Before proceeding on this, let me advise the House of a typographical error in respect of amendment No. 72 in the name of an tAire Oideachais on the green list of amendments dated 1 July 1992. The reference to the Vocational Education Act, 1980 should read "Vocational Education Act, 1930". Replace 1980 with 1930. The first amendment in the names of Deputy J. Higgins and Deputy Therese Ahearn is out of order.
Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991: Report Stage.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 20, to delete "applies" and substitute "applies and, in relation to the Regional Technical College Cork, includes a school of that College established as such under section 3 (1) (b)".
During Committee Stage Deputy O'Shea said that a definition of the word "school" used in this Bill was necessary. The amendment expands the definition of "college" to include the schools covered by this Bill, that is, the Cork School of Music and the Crawford College of Art and Design which are established at section 3 (1) (b) as schools of the regional technical college, Cork.
The amendment provides for the extension of the definition of "college" to include, in the case of the Cork regional technical college, the School of Music and the Crawford College of Art and Design. The amendment is tabled in response to a concern expressed on Committee Stage as to what exactly a school is in terms of this Bill and the view that a definition was required. We are now doing that.
I thank the Minister for responding to the point made on Committee Stage. However, the amendment does not define a school. It incorporates the school with a regional college but does no give a definition of "school". Further to that point, what is the present status of the heads of schools as in the two colleges in Cork? In the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill the terms "president" and "director" are used. What term will now apply to the head of a school in Cork? Does the Minister envisage any addition to define those positions? What will be the exact status of those positions?
The title will be "head of school" and they will retain all the conditions which apply at present.
Deputy O'Shea rose.
Strictly speaking, a Member may speak once only on Report Stage, but I will allow a brief question.
I will repeat a question which the Minister did not answer. The Minister did not define a school in the preliminary part of the Bill.
My legal advice is that it applies just to the particular schools in Cork. It is also referred to in section 3 (1) (b). "Schools" for the purposes of this Bill means those schools.
Amendment agreed to.
We now proceed to amendment No. 4. I observe that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 form a composite proposal and that amendment No. 31 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 31 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On a point of order, I observe from a letter received from you, a Cheann Comhairle, that amendments Nos. 3, 22, 30, 36 and 89 tabled by Deputy Ahearn and me have been ruled out of order as they represent a potential charge on the Revenue.
That is so.
While acknowledging your ruling, may I say a few words in respect of amendment No. 3?
The Chair may use his discretion in that matter. A brief reference to the amendment may be made, but of course it cannot be moved.
In this amendment Deputy Ahearn and I are trying to elicit the position of the Government in respect of very clear commitments given by the Minister's predecessors and politicians of my party in relation to the very clear need for the establishment of regional technical colleges in Thurles and Castlebar. We do so on the basis that there is a clearly established need for such colleges and on the basis of a very strong recommendation made on behalf of such colleges in a document published in November 1991 — the Commission of European Communities' Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community. That document sets down in the clearest possible terms the desirability from the point of view of regional development, of establishing regional colleges. The nine areas which have had the benefit of regional colleges since their establishment back in the sixties will testify to the impetus they have given to the development of their regions. The strong endorsement and recommendations in the document call for a very clear policy statement.
I have allowed Deputy Higgins to refer briefly to his amendment, which was ruled out of order, but clearly it cannot give rise to a debate.
I do not want a debate. County Mayo, as the third largest county, has the third highest participation rate in third level education. Every September there is a mass exodus of over 2,000 students from Mayo to the nine colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology and the universities. I will briefly quote what the European Commission said in this regard:
The very presence of a higher education institute in a region represents an investment around which a number of services will grow. It makes an area attractive for investment on account of the availability of highly trained manpower so necessary to the success of modern enterprise. A higher education facility represents the resource of knowledge, advice and research which can be availed of by business and industry.
I cannot permit elaboration on an amendment which has been ruled out of order.
As a matter or urgency, will the Minister please give a clear indication at the earliest possible date of the Government's commitment to the establishment of a regional technical college in Castlebar and, I hope, in Thurles? If possible, will he also give a timescale and an agenda in this regard?
The Minister may find an opportunity at another time to answer the Deputy's questions.
Deputy T. Ahearn rose.
I cannot permit the Deputy to speak as the amendment has been ruled out of order. I permitted Deputy Higgins to make a brief reference. The Chair's facility in this matter should not be abused. I am sorry. I advise Deputies who wish to intervene on matters of this kind that there will be a Fifth Stage of the Bill when they may do so. They may not do so at present.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 27 to 29.
Amendments which were circulated on 11 December 1991 provided for the inclusion of elected local representatives in the vocational education committee nominees. Concern was expressed on Committee Stage that this would preclude the inclusion of co-opted members of authorities. Therefore, the phrase "members of local authorities" was substituted for the phrase on line 27. The phrase "members of local authorities" was also inserted in section 6 on Committee Stage. This amendment and amendment No. 5, which define "local authority", are therefore consequential on this change. We are replacing the phrase "elected local representative" with "members of local authorities".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, between lines 6 and 7 to insert the following:
"local authority' means the council of a county, the council of a county or other borough or the council of an urban district;".
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 7 is cognate and I suggest, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 30, after "Minister" to insert "and the vocational education committee".
On Committee Stage of the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill I accepted an amendment from Deputies Higgins and Ahearn to the effect that whenever the Minister or the vocational education committee consider that any other institution, or part of an institution, should be incorporated in the institute the Minister may by order take the necessary action. I also undertook at that stage to consider a corresponding amendment for Report Stage of this Bill. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are the result of this undertaking.
I should tell the House that yesterday evening I met with representatives of the IVEA who made a strong case in favour of changing the word "or" to "and". They put it to me that it was extremely important that this change be made to ensure that the agreement of both the Minister and the vocational education committee would be required before this Bill could be applied to other institutions. As I have agreed to their strong request I am now putting forward this amendment to include the words "and the vocational education committee". This means, in effect, that in this area the Minister will only be able to act with the agreement of the vocational education committee. Before the Bill can be applied to other institutions the agreement of both the Minister and the vocational education committee will be required.
The reason I have put this amendment forward is that I wish to clarify that it is my intention to define an appropriate role for the vocational education committees. In response to their strongly stated wish I am now prepared to make this change, which is of importance to them. I accept their good intentions and would like to take this opportunity to thank them for a frank and fruitful meeting.
I trust that this amendment, which has been accepted, taken in conjunction with the other significant changes I have introduced, clarifies that it is my intention to ensure that the vocational education committees have an appropriate role, which can be debated during the next few months in the context of the Green Paper. We will have to discuss the question of the future of the structures of the vocational education committees and I look forward to that debate. As I said, I am putting this amendment forward at the direct request of the IVEA.
Let me welcome the reversal of throttle on the part of the Minister in this regard. During the course of the debate on Committee Stage we were strong advocates of the role of the vocational education committees. In the Minister's absence a substantial list of amendments was circulated as the debate was about to begin which plucked out the reference to the vocational education committees, neutralised their role and culled their activities in respect of vocational education. This was the bone of contention. We made a strong and impassioned plea that these amendments should not be proceeded with.
It is obvious however that political pressure pays — the three Ps. It is obvious also that the IVEA and the respective vocational education committees around the country, many of which are dominated by the Minister's party colleagues, got on their telephones and bicycles and started to lobby politically. They sent a clear message to the Minister that the references to the vocational education committees, who have done a lot of work in pioneering vocational and technical education, should not be deleted. That is the reason I welcome the rehabilitation of the vocational education committees in the two sectors referred to in the amendment. I cannot for the life of me understand the reason, given that reference was made to them in the original Bill, they were excluded on Committee Stage. It is necessary to include a reference to them. I am glad, therefore, that there has been a Pauline conversion and the Minister is now back on side.
Let me make the point again, in recognising the role of the vocational education committees, that we are about to discuss as part of the great national debate the Minister's document Education for a Changing World. The reason we need such a document is that during the years education has been identified with social policy while little or no legislation has been passed. For example, apart from the School Attendance Act, there is no legislation governing primary legislation; the system is based on the Stanley letter which was issued in the 1830's. Neither is there any legislation governing second level education, apart from the Intermediate Act, 1924. Much has happened in the meantime. We have now free education and community and comprehensive schools.
Indeed, there is no legislation governing the regional technical colleges. They are based on the one solid piece of legislation we have, the 1930 Vocational Education Committee Act, which has given rise to vocational schools, technical schools, night schools and the regional technical colleges and has stood the test of time. Yet, in one fell swoop the vocational education committees were virtually written out. Therefore, I do not blame Mr. Seán Conway, the IVEA or its members for feeling intense hurt last week when they realised that all of a sudden their contribution to vocational education was being thrown overboard. I am glad the Minister has recanted and has agreed to insert these two amendments. Later, we will ask him to reinsert the reference to the vocational education committees in those sections of the Bill where it was deleted.
I should say that it is sensible to include these sections, particularly in the light of the insertion of the reference to the vocational education committees. Section 3 (2), which is being amended will, now read as follows: "whenever the Minister and the vocational education committee consider that this Act should apply to any other educational institution..." Therefore what the Minister is doing is recognising the right of the vocational education committees to determine if there is a clear need to establish new regional technical colleges in areas such as Castlebar and Thurles. Not only is he enshrining this right in the legislation but he is defining their role and obligation to be aware of changing circumstances in an area which will give rise to such a development. As I said, I am glad the Minister has at this stage before the House passes the Bill agreed to enshrine the right of the vocational education committees in this regard.
I should say to the Minister that his Department have received a strong letter from County Mayo Vocational Education Committee and other associated vocational education committees in the western region which highlights the need to establish a regional technical college in the county. This section will enable County Galway Vocational Education Committee, for example, to say that they would have no objections if a sister college is established in County Mayo, that there is a need for a better spread of resources in the west and that they recognise the right of the people of County Mayo to have their own college. Therefore, if the City of Galway Vocational Education Committee, County Galway Vocational Education Committee or any other associated vocational education committee within that catchment area write to the Department it is clear that they will be exercising their right as enshrined in this Bill. I am glad the Minister has agreed to table this amendment and has decided on his own initiative to reinsert the reference to the role of the vocational education committees.
I wish to compliment the Minister for tabling these two amendments. The role of the vocational education committees has been decimated in relation to these colleges. That is a regressive step, but nonetheless the amendments are progressive and I compliment the Minister for introducing them even at this late stage. I will be supporting them.
I, too, welcome the amendment; but, if we are to be truthful, we expected it, given the wrath and anger expressed by the vocational education committees and the members of the IVEA. They compelled the Minister to reinsert the reference to the vocational education committees in this section. Nevertheless, I should point out that we argued in favour of this on Committee Stage, but unfortunately the Minister did not accept our arguments at that time. We argued that the vocational education committees should have a say in relation to the need to establish educational establishments in the future.
The two vocational education committees in County Tipperary, both north and south, have identified the need to establish a third-level college in Thurles. Not only have these two committees made the case for a regional technical college but they have also made the case for a rural and business institute. This was a role taken by the local vocational education committees, where they identified a need for expansion in third level education in rural studies relating to the agricultural and food industries, and they outlined that these particular areas of education were not being catered for in any of the other regional colleges. The input and the proposals put forward by both North and South Tipperary vocational education committees are proof of the input the vocational education committee can have in outlining the need for third level education and indicating where regional technical colleges should be established. As I have said, rural and business studies are areas where further courses should be provided. Tipperary, which is the second largest county in Ireland, does not have a third level education college. The evidence of this can be seen every weekend when droves of students leave for outlying counties in order to receive third level education.
Sadder still, on a recent review we have not emerged well from our participation in third level education. I understand we are one of the fourth worst participants due entirely to the lack of availability of third level education facilities within the county. In County Tipperary we have not only identified the need for a college but also specified the areas of need which are rural and business studies and this is indeed proof that vocational education committees should be reinserted into this part of the Bill. It is unfortunate that the vocational education committees which had been successful, were then omitted and now, because of pressure, have been reinstated. It was a poor response to the immense work done by the vocational education committees to date, but I do hope that under this section of the Bill the vocational education committees will be given a real say in the location of colleges in the future and that this will lead to a third level college being established in Thurles and providing courses in both rural and business education. I welcome the amendment but, as I pointed out, it is merely in line with what we proposed on Committee Stage.
I also thank the Minister for making this change. On Second Stage when Deputy O'Rourke was Minister, I and other Deputies raised this issue on these two sections and I tabled an amendment to delete "the Minister" and insert "the vocational education committee"—"whenever the vocational education committee recommends". At that stage the vocational education committee has some input throughout the Bill and it was a substantially different Bill in many ways. Also at that stage there were sections dealing with the local education authorities. I do not recall whether they were replacing or joining with the vocational education committees but there was a democratic element in the original Bill.
Therefore, it was quite a shock when the Minister proceeded to eliminate the vocational education committees throughout the Bill and made reference to "layer of bureaucracy". That was a particularly worrying and perhaps insulting phrase to people who had dedicated their lives over a number of generations to a system of education which was democratic, secular, non-denominational, non-selective, and which catered for people who were very innovative, in fact, the only innovative element in the educational system, taking into consideration the absolutely negative attitude of the Department of Education over many decades. I am not referring to the Department of Education as they have operated over the past ten or 15 years, when they certainly have been much more progressive, but for decades they were a most regressive Department, while the vocational education committees played a very prominent role in developing educational systems.
In recent years particularly, all the innovations and developments have been pioneered by the vocational education committees. In addition to the pioneering work in which the curriculum development unit have been involved over the past 15 years or more, they have also been interested in various spheres of education that others totally neglected, i.e. the education of the handicapped, the education of prisoners and, of course, the development of adult education, which has progressed enormously. They also developed the post-leaving certificate courses and expanded the scope of education to many people, particularly the disadvantaged. The vocational education committees were the only people who gave any real help to the disadvantaged and who constantly catered for them and ensured that they received an education. Other educational institutions cast them aside; they only wanted the best, not those who had any educational difficulties. The vocational education committees welcomed these people and worked with them, which was a difficult task. They developed a complete remedial teaching area, school psychological services, etc. because it was necessary.
To discover now that all the great work of the vocational education committees was totally ignored by the Minister for Education, who regarded them as another layer of bureaucracy, was not very nice and angered people. I said on the last occasion we debated this that I did not agree with IVEA's phraseology and references to betrayal in their letter to the Minister. I do not agree with the use of such words but I am sure the Minister will understand their anger. Perhaps the Minister did not see it that way when he was making that comment but it was quite hurtful. The elimination of the vocational education committee system is evident in this Bill and we wondered last week whether the Green Paper would confirm that. It was certainly evident from that document that it is intended to abolish the 1930 Act. That was a very worrying aspect of the Green Paper because in particular the element of democracy was being eliminated from the educational system. Also, the idea of regional and community control, and the development of the educational system in different areas with different needs and ideas, was being eliminated.
To eliminate a democratic element on the basis that it is just another layer of bureaucracy is, if I may say so to the Minister, a typical dictatorial attitude, saying it is only bureaucracy: I can run this show better myself without these layers of bureaucracy. That is the problem with democracy. If it did not obtain the Minister would not have to waste his time here listening to Members tell him what he should be doing and so on. Democracy is all about people having their say all along the line. It may delay things, or be annoying to somebody trying to get something done to have to listen to somebody, perhaps a county councillor or a member of a vocational education committee who thinks they know better.
Unfortunately, the way democracy is being developed under the Green Paper on Education and this Bill is an indication of the attitude, that there will be the Department at the top and individual schools running their own shows. I might add it is not just the fault of the Minister; this is a departmental idea. The Department want to be at the top dealing with individual schools and boards of management, with nobody in between to tell the Department anything in regard to how education should develop, what is required in this or that area, no vocational system, no local educational authorities or such bodies.
I am delighted the Minister tabled this amendment. I hope it is an indication that he is willing to acknowledge the great achievements of the vocational education committee system if only within the regional technical college context. The regional technical colleges which have been in existence for a few years have become a major regional element. Every region wants a regional technical college because they perceive its enormous benefits to young people in the area as a means of attracting industry. Each regional technical college developed its expertise, perhaps because of the region in which it is located, the type of industry located there, or which could be developed there and so on. The regional technical colleges have been of enormous economic importance.
Nobody can say they were restricted or constrained by the vocational education committees; far from it. That overall development, community inspiration, emanated from the involvement of local representatives, county councillors and others, on vocational education committee boards, whether they were employers, parents, students, trade unionists. They were all represented on vocational education committee school committees and colleges. It has always been the trademark of the vocational education committee system that all people were represented on schools subcommittees and college boards. That is vital. The 1930 Act may be old but it is very flexible and, as yet, its provisions have not been used to their full potential. Only as one begins to implement its provisions does one see the enormous flexibilty that is in the 1930 Act. If it is to be abolished I should like to see it replaced by one that would allow similar democratic, non-denominational, secular influence in the educational system, the involvement of people in the development of education in their areas and a say in the type of education they should have and want. It is vital that the vocational education committees who built up these colleges and ensured that links prevailed between second-level schools and colleges, be maintained. That would ensure also a linkage into local communities, industries and so on. It is crucial that that linkage be maintained through the vocational education committee system.
I hope the Minister, in tabling this amendment, is indicating that he will ensure that vocational education committee involvement is retained in the regional technical colleges and in the Dublin Institute of Technology constituent colleges with which we will be dealing later. It would be my hope that their scope would be further enhanced in the future under the terms of the Green and White Papers. What is important is that their local or regional involvement in education be extended rather than narrowed; in other words, that it be extended to the primary as well as second and third levels.
I congratulate the Minister on his flexibility and on acceding to the democratic wishes of the IVEA who made strong representations to him. It is good to see democracy working.
I shall not detain the House and perhaps, we have spent too much time on these amendments bearing in mind that we have not reached section 13. I hope all Members will make a real effort to deal with the next few sections quickly so that we can move to the uncharted territory of section 14.
It is no big deal for the Minister to have conceded to tabling this amendment. The Minister is a man of considerable experience. He fully understands that the constraints laid down — even by acceptance of the amendment and the inclusion of the words "vocational education committee"— mean that, even following consultations between his Department and a relevant vocational education committee, the consent of the Minister for Finance must be forthcoming before the First Schedule can be changed. It is important, at least in the context of Deputy Mac Giolla's treatise on democracy, that the public understand that the Minister was sufficiently flexible to introduce this amendment. That will give a number of communities some hope, communities who have for long been harbouring a dream that their region or area might be included in an amended First Schedule.
I have no wish to make a Second Stage speech but I am sure that, when the Minister examines the files in his Department, he will observe that there were numerous consultations, deputations and agreements between the Mayo vocational education committee and his predecessors in the Department of Education regarding the provision of a regional technical college there. I very much regret that the First Schedule does not include Castlebar for a regional technical college. On 17 December 1981 the then Minister, former Deputy John Boland, reiterated in this House his commitment to establish a regional technical college in Castlebar. On 17 February 1983 the then Minister for Education, former Deputy Hussey, said she was aware of her predecessor's decision and was satisfied both as to the validity and strength of the argument for the location of a regional technical college in Castlebar.
On 16 May 1985 the Department of Finance issued formal sanction to commence the planning and design of Castlebar and Thurles regional technical colleges. On 7 June 1985 the then Minister, former Deputy Hussey, gave the go-ahead for Castlebar, following which a design team comprised of architects, services engineers, structural engineers and quantity surveyors, were appointed on 28 June 1985. The proposed college was designed to cater for an enrolment of 800 students at an estimated cost, at that time of £9 million. I was a member of several delegations which met with the officials in the Minister's Department when a curriculum and a syllabus were agreed. It took some considerable examination of potential sites before agreement could be reached. On 28 January 1987, in the last days of that Coalition Government, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy John Bruton, formally sanctioned the provision of money to purchase a site once the relevant agreements were reached, and these agreements were reached.
I would advise the Deputy that he should conclude. I have allowed him some latitude.
I appreciate that, a Chathaoirligh, I just want to say to the Minister that he is relatively new in this Department but he is a person of some considerable experience. I have tabled a question to him for written answer and I would be very happy if he would agree to meet a formal deputation from Mayo vocational education committee which would include all the Oireachtas Members from County Mayo to clarify, in the context of this amendment, where the Minister and his Department stand on this question of the regional technical colleges. I would add that the Minister's colleague, the present Minister for Justice, made a specific commitment on more than one occasion that third level courses would be up and running in the town by last September and this commitment has not been honoured. I would appreciate it if the Minister would concede that. In the context of this amended section, I hope that at long last, after a very long battle, the people of County Mayo will be given this long promised facility.
I would like to thank all the Deputies for their very generous response to this amendment, which I appreciate. Deputy Higgins tabled it on the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and used the word "or" instead of "and" and we have met that requirement. To the extent that this amendment is here, it is a credit to Deputy Higgins.
I do not regard it as a reversal of policy but as a sensible decision. If the vocational education committee decided that this Colleges Bill should not be extended to other institutions, that is obviously a power that they should have. This Colleges Bill is about the regional technical colleges so when the IVEA ask that they and the Minister should be joined, as it were, in deciding whether it should be applied to other institutions, I have no difficulty with that because the Bill is really about the existing regional technical colleges. Were one to extend it in a dramatic way to other institutions, the decent thing to do would be to come back to the House with a fresh Bill and extend it in that way if that was the decision of the Government of the day. I do not regard this as a reversal of direction. The direction is not to attack the vocational education committees. The direction, as I pointed out publicly on a number of occasions since, is to give authority to the governing body of the college. I cannot give them more authority unless I take that authority from somewhere else and I have taken it from the Minister and from the vocational education committees. That is a very simple equation. I have left very substantial authority with the vocational education committee throughout the Bill and have struck the Minister out of the Bill as far as I possibly can. I am trying to get a balance here between the role of the vocational education committee and the new colleges. The principle in this Bill seeks to define the respective roles.
This is a totally new section. Deputy Higgins is not strictly correct because it was not in the original Bill and taken out and then put back in. It was not in the Bill in the first place but is a totally new section and, I hope, a welcome one.
Deputy Ahearn asked about the establishment of new regional technical colleges. The Minister must make the ultimate decision in regard to any new regional technical college. Deputy Kenny is right in saying that the Minister for Finance will want a major say in that decision. That must be the case for budgetary reasons but the regional technical college can recommend it. Therefore, new regional technical colleges are a matter for policy decision which are not particularly appropriate to this legislation. If they are established the Minister and the vocational education committee jointly could decide to extend this legislation to them.
I have taken careful note of what Deputy Kenny said. He is a very strong campaigner for County Mayo. I have no doubt that what he says will be warmly supported throughout the county. I will give active consideration to meeting a deputation as he has asked but I repeat that the establishment of new regional technical colleges is a matter for a Government policy decision taking into account finances, spread and so on. I know he feels strongly about this and I will give strong consideration to his request for a meeting with a deputation.
Finally, in regard to what Deputy Mac Giolla said, if the phrase "layer of bureaucracy" insulted the vocational education committees then I would regret that. It is not my intention to insult the vocational education committees. I have great respect for local public representatives. I think everybody in this House should have. It is not that I am saying to the vocational education committees that I do not want a layer of bureaucracy because I can do things better myself. What I am saying is that I do not necessarily want another organisation or group of people, but that the boards of colleges can do the job because they are there on the ground and know the college. It is very important that we have boards of management and governing bodies who have authority and some say in developing their particular institution. Otherwise we may as well not have them.
For too long we have had a large number of governing bodies and boards of management all over the country and every time they wanted to move they have had to get on to Dublin or the vocational education committee and have been tied hand and foot. What I am doing here is not insulting the vocational education committees, I hope, but simply asking them to share power and to trust the boards and governing bodies of these colleges. They will have the largest single representation on the boards. They have substantial powers retained throughout the Bill. If one includes the five organisations which they nominate on top of their own six nominees — and I am aware that that is a thin enough argument — given that they will probably be local organisations to which they would be very close, they in fact have a majority on the boards and governing bodies of these colleges. They still have a very active role. I have tried to achieve a balance between giving the college governing body a substantial say in the day-to-day running of the institution and retaining a role for the vocational education committee in the broader democratic process.
I want to repeat that the Green Paper says that we have to debate the future of the vocational education committees. I think we really have to do that. I would suggest that they would have a very strong role in adult education in the future, in literacy programmes, in developing the role of the disadvantaged and developing programmes for the disadvantaged.
It is all peripheral stuff.
Incidently, the Green Paper puts as its very first objective the tackling of disadvantage. I see the vocational education committee having a clear role in that and that certainly is not peripheral; it is very central and the main aim of education at this time is to develop and work out a clear approach to tackling disadvantage in education. I could not accept the notion that I have pushed the vocational education committee off the stage or that there has been a reversal of policy. I have been entirely consistent in giving power to governing bodies and seeking some balance with the other institutions.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 40, after "Minister" to insert "and the vocational education committee".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 8 is out of order but I will allow a brief comment.
The Minister was not here for Committee Stage debate when Deputy Ahearn and I very strongly advocated the need for a very hard look at the title of the colleges. This is not to be in any way disrespectful of the role of the colleges up to now. We did debate a number of things in relation to the number of colleges. The Minister will recall that on the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill we spoke about the fact that the degree has an aura and a status and that we should give all the colleges degree conferring rights. We also discussed the title of the colleges because title is important. The term "university" is an internationally recognised term. The term "regional technical college" is our own creation, our own title for our particular localised institutions.
We know regional technical colleges do tremendous work but in many cases it has to be explained what they are about. When one has to explain what an institution do it diminishes their status. We advocated the replacement of the term "regional technical college" with the internationally recognised term "regional polytechnic college". We did this on the basis that the word "technical" has second level education connotations — for example, technical schools and technical subjects — and that regional technical colleges have grown outside the ambit of technical colleges, they are polytechnic, all-embracing colleges. For example, they offer courses in science, technology, advanced business studies and marketing. To do justice to these colleges and the curriculum they are advancing we should give them the all-embracing, clearly identifiable and internationally recognisable title of regional polytechnic colleges. Many good terms are used in the Green Paper. Some of these are "buzz" terms as, for example, enterprise culture. Nowhere is this culture more in evidence than in the regional technical colleges. They have gladly grasped that challenge and agenda and have run very strongly with it. I ask the Minister, if he is given the opportunity to reply, to give an indication that he will consider this suggestion. The Fine Gael Senators will put down an amendment in this respect when the Bill is going through the Seanad.
May I——
Acting Chairman
I have allowed one speaker——
My name is to the amendment.
Acting Chairman
It does not matter. I allowed one speaker. I call on Deputy Brian O'Shea to move amendment No. 9.
Will you permit me to give a brief response to Deputy Higgins?
Acting Chairman
I gave Deputy Higgins some latitude to make his point and I will give the Minister the same latitude.
I am sympathetic to changing the term "regional technical colleges". Under the legislation this can be done by way of ministerial order. This issue can be discussed in the course of the debate on the Green Paper over the next six months. I think it is referred to in the Green Paper. At the end of that process a decision can be taken as to whether or not a ministerial order is necessary. If a new name can be agreed I will accept it.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Acting Chairman
We now come to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(a) the vocational education committee,".
On Committee Stage I sought an explanation of what membership of a college entailed. It appears that membership of a college is merely an honorary position which has no legal standing and which does not confer any rights or responsibilities. Therefore, membership of a college is no big deal, so to speak. My amendment proposes that members of a vocational education committee should be members of a college. The spirit of goodwill which has been displayed in the debate so far by our acceptance of the Minister's two amendments would be reciprocated if the Minister accepted this amendment.
I do not see why the other members of the vocational education committee should be excluded from being members of a college. Six members of the vocational education committee will be members of the governing body and subsequently members of the college. Why should the other members of the vocational education committee be excluded from membership in this instance? Membership of a college is purely an honorary position which does not bring with it any responsibilities or powers; it does not give the members any role in the running of a college. If the Minister accepts this amendment it will give vocational education committees an assurance that he sees a continuing and effective role for them in the regional technical colleges sector.
I support this amendment. Membership of a college is really an honorary position which does not mean all that much in reality. I ask Deputy O'Shea to clarify whether he is referring to the principal vocational education committee or all the vocational education committees within the catchment area of the college. I do not see any problem in appointing the members of the vocational education committee to be members of a college as they will not impede, hinder or interfere with the workings of the college. In recognition of their role and participation in some areas of the college it is only correct that they should be appointed members of the college.
My amendment No. 10, which is similar to Deputy O'Shea's amendment proposes, that "the members of the vocational education committee" should be members of the college. I put down this amendment because I find it difficult to understand why members of the vocational education committee should be excluded from being members of the college. The Minister may say that vocational education committees are covered because the members of the governing body are included and vocational education committees will have six members on the governing body. On a few occasions on Committee Stage the Minister made the point that vocational education committees do not have to have any involvement in the college because they will have six members on the governing body and they can nominate the people to appoint another five members. This gives the impression that vocational education committees will have 11 members on the governing body. This is not true; they will only be able to nominate bodies to appoint members who will not be able to speak on behalf of the vocational education committee. In addition, the members of the vocational education committee on the governing body will speak as members of the governing body; they will not have to report back to the vocational education committees. They will not be members of the vocational education committee any longer; they will be members of the governing body. The vocational education committee will not have power over the governing body or the college. The governing body will make their decisions without reference to the vocational education committee. It is wrong to say that the vocational education committee will have some control over the governing body merely because they can nominate members to it. I do not think the Minister should give that answer this time.
As Deputy O'Shea said, membership of the college does not bring with it any power or control; it is merely a recognition of involvement. If the Minister believes members of vocational education committees should not have any involvement in colleges he should say so. However if he believes their importance and involvement should be recognised, why can they not be members of a college? We are not dealing with a major issue here; it is merely a question of recognition. We should at least recognise that the members of vocational education committees have had some involvement in the development, expansion and achievements of the regional technical colleges.
I support amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy O'Shea. My amendment No. 10 is almost indentical. I have nothing further to add to the comments of Deputies O'Shea and Mac Giolla. On amendment No. 11, which deals with FÁS, I support this recognition of the contribution made by FÁS to our educational system. They have a very valuable role to play in this area and this should be clearly recognised. Therefore I support amendment No. 11.
I support the amendments in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy O'Shea. What we are doing here is recognising the corporate image of the college, much of which, as Deputy O'Shea has rightly said, is cosmetic. From the point of view of appearances and of recognising the role of vocational education committees it is right that we should facilitate their inclusion. The people who have been involved in regional technical colleges from the start have a right to be included on the vocational education committee and the governing body. There is duplication in that six members of the vocational education committee are also on the governing body. As a token of recognition of the role of the vocational education committees it would be a nice gesture on the part of the Minister to accept these amendments.
There is also the question of the academic council, the members of staff, the registered student body and the graduates of the college. The amendment in the names of Deputy Ahearn and myself propose that representatives of FÁS be included. I thank Deputy Garland for supporting this amendment. FÁS are a national training agency who receive a budget of £2 million from the European Social Fund. They have a common funding mechanism with that of regional technical colleges, which are also ESF funded, although it will be on a diminished scale if the Minister proceeds with the means testing proposal. A wide range of apprenticeships are provided by FÁS, as is the case with regional technical colleges, yet ne'er the twain shall meet. It is extraordinary that in these two areas dealing with apprenticeships, there is no representative of FÁS on the regional technical colleges, even by way of token recognition. We would like to see a FÁS presence not merely on the regional technical colleges but also on the governing body. I do not know whether the term "apprenticeship" is infra dig. but we are talking about educational training and apprenticeships have stood the test of time. If we are to fulfil our ambition to develop apprenticeships within Europe there should be a greater concentration on that area. There should be positive mention of apprenticeships in the Bill.
I would point out to the Minister that the Industrial Training Act, 1967, clearly sets out the role of vocational education committees in apprenticeships. For example, section 32 (1) states:
An Chomhairle may, with the consent of the Minister for Education, make arrangements for the provision by a vocational education committee of courses of instruction in the nature of technical education of a type which An Chomhairle and the vocational education committee agree is suitable for persons employed by way of apprenticeship in a designated industrial activity.
Section 32 (2) of the Act states:
Where a course of instruction is provided by a vocational education committee either under subsection (1) of this section for persons employed by way of apprenticeship in a designated industrial activity, or under section 39 of the Act of 1959 for persons so employed in a trade which stands specified for the time being in an order under section 21 of that Act, An Comhairle may...
I find it difficult to understand why FÁS, a State agency, should not be enshrined as part of the corporate image or identity of the regional technical college. We are asking that representatives of the vocational education committee and FÁS be considered for membership of the college.
We are also talking about the research and development aspect of the colleges. Therefore, we might usefully consider including Eolas, another State agency, to take on board research and development of a type needed in the national interest. If we are making a major play of the fact that regional technical colleges will be heavily involved in research and development, surely Eolas should be included as a component part not alone of the regional technical college but also of the governing body. I know we are not at liberty at this stage to include Eolas for membership of the college but I am sure it is a matter to which our people in the Seanad will give consideration on Committee Stage of the Bill there. I am sign-posting to the Minister in advance the need to give some thought to the inclusion of Eolas as well as FÁS. Perhaps he would respond to that matter.
The concept of membership of a college is a standard concept which is included in other legislation. It is designed largely to be internal and not necessarily to include representative organisations who have a genuine interest in the college. As Deputy O'Shea said, it is a purely honorary concept, conferring no great duties or privileges. It is a concept which is standard to third level institutions, listing the membership of the college internally. However, that in no way diminishes the legitimate external relationships between the college governing body and FÁS, Eolas, the IDA, CTT or Bord Fáilte. The vocational education committee have a slightly different role in that they are obviously substantially more entwined with the colleges. The relationship between the governing body and the vocational education committee is clearly spelled out in this legislation. There is a balance between the governing body and the vocational education committee and it is better to keep it that way.
This is standard concept which is designed to be internal. I would point out that section 4 (1) (f) states: "such other persons as the governing body may appoint to be members..." The point is made that it is designed to be an internal appointment. Nevertheless, if the governing body so decide they could use clause (f) to appoint such other persons as they wish to be members. If they choose to use that clause along the lines suggested by the Deputy, clearly under the wording of this legislation, although not under the spirit of it, they would be entitled to do so. Therefore I would not be disposed to accepting these amendments at this stage. Deputy Higgins referred to apprenticeships and I will deal with that matter later as it arises in a number of areas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"(f) representatives of FÁS".
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John. (Wexford).
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- 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.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 12 in the names of Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn has already been discussed with amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 13 in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendment No. 14 is an alternative to amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 92 is related and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 92 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to delete ", and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct".
The inclusion of this provision was raised on Committee Stage of the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill and I undertook to introduce an amendment to delete the provision on Report Stage. I am pleased to introduce a corresponding amendment in this Bill.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 92 are in line with the principle of removing ministerial control where possible. They remove the powers of the Minister to direct the provision of specific courses and the requirement for the concurrence of the Minister in designating the title of the chairman. They seek to remove some aspects of the role of the Minister, as I undertook to do on Committee Stage.
I welcome this amendment. On Committee Stage of the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, the Minister agreed to remove the phrase "as the Minister may from time to time direct" at my request.
In amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Mac Giolla and I, we seek to amend the functions of the college by inserting into section 5 (a) the words "taking cognisance of regional interests" so that subsection (a) now reads:
to provide such courses of study as the governing body of the college considers appropriate taking cognisance of regional interests.
This is a fundamental issue. The Government side now concedes that the regional technical colleges are now regional institutions in name only because they are part of the CAO-CAS system. Students from around the country are entitled to apply for places in any regional technical college and if they reach the required standard they must be accepted as students. This has an effect on the region, particularly where the standard of entry is higher than in another college. Students from a particular region may have to go to a regional technical college in a different region to pursue the course they are interested in because the entry standard in their own region is higher. I have seen this happen in my area. It is very important to take cognisance of the regional interest.
I wish to take the opportunity to correct a mistake I made a number of times on Committee Stage. I suggested that the circular letter of 14 May issued by the Department stopped Waterford regional technical college from conferring a series of degrees or post-graduate awards which had been approved by the National Council for Educational Awards. It has been brought to my attention since then that that was not correct. I should like to make that correction now.
At the outset we were told that the Regional Technical Colleges Bill and the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill would give the colleges more autonomy in their day-to-day administration and would allow the colleges become more involved in research and development work. That is crucial. The Green Paper on Education states that an important aspect of the new legislation for the regional technical colleges, and the Dublin Institute of Technology, is the provision to permit them engage in research and development work with industry. It adds that such research would be mainly applied research with a regional dimension and in the area of the synthesis and dissemination of existing knowledge. It is stated that it is envisaged that basic research would still be conducted largely by the universities. That is the real agenda.
On Second and Committee Stages I made the point that the Green Paper stated that the Department envisage the regional technical colleges becoming involved in research and development and consultancy work of a minor nature with the more prestigious and important research and development work going to the universities. Such an approach would be consistent with the role of regional technical colleges. However, regional technical colleges have the impression that in relation to the areas of research and development in which they can become involved the sky will be the limit.
Regional interests in this regard is a broad issue. In the regions now those projects requiring research and development work that are available from large manufacturing companies gravitate toward the universities. It is obvious from the statement I read from the Green Paper that the intention is to continue with this trend. It is somewhat misleading to suggest that one of the two main reasons for the Bill is to allow regional technical colleges to become involved in research and development work. The amount of research and development work in which the colleges will be allowed to become involved will be of a subsidiary nature to that of the universities, as stated in the Green Paper. The Government's intention, in the context of the White Paper on Education and the Bill to amend the Education Act, is that that concept be enshrined into legislation. That constitutes a real curtailment on the scope of the regional technical colleges to develop in a way that would fulfil the regional needs for research and development and consultancy work in industry, commerce or whatever other area of the regional economy would require such work to be carried out.
Course approval has become rather vague, particularly in the past year. Although the National Council for Educational Awards is the body set up to approve courses it is evident that courses are being submitted to the Department of Education without going through the NCEA. It seems that colleges expect the Department of Education to approve courses that have not been approved by the NCEA. A letter from the Department, dated 14 May, stated that the Department propose to eliminate the current June approval mechanism for new courses as soon as possible. The Minister should state what his Department have in mind. Does he intend that the approval for all courses will rest with the NCEA or with the Department?
The phrase I find ominous in the Department's letter is that relating to a general guideline of 10 per cent of students at regional technical colleges pursuing degree courses. It should be emphasised that the Dublin Institute of Technology, who confer their own certificates and diplomas — the Minister intends that they should confer their own degrees in the hoped-for timescale of a year — have a level of 30 per cent of students pursuing degree courses and it is envisaged that throughout the regional technical colleges sector 10 per cent of students would pursue degree courses. During the Committee Stage debate the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, said 40 per cent of students at Wateford Regional Technical College were pursuing degree courses. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that his Department do not envisage reducing the number of degree courses at Waterford Regional Technical College.
In the context of what is proposed in that letter we must also consider the growth of colleges that have a small number of degree courses or no degree courses at the moment. The Minister said the figure of 10 per cent was a guideline that would give rise to discussion. However, in the letter the 10 per cent is a very definite figure. It is hardly likely that the Minister, and the Department, expect the figure to be increased dramatically.
We were told during the Second Stage debate that the Regional Technical Colleges Bill was being introduced to provide for greater day to day autonomy in the administration of the colleges, something with which every Deputy who has spoken agrees. The concept that many Deputies disagree with concerns the reduced role for vocational education committees. Possibly the greatest argument of all in support of the vocational education committees is the very success of the colleges. Those who have spoken on the debate, including the Ministers agreed that the regional technical colleges are probably the greatest education success story in the history of this State. Their success has been achieved under the umbrella of the vocational education committees. A very basic principle when dealing with business, administration or any other matter is that if something is demonstrated to be extremely effective and it is evident that it will continue to be so effective there should be a good reason for changing it.
I recognise that the colleges need more autonomy in the day-to-day running of their affairs. Indeed, the IVEA, the body representing the vocational education committees, conceded that point long ago. The legislation is working towards a broader agenda part of which is that departmental policy from here on will reflect the interests of the university sector at the expense of regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. These Bills which, illogically in my view, were introduced before the publication of the Green Paper are being put in place to give the Department of Education much more effective control — I will not go so far as to say a stranglehold — of the development of the regional colleges in the various areas they are involved in. However, to call them regional technical colleges at this time is something of a misnomer. We have spoken about calling the colleges by some other name, cosmetic it may be in its way, but while the colleges are responding——
The Deputy is wandering somewhat away from the amendment.
I am wrapping that up and I am coming back to the amendment.
Acting Chairman
We are on Report Stage.
It is all relevant to the general thrust of what the amendment seeks and I was filling in the background to that. The colleges need to take full cognisance of the regional interests, as the amendment states. If some of the regional colleges become effectively national institutions responding to a national need as distinct from the regional need with the active encouragement of the Department, that is regressive. I instance the colleges that are successful and have a higher academic qualification or requirement for entry on to second courses and students from one area may have to go into another region to pursue the very same course. I ask the Minister to elucidate how the regional interest will be protected in the context of section 5 (1) (a) and to tell us exactly what effect the section I read from the Green Paper will have on the scope of areas of R and D that the colleges can become involved in.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I want to speak to amendment No. 14. However, if amendment No. 13, which is to delete the words “, and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct” is accepted, does amendment No. 14 automatically fall?
Acting Chairman
Yes. It has already been discussed and cannot be moved.
On a point of clarification, if the phrase "as the Minister may from time to time direct" is deleted as in the Minister's amendment, would it not be consistent that the second amendment then could be added to the section as amended? It is not in conflict with it.
Acting Chairman
As far as the Chair is concerned, if amendment No. 13 is carried, amendment No. 14 falls.
Not necessarily.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If the word “direct” is gone, what happens. I do not really know. However, I want to speak on amendment No. 14.
The word "direct" is not part of the amendment which is to insert words after the word "direct". The words are what the amendment is about. The words "taking cognisance of regional interests" are to be inserted. It is simply a comment on where to put them in. Obviously when that phrase is deleted the place to put them in is after "appropriate". The point is to insert "taking cognisance of regional interests". I cannot see how that could be solved.
Acting Chairman
I can only go by the rulings I have in relation to it and the ruling is that if amendment No. 13 is carried amendment No. 14 cannot be moved; it falls.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I share Deputy Mac Giolla's sentiments. If you are to insert something after the word “direct” and “direct” has disappeared, you have to change around. I support the amendment. Courses should be run that are appropriate to an area. In fairness to the regional colleges, I suppose their forte at the moment is they are able to adapt courses to suit what is required. They have been very successful in that they have geared their students towards work afterwards. In paying tribute to them for this success Deputy O'Shea suggested that the vocational education committee attributed all their success to the fact they had the foresight to deal with practicalities. Of course they had the backing of European funds, which played a major role. If they could take cognisance of regional interests that would be a very important guideline for them. In my region, Carlow, a tillage area, they could become involved with, say, An Foras Talúntais — and, let me mention, glass could be very important to Waterford as plastics have been in Athlone. They should be encouraged to have some part in happenings in the area. I support amendment No. 15, which gives them the power “to confer, grant or give diplomas, certificates or degrees including post-graduate degrees and honorary awards”. If we are to do anything for the regional colleges we must leave them independent. We do not want them subservient to anyone. They must have university status and they must be able to grant their degrees under their own canopy. If the polytechnics in England have international standing, our regional colleges should also have international standing and not be looking over their shoulder waiting for somebody to give them the nod, somebody who may not want to do so because that might interfere with their own courses at their own universities.
I do not think we are dealing with amendment No. 15.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 15 is out of order. I think the Deputy has been informed of that.
I am disappointed with the ruling that amendment No. 14 will be out of order if No. 13 is accepted, first because I am in favour of the Minister withdrawing the words "and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct", particularly the word "direct". By supporting that I am then ruling my amendment and Deputy O'Shea's amendment out of order. It makes the whole thing ridiculous. It makes one decide that in future when putting in amendments you will just say "put in the words" and it is up to you where you put them in. If the amendment simply were to add at line 25 the words: "taking cognisance of regional interests" without using the word "direct", it would be totally in order. It is one of these ridiculous, technically out of order amendments. It is very important to take cognisance of regional interests, as Galway University have demonstrated, particularly in the marine biology area and its importance in research into fisheries, fish farming, the absence of sea trout and so on. Regional technical colleges should be involved in the regional interest, whether it is farming or whatever else.
Talking of farming, who is doing anything to help the sheep farmer who is selling his wool for 20p, the same price as he was receiving for it in 1963 or 1964, 30 years ago? There should be some research and development into that whole area of whether sheep are used for wool or mutton, what a sheep farmer is entitled to, where he could sell his wool or what he should do with his wool. Regional interests are vital in the development of research, courses etc. in the regional technical colleges and I would very much like to see those words inserted. However, I presume the governing bodies will take cognisance of regional interests and recognise them.
It is regrettable that amendment No. 14 cannot be moved because the Bill is about regional colleges, which serve not only the people of the region but should also serve the needs and interests of the region. The only way to do that is by providing courses which will be in tune and in harmony with business interests and the development of the natural assets of the region.
As I pointed out, in Tipperary we identified the need for a rural and business institute because we believed that they would satisfy regional needs and would be in tune with the life, business and industry within the region. If a regional technical college is to truly meet regional needs it would need its own independence and have the right to confer its own awards; otherwise, it would mean relying on the NCEA or any of the State universities, who might not accept the proposals put forward by a regional college for the necessity to award degrees or diplomas in certain areas. If the regional colleges had the right — which I believe they should have — to award degrees and diplomas they could satisfy the regional need. The Minister should give serious consideration to this matter. We must also understand that it is the aspiration of every college to have the power to award degrees, diplomas and certificates in their own right. They should be able to decide in regard to this matter and have the power to do so.
It is also considered a privilege for a college to be able to award honorary degrees. It is a pity that this is confined to universities, because people who may be worthy of such an award may have gained that merit through developments which are more in tune with the regional colleges. Certainly the regional need will only be truly provided for if the college has the space and the scope to make such awards on their own merits. As I said, it is regrettable that amendment No. 14 cannot be moved.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy can see exactly why the amendment cannot be moved. If the section is taken out, something cannot be added to it.
I support the thrust of the amendments. The wrong reason has been advanced for ruling the amendment out of order, because the section would be improved by its inclusion. When we talk about "taking cognisance of regional interests" we are saying that the appropriate authority to do this is the governing body. As Deputy Mac Giolla said, "direct" is not part of the amendment; we are trying to insert "taking cognisance of regional interests" after "direct". If the Minister agreed to delete "and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct", it will be a far better and democratic way of doing things as it will mean giving it to the governing body. "Taking cognisance of regional interests" is vital. When Deputies Kenny, Ahern and I made strong arguments for setting up further regional and technical colleges we did so on the basis of the need to invigorate the regions, which are dying. The populations in these areas are depleted, there is a huge demographic gap, a major unhealthy bulge at the bottom of the scale, where there are many young schoolgoing children, and at the other end of the scale many old age pensioners. However, the 20 and 30 year olds have left; that is visible in the churches, streets and market places. It is quite obvious that there is a major threat to the whole social fabric of rural areas. The only way the regions can be saved is by setting up industrial, service or educational enterprises. As I said earlier, it is recognised that regional technical colleges and third level institutions have a major impact, not alone in relation to the stabilisation of a population in an area but from the point of view of retention of workers and the creation of higher skill levels within a region. I referred earlier to the Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Communities, which said:
The research capacity of the higher education institutions can also be channelled to support regional enterprises and regional development. Many regional enterprises do not have the means to carry out their own research, nor are they part of the structure which makes them aware of research findings relating to their own enterprises because they often stand alone. They do not have liaison, they are small five, ten and 15 employee enterprises. Often they would not have the capacity to translate such findings into action by applying new methods and new techniques in developing their own products... The research capacity can also be an invaluable backing to regional development agencies in conducting surveys, in determining regional needs, in drawing up inventories of regional resources and in devising and piloting models of devlopment plans.
If we talk about the Leader programme, integrated resource development and the APCs — we look upon these as pilot projects designed to help rural areas, which are working well but which need to be translated on a nationwide basis — we are talking about devising within the regions educational resources and third level courses which relate and interact with the region. They will be the catalyst for development and growth and will attract people from outside the country as well as developing indigenous resources.
The May edition of the worthwhile journal, Inside Business, of the Chamber of Commerce talks about partnership profit and goes into considerable detail in relation to the tremendous work being done in University College, Dublin, University College, Cork, the O'Reilly Institute, Trinity College and — the gem in terms of exploiting industry and industrial partnership — the University of Limerick and Dublin City University, Glasnevin. It is quite obvious that universities are scooping the jackpot and that regional technical colleges have not taken off.
I was a little worried about a remark the Minister made in relation to the Dublin Institute of Technology Colleges Bill, his right to tell colleges what courses they may pursue. It signals that a regional technical college cannot stand shoulder to shoulder in a regional area with a university and cannot get involved in the same courses and, as a logical extension, in research and development. In talking about the phrase "the need to have cognisance of regional interests", I see great changes in County Mayo — 20 years ago we had eight Deputies, ten years ago there were seven Deputies and we now have six. Indeed, we have six Deputies because the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, was in the right place at the right time when the constituencies were being redrawn and large slices of County Galway were included; otherwise we would now have only five Deputies. The writing was clearly on the wall and, as John Healy said, "Nobody Shouted Stop". However, a regional technical college would shout "stop".
In relation to my own county, I could envisage a regional technical college in Castlebar getting involved, for example, in the development of Avonmore who have taken over the controversial UMP plants. They would be a valuable asset in producing a list of value-added commodities such as paté and so on. We are not dominating the market in the way we should. Even though we are producing a top quality primary product we are not producing value-added products. For example, we are exporting a substantial amount of beef carcases without getting involved in the processing sector. I could foresee a regional technical college in Castlebar working in liaison with Irish Country Meats or with Avonmore in producing niche products for the European market.
As Deputy Mac Giolla said, other industries such as salmon-farming and mariculture are largely undeveloped but I could foresee a regional technical college in Castlebar, which is only ten miles from the coastline, interacting with enterprises along Clew Bay and at Killary. In addition, while large tracts of land in County Mayo have been planted during the past 40 to 50 years we have no wood pulp industry. There has been only limited development. Despite the fact that there is a huge market for timber, such as conifer, this natural resource is not being developed. Again, it could be developed in conjunction with the regional technical college bearing in mind the reference in the amendment to "taking cognisance of regional interest".
In relation to the tourism industry, with particular reference to catering, despite the fact that their budget has been cut, CERT have secured a 98 per cent placement rate. Indeed, one is almost guaranteed a job if they graduate from CERT, notwithstanding the appointments made to the board of management which were announced yesterday. The brothers and sisters of Fianna Fáil Deputies and councillors have been appointed willy nilly. However, that is a separate issue. Deputy Ahearn has argued that it is not advisable to move towards nepotism — a feature of the term of office of the major Government party for so long. I thought we were to get away from that and move towards open Government and democracy where people would get a job on merit.
It is vital that this amendment, which includes the reference "taking cognisance of regional interests", be accepted if the regional technical colleges are to fulfil one of their major functions, which is to act as a catalyst in relation to regional development. I ask the Minister to be gracious and to accept it.
Due to a technicality, I regret to say that we cannot deal with amendment No. 14 fully. We do not have the freedom to take amendment No. 14 first and then amendment No. 13. We have to take them in order. In any event, I hope I can persuade the Deputies that we took their views into account.
In relation to the amendment which proposes that the words "taking cognisance of regional interests" should be inserted, section 5 (1) includes the phrase "with particular reference to the regions served by the college". As this phrase is included in subsection (1) it will apply to subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and so on, whereas if the Deputy's amendment is accepted — we are both trying to achieve the same thing — the phrase he proposes would be included in subsection (1) (a) only and would not apply to the other subparagraphs. I ask the Deputies to accept that by including the phrase in subsection (1) that it will apply to all the subparagraphs whereas if we accept his amendment the phrase he proposes would apply to subsection (1) (a) only. I am satisfied, therefore, that the phrase "with particular reference to the regions served by the college" covers adequately all the functions and remit of the governing body, not just their function in relation to courses. It will give the colleges a stronger remit, unlike the phraseology included in Deputy O'Shea's and Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment. While I share in their objective I argue that my amendment is better as it would apply to all the functions of the governing bodies and not just one.
Deputy O'Shea raised the question of the respective roles of the universities and regional technical colleges in relation to research in the context of the Green Paper. The purpose is not to curtail their role but to clarify the respective roles that will be played by both the universities and the regional technical colleges. I encourage debate on this matter in the context of the Green Paper. Given that both have special expertise I wish to introduce an overall policy on research — and indicate how it should be funded — which takes account of the strengths of the universities and the regional technical colleges. My intention is to avoid duplication and unnecessary waste.
Deputy O'Shea also raised the question of courses and the letter which was circulated by the Department. As the Deputy is aware, before new courses can be introduced prior validation by the awarding body and the approval of the Department of Education are required. The procedures in relation to new courses will have to be discussed but in general they will be a matter between the college and the validating body. However, they will have to have regard to national budgetary guidelines. The Deputy mentioned the figure of 10 per cent but this is merely a guideline. Again, this matter can be debated in the context of the Green Paper. As I said, it is only a guideline but a balance will have to be struck.
It is our intention to have courses approved by the NCEA. Therefore, agreement will be required with regard to the balance that will have to be struck in relation to the number of certificates, diplomas and degrees that will be awarded. The purpose of the letter from the Department was to get a debate going on that matter. I also put it forward as an example to highlight the withdrawal of the Department from certain areas.
I share Deputy Browne's vision of independent regional technical colleges, or whatever we decide to call them in the future following this debate. He put the case well and argued that the colleges should be independent, given more autonomy and greater stature and status. I share his vision and think he put the case rather well.
Deputy Higgins raised the question of research and the need to take cognisance of regional interests. I have already dealt with that matter. I strongly argue that section 5, as drafted, deals with the matter in a better way. I thank Deputies for their support for amendment No. 13 which proposes that the reference to the Minister's role in relation to courses should be deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, lines 27 to 29, to delete "with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time".
This amendment brings us back to the old argument with regard to the right of the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology to award their own degrees. The argument has been made constantly that universities have been given a special status whereas the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology appear to have been downgraded and are considered to be second class third level colleges. This argument has been made regularly and it has been recognised by the Minister who is ceding ministerial control in a number of areas, for example, in relation to the selection of courses. In this amendment I am proposing that the regional technical colleges should be allowed to enter into arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas, certificates and so on conferred. It seeks to delete the words, "with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time". In other words, the regional technical colleges should be given the freedom to make their own arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards, the body who validate the courses, for the conferring of their own degrees, certificates and diplomas. In addition, the regional technical colleges should be able to make such other arrangements as may be approved by the Minister from time to time.
I am requesting that the regional technical colleges be given the authority to make their own decisions with regard to conferring of degrees. There is, as Deputy O'Shea pointed out on numerous occasions, some restriction in the Department of Education in regard to keeping down the number of degrees which may be awarded by regional technical colleges — a decision appears to have been reached that the number will be restricted to 10 per cent. It is vitally important in this Bill to eliminate the attitude that regional technical colleges cannot be depended upon, that they must be kept under control and their role restricted to awarding certificates and diplomas. That role is of vital importance and is recognised to be so. They will continue to approve and validate courses leading to diploma and certificates, but it is the conferring of their own degrees that the Minister, and his Department, appear to object to.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the regional technical colleges to enter into arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards, without interference from anybody else and without having to com- municate with universities, to award their own degrees.
I have already spoken on this amendment. It is only correct that we give full recognition to and praise the NCEA for the marvellous role they have played since their establishment. During the debate on this Bill we have given full recognition, as was worthy, to the regional colleges for the progress they have made but, in conjunction with that, we should compliment the NCEA. Without their co-operation, their foresight and co-operation with the regional colleges, we would not find ourselves in the position we are today, where we can speak so highly of the standards of the awards and education achieved in our regional colleges.
When the regional colleges were established no one envisaged the extent and scope of their diversification. I do not believe anybody could have foreseen that they would have achieved the high standards and provide the variety of courses they offer today. Credit for these achievements is due to the NCEA who have always been very open and liberal but who have at the same time, maintained standards and this is very important. They have maintained their vigilance of the standards they have always strived to achieve. They have not lost that aspiration and because of that graduates are emerging from our regional colleges who not only gain recognition and status at national level but also internationally. They must continue to play their role. It would be detrimental if any steps were taken in this Bill to undermine or lessen the role of the NCEA. I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to them. It would be another step forward if the regional colleges were given the right to award their own degrees under this Bill.
I share Deputy Ahearn's admiration for the work of the NCEA over many years. They have a very sound and exciting future. I have no doubt they will face the challenges ahead with their customary determination.
With regard to Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment, section 5 (1) (b) permits the regional technical college to enter into arrangements with the National Council for Educational Awards, with any university in the State or with any other authority approved by the Minister from time to time, for the purpose of having degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards conferred. We have tried to be as flexible as possible in this regard. Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment seeks to remove the regional technical colleges flexibility in terms of getting a local university to award a degree to participants in a regional technical college course. That is probably unwise and it may be better to leave the regional technical colleges with the authority and flexibility to do that.
If I accepted Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment I would be agreeing that only the NCEA could make awards to the regional technical colleges and I would be ruling out, for example, UCG agreeing with Letterkenny regional technical college that it could award degrees with them under certain circumstances. The theory of this is good in terms of observing the academic drift in regional technical colleges but I consider it would be unfair to the students who attend the regional technical college in Letterkenny, to inform them that under the Bill we had hoped to make an arrangement with UCG, whereby UCG would award degrees and now we find we cannot honour that. It would be unfair to the students in that region to cut off that facility from them.
In the Green Paper we propose that there be more linkages between these colleges and the universities. Substantial flexibility is needed at third level. There should be plenty of autonomy for the governing body of an institution and they should be permitted to make sensible arrangements between each other where they see fit from time to time. I understand the Deputy's thinking but I am not disposed to accepting the amendment.
I agree with the points made by the Minister but what I am trying to eliminate is an idea that is circulating around the colleges. The Dublin Institute of Technology have had arrangements for a number of years with the College of Technology, Bolton Street, and Trinity College for the awarding of degrees. Those who complete degree courses at the College of Technology, Bolton Street, are graduates of Trinity College. There is an attitude in the institute and in the regional technical colleges that we do the work and somebody else confers the degrees. Naturally, they would have that flexibility and I would agree that they should have it. However, there is a perception that the regional technical colleges should be able to confer their own degrees on their own graduates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.