Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 4

Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 10.
In page 5, subsection (1) (b), line 11, after "give" to insert "degrees,".
—(Deputy J. Higgins.)

This series of amendments deal with the question of whether the Dublin Institute of Technology should be allowed to confer its own degrees. At present 30 per cent of the students attending Dublin Institute of Technology colleges are pursuing degree courses, which are awarded by way of special arrangement with Trinity College. Section 5 sets out the functions of the institute but the conferring of degrees is precluded by subsection (1) (a). However, ministerial amendments state that the Minister may have "other functions" in regard to the colleges. It is not good drafting procedure to have two subsections which to some extent contradict each other. However, the ministerial amendments are moving in the direction of giving more autonomy and academic freedom in terms of conferring degrees, post-graduate degrees and honorary awards and that is to be welcomed.

Section 5 (1) states that the principal function of the Institute shall be (b) "to confer, grant or give diplomas, certificates or other educational awards, other than degree awards." It is proposed to amend subsection (2) (a) by inserting after "other functions" the following:

",which may include the function of conferring degrees, postgraduate degrees and honorary awards".

When the new amendments are taken on board, the Bill will be somewhat sloppy in this regard.

I concur with Deputy O'Shea's observations on the "degree of qualification", to use a pun, that we are now giving to the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges. In our amendment No. 10 we propose to insert after the word "give" the word "degrees". The subsection would then read:

to confer, grant or give degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards, other than degree awards;.

We have put them in their relative order of merit. As Deputy O'Shea said, the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges have conferring powers by virtue of their very successful joint ventures with the University of Dublin, Trinity College. The Dublin Institute of Technology colleges are very appreciative of that relationship which has been very fruitful. However, now that we are in the process of legislating for these colleges which will bring them into post-Maastricht Europe and into the 21st century we must enable them to stand shoulder to shoulder with the universities and I have no doubts about their capacity to do so. I fail to see why we cannot provide clearly and specifically in the Bill that these colleges should be entitled to award degrees in their own right. People may ask what is so mysterious or meritorious about a degree. Although it should not be, the fact is that one has to explain in another country that a diploma qualification is equivalent to the degree. When it gets to the stage that one has to explain the qualification, it is cause for concern and there is need to focus sharply on the rights of these colleges to confer degrees in their own right. If the standard of material being examined, and level of achievement being attained, is sufficient for validation by a university I cannot see why do we do not take a quantum leap now and put matters right once and for all.

Deputy O'Shea made a good point about ministerial amendment No. 2 which provides that subsection (2) (a) be amended by inserting after "other functions" the following:

",which may include the function of conferring degrees, postgraduate degrees and honorary awards".

It appears the Minister is taking on board the basic thrust of our amendment which the colleges are trying to have incorporated in the Bill, but, as Deputy O'Shea said, this is sloppy drafting. I exhort the Minister to take on board the amendments we tabled. I submit that the appropriate place for this ministerial amendment is at section 5 (1) (b) which will state:

... to confer, grant or give degrees, diplomas or certificates.

I ask the Minister, why not go the whole way now? He should state why the language is being couched in conservative terms such as "may include" instead of "shall include". Surely the colleges have proved themselves and if their qualifications are deemed worthy of the imprimatur of Trinity College it is obvious that they should be able to award their own degrees.

Section 5 (2) (a) states: "The Institute shall have such other functions as may be assigned to it, from time to time ..." It is proposed to amend this to state:

The Institute shall have such other functions, which may include the function of conferring degrees, post-graduate degrees and honorary awards as may be assigned to it, from time to time, by order made by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.

While the colleges do not need anybody to concur with them when awarding diplomas or certificates, we are now providing that they "may" with the concurrence of two Ministers confer a degree. I do not know what the Minister for Finance has to do with conferring a degree or diploma although I see that he would have a role with regard to property rights and so on.

I exhort the Minister to take on board in the spirit of our amendments the legitimate aspirations of the colleges to confer degrees.

Before I call the Minister to reply, I am sure the House will join with me in welcoming him back. I hope he is fully fit and is ready to hold the reins.

Indeed, I had meant to sincerely welcome the Minister on his return and say that in his absence, the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, very ably deputised for him.

I also omitted to welcome the Minister's return. I am delighted to see that he is in good health. Might I add that Deputy Aylward was a most able substitute and he handled these Bills extremely well.

The Chair is happy that it anticipated the expression of such pleasantries.

First, I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for your expression of kind wishes. May I express my thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the House and add a special thanks to the Minister of State at my Department,

Deputy Aylward, who has done a superb job to date? His advice has been of invaluable assistance to me. Rumours of an early by-election in Dublin South can be discounted.

I have come some way towards meeting the concerns of Deputies J. Higgins and O'Shea. The point of disagreement is about the mechanism as it is clearly the intention of the Government and I that the Dublin Institute of Technology Colleges will award degrees. However, we differ on the timing and the mechanism by which we do that. I would argue that I have gone halfway towards doing that. While not doing it immediately in the Bill, I have cleared up the ambiguity by putting forward amendments Nos. 22 and 23 which clarify the intention that degrees may be awarded. I accept that not having done so up to now could have caused confusion because section 5 (1) (b) specifies awards other than degree awards. The amendments will provide that the functions of conferring degrees, post-graduate degrees and honorary awards may be included.

Having listened to Deputies, I do not see any reason for a major delay in extending to the Dublin Institute of Technology degree-awarding functions. We are not doing something casual; we are formally establishing and putting in place a major new national institution, arguably the largest third level institution in the State. It is important to do that carefully. I am anxious that the structures be put in place, that the necessary appointments be made and that there be consultation with the people appointed. My hope and my target would be that within 12 months of the coming into effect of the legislation I would be in a position to move in regard to the degree-awarding function.

I would argue that this goes a long way to meet the requirements of Deputies opposite. I share the spirit of confidence which they have expressed in the Dublin Institute of Technology. By getting the structures up and running and by targetting, we might get this done within 12 months or so of the coming into effect of the legislation. It will be all the sweeter for the Dublin Institute of Technology to have that function added to their powers.

I accept in good faith what the Minister has said but I do not have to point out that we are dealing with legislation. I submit that the Bill if amended as the Minister proposes will be somewhat sloppy. He states that it is his clear intention within 12 months to grant the degree-conferring function to the Dublin Institute of Technology but, with respect, that is an intention. We do not know what Government will be in office in 12 months' time. The legislation will be in place when this Bill is passed. The Minister is indicating his goodwill but I am concerned that section 5 (1) (b) still excludes the awarding of degrees as one of the main functions of the college. Section 5 (2) (a) refers to the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. While it is important that the finances of the State are kept in order, too restrictive a stranglehold by the Department of Finance on the academic development of institutions and on their ability to move into new areas of independence is a matter which should concern the Minister for Education. I am not happy about the conflict within this section. I would be happier if the Minister would indicate on Report Stage that the whole section would be looked at again, particularly in the context of sections 5 (1) (b) and 5 (2) (a) as he proposes to amend them.

I accept the spirit of what the Minister is saying and I welcome the assurance that he envisages a timescale of one year. Deputy O'Shea has validly pointed out that things can change utterly. Much has changed in the past year. When the Minister was at the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications he hardly thought he would be piloting through this Bill and the Bill dealing with the regional technical colleges. Many changes have been made to these two Bills. Amendments to the original regional technical college Bill were introduced by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Davern, and then the

Minister's own controversial amendments were presented in absentia on 3 June and subsequent amendments on 10 June. Undertakings were given subsequently, again in absentia, that further restoration of the rights of vocational education committees would be countenanced on Report Stage by certain people. I accept the sincerity and the spirit of the assurance that within a year the colleges will have the right to confer their own degrees. That is very welcome but I would submit that this should be inserted in the Bill as part of subsection 5 (1) (b). We are not anxious to put this to a vote but we would ask the Minister to consider this point before Report Stage, bearing in mind that this legislation will be permanent. In section 5 (2) (a) we would prefer the word “may” to be deleted and the word “shall” inserted.

Regarding the right to award degrees in a year's time, does the Minister intend to sever altogether the link with Trinity? Will it still obtain for existing courses? Is the Minister talking about partial retention of that link or phasing it out? Will the colleges be fully autonomous degree-awarding institutions?

I join with my colleagues in welcoming the Minister back to active service and I join in the compliments paid to the Minister of State. I would agree with the points made by Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Higgins in relation to the awarding of degrees by the Dublin Institute of Technology. There is a contradiction between section 5 (1) (b) as it stands and section 5 (2) (a) as it will be when amended. Section 5 (1) (b) explicitly excludes degree awarding as a function of the institute, while section 5 (2) (a) will include it, but only at the discretion for the Minister of Education and with the agreement of the Minister for Finance. The Minister states that it is his intention to implement this within 12 months. If that is the intention, I do not see any reason for excluding it in section 5 (1) (b). It would not in any way change the intention of the Minister if he agreed that the Dublin Institute of Technology may award degrees if it is his intention to make an order allowing them to do so within 12 months. It would settle everybody's mind if that could be built into the legislation. I do not see any good reason, if that is the intention, it cannot be included in the legislation in the first place. If it were included it would avoid any uncertainty and would strengthen the status and position of the Dublin Institute of Technology. I support the points made by Deputies O'Shea and Jim Higgins that if the Minister is not disposed to agreeing to the amendment this evening he would give an indication of possible agreement to it on Report Stage.

I should like to extend my good wishes to the Minister and welcome him back to the House. I hope he will make every effort to ensure that those Bills will be processed speedily and uninterrupted through the House and I give him a guarantee that, to that end, he will have co-operation from this side of the House. It will be a job well done if we allow the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional colleges to proceed with their work without there being any cloud of uncertainty hanging over them. I hope there will be no interruptions and no delay in regard to Report Stages of these Bills. We all agree that the Dublin Institute of Technology should have the right to confer their own degrees, and I welcome the intentions of the Minister in that regard. However, it would be far more logical to insert it in section 5 (1) (b) rather than in a later part of the section. As there is so little between us on this issue, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this point. We all welcome the fact that this power will be given in a year but why wait a year because sometimes in political terms a year is a long time? I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this amendment and for the sake of co-operation on all sides of the House to include it in subsection (1) (b).

I thank Deputies Gilmore and Ahearn for their kind wishes which I appreciate. Deputy Gilmore's question is an important one. He is asking me to exclude from section 5 (1) (b) the words, "other than degree awards". I am actually proposing to remove those words — not perhaps the way the Deputy wants it — by means of my amendment No. 13 and substitute, "excluding degrees other than degrees provided for by order under subsection (2) (b)". Clearly, that removes the contradiction but it leaves the power with the Minister who may or may not give that authority. It takes away that rather bald phrase "other than degree awards" and reconciles it with the amendment I am proposing. From a legislative point of view, and to avoid contradiction, I am satisfied that the amendment ties up section 5 (1) (b).

Deputy Higgins asked me about the Trinity College link. It is probably unnecessary to link with Trinity College in the event that the Dublin Institute of Technology are awarding their own degrees. Under the provisions of section 5 (1) (c) it will be open to the Dublin Institute of Technology to make arrangements with other bodies, and that includes Trinity College, in the matter of awards but that would be purely a matter for the Dublin Institute of Technology themselves. My amendments Nos. 13, 22, 23, 24 and 70 seek to bring the day of degree awarding closer. The reference to the Minister for Finance in subsection (2) (b) is a standard one in any case where the Minister for Finance may feel there was additional expenditure involved. At first glance it may not seem that additional expenditure is involved when a new function is awarded to a college but experience has shown that that can very often be the case. I would not read too much into the phrase "with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance": it is meant purely as a checking mechanism on public expenditure and has not caused difficulty in previous legislation that I am aware of. If the sponsoring Minister is anxious to proceed with it, it is by way of a formality unless there are major expenditure implications which I could not see being the case.

I want to stress that I am not reluctant to award the degree giving powers to the Dublin Institute of Technology. With a full Dublin Institute of Technology governing body, a chairperson, a president and a whole new organisation being launched, they would have no difficulty in winning that final recognition which will be available to them under the legislation in as short a time as possible. I have mentioned 12 months as a target. I do not foresee circumstances in which they would not be able to win that confidence. The individual colleges are not new but overall we are talking of a new institution. If you look at other examples throughout the country you will see it has taken them many years to reach their full maturity and to win the final accolade of being able to award degrees. It is probably a cautionary step, it is not a major withholding. I think the Dublin Institute of Technology will win the confidence of whatever Minister or Government is in office. I cannot foresee them having much difficulty in doing that but it is important to be able to discuss how that might happen with the Dublin Institute of Technology governing body, with the new chairperson and president and to bring it into effect in a more orderly fashion. I will give some consideration to the points raised by Deputies between now and Report Stage but at this point I am sticking with the amendments I have submitted.

Again, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why Dublin Institute of Technology should be kept temporarily on the leash — albeit for a year. They have proved themselves. We are now gelling them into a new form, a new shape. I find it difficult to accept that they cannot be given their full wings at this stage. What kind of mechanism does the Minister envisage giving them in a year's time? Presumably, and we are talking about the year 1993-94, the entrants to the colleges in September 1993 can look forward to competing for degree awards conferred by the colleges themselves. Once the Bill is enacted does the Minister envisage his Department having regular consultations with the governing body of the new institute over the period so that he would be ready, if they are determined to be of a sufficient standard, to give them their degree award winning status?

That is precisely it. I do not want to be disrespectful to a very fine organisation but I think they will earn their degree awarding status in the next 12 months or so. I have little doubt they can earn that. There is always a slight possibility that, for some reason, they may be unable to earn that final step but I have full confidence that they will be able to do so. During that period I intend to have discussions and to target the entrants at the end of 1993 as being the first participants. That earning process is a short one but an important one if for no other reason than to allow full consultation with the new team in place in the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The longer this discussion goes on the more concerned I am becoming about this issue. We have a situation where the Dublin Institute of Technology already have arrangements with Trinity College for the awarding of degrees. That is provided for in section 5 (1) (c), and presumably it will remain. It will also be the case that the Dublin Institute of Technology can have arrangements with the NCEA for the awarding of degrees. If the Dublin Institute of Technology consider that a particular course should be pursued for an NCEA degree they can, in the normal way, submit the proposal to the NCEA, have it validated and so on. We are discussing whether the Dublin Institute of Technology will be in a position to award their own degrees. The Minister spoke about the Dublin Institute of Technology earning the right to award degrees and said that over the period of a year and following discussions with the Dublin Institute of Technology he would be able to assess whether they could do that.

Two issues arise in this regard. As Deputy Higgins has quite rightly said, we are dealing with an institution which for all practical purposes have been in exist- ence for a very long time and have earned their spurs. The second issue that arises, with all due respect, is the Minister's competence in assessing whether or not the Dublin Institute of Technology are in a position to award their own degrees. The Dublin Institute of Technology are a body which will have their own academic council, their own governing body and very fine academic staff. I am at a loss to understand what the Minister's position is in regard to assessing that a particular course of studies should have a degree awarded by the Dublin Institute of Technology. It seems to me that the Minister is effectively setting up himself and his Department as a validating body for degrees. That is a completely new and very dangerous development because, quite honestly — and I say this with the greatest respect — the Minister is not in a position to determine whether or not the institute should award a degree. Surely that is a question on which academic people, whether in the college or outside it, would be in the best position to judge.

If the decision is not to be based on academic criteria, I wonder if it is to be based on some other kind of criteria. For example, might it be that if the Dublin Institute of Technology reach the conclusion that they should be allowed to award a degree for a particular course, the Minister could decide — probably in consultation with the Minister for Finance — that for reasons other than academic reasons, perhaps ones based on finance, the institute cannot award the degree? Such an intention would constitute gross interference in the academic freedom of the college. That is an aspect that I am quite worried about and I hope the Minister will be able to resolve the issue on Report Stage. However, the longer the discussion goes on the more concerned I am that there is more to this than meets the eye.

The Minister clearly said that he expects the colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology to earn the privilege of awarding degrees. I wish to point out that already those colleges award 15 degrees. I cannot understand why the Minister would say at this stage that they have to prove themselves. The 15 courses to which I refer have been examined and scrutinised and degrees are awarded through Trinity College. Those courses have been approved and have received much recognition. Would the Minister not agree that in relation to those 15 courses the colleges should be given the right to award degrees? What would have to be proven in relation to those courses? Already degrees are awarded, the tuition is of an excellent standard and the colleges have received due recognition. Perhaps the Minister could justify his case by saying that he will give the colleges a year to prove themselves on the awarding of new degrees. I have no doubt that they would prove themselves able for the task. Certainly in relation to the 15 courses for which degrees are already awarded I cannot understand why there would be a delay and why the Dublin Institute of Technology should be asked to prove themselves. The Minister and the Department of Education should give the colleges the recognition they deserve by allowing the Dublin Institute of Technology to award their own degrees for the 15 courses in which they have already proved themselves.

Like Deputy Gilmore, I develop more misgivings about the direction in which this amendment is heading as the debate progresses. For the moment we should reflect on the macro-scene in the sense that demographic trends show a smaller intake into our national schools. That trend has been evident for some years and, before very long, will be experienced in second level and third level institutions. The previous Minister for Education decided that ESF grants for the new intake shall be means-tested on the same basis as higher education grants from September next. That decision will have the effect of moving marginal students in the direction of the universities. In other words, pupils who qualify for a particular certificate or diploma course at a regional technical college or the Dublin Institute of Technology and also have available to them a place in a university course, will decide to avail of the university course if it transpires that they will no longer qualify for an ESF grant on the basis of their parents' income. Earlier Deputy Higgins referred to the perception of degrees in our society. It is my belief that the perception of degrees is such that the movement towards universities will be a very definite trend.

Earlier in the debate the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, was prepared to accept an amendment to section 5 (1) to include apprentice training along with vocational and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State in the functions of the institute. The Minister left me with the impression that the area of apprentice and craft technician education was under review in the post-Culliton era.

I fear that if we place an emphasis on apprenticeship training we may lose sight of apprentice education, which is more important in many ways. People can be trained in technical skills and the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical colleges have done a marvellous job in improving the level of technician in Ireland. Irish technicians are in strong demand overseas, for example, I instance our Telecom and ESB technicians. The improvement of technical education is probably the greatest development in education in the history of this State and the Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technical colleges are to be greatly complimented on that. I am afraid that apprentices might be viewed as people who are trained and for whom there is no need to provide a wider basis for study to include liberal education.

I believe that the structure of education in this country is such that the inclusion in the Bill of a provision that gives the Minister powers to do something if he so desires, with the constraint of consultation with the Minister for Finance, will result in decisions coming out in favour of the universities as against degree courses in the Dublin Institute of Technology. My argument is given greater force by the letter to vocational education committee chief executive officers that emanated from the Department of Education in the middle of May. The letter stated that the Department were becoming concerned that regional technical colleges were to some extent moving away from the basic mandate of certificates and diplomas and that the Department were receiving many fresh applications for the approval of degree courses. The letter stated that the Department envisaged a figure of 10 per cent of students who attended regional technical colleges pursuing degree courses. At present 30 per cent of students attending the Dublin Institute of Technology are pursuing degree courses.

In that context and when we look at what is happening outside this Chamber in relation to the debate on this Bill, there are many markers and signs — in saying that I do not question the good faith or sincerity of the Minister — which lead me to believe that he could very well be frustrated, if indeed his Government are still in power over the next 12 months, in delivering on the commitment which he gave here tonight, that it was his objective that degree-conferring powers would be placed in the hands of the Dublin Institute of Technology over a 12-month period. I understand the context in which the phrase "earning the right to do so" was used and I take it in the spirit in which it was meant. However, the Department of Finance are reviewing the functions of the Department of Education and the whole degree provision in the entire third level sector. The training colleges will now become absorbed in the universities but, if we look at the reality of what has been happening in relation to the Department of Education, it is obvious that it will prove extremely difficult for any Minister to deliver in 12 months on the degree conferring which the Dublin Institute of Technology justifiably seek and should have.

I know that the Minister was not in office when the Bill was drafted and indeed two previous Ministers dealt with it. Why should the conferring of degrees, post-graduate awards and other higher education awards be excluded from the Bill? The Dublin Institute of Technology will be contracting in relation to the 5,000 apprentices with whom they deal. Is it credible that the Departments of Education and Finance will allow the extension of the degree provision in the Dublin Institute of Technology?

I agree with the concerns expressed by other Deputies, particularly the points raised by Deputy O'Shea. When the question of apprentice training was raised the Minister of State assured us that "training" meant "apprentice training". I hope the Minister agrees that that is the case although the word "apprenticeship" is not mentioned. The question arises of apprentice education versus training, and the fact that it is under the aegis of the Department of Labour does not give us any assurance on that score. However, we are dealing here with the issue of degrees and every subsection states: "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". That is stated about 15 times on the page. subsection (2) (a), which will permit degree awards in due course, was not intended in the original draft to allow powers to grant degrees, although it is now being used for that purpose. Subsection (2) (a) states:

The Institute shall have such other functions as may be assigned to it, from time to time, by order made by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.

The Minister has the authority in every other section and subsection of the Bill but, in this case, it is subject to the concurrence of the Minister for Finance which, of course, in current circumstances and indeed in the last decade, means that there are huge levels of debt, no money and constant cutbacks. In those circumstances, the concurrence of the Minister for Finance is very unlikely if it means an increase in expenditure. He will give his concurrence if whatever the Minister suggests will not lead to an increase in expenditure from the Exchequer.

The increase in the powers of the Minister and his interference in almost every aspect of the colleges — and the exclusion of the vocational education committees from every aspect of college life — is the most dangerous part of the Bill and is very worrying. We would all like to know what is in the Green Paper, if there will be a White Paper, a Bill and an Act. We understand that a Green Paper has not been prepared and that there will not be a White Paper. Therefore, the whole education system is in flux; nobody knows what is in the minds of the Minister's Department. When discussing a Bill of such major importance to the third level sector, the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical colleges, we would love to know what the future holds in store. Where are we going? Will the 1930 Act be abolished? Where are we going in primary, second and third level education?

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but he is straying considerably from the amendment before us. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency towards Second Reading speeches.

I am specifically dealing with the powers of the Minister which are mentioned in the subsection. When powers are given to the Minister we would like to know his policy. What is the policy of the Department, at least in third level education? We would like to know that when discussing an amendment which gives the Minister specific powers to allow degrees. That is a vital factor in relation to the Dublin Institute of Technology. They want the power to award degrees and the Minister can decide what degrees they will be allowed to award.

Why is the Minister so reluctant to allow the Dublin Institute of Technology off the leash? They have built up a great reputation abroad as well as at home, and are already awarding degrees as well as diplomas and certificates. Why must the Minister interfere in the running of the colleges and the areas of awarding degrees? Where does the Minister stand in relation to democracy in the education system? Under Deputy O'Rourke, we thought there would be more freedom not only in the vocational education sector but also in all other sectors with the advent of local education authorities etc., but that is no longer the case. Is the Minister centralising all the power in his own hands? The point I am trying to make is that this question is coming to the fore again on this subsection. What is even worse in this case is that the approval of the Minister for Finance must also be sought. As a member of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, knowing the tremendous developments that have taken place in recent years in the Dublin Institute of Technology and their potential if given the freedom to proceed in the area of research without interference from the Minister, I believe this matter must be pressed to the limit.

A number of questions have been raised and I will try to deal with them as succinctly as I can. In reply to those Deputies who have raised questions in relation to my target of 12 months, I repeat that we are not doing something minor but establishing a new, integrated institution. A major reorganisation will take place and there will be a new governing body with a new chairman. In addition, there will be a need to discuss with them their proposals and suggestions with regard to the question of quality assurance and external examiners of international standing. Following those discussions the governing body and the chairman and President, as well as the Department of Education, have to be satisfied that the time is right to take the final step.

I accept that it will be a matter of judgement and readily admit that the Deputies' judgment could be as good as mine in this regard but I am satisfied that it is better to adopt this more cautious approach. Incidentally, the new governing body will include students and staff representatives, not possible at present. We will now have an opportunity to discuss how we should proceed with all those interests.

Deputy Gilmore wondered if the Department of Education would become a validation body. I can understand his concern. However, it took the two NIHEs in Limerick and Dublin many years to win the power to grant degrees and the Government of the day took the decision to confer university status on them. In doing so the Government were not deciding to validate the degrees. It was their normal function to come to a conclusion, following discussion, that a certain institution should proceed to degree status. Therefore it is nothing new for a Government to bring on an institution in that way until it reaches the final stage. That is what I want to do in the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology. I am determined to ensure that it will have degree status and award quality degrees. It is appropriate therefore to put the structure in place and to discuss with them how we should proceed. That is the sensible and practical way to proceed. As a matter of courtesy to the new institutions, I will do it in that way.

Deputy Ahearn referred to the existing degrees. I understand that Trinity College have a role to play in this regard. To an extent, therefore, that is a separate matter.

Deputy O'Shea referred to the figure of 10 per cent. The purpose of the letter was to commence a discussion on the balance as between certificates, diplomas and degrees. The colleges and the NCEA have been asked to outline their views. My objective is to relieve the Department of the responsibility for course approval. I suggested the figure of 10 per cent merely as a guideline as this represents the average across the sector. I should say that no percentage has been mooted for the Dublin Institute of Technology as I recognise that their position is entirely different.

In response to Deputy Mac Giolla, I recognise the value of apprenticeships and support the comments made by the Minister of State in that regard and share his analysis. The Dublin Institute of Technology provide off-the-job education and training for many apprentices. As the House can see, this Bill will allow us to continue in this way and students benefit from third level education. A specific reference is, however, unnecessary over and above the references to technical education and training.

Let me make one or two comments in reply to Deputy Mac Giolla on the Green Paper. I should tell the House that this morning the Government approved the final draft of the Green Paper and it will be published in full next Thursday afternoon. I published at the end of April an introduction to the Green Paper. I was satisfied that my philosophy and thinking was reflected clearly in that document. If the Deputy does not think so, he may be convinced when he has an opportunity to read the Green Paper in full on Thursday evening.

In relation to the Bill and the Green Paper, I believe my philosophy is quite clear. I have the height of respect and always have had for the vocational education committees and for the local authorities, having served as a member of one, but we cannot have it both ways. If we are going to give power and authority to the boards of management and governing bodies we cannot withold it. The philosophy in the Green Paper is to take power from the Department of Education, from the Government, from the other institutions and give it clearly and crisply to the governing bodies of the colleges. I said to the vocational education committees, to the religious orders and to my Department that all of us will have to cede power, influence and authority to the boards of management. We cannot double think on this approach to education. The various bodies, including the vocational education committees, the Department of Education and the religious orders, should stand back and devolve power to the governing bodies. This will amount to democracy, as the boards of management and the governing bodies will be made up of students, teachers, vocational education committee nominees, business people, local community representatives and so on——

Does the Minister include himself?

I do indeed. I will come to that in a moment. That is clearly outlined in the Green Paper. We have to make up our minds. Do we want the vocational education committees, the Department of Education and the religious orders to retain control or do we want to give this power to the governing bodies and the boards of management? The boards of management, the parents and teachers all want to know the answer to this question. Do we want to fudge the issue and pretend that everybody has a bit of power with no one having final responsibility?

For my part, I have clearly stated in the Green Paper that the Minister will be giving up that authority. The view was expressed frequently during the course of the debate on Second Stage and Deputy Mac Giolla mentioned it again this evening, that the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine" appears too many times in the Bill. I think Deputies are right. I propose therefore, in amendments Nos. 9, 16, 18, 19, and 21, to remove that phrase from the following subparagraphs of section 5 (1): (a) (e), (g), (h) and (j), and from as many other sections as practicable. Obviously, this will take time.

I have invited the Irish Vocational Education Association to meet me. Unfortunately, they were unable to do so this week but I hope they will be available next week, or as soon as possible. I propose to point out to them that they have a very good, solid role to play in the future of Irish education. But are they really saying to me that nothing has changed since 1930, when the Act was introduced establishing the vocational education committees? Are they really saying to me that they wish to hold on to the power and not devolve it to the governing bodies? If that is what they are saying, I should like to hear them say it clearly.

I must dissuade Members from discussing the Green Paper now. I want to bring them back to section 5 and amendment No. 10. While it has all been very interesting the Chair has been remiss but let us now revert to the Bill and the amendment before the House.

I will be as brief as I can.

On the amendment, Deputy.

On the amendment and the Minister's responsibility——

We shall be coming to the section later.

Where the Minister is to be given control I agree that the power should be with the governing bodies of the colleges but, where the Minister retains control, that control should lie with the vocational education committees rather than the Minister. I want to thank the Minister for dropping the reference to "the Minister" in so many places but it is still retained in some significant areas such as research, consultancy, development and so on. I contend that it is in those areas the Minister should drop out and that the vocational education committees and democracy should remain.

On the question of degree-awarding I want to remind the Minister that the colleges which constitute the Dublin Institute of Technology were in existence long before the NIHE, Limerick, as it was then, or the NIHE, Dublin, as it was initially. I hope I do not stand to be corrected on this but I think the colleges that constitute the Dublin Institute of Technology were actually the first of the non-university sector colleges to secure degree level status for some of their courses. I think they had secured that through Trinity College some time before the NIHE, Limerick, secured something similar from the National University of Ireland and before the NIHE, Dublin was up and running. Therefore we are dealing with colleges that are not new to the circumstances but which have had many years of experience and skill behind them. I do not think they have to prove themselves at all in this area.

How stands this amendment? Is it being pressed?

The amendment is not being pressed. I am conscious of the fact that if I press the amendment, even on a voice vote, I will not have power to retable it for Report Stage. Even though the Minister has not shown great scope for optimism or looking at it again for Report Stage, we will be re-tabling it for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 11 in the names of Deputies Garland and O'Shea has already been discussed with amendment No. 10. How stands this amendment?

I will not be pressing this amendment at this stage. While the Minister has not given any of us on this side of the House any comfort in the course of this debate, I hope he will look at a tidying up of the section. Another amendment, No. 13, does——

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must point out that it was discussed earlier.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, subsection (1) (b), line 12, to delete ", other than degree awards" and substitute ", excluding degrees other than degrees provided for by order under subsection (2) (a)".

Amendment agreed to.

Since amendment No. 13 has been agreed, amendment No. 14 cannot now be moved.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, subsection (1) (e), line 23, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, subsection (1) (g), line 34, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 5, subsection (1) (h), line 37, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:

"(j) subject to the approval of the Minister to acquire land;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 5, subsection (1) (j), line 44, to delete "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 5, subsection (2) (a), line 47, after "other functions" to insert ", which may include the function of conferring degrees, postgraduate degrees and honorary awards".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 6, subsection (3), line 6, after "subsection (1) (b)" to insert "or under any function in relation to degrees which may be assigned to the Institute by order made under subsection (2)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 6, subsection (3), line 10, after "instruction" to insert ", research".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 6, lines 16 to 25, to delete subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

In regard to amendment No. 25, to delete section 5 (4), would the Minister say what is the reason for this deletion? Also from the point of view of the comprehensive section itself, which is really the nub of what the Bill is about, the conferring of additional powers which we discussed in detail in relation to qualifications, there is, in addition, the conferring of the right on the colleges to fulfil a vital function denied them to date — when some of the Dublin colleges suffered considerable financial loss — that is power to engage in research, consultancy and development work. That is why we on this side of the House look on this as something which will give those colleges the type of sharp edge they require to go out and compete in the very lucrative marketplace.

I am particularly conscious that in recent years their brothers and sisters in the other colleges, the NUI colleges, and the former NIHE colleges in Glasnevin and Limerick, have carved out for themselves extremely valuable niches in terms of liaison and joint enterprise with industry. The whole area of research, consultancy, marketing and training facilities is a very lucrative one, literally running into millions of pounds. If one takes the example of University College, Dublin, one sees that they have managed to involve themselves in quite a number of extremely lucrative research and development projects.

We know, for example, that one of the banes of the agricultural community is the threat of mastitis and that annually £35 million is spent endeavouring to combat that disease. University College, Dublin, in their research and development, have come up with quite a number of very useful patents which have gone a long way in this regard. We know that 13 companies have passed through their innovative centre, that their marketing and development programme, which has been in place since 1982, has helped more than 600 national and international companies in relation to solving marketing problems, getting involved in marketing issues, farming the graduates out to various companies so they can come back immersed in the type of experience required for the marketplace.

I trust the Deputy will not stray too far from the section as amended.

I am not doing so, Sir, I am dealing with section 5 (1) (d) and (e) in relation to the new powers we are conferring on the colleges to involve themselves in consultancy work and in research and development.

Within a stone's throw of here we have Trinity College, Dublin, perhaps the best known university in Europe. After the festivities of a number of weeks ago, it certainly is the best known university in Europe. Any of us who has had the pleasure of being in the O'Reilly Institute there will be aware that it generates about £8 million in external research per year. How wonderful it would be if the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges had access to that type of funding. We welcome this Bill because it opens the door to them to become involved in similar type enterprise. For example, the O'Reilly Institute has been involved not alone in promoting national companies but companies from America, Germany, France, the UK and Japan and shortly they are to become involved in a well-known Korean company. They have managed to tap into European Commission funding of £2 million in contracts per year.

There was a project on the way to one of the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges a number of years ago but, because of the strictures and restraints on them from becoming involved in this type of work, it went to University College, Cork. Full marks to Cork for being opportunistic enough to pick up the pieces. It is estimated that over 200 jobs have been created because of the industrial liaison programme in Cork.

Probably the feather in the cap of all the universities has been the NIHE in Limerick. We have had some disagreements in relation to the role of that college and the lack of respect for the humanities, yet Limerick, Galway and all these colleges are playing an invaluable role in research and development. That is why I welcome this section, apart from the fact that the Minister has signposted his intention to allow the Dublin Institute of Technology to confer degrees. It is to be hoped this other very important dimension will be exploited in full by the colleges themselves.

I emphasise that, as mentioned already, the section in regard to research, consultancy and development work is of vital importance to the Dublin Institute of Technology. That is the only section in which the Minister has retained the provision "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine". What is the reason for that in that case? It was amended in all the other sections. The colleges themselves should have total freedom and flexibility in the area of research, consultancy and development. Why does the Minister retain his power in that subsection and drop all the others graciously here for us? This is an area where the colleges have been inhibited to some degree and have only just begun in the past few years to expand their whole role in research, consultancy, joint ventures etc.

I would also like to know what changed the mind of the Minister or the Department to make them drop subsection 4.

When this Bill was introduced to the House it was on the basis that it would provide for much more autonomy for the institute in terms of its day to day management and provide for the institute to become involved in research and development work. Section 5 (1) (d) and (f) are the two subsections in which the Minister has retained the phrase "subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine." As I said earlier in the debate, I see the logic in this. The legal implications of becoming involved in research and development are obvious. Research and development can go wrong. Who picks up the tab in that case? If an R and D project goes very well and there is a very large earning from it, who will benefit at the end of the day?

I would like to draw to the Minister's attention one phrase in section 5 (1) (a). As now amended it will read: "to provide such courses of study as the Governing body considers appropriate, and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct;" As the Minister responded to the debate on this section he spoke in terms of whether we are serious about devolving power.

To use the "in" phrase in the Maastricht context, are we serious about subsidiarity? I suggest that to a fair extent the Minister is speaking tongue in cheek. Like it or not, the real read of this section is about centralising power and authority in Marlborough Street. If the Government were really serious in terms of providing more autonomy for the colleges in their day-to-day management and their freedom to become involved in research. and development and consultancy work, simple amendments to the 1930 Act would have achieved that. I believe the strategy is much more basic and deeper and, runs contrary to what the Minister is telling us now will be the theme of the Green Paper, so I do not see that this is giving power to the people. I believe it is strengthening the power of the Department and of the Minister at the expense of democratically elected people who have served on, in this case the Dublin vocational education committee and, in the case of the regional technical college Bill, vocational education committees throughout the country. There is a basic rule that should be followed; if something works, why change it? Why not simply make it more efficient. By all means let us implement the principle of subsidiarity. That is a vital and fundamental principle, not alone in education but throughout society at large.

In essence, I suggest to the Minister that the amendments made to this section in their overall effect would be much more cosmetic than real. It brings us back to a question asked many times here during the debate: Why the great hurry to get these two Bills through and passed into law before the Green Paper is published, before the wide-ranging debate on education at first, second and third levels takes place and before the people we want to devolve power to — the parents, students and so on — have had a chance to feed back in real detail to the Department of Education their views in the whole area of third level education, be it university, regional colleges or the Dublin Institute of Technology? I still hold the view strongly that this Bill defends a position for the Department of Education and for the Minister and does not make the principle of subsidiarity any stronger in our society; I believe the effect will be the opposite.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken out of a number of paragraphs the requirement that the various functions of the institute would be performed subject to conditions determined by the Minister. It seems that prior to that the only thing the institute were allowed do without the approval of the Minister was to accept gifts, for example, money, land and so on; they would not have to look for ministerial approval if someone gave them something for nothing. However, I am curious as to why the Minister has retained this requirement in regard to the functions relating to research, consultancy and development work, and their involvement in limited companies and joint ventures of various kinds. I should like the Minister to explain this.

With regard to the involvement of the institute in research and development work and their involvement with outside bodies such as limited companies and so on, is it the Minister's intention to make general regulations or lay down general conditions which will apply to the institute's activities in those areas or does he intend that on each occasion an opportunity arises for the institute to engage in that type of work they will have to seek ministerial approval?

I know the Minister has a keen interest in the area of competition. I am sure he will be aware that opportunities for research and development work which arise are sought after by many institutions and that this is a very competitive area. It would be wrong if the Dublin Institute of Technology were put at a competitive disadvantage with regard to other institutions or had to seek ministerial approval for any opportunity which would arise, something other institutions may not have to do. I am not clear as to why the Minister has retained the proviso and should like him to clarify his intentions. Does he intend to lay down some general conditions which would be known to the institute in advance and with which they would have to comply when pursuing research and development opportunities or does he intend that each time an opportunity arises the institute will have to seek for ministerial approval?

Deputy Higgins asked why I was deleting subsection — (4). This subsection is no longer relevant in the sense that as it stands it vests the land in the vocational education committee. As the Deputy is aware, this land is now being vested in the colleges. This subsection is no longer relevant as it says, "shall be held by that committee...". The deletion of this subsection is consequential on the decision to transfer the property from the vocational education committee to the colleges. I regard this as a sign of my confidence in the governing bodies and my determination to devolve real authority and power to them.

It is a sign of a lack of confidence in the vocational education committees.

That is arguable. It has been said many times that Marlbor- ough Street has to give more authority to governing bodies; so too have the vocational education committees. If I do not give them more authority I am merely paying lip service to the future strength of governing bodies. I feel very strongly about this. The same applies to religious orders. We have to give the governing bodies the authority and not pretend to give it to them and do nothing. One cannot give power to organisations without diluting the power of some other body. This power currently resides substantially in the Department of Education, the vocational education committees and the religious orders. If we are to give powers to the colleges then those three centres will have to share their power with the governing bodies of colleges and schools. No doubt this is a theme I will repeat many times during the discussion on the Green Paper.

I wish to refer to research and consultancy work. I am glad Deputies welcome my decision to remove the requirement of ministerial approval from many of the sections. Having listened carefully to what Deputy O'Shea said, I wish to indicate my willingness to remove this requirement from subsection (1) (a). I am happy to remove the words, "such other courses as the Minister may direct", from this paragraph. I do this to show that I am consistent in my determination to give authority to the governing body and to have ministerial involvement only in areas where it might be necessary for the moment to ensure a smooth transition.

The reason I retained this requirement in regard to consultancy, research and development work is that when I was in my previous ministry I was dragged into this House on many occasions and asked why I did not keep better control on some semi-State companies and why I allowed subsidiary companies to wander around the world and commit Irish taxpayer's money. I was asked if I was aware that, for example, subsidiary company No. 52 of a major national semi-State body was trading in a certain country and committing vast sums of Irish taxpayers' money and if they were brought before the Minister.

I have no doubt that if a university project or a campus company engaged in, for example, the construction of offices or apartments, or some commercial work went spectacularly down the tubes, every Deputy would queue up to table questions to the Minister for Education asking what controls he had on the institution, why did he not make it his business to inquire into the exposure of the company and so on. They would be correct to do that. However, we cannot have it both ways. If third level institutions are to get involved in commercial work and the Minister of the day is to be called before the House to account for any disasters which might occur in that area then I have to include a provision which provides that he has to give some approval to that work.

I do not wish to be negative, and I wish the colleges well. Many of them are doing very well at present. I visited Kevin Street College of Technology, and UCG, which both Deputy Gilmore and I attended, and saw at first hand the very fine work being done. I wish them well and will give them every encouragement. The only involvement the Minister will have will be in the laying down of general guidelines. He will not have an involvement in regard to specific companies or consultancy assignments; he will lay down general guidelines to protect taxpayers' money. I do not regard this as anything other than a safety net; I do not regard it as meddling. To be blunt, when I had responsibility for semi-State companies, I learned the hard way about the responsibility of Ministers for their activities. I feel that same sense of responsibility in regard to third level institutions. I trust that none of these institutions will have any difficulty. They will get every support from my Department. Given that we are in largely unchartered waters, it would be as well if the Minister was at least aware of the types of activities in which they should become involved and laid down general guidelines.

The second reason I am retaining this proviso is to avoid duplication. Research work is extraordinarily expensive; we are talking about multi-million pound projects. It makes no sense for two institutions a few miles apart to be engaged in the same multi-million pound research project. It makes total sense for the Department, on receiving information about similar projects in similar institutions, to try to pull them together and avoid unnecessary duplication. This is not in any way to involve the Department or the Minister in the substantive work of research; that is not the Minister's business. However, it is his business to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication or risk. That is the reason I am retaining this proviso. It is not meddling; it is simply a safety net. I believe it is necessary because in other public institutions Ministers were held responsible for difficulties that emerged. Many a spectacular scandal was raised in this House in the past year or two about public companies when it was asked why the Minister did not know what was going on in certain areas. There is no exact similarity in this case but nevertheless it is better to keep an eye on the position until we are further down the road, and there may be a time when that is not necessary. That is already the practice in the Higher Education Authority. In some cases commercial projects are at arm's length from the Department and the Minister and very often from the institution.

Deputy O'Shea asked about ministerial involvement. I have already answered that question but I think the Deputy is reading the Bill wrongly as regards centralisation in Marlborough Street. My introduction to the Green Paper specifically pointed out that a major aim of educational policy in the decades ahead is to take power away from Marlborough Street and the Minister and to push it down the line to the lowest possible level, which is the governing body of the institution. That would mean diluting authority for everybody else on the way down. In this Bill I am stripping away the Minister's powers. I have taken some stick for that but I stand over it. I have also transferred some authority from the vocational education committees to the institutions. I would argue, therefore, that I am being totally consistent in transferring power to the governing body.

I am a little amused that the Deputy accuses me of rushing through the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. These Bills were published in June 1991. They are long overdue and should have been passed along ago. Hopefully they have benefited from the additional consideration given to them.

I do not necessarily agree with the Minister in relation to justifying his retention of power in terms of research and development. I can see the guiding hand of the Minister as a custodian or overseer. However, I do not agree that if college A is doing research and development in a certain area that area should be exclusive to that college and college B, irrespective of whether it is one mile or ten miles down the road, should be precluded from involvement. Competition in education, as in all areas, is a good thing. Competition is the life of trade. I have no doubt about that. I gave instances in regard to UCD, UCC, UCG and the colleges in Glasnevin and Limerick, all of which are revenue earners. I cannot understand why, if one of the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges wants to become involved in an area in which they had not been involved up to now, they should not be allowed to become involved. However, I can understand that the Minister may wish to retain an overseer role in this area.

There is a commercial aspect to research and development but it is not exclusively commercial. All research and development projects should also have a learning element from the point of view of the students involved. It should not be simply a case of somebody bringing something into the college for tests or utilising the facilities of the college; there should also be a learning element involved. That should be one of the preconditions set down in relation to involvement in research and development because it is vital that the student body be the first concern.

We welcome the section as amended by the Minister, particularly where the functions of conferring degrees, post-graduate degrees and so on, are included. I am glad the Minister has accepted this principle. However, if the Minister is pushing the awarding of degrees down the road by a minimum of one year then as a consequence he is also pushing post-graduate awards down the road. Post-graduate degrees and awards should take place simultaneously. One of the areas of activity which adds lustre to third level institutions, particularly universities, is that people who have achieved levels of excellence are recognised and receive post-graduate awards. I know it is only a frill in many cases but there is an important symbolism involved and it is a distinguishing feature. We know that awards of particular institutions can have a certain status over and above those of sister institutions. We hope that post-graduate awards by the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges will have a certain lustre of their own.

I would point out that in relation to some post-graduate awards, from time to time doctorates have been bestowed on people from various walks of life and these people have been only too willing to put the title "Dr. " in front of their names on all letter headings, even though in all cases the doctorate might not have been deserved. This again is a source of anxiety.

I had to smile when the Minister was telling us about the dangers that would result from colleges engaged in research. The idea comes to mind of the Bolton Street College of Technology conducting research into the construction industry and the effect of climate on different materials in the building industry, setting up some offshore company, or building villas in Spain or Saudi Arabia, and spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. I would point out to the Minister that out of all the millions of pounds which the vocational education committees handled over the years not one penny went astray. Every committee throughout the country have a great record of commitment in regard to public finance and so on. They would be quite competent to do the job which the Minister is retaining in this instance. They would be competent in dealing with the whole area of research and so on. The Minister has even taken from vocational education committees the power to make recommendations. Therefore, I feel he has a prejudice against the vocational education committees. It is a question of granting all power to the governing bodies, but that could turn out to be quite a bad thing because governing bodies tend to think about status, how they can get one up on somebody else, improve their image or whatever. They may not think of the public interest or of equality of opportunity in education. The Minister makes the removal of democracy sound like a good thing. The removal of democracy is never a good thing no matter what excuses there may be for it. It is removed by calling it bureaucracy.

It is quite dangerous to remove the vocational education committee system from the structure. The Minister should remember that constant effort has been made by vocational education committees at positive discrimination to ensure that pupils in disadvantaged areas move on to second and third level education. There has been a constant battle, certainly by the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, to try to help those pupils by setting up linkages between second level schools and third level colleges. If the Minister prevents vocational education committees from even making recommendations and suggestions to Governing bodies, he will be doing a bad job in the educational field and as far as the Culliton report is concerned.

Under the present system apprentices can move on by virtue of training and craftsmanship developed to certificate and diploma courses and some have gone on to degree courses due to the encouragement and linkage from second to third level. Giving all the power to the governing body may not be right. On Second Stage, Deputy O'Rourke, as Minister, acknowledged that the whole question of equality of opportunity had not been mentioned in the Bill. It is being accepted now. The Minister must keep this area in mind and must include procedures in the Bill to ensure there is some linkage from second to third level. At the moment that is well done by the vocational education committee system which involves the community. Community involvement is vital because the people in an area know what their regional technical college, in this case the Dublin Institute of Technology, requires. The involvement of the community, public representatives and democratic institutions, is vital in a rapidly changing educational world. Consideration of the need for the vocational education committees is not a curtailment of the powers of the governing bodies. I would not want it to be seen in that way but vocational education committees have a role to play.

I acknowledge the undertaking given by the Minister that in subsection (1) (a) he will delete the terminology, "and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct", as an earnest of his good faith in terms of his commitment to the devolvement of power in the educational system. The Minister found my remark in relation to the rushing of the Bills a little amusing, but I will not accuse either the Minister or the Government of being in a hurry with the Green Paper which was promised for last September.

These Bills were delayed for reasons which relate to rows in the Fianna Fáil dressing room. Suddenly, after Whit we had a whole new——

Before we bring in the embrocation could we return to section 5?

I was responding to points made. I share some of the concerns of the Minister about guidelines in regard to research and development, consultancy and campus companies. If not now, will the Minister on Report Stage give a general direction on how these campus company guidelines will be formulated? Obviously, we are talking here about limited liability companies, and with companies, comes the whole area of accountability. Companies must be accountable. As Deputy Mac Giolla said, in the history of the vocational education committee not one penny has gone astray. This new departure in terms of campus companies, R and D and relationships with outside agencies and institutions means there is a need for definite guidelines and a definite process of accountability. I do not suggest that the guidelines should be draconian or that they should use "big brother" type terminology but they are necessary from the point of view of accountability.

The speed at which the Committee Stages of these Bills is being dealt with at a time when the Green Paper is about to be published puzzles me. The debate on the Green Paper should be as broadly based and as public as possible. The debate on the Green Paper could illustrate that aspects of these Bills do not serve the public interest. These Bills could have been put on ice for some time but we have to deal with them because the Government feel differently.

The role of the Higher Education Authority in the universities has not been defined in this debate. We have not discussed how their allocation is made and how they in theory, and in practice to a large extent, determine what money goes to various colleges and what activities they should pursue. According to a recent letter from the Department to the regional technical colleges, 22 degree or postgraduate qualifications had been approved by the Higher Education Authority, but the Department chose to block them. The Minister may say that 10 per cent is a notional figure, one that is put in in order to encourage debate but, at the end of the day, does the Minister envisage the Department giving the sector generally any more scope than that 10 per cent particularly in the developing situation which I have described, where there will be more competition between third level institutions for students? In that context, the undertaking the Minister gave tonight of making the degree conferring function available to the Dublin Institute of Technology will be difficult to deliver. That is the nature of things, and my experience of observing the Department makes me believe most firmly that the Department favour confining the development of degree courses to the university sector instead of developing them in the Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technical college sectors. When we take account of the fact that the dead hand of the Minister for Finance pervades the sector, that appears to be the bottom line.

The Minister asserts that I may be over-reacting to the further powers being given to the Department of Education. The Minister has been generous in some respects in amending the Bill. However, section 5 (1) states:

The principal function of the Institute shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,...

There are restrictive provisions in the Bill and we will deal with some of them tomorrow. While the Minister has taken some measures to loosen the section he has managed to confine its effect by subjecting it to further conditions, "as the Minister may determine." There is certainly justification for guidelines but in future the third level institutes will be competing for students and that is where I see the battle — although that is the wrong word to use in the context of education — being fought. All third level institutes will have to battle for sufficient students to maintain the staff numbers and competition will be intense.

This Bill will serve to put the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges at a disadvantage in terms of attracting high achievers by providing a broader range of degree courses than heretofore. The system has worked to date because of the vocational education committee involvement in developing their own institutions. To a large extent the institute will be rubber stamping a de facto situation but at the same time the Department of Education are being given the powers that really matter and these relate to the programmes and budgets of the colleges.

I welcome many of the changes that have now been made to section 5. However, I regret that minor differences still exist because, with a little more give and take, perhaps we could have had near to total agreement on this section.

I was alarmed when some Members suggested that the passage of these Bills should be delayed until after the publication of the Green Paper. Indeed, the Green Paper is only a discussion the emphasis may be changed and may be reflected in the White Paper to be published. Are Members suggesting that the passage of these Bills should be delayed until the publication of the Education Act? It would be frightening to consider the length of time it would take us to reach that stage, considering the numerous steps we have had to take to the approach of the publication of the Green Paper. We already have had the introductory process and I do not know if that will lead to a preface and whether there will be yet another stage before the Green Paper is published. I think it would serve to halt the development of education if we were to propose that we should make no further movement on these Bills, which I consider can stand alone, until such time as the Green Paper is published. This would be a total disservice to third level education, to the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology colleges and furthermore to the students who hope to go to these colleges. I would be strenuously opposed to such an approach and indeed would strongly urge the Minister to publish the Green Paper if that were to be the approach.

The Chair now encourages the Deputy to refer to "the Green Paper" in front of her and to section 5, as amended.

The Minister referred many times to the Green Paper.

The Deputy is straying very far from the matter under discussion on Committee Stage.

I wish to emphasise that I believe we have an obligation to ensure that we do not impede the passage of these Bills. We should try to enact legislation that will be of benefit to the colleges. I hope we will make progress on both these Bills and that they will be enacted without enormous delays.

I am totally opposed to any proposal to delay the passage of these Bills until the publication of the Green Paper. We have had experience before that, if we wait too long, nothing will happen. I hope we will proceed and enact these Bills.

Indeed I hope we will make progress on all matters relating to education instead of referring always to the long awaited Green Paper.

I wish to respond to the points Deputies made and it is important that I do so quickly. Deputy Jim Higgins asked if the introduction of degree and postgraduate degree courses would coincide. It is my wish that this would happen, assuming that is the decision within the timescale. I see no reason this should happen in any other way. I am keen to meet the Deputy's wishes in this regard as soon as we can do so. The Deputy also said that competition is a good thing. Of all people in this House, I can handle that concept but if two institutions ten miles apart are competing for a particularly expensive research project, which is undertaken at the taxpayers' expense, naked competition may not be the correct way to handle it. A more streamlined form of competition may be the best way to deal with it because of the amount of public funds involved.

Deputy Mac Giolla referred to the role of the vocational education committee on the board of the new colleges. May I remind the Deputy that 11 of the total of 18 members of the governing body of the Institute will be vocational education committee nominees, six of whom will be nominated directly by the vocational education committee, the other five coming from organisations which the vocational education committee will select. In other words, 11 members will come directly or indirectly from the vocational education committee sector. Therefore, it is not fair to assume that in giving the governing body power we are pushing the vocational education committees aside because in this particular case the vocational education committee will have the major role on the Governing Body of the Dublin Institute of Technology. The other members will be nominated by the staff, the students, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and so on. I accept the Deputy's point that the vocational education committees have played a major role in these colleges but still think they will play that role. They can also ensure that their role is developed because of the very strong hand they will have on the Governing Body of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Members have emphasised the role of the elected representatives. While I have stripped considerably the role the Minister will play, it must be remembered that Ministers are also elected representatives and that we are talking of national institutions funded largely from the national purse. To that extent there is some legitimate overseeing role for the Minister of the day, without his meddling. There is a very strong local requirement but not exclusively at the expense of the national role these institutions have to play. I am not suggesting that Bolton Street would start offshore companies or that sort of thing but with all the action of last year they might get excited.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share