JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate

Music Education: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome the delegations from the Department of Education and Science, the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Cork Institute of Technology. I also welcome the people in the Visitors Gallery who have an interest in one or other of the colleges and in music education.

While members of the committee enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite a representative of the Cork Institute of Technology to make a ten minute presentation, after which we will hear the response of the Department of Education and Science. Members of the delegation include Mr. Donal O'Rourke, chairman of the governing body, Dr. Patrick Kelleher, director, and Mr. Michael Delaney, head of development.

Mr. Donal O’Rourke

I thank the committee for inviting us to meet with it. We welcome the opportunity to present our case for the Cork School of Music. My colleagues include Dr. Patrick Kelleher, director of the college, Mr. Michael Delaney, head of development, and Dr. Geoffrey Sprat, principal of the Cork School of Music.

Under the Regional Technical College (Amendment) Act 1992 the Cork School of Music became a constituent college of the Cork Institute of Technology, as it is now called. The Act is quite specific and on 1 January 1993, part of the remit of CIT was set out and put an onus on the institute to address the cultural and social issues of the region. We take this seriously and the Cork School of Music is regarded as a key resource in the provision of music education in the region. The governing body feels the school is doing tremendous work. The range of courses it hosts is quite diverse, advancing to four year music degrees, taught and research masters programmes and doctorates. In addition, we have adults in continuing education, part-time courses and a strong relationship with the arts generally.

It is fair to say the overriding principles that govern the work of CIT and its constituent colleges are issues like access, quality and facilities. Cork generally regards the school of music as a jewel in the crown of the city's cultural activities and affairs. While Cork people are modest in many ways, dare I suggest that there are many eminent people associated with the school? I am sure members have heard of Carl O'Sullivan, Finbar Wright and Fiona Shaw. The list is longer but modesty prevents me from expanding on it.

The school has 125 years of history. In the 1970s it became apparent that a significant infrastructural deficit was developing in the school in terms of accommodation and requirements. The Department of Education and Science took on board the requirements of the school and by 1985 had advanced a proposal for a new school of music to stage V of the building process - this was an advanced stage. Since then, provision has been extended, quality has been improved and efficiency speaks for itself. At the same time, this is being done against a backdrop of an increasing infrastructural deficit. The governing body became increasingly concerned about this and in 1999 it instigated a review of the working of the school. The governing body invited Dr. Hardiman, the former director general of RTE, to chair the review group. The report was a significant statement and became a policy document for CIT, the governing body and also gained acceptance at the Department of Education and Science. The Department began to progress the needs of the colleges through public private partnership. Between 1999 and 2001, things had progressed to a point where a preferred bidder was identified and appointed to address the difficulty at the school, namely, the Jarvis group. Meanwhile, staff and students decanted from the existing building to allow and make provision for a new Cork School of Music at the UNT site.

This is the dilemma for the governing body. There is a large infrastructural deficit. Students and staff are marooned in inadequate and inappropriate premises. We are awaiting the progress of the new school under a PPP and the governing body sees this as a crisis. The governing body of CIT notes that if Government is not able to solve the problems that have thus far prevented it being able to sign off on the pilot public private project to rehouse the Cork School of Music, then a crisis of extreme proportions will ensue. I cannot overstate this. As chairman of the governing body I am facing an enormous dilemma. The record we put before the committee clearly illustrates that things are becoming intolerable. We cannot wait any longer. We feel the PPP is the only solution and it must proceed immediately.

Dr. Patrick Kelleher

We are very proud of the school of music. It has had a great effect on the region as is obvious from the choral festival, the opera house and various arts festivals, etc. The ethos of the school means it provides open access in education provision to all in Cork. It has an inclusive musical provision for the region. Speech and drama also form part of the provision. It is important to emphasise the applied nature of the provision. While the institute has strong traditions in engineering, science and apprenticeships, education in music is important. We have seen the high skill levels that have been developed in music as a consequence of the highest level of teaching.

The school has an effect on the city, county and first and second level education. The quality of what happens there permeates music education in the region. It creates an ethos that enriches the city and county. Not everyone is a star, but everybody is a good listener.

We saw the antiquated building and inadequate facilities and realised we were coming to a dead end. Dr. Hardiman came from Dublin and chaired a broad-based and open group. It showed the conservatory policy was correct for Cork, going from first, to second and third level musical provision. While it showed that many of the things we were doing were correct, it emphasised the facilities were inadequate. The report went to the Department of Education and Science and on 18 October 1999 the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, announced that the Department, with the agreement of CIT's governing body, was to address the accommodation needs of the Cork School of Music by way of the first public private partnership.

We did not stop our provision. We have developed taught and research masters programmes and have extended our provision in terms of community music. A package is in place that would allow for the construction of a modern building with wonderful new facilities and it awaits Government approval. These facilities will provide recording studios and proper teaching in approved acoustic environments.

Many things could happen which are not currently happening. We can look back over 125 years but no matter what happens in the economy, music is part of our tradition and we would like to keep that rich tradition and add to it.

In terms of what the chairman said, the governing body of CIT is of the opinion that the strategy and operational approach evidenced by the Cork School of Music works well, is robust and provides a strong educational base to develop the appropriate range of skills needed by those who wish to become professional musicians or music teachers and the broad spectrum of musical tastes, trends and opportunities. In addition, there are thousands of students who have come from the institute and the school of music who will not be stars but may wish their children to be stars. They will listen with attention and will find their own way. It is important to realise that the provision is broad based and not elitist.

We are happy that what we are doing is correct. It is important to realise that music education policy is still developing. We have a node in Cork that can be an example to others because it has proven itself for many years and more recently as an exemplar of what is best in music education. We hope that many issues can be addressed on music education but we are conscious that the provision of facilities needs to be improved.

Chairman

I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Jerome Leonard, senior inspector, Ms Ruth Carmody, Mr. David Gordon, Ms Theresa O'Connor and Mr. Brendan Kinsella. Perhaps we will hear from the Department about current developments on this matter.

Mr. Jerome Leonard

In their initial presentation to the joint committee in May 1999, the Department of Education and Science representatives outlined the state of development of musical education at primary and post-primary levels and brought to the attention of members some of the initiatives being undertaken in this area. Subsequently, in May 2000 the Department updated the joint committee on developments in the intervening period and in particular responded to some of the recommendations of the joint committee in its very welcome report of August 2000 on music in education. The Department is now preparing its written response to a request from the committee for details of any further progress on the recommendations in that report.

As background to today's meeting, this presentation outlines the position of the Department on provision for music education within the formal school system at first and second levels and briefly outlines the provision outside of the formal system.

The Department, principally or through its agencies, has a number of roles in music education at first and second levels. Music forms part of the revised primary school curriculum. It must, therefore, be delivered by all primary schools as part of the curriculum. At second level, music is one of the approved subjects in the junior certificate and leaving certificate programmes. Modules in music are also available as part of the leaving certificate applied programme. The curriculum to be offered to pupils attending second level schools is a matter for the authorities of the schools concerned subject to the Department's regulations concerning provision of the core curriculum.

In the matter of curriculum, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is tasked with curriculum research and design, review and revision, prior to the handover of agreed curricula and syllabi to the Minister. The council also advises on appropriate assessment methodologies for curricula and syllabi. Such was the case with the revised primary music curriculum and the revised second level music syllabi at both junior and leaving certificate levels over recent years. Support for the introduction and implementation of curricula or syllabi is a function of agencies like the primary curriculum support programme or second level support service. Again, support for the teaching of school music programmes falls within these services. With respect to funding, the Department provides some financial support for music education in schools at both levels. With regard to assessment, the recently established State Examinations Commission has responsibility for the assessment of music and other subjects via the State examinations system at junior and leaving certificate levels.

At primary level, the focus of our earlier presentations was on the rationale, aims and objectives of the new music programme within the broad arts education curricular area, the structure of the programme content and the guidance provided for teachers.

Chairman

We are examining the Dublin and Cork institute cases today. The foregoing is useful information and applies in the Dublin context particularly. I would ask that Mr. Leonard deal with the issues pertaining to Cork specifically and we can return to those pertaining to Dublin later.

Mr. Leonard

The brief presentation we have prepared is on the role of music at first, second and third levels, which includes Dublin and Cork ITs. There is an inter-relationship between all three.

In our earlier presentations to the committee we outlined the significant developments in the music curricula at post-primary level that occurred in recent years. These include the revised junior certificate music syllabus, which was examined for the first time in 1994, and the new leaving certificate music syllabus, which was examined for the first time in 1999. Both syllabi were designed to accommodate individual differences in musical values and experiences and also to accommodate divergence in students' musical needs, interests and ambitions.

It is of note that the music syllabi at primary and post-primary levels are based on similar structures, and, in particular, place an emphasis on the integration of the core elements of performing, listening and composing within the teaching and learning processes. These will assist in ensuring both coherence of approach and continuity within music education at the different levels. On the basis of the assessment outcomes, it is apparent that the leaving certificate music syllabus has been very successful in accomplishing its goals of providing continuity and progression from the junior certificate, in encouraging the development of musical creativity and, in particular, of providing a general education in music for all students whether or not they proceed to further study or a career in music. Many of these points reflect the points made by CIT in relation to the non-elitist nature of music education in general.

It is noteworthy that the innovative assessment structure has allowed candidates taking higher level to specialise in the component of the course, whether performing, listening or composing, that is best suited to their aptitude, interest and ability. In our earlier presentation, we indicated that it was anticipated that a number of factors, including the nature of the syllabus and the importance of music to the economy, would provide an impetus to schools to offer music on the curriculum and would encourage greater student participation. In this regard, there has been a significant increase in the number of students taking leaving certificate music in recent years and this trend continues. The number of students taking junior certificate music has remained relatively consistent.

Music education is also delivered by a variety of providers outside the formal school system. Some vocational education committees provide instrumental and vocal music tuition in out-of-school settings. The Department's involvement in these is largely in relation to issues of funding and staffing provision. The universities in Dublin - UCD, DCU and Trinity College - Cork, Limerick and Maynooth have music departments which cater for third level students. The Royal Irish Academy of Music offers music education in Dublin City to all ages and levels on a fee basis. In addition, it is understood that a wide range of music teachers provide tuition for a range of ages and levels throughout the country.

There are schools of music in three institutes of technology - Dublin Institute of Technology, Cork and Waterford - which include the provision of music education over a range of age and proficiency levels. There are a number of full-time programmes in music for third level students provided in these institutions for which funding is provided by the Department as part of the overall budget allocation to the individual institutions. Part-time programmes in these institutions are intended to be self-funding. The Dublin Institute of Technology and the Cork Institute of Technology will outline in detail the arrangements in place for the operation of music programmes in their respective institutions.

The committee may be aware of the music network feasibility study on the provision of a national system of local music education services. I understand the study looked at the gaps in provision in music education, that particular attention was paid to access to instrumental and vocal music tuition, and that it aimed to recommend a model of service provision to address those gaps which would be high quality, community focused, publicly supported to a large degree and which would serve to complement existing music provision in the formal school setting. The music network consulted widely among the music education community in conducting its research. I understand the report of the study has been completed and that plans are under way to present it to the Ministers for Arts, Sport and Tourism and Education and Science shortly.

Mr. David Gordon

Most of the issues raised by CIT were to do with the PPP project. I am from the PPP unit in the Department so perhaps I should respond to them. To put it in context, the Government introduced a pilot programme of PPPs and CIT, along with five post-primary schools, were the first of the pilots. From the Department's point of view, the public private partnership process was a learning curve. We established a project board which included CIT, the Department of Finance and specialist advisers who we appointed to support us in developing or procuring the project. We initially submitted the project to the Department of Finance based on the Hardiman report, produced by CIT.

The Hardiman report suggested a 5,500 square metre extension at a cost of €15 million but the PPP process is not like traditional procurement. When a person goes to the market he does not go with a set design asking the market what to do, he gives a list of outputs. In this case the list of outputs for the school of music was to provide a school based on a document we had prepared in consultation with CIT.

It was interesting that while we costed the building based on an extension and refurbishment at €15 million, all of the short-listed bidders said that was poor value for money because the existing building is 45 years old and contains asbestos. This was a competitive environment where it was in the interests of the three bidders to come back with the best and most cost-effective model. All three came back and said it should be a ground-up development. We accepted this was the correct way forward for the process under the PPP and developed the project on that basis. It must also be taken into account that it was not like any other project because of its location. The city council had already indicated to all the bidders on the original short-list that this was a key location in the city on the river front and it would not accept a building that did not meet the standard of an important city centre site. That was a cost for bidders to take into account as well.

After the bidding process one bidder remained, Jarvis Projects, which was appointed as the preferred bidder. It was also appointed preferred bidder for the five school projects but we treated both projects separately and did not work on the basis that we wanted a discount in cost, we wanted the best bidder for both projects. From our point of view, as a pilot, we would have been better off if we had two different bidders to compare work but we felt we got the best bidder in both projects and all of the evaluation processes showed that.

When a preferred bidder is appointed, we then go into a process of intense negotiation with that bidder to bring about the final commercial and contractual close. We started that process but An Taisce then submitted an objection to An Bord Pleanála which delayed the project for some months. No work could continue on the project while that appeal was being heard because there would be no point in getting into detailed financial and legal negotiations that would not apply if there was a change suggested by An Bord Pleanála.

An Bord Pleanála came back in December 2001 with no changes and we then entered proper negotiations with Jarvis Projects. Issues then arose for the Department of Finance because the project had gone from a €15 million project to one with a capital cost of €62 million. There were concerns about it but it was not like a traditional procurement, this was a pilot process for both Departments.

The five schools are already up and running in a time span that would beat any traditional procurement - they were opened two months ahead of schedule - proving one of the arguments in favour of PPPs. We learned that with a PPP we must go to the market with a full list of what is to go into the building. There cannot be any changes because the market is bidding on an output based approach and coming back with a design solution because it will run the building for 25 years.

The other issue was that PPP buildings are more expensive up front because the operator is responsible for the maintenance of the building. It is looking at spending to save in the long-term when building. That is the attraction of PPPs. They are not cheaper up front in capital terms but over the lifetime of the building they are cheaper because we do not have to invest in replacement windows and doors or any other part of the building over a minimum of 40 years.

The National Maritime College is another PPP project. We learned from the school of music that when we got the go ahead for the PPP for the maritime college from Government, the first thing to do was to look at it again with CIT. We looked at the original report for the project and sat down to see what had to go in, what was missing from the project and what was needed before we went to market. The project was originally planned at £30 million but came in at €40 million when we carried out the re-examination. We went to the Department of Finance with the proposal that this would cost €40 million and that proved to be the way to do this. We learned from the initial stages in the pilot project in the school of music.

There is now an issue for Government under the Maastricht guidelines about the Government balance where private finance is used for funding projects. The EUROSTAT ruling states that it must be considered as part of the Estimates during the construction phase because the money is being spent on behalf of the Government at that time. We have a difficulty with that because the school of music is a two year project valued at around €30 million so we will be taking a €30 million hit on our capital Estimates for third level, with another €30 million for the maritime college, and we would find that very difficult.

There is confusion about the general Government balance. As a Department, because we have been the first in with PPPs and the first to deliver them, we have spent much time looking at this with outside advisers and have brought people in to explain what is happening in other countries. We have been looking for an answer to this. There is a serious problem for Departments that, if the EUROSTAT ruling is correct, even during construction the Department would have to take a hit in its Estimates. EUROSTAT guidelines were developed in 1995 before PPPs were a major issue. It has now established a committee to look at it and the Minister for Finance has established a standing committee with the Central Statistics Office, the main organisation in the State that makes returns to EUROSTAT, gathers information and takes decisions based on it. Because of our Department's experience in PPPs, we are also on the committee.

The matter for the school of music has gone to Cabinet. Based on the affordability of the project and based on something happening on the general Government balance issue, that is where we stand. We are at one with CIT - it is a good project and we believe it is the correct one. We want to get answers on these issues ourselves.

Deputy Stanton

I welcome the witnesses to the committee and thank them for the information they have given so far. The crux of the matter is the EUROSTAT ruling. Did it forward the ruling or was this an interpretation from the Department of Finance, the Department of Education and Science or the Central Statistics Office? Has the general Government balance reached a danger point that has triggered this, with the CSO seeing it and raising the matter? The maritime college got the go-ahead for €40 million, the five schools went ahead as a PPP but this one has been stopped. What has changed in the interim? Does Mr. Gordon or Mr. Leonard agree there is now a crisis in Cork, as Mr. Kelleher and Mr. O'Rourke said? Will Mr. Sprat comment on the important international event that is taking place in 2005 - Cork's designation as the European City of Culture? What role does the school of music have to play in that? How important is it for the school of music to have in place a gem of a building and what will be the impact if the school of music finds itself in rented accommodation because the building did not go ahead?

Cork has been mentioned but the school of music has an importance for the whole Munster region. Will Mr. Sprat tell us how far the influence of the school reaches? We were told there are 3,600 enrolments on part-time courses. What impact is this having on students?

It would be interesting to carry out a study into the importance of music to the economy. What will be the impact if the school of music project does not go ahead? We have seen the importance of music on programmes such as "You're a Star" for the Eurovision Song Contest.

Will Mr. Gordon tell us the alternatives if the school of music does not get the go ahead under the PPP? The present building has now been vacated. Is it now dangerous and unsafe? Where does that leave the school of music? What plans does the Department have to assist it?

Senator Minihan

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. It is interesting that a 125 year old institution in Cork is in danger. The school's merits do not need to be retold as they are well known.

The Department of Finance was represented at the PPP process throughout. It was not a sudden shock that the cost of the project rose from €15 million to €60 million. The Department would have been aware of this as the process continued and before the final bidder was chosen.

Was EUROSTAT consulted on this? It claims it was not. This is an interpretation by the Department of Finance of something that may happen in the future. If it did happen in the future, the EUROSTAT ruling would not be retrospective to the balance of payments, it would only kick in from the date the ruling was made. I do not accept the argument about EUROSTAT. The President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, received a letter to this effect. I wish there was someone here from the Department of Finance to answer those questions because I have failed to get an answer so far.

Is the idea of a new building for the school of music finished? Will it ever happen? We cannot continue to play around with the matter. I am a member of Cork City Council and have a vested interest in the European City of Culture designation. The school of music is a flagship and this has huge consequences not just for Cork and its people but for the entire State. It will utterly discredit us on the European stage if the flagship for the city of culture does not happen.

The European City of Culture will come and go but the students will not. They have been there for 125 years and that is where the investment must be made. What future is there for students? We cannot tolerate the conditions they are currently experiencing. Are we closing the door on the school of music? If it is going to proceed in future, it would be totally irresponsible not to do it for 2005, regardless of the cost.

What will be the cost to the State if the process collapses and what compensation will have to be paid to the preferred bidder? It could be as much as €13 million. If that figure is factored into a future cost, with the size of the school reduced, we are already starting with a bottom line of €30 million. We would end up paying the same amount of money as we are now.

These are direct questions that the people of Cork want answered. Mr. Gordon might not be able to answer them because they might be more appropriate for the Department of Finance but we must call the matter as it is and stop procrastinating. The delegation from CIT should point out the future for the students if they are left in the current situation.

The joint committee suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 1.15 p.m.

Chairman

Senator Minihan had one other question.

Senator Minihan

There are two final points I wish to raise. The first concerns the €15 million costing that was initially suggested. Is it fair to say this was purely the cost of the extension and did not include re-fitting and so on? If so, it is inaccurate to say the project jumped from a projected cost of €15 million to the present level because a proper assessment was not done initially.

It is disappointing that there is nobody from the Department of Finance here to answer questions about the PPP process, but we are going ahead with PPPs in the health service, for example. Where does EUROSTAT come into play in that, given that there would be huge costs involved in health projects and no recoupment of money? There may be some recoupment from PPPs on the road network, for example. I fail to understand the line of argument from the Department of Finance on this.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the delegation and will try not to repeat what previous speakers have said. The nub of the issue is the timescale. From the point of view of the Cork bid to become European City of Culture, the timescale is extremely important as there is less than two years left for the project to be completed. From the point of view of students and staff in the college, the timescale is also crucial as the current set up is totally inadequate and is, I gather, scattered throughout various parts of Cork City. Unfortunately, we do not have representatives of the Department of Finance here to answer questions, nor the Minister for Education and Science, so I must direct my questions to Mr. Gordon and Mr. Leonard.

Has the consultation with the Department of Finance a timeframe? In reply to a question on 28 February the Minister for Education and Science said the Department of Finance recently raised a number of additional issues in respect of the project which his officials were examining in conjunction with specialist advisers. Therefore, there is ongoing discussion with the Department. Has a timescale been set for the completion of those discussions? The President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox MEP, said EUROSTAT was not even informed of this case and has not intervened in the issue. From what the representatives have said, it seems this is a matter for this country and decisions on it must be made within the confines of the Government's capital budget. While we are here to ask questions rather than make statements——

Chairman

This is all about Cork.

Deputy O’Sullivan

——it is crucial for Cork, particularly for music students there, that a decision is made on this matter in the near future. I will confine my remarks to the most important issue, namely, the process of getting a decision on this matter as soon as possible so the Cork School of Music can continue to operate and do so in appropriate facilities.

Chairman

Only the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service has access to finance officials. Therefore, this committee does not have access to them under Standing Orders.

Deputy Hoctor

I apologise for being late. I welcome the representatives of the governing body of the institute, the Cork School of Music and staff of the Department. I commend the governing body on the ethos of open access which Cork has enjoyed through the Cork School of Music, on the third level retention figures and the partnership links with the local community in the larger region of Munster, which I as a public representative for Tipperary North appreciate. The school of music appears to be a victim of its own success because it has had to use rented - often unsuitable - accommodation. It is my dearest wish that the committee would make a recommendation to the Minister that the case presented should be supported. I would like an explanation as to why there has been a significant move from €16 million to €60 million, which seems to be grandiose. We need that information before a recommendation can be made.

Senator Fitzgerald

I welcome the two deputations from the Department and from the CIT and the Cork School of Music. I am extremely supportive of the Department's PPP programme. I endorse what Deputy Hoctor said, that we as a committee should give every support possible to progressing that programme, particularly in light of the experience of its operation in Cork. Whatever can be done should be done at committee level to make the case to the Department and the Government for expediting the matter. I accept fully what has been said by all sides about the urgent need for this provision to be ongoing. I presume Mr. Gordon will reply to the question as to where the roadblock is in this regard and why there has been such a significant escalation in the cost.

While commending the manner in which growth has taken place in the Cork School of Music, and I am supportive of the ethos it operates, I ask representatives of the Department and the CIT if the growth in numbers there reflects a growth in access to it and a clear determination by the school to grow the pre-third level as much as third level? Will Mr. Leonard say if the Department welcomes that approach?

Deputy Enright

On foot of the Chairman's comments about not being able to question officials from the Department of Finance, I propose that a joint meeting of this committee and the Committee on Finance and the Public Service be arranged, if that is possible, to proceed further.

Chairman

Is it agreeable to refer this matter to the working group who will meet shortly? The means of doing what the Deputy suggested could be difficult.

Deputy Enright

This is a fairly urgent issue. Therefore, rather than prolonging the time taken to deal with it, we should deal with it in that way.

Deputy Stanton referred to public private partnerships. I asked the Minister a question on this issue regarding the maritime college and other institutions during Question Time recently. The music college in Cork is only one of the projects that will be affected by the decision taken in Europe. I am aware that other public private partnership schemes, one of which is in my own constituency, may not proceed because of this decision. In the case of the maritime college, I got the impression that the decision was based on there being a high level of private investment in it. Where does that leave future projects, particularly in the college in Cork? I do not know if the representatives will be able to answer this question, but it seems the issues surrounding the Government's general balance is a big part of this matter. How will this matter be resolved and what timescale will it involve?

This project was advertised originally on a European basis in June 2000. A good deal of time and effort has been put into this project and it would be waste of resources if it were not to proceed. I do not know how much has been spent on it, but I am aware that €100,000 was spent on bringing a primary school I visited recently to a similar stage. Given that was the amount spent on bringing a small rural primary school to that stage, I can imagine the amount that has been spent to date on such a massive project as this one. Therefore, it would be a waste of resources for it not to proceed.

The Minister stated that where this project goes from here is a matter for consideration by the Government. As a committee, we need to impress on the Government that this project has our full support and that we want it to proceed without delay. Irrespective of the Government's general balance or what is happening in Europe, the final decision on this project rests with the Government.

Chairman

Specific questions have been put to a number of the representatives, but I will call Mr. O'Rourke to reply to the questions on the Cork School of Music.

Mr. O’Rourke

I suggest that Dr. Sprat and Mr. Michael Delaney answer some of the specific questions that have been put.

Chairman

As I have told the Dublin Institute of Technology representatives that we will try to meet them at 1.45 p.m., we will try to move through this session as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gordon

The main questions probably relate to the building. I do not mind taking those questions, if that is agreeable to the members. A number of questions were raised, some of which are interlinked. The main question that is interlinked, which Deputy Stanton raised, concerns EUROSTAT and whether it was informed in this regard. This relates to the involvement of the President of the European Parliament. EUROSTAT was never informed of this. I contacted the Office of the President of the European Parliament last week to clarify this matter because I saw the statement. The CSO is the body in Ireland responsible for returning to EUROSTAT information about the Government's general balance, etc. It did a return on the PPP five schools project, which is to balance sheet stage. If it is to balance sheet stage, we assume the next stage would be that the school of music would also be at balance sheet stage. EUROSTAT was never directly contacted, but it accepted the CSO's proposal on the five schools. I am not meant to be the expert on this area, but unfortunately for our Department we are the guinea pig in regard to PPP projects and we have had to read up and learn about these matters. I have read the EUROSTAT guidelines on this area. The reason EUROSTAT has a committee on this area is that PPPs are much different from when the guidelines were set down originally when they were not a major issue in Europe.

We are talking about deferred payments, where the State is responsible for payments but is not making them until a building is handed over. For example, in the case of the five schools we did not pay a penny until they were handed over to us. Jarvis took a risk in building them, but it was money being spent on behalf of the State. That is what EUROSTAT is saying, that even on construction stage, money is being spent on behalf of the State. If we want to examine how we will keep our accounts in order, we will have to indicate where money is being spent. I cannot say if that is right or wrong but my view is that it surely comes in when one starts making the payments. It is not for me to answer that, however.

Senator Minihan raised a question about the Department of Finance and we have recently received guidelines from the Department of Finance about this issue. The instructions we have are as follows:

Projects outside the GGB: in accordance with EU rules, the Minister intends that non-Exchequer funded projects, whether funded through private sector finance in the PPP context, or through the NDFA, if they transfer the main risk to the private sector and are funded through user charges [so in other words there is no public sector funding] those will be outside the GGB.

There are two types of project within the investment envelope and the GGB. The first is direct, up front Exchequer funding, which is the traditional type of funding, while the second is PPP. They will be regarded as being within the general Government balance. The guidelines go on to say the Minister recognises that the concept of what falls on the GGB in investment terms is not straightforward. A EUROSTAT group is currently reviewing the accounting rules on this and the Minister for Finance has established a standing committee to advise Departments on the GGB implications of private sector NDFA financing.

That committee is made up of the Department of Finance, the Department of the Taoiseach, the CSO, the NDFA, the Department of Transport and our Department because of our expertise in the PPP area. Even the Department of Finance admits that the issue is not straightforward, but it has implications for how we do our accounting.

Some members asked when there would be a decision but I cannot say because I do not know. What will probably happen is that the Minister for Finance's standing committee, with the NDFA involvement in advising on projects, will possibly come out with some way of looking at these before EUROSTAT does. A Senator mentioned that they were not retrospective. My understanding is, however, that they are, although I am not quite sure. There were difficulties in Portugal about this and my understanding is that they are retrospective.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we should raise that matter with the Committee on Finance and the Public Service, whether through a joint meeting or initially having them pursue it and coming back to us, perhaps?

Deputy Stanton

Five schools got through and so did the maritime college, and all of a sudden the bar came down.

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

That is what I read out earlier. The Department of Finance guidelines on GGB state that the transfer of the main risks are to be with the private sector. Every project's risk is different. In schools there is probably very little risk to the private sector in the sense that we have demand risk. In other words, we are saying those schools will be there for 25 years. They are taking on the risk of maintaining and running the building but that is what they are expert in. That is the issue and it is something we will put to EUROSTAT for the maritime college. The capital cost of the maritime college is approximately €50 million. Some €5 million of that is made up of specialised IT simulation equipment. It is a very small part of the overall cost of the project but it is a hugely significant part of the operation of the project for the operator. If that IT equipment does not work, no training will be done in the college, so they have a huge risk.

They way the system works is that if the operator cannot provide the service its unitary payments are deducted. Many people describe PPPs as a mortgage. With a mortgage, however, if one does not maintain a house one still has to pay the mortgage to the building society. With a PPP, if the operator is not keeping the building up to the agreed standards it does not get paid the full unitary payment. It has borrowed the money from the private sector, so it has to get the full payment in. The onus is on it, therefore, to keep the service levels up that it bought into. That is where the risk element comes in. Taking the maritime college, the risk involved in the IT end of it is a hugely significant factor for that operator. The school of music is a specialist building as well and maybe EUROSTAT will look at some of the risk in that.

Deputy Stanton

Both the five schools that have been built and the school of music will be financed by the State for the long-term.

Mr. Gordon

Yes.

Deputy Stanton

The risk transfer to the private sector seems to be the same. They are both school buildings. Mr. Gordon said the five schools bundle was passed and did not interfere with the general balance, whereas this project is seen to interfere with it.

Mr. Gordon

Both projects went to the Department of Finance at approximately the same time. The capital costs are approximately €80 million for the five schools. One project will cost almost the same amount. The huge cost difference between what was forecast and what transpired for the five schools is not significant compared to the school of music. That is where the issue lies.

There are a number of aspects involved. It is a matter for the Government to consider the affordability aspect and the GGB issue. The risk of running a specialised building must also be considered. A school of music has a higher risk than five schools, although I do not claim to be an expert on that aspect.

Senator Minihan

Is it the case that if the project was to cease immediately, the cost to the Exchequer could be as high as €13 million?

Mr. Gordon

I have heard of such a figure. The document issued to the three bidders is called the ITN document. It provides that we can pull out at any time. The figure is a matter for the courts. I cannot comment on it. It is an issue the Government will eventually have to take on board.

Dr. Geoffrey Sprat

I will try to address the question raised by Deputy Stanton and Senator Minihan as to what would happen if the building did not proceed. The position of CIT is clear. It is unthinkable that this new facility would not be provided. There are seven reasons for this. First, it is the agreed solution arising from a process involving carefully detailed planning by all the relevant partners and Departments since January 1999. Deputy Enright referred to the work of the interested parties, over a period of almost four and a half years. It is very considerable.

Second, non-provision would seriously undermine the well established teaching programmes in the school that have been developed over 125 years. Third, non-provision would rule out the much needed enhancement and development of the Cork School of Music's academic programmes, as predicated in the Hardiman report and now articulated as CIT strategy and policy for the school of music. Fourth, non-provision would have a devastating effect on the morale of students, their parents and the staff.

Fifth, non-provision would precipitate a specific crisis because an infrastructure deficit identified in the 1970s was to have been addressed in the 1980s but was not. This has led to an operation for the school which is spread out over 16 different temporary premises throughout the city in addition to the current main building. In good faith the students and staff to all intents and purposes left the main building in 2001 to facilitate work commencing on the new facility and moved to not merely cramped but unsuitable temporary accommodation in a hotel. The attitude of staff and students was that short-term pain for long-term gain was a possibility, but that cannot be sustained if the project is not to commence.

Sixth, there is no viable alternative plan if this building is not provided, and any further delay would cause an impossible situation for the CIT, which our chairman has clearly articulated. Finally, non-provision would shatter public confidence and lead to disillusionment, not only regionally but national, if the school of the music is unable to fulfil its remit and potential. It would be intensely and vociferously expressed.

The role music plays in the economy was mentioned. A large number of reports have been written, which were amazing in terms of the priorities set out. It led to Ireland becoming one of the first countries in Europe to establish a music board. The Government established it as an expression of the significance of music in the economy.

People also referred to the reputation of the school locally, regional, nationally and internationally. It speaks for itself, but it has taken 125 years to develop. It is no wonder the city council and the city manager see the school of music in terms of what it can contribute to the programme in Cork for 2005 as being very significant.

The attitude of the staff is that they have already had two years of what they thought was short-term pain for long-term gain. They would embrace a further two years of pain if the work started and the building was to come on stream during 2005. If it did not, I cannot imagine what would happen. I will ask Michael to outline how the city feels about the contribution we would make to it being the European cultural capital.

Mr. Michael Delaney

The documented information we have - a Coopers & Lybrand report, subsequently underlined by an IBEC report in 1998 - is that in 1994, the combined cultural sector was responsible for economic activity worth €441 million. It is estimated that the music sector is worth approximately 25% of that. We can only speculate what these figures would be in today's economy.

While I accept that other issues have to be discussed, this committee must send a strong recommendation that this project proceeds.

Chairman

The Senator can take it as done. We will find a way to do this.

Deputy O’Sullivan

We must note the importance of the time factor; this should be made as quickly as possible.

Chairman

We will raise it with the Minister when we meet him in a few weeks' time. I thank the delegation from the Cork School of Music. I am sorry I stopped Mr. Leonard, for the Department of Education and Science, in the middle of his presentation. It refers to the Dublin Institute of Technology, rather than the Cork issue, including the issue of the financial and economic value of music. Are there other points you would have made that would have more application to the Dublin Institute of Technology?

Mr. Leonard

Not specifically.

Chairman

I apologise for the delay to the members of the Dublin Institute of Technology delegation. I suppose it was interesting to hear of the difficulties encountered by another institution. I welcome Dr. Brendan Goldsmith, Dr. Ellen Hazelkorn and Ms Melda Slattery.

Dr. Brendan Goldsmith

We welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee on these issues. I will first cover four broad and important areas and then suggest a way forward. Dublin Institute of Technology is a large, multi-disciplinary institution formed by the 1992 Act and with roots in technical education stretching back to the 19th century. It offers 85 full-time programmes and more than 200 part-time programmes. There are six faculties: applied arts; built environment; business; engineering; science; and tourism and food. We have the well-known ladder of progression system that means students can enter at many levels and progress to the highest possible levels, both within and across disciplines. The institute has a growing research profile and has been to the forefront of some recent national developments, including receiving significant funding from Science Foundation Ireland.

Inclusion is one of the key philosophies of the institute. It has a strong and well-developed community links programme that has a great deal of interaction with young people, particularly in Dublin city but also further afield. In Irish terms, our student body of 21,000 is significant. Of this, 10,000 are full-time students, 7,000 are part-time and 4,000 are apprentices. They are spread over a range of certificate, diploma and degree programmes. Approximately 34% of students are in our certificate or diploma programmes, 60% are in degree programmes and 6% are postgraduates. The institute is characterised by its geographical spread and occupies 30 sites in Dublin city. The Government has decided to provide a new campus for the institute at Grangegorman and this will be a significant development for us.

The conservatory of music and drama is one of five schools within the faculty of applied arts. It provides a range of programmes and is definitely geared towards performance. We provide programmes over a range of activities. Courses include degree in music, degree in music education, diploma in speech and drama, foundation programmes, music technology programmes and a range of research and taught postgraduate studies. Music education on a part-time basis is also available to primary and secondary school students as well as third level students from other institutions and interested adults. Students receive performance tuition, attend musicianship classes and participate in the various instrumental and vocal ensembles. This is an important part of Dublin Institute of Technology's overall provision and will remain so.

While Dublin Institute of Technology has a significant number of students in this area, the number is small when one considers the population of Dublin and its surrounding areas. It is obvious that many primary and secondary students do not have the opportunity to receive the type of music tuition to which we think they should be entitled. Dublin Institute of Technology has pioneered new developments in this area, such as our initiative with the Ballymun wind band, an initiative that has the support of the Department of Education and Science. This project has reached out to students in schools in the Ballymun area. I am pleased to note the school recently took part in a performance where the band played along with the National Symphony Orchestra.

Performance is the main emphasis of the conservatory. Public performance forms a strong element of the training we give our students. Current staff, graduates and artists in residence include many distinguished performers and composers and have made an enormous contribution to the development of music and the performing arts in Ireland. In spite of this achievement, we strongly feel the real potential of the conservatory, and other specialist music schools such as those in Cork and Waterford, cannot be realised in the absence of a national policy for the development of music in Ireland.

When the governing body of Dublin Institute of Technology created its faculty structure in 1994 it made the point that Dublin Institute of Technology should seek to retain first and second level music only until an alternative arrangement is put in place. However, it decided it should have a focus on providing facilities for talented students and the word "talented" needs to be interpreted in a wide sense. The clear intent of our governing body was that Dublin Institute of Technology should become a sort of focus for a wider provision on a local basis. One of the key issues facing Dublin Institute of Technology and the nation is that the next step in music education, moving on from first and second level, is the absolute necessity of regenerating the teaching cohort. If we do not have good teachers of performance, we cannot teach performance at any level. This is a very important part of what Dublin Institute of Technology does and it has been one of the significant achievements of our conservatory over the past decade.

The committee has heard from CIT about economic importance, so I will not go over that. However, while Dublin Institute of Technology has been acutely aware of a need for a national debate on this, it has not been content to sit on the sidelines and say it is somebody else's problem. In 1994, the institute commissioned and funded the very significant music education national debate, MEND. That report was completed in October 2001 and full copies of the report are available on the Dublin Institute of Technology website. It was produced by Frank Heneghan, a former head of the College of Music.

One of the issues of which we are also very much aware is that in 2001 the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, appointed an advisory group to produce a feasibility study for a national system of local music services. The study has been completed but has not yet been published. We believe the recommendations will uphold the recommendations of the MEND report and concur with the policy of Dublin Institute of Technology's governing body, saying, for example, that there must be widespread access at local level to music tuition on an affordable basis, although not necessarily free of charge and that there must be the possibility of specialist tuition for the particularly talented at all levels through designated music schools such as our own conservatory or CIT. Those music schools need to evolve into a role that situates them as a focal point in the development of music education. There must be the opportunity for students to pursue music to third level and beyond, particularly in relation to performance.

An issue we cannot avoid mentioning in discussions of any national policy or lack thereof has been the proposal relating to the Irish Academy for the Performing Arts. The decision not to proceed with that at the moment is something of a relief to Dublin Institute of Technology and many others because the proposal to focus on the elite performers was not helping to develop the overall policy. There was a definite possibility that the academy would simply compete for staff and talented students, taking away from the existing specialist schools. Dublin Institute of Technology sees that the cancellation of that plan offers an opportunity of focusing on the wider issues.

It is impossible for us to discuss the provision of music education without at least touching on the costs. Dublin Institute of Technology strongly believes the most cost-effective method for entry-level tuition is to do it locally, for example through the vocational education committees or some other such organisation. I checked some figures before I came here and found, for example, that if one hour of music for a junior student is provided by the City of Dublin VEC by a part-time teacher, which is the cheapest way of doing this, it will cost €27.12. If exactly the same tuition is provided by Dublin Institute of Technology it will cost €44.66. That is without taking any overhead costs into account. I looked at the overall cost of junior music provision in Dublin Institute of Technology and while I have not done an exact calculation, I believe that the CDVEC could provide 40% more tuition at no extra cost.

I must emphasise, however, that our concern is not simply about the cost. Cost is an issue that must be kept in mind, but what Dublin Institute of Technology really wants to see is a debate on music and a national policy emerging. We should all call for the publication of this feasibility study and this should inspire a very open debate about the future of music education within the State.

There are some immediate issues for Dublin Institute of Technology. Our position is that like most other educational organisations - and most other publicly funded organisations - we are facing a very difficult financial situation. We do not have a finalised budget yet, but we understand we will receive an increase of 1%. However, we are facing greatly increased fixed costs, which we really cannot do much about because of the dispersed nature of Dublin Institute of Technology - we are in a considerable number of rented premises. Also, following the introduction of new social legislation on part-time workers - which is very welcome - all the part-time staff doing a full-year programme in the institute will how have to be paid pro rata with their full-time colleagues. This will increase our costs by about 35% in this area.

We will have to make some very difficult choices. These are difficulties that lie right across the institute. Each faculty within the institute is reviewing its costs and looking at the viability of its programmes. No one area will be asked to take the brunt of these cuts, but equally, no area can avoid them, including the Conservatory of Music and Drama. We will have to address this in a fair and equitable way. However, because Dublin Institute of Technology has a significant number of full-time staff who teach junior music, there will be no reduction in the teaching provided by them. We will protect a significant proportion, but not all, of what we are currently doing. We will also suffer cutbacks in science, engineering and all the other faculties within the institute.

I have given some statistics, but my experience of committees is that it is not wise to get into a long debate. If members have specific questions they may ask them. What really concerns Dublin Institute of Technology is that despite having made all of these calls and highlighted the importance of national policy which points clearly to the need to see local access and local provision, in the past nine years we have not seen any significant change. We cannot continue in this way if we are serious about the provision of music to our children.

DIT is negotiating with the CDVEC to try to find some practical way forward in the short-term, but that is not the answer to the long-term problem. We need to take another look at where we are going and the fundamentals of policy in music education.

Chairman

Thank you. That was very interesting.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegation. I was a student at the College of Music about a million years ago, but I did not achieve very much. That is more a reflection on myself, however, than on the teaching qualities of the staff. It is a narrow issue, and we should begin at the beginning - what is the relationship of the college with the Department of Education and Science? What flexibility does it have in the budget allocation it receives from the Department? It is stated that the Department produces budget guidelines on full and part-time education. That is crucial. The issue concerns the provision of part-time education and the delegation provided useful statistics. I get the impression that, since the Dublin Institute of Technology took over in 1994, the policy and philosophy is that it is a third level institution and there is no space in such an institution for primary and post-primary education. The delegation gave figures that show the vocational education committees can provide the same education at a much lower cost. It appears the hope is that the primary and post-primary element of the Dublin Institute of Technology can be farmed out to another institute. If that is the policy, that is fine, but we should be clear that it is because it has implications for students, current and future, and staff at the Dublin Institute of Technology. The committee and the Department of Education and Science would also like to know if that is the proposal with which the Dublin Institute of Technology intends to proceed.

The presentation confused me a little. It was stated that current part-time enrolment in music is 1,450 in 2003. Later on it was stated that part-time enrolment in the year 1993-94 was 1,887 and, as such, has reduced by 25% over the period. However, through the prism of full-time equivalents, an increase was also described. There has been either a decrease or increase. Are the figures of 1,450 and 1,887 non-descriptive and, as such, is the accompanying table of figures irrelevant in describing a decrease from 1991 to 1994? This is an important issue. The impression is given that there was a decrease prior to the Dublin Institute of Technology taking over and, using a different form of analysis, an increase since it took over. Perhaps the witnesses might be able to answer that question.

Among the other issues expressed as being of concern by some of the staff and parents of students and which related to part-time students was the requirement that fees be paid earlier than the beginning of the academic year. Naturally this has implications for part-time students because generally they come to courses when other matters in their lives have been sorted out, such as CAO issues, which would occur in August. It would also have implications for foreign students coming into the country at the beginning of the academic year. Is this barrier being created to prevent part-time students and to specialise the college in third level education and what could be described as elitist education?

Has a deferral of the programme and budget been decided by the Dublin Institute of Technology in this area, in general or at all?

The ladder of progression begins at certificate rather than primary level which tends to suggest that the Dublin Institute of Technology is not interested in the primary and post-primary level. The ladder of progress is laudable and progressive but does not appear to allow for primary and post-primary education. It appears to begin at certificate level and continue on to other areas.

How is the figure of 40% cheaper provision by the CDVEC of the same service arrived at? On what authority are those comparative figures based? Does the delegation see any possibility in the new city campus for primary, post-primary and part-time education?

Regarding the authority with which the delegation anticipates the recommendations of the feasibility study, which naturally are not published, perhaps some of the delegation are members of the group conducting the feasibility study and could tell us how they manage to anticipate the recommendations at this stage?

Chairman

Deputy Enright is listed to speak in the Chamber and Senator Tuffy has kindly agreed to change the order of speakers in the committee.

Deputy Enright

I will be brief. I welcome the representatives of the Dublin Institute of Technology to the meeting.

Dr. Goldsmith's closing points about part-time students in third level institutions bring me on to something that needs to be examined and perhaps the committee should examine, namely, how people envisage third level institutions, universities and institutes of technology, should operate. There is quite a degree of waste in the use of the institutions. Colleges in Ireland are fundamentally different from colleges elsewhere, especially in the United States where they appear to be more living institutions, where the facilities are used throughout the day and late into the evening. That is not always the case in Ireland and we certainly do not always make the optimum use of facilities. There appears to be less activity at night on campuses than the facilities should allow to happen.

I have examined the issue under discussion and have been contacted by the people directly affected. They go back to 1994 as the time when they saw the first signs or fears that the school of music was not being taken as seriously as it ought to be. The college's prospectus was withdrawn from publication at that stage. There has been a drop in student numbers and this appears to have come about because of an increase in fees. Perhaps the delegation would comment on this.

It was said that what would cost the VEC €25 to provide would cost the Dublin Institute of Technology €44. Can the delegation explain why that is the case and where the costs come in? It was said that the figure of €44 did not include overheads, which I imagine would make the final figure significantly higher. I would like some justification for this. I know the delegation does not represent the VEC but it was said that it could provide 40% more at no extra cost. The VEC should really be present to explain why that is the case and whether it believes it can provide the additional service. I find the difference strange and perhaps the delegation would justify it at greater length.

The provision of the college of music service is fundamental as far as I am concerned and it is hard to understand why it has been cut back to the extent it has. I do not know if the people from the Department are present to answer on this issue.

Chairman

Yes, they are.

Deputy Enright

Dr. Goldsmith said in a letter to Deputy Olivia Mitchell that, in respect of the restrictions experienced by the Dublin Institute of Technology in terms of cutbacks under the operational programme and budget for 2003 and 2004, the two areas of apprenticeships and junior music, would have to bear some of the brunt. Where has the brunt been borne across the Dublin Institute of Technology and what proportion does the college of music bear compared with other parts of the college? Has every programme the college offers shared some of the cuts?

The Minister must approve the budget for the Dublin Institute of Technology. While I know the departmental officials cannot answer on his behalf, have they examined this and how are they considering it? Does the Department feel the cuts can be justified or is it willing to insist that the courses delivered by the college of music have the capacity to be advanced?

Senator Tuffy

I welcome the delegation from the Dublin Institute of Technology and the Department of Finance officials. In particular, I welcome Dr. Goldsmith, Dr. Hazelkorn and Melda Slattery and thank them for their presentation.

I will give something of my background because I have strong links to the Dublin Institute of Technology. I worked as a clerical officer in the Dublin Institute of Technology in Bolton Street and my father was a lecturer in Kevin Street and worked with the VEC and in administration in the Dublin Institute of Technology.

I did legal studies part-time in the Dublin Institute of Technology and, like Deputy Andrews, I also went to the college of music. I was not a great student but I learnt to do something I would not have been able to do otherwise. I attended from the age of seven to 15 and took music for my intermediate certificate examination. I could not have done that if it were not for the college of music, as music was not provided in my local school. It is something I am glad I did.

I sympathise with the Dublin Institute of Technology's dilemma and with the case outlined by Dr. Goldsmith on funding. As a general political point it is obvious that Dublin Institute of Technology and other institutions are suffering from cutbacks. This Government policy is wrong as much of our economic success is down to our educational success. At a time when we are trying to keep the former going we should continue to invest in Dublin Institute of Technology and the college of music. I note from Dr. Goldsmith's presentation and correspondence to the Labour Party from Dublin Institute of Technology that a primary aim is to protect full-time programmes as far as possible so that any cutbacks will have a greater impact on the provision of part-time programmes. I accept the need to protect full-time programmes and am glad to have been part of the institute of technology sector but part-time programmes are also an important aspect of what Dublin Institute of Technology provides. Dr. Goldsmith outlined the intention of the Dublin Institute of Technology is to provide progression, mentioning different levels, and access because of its emphasis on part-time programmes. I would be concerned if the Dublin Institute of Technology shifted its emphasis from this type of delivery of education. The universities have more to learn from Dublin Institute of Technology than the other way round from the educational model of the latter. The Dublin Institute of Technology should be at the forefront of a system whereby a person beginning with a certificate eventually progresses to postgraduate level.

The emphasis on part-time education has particular resonance for the college of music, where there is an overwhelming emphasis on such programmes. I am concerned by what I hope is not a shift in vision here, as the main point here is the educational model we are providing in terms of access. It would be disappointing if the Dublin Institute of Technology moved back towards the old-fashioned model, as it is leading the way with the new model.

Music education is unique. One can have a person who is excellent at music becoming an engineer yet he or she can still progress through the levels of music to become an outstanding performer or composer. They can do so by studying part-time and that is what is unique - a music education can be received part-time. This should be taken on board in terms of policy.

I sympathise with the parents and students over the projections as to what will happen. The expectations of cutbacks are very unfair on parents and students. The college of music has been very successful. Why undermine or dismantle it? We should protect and conserve what is there and build on something that has worked well rather than undoing it. Then we can start the debate. Dr. Goldsmith should outline his plans in this regard.

Dr. Goldsmith also said the numbers in the college are insignificant compared to the overall population and mentioned the need for local music education to aid inclusion and accessibility. The college of music is not exclusive of more local education, which has been happening over the years; the college of music provides something different. I hope the Dublin Institute of Technology does not have a "one or the other" situation in mind.

Dr. Goldsmith mentioned the need for debate, which I agree with. That debate must come first. The VEC has requested that nothing be damaged before the overall framework is provided. It is very important to protect what is there at present.

Dr. Goldsmith also mentioned that Dublin Institute of Technology funding comes from the overall Third Level Vote but if the college of music were part of that picture it would not get the funding it has. It is important its interests are not sacrificed by Department of Education and Science cutbacks. The Department has a major role here and it is important that proper funding is provided to the Dublin Institute of Technology so that no cutbacks have to be made there. It would be totally wrong not to provide such funding at this vital stage in our economic development.

There seems to be an idea, from the presentations and the wider picture, that third level education is to be separate from primary and secondary education. That is not how I see things going, particularly if one looks at the Higher Education Authority recommendations that third level education would be provided through outreach centres in second level schools, for example. Also second level schools, particularly in the VEC sector, often provide PLC and third level courses. There is no reason these cannot go together and I seek Dr. Goldsmith's views on this.

From my interpretation the VEC has suggested that it may take responsibility for the college but the most important thing is that what exists at present is preserved.

Senator Fitzgerald

I welcome both deputations. I declare straight away that I have known Dr. Goldsmith for many years and in 1985 I took over as chairman of Dublin VEC, when Dublin Institute of Technology was an integral part of the VEC. The inheritance passed on by the legislation of the early 1990s was a rich one - it was very socially progressive and part of the VEC ethos. The ethos was one of reaching out into the communities and to provide music education at a reasonable cost through the college.

In third level terms this is a little different. Though I cannot use academic language to convey what I mean, Dr. Goldsmith knows the point I wish to make. I could go on and on about this but I will not - Dr. Goldsmith knows my views. In 1985 I had no background in vocational education. My background was secondary school and on to university. However, my preconceptions about vocational education, which were ill-informed and unfounded, were straightened out for me early on in my term as chairman. I readily confess I tended towards the elitist in education, which was wrong. I quickly came to understand what the whole ethos meant in terms of the provision of education through the vocational sector, which I found very inclusive and progressive.

I will ask Dr. Goldsmith a few questions which are not intended to question his integrity as an academic and professional. I am aware of his integrity through previous involvement with him. First, I will put a question to Mr. Leonard. I posed the question earlier during the CIT submission but did not get a response, for which I do not blame Mr. Leonard. In the case of the ongoing provision of music education through CIT, Dublin Institute of Technology and so on, it appears on the evidence available that there is a reverse movement. My information is that as CIT moves forward, it embraces more enthusiastically the provision of pre-third level music. From the statistics available, it appears the reverse is the case in the Dublin Institute of Technology.

In his presentation, Mr. Leonard dealt with general music education in the State. We are all familiar to varying degrees with the provision of music education at primary and second level throughout the State. We are acutely aware of the shortcomings, notwithstanding the huge emphasis on the many initiatives in music education both at primary and second level. I am aware of this because of my family's participation. I am anxious to establish the Department's policy on the provision of specialist vocal and instrumental training, which cannot be carried out as part of the general school music education.

Deputy Andrews raised a number of questions I wanted to raise, so I will try to only touch on them. I warmly embrace Senator Tuffy's sentiments. Not that I should have doubted her, given her background. I worked very closely with her father during my chairmanship of the VEC and I am very heartened by the strong sentiments she has expressed.

Since the Dublin Institute of Technology was removed from the CDVEC under the Act in the early 1990s it has shown a pattern of the diminution of pre-third level education. The contribution which was so developmental up to then has not been in evidence since. In other words, the service has been diminished. I would like this issue to be addressed. Dr. Goldsmith made the point that the Dublin Institute of Technology took the view in 1994 that it should seek to retain first and second level music only until the alternative provision is put in place. Deputy Andrews made the point that if there is an alternative which is doing the same job cheaper, so be it. I have no problem with that. However, the submissions made to me suggest that since 1994, in the absence of such alternative provision, the provision for pre-third level music has been run down. That is the strong perception of parents' representatives and some teaching staff, whether Dr. Goldsmith and I like it or not. Did the academic council of the Dublin Institute of Technology wilfully, knowingly, publicly or privately take a decision to run down the provision of pre-third level music within the Conservatory of Music? Did the unions have a partnership role in the process? I am sticking to the assumption that the provision has been reduced significantly in the absence of an alternative provision.

There is the question of the cost of the provision within the IT vis-à-vis CDVEC alternatives in the community. I find that a bit baffling but I have been removed from it for a number of years. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for it. If it is as simple as Dr. Goldsmith suggests, that is, that we can provide a more locally based alternative of the same standard and quality, I would consider it enthusiastically. I would like to know how Dr. Goldsmith came up with the figures. He seems to suggest there has been an absence of development of national policy and, since 1992-94, the Dublin Institute of Technology has consistently taken the view it needs a national guideline but the response has been negligible. I would like Dr. Goldsmith and Mr. Leonard to comment in more detail on that aspect because I am not sure it is the case.

There was a reference to fixed cost increases which are non-negotiable as far as Dublin Institute of Technology is concerned. Perhaps I could have a few examples of this. From my interaction with them, I do not know whether certain partners in the Conservatory of Music are convinced that is the case. It was suggested that no area can escape being hit - in other words, no area can expect to be exempt. There is a view, rightly or wrongly, that the one area hit stronger than others is the pre-third level area. If that is the case within the college of music, perhaps some clarification is needed. I will leave it at that for the moment but I I might have an opportunity to ask a question or two at the end.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I will refer to the history of the college. It has been in existence for more than 100 years, first, as the College of Music, then the Conservatory of Music and, more recently, it has been taken under the wing of Dublin Institute of Technology. When it was originally founded in 1890, it was set up to remove some of the elitism in music and to provide musical instruction at moderate charges. It is important that ethos, which was referred to by Senator Tuffy, is not lost in what I acknowledge are genuine financial difficulties of Dublin Institute of Technology, which is shared throughout the third level sector, particularly by Dublin Institute of Technology because of the number of different campuses and so on. The first point I would make is that it is important that the long history, ethos and valuable work of the Conservatory of Music is not sacrificed to the financial difficulties, which are not of the Dublin Institute of Technology's making. These are difficulties with which it must live and for which it must make plans.

There is serious fear and uncertainty among staff, parents and children in the Conservatory of Music. In some ways what has happened today will not allay these fears. I share Deputy Andrews's concerns that there is not a clear view from the Dublin Institute of Technology as to where it stands on the activities of the Conservatory of Music. What I think I am detecting is that Dublin Institute of Technology would prefer to keep the more senior level but not to have responsibility for music education at lower levels. My colleague, Senator Tuffy, has made a strong argument for integration of music education and for not chopping things up into different levels.

The Department of Education and Science also has questions to answer in this regard. The Dublin Institute of Technology has to operate within its budget but, while I accept that policy matters are primarily a matter for political leaders, there appears to be a lack of policy for music education in the Department. Mr. Leonard's presentation gave us a good overview. The O'Brien report was mentioned to me as having made specific recommendations and I am interested in Dr. Goldsmith's views on that report, as well as those of the Department. What are the plans for the future? It is not fair on the people involved in the conservatory to have to live with this uncertainty.

The budget and operational plan for 2003-2004 has added to the fear and uncertainty. It singles out the Conservatory of Music and apprenticeship places as the two areas for review. I accept that a number of academic areas are under review and that these include the conservatory of music and drama and the provision of additional apprenticeship places. Nevertheless, the plan gives a signal that these two areas might be subject to more cuts than others. This may not be intended but the fact that they are specifically mentioned gives rise to fears. There are also fears among staff and uncertainty about conditions of employment, security and so on. These need to be addressed.

Can Dr. Goldsmith confirm that the position of senior head of school has been vacant for between two and three years and that the post of head of keyboard is vacant and has not been advertised? All of these things suggest an intention to change things. As other members have said, Dr. Goldsmith must provide for music education out into the community. However, it often happens that proposals are made but do not come to fruition while existing facilities are meanwhile downgraded and are not replaced. This committee should seek an assurance that there will be no loss of provision unless and until agreed alternatives for certain students are in place. I do not know if moving provisions to other parts of Dublin is the right thing to do but it is essential that we maintain what is there. The school of music has been a positive force for the music education of the people of Dublin and outside.

Deputy Hoctor

I too welcome Dr. Goldsmith and his team. I am delighted Mr. Leonard and his officials from the Department have remained with us. Senator Fitzgerald referred to the apparent diminution of pre-third level music education. The provision and promotion of music at second level, and particularly at leaving certificate level, has been a continuous struggle for teachers. In the past it was a rarity to see any student receive an A grade in honours leaving certificate music. I hope this has changed. I would be grateful for a response from Mr. Leonard on this matter. The experience of music education at second level has an effect on students when they come to Dublin Institute of Technology or to third level colleges throughout the country. My sister, who was a talented performer on piano, took the theoretical music syllabus rather than the performance syllabus at leaving certificate because it was more attractive and, even so, was awarded a humble C grade. Nevertheless she went on to do a degree in music. She was very determined but the curriculum at that time was not encouraging. I am interested to know if the syllabus has been made more attractive for students.

What is the gender balance of the 177 students in Dublin Institute of Technology? It is important that we have a gender balance in all disciplines in our third level colleges. I commend Dublin Institute of Technology on the preparation of the M.Mus. degree. It is important that we keep students within the country. I understand that no institution here currently provides a music therapy course. I am aware of people who had to go abroad to pursue this subject. I encourage Dublin Institute of Technology, if it is within its resources, to investigate this area. Music therapy is a valuable resource for schools and hospitals and this committee should encourage the Department to take it up.

Chairman

A number of points and questions have been raised. There are a few for the Department so I will go to Mr. Leonard first.

Mr. Leonard

I will be delighted to deal with the educational aspects of the questioning.

With regard to Deputy Hoctor's question about leaving certificate music, I have been chief examiner for the past five or six years. I appreciate the points she made about the older course. A colleague and I made a presentation to this committee in the year 2000 on the significant changes that had been made to the leaving certificate music syllabus through the NCCA and, subsequently, through the Department. I can reassure the Deputy that the impact of those changes has been significant, both in increasing participation from 1,100 to 4,000 in the space of four years and in changing the grade profile of candidates. This results from changes in the syllabus structure and, particularly, on the assessment structure.

I am aware of the availability of music therapy in the Cork School of Music and of a post-graduate course in the University of Limerick.

Senator Fitzgerald made a number of points. I am not in a position to deal with the situation in Dublin Institute of Technology but I am familiar with the situation in Cork, where students are enrolled from a very young age. I am aware of the non-elitist nature of the Cork school and of the fact that the school caters for students of varying ages who exhibit an expertise and ability to aspire to the top levels of performance, nationally and internationally. That has been proven to be the case in Cork. In addition to catering for the top-flight performers the Cork school also caters for the average music students who are keen to progress to the best of their ability. I acknowledge that this is done well and professionally in the Cork School of Music. The Cork School of Music also complements the work teachers do in primary and post-primary schools. It is broadly based. The non-elitist nature of the Cork School of Music provides for a range of musical genres, including a very successful big band, numerous orchestras, string quartets and vocal ensembles. A wide range of musical styles is embraced by the Cork school of music.

Specifically to answer the point, I am aware on a professional level - this is not to detract from Dr. Goldsmith's point - of the Cork situation, where it works extremely well, and has done so for many years. I am not familiar with the position in the Dublin Institute of Technology, as Dr. Goldsmith outlined it, so I will not comment.

Senator Fitzgerald also referred to a number of reports on the position nationally. There is the situation outlined in our brief presentation this morning regarding school music. In addition there is music tuition operated by a number of vocational education committees and institutions, many of them referred to in today's discussions. Two significant reports have been mentioned. For the O'Brien report, Mr. Jack O'Brien, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Education and Science, conducted a review of the operation of music schemes in Cork, Limerick and Kylemore College in Dublin. He made a number of recommendations regarding staffing and the provision of staff in terms of full-time and part-time EPTs. That report was published about a year and a half ago.

Another report referred to this morning is the music network feasibility study. The music network consulted widely in the formulation of that report, which dealt with the feasibility of establishing a network for the provision of instrumental and vocal tuition nationwide. I understand the report is being printed but has not yet been presented to the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism.

Dr. Goldsmith

There have been many questions, which I will try to group, as Deputies and Senators had related questions.

I will try to make it absolutely clear what the Dublin Institute of Technology policy is, because there seems to be confusion about it. Dublin Institute of Technology is certainly not trying to simply walk away from first and second level music provision. The decline in numbers has been happening for a long time. My presentation shows that it was happening even before Dublin Institute of Technology, which is trying to move the issue forward, so that we can have a comprehensive policy for handling music education in Ireland. We shall continue to support first and second level music to the best of our ability, but our ability is limited in a number of ways, not least in the financial area.

I was asked how I made the cost comparisons, on what basis I showed a 40% difference. I simply checked the whole range of activities with regard to teaching done in CDVEC and in Dublin Institute of Technology. Dublin Institute of Technology has moved to bring in the pro rata agreements. At the present part-time rate, it costs €44.66 to employ a part-time teacher in Dublin Institute of Technology. When we move to an hourly pro rata rate, it will cost €1,687.05 for a pro rata teacher to teach one hour of music, or one hour of any subject, for the academic year.

If one looks at the comparable cost in CDVEC, two things emerge. The teaching rates are different at second level. Dublin Institute of Technology has no option to pay second level rates and must pay third level rates. Not only that, but the contractual requirements are significantly different. A teacher teaching in CDVEC under the standard agreement must teach 22 hours weekly while Dublin Institute of Technology can only ask for an assistant lecturer to teach 18 hours per week. In getting the 40% figure, I looked at the balance of provision within Dublin Institute of Technology and the various grades and took averages. I am not saying it is an absolute figure, but I am known to be reasonably good at mathematics, and I can say the figure is not too far off.

That is the simple basis for the cost. It is not possible for Dublin Institute of Technology to continue carrying that cost and deliver the other third level activities it is required to deliver. I was asked if Dublin Institute of Technology will hold on to everything until other alternatives are in place. We would like to, but it is not possible. If Dublin Institute of Technology attempts to do so, it will run up a major deficit, and we are not allowed to do that. Action must be taken this year.

There is also a suggestion and a fear that somehow Dublin Institute of Technology has not spread these activities evenly. I guarantee that it has. I have looked at the reduction in part-time hours and spread it right across the board. Our business faculty has taken a considerably bigger cut in its part-time allocation than the faculty of applied arts. The latter has taken a cut in its part-time hours of about 34%, with 33% the Dublin Institute of Technology average.

Dr. Hazelkorn pointed out to me that because of the way the budgets are distributed within the schools, the Conservatory of Music will next year have 53% of our pay budget - it had only 48% this year. We are not trying to undermine the position of the conservatory - quite the opposite, we are trying to protect it. I was asked if we did not want to have first and second level commitment. We certainly want such commitment. Dublin Institute of Technology sees an essential role for the conservatory in the provision of music education in this State. The conservatory will always have a role to play, even when there is local provision, because by definition, local provision may well be small. There is a need to have a focal point where we can bring students together for example from ensemble playing, which is such a critically important part of student development. There will always be situations where we need specialist teachers of the "lesser" instruments - without insulting them, instruments which do not attract large numbers of students - and it may well be that an institution like Dublin Institute of Technology or CIT or some other specialist school will be the focal point of that type of tuition. All of that is certainly a role for Dublin Institute of Technology, and in our plans for our new development at Grangegorman, we are taking that very much into account, and want it to be part of what we are doing. If it has not come across to people that that is our view, then I must take responsibility.

As for the comments in our operational programme, mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan, with regard to singling out music and apprenticeship, this has been put to me several times. Perhaps my understanding of the English language is not good, but I thought the programme said very clearly that we were looking across the board. We specifically mentioned music and apprenticeship because they are the two non-third level parts of Dublin Institute of Technology, and we wanted to make it absolutely clear in our budget submission that the cuts would affect every area, that the non-third level area would not be exempt. It was not intended nor has it happened that those areas were singled out to take the brunt of the cuts.

I am loath to get into a deep statistical argument. It must be remembered, when looking at a simple body count in an area like music, that a part-time student may attend Dublin Institute of Technology for as little as half an hour per week. There are, perhaps, not too many like that and perhaps an hour and a half would be more normal. A full-time student could be there for 25 to 30 hours. If we are to compare the cost base and the amount of resources being put into something there must be some agreed way of comparing like with like. The number that is held by the Department of Education and Science is the so-called FTE, full-time equivalent. If we look at the balance of provision in Dublin Institute of Technology we see that full-time equivalent students in music have increased.

I do not know if I can make it any easier. I was thinking of an example that might be less numerical. Let us look at the health services for example. The health services might report today that it did 2,000 operations last year but this year it has only done 1,000 operations. It might mention that, by the way, last year the 2,000 operations were all tonsillectomies but this year the 1,000 operations were all major heart surgery operations. Where would the balance of resource provision be in that? We cannot simply count numbers and take the resources. We must count full-time equivalents to see what the correct basis for comparison is. On the basis of full-time equivalents, Dublin Institute of Technology has quite definitely increased its commitment to music. I do not deny that the balance of provision has changed. Dublin Institute of Technology has a limited base of resources from which it must try to provide all that type of music education.

Senator Tuffy, I think, made the point that there is funding for music included in our budget. It is not clear to me that this is the case. The Department stated this morning that part-time programmes were to be self-financing. Dublin Institute of Technology has been subsidising part-time programmes in music to an enormous extent. While listening to the debate about Cork I did a quick calculation. If Dublin Institute of Technology was to charge the economic fee, on a self-funding basis for a programme in music, the fee would be something like €4,000 or €5,000 per annum. The current fee is €383 or €363.

There is no way music can be charged for on a self-funding basis unless we want to stop it. Dublin Institute of Technology has been carrying that cost, in significant measure, for a long time. It is not that we want to get rid of part-time music programmes but we are forced into the real world of our present economic circumstances. Dublin Institute of Technology cannot run up a budget deficit and therefore must take action to protect its programmes. I made a public statement that we would try to protect our full time programmes. That was a difficult decision but it had to be made. Our students come in out of schools with expectations. They have been studying for a number of years to go on these programmes and we have an obligation to do everything in our power to protect that route.

I would not like anyone to get an impression because of a present, and I hope transient, financial difficulty that somehow Dublin Institute of Technology has changed its whole policy on part-time education, and I do not just mean in music. Dublin Institute of Technology is resolutely committed to its concept of education. It is very proud of the model of education it has espoused. I would go so far as to say that Dublin Institute of Technology and its model of education has served this country well and that the staff of Dublin Institute of Technology are to be congratulated for that activity over a long period of years.

We also have to live with the reality. We have to make these, I hope, very temporary, cutbacks. Again what happens when one has a certain amount of financial difficulties can often be an opportunity to get things right. There is a need to reopen this debate. I was asked how I knew the outcome of the report. I have not seen the report, I hasten to add, but like every other report in Ireland its contents are pretty well known in a wide sphere. Incidentally, I was not consulted by the group involved although other people in Dublin Institute of Technology were. I was not personally consulted.

Should we build up a position of protecting what is there and of not undermining the existing situation? Yes, but the reality is that Dublin Institute of Technology has to balance what it can protect and what can be cut back at the present time. What we have been trying to do is a strategic analysis of where we are, what we can provide and what we can do to make sure we are not just making knee-jerk reactions in a difficult financial situation. Rather than that we are trying to make decisions that are fully in accord with our published strategic plan.

I am sure there are many specific questions that I have not addressed but I hope I have addressed the bulk of them. I was asked by Deputy Andrews if we could defer the budget. The answer is "no". We have to produce a budget and if we do not the Minister will. The budget has gone forward.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I asked about specific posts that had not been filled.

Dr. Goldsmith

The post of the head of the conservatory was advertised. It was offered within the past two months but the person selected, after some consideration, decided to turn it down. The post will be advertised again. The institute is not advertising as rapidly as it used to because the cost of placing advertisements is high. We are trying to wait until we have advertisements for a number of posts to put in together. Those posts will be advertised and will be filled as soon as we find suitable candidates. There is no doubt about that.

Deputy Andrews

I thank Dr. Goldsmith for his answers. I am pleased it is his will to progress and protect primary and post-primary level within his institute. He said that conditions at present are not sufficient to carry out that will and wish on his part.

The committee's deliberations are set in the context of what Mr. Leonard said originally about the whole area of music education which we have not had a chance to explore but which we will undoubtedly do in the future. I thank you all for your very helpful presentations.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 April 2003.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate - Thursday, 27 Mar 2003

Music Education: Presentation.

Mr. Jerome Leonard

Mr. Leonard

Mr. David Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Mr. Gordon

Dr. Geoffrey Sprat

Mr. Michael Delaney

Mr. Leonard

Dr. Brendan Goldsmith

Mr. Leonard

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

Dr. Goldsmith

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 27 Mar 2003