Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1999

Vol. 2 No. 3

Qualifications (Education and Training) Bill, 1999: Committee Stage (Resumed).

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I suggest we continue our consideration of the Bill, provided we do not have interruptions for Dáil business, until 6 p.m. We will have a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. From 6.30 p.m. we will continue our consideration of the Bill until we are finished. We can, if necessary, review suspension of the meeting at 6 p.m. depending on the progress made. Is that agreed? Agreed.

SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 16, subsection (1)(a), line 34, after "establish" to insert "after consultation with providers and the Minister,".

The functions of the council shall be to establish policies and criteria that would determine the making of further education awards and the validation of programmes. There seem to be reasonable grounds for some form of consultation with providers in making awards and validation of programmes and my amendment would be worthwhile.

I do not have any difficulty with this amendment. I will table an amendment on Report Stage, subject to drafting, providing for consultation for the councils with the Minister and providers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 16, subsection (1)(a), line 34, after "criteria" to insert "which shall be regularly reviewed to ensure that they are in accordance with best international practice.".

My amendment returns to the theme that I developed in earlier submissions, which is that the policies and criteria be regularly reviewed to ensure they are in accordance with best international practice. The Minister will probably say section 14(2) covers that because it refers to the council informing itself of the needs of industry. I would prefer to see an explicit requirement to regularly review policies and criteria governing awards and validations to ensure that they are in accordance with best practice. Perhaps the Minister will impose a time limit on the review. It would show the council that it is the intention of the Oireachtas that the system be continually adapted to achieve best practice.

Yesterday I indicated that I might introduce an amendment on best international practice. I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage on page 17, section 14(2)(a), to include a reference to having to have regard to best international practice.

My amendment is slightly different from the Minister's proposed amendment. It says that the system of policies and criteria being put in place to make awards and validate programmes should be regularly reviewed. The second part of my amendment refers to the review and how to ensure policies and criteria are in accordance with best practice. There is more to my amendment than there is to the Minister's proposal.

Section 14 deals with the functions of the council. The wording of my amendment will be to the effect that the council in the performance of its functions shall do all the following, including regular reviews and having regard to best practice. Regular reviews are implicit in establishing policies and criteria.

I am happy that both suggestions will be accommodated in the Minister's proposed amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 46, 79 and 81 are related and will be taken with amendment No. 44 by agreement.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 17, subsection (2)(a), line 36, before "inform" to insert "following consultation with the Authority,".

It is an important function of each of the three bodies established by this Bill that they inform themselves of the relevant needs of business and industry. These amendments provide, inter alia, that when informing themselves of the education and training needs of industry, the professions and the public service, the respective awarding council shall consult the authority and promote practices in education and training in their respective areas of responsibility which meet these requirements. The aim is to ensure that the respective roles of the new bodies are clear.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 17, subsection (2)(a), line 38, after "business," to insert "tourism,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 17, subsection (2)(a), line 40, after "in" to insert "further".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 82 is related to amendment No. 47 and they shall be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 18, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Council may request—

(a) a provider of programmes of education and training whose programmes are validated under section 15, or

(b) a provider of programmes of education and training to which authority to make awards has been delegated under section 19, to assist the Council in forming an opinion as to whether a person has achieved the standard determined by the Council under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) for the purpose of making or recognising a further education and training award under paragraph (c) of that subsection.".

These amendments concern the role of each of the awarding bodies and the certificational recognition of the existing knowledge, skill or competence of learners. It is clear that learners may also approach the new awarding councils directly to seek certification or recognition for their existing knowledge, skill or competence. It is a matter for the new awarding councils to determine how this prior learning and prior experiential learning can be assessed and they may seek the assistance of providers of education and training in this regard.

The issue was raised that it is not clear in the provisions of the Bill that one of the awarding bodies could seek the assistance of a provider in this regard. These amendments clearly set out that either of the awarding bodies may seek the assistance of relevant providers.

The Minister obviously found it necessary to give it the power to request such assistance. Is it necessary to give it that statutory power? The council might want to consult the Department of Education and Science about apprenticeships where previously FÁS had a role but the Department had an input. Under this Bill there will be a straight relationship between FÁS and the council. It is logical that the Department which is expert in this area is be available to advise the council. It is strange that a statutory basis is needed for this. Now that the list has been reduced to A and B, will it be difficult for the council to call in expertise when it chooses to?

No. This is the first time that the area of prior experiential learning has been identified through assessment and certification. Concerns were expressed that the Bill did not make it clear that the awarding bodies could seek the assistance of a provider in this area. We were happy to make provision for that in the Bill. Training and apprenticeships run by FÁS and the institutes of technology are different. There is provision later in the Bill which allows FÁS and the institutes to work together on certification of apprenticeships.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.

There are typographic errors in amendments Nos. 69 and 99. The first line of each amendment should read "purpose" not "propose".

We can deal with those as we reach them. Members will notice that amendment No. 48 has a note attached. It states that amendments Nos. 50, 51, 61, 65 and 69 form a composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are consequential on amendments Nos. 50 and 51. Amendment No. 53 is consequential on amendment No. 61. Amendment No. 62 is consequential on amendment No. 65 and amendments Nos. 86, 87, 92, 94 and 99 form a related composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 are consequential on amendments Nos. 86 and 87. Amendment No. 88 is consequential on amendment No. 92 and amendment No. 93 is consequential on amendment No. 94. Amendments Nos. 48 to 51, inclusive, amendments Nos. 53, 61, 62, 65, 69, 84 to 88, inclusive, amendments Nos. 92 to 94, inclusive and amendment No. 99 will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 18, subsection (1), line 4, to delete "subsection (2)" and substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".

These amendments allow for the continuance of arrangements made or entered into by recognised institutions, formerly regional technical colleges, under section 5(1)(b) of the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, for a period of up to five years with the agreement of the qualifications authority and the respective awarding council.

Section 5(1)(b) of the Regional Technical Colleges Act allowed the then Regional Technical Colleges to enter arrangements for making awards. A similar provision exists for awards of the NCEA, NCVA, FÁS, NTCB and Teagasc, allowing for a transition period of five years. Further amendments provide for instances where one provider organises or procures education and training which is provided in whole or in part by another provider. An example would be an apprenticeship for which FÁS has a clear statutory responsibility and which is provided in part by institutes of technology. Craft courses provided in the institutes of technology but organised at national level by CERT are another example.

Under the amendments the main provider, organiser or procurer must consult the other provider when seeking validation for a programme of education and training. Furthermore, the amendments set out that relevant quality assurance procedures must be agreed between the two providers. This issue is relevant to the possible delegation of authority to certain providers to make awards — FÁS, CERT and Teagasc in relation to further education and training awards and recognised institutions in relation to higher education and training awards. Under the proposed amendments, providers which provide, organise or procure a programme which is provided in whole in or in part by another provider must consult the other provider in advance of seeking delegation.

When the conditions are being set for delegation, the awarding council must have regard to any arrangements for organising and procuring programmes that the provider seeking delegated authority has. In general these amendments are aimed at achieving effective consultation and co-operation between respective providers where areas of responsibility overlap. Such consultation and co-operation are central to the effective operation of the entire education and training system.

Does this set in cement the relationships bodies such as FÁS or CERT have developed with private providers? They are being given a form of property rights for the provision of certain courses. That is not worthwhile. Why is it necessary to provide this right of consultation if FÁS, CERT or Teagasc is the main body responsible? It should be free to make and break contracts it enters without additional legislative baggage being imposed on it.

There is a distinction between validation and provision. We are talking about validation of certificates. It makes sense. At the moment FÁS is responsible for apprenticeships. It works with the institutes of technology in terms of provision. It makes sense that the two should consult on validation and certification.

It makes sense but there is no reason we should give a statutory right to a body which may be a bird of passage. FÁS farms out a great deal of course provision. I do not see why it should be statutorily bound by consultation rights to particular providers. If it wants to change, surely it has the responsibility for seeing that validation standards are adequate. This is changing the relationship. It is to some extent putting the provider on a par with FÁS in this area.

It is not quite doing that. It can change providers as it wishes. If, for example, it is seeking delegated authority to make awards, it has to let its partners, the providers, know it is doing that and on what basis. In a whole range of programmes in which it engages, if it wants to seek other providers or new providers it can do that. This section does not impede it in doing that.

It seems to restrict it in that it does not carry this delegated authority on its own. Instead it is locked up with a particular provider. If it goes to a new provider it has to start the process again. It is not sufficient for it to tell new providers the standards it demands. It has to consult them about standards. It seems to put the relationship between them on a different footing. I cannot quite understand why there is a need to give some legislative authority to people who are temporary providers. Why give them a statutory right?

To be practical, I would regard the institutes of technology as temporary providers of apprenticeship training.

There are many other temporary providers. We are not just talking about statutory bodies.

In practical terms it not only makes sense but it would be correct in such a fundamental issue as apprenticeship that one does not change that overnight. Even the term "temporary" would be the wrong definition of the relationship between FÁS and the institutes of technology in respect of apprenticeships. I use that as an illustration of why it is necessary to ensure that there is consultation. If one has a relationship with a provider and is seeking validation of a course, I cannot understand how one could seek that validation without talking to the provider.

It is the relationship one forms with the provider. It is one thing to consult the provider as an equal. It is another to tell providers, as people who are on contract. One sets out what the terms of the contract are and if they do not meet them one cuts them off at the knees, so to speak. That is a very clear relationship. What the Minister seems to be doing is giving people who might be occasional providers some form of an "in" such that they have their knees under the desk and things will not change without their input. I am surprised that we feel the need to put a new statute in position in a contractual relationship between these bodies. I am not happy to go along with this. I am not happy that this is sensible.

I am somewhat at a loss here as well. Say there is consultation when validation is being sought. Who is the arbiter of whether there has been sufficient consultation? What status has the consultation? Does it only have to take place and the main provider will go ahead anyway and seek validation?

Why is it necessary to put it in?

Consultation is provided for in much legislation. All legislation depends on good behaviour on the part of people. What we mean by consultation is a genuine exercise of consultation. It should not be the cynical forms of consultation that the Deputy is perhaps alluding to where a body consults because statutorily it has to do so and that is it. There are other bodies, professional bodies, who have relationships with institutes of technology, for example, in relation to accountancy. There has been a long-standing relationship between providers and the bodies concerned with the provision of programmes. It would be wrong to suggest that there should be no provision for consultation in relation to any further validation or new validation.

That is not the issue. The issue is why it is necessary at validation stage. Obviously if the accountancy body, with which I have some familiarity, has students at an institute of technology for two years, there has to be consultation in terms of setting up the appropriate course. It is providing statutorily that this must happen in the pre-validation stage is what intrigues me, and that a whole raft of amendments have suddenly appeared here. I am all for consultation, by the way.

The institutes sought clarification on these issues. They were worried that the Bill as originally drafted did not cater for the institutes, who are the providers in most instances of the programmes we are talking about. These are institutes who would have entered into arrangements with many different providers over the years. They were concerned that those bodies and others were not adequately catered for in the Bill as drafted. These amendments result from consultation in which we engaged with the various players in the field at the moment.

In the case of apprenticeships, we are down now to the eighteen-month model which relates to standards attained rather than time served. Let us suppose the provider decides that there should be a bigger educational component in apprentice training and this arises in the context of consultation pre-validation. What status has that concern of the provider? Does it get fed into the system?

It would. I imagine the awarding council would base its judgment on its reading of whether or not a proper consultation had taken place, and the council, which would ultimately be making the awards and deciding whether a programme merited the status of the awards, has to, under the legislation, inform itself as to the needs of industry, business, the professions, and so on. It would seem to be a necessary part of the function of the council. It would emerge very quickly if consultation did not take place or if there were disputes pertaining to the issue.

I have no problem with consultation. There should be ongoing consultation. Inasmuch as the providers feel that it is important to have a statutory provision to cover consultation, and without wanting to add to the verbiage in the Bill, could there be something more specific there in terms of what form the consultation should take? Consultation as it stands could be two fellows talking in the corridor. We are going to a great deal of bother to put in something but it is still fairly vague and not very well tied up.

One would have to rewrite every Bill we have passed in the past ten years if we wanted that. Consultation has a generally accepted meaning. Is the Deputy saying we should put in, that consultation shall mean everybody sitting down in a room having a meeting? We know what consultation means.

I do not think we do. Consultation can mean many things.

I cannot legislate for human nature.

No one is asking the Minister to do that. At the end of the day, we are talking about consultation. That should be something measurable. I am all for it. However, in the form this amendment takes it is a bit too loose. How do we make sure that good consultation becomes part of the validation process.

I would like to go through these amendments because there are so many rolled up into one. Amendment No. 50 says that certain courses will be relieved of the general obligation of all recognised institutions to have their courses validated for five years. I do not see the rationale for that. If recognised institutions are going to have to have all their own provision validated, why would the Minister decide that just because they have farmed out some of these courses they would not have similar validation? I do not see why one would be treated in one way and another in another way. The Minister is saying that where FÁS or whoever subcontracts work to another provider, the second provider is given the right to agree the quality assurance methods. He is saying it will not be up to FÁS to tell the provider that this is the way it operates quality assurance, but that FÁS will have to agree the procedures with the second mentioned provider.

These amendments give far too much freedom to secondary providers. FÁS or whoever is concerned should state the quality assurance procedures and not have to approach the providers cap in hand to get agreement on it. I am uneasy about this provision. There is such an omnibus of these and they affect so many sections that it is difficult to know where we are going with them.

The delivery of a programme has as much to do with quality assurance as anything else and the provider has responsibilities in that regard. It is not enough to say we are contracting out work and these are our standards. The provider has more responsibility than that. It is important that there is a strong relationship between providers and——

It is a question of who is in the driving seat. I am quite clear that the person in the driving seat is——

The Deputy is paranoid about who is in the driving seat. The motivation behind talk of who is in the driving seat is the type of approach from which I am trying to move away. There have been too many turf wars in this area.

There are too many fly by nights providing training and we should not give them statutory recognition which they do not deserve.

There is also the notion that I am in the driving seat, the other person should do what I tell him or her to do and that this is my field. That has bedevilled the qualifications scene in Ireland.

That is not what the Minister is saying in these amendments.

The Deputy made the point that there should not be an obligation on one provider to consult another on the grounds that such a provider should be in the driving seat and should tell other providers what to do.

If FÁS has the statutory responsibility, as it does, to provide industrial training in a certain field, it is not for us to interfere, by way of this Bill, with contractual relationships it decides to have with its providers. It is not for us to say that FÁS cannot set quality assurance requirements without approaching those individuals who are providing courses and getting them to agree to them. FÁS has a statutory responsibility and it should not be up to a provider to tell it how to run its quality assurance programme.

In that scenario, FÁS would have the option ultimately of satisfying itself that the deliverer of the programme can deliver it in accordance with its quality assurance procedures.

That would be the normal procedure.

It can still do that.

The Minister is seeking to impose a legal obligation on FÁS that it does not now have and I do not know why that is necessary. It is normal good practice that FÁS would consult and take into account views, but this amendment goes beyond that. We are suggesting that the second mentioned provider must be agreeable to it. That is a different relationship from the one——-

How would the Deputy define the relationship between FÁS and the institutes in relation to apprenticeships?

That is defined in the contract it works out with them and FÁS is the primary——

Does the Deputy not think FÁS should agree with institutes in terms of ——

Of course it should, but not under statutory obligation.

Why not?

FÁS has the statutory responsibility. It is FÁS who is answerable to the Dáil for the quality of what it does and it is it who must make the contracts that comply with ensuring it is spending Oireachtas voted money satisfactorily. If it decides to have varying alliances with different people to deliver on its statutory responsibilities, it is still it who is responsible to the Dáil.

It will be still responsible to Dáil.

The Minister is diluting FÁS's responsibilities in these amendments by requiring matters, such as quality assurance procedures, to be agreed procedures, not to be ones in respect of which FÁS says it has statutory responsibility, this is the way its wants matters dealt with and it is too bad if other providers do not like that.

I see it differently. We might agree to disagree here. I do not believe this amendment will result in a major dilution in FÁS's responsibilities.

What is the necessity for doing this? Who sought this? Why is it worth giving? Intuitively, it would interfere with traditional relationships that I have not known to be unsatisfactory, whereas the provisions in these amendments seem to introduce a delay in the way in which statutory providers can organise their business.

Have these amendments been tabled because of representations made by the institutes in terms of the turf area definitions?

I know what the Deputy is talking about. Representations on these issues were made to us form the institutes of technology.

I take it they were primarily in the context of FÁS?

No, not only FÁS. They also concerned the professional bodies with which many institutes would have relationships.

The Minister is giving them some sort of prior rights.

He is saying they will not have to apply for validation for five years.

There is a transition phase——

Which means they can make up their own quality assurance procedures.

——as there is for the NCEA, CERT, Teagasc and others.

A five year period?

If the institutes of technology, as providers, provide courses for institutes, whether they are professional institutes or whatever, it is important that there is constant monitoring of quality. If there is an extra tier of monitoring other than in the case of the professional body, that would arise only in the case of validation of a new award. It would not cover the ongoing situation. It is important that quality is continually monitored in terms of whatever is done, but that is a separate issue.

It is covered.

These amendments relate to where validation is being sought for a new award. They do not apply to only FÁS or CERT, other bodies must also consult other providers. Regarding my original point, while I agree there should be flexibility, the use of the term "consult" in this context is loose and this process needs to be formalised.

Does the Deputy think it is too weak?

We are satisfied we have tightened it up as far as we can, but I will reflect on that between now and Report Stage and come back to the Deputy on it. Others think it should not be in place at all.

I do not understand the need for it. Who is seeking this and why are they seeking it? Why should we agree to their request?

Why should we not?

Is the Minister telling us to accept this change?

I have given my reasons for this.

I do not understand them.

It is to ensure consultation between the first provider and the second provider. I argue that the second provider has——

The Minister is going beyond that now.

The Deputy is talking about agreeing procedures.

The Minister is talking about agreeing quality assurance procedures.

What is wrong with that?

Who is seeking this?

I told the Deputy that. We assessed this. During the period between the drafting and publication of any Bill we have always made it clear we are open to consultation from the various interests and so on. This issue was brought forward. Some people sought clarification and were concerned about these type of arrangements and relationships with other bodies in the original Bill, as drafted.

There was some conflict last year in one institute of technology regarding a qualification from a professional body. I gather that professional body was not pleased with changes that were made in the institute and it went outside the country to get validation for the course concerned.

Was that the course on architecture?

It was. Strong arguments were presented to me that what was provided amounted to a lowering of the standard, although I am not in a position to say if that were the case. I favour monitoring what is done in the colleges, which is a separate issue, but I agree with the consultative process. It is necessary. I note the Minister's assurance that he will consider tightening up this matter.

In many instances we have joint certification between the Department of Education and Science and other bodies. We have joint certification in respect of the apprenticeship. We also have joint certification in respect of tourism courses. There is a mix between who has the primary responsibility for ensuring provision and those who deliver. This practice has been one of ongoing consultation between the person, group or body that has responsibility and the body that delivers the programme. Those are very close relationships. There is a need to provide statutorily for consultation between such bodies.

Has the Minister or his Department consulted the main providers, such as FÁS or CERT, who would be affected by this requirement? What does amendment No. 50 mean?

We have consulted the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which has overall responsibility for FÁS. Officials from both Departments have worked closely on the drafting of the Bill.

I hope they consulted FÁS.

We consulted FÁS about the Bill. Over a year and a half ago we had a major seminar at which all the providers gave their views. We would not have a Bill if one tried to reconcile the different views of each provider. We took on board a number of points made by different providers, including FÁS. We are still taking on board points made by FÁS about representation on the further education and training awards council. We have not received any negative feedback.

Are the main providers aware of these amendments?

What does amendment No. 50 mean?

Amendment No. 50 and the other amendments allow for the continuance of arrangements made or entered into by recognised institutions, formerly regional technical colleges under section 5(1)(b) of the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, for a period of up to five years with the agreement of the qualifications authority and the respective awarding council.

They do not have to apply for validation.

For up to five years.

They cannot do that in respect of their own courses, only in respect of these farmed out courses.

It already applies for NCEA, NCVA, FÁS, CERT and Teagasc.

What already applies?

The five year exemption.

Where is that provided?

Section 12(4) states:

The Council may, for a period of five years from the commencement of this Part, make or recognise further education and training awards where it is satisfied that the National Council for Vocational Awards, the National Council for Educational Awards, An Forás the National Tourism Certification Board or Teagasc——

(a) had, before the commencement of this Part, validated, or

(b) would, but for the commencement of this Part, have validated, the programme of education and training concerned for the purposes of making or recognising further education and training awards.

I understand the point about the validation authority, but the Minister is saying there will be a certain category of course in the recognised institutes which will have a preferred relationship in that they will not have to refer to anyone for validation. It is different to say courses which already have validation will continue to have it.

They will have to agree with the authority.

That is the protection.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 18, subsection (2)(a), line 7, to delete "paragraph (b)" and substitute "paragraphs (b) and (c) and subsection (3)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 18, subsection (2), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(c) Where a recognised institution has entered into arrangements or made arrangements under section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1992, subject to the agreement of the Council and the Authority, paragraph (a) shall not apply to a programme of further education and training provided by such recognised institution for such period, not exceeding five years from the commencement of this Part, as may be determined by the Council with the agreement of the Authority.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 18, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Where a programme of further education and training is organised or procured, in whole or in part, by a provider ('the first mentioned provider') and is provided, in whole or in part, by another provider ('the second mentioned provider'), the first mentioned provider shall consult with the second mentioned provider before making an application for validation under subsection (1) or (2).".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 18, subsection (4)(d), line 40, after "Council" to insert "and in particular provide information in relation to entry requirements, drop out rates, induction and support programmes for entrants from non-traditional backgrounds".

We are talking about the council giving validation to those who seek it. Section 15(4)(d) states that the provider shall "provide such information as the Council may from time to time require for the purposes of the performance of the functions of the Council". My amendment seeks to ensure that it provides "information in relation to entry requirements, drop out rates, induction and support programmes for entrants from non-traditional backgrounds". This would make it clearer to the council and to providers seeking validation that these are issues about which the Oireachtas would like information provided on a regular basis. There are problems in relation to entry requirements, transition, progression and high drop out rates. Induction and support programmes are the key to solving those problems. This amendment puts a specific obligation on providers who achieve validation to make available this type of information.

The wording in section 15(4)(d) adequately caters for that because it states "provide such information as the Council may from time to time require for the purposes of the performance of the functions of the Council". We must be clear about the delineation of roles between the providers and the agencies responsible for the providers in terms of the performance of the providers generally. Why should we highlight certain areas for information purposes as opposed to others? It can request any information it requires for the purpose of the performance of its functions. It is not necessary to include such detail as "entry requirements, drop out rates, induction and support programmes". We are tabling an amendment to section 6 to give the Oireachtas powers to request information from the councils.

I support this amendment. There is a huge information deficit in the Department. It is important to include this amendment in the legislation so there is a guarantee the information will be compiled. We do not have statistics for our universities or institutes of technology, although I know the Minister is trying to compile that information at present. This is an opportunity to ensure statistics are compiled so that we have the relevant information from which we can determine if the policies are working and where we should be going.

Last week we spoke about the Institute of Technology at Blanchardstown and our attempt to bring people from disadvantaged backgrounds through the system. There is no tracking system at present. We do not know the drop out rates in any of our institutes of technology and universities. Sometimes it can be extremely difficult to get those statistics or even to know if they are being compiled by the universities and institutes of technology. We need this basic information if we want to tackle the problems of disadvantage and drop out rates. It is important that such information forms part of the Bill.

It is only in the past 12 to 18 months that we have sought information to give people the confidence not only to secure the information but also to publish it and it is to the credit of a number of institutes of technology that they have published it. A few years ago a report was leaked to a newspaper and people panicked about what would happen to the institute concerned if it became known that its attrition rate was 25 per cent or 30 per cent. However, there has been a sea change in the attitude of institutes. I have supported this and urged that, not only should we do the exercises, but also publish the figures as high attrition rates do not reflect badly on anybody in particular but on the overall system.

There has been a policy failure in the past decade. Those responsible for the institutions concerned have also failed to establish a database. The bodies we are establishing in this legislation are primarily certifying bodies which will establish qualification frameworks. I would argue, notwithstanding the legislation, that it remains the responsibility of the Higher Education Authority, for example, to ensure it has an adequate database on attrition rates in the universities. There is also an obligation on the universities to establish the proper databases. We have established in legislation governing bodies for the institutes of technology and it is their responsibility to discover their attrition rates. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Department to ensure they do that, which we are doing.

The last budget was the first, which is difficult to believe, to allocate £1.5 million to specifically combat attrition rates in third level education. I acknowledge we will probably need more resources but I am giving members the background to the current position.

The points commission informed me at the launch of its preliminary report and research that the universities were reluctant to go any further in terms of inquiring into this issue. The points commission did a limited survey. I almost hit the roof when I heard that and said I wanted a comprehensive survey of attrition rates in universities. The Higher Education Authority then approved that. That is why there has been a failure of policy.

However, I would argue it is not necessary to include in the present legislation the details outlined in Deputy Bruton's amendment. I understand the points he made and I agree with the need to get the figures and establish such a database, which would inform policy and how we intervene. However, it is not necessary to include this amendment because the existing wording covers it adequately. I want to ensure responsibility for this database lies primarily with those responsible for the institutions concerned and, in many cases, the institutions themselves.

There has been no recent legislation governing universities or Regional Technical Colleges. If they have this legal obligation, they have not done very much about it. I cannot speak for the policy deficiencies of the past decade because no member of my party occupied the position of Minister during that time. However, regardless of whose failure it was, the legislative base did not require the Minister to overcome the policy failure. That seems to make my amendment all the more desirable, in that this may fall into disuse if a future Minister does not share the policy interests professed by the current Minister. Accepting this amendment would ensure that cannot happen. The Minister's argument reinforces the case for providing an explicit legislative requirement to report this information. It seems that if the governing bodies knew of this and were receiving the information, they were not letting the Minister know about it.

I accept that point. I find it difficult to believe they did not know about this and that no exercises were carried out, but the information did not enter the public domain. Perhaps they did not know. However, it would not have taken a great deal of effort to assess some of what was happening over the past ten years in terms of drop-out rates from third level institutions.

The previous Oireachtas passed the Universities Act. The Higher Education Authority also has certain functions in regard to universities. They should be primarily responsible for securing this database. However, having said that, the awarding council also has the capacity to seek that information under the Bill.

The only issue is how extensively the paragraph should detail the information to be sought. The Deputy is highlighting some information areas. The tight legislative option is to state a requirement to provide "such information as the council may require", which means all information.

The point I want to make——

We are not ruling out the council collecting data on entry requirements or attrition rates — it can collect data on anything. That is provided for in the Bill.

The problem is that, to date, it has been very difficult to get this information from some institutes. For example, a report on the attrition rates in one of our bigger universities some years ago was shelved. If that report had seen the light of day, perhaps the percentage of drop-outs might be lower because we would have been made aware of the issue. The institutions are not providing the information. The Minister has said they will provide the information but we want to copperfasten in the legislation a requirement that they must provide it.

This information is crucially important if we are to have a proper qualifications system because we need to know the drop-out rates and the type of individuals who are dropping out to know whether the entry requirements need to be changed. The points covered by the amendment are of crucial importance to the success of that system. We badly need that information.

I am not going to enter into a discussion with the Minister on the neglect of the past ten years. My party was in Government for some of that time.

I included everybody, in fairness.

This is a very serious issue. Tracking must start from the beginning and early intervention is most important. Are there any moves in the Department to introduce tracking at primary school level, moving on to second and third level? We need the full picture of a student's progress, or lack of it, through the system. We can analyse in global terms why people drop out and so on but we already know many of the reasons. We should be tracking students from an early age, with a view to intervening when they reach third level to ensure they do not encounter the difficulties which give rise to this unacceptably high drop-out rate and the other problems covered in Deputy Bruton's amendment.

I would have thought that, given the extent of the problem, providers would make this information available or would have it to hand. The Minister and I agree that comparative league tables for second level schools will not improve the education system because they do not always compare like with like. However, there is a fundamental issue at stake here and this should be made known to all providers, irrespective of this legislation. The Minister indicated this is being done through the HEA. Through what body is it being made known to the institute of technology sector?

The Department of Education and Science has ultimate responsibility for the institutes of technology. The institutes of technology are doing this themselves, through the Department.

Can we look forward to a comprehensive analysis of all the institutions in the State in the short to medium term?

The major work that needs to be undertaken is at primary level. I have already indicated the dearth of a proper database and tracking system at primary level. Part of the pilot project on 15 to 18 year olds was aimed at developing a model tracking system. The data on second level are very good. Even the most recent retention initiative we announced was borne out of significant work on data at second level which combined data returns from second level schools and examination data in terms of the completion rates at senior cycle to such a degree that we now know the retention rate in every school at second level. We know the percentage completion rate in every secondary school, which obviously provides a good base from which to intervene in cases where it is very low. It also helps us to find out why it is high in other areas. We need a similar comprehensive database at primary level.

The Minister's predecessor part funded research on the low participation rate of children at second level in an area with which I am familiar. It makes interesting reading. For the want of a better word, clashes of classes arise here. We have the information and know the attrition rate at second level, but do we know the reasons or what are we doing?

That is a valid point. Having the data is one thing, but finding the reasons is another. There are interesting features other than class, background and so on. As an aside, we are, for example, monitoring the relationship between the emergence of PLCs in secondary schools in some areas. The transition phase can have a negative impact on completion by those second level students who left.

The information on drop-out rates does not require an extensive survey. If a college does not know the number of people who enrol and complete the year, it is a poor look-out in terms of the standard of management. To say the Department is instituting an extensive survey to find out this information, which has been hidden from us for years, suggests that a large investigation is necessary to establish this.

This is normal housekeeping and the Department should not only be able to get this information from colleges in respect of future years, but should be able to easily access information for the past ten years if it wants it. I do not accept there is a great sense of urgency to make this information available to the public, which the Minister suggested. The reason is that there is no legislative requirement to make it available. This would provide a legislative base and someone would have the legal responsibility for obtaining that information.

If previous legislation offered that authority to others, they have not chosen to exercise it. We are not getting the information but if this amendment were accepted, we would at least be able to say we have pinned the responsibility for providing this information on someone who reports to the Oireachtas. This amendment is not unreasonable and it is an area worth singling out because it is failing within the system, something on which we all agree. It is against that background that I will proceed with the amendment.

Section 15 (d) provides for everything the Deputy wants. We are really talking about language. If we include clauses seeking information, do we itemise 15 or 20 items as to what now defines information? Because of the amendments to section 6, the Oireachtas will be able to go to the awarding council to ask for the information. We are giving that power to the Oireachtas as well.

It is frequently stated in legislation that "notwithstanding the above power the council shall".

I will examine this amendment on Report Stage with a view to accommodating the wishes of the Deputy.

That would be worthwhile.

I stress that we are satisfied it is included.

We all want information and it is not forthcoming from the various statutory bodies and has not emerged from the Acts to which the Minister referred which are all three, four or five years old.

There may be a higher education Bill coming down the tracks in which we could include a good clause.

There might be but, as Lord Kane said, in the long run we are all dead.

Let us move on so.

I will withdraw the amendment, but it will be resubmitted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 33, to delete "As" and substitute "Subject to subsection (6), as".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 89, 109 and 116 are cognate to amendment No. 54, amendments Nos. 55, 57 and 58 are related and amendments Nos. 59, 91,110, and 117 are a related group of cognate amendments. Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 89, 91, 109, 110, 116 and 117 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 41, after "shall" to interest ", having regard to existing procedures, if any,".

These amendments relate to procedures for quality assurance. In the case of providers with programmes validated by either of the two awarding councils or providers which have authority delegated to make awards, these must be agreed with the relevant awarding council. In the case of the Dublin Institute of Technology or a new university established under section 9 of the Universities Act, the procedures are to be agreed with the qualifications authority.

Some of the amendments set out that a provider shall have regard to existing quality assurance arrangements where these are applicable in devising the new procedures required under the Bill. This recognises that many providers already have quality assurance systems in place and that these are relevant to one of the principal aims of the Bill, which is to continue and to build upon best practice.

Further amendments concern the publication of the outcomes of quality assurance procedures. The amendments set out that the manner of the publication of outcomes be included in the procedures which are to be determined by the provider rather than published in the form and manner set out in the Bill.

As I understand, the Dublin Institute of Technology and section 9 universities are being asked to enter into a different quality assurance relationship from the traditional universities. A concern has been expressed that we will create a two speed university system whereby some quality assurance will be entirely delegated while other quality assurance will be subject to direction from outside.

I do not understand why it is necessary to draw that distinction. To put it another way, some would argue, from the perspective of the universities, that they have had a traditional freedom which is recognised in the Universities Act and that the Minister is seeking to undermine it by the back door by saying there are universities and there are class two universities which will not enjoy this privilege.

I do not know enough about the system to say whether we should give this privilege, and there are arguments on both sides. I do not understand why we would give it to some universities and not others. It creates second class citizenry among universities and is a cause of some resentment, which is understandable. Both sides are uneasy. The universities believe it is the thin end of the wedge because the Minister wants to create a supervision structure for section 9 universities. It also creates a situation whereby those which aspire to be universities believe the goalposts have changed and that they will not achieve the independence universities have enjoyed. I do not understand the rationale behind the distinctions being made between some universities and others in this legislation.

That issue is dealt with more substantially in a later amendment tabled by the Deputy.

There are so many amendments being taken together I do not know what we are amending.

People must stop thinking in terms of aspiring to be something. What are they aspiring to be — a traditional university, for example? The issue is different. There are currently two sectors, traditional universities which predate the foundation of the State and two more recent ones and the technological sector which includes the institutes of technology which provide awards at different levels, such as apprenticeships, certificates, diplomas and degrees. There was always a clear mission statement underlining and underpinning the role of the technological sector.

The Bill aims to allow for progression and upgrading of status within an overall qualifications framework. Being within such a framework does not mean one is of less value than others and neither does it mean one is part of an inferior body. I occasionally become frustrated with the view that an institution must become similar to Trinity College, a view which has informed some of the institutes of technology at times. That is akin to saying they must be all like a certain model, whereas there should be more celebration of what they stand for and what they have achieved in their areas. They should be proud of that, confident in it and be prepared to grow and develop.

The Bill underpins the quality review procedures the interim review body, under Dervilla Donnelly, set in train in Waterford and Cork. It will not be a matter for the Minister, the political system or the Department to arbitrarily decide that a body should have the power to make its own awards or become a university. That will be determined by a rigorous self-evaluation by the institute followed by an objective review by external people. Such an external review could recommend upgrading. Under section 9 of the Universities Act, a review process can be put in place to decide whether a body, institution or provider should become a university under that Act. The Bill does not prevent or impede that. All it provides is that, if a body becomes a university, it will remain within the qualifications framework.

Any body emerging as a university under section 9 of that Act or under this legislation will be still required to provide courses at different levels and will still have to retain its mission statement in respect of technological education, industry needs and the needs of the economy, which was always a hallmark of the technological sector. That makes sense. How would the necessary collaboration progression be provided for between institutes which did not become universities and institutes which did over time? If there is to be multi-level provision and proper progression in similar courses, it makes sense that the qualifications framework is maintained.

We do not want freefall either. People have repeatedly said the binary system is an important one. Other countries jettisoned it to their cost in terms of the overall national interest. What we are providing for here is an orderly process and sets of procedures which will allow institutes to grow and develop, become stronger and larger and, if they wish, become universities while, at the same time, maintaining an overall framework which is in the best interests of the students and of the country. That is it in a nutshell.

I understand that argument, but I do not understand why universities are not part of the family. If they are all to be part of the same system without artificial barriers, why is the traditional sector not included? I understand this is something on which the Minister has strong views because it figured as a pillar in his party's manifesto and in the programme for Government. I do not understand what arguments about traditional academic independence were made in the interim to change that.

I recently discovered it is a constitutional imperative in Portugal.

Items which found their way into the manifesto of the Minister's party bear no relationship to the logic he now espouses for the emerging strong top end of the technology sector. It could be argued that the Minister defends academic freedom for the universities but has a different view when it comes to the technological sector. Is he perversely promoting an "us and them" approach? He may say he is celebrating diversity but it is only so far because he will not allow the technological sector to have something he says is the most valued prize of an academic institution, namely, academic independence. The Minister seems to have a shilling each way bet on this one.

Which way is the Deputy having it?

I am like Socrates. I am here to ask questions, I do not have to answer them.

I accept that, but I thought I would throw it in anyway. I await the Deputy's policy manifesto.

It was never envisaged at the beginning that the traditional universities would be encompassed in the Bill. Other bodies wanted everyone involved but we are not dealing with the same types of institutions. There is a critical point that difference does not mean one is inferior but that one does different things. It would be wrong to say the various institutions do not do different things.

Four legs good, two legs better?

They also have different mission statements.

The Universities Act predated this legislation. Although this matter has been ongoing for years, no one could publish a Bill to deal with it because of all the competing interests and different perspectives. The Universities Act provides for quality assurance procedures for the universities covered under it. This Bill also provides for quality assurance for the institutions within its remit. The universities and the Deputy do not see it as the thin end of the wedge, although others do. That is why the universities are happy to co-operate.

I would like to see in future, through co-operation between the qualifications authority and the universities, a loosening up in people about this and the development of common national frameworks in time. This Bill represents substantial progress on the issue and reflects the fact that I cannot rewrite the Universities Act which was passed by the previous Oireachtas after much debate. I participated enthusiastically in that debate on matters such as academic autonomy, but it encompassed more than qualifications and quality assurance. There were other aspects of the Bill which impinged more on academic autonomy than quality assurance. However, there are still strong provisions in the Universities Act for quality assurance.

This debate has taken me a little by surprise because I was expecting it to occur later in the Bill. I will talk first on the points on which I agree with the Minister.

The contribution of the technological sector for nearly 30 years has been tremendous. It is probably the greatest success in the education system in that period. Whether we are talking about apprenticeships, professional qualifications, national certificates, diplomas or degrees, the colleges provided invaluable service and, without them, we could not have developed to such an extent in an industrial or economic sense. On radio recently, Professor Ed Walsh, president of the University of Limerick, traced the development of the college sector, including the involvement of the NIHEs.

The Waterford argument, which I pursue most intensely, is that there is a tendency for graduates to stay in the area in which they graduate. One cannot make general statements, but that is an identifiable trend. Waterford's argument has always been based on the low participation rate at degree level of people from Waterford and the region. The result is that when people from the region graduate elsewhere they tend not to return to the Waterford region in any numbers. When an institute of technology moves towards becoming a university, it would be unacceptable that the other qualifications would be lost along the way as they are just as vital to success. I am not trying to promote debate on this issue at this stage, but the case for Waterford and the south east region is different as it is based on a regional deficit as distinct from institute versus institute.

I accept the argument that we do not say A is inferior to B. Our mission must be to seek to provide the entire range of qualifications in every region so that there is no disadvantage in any region. This is somewhat removed from the amendment but this is the trend which the debate has taken and I was afraid the Minister would think I had no opinion on this matter if I did not offer it at this stage.

The Minister spoke about the quality assurance procedure provided for in the Universities Act through the HEA. This provision relates to current universities and I presume it will apply to the universities in section 9 of that Act. The Minister is going to introduce a second procedure for section 9 universities.

This covers the quality assurance. The provisions here are covered in the section on universities.

Under the Universities Act, does the Higher Education Authority have control over section 9 universities?

It has control in respect of funding and such things.

I presume the same quality assurance procedures were put in place for both types of university when the legislation was passed. I presume it was the same for both sets of universities — section 9 universities.

We do not have section 9 universities.

I know, but the previous Act made provision for new universities.

It created a mechanism for new universities to emerge. That is important and that is what we are doing here. We are creating proper procedures and processes by which institutes grow. This is important in terms of quality control.

I agree but quality control procedures were put in place in the Universities Act through the HEA.

It was not through the HEA.

There was a quality assurance procedure in that Act. It appears those procedures are not up to scratch as the Minister is now trying to introduce a new set of procedures for the new section 9 universities as they emerge. Is the Minister suggesting the procedures which relate to current universities are not up to scratch?

No. There are three pillars to the Bill — access, quality assurance and progression. Progression is vital in terms of progressing from one institution to another. There are many institutions under this Bill belonging to a broad framework and family. The Bill will establish good progression procedures. Just because an institution becomes a university, it should not fall down and become a separate entity from the point of view of progression. It would make no sense to undo what has built up as a result of the legislation and the framework of qualifications which will have been established by the time some of the institutes become universities. I would reverse the question and ask what is so inferior about all of this once an institute becomes a university? What is the big deal? What are people afraid of and what are they saying? Once authority to make awards is delegated, there are increased responsibilities on each institute to carry out self evaluations and so on.

There is increased devolution of authority when an institute becomes a university. The relationship is one of ensuring that quality assurance relates to the procedures in which the institutes are engaged as opposed to going through every measure that every institute carries out on an annual basis. We are not talking about an overbearing qualifications authority interfering with the new section 9 universities operationally on a weekly basis.

No one has satisfactorily explained to me the nature of the huge disadvantage after an institute becomes a university but still maintains the relationship with the qualifications authority. An unsatisfactory debate is taking place in the technology sector. It is almost as if people take the view that they would be contaminated if put in with the other sector. They want to be free from the others and they want to be something else.

When I took office there was a pressing need to harmonise matters in the technology sector and to allocate resources. I could not understand why many heads of institutes were status seeking as opposed to resource seeking. They may have been resource seeking but it took the £250 million technology investment fund to bring in a new era for the institutes of technology. That was the bottom line. Changing names or getting a new title was not going to change the fact that accommodation was poor, or that the library, student centre and other facilities were inadequate in many of the institutes. The new extension at Carlow Institute of Technology will be two thirds the size of the existing square footage. People in the Carlow institute did fantastic work in very poor accommodation built in the 1970s which suited the purpose of the time.

We have put in place procedures and processes by which institutes can grow and nothing in the Bill will impede any institute becoming a university in the fullness of time. This Bill places the ball in the courts of the institutes and the providers to drive on, albeit within an overall framework. That is as it should be.

Amendment No. 55 involves a change of terminology but it is more up to date to talk about quality assurance. Most modern industrial management seems to talk about total quality and quality improvement processes rather than quality assurance which implies an old control type notion. Would the term "quality improvement" be more appropriate?

The Bill provides for the establishment of procedures of quality assurance for the purpose of further improving and maintaining the quality of education and training provided for the programme concerned. I think that encompasses what the Deputy wants. The term "quality assurance" is used in other legislation like the Universities Act and we should maintain consistency in terminology.

That is fine. As to amendment No. 58, the procedures covered by quality assurance include evaluation by learners and evaluation of services related to the programme, which presumably includes research, etc. Significantly, they do not include evaluation by relevant employers. There are more consumers than learners in the marketplace and those who subsequently employ the learners are entitled to have their views built into such procedures. The evaluation of a programme by relevant employers would be a useful part of any quality assurance mechanisms put in place but it was overlooked by those who drafted the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 110 and 117 would remove the authority's right to decide the manner in which quality reports would be published. There is no good reason to withdraw that right, contained in section 39, which provides that the publication of quality assurance reports and evaluations will be "in such form and manner as the Authority thinks fit". Why should the authority not retain the right to decide the nature of the appropriate publication, rather than leaving it to individual institutes, bodies or providers to decide those issues? The authority should have the right to make these calls.

In the latter case, we are providing that it would be a matter for the Dublin Institute of Technology and the qualification authority. Section 39 relates to the Dublin Institute of Technology, although the procedures relate to other institutes also.

The Minister is withdrawing a right. The Bill currently provides that a university shall have procedures——

We are stating that the Dublin Institute of Technology shall provide for the publication of findings arising out of the application of those procedures.

Yes, and the authority has a supervising right to decide the findings should be in a form it thinks is appropriate. The Minister is proposing to take that power from the authority and leave it to the institute.

Section 39(1) states:

The Institute shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Part, establish procedures for quality assurance for the purpose of further improving and maintaining the quality of education and training which is provided by the Institute and shall agree these procedures with the Authority.

The procedures must be agreed with the authority and publication is part of the procedures.

Those words are being deleted not because they were unnecessary but to remove a power which the authority had under the original drafting. This is not a technical amendment to remove a redundancy, in that the matter was provided for under section 39(1).

It deals with Dublin Institute of Technology, which had concerns about this. It is not a major dilution of the authority's power, because it had to agree procedures with the institute in any case. It was felt there was too much detail in terms of deciding publication.

Publication is the only thing which matters to the consuming public.

They still have to agree the procedures, which involve publication.

This is an effort by Dublin Institute of Technology and the relevant universities to get the authority off their backs and the Minister has decided to concede it.

It is not a huge concession.

Is it not? I would have thought publication of quality assurance went to the heart of the debate about what students and the public are entitled to know. This is not a minor matter, it is being hotly debated in relation to the Education Act, which contained provisions to prevent misuse of information. That the authority as opposed to an individual institution should decide how information is issued is not an immaterial matter, it is quite central. The power should rightly reside with the overall quality assurance authority rather than with the individual institutions. The Minister cannot promote the amendment and then say it is not of any consequence.

Section 39(1) provides that the institute shall agree these procedures with the authority.

Quality assurance is one thing, who knows about it is another.

The procedures under that subsection include that they must provide for publication arising from the application of those procedures.

Is the Minister saying they must publish everything? Is this a strengthening of the provision?

They have to agree what they will publish.

They do not have to agree it because the authority has been stopped from making that decision.

The procedures include that they shall provide for the publication, and they have to agree the procedures, therefore the authority still has a role in giving agreement.

This was drafted in its initial form because the drafters felt there was reason to expect an institution to take a different view about publishing evaluations of its work from the view taken by the authority which had overall responsibility. The drafters of the Bill favoured allowing the authority to make the call.

Originally we did, yes.

The Minister is now saying it will not be the authority, it will primarily be the institutes.

Not the institutes themselves, it is combined. There is an input from the institute as well as from the authority. The Deputy wants it to be left as it is?

It should be left as it is because people want quality assurance to be somewhat transparent.

I will reflect on what Deputy Bruton says and withdraw amendments Nos. 59, 91, 110 and 117 with a view to returning to them on Report Stage. We may resubmit them in a different form.

Good, so long as we understand why it is being done.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 55 not moved.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 43, after "provided" to insert ", organised or procured".

These are technical amendments to ensure the Bill provides fully for instances where one provider organises or procures education and training which is provided in whole or in part by another provider. The amendments involve the insertion of ", organised or procured" after "provided" where it appears on a number of occasions.

What is the Minister doing on section 18?

I am inserting ", organised or procured" after "provided". Section 18(1) states: ". . . establish procedures for quality assurance for the purpose of further improving and maintaining the quality of education and training which is provided, organised or procured by that provider as part of the programme. . . "

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 20, subsection (2)(a), line 3, after "concerned" to insert "and of its delivery".

There should be an evaluation not only of the programme but of its delivery. The evaluation of the programme could be desk-based because it has a module on X and others could forward material about what the programme covers. This will make clear that what is being evaluated is more than the syllabus.

If one looks at the definition of "programme" one will find that it means any process by which learners may acquire knowledge, skill or competence and includes courses of study or instruction, apprenticeships, training and employment. References to programme shall be construed accordingly. It clearly accepts delivery.

It does not.

It is a process. Our earlier argument touched on this in the sense of linking the provider with a secondary provider. We are tying in delivery in one sense.

Is there a difference between a process which could be summarised in a manual and sent in as against delivery? This is what happens on the ground.

The word "process" captures that.

The word "process" could be described. It could be an engineering process such as ISO — every student is checked as he or she comes in the door; we then follow syllabus X and then he or she leaves for lunch. Delivery is what happens in between.

It is the process by which learners may acquire knowledge, skill or competence. It is very broad and includes courses——

What does the Minister envisage the evaluation will do? Does he see it as evaluating a type of desk-based manual of lectures, syllabi, essays and tutorials or as an evaluation of the site?

Yes, it involves all aspects of the programme, including delivery.

If the Minister is happy that it is included that is fine.

Delivery is neglected in the university system. I am not making any allegation with regard to my former lecturer, but there are some lecturers in the education system who have been disastrous at disseminating information. There were problems with some of the lecturers in a number of faculties and nothing could be done about them. Lecturers are employed on their academic research and not on their teaching ability. They do not receive proper teaching training. There is no point in having the best academic in the world if he or she cannot disseminate that information to students. It is crucial that will be taken into account when the teachers providing the courses are evaluated.

Whatever evaluation is made, we are talking about people with contracts for life and little or nothing can be done if the standard is not adequate.

At one meeting they were told to take five years to rationalise their faculty and at the following meeting it was rationalised. There must have been many background meetings in between. It was miraculous.

Will the Minister offer an assurance that the delivery will be part of the evaluation? If the Minister is satisfied that is clear, ultimately the interpretation will be judged by what he said it meant.

We are investing in the training programmes at IT and university level.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 20, subsection (2), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(c) evaluation by relevant employers of that programme,".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 59 not moved.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 20, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The Council may, where it has reason to believe

(a) that a programme of education or training validated under section 15, may no longer meet the criteria or conditions set by the Council or

(b) that there are other grounds for concern about the appropriateness of continued validation,

carry out a review of the programme and its delivery in order to assist it in reaching a decision about continued validation.".

This amendment provides that the Council would have its own powers of evaluation. As of now, the Council seems to carry out direct studies of the quality assurance evaluations conducted by others. If the Council has reason to believe that a programme of education may no longer meet the criteria or conditions set by it, or if there are other grounds for concern, it should have the power to carry out its own review. At present the Act provides it with the power to withdraw validation and issue its intention to do so. It does that without having first conducted a review because it does not have the power to conduct the review. It would be more satisfactory if there were an explicit authority for the Council to conduct a review where it had concerns about the continued value of the course and that it would be far from intrusive into the business of those being validated. It would be a much better system than the Council deciding to withdraw authority because if the council so decided, it would become a High Noon situation. If the council had the power to go in and do this work where it had a concern, that would be more satisfactory for everyone.

I agree with the Deputy's point. I will table an amendment on Report Stage requesting a review function of the council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 20, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Where a programme of further education and training is organised or procured, in whole or in part, by a provider ('the first mentioned provider') and is provided, in whole or in part, by another provider ('the second mentioned provider'), the first mentioned provider shall, in addition to the requirements specified in subsection (1), in so far as the procedures to be established under that subsection relate to that part of the programme provided by the second mentioned provider, agree those procedures with the second mentioned provider.".

I can see how this amendment would be reasonable in the case of some providers but I am not sure it would be reasonable in the case of all providers. It is too much like a blanket offer of a right of agreement to providers, some of whom are informal outfits. That is why I think this is an unnecessary provision.

We have already discussed this amendment.

I say no to it.

Amendment put and declared carried.
Question, "That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 20, subsection (1), line 29, before "An Foras" to insert "Subject to subsection (2),".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 20, subsection (1), line 30, before "as" where it secondly occurs to insert "or any other institution which has had programmes validated by the Council for at least five years without interruption".

My amendment refers to who can apply for the delegated authority. At present, a limited number of bodies have delegated authority to make awards — FÁS, CERT and Teagasc. My amendment proposes to insert the words "or any other institution which has had programmes validated by the Council for at least five years without interruption". These institutions could also apply for delegated authority to make awards.

Over time there may be institutions, other than the statutory providers — FÁS, CERT and Teagasc — who will establish a track record to whom the council would be happy to delegate authority and my amendment would provide more flexibility in the Bill. It would open up the possibility that over time many colleges, institutes and training set ups might achieve the level of excellence or professionalism so that the council would delegate authority to them. I do not see why we should circumscribe the council's right to delegate authority to the bodies mentioned in this Bill.

I am establishing a certifying body. Section 19 provides for the delegation authority to make awards. Section 19(1) reads as follows:

An Foras, CERT or Teagasc (in this Chapter referred to as a "relevant provider"), as the case may be, may request the Council to delegate to it the authority to make further education and training awards.

The Deputy's amendment proposes a major change in the direction of the Bill. I have consistently argued for the need to simplify the certification arrangements of the State and the proposed limit on bodies that may seek delegation is consistent with that. The Deputy's proposed amendment implies that any provider could seek delegation and could have authority under the statute to make awards. I did not envisage this type of awarding system when I published the Bill. It is not the type of scenario I would envisage for the development of the national certification system and, accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

There seems to be an element of saying once you are inside the round tower you pull up the ladder behind you and say no one else can get in. The Minister is stating who can have delegated authority and who are the prime players. The reality is education will change radically in the next few decades because we will see the impact of information technology. There will also be a huge growth of new providers, some of whom will be poor but some will aspire to great excellence. I do not understand why the Bill must dictate for all time that there are three providers and the rest shall be left out. I could understand the Minister saying colleges in the VEC sector, who are strong but not yet institutes of technology, should be excluded because they still have to make a lot of progress but I cannot see they should be excluded for all time. There will come a time when new bodies will reach the standards the Minister requires and it should be open to the council to decide whether it is happy with what they are doing. It would need to apply all the quality assurances, five year evaluations, etc., but it would still allow them the right to their own awarding.

A number of strong private sector players are already emerging who seem to have high standards. A logical development for them would be to achieve award giving status. I can see that happening in the further education and higher education sectors. This is not an issue of proliferation. It would not be proliferation because it would be the council's award, not their own award. They would have delegated authority. On examining the rest of the section it is clear that they would be under tight supervision. I do not see why we should make legislation that ties the council for all time with regard to whom it might delegate authority.

We must have balance, rder and a sense of coherence about what we are doing. Yesterday, I was criticised for not having a single national authority. The Deputy mentioned the post leaving certificate sector. It would not be individual PLC colleges but each VEC that would be looking for delegated authority in respect of certain award giving functions. National bodies such as FÁS, CERT and Teagasc have a national remit in respect of education in their specific areas. We have the correct balance in the Bill. PLC colleges programmes will be validated by the Further Education and Training Awards Council and it seems logical to me to leave it that way.

Why is the Minister providing delegation at all? What is the purpose of delegation if the neat thing to do is to say let us have this?

There are issues of mass, scale, etc., involved. For many years there has been movement on the technological sector because institutes wanted the power to delegate their own awards. This Bill creates a framework for doing that without harming the overall national interest. It has been careful to maintain that balance but there are limits to what can be done. The key issue for other institutions in the system is that this framework validates them.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I do not understand the reasoning behind it. The Minister could say the same about regional institutes. They have a regional remit, not a national remit. Why would the Minister decide that they can request delegation but another college carrying out the same type of work a few miles down the road cannot?

Can the Deputy give me an example?

Whoever emerges over time.

The Bill attempts to create a framework.

The framework should not specify that the only people who can ever be considered for delegated authority are those being considered now. Any framework legislation should allow for a possible change at some stage. Why could Griffith College not become such a body?

The Minister has that power for State institutions under section 24 which states that the recognised institutions of the council shall be the institutions established by or under section 3 of the Act of 1992, and any other institution. Subsection (2) goes further, stating that he Minister for Education and Science may by order designate an education or training institution established by a Minister or by the Government.

That is not in Chapter II.

It can be established by the Minister.

It is in respect of higher education. There is no similar ability for the Minister to recognise a provider in further education.

I cannot see how the further education and training council does not deal with this adequately. There is a multiplicity of schools.

The idea of delegation is to make this a light touch. Bodies are developed to a point of excellence. If the council is happy with CERT, Teagasc and FÁS in future, it can say it is happy with the quality assurance mechanisms and the practices and will let them grant its awards.

FÁS was a national organisation. It dealt with thousands of trainees on an annual basis.

Equally, FÁS's certification has been subject to considerable criticism by some. It has been developed on a different basis in that it will grant certification for one module in certain skills whereas other certification bodies would not award certification in such cases; they would require a minimum number of modules. FÁS has developed a certification system which enables it to give a certificate to everyone who completes a module but it is a different type of system to those which are likely to be approved by the council. FÁS will have to make changes as a result of this.

If it so wishes it is allowed for. The Bill does not allow for anything else. It does not state that it will get it. There is an issue of scale, order and coherence here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 66 and 72 are related to amendment No. 64 and they shall be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 20, subsection (1), line 32, after "awards" to insert "in respect of some or all of its programmes".

When a body decides to seek delegated authority, it is suggested that it is an all or nothing situation. Either authority is delegated and it will certify everything it does or it will not. It would be more flexible if a body was to decide that it would carry out its own certification in some areas but not in others. This amendment adds that delegation could be in respect of some or all of its programmes. At the moment the implication is that delegation would have be sought for all programmes.

No. The Bill allows for exactly what the Deputy wants. The issues covered by the amendment are allowable under the Bill. A relevant provider may seek delegation of authority to make awards in respect of whichever programmes that provider wishes.

Where is that provision?

It is in subsection (1) — "as the case may be, may request the Council to delegate to it the authority to make further education and training awards.". That does not mean it has to be for all awards.

Bodies will continue to make the present awards in the new set up. It is only if bodies wish to make further awards that a delegation of authority is requested. Will the power to make awards be delegated to them then?

No. Only two colleges at present are recommended for that.

That is in higher education.

A body will not get delegation straight away. This grants the facility to seek delegation at some stage if a body so wishes. They do not get it automatically.

The existing awards, however, will become council awards on establishment. If they wish to validate those awards themselves in future, this section then comes into effect.

Amendments Nos. 66 and 72 provide for a review of those programmes for which delegated authority is sought.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 20, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Where a programme of further education and training is organised and procured, in whole or in part, by a relevant provider and is provided, in whole or in part, by any other provider, the relevant provider shall consult with such other provider before making a request under subsection (1) for delegation of authority to make awards in respect of that programme.".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 66 not moved.

Amendment No. 96 is related to amendment No. 67 and they shall be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 20, subsection (3)(a), line 43, after "evaluation" insert "by the relevant provider".

These amendments are technical in nature and relate to the review process leading to the delegation of authority to make awards. The review process will be two-fold in nature. Initially the body which is seeking delegated authority will conduct an internal review. When the council and authority are satisfied with such a review, further evaluation will ensue by persons with relevant knowledge and experience.

The intent of this provision is to ensure that independent assessment and evaluation are integral parts of the process of delegating authority to make awards. A report on the findings of these evaluations shall be published. On careful examination of the provision, however, it is not clear from the provisions of subsection (3) that the initial evaluation is a self-evaluation by the body which is seeking delegated authority. That was clearly my intention — to build on the existing process under way in the interim review group chaired by Professor Davinia Donnelly. These amendments make this clear in sections 19 and 29.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 21, subsection (4), line 21, after "determined" to insert "and published".

This relates to the criteria the council has against which it will decide to delegate authority. Those criteria which are important to validation and delegated authority should be published so that people know the yardsticks against which they will be judged.

I have no difficulty with this. I will return on Report Stage with a draft which satisfies the parliamentary draftsman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 21, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) The Council shall, for the purpose of determining the conditions referred to in subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to programmes, if any, referred to in subsection (2).".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 21, subsection (1)(a), line 45, after "provided" to insert ", organised or procured".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 22, subsection (2)(a), line 5, after "provided" to insert ", organised or procured".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 22, subsection (3)(a), line 5, after "provided" to insert ", organised or procured".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 23, subsection (2)(d), line 36, after "Minister" to insert "one of whom shall be representative of the providers of education or training validated by the Council, which are not recognised institutions within the meaning of section 24".

We are providing for three nominees by recognised institutions. There should be one nominee of non-recognised institutions which seek validation. In other words, private sector providers who are validated by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council should have a right to representation. They have a valid viewpoint and would bring something to the council. They would be a more commercial outfit. That is not to say they are better. However, they have a certain point of view that would bring something of value to the deliberations of the council because, at the end of the day, commercial providers will have to work with the council. We are making provision for representation of providers which the Minister rightly argued against in relation to the authority. Here he is arguing in favour of it. Against that background they have a right to some representation.

The numbers attending private colleges in terms of designated courses represent a very small percentage of the entire body. I am not in favour of restricting the discretion of the Minister to make a nomination to the Higher Council for Education Awards because in this case we are talking about two persons nominated by the Minister, and I want to retain the flexibility the Minister of the day will require to give a proper balance to the overall council. It may well be that the Minister of the day has the facility to provide for membership of a representative from non-recognised institutions, but I am not disposed at this stage to accept the amendment.

This is an emerging sector. We are trying to make generalised provision. Certainly the existing State-recognised and State-supported colleges have a very valid point of view. However, in the context of lifelong learning and the way in which education is developing, there will be more and more players in this field and we will be keen that those private sector players should have a good standard and good quality. Even if they are not at the moment sufficiently large to deserve representation on the basis of a head count, over time they will become a much more important area that we will want to see promoted and actively engaged with the council. For that reason it would be a gesture of foresight and goodwill to give them a position and that would be positive from everyone's point of view.

A Minister may very well do that, but I do not want to tie the Minister's hands in that respect. The Bill provides for those in private colleges and other providers to have designation in respect of courses or programmes they offer at the higher level. It does not preclude them.

The idea of the Bill is that they would seek validation. I am in favour of that. However, with that goes some right of representation. The whole Bill is centred around recognised institutions. It is only they who are given any right of representation. There should be some attempt to recognise that there is a burgeoning private sector that has a point of view and whose point of view should validly be available to the council. Maybe the Minister should include another subsection giving them representation if he feels they are going to be people of vision that he wants to introduce. I have no great hang-up on the size of the authority. However, to be in order, as the Chairman would point out, one has to take someone out. They are going to emerge. They will be fairly important players over time. There is a tendency within the Department not to want to have truck with them, partly because of the spectre of having to pay grants and so on, but here is an area where one could recognise their emergence without any financial implications for the Department.

It is not a question of the Department not wanting to have truck with private colleges. The Department has had truck with them and under existing validation procedures many private colleges received validation in respect of courses and used that very effectively to sell the college overall. Even if one or two courses were designated one might have got the impression that the entire college was designated, but that is another story. There is no inherent hostility or opposition to the private colleges in terms of what they are doing and that remains the position.

The Minister will recall that when there was a skills shortage there was a general invitation to tender, but it transpired that certain people need not have applied. It was contended by some that they had been excluded ab initio from applying because it would open up the spectre of having to grant-aid these courses. It was a breach in the rampart. I do not know whether that was ever litigated. There was certainly talk about it.

It was litigated. It was the subject of a High Court decision.

I have not been tracking these decisions. This is a good place to recognise their role in a low-key way.

I will reflect on that between now and Report Stage and come back to the Deputy on it. There are three ministerial appointments.

There are two from the Minister's Department and one from the Department of Enterprise and Employment. I would see these two nominees in a particular context. They can be political hacks, which none of us wants, or the Minister of the day can bring flair to bear and produce people who will make a very important contribution to the council. Yesterday I sought a way of ensuring that we get people with flair. It does not matter where they come from if they have a real contribution to make and they bring something extra to the council. That is what we all want. If we can ensure that the political hacks are not appointed and that people who have something real to offer are, in that context I would give freedom to the Minister of the day. That is my instinct on this.

I will reflect on this between now and Report Stage and come back to it at that stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 76 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

In regard to persons nominated by recognised institutions, how would this be done? Section 22(1) (f) provides that three persons will be nominated by recognised institutions. As the Minister is aware, the council of directors has expressed an interest in being represented. There is good logic in the representatives of the council of directors of institutes of technology having a right of nomination. I sought to provide for that but my amendment was out of order. What is the Minister’s view on that? How should these people be nominated and does he see a role for the council of directors of institutes of technology?

A later part of the section provides that the Minister may make regulations for the purpose of nominating representatives. Under those regulations it is envisaged that the council of directors will make nominations.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 24, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

"23.—The objectives of the Council shall be—

(a) to establish and maintain a framework, being a framework for the development, recognition and award of qualifications in the State (in this Act referred to as a 'framework of qualifications'), based on standards of knowledge, skill or competence to be acquired by learners;

(b) to promote with the providing Institutions associated with it, the highest standard and quality of teaching and research;

(c) to facilitate access to higher education awards by persons throughout their lives and by persons who are not coming from traditional routes of access direct from second level schools;

(d) to encourage new modes of delivery of higher education to facilitate wider participation; and

(e) to benchmark the higher education and training by providers and the awards secured against best international practice.".

This amendment was discussed tangentially. There should be objectives for both councils. The Minister argued on the one side that he wanted to make their remits as similar as possible. I argued that if they were identical and had identical objectives and functions they should be one body. The logic of two councils meant there would be different objectives. Why does the Bill not recognise that they will have different orientations? The Oireachtas would want them to emphasise certain parts of the overall Bill, as outlined in section 6, such as the Higher Education and Training Awards Council and the Further Education and Training Awards Council. That is the reason I thought this would be a worthwhile amendment. I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom as to what should be set out in the objectives. If both bodies have identical objectives and functions, why not merge them into one? There are different things we expect these bodies to do and somebody will draw an arbitrary line between different providers. There is a case to be made for an objective statement. The Higher Education and Training Awards Council would be distinguished if the non-traditional routes of access could be assured. That is one issue on which it should concentrate. It should also be at the cutting edge of technology and should keep up with best international standards. I see some merit in having a statement such as this.

We had an extensive debate on the Further Education and Training Awards Council yesterday on amendment No. 41 tabled by Deputy Bruton. My arguments are similar in respect of this amendment. We have provided fairly comprehensive functions for the council. It is intended to make amendments to ensure the council informs itself of best international practice. The Bill is framed in the context of objects. The remit of all bodies under the Bill is to ensure the achievement of those particular objects. They include: to promote higher education and training, to promote and maintain procedures for transfer and progression and to promote research. Yesterday we discussed also the objects of the National Qualifications Authority. It is the responsibility of the councils to fulfil and achieve the objects as set out in the Bill.

I withdraw the amendment but I might look at the possibility of including something in the functions of the councils on Report Stage that would strengthen the areas of work on non-traditional access and benchmarking. Those two areas should be explicit. This matter has been discussed at length and the Minister or Minister of State recognised that some improvement could be made. I might resubmit the amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 24, subsection (1) (a), line 22, after “establish” to insert “and publish”.

This amendment should have been made also in respect of the earlier section on FETAC.

It is a drafting amendment.

There will be a consequential amendment to the section dealing with FETAC.

If the Deputy tables the amendment on Report Stage I will accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 25, subsection (2) (a), line 22, before “inform” to insert “following consultation with the Authority,”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 25, subsection (2) (a), line 24, after “business,” to insert “tourism,”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 25, subsection (2) (a), line 26, after “in” to insert “higher”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 25, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Council may request —

(a) a provider of programmes of education and training whose programmes are validated under section 25, or

(b) a recognised institution to which authority to make awards has been delegated under section 29,

to assist the Council in forming an opinion as to whether a person has achieved the standard determined by the Council under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) for the purpose of making or recognising a higher education and training award under paragraph (c) of that subsection.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 25, subsection (2), line 41, after "may" to insert ", following consultation with recognised institutions and subject to the agreement of the educational or training institution concerned,".

The Minister may designate an education and training institution as a recognised institution of the higher council only with the agreement of the institution concerned and having consulted with the recognised institutions. This measure effectively ensures that an institution cannot be designated as a recognised institution without its consent.

Does this go a little beyond that, given that the amendment states "following consultation with recognised institutions"? That means everyone's consent is necessary, not only that of the body seeking recognition.

The amendment seeks after "may" to insert ", following consultation with recognised institutions and subject to the agreement of the educational or training institution concerned,". It is only subject to the agreement of the institution concerned. There is an obligation to consult with other institutions.

Why is there an obligation? For example, if I go to the Minister seeking recognition, why would the Minister have to consult Waterford, Tralee and other areas throughout the country to decide whether recognition should be granted?

What would happen if I wanted to put another one into Cork? Should I not consult with the one already in Cork——

That is a point.

as well as the rest of the nation?

When the institute of technology is established in Coolock I do not want Tralee to decide it is not the right place.

No, but I suspect that if one was being put into Coolock one would consult with others in Dublin to get the lines of demarcation and mission statements clear.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 24, subsection (1), line 1, to delete “subsection (9)” and substitute “subsection (2) and (3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 26, subsection (2) (a), line 4, to delete “paragraph (b)” and substitute “paragraphs (b) and (c) and subsection (3)”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 26, subsection (2), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(c) Where a recognised institution has entered into arrangements or made arrangements under section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1992, subject to the agreement of the Council and the Authority, paragraph (a) shall not apply to a programme of higher education and training provided by such recognised institution for such period, not exceeding five years from the commencement of this Part, as may be determined by the Council with the agreement of the Authority.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 26, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Where a programme of higher education and training is organised or procured, in whole or in part, by a provider ('the first mentioned provider') and is provided, in whole or in part, by another provider ('the second mentioned provider'), the first mentioned provider shall consult with the second mentioned provider before making an application for validation under subsection (1) or (2).”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 27 subsection (1), line 24, to delete "As" and substitute "Subject to subsection (6), as”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 33, after "shall" to insert ", having regard to existing procedures, if any,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 35, after "provided" to insert ", organised or procured".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 91 not moved.

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 28, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Where a programme of higher education and training is organised or procured, in whole or in part, by a provider ('the first mentioned provider') and is provided, in whole or in part, by another provider ('the second mentioned provider'), the first mentioned provider shall, in addition to the requirements specified in subsection (1), in so far as the procedures to be established under that subsection relate to that part of the programme provided by the second mentioned provider, agree those procedures with the second mentioned provider.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, put and declared carried.
SECTION 29.

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 28, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject to subsection (2), a”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 28, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Where a programme of higher education and training is organised or procured, in whole or in part, by a recognised institution and is provided, in whole or in part, by any other provider, the recognised institution shall consult with such other provider before making a request under subsection (1) for delegation of authority to make awards in respect of that programme.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 28, subsection (2) (a), line 29, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 28, subsection (3) (a), line 34, after “evaluation” to insert “by the recognised institution”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 28, subsection (3) (a)(i), line 37, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 29, subsection (4) (a), line 9, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 29, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) The Council shall, for the propose of determining the conditions referred to in subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to programmes, if any, referred to in subsection (2).”.

In the amendment the word "purpose" should be substituted for the word "propose".

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

In the case of private sector colleges that develop satisfactory standards over time, does the Minister consider we should provide for the possibility that an institution that is not recognised could achieve delegated parity over time?

This is about the delegation of authority?

In relation to private colleges?

Private colleges or those that are not recognised.

We may have advanced the argument on that issue. Section 29 provides that a recognised institution may request the council to delegate to it the authority to make higher education and training awards. In relation to private colleges, if they provide a particular course or whatever, that can be validated by the higher council, but we are not providing for delegated authority to private colleges.

Would the Minister consider that is a possibility the council might want do consider in time? Private colleges of high standing will establish here over time, and even some overseas bodies might establish here. The Minister might consider that institutions such as Boston College or whatever are of a standard and that we would give them award making capability. Does he consider there is a need to accommodate that possibility in the Bill?

I will reflect on this between now and Report Stage and come back to the Deputy on it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 29, subsection (1) (a), line 45, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 30, subsection (2) (a)(i), line 3, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 30, subsection (3) (a)(i), line 28, after “provided” to insert “, organised or procured”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.

Amendment No. 103 in the name of Deputy Bruton is related to amendment No. 104 and they may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 31, subsection (2), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(a) its objectives and mission statement;”.

This section provides that a recognised institution shall have a charter which shall not conflict with the Acts. My amendment proposes that a charter would set out its objectives and mission statement. An overall mission statement and objectives should be set out by institutes in charters, which would be the litmus test for all their other activities. Many of us who would like institutes to have an inclusive charter that would emphasise that their missions were to promote as wide participation as possible. If that was built in at an early stage into the objectives and mission statements of institutes, it would set a tone for the development of the institution. I see merit in having such an element as part of the charter.

A charter should set out the arrangements for developing and updating an institute's strategy in partnership with all stakeholders affected by it. We want the development of strategies by institutes of technology that would be seen to be very much at the heart of industrial and social development for their communities. They have become key to the success of many regions in that they have attracted much industrial activity around them. It is important that all the stakeholders affected, whether they be industry, students or those within the college, should have a role in the development of this corporate strategy. I put forward those two suggestions in respect of this section on charters.

When I saw the Deputy's amendment yesterday I had discussions with my officials on it and I was well disposed to including it, but we encountered road blocks of some significance from the office of the parliamentary draftsman. In essence, that office has advised against the inclusion of a reference to the objectives, mission and corporate statement in this subsection. It has indicated that the matters already to be included in the charter are concrete. It further points out that under paragraph (g) the Minister may include other issues in the regulations so long as they are appropriate for the purposes of the charter. It considered that matters such as the objectives, mission or corporate statement are not appropriate for inclusion in the charter. It further indicated that to agree to draft amendments in this regard would require some research of the role of charters and precedents in charters, which will not be possible to complete by Report Stage. The issue of strategic planning of recognised institutions is probably more appropriately one that should be considered in the context of consideration of amendments to the Regional Technical Colleges Acts. Accordingly, on the recommendation of the office of the parliamentary draftsman, I cannot accept this amendment because of the obstacles it has put forward.

Between now and Report Stage I will go back to the parliamentary draftsman to try to find some way around this. There is a difficulty in defining the status of a mission statement within a charter. Traditionally, charters are legal documents. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the parliamentary draftsman in relation to the appropriateness of this amendment.

I will have to bow to the parliamentary draftsman. He has a greater knowledge of the purpose of charters.

I intend to go back to the parliamentary draftsman about this amendment between now and Report Stage. I am not entirely happy about this matter, but I have to acknowledge that charters are legal documents and I can see where there could be a difficulty in trying to define the status of a mission statement within the charter.

I did not speak on amendment No. 104. The Minister incorporated that amendment in his response. I may have misunderstood what charters are about. I thought a charter would set out a mission statement and that would be of its essence

Paragraphs (c) to (g) give me power to organise for the carrying out of research in terms of the charters and I can include such a provision subsequently in the regulations, if it cannot be included on Report Stage. I am in agreement with the Deputy on the principle of what he is endeavouring to achieve.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 104 not moved.

Amendment No. 105 is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 106 is related. The two amendments may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 31, subsection (4) (b), line 35, after “fit,” to insert “the academic council,”.

My amendment includes the academic council of a recognised institution among those to be consulted in the preparation of a charter by a recognised institution. Deputy Bruton has proposed that Members of the Oireachtas from the catchment areas of such recognised institutions should also be consulted. I am not so sure it is necessary to refer directly to Members in this way. Such a move would also be completely unprecedented. Any Member could, however, make his or her views known to a recognised institute.

Provision for involvement of the Oireachtas is permitted under the provision to lay the appropriate order before the Houses. At that stage Oireachtas Members have a role. Deputies not representing the constituency where an institute is located could argue that they should have a role, given that many of their constituents attend the institute.

It seems that many Deputies and Senators are in a fairly unique position in that their interests span those of the community. Perhaps I was mistaken about the charter. It seems we are continually whittling away the role of Oireachtas Members. They should have certain powers of scrutiny in relation to things which happen in their areas. This is a small move in that direction. They should be seen as persons of substance to be consulted by a regional institute of technology as it develops its charter. We continually say that Members of the Oireachtas cannot be on governing bodies.

Every institute should regularly call in Oireachtas Members.

It is one thing to call them in for lunch but it is another thing to consult them because it is a statutory right.

It depends on which college has the best catering facility. It could be a most enjoyable occasion. It would be a two way exchange of views in terms of what Deputies and Senators feel the institute should be doing, having listened to constituents, and in terms of the institute keeping them abreast of what is happening. In the past there was a more isolationist approach, particularly with regard to the universities. Some universities did not consult their local authorities about their physical development plans, let alone their broader remit. The fact the charter must be laid before the Oireachtas gives Deputies and Senators a role, although that happens after it is completed.

Subsection (6) suggests a constructive role for Members of the Oireachtas. Perhaps the better way to proceed is through my amendment which places an obligation on them to say this is the way it will develop. I do not understand why we are continually belittling the role of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas by not allowing them to sit on bodies.

I agree.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 31, subsection (4), between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"(c) shall consult with members of both Houses of the Oireachtas who represent some or all of their catchment,".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 32, subsection (7), line 4, to delete "The" and substitute "At the request of a recognised institution or where necessary to comply with subsection (5), the".

This amendment seeks to change subsection (7) to read: "At the request of a recognised institution or where necessary to comply with subsection (5), the Minister may, following consultation with the recognised institution, by order amend or revoke an order made under this section, including an order made under this subsection.” The subsection is heavy-handed in that it seems to imply that the Minister has only to consult with the institution before amending or revoking an order made under this section. An order should only be amended under this section at the request of the institution or where it fails to comply with the Bill. I am seeking to dilute the Minister’s power and to ensure that the initiative to amend or revoke an order made under this section comes from a recognised institution.

I amended this subsection to include the provision for consultation on foot of a Seanad debate. The subsection originally stated that the "Minister may by order amend or revoke". Following representations made in the Seanad, we changed it to the "Minister may, following consultation with the recognised institution, by order, amend or revoke".

It had previously stated that the Minister could do it without consulting anyone.

Yes. We improved it significantly. The problem with the amendment is that it does not read correctly. It seeks to delete the word "The" and substitute "At the request of".

It reads all right because the word "the" is included at the end of the amendment.

Sitting suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.

If, for example, a recognised institution lost, for whatever reason, delegated authority in the future, the Minister could not do this under the proposed amendment and yet such a recognised institution would not be allowed a charter under the Bill. In other words, there may be occasions in the future when a Minister may have to amend or revoke an order. The clause simply provides for that. The Minister will not be amending or revoking orders every day but we are providing for scenarios which may arise in the future. We have strengthened the Bill in terms of the consultation process, as a result of the Seanad debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 35, before section 38, to insert the following new section:

"38.—On being delegated the authority to award its own national certificates and national diplomas, an Institute of Technology shall be given the same powers and stand-alone independence as the Dublin Institute of Technology under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992.".

The issue at stake here is of particular relevance and importance in my constituency. We spoke earlier about the fact that the Bill will provide the national framework for the technological sector. The Universities Act provides for the development of new universities. However, the fact that the other universities are outside the legislation is due to the historic position. Any new universities set up in the State will have a level of accountability which does not apply to the existing ones. I do not know if the Minister wants the universities to be more accountable. However, the current situation is due to historic reasons which developed over a number of centuries rather than reasons of principle. I spoke earlier about the need for greater provision of degree courses in Waterford and the south-east region. There is a well argued and unanswerable case for greater provision of ab initio degree courses, in particular.

Section 38 deals with the Dublin Institute of Technology, which developed historically within the City of Dublin VEC. When we passed legislation dealing with the Regional Technical Colleges in 1992, an almost identical Bill, except for a number of areas, was passed for the Dublin Institute of Technology. Therefore, while it is called an institute of technology, it has its own independent legislation and is not fully within the remit of the national qualifications framework, unlike the other institutes of technology.

I accept the Minister's view that there cannot be universities everywhere and that areas should receive the provision they need. There is insufficient provision of degree courses in the south-east. That shortfall can only be met through the continued development of the Waterford Institute of Technology to university status. However, there is a strongly held view in the Waterford Institute of Technology that it will be prevented from developing quickly enough to meet the regional deficit if it remains within the family of institutes of technology after it has been delegated the authority to award its own national certificates and diplomas.

The purpose of the amendment is to give institutes of technology which have been delegated the authority to award their own national certificates and diplomas a stand-alone existence, similar to that enjoyed by the Dublin Institute of Technology, which has had its review under the Universities Act and is now pursuing its elevation to university status. I am seeking to ensure this will happen on a speeded up, incremental basis where there is a real need and demand for an institute to develop to its full potential so that it can provide the most comprehensive and appropriate courses for its area.

As I said earlier, graduates tend to stay in the area of the institute from which they graduated. Dublin has four universities, if one includes Maynooth which is very close to Dublin, and is moving towards having a fifth. Limerick, Galway and Cork have universities and institutes of technology; Waterford does not. This is not just an issue for Waterford but for the entire south-east region.

This amendment commits the Minister to nothing other than providing for this incremental phase which will assist institutes of technologies seeking to broaden their provision and move towards university status. It does not commit the Minister to a particular institute but asks him to include something in the process which would be of great benefit to my area, about which I make no bones, and to any college pursuing a similar route.

The amendment would not speed up the process by which Waterford Institute of Technology would achieve delegated authority to make its own awards and, ultimately, become a university. A clear process has been laid down in this Bill to facilitate Waterford Institute of Technology and other institutes of technology to progress in accordance with the procedures.

The institutes of technology, which were formerly Regional Technical Colleges, are incorporated under the Bill as the recognised institutions of the Higher Education and Training Award Council. As such they will continue to have a pivotal role in the higher education and training area and reflecting this, the institutes will also have a strong representation on the higher council. The Bill allows the institutes to apply to the higher council for delegated authority to make awards. Waterford Institute of Technology and Cork Institute of Technology have now completed the review process for this delegation and will be the first institutes of technology with this delegation in relation to awards at certificate and diploma levels, as recommended by the review body headed by Professor Dervilla Donnelly.

The delegation of authority is subject to review by the higher council and the terms of reference of the review group made it explicit that the authority to make awards will be a delegated authority and this approach is underpinned in the Bill. Institutes with delegated authority to make awards will also have a charter and such charters are a recognition that institutes have a greater level of autonomy by virtue of the fact that they have delegated authority to make awards.

Historically, the Dublin Institute of Technology has had the statutory right to make awards since the enactment of its legislation in 1993 which predated all this legislation. Although this is not the delegated authority which the other institutes of technology may seek, the Dublin Institute of Technology has a direct relationship with the national qualifications authority of Ireland under this Bill and is required to implement procedures for access, transfer and progression set out by the authority and to put in place the new statutory arrangements for quality assurance set out. The qualifications authority is not an awarding body and, as such, it clearly cannot delegate a power to make awards which it does not have itself.

We received a letter from the governing authority in the Waterford Institute of Technology welcoming the Bill and acknowledging the balance which had to be struck. I acknowledge and accept that the Higher Education Authority report of 1995 highlighted under provision in the degree area in the south-east as in other areas. Since I came to office, we have sanctioned an unprecedented level of investment in Waterford Institute of Technology in the form of new projects and extra land to enable it to grow physically, to develop courses properly and develop specialist courses because if it does not have the facilities, it cannot do that. We have also increased current provision and agreed provision to Waterford.

Nothing in this Bill impedes the progress of Waterford. To a certain extent, events have passed us by in terms of the 1993 Dublin Institute of Technology Act. It would not make sense to have a separate Act each time an institute achieves delegation of authority because other institutes may wish to seek that status as well. We are talking about certification and validation. The key point is that an overall framework is being created for the technological sector which really throws the ball back into the court of the institutes. The institutes must progress through a rigorous review process which goes through all aspects of the deliberations of the institute. Nothing in the legislation impedes that process. The only thing which will impede it is the institutes themselves if they do not make the necessary changes and advances which the review process will require of them. The review process is also a good discipline for the institutes.

I do not have a problem with much of what the Minister said. The fundamental argument is that this legislation represents a defining moment. The Bill, effectively, copperfastens the position of the existing universities and the Dublin Institute of Technology and weakens that of Waterford in moving forward. There is a set allocation in the Department's Vote for all the institutes of technology with the exception of the Dublin Institute of Technology which is the subject of a separate allocation in the Vote. It will be very difficult for Waterford or Cork to get sufficient extra funds at a given time. The Minister introduced the scientific fund, which I welcome and which is of benefit. It is a one-off fund and may be followed by a similar provision but if such a fund does not exist, from where will the extra money come to move forward the agenda of whatever institute of technology?

Obviously, I am interested in Waterford and seek a response to a regional deficit. If, following due process, the institutes of technology are allowed to validate and award their own certificates and diplomas, they need to achieve a certain status and independence similar to that of the Dublin Institute of Technology. If Dublin Institute of Technology had been included in the group of Regional Technical Colleges in 1993, it would not have made such progress subsequently.

I am not looking for something specifically for Waterford but for something of which Waterford and other colleges can avail. I firmly believe the extra financial assistance which will be needed will not be as forthcoming if the colleges, which wish to achieve a higher status, continue to draw from the same pool of money as other colleges which, in the foreseeable future, will not take the same route.

DIT grew because of a number of factors, including its location in the centre of Dublin and the considerable demand.

Good luck to Dublin Institute of Technology — it is not my problem.

This is a qualifications authority not a funding one. One could not argue because it is within a qualifications framework, that somehow its funding will diminish or will not grow apace. The record shows that over the past two years funding for Waterford has gone up significantly and the number of degree programmes has been increased. Ultimately, it is intended that funding for the entire technological sector will come under the Higher Education Authority which currently has responsibility for the universities.

I accept there is a need to rationalise the funding arrangements for the entire technological sector but to do that would require amendment of the Higher Education Authority Act and alteration of the composition of the Higher Education Authority to take into account people from the technological sector and events in that regard would overtake the issues the Deputy raised. I would not like people to think that, because the Dublin Institute of Technology has an Act with the same title as its name, it will receive additional funding because it will not. Funding reflects student numbers, the level of activity, etc., and some institutes receive more than others by virtue of their size. Waterford would be one of the larger institutes.

We are obviously not going to agree on this. I welcome the fact that all third level funding will become the responsibility of the Higher Education Authority because that will lead to a better deal for students and taxpayers. However, it could be years before we see legislation in this regard. When does the Minister expect that the legislation to reform the Higher Education Authority to give it authority to handle funding for the third level sector will be published?

I am mindful of Cabinet instructions not to promise further legislation until we have enacted what we have promised. If this Bill is enacted, the next few priorities will be the Teaching Council Bill, the VEC Bill and the Education (Welfare) Bill. It will be next year before a Bill on the Higher Education Authority will be published. Furthermore, I do not have a set timetable yet. It may not be a substantive Bill in its own right but it would necessitate a reorganisation of the HEA.

We will not reach agreement. I will withdraw the amendment with a view to resubmitting it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 36, subsection (1), line 2, after "Part," to insert "having regard to existing procedures, if any,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 110 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 36, subsection (3), line 22, before "which" to insert "to".

This refers to the quality assurance procedure which will govern the Dublin Institute of Technology. Under section 39(3) the authority has the power to make recommendations to the institute relating to quality assurance reports and the institute is required to implement those recommendations. This is a different quality assurance procedure than exists for universities where the Higher Education Authority has the power to institute a review of the quality assurance procedures and publish its own report but does not have this directive power.

It is difficult to understand why different quality assurance procedures are being developed. Either we adopt one approach or the other. This creates a different approach for different institutions and perpetuates the notion that some are better than others. I am trying to explore the rationale of the two different approaches and why it has been decided the Dublin Institute of Technology and universities formed under section 9 of the Universities Act, 1996, will be subject to the directive approach whereas existing universities will be subject to the non-directive variety.

It is appropriate that the Dublin Institute of Technology should be required to implement any recommendations of the National Qualifications Authority. If that were not the case, the authority would act as an advisory body for one of the institutions in the technological sector while the other institutes of technology would be required to implement the recommendations of the Higher Education Authority. Consistency is necessary across the technological sector in terms of the role of the qualifications authority.

There is a need under the Bill to guarantee the quality of the educational training provided by the various bodies under the aegis of the qualifications authority and the awarding councils. The Dublin Institute of Technology comes under the remit of the qualifications authority and the framework for quality assurance. The Universities Act, which predated this legislation, laid down quality assurance procedures and mechanisms for the universities and they are staying intact.

The Bill concerns itself in terms of the Higher Education Authority with the recognised colleges. It is important we have a broad framework in terms of quality assurance covering the entire technological sector and that the qualifications authority has the authority to make recommendations to the institutes in respect of quality assurance procedures. One can only surmise that such recommendations would obviously be designed to improve procedures where the authority was of the view the procedures were inadequate or improper. I do not see why people would have a problem with this. The Deputy is straying into a more fundamental argument as to why universities are not under the remit of the qualifications authority.

There is that argument and there is the linked one that universities established under section 9 of the Universities Act will not be subject to the quality assurance mechanisms set out in that Act. Instead, the quality assurance mechanisms of this Bill will supersede the existing provisions.

They are different institutions. I made that point at the beginning.

When a university is ultimately recognised and established under section 9 of the Universities Act, the quality assurance provisions in that Act will not apply; instead, the institution will remain subject to the quality assurance mechanisms in this Bill which were designed for other types of institutions. Perhaps the Minister is arguing that quality assurance mechanisms in universities are not adequate, that those in the Bill are the proper models we should use and that we should examine the possibility of amending the Universities Act so that the relationship with the Higher Education Authority would be more hands on.

I do not say that. We are talking about different institutions and different sectors to a certain extent. The purpose of the qualifications authority is to maintain quality assurance and access and progression in that regard. Even if an institute becomes a university, it becomes more autonomous and develops in terms of making its own awards. The qualifications authority comes into play in terms of quality assurance procedures. There will be significant self-evaluation in terms of quality assurance within institutes at the stage when they become universities and they will have developed sophisticated processes of self-evaluation because that will have been the process by which they will have become universities. It makes sense to retain coherence in the overall framework. We cannot reinvent the world. One has to deal with the realities as presented to the Minister and there is no sense in breaking up this as there could be a number of institutes. The multi-level dimension and the binary system are very important but the Deputy risks undermining this principle if there is a free for all scenario.

Perhaps the broader question is why the Minister opted for a model which gives the authority directive power? The approach in the case of the Higher Education Authority was that it carried out a review and compiled a report.

The qualifications authority is the ultimate guarantor of quality for the learner.

Who is the ultimate guarantor in the case of universities?

The universities. They stand or fall on their reputations.

Universities that develop under this Bill will never reach a stage at which there will be sufficient confidence in them that quality assurance will no longer be under direction.

They may in the future, but no one can ever say never. The Bill develops and establishes a national framework of qualifications and a set of coherent principles for that framework. Under the Bill, when an institute becomes a university one is talking about procedures as opposed to——

Does the Minister plan to go back to the Universities Act as a better model and introduce——

Not at the moment, but we have to give the Universities Act some time. I do not want to start another debate but, for example, ten years after its qualifications authority came into being, New Zealand is now bringing universities within that authority. I am sure an evolutionary dynamic will develop. People have a sense that the qualifications authority will be examining their procedures. I do not see how that could be regarded as Armageddon for the individual institutes.

Neither do I, but this model may be better. However, it is phrased in fairly blunt language. It states "The Authority shall consider. . . . and may make recommendations . . . . which the Institute shall implement". This is a blunt tool which does not make the usual genuflections towards consultation and discussion. It states that the authority shall look at the work and——

The authority will consult before it makes recommendations.

That is fine, and I will withdraw the amendment. Perhaps this is a better model. It is a more hands-on model of quality assurance and, I suppose, it has certain merits.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 112 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 113 and 118 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 36, subsection (4), line 26, to delete "not less than once in every five years" and substitute "not more than once in every three years and not less than once in every seven years".

These are technical amendments that allow for greater flexibility in the timescale when reviewing the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures in the Dublin Institute of Technology and new universities established under section 9 of the Universities Act.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.

Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 114:

In page 36, subsection (1), line 37, to delete "A" and substitute "Without prejudice to the objects and functions of a university under the Act of 1997, a".

These amendments provide that an existing university shall, without prejudice to its objects and functions under the Universities Act, co-operate and assist the qualifications authority in carrying out its functions and advise it as regards the exercise of its functions under section 8 in so far as they relate to the university. The universities have indicated that they will positively involve themselves in the arrangements to be developed under the Bill. These amendments help to ensure this will be the case and further clarify the relationship between the existing universities and the qualifications authority as provided for in the Bill.

The Universities Act sets out what a university is and gives certain privileges. If, within the same Act, one sets up a second type of university and, in this Bill, applies new conditions to the way in which such a university operates, one has breached the defence which protected universities and their privileges. I do not feel particularly strongly about this issue but it seems important to the universities. Some argue there should be a clause stipulating that, notwithstanding the new section 41 and the different provisions being made in respect of section 9 universities, the Bill still recognises that universities have privileges. Otherwise the argument is that one could undermine the existing Act and the independence of universities as one has breached the principles which they thought they had. I do not know if the Minister has heard this argument or if he has any sympathy with it.

I have heard it through the grapevine. We have not breached the principles as they apply to existing universities which have developed from tradition in terms of academic autonomy and so on. Their governance is determined by the Universities Act, 1997. In terms of this Bill and the recognised institutions under it, we are indicating that times change and new movements emerge in education. There is no point in pretending otherwise, but multi-level institutions are different in nature from traditional universities in terms of provision and diversity, content of programmes and, most importantly, the multi-level nature of the awards they make. I place great importance on the issue of progression between institutions which is one of the main pillars of the Bill. Historically, we have not been good at progressing from one institution or sector to another. From the point of view of the learner or student, the Bill will greatly enhance progression from one level to a higher level or from one sector of education and training to another. That is why it is necessary to maintain the framework and its coherence.

In terms of ensuring the universities co-operate and give all reasonable assistance to the authority in carrying out its functions, a key role will be the function in terms of progression. The universities shall co-operate with the authority in respect of progression.

Section 40(3) states:

A university may apply to the Further Education and Training Awards Council or the Higher Education and Training Awards Council to have programmes of education and training which it provides, organises or procures validated by with such council, as appropriate.

Things change and it is evident, particularly as universities become more active in, for example, the disadvantaged area and in adult and continuing education, that they may want some of their programmes validated by the Further Education and Training Council and the Higher Education and Training Council. Last year, for example, I attended a function of the National Microelectronics Centre which in collaboration with FÁS provided a course in electronics for long-term unemployed people selected by FÁS from the live register. The university did not have the requisite levels of awards in this context and here is a case where the universities can now tap into this provision. Therefore, the section creates a dynamic which over time will allow for much greater collaboration between universities and the qualifications authority.

In terms of fundamental principles, this is not an attempt to change the status quo in the universities as established by the Universities Act, 1997. We have said this up front to the representatives of the universities. We are not trying to undermine understandings which have been reached with the Government and the Oireachtas as per the 1997 Act. That Act was passed by the Oireachtas and it would be wrong for anybody to have any hidden agenda in that respect.

In the context of universities going to one of these councils for recognition of awards, what system of quality assurance will be applied? Will it be the quality assurance of the Universities Act in respect of the university making the provision, or will it be the quality assurance system of the Bill?

It will be the awarding council.

Therefore, there will be a system in place in terms of what universities do in this area.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 36, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A university may advise the Authority on the exercise of its functions under section 8, in so far as those functions relate to the university.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.

Amendment No. 116 has already been discussed with amendment No. 54.

I move amendment No. 116:

In page 38, subsection (1), line 2, after "Chapter," to insert "having regard to existing procedures, if any,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 117 not moved.

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 38, subsection (4), line 28, to delete "not less than once in every five years" and substitute "not more than once in every three years and not less than once in every seven years".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 43.

Amendment No. 119 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 are consequential, amendments Nos. 120 and 122 are alternatives and amendment No. 125 is related. Amendments Nos. 119 to 125, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 38, lines 41 to 46, and in page 39, lines 1 to 23, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following subsections:

"(1) The Higher Education and Training Awards Council and the Further Education and Training Awards Council shall not—

(a) validate a programme of education and training pursuant to sections 15 or 25, as the case may be, or

(b) make or recognise any award in respect of a programme of education and training,

being in either case a programme of a duration of three months or more, which is provided by a provider which intends to operate programmes of education and training on a commercial and profit-making basis, unless the Higher Education and Training Awards Council or the Further Education and Training Awards Council, as the case may be, is satisfied that the provider concerned has arrangements in place which make provision for learners where that provider ceases to provide the programme concerned.

(2) In this Part 'arrangements in place' means—

(a) that the provider of the programme concerned has arrangements in place with at least two other providers which provide that a learner may transfer to similar programmes provided by those other providers, or

(b) in the case of a provider who considers, subject to the agreement of the Higher Education and Training Awards Council or the Further Education and Training Awards Council, as the case may be, that it is not practicable to have arrangements in place as specified in paragraph (a), such provider has arrangements in place which enable that provider to refund to a learner, or to the person who paid the moneys concerned on behalf of the learner, the moneys most recently paid to the provider in respect of that programme.".

It is very important that the Bill address the issue of protection of learners. This is a pressing matter for learners in the commercial education and training sector and the aim of the provisions in this and the following sections is to provide a measure of protection for learners who avail of education and training provided by bodies established on a commercial profit making basis. I indicated in the Seanad that I would be open to any constructive suggestions for amending this section in a way which would ensure the interest of learners with awards made by the new awarding bodies and private commercial institutions are protected. My officials have discussed these provisions with some private commercial third level institutions and as a result I am delighted to be introducing these amendments.

The amendments provide that in order to achieve certification from the two awarding councils commercial profit making providers will be required to have in place arrangements to ensure that learners can be provided with an education and training for which they have paid or, if this is not possible, that the learners can be refunded. The nature of the arrangements are to be agreed between the commercial institutions and the awarding bodies. Given that the most important issue is that the learner be enabled to complete a programme, the Bill provides that this is the preferable option; otherwise a refund of the most recently paid fees would be made. I see from Deputy Bruton's amendments that he favours a similar approach.

In addition, and without prejudice to the obligations of the providers, the two awarding councils will be obliged to make efforts to find replacement provision for learners who suffer from such insolvency. It must be borne in mind that these commercial providers are not obliged to have their provisions certified by the two awarding councils.

I do not favour Deputy Bruton's proposal that all providers of education and training, including those financed and maintained by the State, should have the arrangements set out in the section applied to them. This would involve the State in unnecessary costs and arrangements. The aim of the subsection is to ensure that only those providers who operate programmes on a commercial and profit making basis are covered. It is in this area that learners need protection and the Bill sets out a reasonable way to attain this.

Deputy Bruton has also tabled an amendment on the withdrawal of validation which we will look at in relation to private commercial providers.

The Minister has made significant progress on this. As it was set out previously providers would have had to have a reserve fund equivalent to the entire revenues they earned. This would have been a prohibitive arrangement. It would also have been very difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance to cover this as effectively one cannot insure against the collapse of a business. The Minister is putting forward a proposal which seems much more reasonable and likely to succeed. It also caters for the real concern of learners which does not only involve getting their money back but allows them continue and get the qualification they wanted when they registered for the course.

One of my amendments asks why such provisions should be confined to commercially funded colleges. I probably accept that it is very unlikely that a State funded college will fail, but I do not accept the same in respect of colleges losing validation. A validation could equally be lost by a commercial or non-commercial provider. If a non-commercial provider loses validation the student should be protected in the same way and an arrangement should exist ensuring the student can complete the course in another institution which has the requisite validation.

It seems that from a student's point of view it does not make much difference whether the college's problem is commercial in nature or if is no longer in a position to provide a validated programme. If the Minister is willing to accept the principle that losing validation is a crisis for learners who should be protected, I do not understand why he does not offer protection equally to public and private providers.

The other issue my amendment provides for and which makes it slightly different from the Minister's is that I have included the term "binding arrangement". I presume the Minister intends that somebody will validate the robustness of the arrangements he is proposing to ensure they are binding and that when a college gets into difficulty and has to close it is not found that other colleges can say they would love to accommodate those affected but that their courses are full. If this happened then de facto the arrangement would break down and if the arrangement broke down it would be of no benefit to the learner. How does the Minister envisage the arrangements being binding to the satisfaction of the council when it accepts them?

There is certain protection for learners in State courses and programmes in terms of the withdrawal of validation.

Section 16(2) states:

Where, after the expiration of one month from the service of the notice referred to in subsection (1) [that would be the withdrawal of validation] and after consideration of any representations made to the Council, the Council remains of that opinion, it may withdraw its validation of the programme concerned, by notice in writing addressed to the provider, from such date as it considers appropriate and having regard to the interests of the learners concerned and until such time as it may be satisfied of whichever of the following is appropriate. . . .

Obviously the Minister of the day has a clear role to intervene to make sure learners are provided for in other institutions and by other means.

What gave rise to this was the fact that the State could not get involved in the private commercial sector. The companies could be asked to provide this service but they could not be forced to do so. In terms of an existing recognised institution, I would find it difficult to believe that any Minister, working with other institutes of technology, could not make provision, even on an emergency basis, to facilitate the completion of a programme. For example, if validation was withdrawn for a programme in Tallaght Institute of Technology, emergency provisions could be provided for in other institutes in the locality or in Dublin generally. Likewise in the case of the Further Education and Training Awards Council. To date, there was no one on the State side or no mechanism on the private commercial side to deal with this issue. This resulted in problems for students. There now is a process whereby the threat of withdrawal of validation could ultimately lead to matters being sorted out, but resolved on the basis that the awarding council is satisfied.

The Minister did not deal with the issue of arrangements. How will the councils satisfy themselves in regard to these arrangements? Will the other providers have to show a proven capacity to fill the gap?

We must give the councils a certain amount of leeway to satisfy themselves that the provider concerned has arrangements in place. Subsection 43(2)(a) reads, "that the provider of the programme concerned has arrangements in place with at least two other providers which provide that a learner may transfer. . . ". Obviously the council will examine the facilities and resources of those other providers in order to satisfy itself that these providers have the capacity to provide these places. We expect there will be binding legal agreements between the councils and the providers.

In the Minister's discussions did any models of the nature of these agreements develop? I foresee problems with facilities that require laboratory resources. It is different in situations of talk and chalk where one could easily accommodate expansion by taking on the same people and so on. However, where there is a laboratory requirement, would arrangements involve others taking over the running of the existing resource? Would these arrangements involve the alternative provider continuing to operate the existing premises?

It could. However, we did not get into that minute detail in terms of how the councils will satisfy themselves. Some colleges have indicated that they are prepared to come together as a group to maximise resources and to ensure provision if one goes belly up. Ultimately the councils must satisfy themselves that there are proper arrangements in place. We tried to strike a balance between, on the one hand, feasibility and not undermining the capacity of people to trade and do business and, on the other, to ensure that the learner is protected. Ultimately the councils will be obliged to ensure the learners are looked after.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 120 to 122, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 39, subsection (2)(a), lines 27 and 28, to delete "there is a reserve fund or insurance cover" and substitute "there are arrangements in place".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 124:

In page 39, subsection (3), lines 37 and 38, to delete "a reserve fund or insurance cover which a provider is required to have in accordance with this section" and substitute "arrangements which a provider is required to have in place in accordance with this section".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.

I move amendment No. 125:

In page 40, subsection (1), lines 12 to 18, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:

"(a) Whether the provider is required under section 43 to have arrangements in place and the nature of those arrangements, or

(b) of other procedures (if any) that the provider maintains for the protection of the learners concerned if the provider ceases to provide that programme.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
Section 47 deleted.
Sections 48 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51.

Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 126:

In page 41, subsection (2), line 43, to delete "within five" and substitute "as soon as it is practicable to do so and in any event within two".

Are we talking about the council or the authority?

On the issue of when a chief executive would be appointed, the Bill makes a rather strange provision that the new authority or council would appoint a chief executive within five years. That seems an extraordinarily long period within which the most basic decision of any authority would be made. I suggest this be amended to "as soon as is practicable to do so and in any event within two years". I cannot see the reason for allowing such a long period to appoint an interview body and recruit a chief executive. I imagine no one would want to limp along with a temporary executive for very long.

I would be in favour of compromise. The intention behind the section is to give flexibility to the Minister for Education and Science, with the agreement of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to appoint an interim chief executive in terms of the implementation of the Bill and to establish the authority and the awarding councils. I take the point that five years seems excessive. Perhaps three years would be a reasonable time.

I will table an amendment to this effect on Report Stage.

I thought I was being liberal in allowing for two years. Perhaps six months would be more reasonable. It is important to include the words "as soon as practicable". One year could be a fall back period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52.

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 42, subsection (2), line 14, after "five years"' to insert "after the establishment of the relevant body concerned".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 42, subsection (3), lines 20 to 23, to delete all words from and including "the" in line 20 down to an including line 23 and substitute "and the Council of the body informs the Minister that it is not yet in a position to appoint a chief executive, the Minister may appoint a further interim chief executive in accord with the terms of subsection (2).".

This is where the Minister will appoint a second interim chief executive who will have the same terms and conditions as the first one. That does not seem logical. The notion of the Minister appointing a second interim chief executive seems bizarre in the first place. If he ended up doing that, the second chief executive should have to go through the same ring as the first.

The Deputy referred to this before. Perhaps I will respond to the issue of a second chief executive on Report Stage. I might have to appoint a second chief executive but I have covered it by the reference to three years.

If that is the case the Minister should agree the second time around that the second chief executive agree terms and conditions of employment with the council. The Minister might present an excellent person and agree to give him three years which would give us plenty of time to do our work. Then, as this is drafted, the Minister might produce a poor substitute who would automatically step into the three year contract even though the council might be dissatisfied with the substitute.

It is only three years from the time the authority is established.

My understanding is that the Minister can appoint an interim executive but he has to go back to the body to decide the terms and conditions, including for how long he would have the job and for what period.

That is then qualified by the absolute maximum being three years.

The Minister might present an excellent chief executive with which the body is happy and had agreed to the maximum three years, but under present drafting, if the Minister provides a poor substitute he does not have to approach the body to ask if it is happy to extend the same terms and conditions to the new person, namely a three year contract.

The new person would not get a three year contract.

I think he would.

It is three years from the date of establishment. In other words, after that three years it has to be a full-time executive.

Section 52(3) states: ". . . . who shall hold office for the remainder of the term of office of the person who occasioned the vacancy . . . . "

Yes. That is three years.

The Minister might present an excellent person as the first chief executive and the body may agree to a three year term because it thinks he would do a good job, but if that person falls under a bus and the Minister presents a poor substitute the body might not want him to step into a three year contract.

He could only do it for the remainder of the three years of the first chief executive.

Why would the Minister not use the original appointment process and treat it as a new appointment? Under subsection (2) the Minister would agree the terms with the council but it might decide that it only want to give that person a one year contract. This matter is speculative in any event but——

I will look at it in the context of all questions and I will try to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

I would have thought that what applies to the first appointment should apply to the second one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 53.

Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 are consequential on amendment No. 131 and, therefore, they may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 129:

In page 43, subsection (7), line 11, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject to subsection (11), a".

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that in the transference of existing NCEA staff to the new bodies and in secondment of staff as provided for in the Bill the Minister will consult fully before making any orders or directions. The Minister must inform the person or employee concerned and any recognised trade union or staff association concerned of such intended transfer or secondment. The Minister shall consider any representations made to him or her in this regard within a specified timeframe.

In the case of all such employees they shall not receive less remuneration or less beneficial terms and conditions of service as previously enjoyed. I believe these amendments will allow for consultation and agreement and further safeguard the rights and interests of employees.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 130:

In page 43, subsection (10), line 36, to delete "The" and substitute "Subject to subsection (11), the ".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 131:

In page 43, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:

"(11) Before making an order under subsection (7) or issuing a direction under subsection (10), the Minister shall, by notice in writing, inform the person or employee and any recognised trade union or staff association concerned of his or her intention to make such an order or issue such a direction and the notice shall state that the person or employee concerned may make representations to the Minister, in relation to the proposed order or direction, within such time as may be specified in the notice and the Minister shall consider such representations (if any).".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 54 and 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.

I move amendment No. 132:

In page 45, subsection (1), line 40, before "information" to insert "confidential".

This relates to penalties for disclosure of information.

It is part of the provision.

It has been represented to me that this is a very broad disclosure. "Any information" is broad and it suggests the Minister is suggesting a criminal conviction for what could be routine misdemeanour.

I will look at that on Report Stage although the same words were used in the Irish Sports Council Bill. The Deputy is satisfied that it is a fairly standard provision?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
Sections 57 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 49, after section 66, to insert the following new section:

"67.—(1) Where the total number of persons whom a person or body may nominate under sections 6, 13 and 22 is more than one but less than four, the person or body shall nominate at least one male and at least one female.

(2) Where the total number of persons whom a person or body may nominate under sections 6, 13 and 22 is four or more, the person or body shall nominate at least two males and at least two females.".

Amendment agreed to.
First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Top
Share