In an ironic way I welcome the debate. I do not welcome all aspects of the Bills, but I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As the spokesperson for the Labour Party has already indicated, we have the gravest reservations about the core of these Bills, that is how they impact on the democratic accountability of education here. It is useful to have a debate on the issue of education in this House. There have been many contributors who have talked in a wide-ranging way about education. The issue on which politics and debate will focus for the next decade and into the next century will be education. We have seen fundamental changes in the way society is organised, in the way people are employed, and education is at the heart of that, third level education in particular. If our education system is not geared to face the challenges of mass unemployment, to prepare our young people, the fastest growing youth population in the European Community, for the next century, we will have fundamentally failed the people of Ireland. We will have doomed ourselves to a second tier existence while our European partners continue to thrive in the way they have shown they can.
We are debating two separate Bills and I will approach each with different emphases. The Dublin Institute of Technology Bill deals with the colleges that exist primarily or exclusively in the city and county of Dublin while the Regional Technical Colleges Bill has a much broader geographical scope, dealing with regional colleges from Letterkenny to Waterford.
I will focus primarily on the Regional Technical Colleges Bill. The regional technical colleges have been the success story of Irish third level education in the last two decades. Their success is part of the reason some people want to change the ground rules. There is a truism which Americans put very ably: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I do not know why the most successful and least resourced area of education is to be subject to fundamental change. The technological sector has mushroomed since the last war and we have latterly caught up with developments which have taken place in mainland Europe, America and Britain where there is a huge emphasis on technological education. It derives fundamentally from a different philosophy. The old liberal education philosophy that underscored traditional university education, it was felt, would be inadequate to meet the new technological challenges of the latter part of the 20th century. That has proved true. Our society has changed in the last 20 or 30 years. Technology is now accepted as a force that is daily changing the way we lead our lives. The flagship technological third level institutions are as well known and as highly regarded now as the traditional centres of learning such as Oxford, the Sorbonne, Cambridge or Trinity College, seats of learning that have been in existence for centuries. In the last number of decades on a par with those we have the colleges of technology, the MITS and the polytechnics who are performing on a par with them in terms of excellence but in a different dimension.
We have neglected to focus our resources, assistance and help on the technological third level sector here to enable them to be on a par with the best. There is obviously an ongoing debate within education on the value of pure learning. I strongly commend the notion of learning for learning's sake. That is why we have two separate branches of education, a liberal education that can be carried out in the universities — obviously there is a professional education that is carried out in the universities in the professional faculties also — and a new separate entity that has thrived in the last number of decades, has focused on the cutting edge of new technology and advanced us in relation to developments in energy, in industry, in space research and so on that has fundamentally changed the way we have lived our lives in recent decades.
Before I get into the meat of this Bill I want to put in context our attitude to education because it is a fundamental question that was touched upon by Deputy O'Brien. What do we, as a people, want of our third level colleges which are funded by the taxpayer and which, unfortunately, do not allow equal access to all our citizens? We still have an elitist third level sector to which many, when they start primary school, never aspire; they know they are just not going to make it because they come from a certain socio-economic background. They are two steps behind the posse before they get into junior infants and by the time they get to second level they know that third level education is not for them.
Many people do not even think the possibility of third level education is there for them. We have gradually, in a painful, slow process moved away from that to try to broaden the opportunities for all our citizens of a chance of third level education. To the forefront of that expansion, slow and painful as it was, have been the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institutes of Technology. They have provided an opportunity for people to participate in a third level facility which is reasonably close to home without having to go to major cities. They have afforded the opportunity of participating at third level without having to achieve the impossible points that are now standard for admission to some of our university faculties. They have been a tremendous force for liberalising and opening up third level education in this country over 20 years. We have to use the opportunity of this debate to applaud their great success and the crucial role played in their success by the structures that nurtured them over the last two decades. Foremost among those were the vocational education committees, the only democratic structures of education currently in place in our country, to our great shame.
The total imbalance in terms of resources from the State as between the universities and the regional technical colleges is a point to note. The universities have traditionally got the lion's share of the money and a lesser allocation was deemed appropriate for the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institutes of Technology although they now cater for approaching half of all students involved in third level education. That is a fundamental imbalance that we have to address. Those of us who visited regional colleges around the country know there is a certain sameness even about their design. They were built from a standard model, from Sligo to Letterkenny, to Waterford and to Carlow. They are utilitarian, to put it at its mildest, in terms of design and construction. There were no ivy covered granite stoned buildings for the technological sector. They were utilitarian buildings with, in many cases, raw bricks painted; they were not even plastered. The colleges did not complain about that or about the under-funding. They, obviously, looked for more resources on the basis of success and achievement. Despite the under-valuing of their contribution in terms of resource recognition, they have defied those who would starve them of the necessary resources and thrived.
That is the backdrop. In virtually every advanced country there are two distinct divisions in third level education, the traditional universities and the cutting edge of technological development. We have to decide at this juncture what we want in terms of third level education in catering for the needs of the people of this country from now into the next century. We should make an assessment now, listen to the views of all those with an interest in education and the elected Members of this House before coming to a conclusion on that fundamental issue.
For that reason, I find the timing of the Bills extraordinary. We have been told that a Green Paper on education is ready to be published. According to some newspaper reports it has been printed and will be distributed in early December. Why then should there be a pre-emptive strike on one sector in advance of the discussion that will obviously flow from the Green Paper on education? I am puzzled and bemused at the logic which says we should put the structures in place, nail down the Bills and then have a discussion. That is bizarre in the extreme. When the Minister comes to reply to this debate perhaps he would give us some cogent, logical reasons for this pre-emptive strike as I have classified it.
I am machiavellian enough to believe that vested interests want this issue nailed down before an open debate takes place. That is unfortunate because the most fundamental issue that will face us as a people during the next decade, as I have already said, is education. I had expected, particularly from the former Minister for Education, to have an open, non-bordered debate on education at all levels which would have commenced with the publication of the Government's views in the Green Paper and which would have then ranged broadly and allowed participation by all the providers and consumers of education and the elected representatives of the people before definitive conclusions were arrived at. It is a negation of that pledge and understanding to introduce these Bills to the House in advance of that open and proper debate.
I have said that technological education has been the poor relation in third level education. In the context of the real challenge that we face to provide jobs for the 260,000 people who are unemployed at present and the projected 300,000 people who will be unemployed next year or the year after, if present trends continue, we must address this matter in a more open way than to present proposals and then have a debate. That is a flawed approach and indeed the wrong one. I appeal to the Minister, even if the debate on Second Stage concludes in advance of the publication of the Green Paper, to defer Committee Stage, when the provisions of the Bill will be discussed in detail, to allow adequate time to be made available for a discussion following the publication of the Green Paper.
I have a number of concerns about the specifics of this legislation. The umbrella organisation for vocational education is the IVEA. That is the structure which brings together and synthesises the views of the democratically elected vocational education committees. I am sure the Minister is aware that they have been very active in lobbying and in expressing their views on these two Bills. They have produced very detailed documentation and a long list of amendments which they would like to see encompassed in the Bills. Foremost among the issues of concern to them is centralisation under this legislation. What is envisaged is not a freeing up of the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges to allow them to develop, expand and grow to meet their needs, according to their means and the wishes of the consumers of education, but rather an attack on the democratic structures which are in place and which have served third level education so well during the past two decades; and the dead hand of the Department of Education reaching out to gain further control.
Centralisation is a recurring theme in legislation which has passed through these Houses in recent months. Members will recall the long debate on the Local Government Act to which I tabled on behalf of the Labour Party 164 amendments, two of which were eventually accepted but I fear both were rather minor and technical. The underlying philosophy of that Bill was to interfere with local democratic structures and centre power in the Department of the Environment and in the person of the Minister for the Environment. That philosophy is mirrored in this proposal before us today.
The phrase "subject to conditions to be determined by the Minister" is like a mantra which recurs in virtually every section of the Bills. Neither the Minister nor the Department of Education is the repository of all wisdom and it is time we trusted the democratic structures. I am sick, sore and weary of lip service being paid to democracy and the concept of devolving powers and functions to the lowest possible level, the lovely principle which our European brethren call subsidiarity. This is the wonderful aspiration that we defy at every given opportunity. Rather than move to allow decentralisation and functions to be carried out at the lowest possible base consistent with efficiency, we do the opposite repeatedly in legislation. That is what we seek to do in these Bills.
The Government, and perhaps the civil servants who support them, have a fundamental fear of democracy particularly as it operates at ground level. The notion of democratic accountability is a joke. We want to stifle the autonomy of local politicians to make any decisions. It is a "Catch 22" situation because there are those who say we should not give powers to local authorities because we do not trust them or because some of them are not competent but, if we want to attract people with talent into local government — we are blessed with a great number of them working at the coal face of local democracy — we should give them more functions and powers. The erosion of powers in measures such as the ones currently before the House will drive people with talent out of local democracy. Why would anyone stand for election for a local authority or seek election to a vocational education committee when their role is to be reduced to rubber stamping decisions of Government?
The former Minister for the Environment said that I had a penchant for bringing up one issue, that is, the recurring tendency in virtually every Bill to give blanket powers to a Minister to deal with fundamental issues by way of statutory instruments. That power is to be conferred in this Bill.
During the debate on the Local Government Bill the Minister for the Environment said that he was giving himself this power in that legislation but he had no intention of abusing or using it unless absolutely necessary. Why do we need these safeguards if we trust local democracy?
At the core of this Bill is a mistrust of the democratic structures at ground level and a determination to stifle any decisionmaking powers which are not immediately within the control of the bureaucracy in a Government Department and of the Minister directly responsible. For that reason alone I oppose the Bills which will be yet another body-blow to those who are striving for an expansion of the role of local elected members at ground level. They are now in despair as a result of the series of blows which they have already had and this new blow might prove fatal.
The irony is that the counterbalance to this debate is the growing debate within the European Community for devolving powers. As I said, the principle of subsidiarity is holy writ within the European Community, all our EC partners are working hard to give new powers to local communities at town, city and county levels throughout the Community. We are building a Europe of the regions but the Government here are terrified of it and want to have everything decided in Dublin by a corps of people who think they know best. It underscores a frightening lack of trust in elected representatives.
I want to ask a fundamental question which perhaps the Minister — or the Minister of State — will answer when responding to this debate. What role is envisaged for vocational education committees in future? The Minister may say that I am pre-empting the discussions on the Green Paper. Unfortunately, I am forced into that by the publication in a pre-emptive fashion of these Bills in advance of a rational discussion. There is a fear among many vocational education committees that their days are numbered and that this is just another chipping away of the powers and functions as a prelude to final abolition. Will the Minister of State say categorically what he believes is the correct and future role of vocational education committees so that their members who have worked so hard, for decades in many instances, will know what is their future? Many of them are already feeling under-valued even though they have given a lifetime of voluntary commitment. For instance, the chairman of Wexford Vocational Education Committee, a Fianna Fáil colleague of the Minister of State, has 40 years' service in vocational education and is weary of the constant threats either to abolish his vocational education committee or to erode the powers of all vocational education committees to such an extent that it may no longer be worth his while to continue to serve at that level. We must signal to those members that their work and efforts are valued and that they are important. Instead of continued centralisation, I hope that the thrust of policy and legislation will be to devolve more powers and authority so that they could not only debate issues but make important decisions in relation to them.
The IVEA raised an issue which has obviously caused great concern, the role of research and development. There is again an ambivalence in relation to the impact of this Bill in so far as research and development are concerned. It is my wish that all colleges are allowed to carry on research and development, to develop new products, processes and practices and allowed to do so in-house for the benefit of the colleges so that there would be an organic link between industry, job creation and the technological third level sector. Some efforts have been made to do that in recent years and I should like to know the Minister's position in that regard. I want an assurance that the research in third level institutes and colleges will benefit the colleges and that, if they wanted to establish an industry in the college by way of a new invention, practice or process, they would have the resources, capacity and wherewithal to do so. I hope that the Minister will clarify that issue and put fears at rest.
Those working in education, particularly in third level education, have also expressed great concern in relation to this legislation. The Teachers' Union of Ireland represent most of the teachers employed in the colleges and they have a number of concerns and fears. Unfortunately, it seems that there was very inadequate consultation with the practitioners on the ground in advance of drafting this Bill, which was a mistake. It runs counter to the promises and impression given by the former Minister for Education that we would move forward by way of consensus.
I will raise one or two of the issues which I was requested to do by the Teachers' Union of Ireland. No doubt, the details of their fears will be expressed by amendments on Committee Stage. In section 11 (4) there is a reference to "teaching assistantships". That is a new phrase. What does it mean? What role will that category of employee have? Will it be a teaching role? It is not very clearly defined in the Bill. There are obvious fears being engendered in relation to a new category of personnel which had not previously existed. Perhaps, before Committee Stage, the Minister will clarify the matter.
Another issue which has caused great concern — perhaps the Minister of State will address it — is the question of the establishment of academic councils in each of the colleges concerned. It is of fundamental importance that the staff representatives who will serve on these academic councils are democratically elected by the staff. One would imagine that that would be taken for granted but it is not. I hope the Minister will address this issue and ensure that such a basic principle of democracy will be enshrined in clear legislative terms in the Bill. Obviously, the single most important issue for the staff is their terms of employment. These Bills have raised a number of queries and fears in relation to future terms and conditions of employment of teachers in third level technological colleges. One fear is that there will not be uniformity of pay, conditions and standards. It is quite clear that some issues should be uniform and standard; it would be quite wrong for lecturers involved in the same business in two parallel colleges to be treated differently in terms of conditions of employment or remuneration. I hope that issue will be clarified because I am sure it is not the intention of the Minister or the Department to create a disparity in the way staff members are treated in one college as against another.
I am anxious to raise one other issue in relation to the whole question of pay and conditions. I want to signal to the Minister the reluctance of any association to depart from the principle of collective agreement. Section 12 of the Bill refers to consultation with staff associations and trade unions. There is in place clearly defined procedures that should not be altered in any way. I hope that the question of the way colleges deal with staff members will be treated very sensitively and sensibly by the Minister and the Department. I will conclude in relation to staff matters because my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, will deal in some detail with the concerns of the TUI by way of specific amendments on Committee Stage. I hope there will be adequate time to tease out those amendments and to allay all fears before the Bill is enacted.
I said some time ago that there are two fundamental issues that underscore the fears of the IVEA in relation to these measures. The first I dealt with at some length, that is the clear centralisation of functions that will result from this Bill. The other is important for all of us who live outside Dublin, that is the principle of regionalisation. The decision of 21 or 22 years ago to establish regional technical colleges mirrored the scattering of vocational education committees around the country. They were not called national technical colleges; they were called regional technical colleges because they were to serve the needs of the regions in which they were sited, and they have done that very successfully. I am very anxious that the principle of regionalisation, serving in a real sense the region in which the colleges are located, is preserved; but I fear that it will be struck down by the enactment of these Bills.
There was an erosion — I support this erosion — of the principle of regionalisation last year when central applications were accepted. Unfortunately, I see no way around that. Sometimes an applicant in one college has very high points but is unable to get into a particular course while a parallel course in another college accepts fewer points. There was need for balancing there and I do not take issue with the central applications procedure. Unfortunately, it was necessary in order to be fair to all applicants who wanted a place at third level in the technological area. It is grossly unfortunate that, due to the inadequate provision of third level places, there is mad competition and a mad scramble by our young people to attain points. For many young people who reach leaving certificate it is as if a horrible sentence is passed upon them in that they feel they have to prove themselves. It is not acceptable that young people at the age of 17 or 18 years of age are faced with such pressure. Their whole lives are determined by how they perform in a three week period in June and the whole focus of their education is on those three weeks. Such pressure on young people is nothing short of cruel and we not only accept it but allow it to continue.
There is only one solution, and it is very clear and straightforward, that we provide adequate third level places for all those who are able to benefit from it and wish to avail of it. That is a simple principle. I know there are huge resource implications involved, but education will be the political and social focus of our country for the next ten years and if we are to create employment and provide a future for our country and our people we should ensure that those resources are provided.
In the absence, certainly in the short term, of adequate third level places for all who wish to avail of it we certainly need to improve the machinery that currently exists for access to all third level colleges across the sector. Accepting that there is erosion of the principle of regionalisation I am certainly anxious that there be no further erosion. The colleges have in the last 20 years kept a close organic link with the communities they have served. They are linked with industry and with the geography, history and outlook of the areas they serve. I am fundamentally of the belief that that link should be preserved and I am equally of the opinion that that link is threatened by the provisions in these Bills.
I am concerned at the blanket powers the Minister is given in these Bills. For instance, in the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill the Minister takes unto himself the power to cease provision of any course he sees fit. How can you talk to colleges about autonomy when at the stroke of a pen the Minister can determine what courses can be run? That is a negation of democracy and autonomy at local level and, for that reason, I find it bizarre, extreme and unacceptable. That simply underscores the rationale behind the Bills. It is a clinging yet again by the Minister to powers to which he has no right. I hope that philosophy can be defeated in this House and that we can trust people to make decisions that affect their lives without deciding everything centrally here.
I want to move to a more domestic vein, to talk about my own constituency in relation to these Bills. I am particularly interested in the education participation rate of my county. Unfortunately, I cannot come before this House and say that it is a rate of which I am proud. The Clancy report on participation rates in third level education shows that Wexford is well below the average. In fact it has the third lowest rate of participation in third level education in the country. There are reasons for that, the prime one being that we have no third level institute. That is a major factor. The correlation between the location of a college and the participation rates from that county is evident. Unfortunately, Wexford as a county has repeatedly lost out by way of regional structures. That is the geographical fall out from being on the periphery. When you are in the south east corner it is difficult to be the centre of a region.
There are 102,000 people resident in the county. We had hoped that we could develop third level colleges or at least third level courses to serve that population and boost the dreadfully poor participation rate in third level education. There is unfortunately a link between that statistic, that is the low rate of participation in third level education, and another statistic which is equally harrowing for me to admit to this House, that we have the second highest rate of unemployment in Ireland. That will come as a surprise to many people who regard Wexford as a model county with the best of agricultural land and a tradition of industry. Wexford also is a good location vis-à-vis markets in Europe and the UK. Yet we have this appalling problem of unemployment, which is not unlinked to the statistic of our low participation rate in third level education. Industry is attracted to sites near third level institutes. We are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of such a facility in our county.
I understand that 12 per cent of the national age cohort participate in third level education, but the rate for Wexford is 7.5 per cent, which is disastrously below the national average. In Wexford we have sought by every means possible to address that disadvantage. Indeed, the two nearest regional technical colleges, Waterford and Carlow, have been of great help to the town of Wexford Vocational Education Committee in developing a third level degree course. This was offered to students last September and is the start of a number of satellite courses that we have looked for in the absence of a third level college. The Department of Education should support, commend and resource such courses. It should be a fundamental policy and principle to provide third level courses in counties which are not directly served by a third level college. This would boost participation rates in third level education.
The south east is now, with the establishment of the University of Limerick, the only region that does not have a university. There is a natural pull between the university and its hinterland. Not only do the south east counties not have a Minister or a Minister of State, we do not have a university either—I am not saying that one necessarily follows on from the other. It is important that there is a regional balance in the provision of third level educational facilities and I regret that we are so disadvantaged in the south east.
I hope the basic first step taken by the Town of Wexford Vocational Education Committee will not be a once off course but that Department of Education policy will allow further development of third level degree courses. I commend the chairman and members of the Town of Wexford Vocational Education Committee for initiating this course and the Waterford Regional Technical College for their help and participation in its establishment.
Technology is changing our lives. There is no reason that we need huge buildings or edifices costing tens of millions of pounds to provide third level courses. Technology allows us to decentralise the provisions of third level education. I hope that this first step will grow into a procedure that will dramatically change the disastrous participation rate, indicated in the Clancy report, in third level education in the county. The Minister or Minister of State should signal that the Department will do everything possible to encourage satellite courses.
The philosophy underscoring third level education should have many strands. It should be based on democratic accountability and openness and should be geared to facilitate all young people and students who want to partake in it and take advantage of it. There should be open access to third level education which should be resourced adequately even if we have to channel resources from other sectors of the economy into it. The location of third level facilities should have a geographical spread that rights the terrible imbalances that the Clancy report, in particular, has highlighted. The Minister should deal with these issues when responding to the debate.
I have much more to say on the Bills and on education in general but I will restrain myself because I have spoken for a long time. The IVEA have set out their views on these Bills. They regard these Bills as doing four things which they find unacceptable: first, they provide centralised control over the colleges; second, they diminish public accountability; third, they duplicate existing administrative services; and fourth, they create imaginary links with local democratic structures. These imaginary links give a veneer of democratic accountability but have no substance in reality. While I am on the subject of the IVEA's representations to the Department I will pose a question which may be answered later — I hope somebody is taking note in the Minister's absence or perhaps the Minister of State will respond to it. In an open letter to Members, the IVEA say that in March 1985 the IVEA and the Association of Vocational Education Colleges made a detailed submission to the Department of Education on autonomous management structures in the colleges and received no reply. Is that true? If it is true, it is shameful. They say also that in November 1982 the Association of Vocational Education Colleges made a detailed submission to the Department of Education proposing a legal framework for colleges to engage in research and consultancy, but again they received no reply. If the allegations in this well published statement are true it underscores the contempt for those bodies in the Department at some level, whether political or administrative, gives expression to their belief that all wisdom lies in Marlborough Street or in the new satellites for that Department in Athlone. That is fundamentally wrong.
The principle of democratic accountability is negated by these Bills. This should be resisted. The principle of regionalisation, which should be to the forefront of our thinking on this and every other issue, is negated. This is unfortunate and unacceptable and it is a signal that the work of the vocational education committees is not appreciated and that members, after two decades of services, should not bother any longer. Basically, that is what members of the vocational education committees on the ground have been telling me about the Department's attitude.
For the reasons I have outlined and the unfortunate timing of these Bills in advance of a proper, open, structured and all embracing debate on education which would follow on the publication of the Green Paper, the Labour Party will be opposing these Bills on Second Stage.
