The provision in the section which is repeated and extended in ministerial amendment No. 15 which we are now discussing is a major innovation in higher education here. One could make a political point of the fact that the National University of Ireland technically set the examinations for the constituent colleges of that organisation and that the model we are adopting here is to some extent similar. However, that does not really meet the situation. Anybody who knows the reality of the third level education situation in this country will know that there has been a very strong tradition for third level institutions to set their own examinations, subject to whatever corrective action extern examiners or similar structures may import into such examination system.
It is extraordinary that we should now, in the name of developing, encouraging, facilitating and promoting technological education, allow an organisation to assume, octopus-like, so many powers to itself, and especially now the power of setting examinations. The Minister in proposing this amendment made what was, in effect, a drafted speech. Perhaps it was proper for him not to refer to the substance of the section as repeated in his amendment, and the main substance of the section is the intention to give to the Council the power to set examinations. One might be forgiven for thinking that we have already enough examinations without setting up another institution who will have the power to set examinations. This is not just another institution as such. It is not a teaching institution. One might argue that the National University of Ireland, which has an umbrella function, is a teaching institution, but in no way are the NCEA a teaching institution. Nowhere in section 3 (1) will we find the words, "encourage, facilitate, promote, co-ordinate and develop", nor do we find the word "provide". The NCEA are not to be a provider of education although it is proper for them to be a validating institution. There seems to be absolutely no reason why they should be an institution who also set individual examinations.
The Minister may make the point that in relation to second level, for example, the Department of Education set examinations although only in very rare circumstances do they provide directly second level education. Even in second level education there has been a strong and professionally-based reaction against the idea of a centrally-set examination as the most appropriate mechanism in all institutions and at all times to determine an individual pupil's academic attainment. That reaction, which is embodied in the report of the Committee on the Intermediate Certificate Examination, has still not yet found very many or very sympathetic echoes in the corridors of power in Marlborough Street. If this amendment and the section which it repeats are anything to go by, we have evidence that, if anything, the trend of opinion is the other way and that the Minister and the Department will resist any attempt to remove examinations from centralised institutions or to give individual institutions which provide education any real flexibility and permission to innovate in this area.
It might be argued again that the NCEA power to set examinations might be a useful way of resolving problems in relation to individual institutions, but this is conflict management of the worst kind. It is all very well for the NCEA in conflict with a particular institution to say, for example, "Not only will we not validate your examination because we do not agree with it but we will set up our own examination". It is a big stick but is meaningless because it would be possible for the NCEA under this amendment to set up examinations, which, because of the conflict with the institution concerned, not even one student would sit for. If this Bill is to mean anything it should be reasonable and confer only reasonable powers on the NCEA.
In introducing this amendment the Minister referred to the fact that he had received many representations in relation to the subject matter of this section. It is plain from his amendment and from his speech that he has not even begun to listen to some of the loudest and most cogent representations which were made on this issue.
I will refer briefly to a number of other matters in relation to this ministerial amendment and perhaps the Minister will reply to them all. First, the amendment reads:
(II) have either—
(A) ...or for the time being stand so approved of and relate to such courses,
It is very important that we should know here whose option is involved. Is it the option of the council or that of the institution concerned? Secondly, at (II) (B) in the amendment there is the interesting phrase "other exercises". We would be very glad to have more information from the Minister about the nature of such other exercises. What precisely has he in mind? Is he thinking in terms of practical work or work experience? If this is the case does he have in mind that the exercises should be organised or OK'd in some way by the council or should they be organised or OK'd in some way by the institution which the individual student is attending?
Finally, in relation to the post-graduate element we have discussed already, there is reference, five lines from the bottom of the amendment, to the fact that students shall also have carried out a programme of research approved of by the council. If we are talking here about post graduate degrees based on research and not on students who are being taught and who are doing examinations in relation to the courses they have been taught, the implication of this subsection seems to me to be that if the council is going to approve or validate the award of a post-graduate degree based on research, it would have to approve the programme of study followed by each individual post-graduate student.