asked the Minister for Education when he proposes to give the Dublin Institute of Technology an expanded role in education and parity of esteem with the National Institute of Higher Education, Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Institute of Technology Role.
20.
The colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology are institutions conducted by the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee to supply continuation and technical education in accordance with the Vocational Education Acts.
The colleges have been designated under the National Council for Education Awards Act, 1979, for purposes of the grant of awards by that council and the range of courses in the colleges is fully comprehensive, embracing degree, diploma and certificate courses. I am satisfied that the colleges have, and are generally regarded as having, a standard of attainment and excellence in their areas of speciality fully comparable with any other third level educational institutions.
The question refers to the Dublin Institute of Technology having parity of esteem with the National Institute of Higher Education, Dublin. The difference is not so much a matter of status as of function. The National Institute of Higher Education exists principally to provide for graduate and non-graduate education in technology. The Colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology provide for a range of requirements for industry and commerce from apprenticeship, through technician training, to professional qualifications. I would esteem both equally but regard their functions as not being identical.
On several occasions, when visiting the Colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology, I have stressed my interest in and support for the development of these colleges. The proof of this support can be seen in the fact that I have approved the purchase of additional site area for the college in Bolton Street and have also recently authorised the appointment of consultants for the extension to that college and also for an extension to the college in Kevin Street.
The Minister did not say who did that one.
In relation to the appointment of consultants for the extension of the college in Kevin Street, I gave approval for that. That was in relation to a site which had been purchased by my predecessor.
Furthermore, I have also announced that, if specific proposals are received from Dublin City Vocational Education Committee for extra student places at Rathmines College of Commerce, the College of Marketing and Design and the Dublin College of Catering, such proposals will receive due consideration.
In view of these commitments, I do not believe that there can be any doubt about the high esteem in which I hold the Dublin Institute of Technology.
Is the Minister aware that there are frightful accommodation problems facing the Dublin Institute of Technology, that while they may be equally esteemed, they are far from being equally paid, that these anomalies have existed for some time and that there is no economic structure in the Dublin Institute of Technology which allows proper development or promotional opportunities? Would the Minister agree that it is because of all of these things that the Dublin Institute of Technology felt they were not being properly recognised and were heartened by the Fianna Fáil promise, before the election, that the Dublin Institute of Technology would be given a greatly expanded role in higher education and parity of esteem with the National Institute for Higher Education in Dublin? Will the Minister now set about honouring that promise?
I have already expressed in the course of my reply my high esteem for the DIT and the fact that I hold both the DIT and the NIHE equal but would regard their functions as not being identical. I also referred to the high esteem in which I personally hold the DIT, which indeed was accepted by the Deputy in the course of his supplementary question.
With regard to the question of salary levels, the Deputy will be aware that there has been a group meeting with regard to amendments to circular 14 of 1979 which has caused an amount of dissatisfaction in relation both to salary and provisions on the part of the staff. I am hopeful that, following the very genuine contribution made by all sides in relation to this matter in the recent past, it will be possible to bring about a resolution in the relatively near future. It might be interesting to compare, however, some of the salary scales. The scale for a lecturer II in DIT rises to a maximum of £15,318, which is the equivalent of the maximum for a lecture in NIHE, although the NIHE lecturer starts at £10,974 as compared to lecturer II in the DIT who commences at £11,065.
I accept entirely, and I referred to it in my reply, that there is difficulty in relation to accommodation problems in some of the colleges. This was why I sanctioned at the cost of several million pounds the purchase of the site in Bolton Street for expansion of the facilities there and also sanctioned commencement of building of the extension to Kevin Street which my predecessor had initiated. I would be very anxious to receive from Dublin Vocational Education Committee proposals in regard to improvements in the other colleges, specifically in relation to extra places for Rathmines, the College of Marketing and Design and the College of Catering. I assure the House that if I receive such proposals I will lose no time in having them processed and giving them every possible favourable consideration. There is certainly need for improvement in the accommodation in those colleges, especially in view of the very great work they have done over the years.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
I wish to have a written reply to Question No. 289 in my name. With your permission I also wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 50 and 51 of the Order Paper for 8 December.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
In view of the inaccurate information given in reply to my Question No. 805 yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture regarding the Fastnet Co-op and the interest of a foreign buyer, I wish, with your permission, Sir, to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
If the Chair decides to grant this matter on the Adjournment, I hope more than six minutes will be allowed. This is a very important issue and 100 jobs are at stake. It is absolutely necessary that we get a fair opportunity of putting before the Minister the activities of the Sugar Company vis-á-vis Fastnet Co-op.
I am in the hands of the House with regard to Standing Orders on this matter.
I draw attention to Questions Nos. 342 and 343 which refer to reports in The Irish Press about the crisis in the Irish Film Board and I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
A very serious situation has arisen in the Irish Film Board and Ardmore Studios.
The Deputy may not discuss it now.
It is a matter of national importance which should be fully discussed in this House.
I am not raising the issue of public service pay which I had previously asked to have raised.
Thank you.
I understood the Taoiseach to indicate this morning the possibility that he might allow a short discussion or make a statement and I have heard nothing to the contrary since then. In view of the confusion that appears to exist as to whether a settlement has been negotiated, I would ask for some information from the Government side.
I understood that this was to be discussed between the Whips and I have heard nothing since.
I have made inquiries and no approach was made by the Government Whip to our side.
Has the Opposition Whip made any approach?
Perhaps I should explain to the Minister, who may not have been in the House this morning, that the indication was given by the Taoiseach——
I was in the House.
——that he would consider the position and see whether it could be discussed by the Whips. Obviously any initiative rests with the Taoiseach.
I will bring the matter to the attention of the Taoiseach but the Deputy knows it was agreed yesterday that recommendations would be carried back. There are other people to adjudicate on those recommendations and in my opinion it would not be helpful to have them discussed here at this time.
It was obvious that the Taoiseach did not know what he was talking about and did not know the present position.
That remark should be withdrawn.
That was fairly obvious this morning. Is the Minister now saying——
It is a derogatory remark against the Taoiseach and it might be in the best interests of the House if the Deputy would be gracious enough to withdraw it.
Perhaps I would put it in a different form. It was my impression, gathered from the Taoiseach's approach, that he knew little about the present position of the negotiations and that is also the impression of others. Is there not now an obligation on the Taoiseach to take the initiative and have the matter discussed by the Whips?
I will get something done about it.
I would ask the guidance of the Chair on another issue. On 8 December I had a question — No. 629 — regarding the number of applicants for the £9.60. I asked permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment last week and it was in order but did not reach the top of the queue. Obviously the same position exists today and tomorrow and at the time of the discussion of the Cavan-Monaghan by-election writ we were promised by the Taoiseach that we would have the Finance (No. 3) Bill before the House for discussion prior to the Christmas recess. Obviously that will not happen and I ask the guidance of the Chair as to how the subject matter of Question No. 629 could be raised other than on the Adjournment.
The matter could be raised during the Adjournment Debate this week. If the Deputy wishes permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment this evening, the Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I do not have any other option.