff, the registrar of students at the college, the graduates of the college and such other persons as the governing body may appoint to be members. It would seem that the remaining eight members of the vocational education committee will be omitted. That would be rectified by this amendment.
There is a general issue in relation to membership of the college which should be addressed. Graduates of the NUI and of Trinity College have a vote in the Seanad elections and each group elects three Senators. There is no such provision for regional technical college graduates. The Minister should take steps to provide that the graduates of regional colleges be included in the Seanad electorate. There is a like amendment in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy Garland. The remaining eight members of the vocational education committee should be members of the college. Perhaps the Minister will tell us exactly what membership of the college entails and what rights go with membership.
This amendment and amendment No. 14 seek to make members of the vocational education committee members of the college. I do not see that it would be appropriate to do so. Vocational education committee members who are also members of governing bodies will, of course, be included. I am not prepared to accept this amendment or amendment No. 14, which has the same purpose.
Why will the Minister not agree to this amendment? Will he tell us what membership of the college means? If it is so important that it cannot be made available to the eight remaining members of the vocational education committee we would like to know what those eight members are being denied?
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 may appoint to be members. Membership of a college is an honorary concept and is standard in third level institutions. It does not convey powers, duties or functions.
The Fine Gael attitude would be very much tempered by the composition of the governing body. The governing body as constituted in the Bill under subsection (4) (a) states:
six persons shall, subject to paragraph (b), be nominated by the vocational education committee;
The section goes on to deal with further representation of the other vocational education committees within the catchment area. The Minister has tabled amendment No. 55 which reads:
In page 6, subsection (4) (a), line 43, to delete "six persons" and substitute "eight persons, of whom at least five shall be elected local representatives,".
It would seem that vocational education committee members are represented already but that the purpose of this amendment is to enhance the number. If we can get an assurance from the Minister that the number will be increased from six to eight, we would have no problem in leaving things as they stand.
I support my colleague, Deputy Higgins, on this amendment. As the Minister explained, membership of the college is more or less an honorary position. It is far more important that we have adequate vocational education committee representation on the governing body which will have decision-making powers and will be involved in the running of the college. We are happy that membership is being increased to a level where the vocational education committee representation will have a real say in the running of the college. For that reason we accept that only vocational education committee members on the governing body will be considered for honorary membership of the college.
I have already pointed out that vocational education committee members who are also members of the governing bodies will be included.
We want an assurance.
May I ask the Minister of State what will be the membership of the governing body? How many vocational education committee members is it envisaged will be on the governing body?
We will be dealing with this matter later; there will be six members.
I should like to point out to the Minister of State that amendment No. 55, which deals precisely with this issue, states:
In page 6, subsection (4) (a), line 43, to delete "six persons" and substitute "eight persons, of whom at least five shall be elected local representatives,".
Presumably they will be members of county councils who are on vocational education committees and the other three places will be for nominated members, either teachers union members, the national parents council or whatever.
As it stands the number of members is six. We will deal with that issue when we get to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following:
"(f) representatives of FÁS.".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide a stronger interlinkage between the regional technical colleges and FÁS. It is obvious there should be the maximum possible liaison between the regional technical colleges and FÁS. The regional technical colleges have the facilities, top class personnel, the expertise and the track record. Indeed, I would venture to say far more power should be vested in them in terms of providing apprenticeship training. If one refers to the Vocational Education Act, 1930, one will see that it is specifically enshrined in that Act that the vocational education committees were to be the training agencies. FÁS are a new agency and have met with a relative degree of success although I would apportion a certain amount of criticism to them. At present, with the exception of apprenticeship training, FÁS are regarded as a peripheral player. The Cullition report makes a number of recommendations and sets down various options in relation to FÁS one of which is option 3 — which was recommended — that FÁS should be subdivided into two sections, first, industrial training and, second, employment support.
I suggest from a cost effective viewpoint as well as from the point of view of making good education and training sense that the scarce resources which are available for education and training — very often we use both in the same breath — should be rationalised, that there should be greater liaison and co-operation and the two should not be mutually exclusive as at present. From the point of view of maximising this liaison I suggest that somebody from FÁS should be included in the college composition as part of the corporate identity of the college. They have excellent facilities, a proven track record and the personnel. Every possible effort should be made to strengthen and enhance the liaison between the regional technical colleges and FÁS.
I support this amendment. A vacuum in our educational system today — it is a pity we allow it to continue — is the lack of co-operation and cohesion between the different educational authorities. Greater cohesion, greater co-operation and greater movement of students from one college to another would enhance education today. Considering that FÁS are our national training agency and taking into account that the vast majority of training provided is in the technical area it is vital that there should be co-operation and cohesion between the service provided by FÁS and that provided within our regional technical colleges. It would be beneficial to FÁS and to the regional technical colleges if representatives of FÁS were members of the regional technical colleges. It is not enough to provide training and education in one specific area without having an eye on what is provided at other levels. If we had such co-operation we could have a continuation of some of the courses provided by FÁS as a foundation to courses that students may eventually follow within the regional technical colleges.
I am totally opposed to a distinction or a division between agencies that provide both education and training. Because of the divisions and the lack of cohesion and co-operation students are losing out, and as a nation we are losing out, on what could be far better apprenticeships and far better graduates. Particularly at this time with such an appalling level of unemployment we must grasp every opportunity that arises to train, retrain and educate our people for the world of work and for the employment opportunities that arise not only here but abroad. It would be a positive step to include representatives of our main training agency, FÁS, as members of the college and I hope the Minister will generously consider this statement.
This amendment would remove the right of governing bodies to appoint other persons to be members of a college and would include representatives of FÁS as members. I consider the provision, as it stands, to be quite appropriate and I am not prepared at this stage to accept this amendment. However, for the benefit of the Deputies I think this would be more appropriate to section 6 which outlines the composition of the governing body. Under the provisions of section 6 (f) it would be open to the vocational education committee to nominate that organisation.
We take the Minister's point that it is possibly more appropriate to another section. However, I do not think it is inappropriate that they would be nominated in their own right as distinct from being one of the nominees of the vocational education committee. I appreciate the Minister's point that if he accepted the amendment at this stage he would preclude the possibility of appointing others. This is something we will certainly be looking at on Report Stage. As Deputy Ahearn said, the lines of distinction between FÁS and the regional technical colleges are quite blurred. They are funded from the same source, the European Social Fund, because of their training element. They are distinct from the universities which deal with the humanities and the more general world of academia. There is a considerable amount of overlapping between FÁS and the regional technical colleges. We hope the Minister will accept this suggestion at a later stage.
I appeal to the Minister to accept our recommendation that FÁS be nominated in their own right. If we are serious about the role FÁS are to play in providing training and education, it should not be left to the vocational education committee to appoint a representative of FÁS; they should be appointed in their own right. If we leave it open, FÁS may not be represented on the governing body. It is because of the importance of FÁS as a training agency that they deserve representation in their own right and I hope the Minister will consider this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 16 is in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendment No. 19 is related and suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 16 and 19 together.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, subsection (1), after "State" to insert "with particular reference to the region served by the college".
This amendment provides for the inclusion in section 5 (1), dealing with the functions of colleges, of a phrase, "with particular reference to the regions served by a college", in response to concern that the regional remit of the college could be overlooked.
The principal function of a college will therefore now be as follows: "to provide vocational and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State, with particular reference to the region served by a college."
Deputies O'Shea and Mac Giolla in amendment No. 19 seek to have this point covered in subsection (1) (a). It is more appropriate to include it in the statement of the principal function of a college at the start of the subsection and, accordingly, I will not be accepting amendment No. 19.
I do not intend to get into semantics. I am happy with what the Minister is proposing and will be withdrawing my amendment No. 19.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 18, 26 to 35, inclusive, 37, 38 and 198 are related. Members may discuss these amendments together if they so wish. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 5, subsection (1) (a), line 14, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine.".
On Second Stage concerns were expressed by Deputies who referred to the number of times phrases such as "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine" appeared in the Bill. The impression was given that control was being centralised in the Minister and the Department. I have already assured the House that what would be at issue in most cases would be the laying down of ground rules but I now propose to go further by removing reference to ministerial involvement except where it is considered to be absolutely unavoidable. This should demonstrate beyond doubt that there is no intention to frustrate the stated aim of the Bill to allow the colleges to exercise autonomy in their day-to-day operations.
It is accordingly proposed to delete the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine", from the following subsections in section 5: (1) (a), (1) (d), (1) (f), (1) (g) and (1) (i). These changes are made through this amendment and amendments Nos. 28, 32, 34 and 37.
This principle of deleting ministerial involvement is carried further in amendment No. 108 to section 10 which proposes the deletion of "subject to such requirements as the Minister may from time to time specify", in relation to the academic council's function in the selection, admission, retention and exclusion of students and in amendment No. 198 which proposes to delete "to such requirements as the Minister may lay down", in paragraph 14 (a) of the Second Schedule which deals with the governing bodies function with regard to admission to the college and to courses of study.
However, with regard to section 5 (1) (c) and 5 (1) (e) I consider it necessary that the Minister should be enabled to determine conditions in relation to colleges engaging in research, consultancy and development work. This would, however, be envisaged as a once off determination. I cannot, therefore, accept amendments Nos. 26 and 30 from Deputies Mac Giolla and Garland.
With regard to amendments Nos. 27 and 29 from Deputy O'Shea I do not consider it appropriate that these conditions should be laid down by means of an order and I am not therefore prepared to accept these amendments.
With regard to amendment No. 33 from Deputies O'Shea and Garland, amendment No. 32 removes the Minister's role in 5 (1) (f) with a view to allowing colleges maximum autonomy in relation to their day-to-day operations. The inclusion of the vocational education committee instead of the Minister would not be consistent with this principle and I am not therefore prepared to accept this amendment.
Deputy O'Shea's amendments Nos. 35 and 38 which seek to provide that the condition would be determined by order of the Minister are not relevant as the Minister's determining condition is being deleted through amendments Nos. 34 and 37. His amendment No. 31 also seeks to insert that provision in 5 (1) (e). I do not consider an order necessary or appropriate in this provision and I will not be accepting this amendment.
The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the reservations we had about these subsections. The reason I was seeking to have "by order" inserted in the subsections was to retain as much democratic control as possible. In other words, if the Minister held the power to determine conditions in relation to these sections he would have to do so by order, and any later amendment provides that these orders be placed before the Dáil.
By way of amendment to section 5 (1) (a) the Minister is about to remove the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". The phrase is not used in section 5 (1) (b). Section 5 (1) (c) relates to research, consultancy and development work and I believe that the Minister has a definite function in laying down guidelines in that regard. The phrase is being removed from section 5 (1) (d). Section 5 (1) (e) reads:
subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine, to enter into arrangements, including participation in limited liability companies, to exploit any research, consultancy or development work undertaken by a college either separately or jointly;
This is another area in which there is a definite need for guidelines. For instance, if an important discovery were made which involved patenting rights and so on, such guidelines would be necessary. I do not have a problem with the retention of the phrase in that subsection. Section 5 (1) (f) and section 5 (1) (g) are about to have the phrase removed. Section 5 (1) (h) does not include the phrase in the first place. The phrase is also to be removed from section 5 (1) (i).
In general terms I compliment the Minister. He has met the fears that many of us had in relation to the Bill following a centralisation policy. It is obvious that there is a need for very firm guidelines in relation to research and development and to what could be called campus companies. I am happy enough with the direction taken by the Minister.
I, too, welcome the deletion from the subsections referred to of the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". The inclusion of the phrase in all of those provisions overbalanced the Minister's powers. After all, the section maintains the need for the Minister's approval in cases in which that is required. At least the governing body is given the power of recommendation. I have no difficulty with the two subsections that will retain the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine", because they relate to areas of particular significance; research, consultancy and development work and matters that would involve much financial outlay.
The Minister's proposals are a step in the right direction. We all criticised the over-emphasis of the Minister's powers under the legislation, an emphasis that was so predominant throughout the Bill that it underestimated the powers of a governing body within a college. It was not good to maintain that approach in the legislation. I appreciate that the points outlined by many of us who spoke during the Second Stage debate have been noted by the Minister.
Likewise, I welcome the deletion from the various subsections of the reference "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". The phrase was a very intimidating opening to any provision. The heavy hand of the Minister was present from the outset. As Deputy Ahearn has said, the presence of the Minister as a safeguard and in an overseeing role is retained within the various provisions but at least the intimidation of opening a subsection with that reference is being deleted. I thank the Minister for that. I should like to accept the Minister's assurances in relation to the removal of the over-centralisation of power in the Minister.
Everything would be fine in relation to that deletion were it not that today the Minister circulated another document, a document which gives quite frightening centralisation powers to the Minister. We shall deal with the deletion of references to the recommendation of the vocational education committees in relation to appointments and so on when we come to it.
Section 5in toto is one of the Bills most vital sections. One of the most under-utilised areas of exploitation in this country has been that of research and development. Prosperous economies are based on their ability and capacity to innovate and to produce new products and new processes to meet the challenges of the times, particularly in research and development. Section 5, which allows for scope in this regard, is vital and is very welcome. Over the years we have produced numerous talented graduates from our universities.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy merely to say that there are quite a lot of amendments to be disposed of before we come to debate section 5 itself.
I shall address my remarks on section 5 when we reach it. I should like to point out that the Minister's attempt to allay fears by removing the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine" does not succeed because there is further evidence of a strangulation of the power of vocational education committees in other parts of the Bill and in the thrust of the amendments circulated today.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Amendment No. 20 is in the name of Deputy O'Shea. Amendments Nos. 21 to 25, inclusive, are alternative amendments. I therefore suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 20 to 25 inclusive together. Is that proposal satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(b) to confer, grant or give diplomas, certificates, degrees or other educational awards;".
As Deputy Higgins said, we have come to a very important part of the Bill. The principal functions of the college are outlined in this section 5. The Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991, which is moving in conjunction with this Bill and should be before the House next week, contains a different section 5 (1) (b). Section 5 (1) (b) in that legislation relates to the conferring, granting or giving of diplomas, certificates or other educational awards other than degree awards. The Dublin Institute of Technology award their own certificates and diplomas. In the case of regional technical colleges diplomas are conferred by the National Council for Educational Awards. Amendment No. 20 seeks to grant the same right to individual colleges to confer diplomas as is to be granted to the Dublin Institute of Technology.
The Dublin Institute of Technology Bill does not provide for the conferring of degrees. For many years the institute have had a special relationship with Trinity College as regards the conferring of degrees on students who study at the institute. Other things are happening outside the House in relation to the whole degree area in the RTC sector which are relevant and important to this Bill and which should not go unmentioned at this stage. Earlier this week a newspaper report stated that 22 degrees were cleared by the National Council for Education Awards but that they had been blocked by the Department of education and that the colleges are prevented from providing these courses, which is very regrettable. The report also stated that the Department are working on a guideline, which was reported to have emanated from the NCEA, that the 10 per cent level of students throughout the RTC sector who are at present pursuing degree courses would be maintained.
Another matter which should be alluded to in the context of this amendment is the announcement by the Government earlier in the year that the maintenance portion of ESF grants is to be meanstested. This will cause terrible inequity and will obviously prevent students from pursuing courses which they would have otherwise taken. That is a fundamental flaw. It will also mean that students who make marginal decisions in relation to pursuing courses at regional college or university level will, because the maintenance portion is meanstested, now opt for university rather than RTC courses. This will reduce the number of high calibre students entering the RTC sector, which is also very regrettable.
We must look at colleges in their context. Cork, Galway and Limerick already have a university to confer degrees, but in the city which I represent — I make no apology for being parochial — there is not a degree provision and, as the Minister knows, there is no university throughout the south eastern region. It is vitally important, from the point of view of regional development in not just the Waterford area but in other areas in which there are regional colleges, that the degree part of the college is allowed to grow and is not subjected to artificial, arbitrary figures which come from a Department providing Thatcherite policies in education. There is a whole development whereby the liberal content of courses is being diminished and I believe that there are further plans in this regard. It is highly regrettable, because the bottom line in education is that you educate the whole person to the very best of his or her potential. I believe that policies are afoot to prevent this.
This amendment seeks to give greater freedom to the colleges to grow in an organic way in response to the needs of the regions. It is regrettable, as other speakers said, that the role of the vocational education committees in relation to the colleges will be so greatly and sadly diminished by this Bill. The policy of the Department of Education seems to be to reduce what these colleges provide and to push colleges like Waterford and others who have moved from their basic mandate back to it. The Department want the colleges to provide technical and some business education, but there is inequality in terms of access to a full range of education. This is a socio-economic and geographical factor because, for instance, in the south-east region a student has half the chance of getting a degree compared to a student in County Cork.
This Bill, particularly in relation to some of the amendments, will move in the opposite direction from which the European Community aspires to move in relation to subsidiary — in other words, there will be centralisation. Dublin has more than 40 per cent of the population of the country. Effectively, there are four universities, six colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology and 30 per cent of the students attending those colleges are pursuing degree courses. It is now the stated policy of the Department of Education to reduce the number of regional colleges. The Department pay lip service to what these colleges have achieved — and they deserve all the praise they can get. However, in terms of a liberal education agenda, of growing and providing a wider range of qualifications for people in the degree area — the "add on" in the technical area, arts, commerce and so on — the Department's policy is undoubtedly one of reducing the availability of a wide range of education provisions in rural areas, which is a retrograde step. In years to come, when this legislation needs to be amended or changed, it will be seen that Thatcherite decisions were made on this occasion. It is an accountancy approach to education; it is not about education being an integral part of regional development. This will be looked on as a very sad, unproductive period.
The colleges should be given the power to confer their own degrees, diplomas and certificates. The degrees are probably the key area. There are provisions in the Bill in this regard, but they are limited by guidelines contained in a recent circular letter sent to all the colleges in the country. Desirable changes were made, with which I agree, but this Bill is disastrous for rural areas.
I agree with the extension of powers to the regional colleges to confer diplomas, certificates and degrees. They have expanded and extended to such an extent that it is regrettable to set limitations on the goals which they want to achieve. I oppose the notion that the granting of a particular status of educational award, be it diploma, certificate or degree, should belong to one area of education. In other words, it should not be the prerogative of the universities to award degrees. Courses which are worthy of degree status, irrespective of whether they are provided in a regional technical college, college of technology or university, should be awarded that status.
I have a difficulty, however, with the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Shea and perhaps he will elaborate further. He is proposing that all colleges should have the power, in their own right, to award certificates, diplomas and degrees. What I would like to ask him is whether he is implying that the NCEA would have no role and that we would have nine regional technical colleges providing their own certificate, diploma and degree courses. If that is so, I would have my worries because I believe there is a need for a body to monitor the content and status of courses and the academic standards attained. Unfortunately, we could undermine the status of such awards if the wording was left too loose and the colleges could do this as of right. I would like to ask Deputy O'Shea if he envisages the NCEA continuing to have a role and to state which body would have a role in watching and guarding the standards that have to be achieved. If he can allay my fears I would support his amendment.
During the course of her Second Stage speech the then Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, stated that while the Dublin Institute of Technology would retain its power to award its own diplomas, certificates and other awards, nevertheless degree awarding powers could at an appropriate time be assigned to the institute under this provision. As I said during the course of my Second Stage speech now is the time to make such changes. We will pursue an amendment in this area strongly. It was inappropriate for the then Minister to say, given that we are dealing with major Bills which will have an effect on the colleges, that we should leave it until a more appropriate time to give them degree awarding powers, as there is no time like the present. I give the Minister of State notice that we will pursue this matter strenuously when we come to deal with the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill.
It is our intention, as I said, to encourage the regional technical colleges in relation to the work that they are doing. I would also like to pay tribute to the NCEA for the work they have done to date. Indeed, they have played a positive and significant role in relation to the development of courses within our regional technical colleges. I will have to await Deputy O'Shea's explanation before I will be able to say how I will approach his amendments. I seek clarification from him as to the role the NCEA would have and as to which body would monitor certificate, diploma and degree courses.
Deputy Ahearn's question as to the future role of the NCEA if this amendment were to be accepted by the House, is both fair and valid. It is my understanding, in relation to NCEA exams, that the colleges set and correct their own examinations and that these are monitored by the NCEA. I believe that the marketplace makes its own statement as regards the qualifications attained at various colleges. I believe also that the marketplace knows where the strongest qualifications are attained and responds accordingly.
In relation to the question of standardisation, whereby the tests would be the same in various colleges, the NCEA could continue to play a role in this regard; but I do not think a major adaptation would be required in the present system in relation to my amendment. It is important that I state also at this stage that when we talk of freedom in relation to educational institutions academic freedom is the bottom line.
Given that we are dealing with amendments Nos. 19 to 25, I would like to say a few words on some of them. First, in relation to the amendment that we are discussing, the purpose of which is to give colleges the right to award their own certificates, diplomas and degrees, like Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Ahearn, I would like to see these colleges develop and given the right to award their own qualifications provided, as Deputy Ahearn said, we can be certain that the examinations will be standardised. I am not keen on the idea of allowing the marketplace to decide, although that would be one barometer. At the same time, however, colleges in the United States award a variety of diplomas and doctorates.
While the question of standardisation is important, there is also a need to protect the integrity of the qualification. We need to be assured therefore that the NCEA would have a monitoring role. While the colleges would set the examinations and decide whether they should award certificates, diplomas or degrees, it is vital that the NCEA would have a supervisory role to protect the status and integrity of the examination. While the colleges would set the examinations the NCEA would approve them and give them their imprimatur— in other words, they would validate them.
There is a mystique surrounding degree courses. This matter needs to be examined because the regional technical colleges have developed courses during the years which in many cases are on a par and in some cases better than the courses provided by the National University of Ireland. I do not know whether Deputy FitzGerald, who is close to the university scene, would agree with me but we have to loosen the strings in relation to the provision of degree courses in the regional technical colleges.
Amendment 24 seeks the insertion of the words "in Northern Ireland or" in subsection (1) (b) which at present reads:
To enter into arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards, with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards conferred, granted or given;
The Minister might usefully consider adding the words "or in Europe" in view of the discussions at present taking place.
The position is that a number of students from the Republic now attend courses at Queen's University, Belfast, or at the New University of Ulster in Coleraine. Very often we pay lip service or engage in clichés about "hands cross the Border". I cannot see why the words we seek to be inserted cannot be inserted. They would ensure liaison with universities in the North of Ireland. That would be very much in the spirit of the age, something we could usefully take on board and would create a greater fusion of educational interests between here and the North. After all, education is the greatest single instrument for dismantling obstacles and barriers which lead to misunderstandings. We should endeavour to enter into as much dialogue as possible with third level colleges in the North. Why not include Queen's University, Belfast, and the New University of Ulster in Coleraine?
One of the large growth sectors in the South — within a few hundred yards of this House — is the proliferation of private, third level colleges, many of whom have made arrangements with universities and third level institutions in Britain from the point of view of awarding qualifications and validating the courses they offer. I cannot understand why we would not broaden the scope of the intention of this section by at least taking on board third level colleges in the North.
I am sorry I missed part of the discussion on these amendments. However, I fully endorse the proposal for granting RTCs power to confer, grant or give diplomas, degrees, certificates or other educational awards.
Possibly I may have been under some misapprehension in that I think the word "or" should have appeared in my amendment No. 23. I fully support what Deputy Jim Higgins has just said, that the words "in Northern Ireland or" be inserted in subsection (1) (b). The movement of students to attend courses in universities in Northern Ireland is so high that the provisions of our higher education grants scheme apply in the case of students attending universities in Northern Ireland, recognising the fact that there is such movement. Indeed, we should encourage the transfer of students in both directions.
I fully support amendment No. 24 to include Northern Ireland. I am sure if the Minister were present he would accept that proposal. Probably it was something that was omitted from the drafting of the Bill, particularly bearing in mind growing developments between universities in the Republic and Northern Ireland, which should be encouraged. To have those words inserted in this section would constitute a great advance, particularly since the application of our higher education grants to students attending universities in Northern Ireland recognises that movement. Acceptance of this amendment would be an extension of that logical inter-change of students.
I am sorry the Minister did not fully clarify the section as it stands. I agree that the National Council for Educational Awards appear to be the relevant authority to organise arrangements for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas, certificates and so on, conferred, granted or given. I presume that some such arrangements have been entered into already with universities — certainly in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology — for the granting of such awards. Presumably the intent of the section is to allow for arrangements to be made with the National Council for Educational Awards or with any university in the State or — if Deputy Jim Higgin's amendment is accepted — with any university in Northern Ireland, or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time. The whole point is that RTCs should have authority to confer, grant or give degrees, diplomas certificates or other educational awards.
I strongly advocate the acceptance of amendment 24 tabled by Deputy Jim Higgins and myself in recognition of the increased flow of students to Northern Ireland to follow educational courses there. It is important that we recognise that flow in the provisions of this Bill. There has been an enormous change in education in recent years. Mobility is no longer a problem and students are prepared to attend any college or university to which they can gain access and which provides the courses they seek.
It is important that we grasp every opportunity to cement our relationship with Northern Ireland. This section affords us such an opportunity. Acceptance of this amendment would be a positive, generous response on the part of the Minister. If we are in earnest about improving our relationships with Northern Ireland it is equally important that we avail of every opportunity so to do. In that respect, this section affords us an opportunity to recognise our desire and aspiration for closer links with Northern Ireland.
On Second Stage the point was made about the need to provide for the regional technical colleges to make their own awards. It has since been clarified that what is intended is that some arrangement should exist under which the regional technical colleges could grant college awards in a relatively small number of instances.
Section (5) (1) (b), as it stands, allows the colleges to enter into arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards, with any university in the State, or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards conferred, granted or given. In most circumstances qualifications resulting from a successful completion of courses in the colleges should be awarded by either the NCEA or a university. However, I can accept that, in a relatively small number of cases, at least in the short term, there is need for colleges to be in a position to award college qualifications, which is the purpose of amendment 25. However, I do wish to retain approval of these arrangements. I do not consider it would be desirable to have a proliferation of awards in the regional technical colleges in addition to those which will be awarded by the National Council for Educational Awards, or a university, under arrangements entered into under the provisions of this subsection.
Amendment Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 all relate to colleges awarding their own qualifications, including degree awards. In the concluding speech on Second Stage it was indicated that to give colleges power to award qualifications at this stage was not necessary or appropriate. However, this has not been ruled out altogether. The provision in section 5 (2) (a) would allow for such functions to be awarded in future if this were considered appropriate.
In the case of amendment No. 24, in the names of Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn, I do not consider it necessary to make specific reference to Northern Ireland as provision exists in the subsection for colleges to enter into arrangements with any authority approved by the Minister from time to time for the purpose of having qualifications awarded. However, let me inform the Deputies that I would approve of such arrangements if the circumstances warranted it. Because of the strength of the Deputies' argument and the manner in which they expressed their concern, I will reconsider this amendment on Report Stage.
There is also provision in section 5 (1) (d) for colleges to enter into arrangements with other institutions in or outside the State for the purpose of offering joint courses of study and therefore I will not accept this amendment.
I now want to refer specifically to a matter raised by Deputy O'Shea when he referred to what he saw as an attempt by the Department to restrict course development in regional technical colleges following on the issue of a recent letter to the colleges on the subject of new course approvals. What is in question is the Department's desire to end the current position where approval for new courses is required from both the Department and the relevant validating body. Far from trying to centralise the matter, the Department want to leave the matter up to the colleges and the validating body, but subject to agreed policy guidelines.
The position regarding degree courses being at about 10 per cent of the total provision is in line with the current situation and is something that will be subject to further discussion in arriving at the guidelines mentioned above. I am aware, of course, that certain colleges, such as Waterford Regional Technical College, have a much higher rate of provision of degree level courses and there is no question whatsoever of pulling back from that.
May I thank the Minister for his comments on the strength of our argument in support of inserting "in Northern Ireland or"; and, while he agreed to look at this amendment again on Report Stage, he pronounced with a certain vehemence that he would not accept our amendment. Perhaps I detected a vehemence in his voice which he had not intended and perhaps he should have said this more sotto voce. However, is the Minister prepared to consider this amendment seriously, because we will table it again on Report Stage? It is important that the Minister has power to permit this to happen subsequently. We believe, as Deputy T. Ahearn said, that now is the time to bring this matter to finality and make it as comprehensive and as conclusive as possible by enshrining the term “Northern Ireland” in this legislation. This has a certain symbolism about it apart from the fact, as Deputy Mac Giolla says, that it is now a fact of life that there is a great deal of dialogue with Northern Ireland. Let me add that it does not impose an obligation on the colleges in the Republic and it does not force anything on the colleges in the North but it is simply creating an option. We want to put that option in positive terms rather than leaving it to the Minister to enable colleges to so do at some stage in the future.
I told the Deputies that I will look at their amendment on Report Stage. I apologise for my tone of voice; however, I have known Deputies to shout in this House but not to be angry.
I wish to refer briefly to a point the Minister raised in his reply on the recent intervention by the Department of Education in relation to the 22 degree courses and post-graduate courses that have been approved by the NCEA — and it needs to be stressed that these courses were approved by the NCEA. Did the Minister say that the guideline is that 10 per cent of students attending regional technical colleges would pursue degree courses? Did that guideline emanate from the NCEA, from the Department of Education or who issued that guideline? Will the Minister clarify if it is NCEA policy to limit the number of students pursuing degree level courses in the RTC sector to 10 per cent at this point in time?
The Chair will have to intervene to ask Members and the Minister to confine themselves to what is in the amendments.
I will clarify that matter. The figure of 10 per cent was mentioned because that is the average figure at present. Some colleges offer no degree courses and others, like Waterford Regional Technical College, have up to 40 per cent pursuing degree level courses. However, the average figure is 10 per cent and this is a figure for discussion.
Does the figure of 10 per cent have to be adhered to?
I did not say that.
While I welcome the Minister's statement to reconsider our amendment on Report Stage, this is not the first occasion that we have been given that commitment. I cannot understand why the decision cannot be made now and why we have to procrastinate. It adds to the sense of incompetence in the way we conduct our affairs. The amendment was tabled last November and it was debated in detail by speakers on this side of the House during the Second Stage debate. I believe this gave sufficient time to give the matter serious consideration. If the amendment is acceptable, why can it not be accepted now instead of deferring it yet again to Report Stage? That will only lead to a rehash of the whole issue now.
Let me warn the Minister, in a positive manner, that we will be tabling this amendment again on Report Stage and we will take it again to the very end. As a great many of our students will be banished from our regional colleges because of the introduction of a means test for the ESF grant, they will be seeking refuge and seeking to continue their third level education in Northern Ireland. For that reason I believe it would be a positive gesture to accept our amendment at this stage. While I regret having to make that statement on the students who will no longer be able to accept a place in our regional colleges because our ESF grants are means tested, nevertheless it is a reality.
I cannot understand why we are procrastinating about this amendment. It has been supported and I have not heard any valid arguments from the Minister objecting to this amendment. The Report Stage debate would be far more efficient if amendments that are acceptable to the Minister were accepted on Committee Stage.
I accept the case the Deputy has made and we will come back to it on Report Stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (1) (b), line 19, after "or" to insert "in Northern Ireland or".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boylan and Doyle; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 5, subsection (1) (b), line 23, after "given" to insert "and to make such other arrangements as may be approved by the Minister from time to time for this purpose".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5, subsection (1) (d), line 28, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 5, subsection (1) (f), line 40, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 5, subsection (1) (g), line 43, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 35a:
In page 6, subsection (1), before line 1, to insert the following:
"(i) subject to the approval of the Minister, to acquire land;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 has been ruled out of order. Tá sé as ordú.
Conas a bhfuil an leasú sin as ordú.
Mar go gcaithfeadh an Rialtas airgead a chaitheamh. Ní ghlactar le haon leasú a dteastódh airgead breise uaidh chun é a chur i gcrích.
B'fhéidir go bhféadfaí an tseirbhís seo a chur ar fáil gan airgead breise a chaitheamh.
Níl fhios agam ach ba é tuairim na hoifige, sa chaoi in a leagadh an leasú síos go gcosnódh sé airgead.
B'fhéidir gurbh fhéidir leis na sagairt nó daoine eile cáilithe a fháil taobh istigh den choláiste a dhéanfadh an obair go toilteanach.
I gcónaí i gcás gach rud bíonn an dá b'fhéidir ann ach ní féidir imeachtaí an Tí seo a riaradh ar aon b'fhéidir amháin.
Tá sé deacair a thuiscint conas is féidir leat a rá go deimhin go mbeadh costas ar an Stát.
Deirtear i mBéarla go raibh an potential ann, go nglactar leis dá gcuirfí in ordú é go mbeadh airgead ag teastáil agus dá bhrí sin ní rachadh siad sa tseans é a ghlacadh.
But only if it would definitely impose a charge on the Exchequer.
A potential charge.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 6, subsection (1) (i), line 1, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
It is disappointing that amendment No. 36 cannot be moved.
We are on amendment No. 38.
It is regrettable that this amendment cannot be moved. I accept the Chair's ruling, nevertheless it was tabled with the good intention that the Bill would provide for student welfare services, for the fiscal and mental wellbeing of students of the college.
It has already been discussed and we do not want to reopen the discussion.
It is regrettable that we——
We just cannot proceed as we want.
It is regrettable that we cannot discuss this amendment because it is very relevant, unfortunately, to what is happening.
On the contrary, the Deputy had every opportunity to discuss the amendment. The amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 17.
It is regrettable considering that so many students——
You cannot make the point now.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has already had an opportunity to discuss this. Earlier on the Deputy spoke about efficiency and about doing things correctly and I agreed with her entirely; but this has already been discussed. The House agreed to that and it cannot be moved now.
I am just making the point that it is regrettable.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 6, subsection (2), lines 10 to 14, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) Whenever an order is proposed to be made under this section, a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.