Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 10 Jul 1992

Vol. 133 No. 17

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Kennedy

On 14 May 1930, during the passage through the Dáil of the Second Stage of the Vocational Education Bill, 1930, Professor John Marcus O'Sullivan, the Cumann na nGaedhael Minister for Education in the period 1926-1932 stated:

One of the matters in which technical education in Ireland at present fails short of the requirements is that there is not sufficient relation between the system and the neighbourhood which it purports to serve. The local connection is more necessary in this type of education than elsewhere. Hence, I agree with the views put forward by the special commission on technical education that local education committees should be retained.

In a similar vein during the passage of the 1930 legislation, Professor Alton stated: "The central idea of the Bill is the vocational committees". Thus, with this single vision and guiding principle John Marcus O'Sullivan steered through the Dáil and Seanad this great monument to his memory, the Vocational Education Bill, 1930, one of the great landmarks of Irish education history.

The 1930 Act and the 38 vocational education committees established under it have served this country, I think all will agree, very well over the past 62 years. The vision of those who framed that Act has been given the eloquent testimony of experience and its flexibility and far reaching features are recognised among its greatest virtues. It is in that overall context, therefore, that I wish to pay special tribute to the vocational education committees of this country for the magnificent and splendid work they have done over the past 62 years in advancing and promoting all aspects of vocational and technical education.

It is in that same overall context that I deplore and condemn the undemocratic provisions in these Bills which seek to undermine and diminish the role, power and functions of local vocational education committees in Irish technical and technological education and to transfer many of these powers and functions to the bureaucratic arena of the Minister for Education and his officials. All this flies in the face of the Government's alleged commitments to decentralisation and the principle of subsidiarity as enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty. At the core of these Bills is a mistrust of the democratic structures at ground level and a determination to undermine and diminish decision making powers which are not immediately and directly within the bureaucratic control of the Minister and his Department.

The Regional Technical Colleges Bill, 1991, and the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991, represent a serious body blow to those striving to improve and enhance the role, functions and powers of local elected councils throughout this country. The irony of this is the growing demand within the European community for devolving and decentralising the powers and functions of governments at all levels. All our EC partners are striving hard to give new powers, functions and roles to local communities at town, city and county levels throughout the Community. They are endeavouring and striving to build a Europe of the regions, yet, it seems to me that this Government are terrified and petrified of devolution and decentralisation. They want everything to be decided in Dublin by a Minister and a core of officials who they think know best for the country.

As a vocational education committee member for many years I am deeply concerned about and suspicious of the blanket powers which the Minister for Education is being given by these Bills. These Bills are transferring the powers and functions of the local vocational education committees, of local representatives and local control to the Minister for Education. Moreover, they are conferring on the Minister for Education a degree of control, authority and involvement in the regional technical colleges and in the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges which the vocational education committees themselves never had. Both Bills are riddled with references to the Minister for Education. The decision as to which colleges will come within the legislation will be a matter for the Minister for Education. The Minister can decide the names of the colleges, what courses of study are pursued in these colleges, and what bodies can validate those courses.

Section 5 (1) (c) states that, subject to such conditions as the Minister for Education may determine, the colleges can engage in research, consultancy and development work. What has happened in these Bills to the concept of autonomy and academic freedom? I am sure that the many pressure groups and organisations who promoted the idea of academic freedom and autonomy for these colleges will look in vain for such freedom and autonomy in this legislation.

The IVEA, the umbrella organisation for vocational education in Ireland, is deeply concerned about many aspects of this legislation. They have produced detailed and sensible documentation and recommendations in respect of this legislation and foremost among the issues of concern to them is the degree of bureaucracy and centralisation which these measures and provisions entail. What is envisaged is not a freeing up of the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges in order to allow them to develop, expand and grow to meet needs according to their means and the wishes of the consumers of education, but rather an attack on the democratic structures which are already in place and have served third level, technical and technological education in particular so well in this country over these past years.

I think it is pertinent to ask the Minister for Education and the junior Minister the fundamental and crucial question, "What role do they envisage for vocational education committees in the future?" I am forced to ask the Minister this question because of the publication in a pre-emptive fashion of these Bills just in advance of a rational and comprehensive discussion on the Green Paper in Education. There is a genuine fear among many vocational education committees throughout this country that their days are numbered and that this legislation is just another chipping away at their powers and functions until they are finally abolished.

It is, of course, interesting to recall here today the historical context in which the present system of technical and technological education evolved. An organised system of technical instruction did not develop in Ireland until the early years of this century, although a number of individual institutions were making contributions in this field from the second half of the 19th century. The Samuelson Committee on Technical Education in Britain published their report in 1884 in which they pressed strongly for the expansion of technical education in Ireland with State support.

The State's role in providing financial assistance to technical education was recognised for the first time in the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, which empowered local authorities to provide financial aid for such education out of local rates. In the event, only 12 of the 228 local authorities at the time which could have given grants for technical education did so. The report of the Recess Committee in 1896 called for reform and recommended that technical education should be the responsibility of a new Government Department to be established to administer State aid to agriculture and industry. The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, laid the framework for a more organised local authority structure and it enabled the new county and borough councils to levy rates for the support of technical education. Thus, at the turn of the century, we had the Local Government (Ireland) Act, the Recess Committee and the Technical Instruction Act.

In 1922, technical education came under the Department of Agriculture and, in 1924, it became the responsibility of the newly established Department of Education. A special commission on technical education was established in 1926 to inquire into and advise on the system of technical education in Saorstát Éireann in relation to the requirements of trade and industry. They reported in 1927. The main recommendations of that special commission formed the basis of the Vocational Act of 1930, a hallmark of legislation of which we can all be justly proud.

The sixties saw a major thrust in the development of technical education with the publication of the Investment in Education Report in 1962 and Training of Technicians in Ireland in 1964. In May 1963, the Minister for Education, Dr. Patrick Hillery, signalled the Government's intention to arrange with appropriate vocational education committees for the provision of a limited number of technical colleges with regional status.

In September 1966, a steering committee on technical education was established, to advise the Minister generally on technical education in this country. The 1969 report of that committee formed the basis for the establishment, between 1970 and 1977, of the present framework and network of regional technical colleges. That steering committee broadly defined the role of these colleges as being to educate for trade and industry over a broad spectrum of occupations, ranging from craft to professional level, notably engineering and science but also commercial, linguistic and other specialties.

I wish to pay special tribute to all those who have been involved in the development and administration of our regional technical colleges, the academic and administrative staffs, the management boards and vocational education committees, for their tremendous work in promoting and advancing technical and technological education in this country over these past 22 years. The form of words used in the 1930 Act, the flexibility inherent in them and the spirit, thrust and intent of that legislation, facilitated all the developments which have taken place since 1930.

John Marcus O'Sullivan was a man larger than life. He was a man of many interests which ran the gamut from carpentry and growing his own vegetables to his formal academic disciplines of philosophy and history. He was a European in this country long before his time. With a PhD from Heidelberg he was in a position to enjoy and appreciate the richness of our European heritage during his frequent travels in France and Germany. It may be forgotten that he also served as Secretary of the Department of Finance. For that reason he must have been conscious, as he introduced the 1930 Act, that for education in this country to be of true benefit to the citizens, it must be strongly related to Ireland's social and economic needs. He saw virtue in a capacity to convert ideas into action.

In a recent important document published in June 1991 entitle Reviews of National Policies for Education — Ireland, the international examiners of the OECD state that Ireland may be geographically a small country with a small population but it ferments with comment and controversy. While there may be good measures in this legislation, many of the provisions are bristling with controversy. The Minister should take on board many of the comments and recommendations of the IVEA. He should consider the matter further in the light of the publication of the Green Paper and introduce appropriate amendments and appropriate legislation which will enable the regional technical colleges to carry out their own research, development and consultancy work.

The Minister and the Government should provide the few extra million pounds which would make such a difference to each of the colleges which are bursting at the seams. He should give us the wherewithal to expand, develop and continue the undoubted and splendid success achieved by the vocational education committees and the regional technical colleges over these past years.

Dr. Upton

Many of the items I wished to mention have already been discussed, some of them by Senator Kennedy.

At the outset, I want to talk about the role of the colleges in the area of research and development. The regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology have a very important and grossly underdeveloped potential to improve the technological capacity of Irish industry. Because of the colleges' close proximity to industry, through their association with apprenticeship and craft technician courses, they are in a unique position to understand and appreciate the day to day needs of industry to develop new products and processes. They are in a special position to accelerate the transfer of technology into Irish industry. They deal with the people who experience the day to day technological challenges of industry.

This immediate hands-on awareness of industry's problems provides those who lecture in these colleges with a unique opportunity to be fully aware of the possibilities to improve production processes and to enhance quality control procedures. The capacity of Irish industry to advance and develop will centre around the ability of the industrial workforce to do the simple things right. Japanese industry developed not because of the genesis of new ideas but because of a better application for existing ideas and technologies.

Prior to the introduction of this Bill, the role of the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology in technology transfer was restricted because of the legislation which established these bodies. To the extent that this Bill has removed these restrictions, it is very welcome.

The removal of these restrictions should help to develop industry in the hinterland of the regional technical colleges. There is some evidence already that this is taking place and there is potential for further developments in this area.

Despite the role of the colleges in industrial development and in the provision of a skilled workforce which will meet the needs of industry, it would be a great mistake to conclude that this is the only role of these colleges. The fundamental role of these colleges is still an educational one. We must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of thinking their function is to produce human industrial robots.

I am not impressed by heavy statements from the bosses of some of these colleges who would have us believe that if we produce, nationally, large numbers of graduates with Japanese and American values and attitudes, all our problems will be solved. I find it encouraging that so few Irish people take these zealots seriously; I hope no impressionable politician of any description will give them credence. In essence, what they are suggesting is that Irish people should cease to be Irish, that we would transform ourselves into a hybrid between Japan and America. I find that totally unacceptable. If these people want to take their case further, if they want to try and advance their opinions, let me invite them into the political process, get themselves nominated and put their names on the ballot paper. I have no doubt as to the capacity and wisdom of the Irish people to give these people their answer. In a way it is harmless enough to listen to these chaps sounding off, blowing their bugles, etc. Maybe some of it is done to impress foreign industrialists who come here but I would not like to think that they would get much further or that too many people would take them seriously.

Nobody could dispute that some rationalisation of the structures of the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical colleges was needed. The Dublin Institute of Technology colleges now provide courses for about 8,800 full-time students, 10,000 part-time students and 5,000 apprenticeship students. They started on a very small and limited scale and over time have grown enormously. They started with basic craft technician courses and they have now developed into full third level colleges providing courses up to degree level.

All this development from very modest beginnings, has taken place under the guidance of the vocational education committees. That is a very clear indication of the capacity of the vocational education committees to develop these colleges, to meet their needs and to allow them to expand. All this was done under democratic control and it is a pity the Minister has decided to restrict this control and to a large extent, sideline elected representatives from having a say in the control of these colleges.

This Bill confirms and consolidates the control of the Department of Education over these colleges. This, of necessity, will change the ethos of the colleges. It will change their links with their communities and inhibit their capacity to properly meet the needs of their communities.

Some of the provisions in relation to the governing bodies of these colleges are regrettable. Members of the Oireachtas are barred from becoming members of the governing bodies of those colleges. I am at a loss to see why. Many Members of the Oireachtas would have a very useful role to play. They would have a considerable understanding of the needs of the communities these colleges serve.

The Green Paper on Education has just been published. It is a basic discussion document covering all aspects of education. It has taken many years to produce. Almost immediately after the publication of that document, we now find three major education Bills being pushed through this House. The two colleges Bills are fundamental to the development of technological education in this country and it is a pity these Bills are being rushed through this House. We should have had the opportunity to consider the Green Paper and then consider these Bills in the context of that document.

The autonomy of the colleges will be greatly diminished. This is a move by the bureaucracy to get their hands on the colleges and control them, simply because some bureaucrats believe that politicians do not know what is best for them. I reject that idea.

Bureaucrats have a distrust and a disdain for the vocational education committee's and their role. Anybody who looks at the history of the vocational education committees can have no doubt as to the valuable, vital role they have played over the years. In addition to meeting the basic needs of large sections of the community for a technological education, the vocational education committee's have also shown considerable foresight and a capacity to develop, understand and expand. That is clear from the manner in which the regional technical college's and, in particular the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges have developed.

I agree with what Senator Kennedy said about the questions hanging over the future of the vocational education committees. I have grave doubts about their future. I see this measure as the thin end of the wedge. I am worried lest the vocational education committees go down the same road as the county committees of agriculture. That would be regrettable because of the immense contribution the vocational education committees have made to the development of education and the effort they have made to meet the needs of communities to develop technological skills.

There is not community in this country which has not been greatly enhanced by the role the vocational education committees have played over the years. In small rural communities vocational education committee schools have done a tremendous amount of work. When the vocational education committees changed and began to provide a full second level course to leaving certificate level, those colleges and schools were readily able to adapt. Some of the best schools in this country are vocational education schools; some are here in Dublin. There are also excellent schools in places like west Clare, where I come from, Kilrush and Kilmihill a very small community with an excellent vocational education school which, with very small resources and a limited number of teaching staff, produces excellent results. The same is true of the vocational colleges in Dublin including the one in my own constituency in Clogher Road, Crumlin. They provide an excellent service for the communities they serve. They have provided that service in good times and in bad. There were times when they got very little encouragement from the bureaucrats or from many of the leaders of opinion in this country, but they carried on, did their best and provided a wonderful service without which this country would be very much the poorer.

I regret the diminution of the role of the vocational education committee's under this Bill. I am very concerned about where this Bill and the thinking processes behind it are taking us in relation to the future of the vocational education committees.

Mr. McDonald

I am uneasy about these Bills especially the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. Like many of my colleagues I find it extraordinary that these Bills are being debated so soon after the publication of the long awaited Green Paper on Education and before Members have an opportunity to study that document which is the Government's blueprint for the development of education over the next number of years.

These Bills propose radical changes in education. I had the opportunity of serving on vocational education committees and on the board of one of the regional colleges in the mid-fifties. I have seen the evolution of vocational education. I do not understand how the Department or the Minister can choose to disregard that evolution and propose drastic changes which will deprive the education system of a local input. All the vocational education committees and the boards of the regional colleges have expressed grave foreboding about the direction this legislation is taking. This is unfortunate. I do not understand how the Minister can propose such radical legislation without at least asking for an input from the people who have been engaged full-time in providing a very comprehensive service that has served the country well over the years.

The biggest setback to the vocational education system possibly occurred when the TUI sought some years ago to have equality with secondary education. The role of the vocational schools changed and they were brought into line with the ordinary secondary schools which up to then had been dealing with the humanities. That left a void in the mid-seventies which was taken up by the FÁS programmes. They are doing excellent work, but they purport to be turning out craftsmen in nine month part-time courses. It was the tradition in this country, and in other countries, for people to serve their time and be apprenticed for three, four or five years. I do not know if the FÁS experiment will, in the long term, prove to be of lasting effect.

I am shocked the Government should introduce a Bill which would not endear itself to even one vocational education committee or to one of the boards of any of the regional colleges.

There are 38 vocational education committees in the country. They have established over 250 second level schools and 18 third level institutions. They provide a range of adult education centres, outdoor education centres and other centres of learning. They provide adult education courses for 130,000 people per annum, post-leaving certificate courses for 26,000 students, third level education for 28,000 students, education for 10,000 apprentices and a whole range of special education provision for those in special need, in all over 200,000 students. In addition, they provide the ordinary second level courses for 70,000 pupils.

Looking at that input into education it seems extraordinary that the people providing and manning that education system, the committees that supervise or plan it, the teachers and the board members on the various college boards all seem to be up in arms against this Bill. Does it not seem peculiar to the Minister and to the Department that these significant changes are not attractive to the people who are operating the present system? I understand the Government and the Department of Education have not sought the advice of those people engaged in the public service and, furthermore, they have ignored the representations that have been made by some of those committees and some of the regional technical colleges boards. That is highhanded as is the guillotine on the discussion of these two very important Bills.

In the final analaysis, this is a democracy. Many of my colleagues on the Government benches over the years have given excellent service in the development, and promotion of second and third level and of second chance education in every country. I would ask them, whether this is not progress at too rapid a pace? Are they sure what is now being proposed will be a great improvement on what has evolved since the 1924 Act? This is something on which only the members of the Government parties can satisfy themselves.

Education is very important to the youth of this country. The numbers registering as unemployed seem to be increasing. The least we can give to the youth of this country is a substantial education to qualify them to take up employment wherever they can find it, in our own country or in a unified Europe.

The Minister is a very experienced politician. The Minister of State is not only a politician with a sound record but he is the second generation in that tradition. How can any politician decide that service to the public should render one ineligible for service on governing bodies of these institutions? In a democracy, that is extraordinary and it is no wonder the public has a warped perception of the work politicians do. I was listening to a radio programme this morning on which people were not very supportive of the idea that the parliamentary holidays last for three months. People seem to think that when the House is not sitting, politicians do nothing. Most nights, when I get home I have to deal with many messages. Last night I had to telephone a constituent at 11 p.m. I did so because it would not have been possible for me to do it this morning.

How can the Minister, with his own personal experience, bring into this House and subject to a guillotine, a Bill that excludes those involved in politics from having an input into education? The agricultural committees were able to provide a specific service in local areas. That kind of operation is going to be more important in the future. For instance, if we need specific skills for any new industry, the lack of politician input will make it much harder to procure such services for industrialists or for potential workers.

I am astounded that people in the Government parties who have given a long tradition of service on committees of education can now decide that it was all a huge mistake and that politicians must be kept off these governing bodies. I know from 35 years' experience just how much hard lobbying is needed to procure the extension of a school. If the provision of services were left to the Department of Education and the Office of Public Works it would be 20 or 30 years before anything would be done. No one can say that is not true. If this new system is an improvement on what already exists I, for one, will be most surprised. We waited years for the Green Paper on Education which was promised by three successive Ministers, yet we were not given an opportunity to study the proposals in that substantial document before these Bills were put through with indecent haste.

I do not welcome this Bill, not because of its contents but because of the philosophy the Government are introducing into the education system, the lip service they pay to education and because they have ignored the experts in this field, the chairman and heads of the colleges across the country and in Dublin.

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

I thank Senators who participated in the debate for their interesting and varied contributions. I would say to Senator McDonald that the fact that I am replying at this stage speaks for itself.

I was glad to note that there was a general welcome for these two important Bills. All who spoke gave a welcome, although qualified in some cases, to the changes made in the Bills since they were initiated. Many of these changes were the result of a wide ranging consultative process with all the interests concerned and represent a genuine effort to meet the legitimate concerns of these interests.

In my remarks on Wednesday last at the commencement of Second Stage while outlining the provisions of the two Bills, I highlighted the more significant changes which were made either on Committee or Report Stages in the Dáil. I was glad to note the extent to which these amendments found acceptance on all sides of both Houses and with the interested groups. Senators will appreciate that with Bills of this nature which relate to a range of groups with often diverse, if not competing, concerns the changes made must, of necessity, seek to meet all interests. Some changes suit some people and other changes suit others. It is difficult to find someone who is satisfied with all the changes.

In this process we have been interested in trying to arrive at a reasonable balance between autonomy and control, devolved authority and centralised administration and greater freedom for the institutions and the preservation of meaningful links with the vocational education committee system.

A number of speakers, in addition to myself, paid well deserved tributes to the vocational education committees. This, of course, is right and proper since these committees provide the framework and the base from which the colleges have grown to be the outstanding educational institutions they are today. Third level education institutions of such calibre are invariably self-governing. These Bills are basically providing a suitable framework for self-governance. Inevitably some people say they are going too far while others say they are not going far enough. We are back to the question of balance which I have already mentioned. I believe we have got it right particularly in the context of the continued involvement of the vocational education committees.

The governing bodies will be required to have regard to the statutory responsibilities of the vocational education committees. The vocational education committees will have the single largest representation on the governing bodies all of whose nominees could, at the discretion of the vocational education committees, be local elected representatives. The committees will have the power to select the organisations which will nominate five members to the governing bodies and they will have as strong role in the annual agreement of programmes and budgets.

I was heartened by the degree of support which was forthcoming for the general thrust and intent of these two important Bills. The need to give greater autonomy to the institutions in their day-to-day operation, the statutory establishment of governing bodies and academic councils, the wide ranging of functions for the institutions, the firm foundation being given for involvement in research, consultancy and development work as well as the provisions relating to the exploitation of such work are among the progressive aspects of the Bills which were highlighted in the contributions to the debate.

Unfortunately Senator Jackman is not here today but in her very positive contribution she said it was important that the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology be properly established as third level institutions. She acknowledged that the Bills do this. She said, however, that she would have wished to see the title of the colleges changed. I fully share the Senator's views of the colleges as multi-faceted institutions. I am not, however, convinced that her suggestion that the title of polytechnic be substituted for the existing title is the most appropriate route to follow at this time.

She referred to the College of Art, Commerce and Technology as appropriate to the Limerick college. I understand that other colleges have views as to what might be appropriate in their case. While I might have sympathy with the Senator's views on the matter, I am conscious of the lack of consensus and for that reason I favour the approach of consultation with interested parties with a view to changing the titles where appropriate and by order under the terms of section 3 (4) of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill.

The Senator also referred to the time scale and said there was a lack of consultation. The time scale was also referred to by Senator Costello. To put the question of rushing these Bills through the House into perspective, I would remind the House that the Bills were long heralded. They were published in June 1991 and the Committee Stage began in December 1991. I do not think, in all fairness, that this schedule can be called steamrolling.

Mr. Costello

It is in the Seanad.

Mr. Aylward

We had an extra for Second Stage.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption. The Senator had his opportunity to contribute.

Mr. Costello

Why did the Minister guillotine——

Mr. Aylward

In regard to lack of consultation — a point made strongly by Senators Raftery and Costello — I assure the House that all the Ministers involved in these Bills were available to listen to the views of interested parties with whom wide ranging discussions took place up to last week. The concrete result of such discussions was the range of amendments introduced to deal with various concerns expressed by Deputies during Committee and Report Stages of the Bills in the Dáil, and by the IVEA.

The IVEA had discussions on the Bills with successive Ministers for Education as well as with officials of the Department and their various submissions were carefully considered. Most recently the Minister, Deputy Brennan, met their representative, on 6 May and again last week and I met their representatives in June, as was acknowledged by Senator Honan in her contribution. A series of amendments were introduced to meet their concerns. At their most recent meeting with the Minister, only one issue which was stated to be of fundamental importance was raised by the IVEA. This related to the initiation of action on the inclusion of other institutions under the terms of the Bills. Yet again, the Minister was prepared to meet their concerns and brought forward an appropriate amendment. Taking all of this into account I think the House will agree that allegations that no consultation took place are most unfair.

With regard to the views expressed by many Senators including Senators Jackman, Honan, Costello, O'Reilly that the vocational education committees are not strongly represented, I would like to reiterate the position. The vocational education committees have the largest representation on the governing body. They have power to nominate organisations requiring representation on the governing body. They are joined with the Minister in initiating action in the inclusion under the Bills of new colleges or parts of colleges. They have a strong role to play in programmes and budgets and the governing body will be required to have regard to the statutory responsibility of the vocational education committee.

I believe these strong links are entirely appropriate and clearly demonstrate that the allegation that all the vocational education committee influence has been clinically removed is quite unfounded. I have to say, however, that the Bills seek to give appropriate autonomy to these institutions. This could not happen while leaving the current situation unchanged. It was necessary to strike the balance I have spoken about the necessary autonomy, the role of the Minister and the role of the vocational education committee. The Bills succeeded in striking an appropriate balance which I believe all parties wish to succeed.

Senators Jackman and Honan expressed concern about the future role of vocational education committees. By relieving vocational education committees of direct management of schools we are freeing them to play a more flexible and entrepreneurial role in relation to the wide range of functions envisaged for them in the Green Paper. I cannot accept that the Green Paper downgrades the role of the vocational education committees in relation to the overall co-ordination of vocational education and training. In fact, the proposals in the Green Paper envisage them playing a lead role with the other agencies and sectors concerned both at local and national level with the provision of vocational education training. I wholeheartedly echo the concern expressed particularly by Senators Jackman, O'Toole and Conroy for the need to promote access to third level education and the special role of the regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technology in this regard.

Recent action in relation to the third level grant scheme will mean that a significantly greater number of young people will receive support for third level education but the problems are not just those of financial support. The crucial decisions that determine a young person's progression through the education system are taken early in their careers, in their approach to and success in education at first and second level and in the support they receive from their parents and the local community.

The Green Paper describes a range of actions intended to increase the number of young people remaining in education until the end of second level and to encourage them to progress to third level programmes, including a direct link between third level institutions and selected schools and the designation of a staff member in institutions to oversee this. Senators may have seen the recent advertisement for such a post for the new regional technical college in Tallaght. Support and access programmes for students at senior cycle and the possibility of providing priority access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be explored. Early in their school careers the home-school Link programme and the curriculum in the junior cycle together with an emphasis on early identification of difficulties should also serve to encourage greater participation by young people at both second and third level.

We have set ourselves ambitious but necessary targets of 90 per cent participation through second level by the end of the decade and by mid-decade of more than 45 per cent transferring to third level. This compares to 20 per cent in 1980. These strides are as a result of Government commitment to improving access to third level.

I also note Senator Jackman's comment on the accommodation position in COACT. I understand plans are afoot for major work on the college. I have sympathy with her views on the benefit of a location in the heart of Limerick city and I very much hope this aspiration can be accommodated.

With regard to her comment on the composition of the governing body in the Bills initiated by the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, I would remind the Senator that the original Bills envisaged only 15 ordinary members. She also mentioned the question of providing for five elected local representatives on the governing body. The Bills leave this matter entirely to the vocational education committees. The term used "at least three should be members of a local authority", means that all six vocational education committee nominees can be local authority members.

Senators McKenna, O'Toole and Conroy were also concerned at what they perceived as less involvement of local elected representatives. I have already dealt with the role of the vocational education committees at some length. This, together with the fact that all six vocational education committee nominees — that is one third of the governing body — could be elected representatives and bearing in mind the provision of section 6 (4) (b) for representation from vocational education committees in the region means I am satisfied that the Senators' concerns are catered for. As a member of a local authority for 18 years, I certainly have at heart the interest of local representation and I would not be party to any Bill that would not cater for that.

I agree with the Senators who remarked about the extent to which the regional technical colleges have been a significant factor in the development of the region which they serve. This regional remit is enshrined in section 5 in the statement of the principal function of the colleges. I have no doubt their contribution to regional development will be further enhanced through the provisions of these Bills.

Senators O'Toole and Jackman raised the question of the use of the term "chairman" as against "chairperson". I have sympathy with their views but there are two difficulties involved in this issue. First, our legal advice was to the effect that chairman was the correct term on the basis of a definition in the Interpretation Act, 1937. Secondly, I am aware that many women object to the term "chairperson."

Mr. O'Toole

Neither of those stand up.

Mr. Aylward

I have served under chairpersons or madam chairman and they resented very much being called "madam chairperson", or "madam chairman". They insisted on being called "chairman".

Mrs. Honan

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Toole

They insisted on being called "chairman" because that is what is contained in legislation. It is offensive.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption, please.

Mr. Aylward

The Bill provides for the chairman to be designated by such title as the governing body may determine. I hope this will allow for a satisfactory outcome in all cases.

Senator O'Toole was rather critical of the fact that governing bodies could not borrow money without express approval.

Mr. O'Toole

Of the vocational education committees.

Mr. Aylward

This provision is included in the section of the Bills dealing with the annual approval of programmes and budgets. I think Senator O'Toole would accept that the borrowing of money over and above the authorised budget is a matter that should require approval. Since the vocational education committee, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance are, in effect, the budgetary authority the necessary approval should come from these sources.

Senator O'Toole was also critical about the section in both Bills dealing with inspection. This section provides for inspection by persons other than inspectors and officers of the Department. It also provides for reporting to the Minister on other matters relating to the operation of the colleges. I can think of instances where such a report would be necessary. All in all, this is a good section and reflects the public nature of these institutions and the need for them to be publicly accountable.

The point which Senator O'Toole raised about officers and servants is a technical one and I agree with it. These terms are necessary because of the application of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1980 to staff of the institutions. Perhaps in other areas that can be looked at but because of the nature of this Bill we must apply it.

Senators Costello and Keogh raised the question of degree-awarding powers for the Dublin Institute of Technology. As has been stated in the Dáil, it is fully intended that such functions would be given to the Dublin Institute of Technology and amendments to copperfasten this intention were introduced to the Bill on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil. However, it is my view that it is more appropriate that these powers be given when the institute has been established as the single unified structure it will be with the appointment of a president and governing body. In the Dáil the Minister undertook that the necessary order to assign this function would be brought forward within a year of putting these Bills in place.

In relation to graduates generally having a voice in Seanad elections, a matter raised by a number of Senators, my understanding is the that the necessary constitutional amendment was already made in 1979. The legislative changes necessary are a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

I wish to thank my good friend, Senator Honan, for her very kind remarks. I understand her sincerely held fears about some of the changes these Bills will introduce. I thank her for her welcome to the amendments which have been made since the Bills were initiated. I trust that the remarks I made earlier about striking a balance and outlining the continuing meaningful role for the vocational education committees will go a good way to allay her fears.

In relation to a point the Senator raised about the composition of governing bodies, the position is that all of those mentioned in my address earlier, with the exception of the University of Dublin which is for the Dublin Institute of Technology only, will be on the governing bodies of the regional technical colleges. The provision excluding Members of the Oireachtas from public bodies is standard in more recent legislation but one which I agree should be looked at.

Senators Honan, Ryan and O'Reilly questioned the chairman being appointed by the Minister. This is the only nominee the Minister has to the governing bodies. This is not unreasonable out of 19 members in the regional technical colleges and 20 members in the Dublin Institute of Technology. The chairman's job largely is to regulate and conduct the business of the governing bodies. It is the views, experience, expertise and interest of the members of the governing bodies generally that will determine institutional policy. In addition, the governing body will be assisted by the academic council in the co-ordination, development and monitoring of the educational work of the institutions as well as in the protection and maintenance of academic standards.

Senator Ryan mentioned the references to the Minister. He will be aware that such reference were deleted in many places and now probably appear less often than in other third level Acts. The Senator also referred to accommodation resources in the regional technical colleges as against the universities. While over £64 million has been spent on capital projects in the colleges over the past ten years, it is accepted that there are many deficiencies still to be addressed. I hope that the next few years will see further major investment to add to the projects already in hand or coming on-stream.

I refer in particular to the new regional technical college in Tallaght due to open in September, the new college now under way in Bishop Street and the multi-purpose centres recently opened in a number of regional technical colleges. The strengthening of central and support services in the colleges is also under way and new posts will be put in place in all the colleges.

With regard to his point about the salary of college principals, the Senator will be aware that a claim is currently being dealt with at arbitration. I agree with Senator Conroy that there is need to increase participation in third level. I dealt with this point earlier and the Government's commitment to this objective.

The Government fully recognise the importance of third level education and this is reflected in a number of recent initiatives. In the last week we had the announcement of the increase in higher education grants and the increase for mature students and there were a number of announcements made over the last number of months. Examples are the programme of expansion of student places, major capital development initiatives supported by the European Stuctural Fund and the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to the importance of higher education. These initiatives are building on the active policy of the last 25 years to expand and diversify the sector.

Numbers in third level education have expanded rapidly over the last quarter of a century from 21,000 students in 1965 to almost 70,000 students in 1990-91 increasing in 1991-92 to about 72,000 students. Student intake in 1991-92 was close to 26,000, representing almost 40 per cent of the age group and with the additional places to be provided under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, participation is likely to increase in the medium-term to about 45 per cent of the age cohort. About half the third level intake proceed to degree level programmes.

These Bills are a further indication that the Government are fully committed to the development of higher education. This development and diversification is critical in offering the maximum opportunities to students with the capability to proceed to and benefit from third level education. Also, the development of the higher education sector is critical to the nation's economic and social prosperity through the provision of graduates with the necessary qualifications and through the provision of consultancy, research and development support to industry.

The provisions in this regard and those in the Bills generally are very comprehensive and do all that is necessary to give these institutions greater autonomy and freedom in the conduct of their day to day activities which is in keeping with the state of development they have reached and the potential they have to contribute to education, technology and economic development.

Again I thank Senators for their very positive and interesting contributions. I, accordingly, commend these Bills to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Wright

I seek the indulgence of the House. I understand that additional amendments have been tabled to the Bill in the past few minutes. Therefore, it is recommended that we suspend the House for 20 minutes so that the staff can process the amendments.

Sitting suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12.15 p.m.