Amendment No. 15 has been ruled out of order as it involved a potential charge on Revenue.
Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991: Committee and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 18, after "Act", to insert "and shall comprise such and so many colleges as may be determined by the Minister, from time to time, on the recommendation of the Vocational Education Committee or of the Governing Body made following consultation with the Vocational Education Committee".
The bones of this amendment is to request that decisions be made on the recommendation of the vocational education committee whereas the Bill says, "after consulting". I do not feel particularly strongly about it but somebody else may.
Section 3 (2) of the Bill provides that the institute of technology shall be made up of the institutions specified in the First Schedule and the First Schedule lists the six institutions involved. Senator Raftery will be familiar with them.
The Senator's amendment seeks to allow the Minister to extend the list from time to time on the recommendation of the vocational education committee or the governing body. That amendment is superfluous in that section 3 (3) of the Bill provides that the Minister may, by order, amend the list of institutions in the First Schedule. Section 3 (3) states: "whenever the Minister and the vocational education committee considers that an institution should be added". This is an arrangement I entered into with the Irish Vocational Education Committee Association where I restored and strengthened the role of the vocational education committee so that there is a requirement for the agreement of the Minister and of the vocational education committee. That is stronger that the Senator's amendment, from the point of view of the vocational education committee, and I think they are pleased with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
May I ask the Minister to explain the logic behind designating these institutions collectively as the Dublin Institute of Technolgy while getting himself involved in a complicated mess of schools in Cork in order to hold on to the definition of a Regional Technical College there? The regional technical college, Cork incorporates a school of music, school of art and a large overcrowded regional technical college. Logic would suggest that the situation in Cork is closer to an institute of technology as defined here than to a regional technical college as defined by the Regional Technical Colleges Bill: There is no appropriate place to discuss this matter because they are two different Bills and, therefore, I must use one or the other. What are the criteria by which schools are amalgamated as a regional technical college rather than as an institute of technology, or is it all about lobbying the Minister? I cannot see objective criteria here in terms of levels of complexity, levels of academic activity or numbers of students. It is meaningless to incorporate a school of music and a school of art, with separate existences, into an regional technical college and, in my view, to downgrade them in the process in order to avoid the logic of extending the definition of "institute of technology" beyond one place.
This is the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill.
The other Bill is the Regional Technical Colleges Bill.
We have just dealt with that.
Where do I discuss this issue?
The Dublin Institute of Technology Bill deals with the establishment of a new institute comprising six colleges, an entirely logical coming together of these colleges into an institute of technology. There are approximately 9,000 students in the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges. The Senator described the situation at the regional technical college in Cork and that is a separate institution. I am not clear on whether the Senator suggests that I combine the regional technical colleges into an institute of technology.
I am not clear on whether it is the number of colleges, the number of students or the level of academic activity that leads the Minister to believe that in this case, six institutions should be combined into a new institution, whereas in Cork, three institutions are amalgamated into an existing institution. I would like to know the basis of this decision.
Much of it is dictated by practicalities and working relationships. The Dublin Institute of Technology has been so described for ten or 15 years. The concept of these six colleges working closely together and offering complementary and compatible courses has evolved over time and now fits. The colleges are satisfied with it and the colleges taken together offer the broad range of technology — some of it ancillary that should be available in an institute of technology. It was not a case of sitting down and trying to design an institute of technology. In this case the Dublin Institute of Technology evolved and it makes sense to describe it as such.
A Cork Institute of Technology would make more sense, given the nature of the three schools being combined there than a Dublin Institute of Technology given the combination of colleges there.
That may be the case, but we are addressing the Dublin Institute of Technology here and trying to get that formally established. The other regional technical colleges around the country complicate the position in Cork; their situations are not the same. There are 9,000 students in these six colleges who have been working closely together for a long time. If a Cork institute of technology with schools attached to it were to emerge, then so be it. That would have to be looked at and decided on separately. It would not automatically follow the evolution of the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is a separate issue and could be looked at another time.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 3, after "training" to insert", including apprenticeship education,".
We felt it was important to include the words "including apprenticeship education" because I understand that in the Dublin Institute of Technology there are about 5,000 apprentices. So, given the contribution made by apprenticeship training, it would be appropriate to enter it in that section.
We have taken account of that. "Apprenticeship" is fully covered by the present provision in section 5 (1) of the Bill. It states:
the principal function of the institute, subject to the provision of this Act, will be to provide vocational and technical education and training.
I am satisfied that the phrase "vocational and technical education and training" includes and fully covers apprenticeship.
Second, my amendment in the Dáil requires governing bodies — and I agreed this with the vocational education committee Association — to have regard to the statutory responsibilities of the vocational education committees as applies to their functions under the 1930 and subsequent Acts. There is a requirement on governing bodies to have regard to the vocational element of vocational education committees and I am satisfied that that covers it. I resisted inclusion of the word "apprenticeship" in the Dáil and will do so again because the meaning of the word is changing so much here and throughout the European Community, that the word may not necessarily be suited to this Bill.
I will not dwell on this matter because it was discussed at length in the Dáil and I understand that the Minister will not accept the amendment. We are trying to introduce the specific designation of apprenticeship education because that describes a large part of the work done by the six colleges that make up the Dublin Institute of Technology and to leave it out suggests that it may or may not be dealt with by the new institute. There may be an argument for it to be dealt with at second level rather than third level colleges. That is not being addressed. The Green Paper is not clear on that.
The only way one can ensure it is addressed by the institute is by putting it into this legislation. There is a great deal of concern among the training agencies about the block release of apprentices for educational purposes and the educational input that goes into training. We want to specifically refer to apprenticeships otherwise this could result in the educational content being diluted so that it would become training and its specific attachment to this institute would enhance the apprenticeship in the educational sphere. That would be a very good thing.
I understand the point the Senator is making but technical education and training are generally regarded as including apprenticeships. The only reason I am resisting the word is that its meaning is changing and will change dramatically over time; it is rather old-fashioned in that sense. I am satisfied that the phrase "technical education and training", combined with the statutory responsibility the governing body has with regard to the vocational education committees statutory duties, which includes technical education and training, achieves the same result the Senators want, and is better in terms of the wording of the Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3; amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9 are related. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 9 to 11, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following new paragraph:
"(b) to confer, grant or give degrees, postgraduate degrees, diplomas, certificates and other educational or honorary awards".
This is a most substantial amendment. The Minister dwelt on this point to a degree, under the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. I do not want to take from the regional colleges in any way, but it is more important here in terms of the range of work, the variety of courses and the specialist areas of operation of the Dublin Institute of Technology. The inclusion of degrees as part of the award mechanism of the institute, whether they be primary, post-graduate or hononary degrees should be an essential part of the new institute, which will be the largest third level institution in the country. It would be a shame if, while we give it the status of being an institute and a statutory basis, we should at the same time deny it the one element that will confer that status on it.
The international study group on technological education recommended that there should be a new institute with the power to confer awards. That was the direction in which the Minister was advised to go. Approximately 20 per cent of the awards are made in liaison with Trinity College at present and 20 per cent through the NCEA. The other 60 per cent of diplomas and certificates in various courses are made by the institute itself. Instead of having to rely on either the NCEA or Trinity College, the Institute, in its own area of speciality and professional expertise should now be allowed to confer its own degrees.
I know the Minister will say there is provision under subsection (2) (a) for him to allow the change to take place. Let us not leave it like that. Anything can happen in a year or two. There may be a new Minister and new ideas might be discussed. There have been three Ministers for Education within a short period. Whatever good intentions the Minister may have at this time, this is the opportunity to put them in place. This could be a feather in the Minister's cap. He would be remembered as the person who insisted that this legislation should confer on the new institute the ability to confer degrees, primary, post-graduate, or honorary.
The Minister spoke about the difficulties of having all these new regional technical colleges awarding degrees. There was a certain logic in that and I can accept that, but the same logic does not apply to the Dublin Institute of Technology. It has a long tradition of teaching to degree level and conducting research for Master's degrees and PhDs. What is the reason for denying them the authority to grant their own degrees? The products of the Dublin Institute of Technology are well known nationally and internationally. I fail to see why the Minister should not take this opportunity to accept this amendment to grant authority to the Dublin Institute of Technology to award their own degrees, as well as diplomas, certificates, etc.
The Dublin Institute of Technology will be given degree awarding powers and my target, subject to discussions, would be that within 12 months, we might be able to arrive at that position.
I need that time because we are undertaking a major reorganisation of the Dublin Institute of Technology, the integration of the six colleges into a single structure, and putting in place a new governing body and academic council. It is appropriate that, before we take that final step we should have an opportunity to consult with the new governing body and the academic council as to qualitative matters and, generally, how we might proceed. I would like the new governing body and academic council to be part of that final feather in the cap of the Dublin Institute of Technology.
There is no other reason. It is a pragmatic approach. If we do all this work now, leave the authority to do it by order, set ourselves a 12 months target, it will not have to come back in legislation; the Minister can do it. I do not see any reason I or any future Minister for Education would demur from this.
The colleges have given very fine service and have turned out generations of highly qualified graduates of which I, and I am sure everybody else, can be proud. This would be the final accolade for the Dublin Institute of Technology. There is no hidden agenda, it is simply a matter of getting all this work done and then, finally, giving the degree awarding powers, after we have had an opportunity to talk to the new governing body and academic council about matters.
Nearly everything the Minister said agrees with our position that this should take place as quickly as possible. The Minister says his timescale is 12 months. I hate to say it but he may not be here as Minister for Education in 12 months time. I am not suggesting that he would be demoted or anything like that, but there has been a considerable turnover in the job in the recent past.
There is nothing in the legislation that suggests a timescale, unfortunately. Indeed, there is not enough in the legislation to suggest that it is wholly at the behest of the Minister for Education, either; it requires the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. I would be worried that the Minister for Finance might ask the Minister for Education what it would cost to give this institute the power of conferring primary and post-graduate degrees by way of new laboratories, research facilities, etc. The Minister for Finance might be reluctant coming up to the Estimates at the end of the year when finances are not in the best of order.
All of what the Minister said in relation to having the governing body in existence and getting the show on the road does not balance out against the necessity of putting in place the substantial powers that should be conferred on the Dublin Institute of Technology. This is the substantial power the institute and all associated with it want. They recognise the ability to confer a primary degree, to confer a higher degree, to confer an honorary degree as being, as the Minister put it, the feather in the cap of the institution; it would also be a feather in the cap of the Minister who gives the power.
I do not think anything the Minister might say would convince me that this is not the time to do it. Even at this late stage with less than an hour to go before the guillotine falls, I appeal to the Minister to allow this one amendment which would have a very substantial and a beneficial effect.
Question put "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Costello and Raftery.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment Nos. 31 to 39, inclusive, not moved.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
I thank the Seanad for their kind consideration of this legislation and also the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. It is now better legislation as a result of our discussions.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit on Tuesday, 14 July 1922 at 2.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.