Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1992

Vol. 420 No. 6

Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No.9:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 23, to delete "Minister considers" and substitute "vocational education committee recommends".

—(Deputy O'Shea.)

Mr. O'Shea

Subsection (2) states:

(2) 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...

My amendment seeks to delete the phrase "Minister considers" and to substitute "vocational education committee recommends". This amendment is very timely. I am appalled at the 43 amendments circulated by the Minister this morning. Effectively they remove any role remaining to the vocational education committees in relation to regional colleges. These colleges were developed by the vocational education committees over a 20 year period and they are the great educational success of the State. The Minister in introducing these amendments seeks to change that and to remove altogether any role for the vocational education committees. The proposed amendments change the Bill completely and are at variance with what the Minister's predecessors presented on Second Stage and previously on Committee Stage. The whole thrust of the Bill has been changed since Second Stage and we are moving away from local democratic control. My amendment seeks to remove the thrust towards centralisation which is to be copperfastened by the ministerial amendments.

This is a retrograde step in terms of third level education. We saw a newspaper report on Monday relating to a letter which emanated from the Minister's Department preventing regional colleges from expanding in relation to the conferring of degrees. Twenty-two applications were dealt with and all but one were knocked. The Department want to operate on a guideline which will allow 10 per cent of students in regional colleges to pursue degree courses. This is an example of discrimination against the regions in favour of Dublin. The regional colleges provide about 10 per cent of their students with degree courses. Thirty per cent of the courses provided by the Dublin Institute of Technology are degree courses. If we include Maynooth, there are four universities servicing Dublin and a Dublin Institute of Technology which is providing 30 per cent degree courses to students. This is against the backdrop of a guideline of 10 per cent degree courses in regional colleges. There are colleges like the college in my constituency, which from September will be providing 60 per cent degree courses, but it is obviously the intent of the Government and of the Department of Education to undermine that.

I should welcome the Minister's response. He represents the south-east region which has been badly neglected in terms of economic, industrial and commercial growth. If there is not a proper provision of degree courses, the economic development of the region will be sadly undermined.

The basic principle in my amendment is that the Department of Education in Dublin is not the proper place for education policy and administration to come from. This Government make great play of the subsidiarity provision in the Maastricht Treaty, something we all welcome, but here the Government are flying absolutely in the face of that principle. Those Deputies on the Government side who support these amendments will never be forgiven nor forgotten because of the horrible effect they will have. I understand the Minister was to submit the Green Paper to the Cabinet this morning. It is obvious from leaks that the Government intend to abolish vocational education committees——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I am concerned lest Deputies drift into what the House would regard as Second Reading speeches rather than dealing with Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. O'Shea

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, we were provided this morning with 43 amendments which absolutely and utterly change the direction of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are now dealing with amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Mr. O'Shea

I believe I am dealing with those amendments, the context of which amendments has been broadened greatly by the other amendments which are tabled.

An Ceann Comhairle

We shall deal with these other amendments when we come to them.

Mr. O'Shea

These amendments have been changed. I conclude by saying that these are disgraceful amendments. They run in the face of subsidiarity, they are a kick in the teeth to the vocational education committees throughout the country which have developed these colleges so wonderfully during the past 20 years. This is sounding the death knell of democratic control of education and moving back to centralisation in Dublin.

Mr. J. Higgins

First of all, I want to wish the Minister, who unfortunately is ill, a speedy recovery. Having said that, I would remind the House that two weeks ago we were approached by the Minister with a view to having this Bill resumed and taken. We promised to be as cooperative as possible and to agree to certain time constraints and a certain timetable. As has been said, instead of giving us, as the Minister promised, plenty of advance notice — something to which we are entitled both in terms of courtesy and from the point of view of an adequate deliberation of the amendments — we now have a situation where all these amendments, dated 3 June, arrived this morning and we are expected between now and 2.30 p.m. and between 5 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. as well as two or three hours tomorrow, to deal with all our own reasoned amendments along with those amendments which arrived this morning.

I should like to put the House on notice that tomorrow morning, when it comes to guillotining this Bill, we will be objecting. In the interest of a proper debate to do justice to what is very significant legislation, I appeal that there would be no time constraints tomorrow and that Committee Stage be allowed to continue into next week if necessary.

I support amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The vocational education system has served the country well and has stood the test of time. The Vocational Education Act, 1930, is a monument to good legislation. Furthermore, I believe the heavy hand of the Minister applies throughout the length and breadth of this Bill in various sections where it is stated "whenever the Minister considers", "the Minister shall" and so on. We are talking about vocational education committees made up of nominated persons, local authority members and directly elected members. They have, over a span of years since 1930, served education extremely well, have been highly responsible in relation to the discharge of their duties and have given us a system of vocational education of which we can be truly proud.

The amendments are seeking to give back some vestige of power to vocational education committees rather than have their roles, duties and functions completely overridden. I support the basic thrust of section 3 (2) and (3) where an allowance is made for taking on board and for establishing new regional technical colleges. It should not be the sole jurisdiction of the Minister to decide. Section 3 (2) states:

Whenever the Minister considers that this Act should apply to any other educational institution, the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and following consultation with the vocational education committee...

It should be up to the vocational education committees, having deliberated on the needs of the particular county or region of a functional area, to decide whether or not they will make the recommendation to the Minister. Obviously, the vocational education committee will not make a recommendation unless they have a very strong case. What I am saying, therefore, by means of this amendment is that the vocational education committee would have a right, having deliberated fully the requirements of an area, to make full representation to the Minister and that the initiative would come from the vocational education committee. Inevitably very strong cases will be presented. There is much compelling evidence — I have made that point in the House already and I will not dwell on it unduly today — that Mayo has one of the highest participation rates in third level education. There is a mass exodus every September and every weekend to third level colleges. Similarly, Tipperary has a very high participation rate.

The city of Galway has a regional technical college and a university and is the gateway to Connemara. Music is potentially one of the biggest growth sectors in this country. Galway is half way between Donegal and Kerry and has an outstanding case for a college of music. I do not believe a case has been made by County Galway Vocational Educational Committee or Galway City Vocational Educational Committee for a college of music. They should have a right, if they consider there is a strong case for a college of music, to take the initiative themselves.

I would make the point in support of the creation of new RTCs in Mayo and Thurles that rural Ireland is dying. One diocese in the west has lost the equivalent of 33 parishes in the last 60 years. The Commission of the European Communities memorandum on higher education in the European Community has identified regional technical colleges as a key stimulus to growth in the regions. They state:

The very presence of a higher education institution in a region represents an investment around which a number of services will grow. It makes an area a pole of attraction for investment on account of the availability of highly trained manpower so necessary to the success of modern enterprise. A higher education facility represents a resource of knowledge, advice and research which can be availed of by business and industry.

It is an automatic magnet. It is a key element in relation to regional policy. That is why a vocational education committee should be permitted to take its own initiative, to present its own case and to have that case duly deliberated on by the Minister. On two accounts I make a plea, first, that we strengthen the role of the vocational education committees by accepting this amendment, and, second, that we enable this section to have a stronger muscle than at present by allowing vocational education committees to take initiatives in relation to making representations for additional third level facilities.

Mr. Gilmore

There was much talk this morning about matters being debated in a vacuum. We are having this debate in a vacuum. First, we are having it in the absence of the Minister for Education. I join with Deputy J. Higgins in expressing regret at the fact that the Minister is ill and cannot be with us and I wish him a speedy recovery. It is regrettable also that he is not with us for the debate because since his appointment as Minister for Education he has signalled a significant shift in educational policy. First, he made it clear that he wished to put his own stamp on the promised Green Paper, the original draft of which was published prior to Christmas in The Irish Times. At the beginning of June we are still awaiting the publication of the Green Paper. Although the Minister promised in this House that the Green Paper would be published before the end of May, there were press reports to the effect that because of his hospitalisation it will now be delayed. The fact is that the Green Paper has not been published, apart from the rather unusual approach of publishing an introduction in advance of the Green Paper.

First, we are having this debate in the absence of the Minister. Second, we are having it in the absence of a Minister who has signalled a change in Government policy. Third, we are having it in the absence of the Green Paper that was promised to us; and, fourth, we have before us 43 amendments which substantally change the whole thrust of this Bill.

These amendments concern themselves with the extent to which the vocational education committees or the Minister for Education will be calling the shots, specifically in this case in relation to the establishment of colleges. That in a way is what this whole debate is about. Will the Minister for Education and the Department of Education be calling the shots in relation to the regional technical colleges? Will the vocational education committees have a real role in this whole area?

The two amendments we are now debating run completely counter to the 43 amendments which have been submitted by the Minister. The Minister's amendments are effectively to drive the vocational education committees out of third level education. They fly in the face of the statements made here on Second Stage. When this Bill was introduced the then Minister — three Ministers ago — indicated that the whole purpose of this Bill was to provide a balance between, on the one hand giving a certain degree of autonomy and independence to the regional technical colleges to allow them to grow and further develop and on the other hand, maintaining a system of public accountability through the vocational education committees. That degree of accountability is clearly being driven out of this Bill by the Minister's amendments. The two amendments that we are now debating seek to reinforce that degree of public accountability.

This debate will be very difficult for us to conduct because we do not have the Minister with us and we do not have the Green Paper setting out Government policy. All we have is an introduction to the Green Paper, but we do not know what the detail of the Green Paper will be. For example, aim No. 6 in the Green Paper is about devolution and accountability. It reads in a way that most Members of this House would find difficult to disagree with. It says that the re-organisation proposed involves large scale devolution of administration throughout the education system and that following directly from this increased autonomy is the need for adequate systems of accountability so that State resources are seen to be best employed and national priorities in education followed. In the context of third level education, and specifically in the context of the regional technical colleges, we do not know what that grandiose statement comes down to. I would have assumed, given the introduction to the Green Paper, that the vocational education committees were to be retained and that that would involve some reinforced role for the vocational education committees in the regional technical colleges. Now we have a raft of amendments from the Minister which run completely contrary to that. One wonders what, if any, role the vocational education committees will have in the regional technical colleges. Is it to be a purely nominal role? We need to know.

Apparently the Green Paper is ready. We are told that it is being presented to the Government. We were told here only two weeks ago that it would be published before the end of May. The Minister should now put on the record of this House the chapter of the Green Paper that deals with the regional technical colleges so that before we get further into the nuts and bolts of this debate we will know exactly what is Government policy now in relation to the regional technical colleges. We can only guess at it from the glimmer we were given in the introduction to the Green Paper and in the context of the amendments which have been table before us today by the Minister for Education.

Many more Green Papers have been published and are gathering dust on various shelves. We have had a very unusual sequence of events in relation to this Green Paper. A Green Paper was leaked to the newspapers last year. Then we had a succession of three Ministers for Education, ending up with the present Minister for Education, who said he wanted to put his own personal stamp on the Green Paper. That turned out to be a statement of intent to effectively change what was in the Green Paper. We then had the unusual step whereby, instead of publishing the Green Paper during the week of the teacher union conferences, the Minister published an introduction to it. We still do not have the Green Paper; yet we now have legislation which we imagine would be based in some way on the contents of the Green Paper. All records have been broken here. We have no Green Paper, an introduction has been published and now legislation is being implemented on the basis of a Green Paper which has not yet seen the light of day.

We really do not know what is Government policy in this area. We have some idea of what the policy was when Deputy O'Rourke was Minister for Education. We then had Deputy Davern, who took the earlier part of the Committee Stage of this debate, and I have to say there were certain things which Deputy Davern put on the record of this House which seemed to be in conflict with what his predecessor had to say. We now have a third Minister, who has a different approach to it, and we still do not have the Green Paper. The Minister of State should begin his contribution to this resumed Committee Stage debate by telling us what is the Government's policy and what is in the Green Paper in relation to the regional technical colleges.

I support the amendments that have been tabled here because I am very much in support of the system of accountability which exists through the vocational education committees. I am very much opposed to driving the vocational education committees out of third level education, which is what the Minister's amendments are about. They will create absolute chaos in relation to the administration of the regional technical colleges, in relation to public accountability and specifically in relation to the whole staffing area and the question of the employment relationship.

We need some clarity because, as the Taoiseach said this morning, there is not much point in having a debate in a vacuum; and, as far as the Government's education policy is concerned, we certainly are in one mighty vacuum at the commencement of this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid, Deputy Gilmore, that I will be asking the Minister of State to decline the invitation which you have given to him to discuss Government policy.

Mr. Gilmore

How are we going to debate the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, please bear with me. Committee Stage debate refers to what is in the particular amendment in respect of the legislation that has already been discussed where policy statements in respect of what is in the legislation or what could have been in it have been dealt with on Second Stage.

Mr. Gilmore

We did not deal with the Minister's amendments on Second Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, please do not indulge in cross-examination. I am telling you the position. I know that if I were out where you are, having regard to the interest I have in vocational education, I would be as interested but I must advise the House of what is appropriate to Committee Stage debate, and it is not an occasion where we indulge to any great extent in forebodings, suspicions or frustrations. We must deal with what is in the amendments before us and if we do that we will make much better headway. That is the position. Otherwise, we should reject the whole debate and not have it. The Chair must see to it that the debate is carried out in accordance with what is appropriate on Committee Stage when we deal with what is specifically before us.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to refer to your statement that the Minister of State should not reflect on or inform us of Government policy on education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on Committee Stage.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I firmly believed he could not do so because from what I have determined from the initiation of the Bill is that there is no Government policy on education. This Bill has been scrutinised by three different Ministers, all with different views and all placing different emphasis on the legislation. It seems that there is no Government policy on education. As each Minister takes up office they place emphasis on a different aspect. It is a sad reflection on the Government that at this stage they have not decided in what direction Irish education should go. It is not good enough for each Minister for Education on taking up office to put forward a different idea.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt, Deputy Ahearn, but it is not good enough for you to take that direction now. Before the Committee there are two amendments, in the names of Deputies O'Shea, Mac Giolla and Garland, and Deputies should apply themselves to those amendments. If it is not the Deputy's intention to do that she will have to wait for some other occasion when she will be in order to proceed in the direction she has taken. The Chair must advise Deputies of what is appropriate on Committee Stage. If the Deputy applies herself to the amendments she will make a much more commendable contribution to the legislation

In passing, I might say that we all regret the circumstances of the Minister's absence, and the Chair would like to be associated with the comments by Deputies Gilmore and Higgins in relation to the Minister's enforced absence in so far as he is in hospital. We are now discussing amendments Nos. 9 and 10, and remarks should be confined to them.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I must remark that it was the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who brought up the issue of Government education policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I said it would not be appropriate to discuss it now. Apparently, that fell on deaf ears with the Deputy.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I felt obliged to comment on the fact that, as far as I can see, there is no Government education policy.

I join with the good wishes of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and my colleagues, to the Minister and hope he has a speedy recovery. We accept that his absence today is completely unavoidable but I do not accept that his absence on other occasions when education matters were being discussed was unavoidable. It is alarming to think of the number of occasions when education matters were raised in the House and the Minister was not in attendance.

While the Minister's absence today is unavoidable, what has been carried out this morning in his name and by his Department, in the placing of up to 50 new amendments before the Committee, is inexcusable. There can be no acceptable explanation for the delay in tabling those amendments and making them available so that there might be a positive debate. If this is the Minister's attitude towards what I consider a very important Bill, which has been awaited for a long time and if he considers it appropriate to land an enormous amount of amendments, indicating a great change in direction, just an hour before the beginning of Committee Stage — that is not good enough. A Minister who wanted good, comprehensive legislation to emerge would ensure that amendments placed in his name would come in time for all parties to consider them in a calm and considered way. It is only under those circumstances that we might end up with a Bill that would promote and better the facilities in our regional technical colleges, an objective we all aspire to. I hope that during Committee Stage we will not again be faced with further amendments.

I support the amendments tabled. It would be a very retrograde step to dismiss the opinions of the vocational education committees in relation to the need for regional colleges in different areas. The step being taken goes in the opposite direction to moves by other Departments. When a new body is being established, be it in industry or otherwise, a committee is generally set up to determine the local position and the needs of a particular area. There is no better body in the educational field to identify the needs of an area than vocational educational committees. They have acted responsibly to date and have shown tremendous interest and enthusiasm in preparing proposals and in the initiatives they have taken in relation to regional technical colleges.

I speak from experience in my own constituency of South Tipperary. The North Tipperary vocational education committee and the south Tipperary vocational education committee have taken the initiative and carried out an enormous amount of background work in seeking to establish a regional technical college in Thurles. Such actions reflect the major initiatives vocational educational committees have taken. We should build on the experience and the good work that has been carried out in that area and on the responsible approach that has been taken to date.

It would be a retrograde step to put vocational education committees to one side; for the Minister to take absolute responsibility and give the vocational education committees only a consultative role. The Minister will need guidance, direction and information and someone will have to research the needs of particular areas. There is no body better qualified to do that than the body responsible for education in the area, the vocational education committee. Vocational education committees are representative of the community, of the business life and of the educational establishments. The Minister would benefit greatly from the initiatives taken by the vocational education committees. They feel that they have been downgraded by the Minister's measures and that the work they have carried out to date has been overlooked. The Minister should reconsider his position and support the amendments tabled.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is not surprising that there is confusion about this Bill, which has been discussed since November last and under three Ministers.

The two amendments are a crucial development in the whole debate on the Bill. What will be the role of the vocational education committees? Will they have any role? Is the Minister taking complete control of the regional technical colleges? Is he treating them as second level or even primary schools in the way he is retaining control in decision making?

The first Minister overseeing the passage of the Bill, Minister O'Rourke, seemed amenable to the concept of the Department of Education taking control from the vocational education committees and reducing the level of control that committees would have. Her successor took a much firmer line in favour of the vocational education committees and seemed willing to make changes in the Bill in that regard. The present Minister seems to be the worst of the three in so far as democratic control and the interests of the vocational education committees are concerned. He seems to be opting for centralised control and a policy of privatisation wherever possible. These amendments are crucial in the context of the battle going on in the Department of Education with Ministers and vocational education committees.

Most of the political arguments have been made by other speakers but the amendments about which we are speaking simply give the initiative to the vocational education committees to make a decision; the Minister still has total control because although you alter "whenever the Minister considers that this Act should apply to any other educational institution, etc." to "whenever the vocational education committees consider that this Act should apply to any other educational institution", that is followed by "the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance, etc.", which means that the Minister makes the final decision. The Minister need not be worried about these amendments and should be prepared to accept them because the vocational education committees are much more in touch with colleges and institutions in their area and would be able to recommend a proposal to the Minister. The Minister could still then make the decision, by order.

I ask the Minister to accept these amendments which mean retaining democratic control while still leaving power in the hands of the Minister to make a decision in relation to a recommendation. The amendments mean that there would be a certain amount of initiative to make proposals to the vocational education committees, which are democratically based in the area and which are not as remote as the Department of Education on which the Minister would rely. Indeed the Department of Education seem to be getting more remote every day from the situation on the ground and they and the Department of Justice are the two most entrenched and conservative Departments in the Civil Service and Government. It is important that the Minister listens to the vocational education committees as well as to the Department of Education. The vocational education committees know the parents, pupils, the educational institutions and the people of the area and could advise in relation to many problems. This has been proved by the fabulous success of the RTCs under the vocational education committees.

The Bill is supposed to give more autonomy to the RTCs but instead they are being placed increasingly under the control of the Minister and the Department of Education. In themselves, they are not fundamental amendments and do not defy the Minister in any way. The principle behind them, which is vitally important to the Bill, is whether we intend to ignore the vocational education committees and tell them that we are not interested in their opinions because it is the Minister's views which are important. The amendments would give a role to the vocational education committees in making proposals and recommendations — which the Minister need not accept. Otherwise, they will not have any role, the Minister will make a decision and will only have to consult vocational education committees. He may ask for their opinion but if he does not like it he will go ahead with his own decision.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Aylward)

I apologise for the unavoidable absence of the Minister for Education due to his sudden illness. I join in the good wishes for his speedy recovery.

The amendments are broadly in line with the Second Stage speech of the then Minister for Education and were circulated in response to the many valuable contributions made on Second Stage. However, I want to speak specifically to the amendment and I still feel that the power of decision in this matter should rest with the Minister, as provided for in the subsections, which make provision for consultation with the vocational education committee concerned and the governing body, as appropriate, before a decision is taken. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 9 or 10 but I will certainly give serious consideration to any views expressed by a vocational education committee on bringing other institutions within the scope of the Bill in future.

Mr. O'Shea

It was remiss of me earlier not to wish the Minister for Education a speedy recovery, I do so now.

The response of the Minister of State was disappointing because there is a vital issue at stake, that of initiation. In these amendments we are seeking nothing more than the "vocational education committee recommends". We are talking about a recommendation from bodies who have developed the regional colleges to the level which they have reached at present and who know the local scene. Many people who have served for a long number of years on vocational education committees are very committed to the system and its expansion but, more important, their views emanate from their local knowledge and assessment of local needs. The amendments provide for the committees being listened to and having a role in initiating examination within the Department of Education, that is all amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are seeking in relation to institution which may become part of colleges at a future date. I strongly put to the Minister that this files in the face of subsidiarity. As a marginal nation in the EC, on the periphery of Europe, subsidiarity is very important to us in terms of the Community. It is hypocritical — and a retrograde step from the point of view of the Department of Education — not to observe the principle of subsidiarity in the vital area of education. "Subsidiarity" means that the decision-making powers are at local level or as close as possible to where decisions are made. We do not even go that far in the amendment, we want recommendations to emanate — and to be welcomed — from vocational education committees.

I am disappointed at the response of the Minister which will set the trend for the whole debate on Committee Stage. I will have other opportunities to deal with that matter but when we talk in terms of recommendations from vocational education committees it is not asking a great deal that they be provided with the wherewithal to make those recommendations. This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

Mr. Garland

I am pleased that everyone in the House now recognises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity which is close to the Green ethos. I have listened to the debate during which Deputy O'Shea made an eloquent plea in regard to this matter and I could not put it better myself. I hope he will press his amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister gave a brief reply in response to what was a lengthy presentation of the case in favour of these two amendments. Brief and all as the Minister's response was it was also incorrect. He claimed that the position he has taken in tabling 43 amendments will drive the vocational education committees out of third level education and his opposition to these two amendments reflects the position taken by the then Minister when she introduced the Bill on Second Stage, but that is not the case. He also claimed that the amendments which have been tabled in the name of the Minister for Education and his opposition to the two amendments are a response to the contributions which were made in the House.

I would like to take up both points. First, the then Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, so far as I can recall, did not make the case that the vocational education committees should be driven out of third level. In fact, she argued strongly that the Bill as presented involved the retention of an important role for the vocational education committees in the regional technical colleges and, notwithstanding the reservations that had been expressed by Members on this side of the House, that there was no necessity to go any further than that. She certainly did not make the case that the vocational education committees should be driven out of third level education which is what the Minister is now proposing to do.

Second, I now challenge the Minister to tell us who made the case in the House that the vocational education committees should be driven out of third level education. I do not recall any Member of this House making that case but I do recall Members on all sides of the House, including Members on the Minister's own side, making a strong case that the vocational education committees had an important role to play and should be kept in third level education. Indeed, I recall Members on his side of the House making the argument that the Bill, as it stood, represented a concession to the principals of the regional technical colleges in their desire to get the vocational education committees off their backs. I recall Members on his side of the House, some of whom have now been elevated to high office, making a forceful case that the role of the vocational education committees should be strengthened in the context of these Bills.

Wherever the idea came from that the vocational education committees should be taken out of the regional technical colleges, it was not put forward in this House and is not in line with the policy that has been presented by the Minister or any of his predecessors up to now. We are owed an explanation — since the Bill was debated in the House last December — as to where this idea that the vocational education committees should be taken out of third level education came from. It is a new idea and it was not presented to the House on Second Stage last December. We are owed an explanation as to where it came from because the Minister is wrong in stating that any of his predecessors presented that case or that it was made in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it would not be inappropriate if I were to put the question now on this amendment. Does Deputy O'Shea wish that I put the question?

Mr. O'Shea

Yes.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John(Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• 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.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Flanagan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O'Shea

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, subsection (3), line 33, to delete "Minister considers" and substitute "vocational education committee recommends".

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. J. Higgins

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 4, subsection (4), line 43, after "The Minister" to insert "shall change the name of the College to Regional Polytechnic in the title of the College and".

The consequences of this amendment are quite obvious. I will resume after Question Time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 172 and 200 are consequential. I suggest that we debate amendments Nos. 11, 172 and 200 together if that is satisfactory. Agreed.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.