Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

The Minister is correct in saying that the institutes of technology have a strong record in providing access to different groups of people. I have made this point myself. However, their performance is weak when it comes to matters like providing for people with disabilities. I do not know what the relevant statistics are for universities but I know the record of institutes of technology is very weak in this regard. Similarly, institutes of technology must improve in the area of very targeted programmes which cater for groups like people with disabilities, Travellers or people from RAPID areas. For example, Trinity College has the Trinity access programme and there are similar programmes in other universities.

Institutes of technology should not sit on their laurels. Their good record in terms of providing access has largely resulted from the types of programmes they present, their flexible models, their lower fees regime before the introduction of the free fees initiative and their geographical location. However, they do not have a strong record in respect of trying to encourage more students with disabilities.

The provision in this Bill is weaker than that of the Universities Act. What is the reason behind this? We cannot mandate that providing for equality be one of the objects of universities while merely stating that institutes of technology should have regard to it. Such a provision is not strong enough. However, I welcome what the Minister has provided in the legislation.

I disagree with the point made by the Minister about lifelong learning. I have repeatedly voiced my belief that lifelong learning should be at the core of the delivery of third-level education. This is very important when it comes to addressing access to education because it deals with the issue of second chances. It also affects the way in which programmes are provided, leading to a greater emphasis on part-time education and allowing people to have more than one chance of participating in third-level education. I do not believe this amendment could be logically interpreted as including pre-school education. Anyone interpreting the Bill would realise that it concerns third level education and that the measure provided for by this amendment involves the institutes of technology facilitating lifelong learning.

I agree that, compared to other Ministers, the Minister is very good at coming to the House to debate matters. However, I wish to return to a point made by Senator Quinn on Second Stage. I believe the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Deputy de Valera, was present at the time.