Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1992

Vol. 421 No. 9

Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. J. Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 18, after "Act" to insert "and shall comprise such and so many colleges as may be determined by the Minister, from time to time, on the recommendation of the Vocational Education Committee or of the Governing Body made following consultation with the Vocational Education Committee".

Basically what we propose here is to insert this amendment after "The Institute shall be considered from the institutions specified in the First Schedule to this Act." What we are trying to do is make advance accommodation for future developments and we propose to do so in a number of ways. First, we recognise the right of the vocational education committee or the governing body to recommend additional colleges for inclusion as colleges constituted under this Bill.

Earlier today, on Report Stage of the Regional Technical Colleges Bill, we tried to enshrine in the Bill the right of vocational education committees to ascertain the needs and the future developments of vocational education. In this case we can justify the inclusion of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, which was established in 1930 and gradually brought on stream six colleges — Kevin Street college, Bolton Street college, Rathmines college, The College of Marketing and Design, Cathal Brugha Street college and the College of Music. These colleges are at such a stage of development that they are enshrined in this legislation as permanent features of third level education. We want to see every possible opportunity afforded to these colleges, as has been afforded to universities, so that they can be recognised as having a permanent place in the whole sphere of third level education.

Dublin City Vocational Education Committee had the foresight to identify niche markets and clear needs in third level education. They set up these colleges under the aegis of the 1930 Act and no special legislation was introduced as the colleges came on stream and developed their top class third level resources. What we are proposing now is that the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee be afforded the right to identify future needs within their functional area as these needs arise. If the vocational education committee — who will be aware, as they have been in the past, of the needs of the city — are not afforded this right, it should be afforded to the governing body, which is an amalgam of the various interest groups: the nominated members of the vocational education committee, specialist interest groups elected by the vocational education committee to nominate persons, academic and non-academic staff, the students' union and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. If the governing body identify a need for future development they should have the right to make such a recommendation. We are trying to be as positive as we can in terms of this amendment and this Bill and we ask the Minister to accept the spirit of what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. O'Shea

Basically I agree with the amendment as proposed by Deputy Higgins in relation to the way in which the Dublin Institute of Technology may be extended. The central point, which is acceptable, relates to leaving the power of recommendation with the vocational education committee or the governing body following consultation with the vocational education committee.

The Dublin Institute of Technology which was set up in 1978, made rapid and considerable progress since then. The model proposed in this amendment is a sensible and democratic way of dealing with the further expansion of the college at a future date. I support the amendment.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I also support this amendment. The arguments in favour of it have been made. The City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee have done a fantastic job over the years in establishing the Dublin Institute of Technology. This is an excellent amendment, a great way of recognising the contribution they made and the manner in which they have developed the colleges to the stage where they are the largest educational institutions in the State.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

All we are asking the Minister to do is to allow the vocational education committee to continue to make recommendations regarding the establishment of further colleges. This has been recognised since 1930. We only have to look around the country to find that they have been excellent at identifying the needs. To allow the vocational education committees to continue to have that power of recommendation does not impede the aspirations of the Bill, to give autonomy to the Dublin Institute of Technology. It does not interfere with the powers we are giving to the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is merely another layer to identify the needs. The recommendations they come up with can be judged on their merits. It would be a pity to isolate the vocational education committees from this role, one they have fulfilled very well to date. We would gain from them retaining this role.

Mr. Boylan

I support this amendment. I have first-hand knowledge of the achievements of the vocational education committee in dublin, particularly the Bolton Street school which provides an excellent service to a wide range of students. The third level centre established in Cavan town is now attracting students from all over the country for computer and modern office technique studies. There is need for a catering course in my region, although not necessarily in County Cavan, for young girls and boys who are anxious to pursue such a career. There will be none better than the vocational education committee in identifying where such courses should be established. They should be allowed continue their role because they have a proven track record in the field of education.

Minister for Education (Mr. S. Brennan)

I join with Deputies in paying tribute to the Dublin city and County vocational education committees and the six colleges comprising the Dublin Institute of Technology. In very difficult circumstances over many years they have given a substantial service.

Amendment No. 1 is superfluous as I have gone further than the Deputies asked me to in my amendment No. 2 which we will be debating next. The Deputies suggest that the vocational education committee should be consulted before the Minister decides to add a college to the list. In my amendment No. 2 I not only propose to consult them but have given them a veto. The Minister, and the vocational education committee, will have to agree before a college is added to the list. Amendment No. 1 is also superfluous because section 3 (2) states:

The Institute shall be constituted from the Institution specified in the First Schedule....

The First Schedule lists the institutions involved. Section 3 (3) provides that the Minister and the vocational education committee can amend the First Schedule if they so wish. Section 3 (3) permits the Minister, and the vocational education committee, if they both agree to add to the First Schedule at any time. That in effect fully takes care of what the Deputies are trying to do in amendment No. 1. It goes substantially further because it means that the Minister, and the vocational education committee, must agree.

Mr. J. Higgins

I disagree with the Minister. The Minister in amendment No. 2 is saying that the vocational education committee cannot do this without the agreement of the Minister. I dispute the Minister's contention that his amendment covers our point.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 2:

2. In page 4, line 19, to delete "or" and substitute "and"

This amendment seeks to change "or" to "and". I agreed to the amendment when I met the IVEA yesterday. It does not change the principle of the Bill but the IVEA felt it was important. I had no difficulty in agreeing to this because the Bill deals with the Dublin Institute of Technology and its constitutent colleges. I was not aiming to target it at future colleges or whatever else might come in under the legislation. That should be the subject of other legislation. I accepted that this change was very important to them and I had no difficulty in agreeing to it. I think this shows my willingness to accommodate the IVEA's views to the greatest extent possible. By acceding to their wish, it means that the schedule of the six colleges cannot be added to unless the Minister and the vocational education committee jointly agree to extending it. From my point of view, that does not change the principle of the Bill but it is a reasonable compromise.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I find this very confusing. In fact, I think it was better when we used the word "or". Under the section at present, the vocational education committee could consider incorporating any other educational institution without the agreement of the Minister and the Minister could do the same without the agreement of the vocational education committee. However, under the section as amended, both have to agree jointly to the proposal and even with their joint agreement the section states:

the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for finance, following consultation with the Vocational Education Committee and the Government Body, amend the said First Schedule by inserting therein the name of the institution or a description of the part thereof to be incorporated....

So that even if the Minister and the vocational education committee agree that any other institution should be incorporated into the institute there is no guarantee that it will happen. It will be a very difficult process to have any other educational institute incorporated into the Dublin Institute of Technology. First, there has to be agreement between the Minister and the vocational education committee; then the Minister has to get the consent of the Minister for Finance and then he has to consult again with the vocational education committee and the governing body to order to amend the First Schedule.

Would the Minister not agree to delete "may" and substitute "shall" in page 4, line 22, of section 3 (3) so that the Minister has the power, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to incorporate an educational institution into the Dublin Institute of Technology? This would cut out some of the clap-trap of the section. It should be a relatively simple procedure to incorporate another educational institution into the Dublin Institute of Technology, particularly if the Minister agrees, as that means the Department agree to it and if the vocational education committee agree, that means that everybody involved in the process agrees to the incorporation of another institution. I believe this should happen if the Minister for Finance then consents to it without having to go through the whole process of getting the consent of the vocational education committee, the Minister, or the governing body.

Mr. O'Shea

On re-reading section 3 (3) I concur with some of the points made by Deputy Mac Giolla. The subsection as amended by ministerial amendment No. 2 will read:

(3) Whenever the Minister and the Vocational Education Committee considers....

I wonder what exactly the word "considers" means. I feel the term is somewhat inappropriate because it merely means that they are of that opinion but it does not refer to how the opinion is arrived at or how the vocational education committee communicate their opinion to the Minister and the form in which it must be communicated to the Minister. Further down the subsection, line 21 reads, "the Minister may, by order, made with the consent of the Minister for Finance," and here we see the dead hand of the Minister for Finance. The Minister then has to engage in further consultation with the vocational education committee and the governing body.

On Committee Stage I raised the exact status a new institution or part of an institution would have if included in the First Schedule and the words now used in subsection (3) state "by inserting therein the name of the institution or a description of the part thereof to be incorporated". I agree that the subsection is cumbersome. Obviously the Minister has responded to a request from the IVEA and I compliment him on his openness to change and his willingness to go some way to meet the fears expressed by the IVEA on the role of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. The language is very heavy and the concept is convoluted. I wonder do we really need such a wordy subsection instead of a simple statement to deal with the important function of extending the Dublin Institute of Technology at a future date.

There is a fine spread of colleges comprising the institute, but as technology and other disciplines develop, it may become necessary for colleges that now exist outside the system to be incorporated into the Dublin Institute of Technology. I believe the formula to be followed in this case should be relatively simple. Naturally the process of consultation should take time but the duplication of consultation with the vocational education committee in particular and with the vocational education committee and governing body does not strengthen the position of the vocational education committee or the governing body which would be consulted for the first time at the second stage. However, I am open to being enlightened. I find the rationale behind this difficult to follow and the whole thing is somewhat confusing.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I am mystified by this amendment. I do not know why either the Minister or the IVEA would want to delete "or" and substitute "and" in its place. I wonder if "or" was a mistake in the first place from the Minister's point of view.

Mr. S. Brennan

That was the Deputy's amendment.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

This amendment does not enhance the role of the vocational education committee. In fact, it is tying them to the Minister. In other words, there has to be a unanimous agreement before any other educational institution can be incorporated into the Dublin Institute of Technology. I think it takes away the liberty, freedom or independence that the vocational education committee had in the first place to make such a recommendation. As Deputy O'Shea said, the subsection is cumbersome. I just do not understand it but I am anxious to hear the Minister's explanation.

Mr. J. Higgins

First, let me say that we were responsible for inserting "or" into the Bill on Committee Stage, — a pre-emptive strike. We did so to break the link between the Minister and the vocational education committee in order to deliberately make it an either/or situation and to get away from a situation where the vocational education committee were tied hand and foot to the Minister.

Without joint agreement a proposal cannot even get out of the starting blocks to reach the further complicated section, the labyrinth that Deputy Mac Giolla spoke about. The process of initiating a new college of technology, a new third level institution, is not started unless the joint agreement of the Minister and the vocational education committee is obtained. If the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee identify a clear new need for a third level college their proposal first goes to the Minister. If the Minister does not agree to the proposal the process stops there. By inserting the word "or" we wanted to provide that the process could be taken at least a stage further. It would not get a great deal further anyway, because further down the road the agreement of two Ministers would be required. If the Minister accepted our argument, the debate could commence. As the provision stands, a proposal will not get past stage one unless the Minister agrees with the vocational education committee. That was the basic reason for our amendment on Committee Stage to insert the word "or".

I do not agree with the Minister's comments earlier in refusing to take on board our broadening of what could be achieved as provided in amendment No. 1. I do not agree with the Minister that the role of the vocational education committee is strengthened and I really do not know what was going through the minds of the IVEA when they gave approval to the Minister yesterday to introduce that measure.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is hard to win. Last evening the IVEA told me that this provision was fundamental and it was their major reason for coming to see me. They said that the issue was fundamental because so long as the word "or" was included the Minister of the day would be able to unilaterally, without the agreement of the vocational education committee, designate a college to be added to the list. The Minister would not even have to talk to the vocational education committee. Come hell or high water, the IVEA wanted that power to be taken from the Minister. After listening to them at some length, I said that if the issue was so fundamental to them the power would be shared.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

The Minister must have been delighted.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is interesting that this morning in the debate on the Regional Technical Colleges Bill Deputies seemed satisfied enough with the provision. In fact, one Deputy — who shall remain nameless — thanked me for substituting the word "and" for the word "or" because a proposal would thus require the agreement of both the Minister and the vocational education committee. Therein lies some inconsistency.

I was quite happy with the provision containing the word "or" because it allowed the Minister to move unilaterally but I have now given a public undertaking to the IVEA — which I shall stand over — that the agreement of both the Minister and the vocational education committee will be required. One or two Deputies said it would be cumbersome but it does not have to be so. All day long Deputies have argued trenchantly and very competently that the vocational education committee should have a role. The decision of the vocational education committee and that of the Minister should not take too long. The addition to the Dublin Institute of Technology of a new college is an important step and one that arguably should be somewhat cumbersome, not just a stroke of a pen by a Minister.

The inclusion of a new institution will now be made on the agreement of both the Minister and the vocational education committee and with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Even if that clause were not included in the Bill and any expenditure was involved, the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance would have to give sanction or the decision would be meaningless. Usually the addition of a college would not increase costs and therefore in general there would not be a difficulty obtaining the sanction of the Minister for Finance. That provision is very much pro forma and something that can take place very quickly.

I consider that the balance is right. The vocational education committee are being given a veto in the same way as the Minister has a veto. If for very good reasons the Minister is not satisfied with a proposal he can stop the process and if for good reasons the vocational education committee are not satisfied they can stop the process. In this case both are legitimate interests. The substitution of the word "and" gives more scope to the vocational education committee than they had heretofore, in that the insertion of the word "or" meant that the Minister could ride roughshod over the vocational education committee by making unilateral decisions. The vocational education committee now have the right of veto, which surely is progress from the point of view of the vocational education committee. The IVEA said that the change was fundamental, so I am somewhat at a loss to see a reason for the change in attitude expressed by some Deputies.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Higgins

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 3, after "training" to insert", including apprenticeship education,".

This amendment seeks to amend section 5 (1), which provides:

The principal function of the Institute shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be to provide vocational and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State.

An examination of the profile of the six Dublin colleges shows clearly that apprenticeships constitute a very large factor. There are more than 5,000 apprentices in the Dublin colleges at present and they are recognised as being a very valuable component. According to the 1968 Industrial Grants Act, vocational education committees clearly have responsibility for apprenticeships. We therefore feel that it is absolutely vital that the term", including apprenticeship education" be inserted.

For some reason or another in the past we have got used to diluting the word "apprenticeship" down to more modern terminology such as "technical education and training". However, an apprenticeship is a particular kind of education in its own right. It is a kind of education that has served this country exceedingly well. It is also a very important component in the Dublin city colleges of technology. Apprenticeship education should therefore be specifically written into the Bill. On Committee Stage no good reason was advanced for not including apprenticeship training.

I appeal to the Minister, in the general spirit of openness, goodwill and good faith in which amendments are being advanced and the Minister's receptiveness of what he feels to be genuine amendments, to recognise the merits of including apprenticeship training in this provision. Whatever the case in relation to the regional technical colleges, there is a cast iron case in relation to the Dublin Institute of Technology. There are 5,000 apprentices — a considerable number — in the colleges at present, and it is obvious that they will remain a valuable part of the developing Dublin Institute of Technology, indeed, it is hoped that they will be an expanding part of the institute. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Garland

This amendment was adequately discussed on Committee Stage, so I shall not detain the House other than to say that I fully agree with the comments made by Deputy Higgins. On Committee Stage the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, said he would reconsider this aspect in order to determine whether this amendment or something like it could be incorporated in the Bill on Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Tomás Mac Giolla

During the Second Stage debate on this Bill and the Regional Technical Colleges Bill I spoke very strongly on the issue of apprenticeship training. I agree entirely with everything that Deputy Higgins has said, particularly on the Dublin Institute of Technology. I pointed out that the word "apprenticeship" did not appear in either Bill and that I was worried as to which road was being taken in relation to apprenticeships. That matter has worried many people in the education field in the past 12 months. Concern has been expressed as to whether the Department of Labour were taking over all apprenticeships from the Department of Education. It is still in the melting pot, although the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, in spite of the huge level of apprenticeship in the Dublin Institute of Technology, did not have and were not asked to have consultations on the establishment of the national apprenticeship committee and had no representative on it. They are the major apprenticeship institute in the country with 5,000 apprentices. The absence of the word "apprenticeship" from this Bill was not just obvious, it was further adding to the perception that apprenticeship was being moved out of the educational field into FÁS as a sort of skills training programme rather than an educational programme for life. That worries me.

However, on Committee Stage the Minister of State assured us that that section to provide vocational technical education includes apprenticeship. If that is the case — and I am sure the Minister will agree it is his intention and it includes apprenticeship training — he will not object to inserting the words "including apprenticeship training". It would give some assurance to many people and some stability to the whole apprenticeship scheme to know it is recognised as a major part of the institution of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Apprenticeship training given in the Dublin Institute of Technology does not end with just training a bricklayer to put one brick on top of another; it trains and educates craftspeople and gives them the opportunity for further educational development, if they wish to avail of it, to certificate or diploma level. One or two have gone on to degree level. They learn the whole process of education as well as learning apprenticeship skills and training. Some academics probably would prefer that this whole apprenticeship matter be pushed away some place else to give them a more academic image, but it was, is and should continue to be a vital part of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Mr. O'Shea

As one of the people who put down this amendment I too want to press it very strongly with the Minister. The very point which has given rise to this amendment is fundamental to the whole operation in the Dublin Institute of Technology. As other Deputies have said, there are 5,000 apprenticeships or other craft technician students attending the colleges. That is well in excess of 20 per cent of the total enrolment.

There seems to be thinking abroad now that apprenticeships should be curtailed in length and that training should take place over a much shorter period. Obviously, training is central to any apprenticeship, but exposing students to a liberal syllabus as part of their apprenticeship education — I ask the Minister to note that "education" is the word used in the amendment as distinct from "training"— is most important. Education is about the development of the individual to the full potential of his or her ability. I put it strongly to the Minister that to concentrate solely on training, or training to the virtual exclusion of an educational input, is not in the interests of apprenticeship students. It is very important that this very important function of the Dublin Institute of Technology, which has a bearing on more than 20 per cent of the students attending in the colleges, should be very clearly and unequivocally stated in the functions of the college.

My recollection, like that of Deputy Mac Giolla, is that it was the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, who indicated on Committee Stage that training would include apprenticeship. I take it that undertaking was given in good faith, but I put it to the Minister that we are dealing here with legislation. We are in the process of making law and law will be interpreated to mean what it states. There is a very definite problem here. If we do not define clearly that training includes apprenticeship education, at some future time, in spite of what is said in the House in debate, the legal interpretation could be that training would not include apprenticeship education.

The point has been made regarding the direction that apprenticeship may very well be taking. There is a strong school of thought out there that to shorten the period of training for apprenticeships is a good thing because we will have trained people much more quickly. There may be merit to that argument in terms of providing people to carry out tasks in industry, be it construction, industrial manufacture of whatever, but that is not education in its real sense. In the context of the Green Paper and of education in general it is people and their full development we should concern ourselves with.

Therefore, accepting this amendment is more than just a cosmetic exercise. It is an important safeguard that can be put into this Bill. This will be our last opportunity in the Dáil to provide in law that the training function of the Dublin Institute of Technology includes apprenticeship education. The Minister may feel that because the whole area of apprenticeship is being examined, it may be premature to insert such a provision. It is incumbent on this Oireachtas to protect this very vital part of the Dublin Institute of Technology's function which covers such a large number of students. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look earnestly and sympathetically at this amendment and agree to its inclusion in the Bill.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I hope the arrival of the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, indicates that he has come to reiterate the commitment he gave us on Committee Stage that this amendment would be considered seriously and perhaps will be accepted here in his presence. It is asking to have inserted in the Bill what is already happening in the Dublin Institute of Technology, over 5,000 apprenticeships being provided for. The apprentices who emerge are of the highest quality and continually succeed not only in getting prizes and awards nationally but also internationally. This is something of which we should rightly be proud and certainly the qualities and standards achieved merit recognition of the fact that apprenticeships are provided for within the Dublin Institute of Technology. Of course standards are even further enhanced by the fact that there has been an expansion into apprenticeship education whereby students take language courses, which are so important when many emerging apprentices may have to go abroad to find employment. Excellent as their skills may be, the real bonus with such skills is to have proficiency in a foreign language.

The Minister should seriously consider accepting this amendment because we must enhance what the Dublin Institute of Technology are doing already in the apprenticeship area. Apart from that, unfortunately the apprenticeship scheme is in a state of confusion, to such an extent that very few employers take on apprentices because they are told that the scheme will change. There is also the added burden of the costs to employers in having apprentices and, even worse, those outside the Dublin Institute of Technology find it very difficult to get a sponsor. I have always believed that it is very unfair that a student's only hope of getting an apprenticeship is who he knows or the contacts he or she may have. That does not come within the bounds of what we believe we provide within education — equality of opportunity for all. The apprenticeship scheme at present is in conflict with what we want for all our students — equality of opportunity. In recognition of what is being decided in the Dublin Institute of Technology, it would be a step in the right direction to accept our amendment.

Mr. S. Brennan

I fully endorse, accept and pay tribute to the very strong tradition of apprenticeship, particularly in Kevin Street and Bolton Street, who have had such a great commitment to that tradition over such a long period. I also endorse the content of what has been said by Deputies, but I am not able to include the phrase in this section. The commitment of the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward, has been full delivered because we have looked at this matter very seriously from a number of aspects and considered how we might oblige by putting in the phrase "including apprenticeship training". It is purely for technical reasons that I prefer not to include it, because section 5 (1) specifically states that the principal function of the institute shall be to provide vocational and technical education and training. I must repeat what the Minister of State said, we are quite satisfied that it includes apprenticeship.

The reason I have difficulty in using the phrase is that there is a major review and ongoing debate about apprenticeship and a commitment in the Green Paper to look at how we might broaden the definition of "apprenticeship". We must consider where the post leaving certificate courses will fit into this structure. It may be an objective, for example, to have in time national certification for all technical education and training, which would include apprenticeship. I am happy that technical education and training is referred to in the Bill. The other reason for not accepting the amendment is because of the review of apprenticeship, where it fits into our system and the debate which the Green Paper will generate in that area. In those circumstances it would be unwise to specifically spell it out in this section. As I said, I have a technical objection to including the phrase in the Bill. As a result of the review the definition may be broadened and that phrase might be subsumed in another way with national certification, education or technical training.

Deputy Mac Giolla rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already spoken but I will allow him to ask a question.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I wish the Minister to clarify the area of apprenticeship to which he referred. There is a reference to it in the Green Paper. Is that a final decision or will there be further decisions in this regard?

Mr. S. Brennan

Yes, the Green Paper is purely for discussion, but it contains proposals from the Government for public discussion. The White Paper, which we have targeted for the end of the year, will contain Government decisions arising from the debate. I look forward to the debate on apprenticeship and how we might broaden the concept.

Mr. J. Higgins

I find it very difficult to accept that for technical reasons the Minister cannot accept a de facto position, that there are 5,000 apprentices and that the type of course they undertake is known as an apprenticeship. We are simply asking that the exact terminology which describes the course should be enshrined in the Bill. As the Minister asknowledged, the Green Paper is merely a discussion document; we are a long way from education legislation. Is fada an bóthar and it could be a long time before we see an Education Bill. I am in favour of advancing this amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl 65.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Níl

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John. (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 44 is related. It is proposed therefore with the agreement of the House, to take amendments Nos. 4 and 44 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. S. Brennan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, lines 8 and 9, to delete ", and such other courses as the Minister may from time to time direct".

This amendment seeks to remove ministerial control. The inclusion of the provision was raised on Committee Stage and I undertook then to introduce the amendment which seeks to remove any ministerial authority in regard to deciding on courses. It is consistent with my determination to remove the Minister from the legislation as much as possible. It is also consistent with the Regional Technical College Bill which was dealt with earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 5 is in the names of Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn. Amendment No. 6 is an alternative and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related. I, therefore, proposed to take amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Higgins

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 10, after "give" to insert "degrees,".

This is a case of the old chestnut that will not go away. The Minister has still not enshrifed the right of the institutes to award degrees. Deputy Mac Giolla highlighted the problem when he said that students pursue courses in the colleges of technology in Bolton Street or Kevin Street, the College of Commerce, Rathmines; the College of Music, Chatham Row, the Dublin College of Catering, Cathal Brugha Street, or the College of Marketing and Design Mountjoy Square and yet the degree is awarded by another institution. Students when asked which college they attended will, for example, say the College of Technology, Bolton Street and if asked from which college they received their degree will say, Trinity College. That simply does not add up. If the quality of education being imparted is of a sufficient standard to be recognised and receive the imprimatur of the University of Dublin — we should go all the way at this stage and give the institute the power to award degrees in their own right. The Minister may say that he has inserted provisos in the Bill and that he gave an undertaking on Committee Stage to empower the institute to award degrees after one year. The Minister, having considered the matter in the interim, should with effect from the enactment of this legislation, which will pass through the Dáil tonight and the Seanad next week, empower the Dublin colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology to award degrees in their own right. The colleges have acknowledged and are grateful for the very valuable liaison and link they have had with Trinity College. Trinity College has provided an invaluable interaction with them and validated their courses. That has added further to the argument for empowering the colleges to award degrees in their own right with effect from the enactment of this legislation.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

It is very important that this power be effective from tonight. On Committee Stage we went part of the way towards doing this and the Minister gave a commitment to consider conferring this right on the colleges in one year's time. If that can be done in one year's time why can it not be done now? When I spoke on a similar amendment on Committee Stage I asked the Minister why the degree being conferred at present by the DIT, in conjunction with Trinity College, could not be conferred by the colleges? We have to respect the aspiration of the colleges to have the status of granting their own degrees yet, as my colleague, Deputy Jim Higgins, said, we must recognise, welcome and appreciate the co-operation the colleges received from Trinity College.

The Minister, on Committee Stage, pointed out that a certain amount of time was needed to examine the courses to see if they were worthy of degree status. That proposal may have a certain amount of merit. Again we must point out that the courses awarded degrees at present by Trinity College and provided in the Dublin Institute of Technology surely do not need to be re-examined or reevaluated in order to ascertain whether they are worthy of being allocated degree status? That has been done already. I believe the colleges would be satisfied if from the passage of this Bill at least those degrees could be awarded by the colleges themselves. Perhaps the Minister needs another year to re-examine the other courses. Having come so close to meeting us on this amendment it is a pity the Minister cannot advance just a few more months and grant this status to colleges who have worked so hard to deserve the honour of being able to grant their own degrees. It is my belief that the matter of re-evaluating the courses to establish whether they should carry degree status will be a matter of course only, that we will find they are worthy of that status. As I asked the Minister on Committee Stage, why not allow these colleges to award degrees, in particular the degrees at present being awarded by Trinity College?

Mr. Garland

I support amendment No. 5 in the names of Deputies J. Higgins and T. Ahearn. However, I contend that amendment No. 6, in my name and that of Deputy O'Shea, is slightly better in so far as it proposes the addition of the term "degrees (graduate and post-graduate),". It is important that those words be added because they will clarify the issue. When replying perhaps Deputy Jim Higgins would say whether he would prefer his or mine.

Amendment No. 7, which seeks to insert after "awards" the words "including post-graduate degrees and honorary awards and to appoint external assessors and examiners as the governing body may deem appropriate", is a very important one. Perhaps it is a pity it is being subsumed into the other two amendments, because in some ways it is slightly different.

We must examine the Dublin Institute of Technology, which has 7,700 wholetime third level students, 10,000 part-time students and 5,000 apprentices and is the second largest third level educational institute in the State. For that reason it is most important. The Dublin Institute of Technology provides under-graduate level education to the highest international standards as assessed by an external monitoring and examination process supervised by the academic council. The institute provides tuition and external examination on behalf of many professional bodies, including the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Food, Science and Technology, the Institute of Mathematics and the Institute of Statisticians. The external examination and qualification of these professional bodies is of honours primary degree standard. Furthermore, the Dublin Institute of Technology provides supervision of post-graduate research leading to the award of master degrees and doctorates. The institute is structured in a manner similar to technological universities and institutes located on the Continent, in that technological education is available from apprenticeship training to post-graduate degree level in a single institution. Finally, the Bill introduces an artificial bar to the development of the institute as a third level educational institute by restricting the level of awards which could be granted through diplomas and certificates.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to delete the phrase "excluding degrees other than degrees provided for by order under subsection (2) (a)". Section 5 (4) of the Bill, as initiated, would appear to preclude the institute from holding land because land would be vested in the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. There is an obvious potential conflict between the two bodies which would need to be examined. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. O'Shea

I rise to support amendment No. 6, in my name and that of Deputy Garland, which seeks to insert after "awards" in section 5 (1) (b) the words "degrees (graduate and post-graduate)". What academic institutions need more than anything else in order to prosper and develop in academic freedom. The kernel of academic freedom is power to confer or grant diplomas, certificates or educational awards and — probably most important in terms of public perception — to award degrees and post-graduate qualifications. This is something in respect of which the Minister has made very little progress.

It is conceded that on Committee Stage the Minister introduced section 5 (2) (a), which reads:

The Institute shall have such other functions, which may include the function of conferring degrees, post-graduate degrees and honorary awards as may be assigned to it, from time to time, by order made by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.

The word on which we should concentrate there is "may". The Minister indicated his hope of degree conferring becoming one of the functions of the Dublin Institute of Technology within one year. In the context of the year that is in it I would suggest that is a highly ambitious goal in that the Green Paper on Education has just been published. I understood from comments the Minister made in the House last week that he envisaged a six month debate on the Green Paper, which will be followed by a White Paper. I am uncertain about the timescale for a debate on this; I am not sure what the Minister has in mind. Then the Bill will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas and be enacted.

There are a couple of matters in respect of which the Minister could help us in regard to our reaction to section 5 (2) (a). The first is: what is the establishment date he has in mind for this Bill? For example, what will be the date on which he will announce the final phase of giving the Dublin Institute of Technology its full official function? Will the year about which he spoke in the House last week be a year from the enactment of the Bill, or will it be a year from the establishment date?

A more important point has been raised by me in the course of the debate on both these Bills in the House. I dealt to some extent earlier this evening with apprenticeships. As this Bill stands, I have a strong feeling that the apprenticeship provision could well go into decline in terms of numbers in the not too distant future. Following the letter issued to regional technical colleges in regard to the curtailment of the degree provision within those colleges, it is reasonable to assume that a similar thought process exists regarding the degree provision in the Dublin Institute of Technology, which at present has about 30 per cent of students as against 10 per cent in the regional technical college sector. There are demographic trends in relation to the intake of national schools which have been in place for some years. There is incontrovertible evidence that the net effect will be that there will be fewer students available for third level education in the years to come. It would seem from Government policy that the favoured area for maintaining present provision is that of the universities. I am fearful about the provisions in the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill regarding degrees. The Minister has gone some way down the road to alleviate the fears Deputies stated on Committee Stage, but this is not a mandatory section. The word "may" is included and this gives great discretion to the Minister on the question of the conferring of degrees by Dublin Institute of Technology.

I made a point earlier today in relation to the Regional Colleges Bill which is equally relevant to this Bill. It refers to the portion of the Green Paper on Education which states:

An important aspect of the new legislation for regional technical college/DIT is the provision to permit them to engage in research and development work with industry. Such research would be mainly applied research with a regional dimension and in the areas of the synthesis and dessemination of existing knowledge. It is envisaged that basic research would still be conducted largely by the universities.

Whereas the Minister can respond by telling us that the Green Paper is a discussion document, I believe that in the context of the letter that was sent to the chief executive officers of the vocational education committees on 14 May in relation to the regional technical colleges, that section is indicative of the direction that the Department see third level education taking. It is clearly stated in the Green Paper that it is the intention of the Department that the regional technical college/DIT sector will have a subsidiary role in relation to research and development work. Therefore the provision for students to pursue degree courses at the Dublin Institute of Technology is restricted.

This section relates to academic freedom in the first instance, but here the Department are reaching a position where they can copperfasten their grip on the Dublin Institute of Technology sector and prevent it from expanding as Deputies on this side of the House would wish it to do. The emphasis will be more and more on certificate and diploma courses, which of course are vitally important, but the whole range of qualifications presently available in the Dublin Institute of Technology should not alone be maintained but allowed to expand uninhibited in the future. There are many pointers that this is not the intention of the Department of Education. It is absolutely vital that these amendments be made so that the future of the Dublin Institute of Technology in the context of the conferring of degrees is ensured.

Tomás Mac Giolla

This is the crucial section of the Bill. This is the section which will decide whether the Dublin Institute of Technology will be a Mickey Mouse institute or an institute that can stand alone and gain international renown.

The Minister, in the Green Paper and during the discussion on these Bills, said that in order to give power to governing bodies he must withdraw power both from the Minister and from the vocational education committees. What power do they have when they cannot confer degrees? In recent years the Dublin Institute of Technology has had well over 500 graduates in each year and these graduates gain their degrees from Trinity College. Since the Dublin Institute of Technology was established they have turned out over 10,000 graduates, but are they graduates of the Dublin Institute of Technology or of Trinity? It is outrageous to suggest that the Minister should have a year or two to see if the courses are worthy of degree status after the institute have turned 10,000 graduates.

This section, specifically excluding degrees, is quite demeaning to the institute. It is a very negative section. This is what will be passed into law if the Minister leaves it at that. We will have an institute which will grant certificates and diplomas but not degrees, other than whatever the Minister may provide for in future. As in the case of apprenticeships, it is all very well for the Minister to say that he will review the matter in a year's time, but it is not in the Bill. If the Minister intends to do this in a year's time, could he not bring forward an amendment to cover that now or when the Bill goes to the Seanad? I take it that the year is the first year in which the governing body is established, which, according to this Bill, is after the expiration of the term of office of the first ordinary members. Could the Minister not bring in an amendment to provide that degrees may be awarded from the establishment of the first new governing body? Otherwise there is nothing in the Bill except the negative provision that the Dublin Institute of Technology cannot confer degrees. The fact that the Minister may include the function of conferring degrees at some future date with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance — again the shadow in the background — does not mean it will happen. Once this Bill is passed the institute will be as established. The work we put into discussing these provisions on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage will be all to no avail. This Bill is even more negative than the current position in the Dublin Institute of Technology because it is written into this that they are excluded from conferring degrees. It is a very bad attitude for the Minister to have to the Dublin Institute of Technology. He is conferring powers on boards of management and governing bodies and this power is taken from both the Minister and the vocational education committees. Then the Minister takes the real power from them — they have not the power to confer a degree. They are waiting for the Minister to decide when that power will be given to them.

The Minister must make a definite statement in the Bill. If he feels, for some reason that I cannot understand, that it cannot be done now but that it can be done in a year's time, that presumably being the year beginning when the new governing body is properly elected and established, I would appeal to him to include a specific provision in the Bill which states that once the new governing body are established they will have the right to confer degrees. After all these years I do not think any further examination of the courses run by these colleges is required. It is vitally important that such a provision is included in the Bill. The Minister stated that he intends to do this in a year's time. The Minister may not be in office in a year's time, and it is the person in office who will have to make this decision. I ask him to include a specific provision in the Bill setting out when the Dublin Institute of Technology can confer degrees.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have to cover a fairly long road in the remaining 20 minutes. I call Deputy Flaherty. Without wanting to be accused of the inevitable pun, I might say there is a degree of repetition to date. Maybe we could pull things together for the last round-up.

Miss Flaherty

I will be brief as most of the substantial points have already been made. There is widespread consensus on this issue. This is indicated by the level of interest in it. This is a matter on which I received the most substantial representations. I was a member of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee for six years. The Dublin Institute of Technology were being developed under the aegis of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee at that time. Like Deputy Mac Giolla, who was also a member of that committee, I understand the importance of this issue to the institutes involved. These institutes have earned the right to confer degrees. They have an outstanding reputation and have achieved the academic standards required to enable them to grant degrees at the highest level. Some of the courses run by the Dublin Institute of Technology are acknowledged to be the best available. Indeed, some of their courses are more sought after than the degree courses run by other institutes; they are regarded as the leaders in their field.

The Dublin Institute of Technology had a slow and laborious birth. For example, they had to deal with the disappointment of losing the Glasnevin campus, which was used for another development in the education field. As it happened, this development turned out to be very valuable. We are finally giving the Dublin Institute of Technology their independence, albeit with very strong links with the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, who have nurtured them so well. While I should like these links to be maintained in many areas, it is vital that the Dublin Institute of Technology are given the right to confer degrees, a right which they have earned. Like other speakers, I believe there is a lack of acknowledgement of the outstanding academic results achieved by the Dublin Institute of Technology to date. It is vital that their success is recognised if they are to develop as an independent institute. I plead with the Minister even at this late stage to accept this amendment.

Mr. Enright

There is widespread agreement among Members on this side of the House that the Minister should accept this amendment. I am sure the Minister is aware of the international recognition given to the Bolton Street College of Technology. I have visited different parts of the world and met people who attended that college. They have been unstinting in their praise of the standards of the courses being provided by that college. The same can be said about the Kevin Street College of Technology.

The Minister has a glorious opportunity to make a real input to the Bill by accepting this amendment. If he does not accept the amendment this legislation will lose its direction. Acceptance of this amendment by the Minister will change the status of the Bill. I ask the Minister to take his courage in his hands in this instance. Section 5 (2) (a) provides that the Minister may grant degree awarding status to the Dublin Institute of Technology by order. I should like to point out to the Minister that regulations still have to be made under the Civil Liability Act, 1961.

As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, Ministers are asked every morning on the Order of Business when regulations under various Acts will be made. The granting of degree awarding status to the Dublin Institute of Technology is of great importance to the students attending the Bolton Street and Kevin Street Colleges of Technology, the College of Music and the Dublin College of Catering, Cathal Brugha Street. The courses run by the catering college are excellent. Even though this college is internationally recognised I believe employers will hire people with degrees from other institutes before employing people with diplomas from this college. I plead with the Minister to give the Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status.

This is the key issue in the Bill. The words "excluding degrees" should not be included in the Bill and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. This would not only be an important gesture on the part of the Minister but would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. S. Brennan

As I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, courage is a subjective quality. There is absolutely no doubt that the Dublin Institute of Technology should be given degree awarding status. I said that on Committee Stage and that is my intention. As I said on Committee Stage, we need to do one or two things before we take that final step. I have no doubt that the quality is there to permit that to happen. We are undertaking a major re-organisation. We are putting in place an historic institute integrating six colleges into a single structure. The necessary bodies need to be put in place, particularly the new governing body and the academic council. The reason I have targeted 12 months for the awarding of degrees is that the Department need to discuss a range of matters with the interim board, in particular. We need to discuss the logistics of putting in place the formal new governing body and in regard to degrees we need to discuss arrangements for external examiners and other quality control procedures which are already tried and tested in the colleges. It is important that we are able to agree with the interim governing body on how to proceed. It is out of courtesy to the interim governing body and the need to discuss with them how to put the final structure in place that we suggested the delay in awarding degrees for a targeted period of 12 months.

It is set down in the Bill that the Minister can do that by order. In response to Opposition requests on Committee Stage I agreed to introduce post-graduate degrees and honorary awards at the same time as introducing the degree awarding status. There is no reluctance on my part to award the degree status. This will be done as quickly as possible. It is something that should be done by the Dublin Institute of Technology. Together with a whole range of technical matters it will be discussed by the Department and the interim governing body. The principle is established and degrees will be awarded as soon as possible. About 30 per cent of the present graduates are being validated by the Trinity College degree, but obviously the colleges should be able to award their own degrees as quickly as possible.

Deputy O'Shea asked about the establishment date. I see no reason for delay in this matter. Once the President has signed the Bill I propose to sign the necessary orders to bring it into effect. I would not like to delay beyond 1 September but I have to put a caveat on that because I must check the technicalities of the matter before I formally commit myself to that date. I intend to have the legislation implemented quickly, certainly before 1 September, if that is possible. I will have to see whether there are any procedural matters to be dealt with before I sign the order, but as of now I do not think there are any major obstacles. When the legislation is put into effect we will be able to set up the interim board and then move to setting up the full governing body at an early date.

Deputy Mac Giolla made the point that the institute should stand alone and be an autonomous body. That is what I have been saying all day in relation to regional technical colleges. I am glad the Deputy believes in the principle of autonomy. The whole philosophy of this legislation is to give autonomy. That is why the Deputy and I have had many differences during the day about the role of the vocational education committee. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot say that the colleges must have autonomy while also saying that the vocational education committees must have the real power.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Autonomy with no degrees.

Mr. S. Brennan

If we want to give autonomy to the colleges, the present incumbents — the vocational education committees — must lose some autonomy. I see no way out of that, but I am glad the Deputy is requesting autonomy. I cannot agree with the Deputy's comment that if the colleges get the degree awarding power now they will be a major national institution, whereas if they do not they will be a mickey mouse organisation. The colleges have much to offer. They have a very fine record and the degree is the icing on the cake. For technical reasons and to allow time for discussion I want to delay the awarding of degrees for a targeted period of 12 months. The Deputy's idea that I seek to grant the degree awarding power from the date of the setting up of the formal governing body is not a bad one. I will see whether I can synchronise the degree awarding power with the coming into effect of the formal governing body. I want to stress — I do not wish to be misinterpreted — that the Dublin Institute of Technology will have the degree awarding power subject to technical discussions with the interim governing body. I do not want words to be put in my mouth that I am in any way seeking to prevent that from happening. I have to go through a process, which I will do as quickly as I can.

This Bill is an historic initiative setting up the Dublin Institute of Technology on a full statutory basis. I pay tribute to the Dublin Institute of Technology and their colleges for the outstanding contribution they have made to the development of third level education. The graduates of the Dublin Institute of Technology are recognised internationally. They have concentrated in key areas on social disciplines such as engineering, science, architecture, business, marketing, catering and music. They are arguably the largest third level institute in the State. I, as Minister for Education, have every confidence in the Dublin Institute of Technology and in their future contribution to teaching and to research. They will get from me the full support they have had up to now.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Minister has made the case very forcibly, three times during this conclusion, that we are putting in place a very historic structure, and that is so. As we are putting in place legislation that will chart the course of third-level education in the technical, vocational and apprenticeship areas for the next 30 of 40 years we should do the job in toto from the start. I do not accept the Minister's argument in relation to the technical difficulties. The academic council can be set up shortly after the governing body come into being — the governing body nominate the academic council. I envisage that within a matter of three to four weeks after the coming on stream of this legislation the governing body can be up and running. We know the components of that body — members of the vocational education committees, representatives from organisations nominated by the vocational education committee, members of the academic council and the non-academic council, ICTU and the students. The components are pre-determined and it is a case of asking the respective bodies, bearing in mind the gender equity clause, to come up with the nominees. The Minister has decided that he will nominate the chairman. Therefore the whole body can be in place within a matter of three to four weeks.

The academic council will be the quality control body. I have no doubt quality control will be of paramount importance in deciding on degrees, diplomas and certificates and what courses will achieve degree status. I do not see why we cannot, as a launching pad, consider the 15 or 16 courses that are currently validated by Trinity College as areas in which these colleges will award degrees. The Minister said he is delaying the giving of the degree awarding power out of courtesy to the colleges. The point made by Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy Enright is valid, bearing in mind the spirit of section 5 (2) (a) which states that the institute shall have powers, but these will be "futuristic" powers.

As Deputy Mac Giolla said and as was reiterated by Deputy Enright, we do not doubt the Minister's bona fides nor his good intentions, but no other Minister is bound by this. Whether the Minister is the Minister for Justice, the EC Commissioner or the Taoiseach, nobody is bound by the commitment he has given here tonight. If the Minister is really sincere in relation to his promise that it will come into effect within a period of 12 months, the way to do it is to introduce an amendment to this effect in the Seanad. The Minister should put in an amendment to the effect that within a period of not more than 12 months after the coming into effect of this legislation, these colleges will be awarded the right to confer, give or award degrees.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 10 p.m. I am required, in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day to put the question. The question is: "That amendment No. 22 is hereby agreed to in committee; the Bill as amended on recommittal is accordingly reported to the House; that the amendment set down by the Minister for Education and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that Report Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John. (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.