Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I join other speakers in welcoming the Bill. As one who has spent a long time in the House, I believe there was genuine debate on the subject, which is close to the hearts of many. Many speakers came at the issue from different angles during the debate, including some who had spent time as lecturers, graduates and board members. I have been around so long I still regard the institutes as RTCs.

The Government has got it right in this regard. The proper place for the institutes of technology is within the remit of the Higher Education Authority. To explain the matter from my vantage point, it reminds me of two blades of grass emanating from the same stem, but they will never be the same. They will always have different characteristics but they can co-exist under the remit of the Higher Education Authority. I congratulate Deputy Carey on his excellent contribution. He has an in depth knowledge of how the system works.

There are some in-built problems for the institutes of technology in their new home, but that is to be expected. I shall refer to some of those problems in a moment.

The history of the institutes of technology goes back to the original eight regional technical colleges. I was education officer with Macra na Feirme when they were introduced in 1970. If ever there was a need in Irish education it was for regional technical colleges. There was no place for those who were outside the normal vein — either one got to university or one did not get a third level place. At that time there were no travel arrangements with the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland universities, but we have come a long way since then.

Looking at the eight locations of the regional technical colleges it is clear they have become vibrant centres for economic development, although many others have since been established. This is not an anti-university debate. We are proud of the university structure here. On a parochial level I am proud of NUI Galway which has taken its place on the world stage. I am equally proud of the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology and Athlone Institute of Technology as they are the two about which I am most familiar. Those two institutes have very different characters. While both are located in the west they cater for different aspects of education.

Usually when one thinks of Athlone Institute of Technology one thinks of the technology of plastics which it has pioneered down through the years. It is easy to see the connection between some of the industries in that midland region and the place where they started in the plastics industry. From a Galway point of view, it has had a major success with the development of Galway city and its environs. A definite type of graduate comes through the system in the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology.

It has been graphically stated that when the institutes of technology go to their new home they will be rubbing shoulders with the university sector, but as far as research and funding for same is concerned, they are the poor relation. That cannot be allowed to continue. For a number of years some of the institutes were in the market for the funding which universities have been so good at securing through the industrial sector. The universities have a network through which they are able to get that funding and they have been extraordinarily good at it. The institutes of technology will have to be given more or less the same route to such funding. I cannot see them being able to acquire the same level of funding as universities for many years. Institutes of technology get only 1%, 2%, 3% or 4% of what universities have been able to get.

Incidentally, why are the new directors of the institutes of technology not called presidents? The connotation of director might be that one is on the board of directors or that one is the chief executive. If one is on the American scene with potential investors or people who want to be connected financially with such an institution, a telephone call from the president, rather than the director, of the local institute of technology would carry more weight. While that is a small issue it is an important one. I do not understand the reason they are not given the title of president.

As regards what the institutes of technology should do, I have always believed that for young people starting out it is about what the educators are able to do with them when they walk through the gate on their first morning at third level that is important. It is not about the directors, the board of directors or the governors. I have said down through the years that from the young person's point of view it is not from where they started but where they finish that is important. We are all aware of the wide range of capabilities in families, some of whom have no trouble academically getting through all the way up to university. There are also those who struggle but get a foothold on the ladder without a great leaving certificate. They complete a certificate course in one of the institutes of technology and if they have a belief and a confidence they will succeed.

In hundreds of cases I have had the great pleasure of being with these young people on the occasion of a postgraduate conferring at the local university. It is a long journey but there is no problem in the end provided they are serious about it. I give the gold medal to the institutes of technology. Were it not for the fact that they were involved at that level and were able to dovetail the various capabilities of the students with the particular courses, they would not have been so successful. Nowadays there is a great deal of sideways movement. That many students have access to the institutes of technology is important. There are many people who if they hear or read this debate will understand what we are getting at. That is the reason I hope there is never an ultimate merger between the institutes of technology and the universities. There are horses for courses. However, that does not mean one is better than the other. Rather it is what is done for students that counts. I hope the Higher Education Authority will have the ability to see the best possible opportunities for the institutes of technology in their new role.

We are lucky in that many people are at work, including many young people. I guarantee that most of the people of whom I speak today will still be working in 20 years' time. They will not be doing the same job, however — they certainly will not be doing it in the same way. Whatever problems we had retraining in the past, they were nothing compared to what we will have to do in the next 20 years — upscaling and so on. If ever there was a role for the institutes of technology, it is in this area.

I am very impressed with the GMIT in Galway, for example. The chairman of its board of directors, Rory O'Connor, the managing director of Hewlett Packard, sends out the message that it wants a close connection with the industrial world. When such people are linked to a college, funding will certainly be available from outside for research as well as from inside, from the HEA. It is against that background that I see a brilliant future for the institutes of technology.

I have been around since the formation of what were called the regional technical colleges. They are being put on a proper footing. They will stand shoulder to shoulder with the best in education in this country. Of course they will not be an answer to all our problems but there is a great niche for them. I hope that funding will come their way in an easier manner than before. With the commitment, the expertise and the absolute sincerity, which is evident on conferring day — I had the great pleasure of seeing members of my family and others celebrate on such days — there is a great future for the institutes of technology. On this occasion, the Government has got it right.

See this speech in context