Deputy Faulkner was in possession. The Deputy has eight minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Third Level Education: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Wilson on 17th February, 1976:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Minister for Education to formulate a suitable policy for third level non-university education and calls on him to establish the NCEA as the certificate, diploma and degree awarding authority in that sector.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:
"welcomes the Government's decisions on third level non-university education as expressed in the terms of reference framed for the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin and the reconstituted National Council for Educational Awards."
—(Minister for Education).
I have ten minutes.
My note is eight, Deputy.
I will not waste what time I have arguing.
I assure the Deputy that the Chair is meticulous in matters of this kind.
I was pointing out yesterday evening that only a few short years ago the group certificate, the two years' course, was the highest course available in the technical schools. During that short time we introduced the intermediate and leaving certificates and made them available to students in technical schools. We provided the regional technical colleges and the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick for third level education on the non-university side. In that way we upgraded the whole technical side of education. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would now have us throw over all that we have built up through long and arduous work over the years by granting to a traditional university, which can have little affinity or understanding with the type of education available in the NIHE, the right to award degrees there. This is coming down on the academic side with a vengeance and is completely at variance with the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday where he would have us believe that he was anxious to have equality of respect and esteem for technical and technological education.
We say with regard to third level education that we want a situation to develop where we will ultimately get a unified system by evolving processes rather than by forced action on the part of the Government. We want to ensure that technical and technological education will grow and develop until it can combine on equal terms with the academic structure. We want to see students at third level awarded qualifications to degree level by the NCEA following examinations set on courses laid down by the NCEA.
How can this be possible? How can it be possible to lay down a workable arrangement between the body, which is responsible for approving courses of study all through the system, and then have the results assessed for degree purposes by another body which cannot have the expertise to deal with them and as well will not have the intimate association with the students which is necessary if a proper assessment is to be carried out? I said on a previous occasion in this House, and I say it again, that the proposals which emanated from the Cabinet subcommittee in relation to higher education are unworkable. They are unacceptable. This is agreed by quite a considerable number of the institutions involved and by the student body. The proposals cut across the decisions being arrived at for third level education in Ireland resulting from long and arduous discussions over a number of years with all the interests involved. Four or five Ministers at a few, of necessity, short meetings decided that they knew more about third level education here than the accumulated wisdom of all the individuals and groups which were moving towards a solution which was generally acceptable when I left office.
The Minister has already had to go back on the decision he originally made to disband the NCEA altogether. He soon found that the decision to abolish the NCEA was a disaster and he quickly reversed it. We have been promised green papers and white papers on higher education by the Minister. We were offered what purported to be proposals by the Minister which were later said by him to be decisions. The NCEA, as I said before, was abolished by the Minister and later reconstituted. We have neither got a green paper nor a white paper and nobody is certain any longer what the word "decision" means in the context of higher education.
Let us once again remember that the Institute for Higher Education was not established for the sole purpose of making available another traditional university in Limerick. There was very much more involved. Here we have an institution geared towards technology and the type of education which filled a long needed want in Ireland. The students pointed out that they had the opportunity of relating theory to practice. We have an institution which has the unique opportunity so far as this country is concerned of pursuing its objectives, very much in the national interest, in its own way. In my view, if the Minister insists on having the degrees awarded to this institute by a university, then the ultimate effect will be to drag the institute into providing the type of education traditional to universities. While I have the greatest regard for our universities, I simply wish to state clearly that this was not the purpose for which the NIHE was founded.
There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the effect of giving a university the right to award the degrees will have a seriously detrimental effect on the development of technology in the NIHE. The NCEA is a national body and has gained acceptability in the public mind. I am completely at a loss to know why the Minister should even think for one moment of allowing an outside institute award degrees when there is such a fine instrument to hand.
I must admit that I got considerable pleasure from the fact that the students in the National Institute for Higher Education, opened by Deputy Jack Lynch, then Taoiseach, during my time in office as Minister for Education, should now be demanding that degrees be awarded by the NCEA set up by me on an ad hoc basis. It is worth remembering in this context that students have never shown great eagerness to accept proposals emanating from Ministers or Departments. Therefore, in the matter under discussion I feel that they should be listened to. The situation here is somewhat on a par with the success of the community schools for which I was responsible and about which at the time I had considerable difficulty in convincing the people of their value. It is my pleasure to note now that in many areas there is a demand for them.
I underline the fact that much thought went into framing the proposals for the institute and the NCEA. The advantage we had was that we knew exactly what we wanted and we proceeded along the lines which would enable us to achieve our objectives. We had to withstand considerable pressures but knowing where one is going and believing, after due consideration, that one is on the right path is a tremendous asset. The Cabinet sub-committee have placed the Minister in an almost impossible position and I have some sympathy for him in his dilemma. He must exercise his authority and move back from the edge of the precipice. If he does not and persists in the view expressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last night, it will be to the detriment of technological and technical education.
We established the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick with the intention of developing third level technological education to the highest possible degree. I am convinced that if it is forced to accept qualifications from another institution which has a different tradition it will not be to the advantage of education. We are concerned about having a unified system of education but I am convinced that it is not possible to have a forced union. In fact, a forced union will have the effect of damaging the weaker section because it is not long in existence—I am speaking about the technological side. I appeal to the Minister to re-consider this position and to grant the right to the National Council for Educational Awards to award the degrees.
I had anticipated that the Minister might give us the benefit of his views. I will give way to the Minister, by virtue of his high office, if he wishes to speak.
I should like to hear the Deputy first.
There is a strange reluctance on the part of the appropriate Minister——
That beats hell.
——to contribute on this matter.
Would the Minister have something to announce?
He may have but one can only speculate. I did not anticipate I would be at this disadvantage because Ministers of the Government are not normally reluctant to make their voices heard. It is strange—perhaps not too strange— that this Minister does not seem anxious to say anything any sooner than he can avoid saying it, that is if we have any guarantee he will speak during the debate at all. Unlike everybody else who has spoken on this matter, I am no expert on educational matters but I represent the East Limerick constituency in which the National Institute for Higher Education is situated. I am aware of the serious disquiet among all the students, and their parents, about that institute and at the rather extraordinary actions of the Government in relation to it.
More than 12 months ago we had an announcement of the Government's intentions in relation to third level education. They were originally described as intentions and principles but a few days later they were described as decisions which would not be changed. Subsequently we were told that they were available for discussion. Nobody knows what the situation will be because, notwithstanding the passage of more than 12 months, the Minister for Education and the Government have made no decision regarding the award of a degree to the students who will graduate this year. I understand that there are 80 students in their fourth year and they expect to graduate in June, 1976. They entered the institute on its foundation in 1972. They are still in the position, as are the other students, that they do not know who, if anybody, will award their degrees and under what conditions.
The Students Union, in the course of a letter sent to me, and other Deputies, dated 29th January, described the position well when they said:
The NIHE was set up 4 years ago as an innovative force in Irish third-level education. Its purpose was to provide graduates, educated to contribute to the growing needs of the Irish economy, particularly in the Mid-West Region. As such, we feel it is vital that the basic educational philosophy of the college is maintained.
Because of the urgency involved, we now feel it necessary to initiate a degree campaign and we are asking the support of those who, we feel, are in a position to speed up a decision.
They have initiated that campaign and given details of their problem to the Press. This has been given wide publicity at national and local level. Unfortunately, as yet, they have not yet succeeded in getting a decision. They are, therefore, placed in an appalling predicament.
I can best illustrate the difficulty that is common to all these students and their parents by quoting from a letter I received last week from a constituent of mine whose son is a fourth year student at the institute. That person states:
Having a son about to graduate from NIHE I am more than concerned at the uncertainty in regard to the award of degrees.
The Minister's suggestion that degrees should be awarded by UCC has been rejected by the Governing Body, the staff and the student body of NIHE. UCC have questioned their competence to act without making a major change in NIHE's system of assessment.
I sent a top grade student to NIHE. He had offers of scholarships from TCD and UCD. He got a top grade education in NIHE and deserves a top grade degree. His cumulative grading over all subjects is in excess of 80 per cent and he has glowing references from co-op employers in Ireland, Germany and Finland. How do you think he and his contemporaries feel about the threat to subordinate and stifle all that is new in NIHE under the old and tired weight of NUI or UCC? How do you think they feel about the Ministerial messing on the question of their degrees?
That letter sums up adequately the predicament the students and the parents find themselves in. This has not arisen overnight; it has been going on for more than 12 months. Every day that passes makes the difficulty and the apprehension greater. It makes the situation of the students less secure and more worrying.
Why the Minister cannot make a decision is beyond me. Perhaps because of his reluctance to speak tonight in this debate until the last possible moment, he may be going to make some announcement. I do not know. I would certainly like to hope so. On the other hand, we have no guarantee whatever that he will. Will the announcement he is going to make be on the lines he suggested when he made this statement on higher education on 16th December, 1974, and when the future of NIHE in Limerick was laid down in one terse paragraph which reads that the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, shall be a recognised college of the National University of Ireland with the capacity to evolve into a constituent college of the NUI or to become an autonomous degree awarding institution?
If the decision he might or might not announce tonight—we have not got the advantage of knowing that, and the Minister is not helping the debate by deliberately keeping out of it until the last possible moment, if he intends to speak at all—is on the lines of what is set out there, I would almost think no decision would be better than that. If he is endeavouring to force the NIHE in under UCC or to force UCC, who in fairness to them are equally unwilling to become involved, in over the NIHE, that will not work. We have available to us the comments of the committee set up by University College, Cork to consider the Minister's proposals that the NIHE in Limerick should be a recognised college of the National University and that it should be subservient to UCC. They are not very keen on it. They set out their comments which are published today in The Irish Independent by the educational correspondent, Mr. Walshe. I do not want to quote the full report but the earlier part of it is very relevant indeed. It says:
A shock is in store for the Limerick students who are awaiting the outcome of an application for degree recognition from the National University of Ireland.
For the UCC team which probed the application has written a startling and in many ways very critical report of the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick.
If it is accepted the Cork Committee's report could mean that only some of the 70 students due to graduate from the Limerick Institute this summer will be able to get degrees immediately.
Others may have to study for an extra term while a number may even have to take another year's study before their course is brought up to degree standard.
It goes on to detail at some length the things it finds wrong with the National Institute of Higher Education in Limerick. It questions very seriously the qualifications of the teaching staff. It questions the contents and the nature of the courses, and so on. It is probably fair to summarise the criticisms it makes on the basis that UCC or the UCC committee are looking at NIHE as if they were of the opinion that the NIHE or any other third level educational institution should reflect exactly the nature of a traditional academic university in Ireland.
The NIHE are very different from UCC or UCD or TCD or any other traditional academic university. They make no apology for being different and I would seek to make no apology on their behalf. They were established in an effort to provide third level education and that it is above all different from the traditional kind we have in this country. It is very different. I would question the suitability of the UCC committee—all of whom no doubt are very competent men in their own fields—to judge the suitability or otherwise of the teaching staff and courses and standards reached by students in fields which are totally foreign to that of the traditional university.
The NIHE would be just as entitled to set up a committee to look into the affairs of UCC if so directed by the Minister and come up with answers which would be as critical of UCC as UCC have been of the NIHE. It was quite inappropriate that this responsibility should have been foisted on UCC at all. I do not believe UCC want it and certainly the NIHE staff and students do not want it.
The unfortunate result of this report is that, in the eyes of many people who do not understand the position, the NIHE may now be looked on as in some way some sort of inferior institution, which I assert most positively it is not. If that allegation were to be made as a result of UCC's report, there is no one to blame in the long run for that situation except the Minister who by his so-called decision of 16th December, 1974, which was never implemented, sought to force the NIHE in against their will as a recognised college of the National University. In fact they are not even a constituent college. I do not think they should be a constituent college. It totally misses the point in relation to the value of the NIHE, not just to Limerick or the mid-west region but to the nation as a whole, that there should be an attempt by the Minister, or by the traditional universities, or anyone else, to apply the values of the traditional academic universities to what is essentially a new institution with completely different objectives and completely different methods from those which are common to our existing universities.
It is no harm to go back briefly to the time when there was a campaign in Limerick and the mid-west region for the establishment of what at that time was described as a university for Limerick. It went on over quite a long number of years. It went on probably for eight or ten years. The decision was finally made in about 1969 or 1970 to establish a third level institution which became the National Institute of Higher Education. At the time the campaign—unfortunately it was a campaign which I think those who took part in it then will now fully realise was misguided—was for an exact replica, in so far as they could achieve it in Limerick, of the kind of university which already existed in Dublin, Cork and Galway.
I remember attending meetings at which one had to listen at great length to people expounding the necessity for having a faculty of medicine in Limerick and how beneficial the existence of a faculty of law in Limerick would be. They said it was very important that a faculty of arts in the traditional sense should be provided in Limerick so that people could get BAs and H.Dips. A great many people who sought to achieve a university in the Limerick region at that time genuinely believed in those terms. I am happy to say that at the time the Government thought quite otherwise, and that that clearly would not be the solution.
About 1968 the then Minister for Education indicated in broad terms that the Government felt the need for a third level institution which would have primarily a technological bias. This concept was derided in Limerick at that time by many people. I remember when I stood in a by-election in May, 1968, in east Limerick, I was very strongly opposed on the grounds that I was not prepared to pledge myself and the Fianna Fáil Party to the establishment of a university in Limerick which would contain full faculties of medicine, law, the arts and other academic or traditional subjects. I said I was not prepared to do that because I did not think it was right. That view has since been well vindicated, because in many cases the very people who advocated in the early days of that campaign that type of traditional university realise fully now that, in the NIHE and the other colleges that are associated with it in Limerick at third level, we have something unique and very valuable. The real value of the NIHE is that it is separate from our existing universities, or has been up to now. The Fianna Fáil Government in the late sixties and in the early seventies came to a realisation of something that is now very widely accepted, that right down through the years there was an extraordinary academic bias in our education and that this had enormous effects throughout various spheres of activity in life, not the least in the whole question of employment.
For decades we produced a large number of very intelligent and well-educated young people who graduated in the classics or perhaps modern languages or mathematics and so on. We produced a very small number of graduates from our third level institutions who had a high degree of technological competence. As our industrial drive really got into its stride in the late fifties and early sixties we began very rapidly to come to a realisation that a great deal of money had been invested in education which was, from the national point of view and perhaps in many cases from the point of view of the individual students and graduates themselves, badly invested, that as a nation we got a poor return for our investment, and that other countries who proportionately may have been spending even less than we were were getting far better value for their money in terms of the skills and adaptability of skills of their graduates and other people who left third-level educational institutions.
It was as a result of that thinking gradually building up in the country that the Government came to the decision that an independent institute of this kind would have to be established, that Limerick was the most suitable site for it, not having a major third level institution of any kind at that time, and that the basic bias, as it were, in the content of the courses of that institute should be technological. That was not to say that the academic or traditional—if I may call them that—subjects should be totally ignored—they were not and are not ignored—but that the fundamental emphasis in the institution should be one of technology and that it should be tied in ultimately with the whole question of employment and the usefulness of the graduates to industry which at the time was beginning to develop pretty widely in the western region and elsewhere in the country.
It followed naturally enough as a consequence of that, that an institute of that kind could scarcely be expected to confer its own degrees, diplomas and certificates itself in its earlier years and that clearly the appropriate body to award these degrees and diplomas was the National Council for Educational Awards, and that was so announced at the time of the establishment of the institute. That is what the first students who came in in 1972 were told, and that is what those students, who hope to graduate in four months' time, were entitled to believe would remain the position throughout the four-year period of their course; that if any fundamental change was going to be made in relation to the award of degrees that it would not apply to any existing students in the institute, or if it did apply to any existing students it would not apply to any other than perhaps those who were in their first year.
However, in the middle of their third year a group of 80 students were told there was going to be a fundamental change, and now that they have reached beyond the middle of their fourth year there, into the very last four months of their whole academic career at third level, they still cannot get from the Minister for Education any decision as to what is going to happen. If this was a normal Minister and this was a normal Government, one would assume that if they announced a certain thing on 16th December, 1974, that was going to be that. Unfortunately we are not dealing with a normal situation or people, and the fact that this announcement was made on 16th December, 1974, that we were told it was an irrevocable decision and all the rest of it, does not seem to mean very much, because quite clearly it is not an irrevocable decision. I hope it is not an irrevocable decision because I believe it is a wrong view and a wrong principle. The students certainly do not take it as an irrevocable decision because their view and the view of many of the staff also is that the original proposal of Deputy Faulkner as Minister for Education that the National Council for Eductional Awards should award these degrees and diplomas, is the correct one, and should remain the position.
I cannot see what good can be done for Limerick by this proposal of the Minister, if it is a proposal. I cannot see anything but harm being done to Limerick. You have only to read the report in today's Irish Independent, to which I referred earlier, of the UCC committee set up to examine into Limerick to see the terrible harm that will be done not just to the NIHE in Limerick but to the whole concept of non-traditional, non-academic education at third level. These men in UCC—and I do not want to seek to quarrel with them because I do not— apply their own standards and their own standards are different. Those standards are suitable for UCC and possibly for UCG or UCD; they are not suitable for Limerick. That committee are seeking now to impose a totally different discipline and tradition on something that is new, that is fresh and exciting and that has excited the students that have had the privilege of being the first to go through the NIHE at Limerick. You can imagine their depression when they read what is reported in today's newspaper and the views and principles that are set out.
One of the distinctive aspects of the NIHE at Limerick is that it runs what is called the co-operative education system, which is becoming very popular in the United States. It is quite different from our tradition in universities in that there are no examinations at the end of each year and there are no major examinations at the end of the three or four years for the purpose of obtaining a degree or diploma. Each student is assessed every week in that institute and the quality of the degree he gets, if he does get a degree, is related to every bit of work he did during every week that he was in that institute over the four-year period. That is a far superior system. All of us who went to a traditional university know what it is like to do your final. It was terrible. Unfortunately we hear every year of people of 21 or 22 years getting nervous breakdowns and ending up in mental hospitals and so on, their health being shattered as a result of the terrible pressures that are inflicted for short periods at the end of each academic year by this traditional system.
I do not blame UCC for this report. One would have expected it. Before I read that report at all in today's papers I would have said UCC would say: "We will have to have a big examination at the end of the year. We cannot judge whether these people are good or bad unless we have a very thorough written examination, going through all the subjects and courses." That is more or less what they said. That is totally unsuitable to Limerick. And not only will you destroy that institution and its value to the nation, but if the Minister insists on that type of thing, he will do enormous long term damage to third level technological or non-academic education in this country for years to come. Every year that passes the need for institutions such as Limerick, the need for expansion and intensification grows all the greater.
Since I became spokesman for Industry and Commerce I have become very well aware of the shortcomings of our graduates so far as industry and the development of industry and employment are concerned, through no fault of theirs. Teaching in this institute in Limerick are men who are highly qualified in their particular fields but because in some cases they do not have purely academic qualifications, but frequently have first class practical qualifications, they are criticised by UCC who are judging them simply and solely as if they were another college of the national or any other university. In my view that is wrong.
I am glad we have had the opportunity of seeing this report before this debate ended because, unfortunately, it confirms my worse fears, and those of the students, about the Minister's proposal. It is exactly what they pointed out in their letters to me, to the Minister, Deputy Wilson and everyone else over the past few months. I appeal to the Minister to put these 80 students and their parents, friends and relatives out of their agony. Put the position back to what it was when those students entered that institute and allow the NCEA to award degrees to these students this year and in years to come. We should also ensure that the distinctive character of the NIHE in Limerick as a non-academic third level institution of very high quality will be preserved.
The Minister.
I know I am out of order——
I cannot allow the Deputy to make a speech.
As a man who has been more closely associated with this than anyone else in the House, I agree with what Deputy O'Malley said. Everything he said is just and right. As a parent of a student living in that area—my daughter is attending there —the Minister should let us know what he has in mind——
The Minister for Education.
Will the Minister make up his mind one way or the other because this has been going on for too long? We have not had fair play or justice.
Deputy Coughlan must allow the Minister to speak.
I listened with great interest——
I have expressed these views privately and now I am expressing them publicly.
Deputy Coughlan must allow the Minister to speak.
I am sorry I have not time to speak because I would have some very rough things to say.
The Minister could let Deputy Coughlan speak by giving him five minutes.
But he will not let me in.
Deputy Coughlan is the parent of a student there and he should have a very valuable contribution to make. He could give us a clear insight into the problems there.
Deputy O'Malley must allow the Minister to speak. He is not ordering the speakers in this House at the moment.
If the Minister gave way to Deputy Coughlan——
The Chair has to alternate the speakers and the Deputy knows that. The Minister for Education.
I followed Deputy Faulkner.
Nobody offered at that stage.
If the Minister withdrew for five minutes——
I listened with-great interest——
I want to express my disappointment that the Minister for Education would not give way to his colleague, Deputy Coughlan.
It is extraordinary that Government Deputies are being gagged.
I do not blame Deputy Coughlan leaving the House in protest.
I have listened with great interest to what Deputy Wilson and his colleagues on the Opposition benches have had to say about higher education. Let me say at the outset that I am fascinated, if not altogether amazed, by this strange and inexplicable inability of theirs to see or discuss higher education except in terms of university and non-university. This has been emphasised very clearly this evening in the contribution we have just heard. It was encapsulated for me yesterday evening in an exchange which took place between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Deputy Wilson. I quote from the verbatim report:
Mr. Keating: But the Deputy wants a binary system?
Mr. Wilson: I do not want a binary system.
Mr. Keating: Words lose their meaning.
Continue the quotation.
I am afraid if this is the level of the debate, I am apprehensive about the possibility of getting through to the Opposition in regard to any of the positive aspects which underlie our proposals on higher education, but we must always try. Perhaps this proclivity to compartmentalise along traditional lines is not so inexplicable after all. It may well be the sad consequence of a preoccupation with old, outmoded divisions, the price of a wholehearted preference for a rigid binary system made all the more serious by a lack of awareness or an unwillingness to appreciate that in higher education as in other important matters things have changed.
Let me repeat in this connection something which I have already stated. This Government of which I am a member were conscious from the moment on which they embarked upon an examination of higher education—on which let me remind the House decisions had been awaited in vain for the best part of a decade— that it must be approached as a unit and decisions relating to it taken as such. Admittedly the landscape had changed in the course of a decade and it would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to those whose vision and endeavours helped to change the scheme. If we look back from this vantage point at the scene as the Commission on Higher Education saw it, we read at volume I, chapter 14, page 382, paragraph 6, as follows:
Only a small number of vocational education committees provide courses of higher education and these courses are not the major part of their activity.
Further on in the same paragraph we read:
The two principal committees providing courses of higher education are those of the City of Dublin and the City of Cork...
Within a few years however the scene had changed fundamentally with the rapid establishment and development of a whole range of new third level educational institutions which were planned to respond at once to local, regional and national needs. It was in these changed circumstances that I said in the House on 11th February, 1975, during a discussion of another motion by Deputy Wilson:
...after exhaustive examination of the situation...reached the decision which I announced, in December, 1974.
Later on in the same discussion I said:
Our decisions have been inspired by a desire to effect rationalisation of the system of higher education in its entirity, and to guarantee maximum interaction between institutions to the benefit of our students and of the quality of the education which must be provided for them. To this end we decided to initiate the establishment of the structures necessary to secure a comprehensive system of third level education in the country.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce put on the record of the House last evening a quotation from a publication of the OECD, "Recurrent Education: Trends and Issues", pages 24 and 25, as follows:
As far as the relationship between the non-traditional and the traditional sectors of education is concerned Governments have so far responded in one of three ways:
(1) By creating what in the United Kingdom has been called a `binary system', treating the traditional and non-traditional sectors as separate entities;
(2) by regarding post secondary education as a totality and creating an integrated but diversified system embodying all its institutional manifestations and co-ordinating them as much as possible; and—
this in effect would be the description of the Government's proposals—
(3) by treating the two sectors as inter-dependent, for example, Norway, emphasising the development of a new network of regional colleges and a partial reform of universities, with close links between the two.
The report goes on to mention France, some states of the USA and provinces of Canada.
If one wants to get a convenient title for the Government's decision it is an endeavour to bring about an interdependent system of higher education as a step on the road to greater comprehensive integration.
We gave very careful consideration to all the different options open to us. We did not reach our decisions lightly but only after full examination of the options available, having weighed the possible consequence of each. If easy acceptance of our decision by the greatest number of interests or some measure of short-lived acclaim had been our aim, we might have chosen to permit the accelerated growth of a finely-drawn, sharply-divided binary system of higher education, the nucleus of which existed already without reference to the manifold implications of such a development. Consideration of the more obvious consequences of the perpetuation of a rigid binary system, where the possibility of initiating an alternative system still remained to us, given courage and initiative and a modicum of good will on the part of the protagonists of demarcation between old and new institutions led to our decision. We chose to lay the foundations of the road that would lead away from the binary towards an overall comprehensive system. It was a positive decision taken in full knowledge and understanding of the educational scene in this country and in the light of the experience of other countries.
I need hardly remind the House that our decision drew criticism from some quarters. I found the criticism referred to in an article by W. G. Scaife in the Education Times of October 23, 1975 where, referring to the proposed link between a Dublin University and a college of technology there appeared “the Dublin connection”. In a reference to the reaction, this article said and I quote:
...A great deal of the comment was adverse and once again this was not unexpected, because the Universities had had to reject so many proposals in the past.
Such reflex response was not adequate, however, because this set of proposals contains a novel ingredient —a proposal for a University-NIHE link. There is no simple precedent for this and the consequent lack of rigid constraints makes it a potentially very fertile area for development. Doctrinaire judgements on the matter have been shallow and have failed to grasp the possibilities presented.
If Advantage is to be taken of the situation it is important that the various contributors to a future solution—politicians, academics and students—should have a picture of what might be possible.
The writer goes on to give his own view of what should be done. In retrospect, I believe that much of that criticism was due to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our purpose and intentions. In the time that has elapsed since I detailed these intentions to the House a little more than 12 months ago the governing bodies of Limerick and Dublin NIHEs have been established. On the occasion of their first meeting on June 19th last, I left the governing bodies in no doubt about the role which the Government envisaged for the institutes in higher education.
I stressed and I avail of this opportunity to stress again that the role of the NIHEs is such that the closest liaison must exist between the two governing bodies in their work. This is important not only to ensure maximum co-ordination between the two main institutes in the sector but also to guarantee that the RTCs can play a full and fruitful role in our overall educational provision. In reference to the composition of these two governing bodies I should like to point out that they include among their members seven of the principals of the eight RTCs. The principal of the eight RTC has been appointed to membership of the Higher Education Authority by the Government, on my recommendation.
I should like to draw attention also to the fact that in accordance with their terms of reference, based on the Government's decision of December, 1974, the two governing bodies elected from among their members two-thirds of the members of the reconstituted NCEA and these included the principals of six of the RTCs—Cork, Sligo, Carlow, Dundalk, Letterkenny and Waterford. This strong representation of the RTCs on the NIHE governing bodies and, in turn, on the reconstituted NCEA speaks for itself. It ensures a strong voice for RTC interest in the work both of the NIHEs and the NCEA which in accordance with their terms of reference, have with the Higher Education Authority a very important planning and co-ordinating role.
In my address to the first meeting of the reconstituted NCEA on Wednesday last I said:
Mobility and transfer between institutions in the interest of students are prime objectives in our overall plan. These objectives would be defeated if the NIHE Limerick and the NIHE Dublin were to develop independently of each other's activities or to the needs of the RTCs. The programmes of the NIHEs must be complementary and must at the same time be so structured that transfer between the RTCs and the NIHEs can be effected by students with the minimum of difficulty. At the same time the possibility of transfer between RTCs must be assured...
We must ensure the co-ordination of inter-institutional policies and plans and not permit some parts of the system to work at cross purposes with others, either designedly or accidentally. The benefit of those who attend our institutions must be our prime concern. Our objective is to create a carefully planned and fully co-ordinated framework of inter-linked and inter-related institutions which will enable a student to progress upwards through the various levels of qualification according to his own capacity, ambition and preference. We wish to make it possible for a student to advance via his home college, by way of certificate level programme, to another college where that college happens to be the centre for diploma level studies under our co-ordinated plan and on in due course, perhaps, to an NIHE if he so wishes and has reached the appropriate level in his studies up to that point. As I said in my address to the NCEA:
We cannot allow artificial barriers to thwart the hopes, ambitions and endeavours of students who have attained the appropriate standard at one level and have the capacity and motivation to proceed to a higher level.
We make no apology for asking pertinent questions. One pertinent question I would ask is—are we getting or, rather, are our students getting the best value out of the large investment which the taxpayer must make in higher education? The plan on which we have embarked and which I have elucidated already, is guaranteed to keep wastage of talent, which is the greatest resource this country possesses and wastage of resources at a minimum. May I point out another virtue of the genuine and real mobility of students that follows from our policy? It is this. The student who successfully completes his programme at a particular level after two or three years and who does not wish to proceed further has a worthwhile acceptable qualification to show as a reward for his endeavours. After two or three years he does not find himself in the hapless position of a student who, as happened all too frequently in the past, was led by the system to overreach himself and then, to use emotive words, "dropped out".
Hear, hear.
This problem of lack of mobility has been with us for a long time and there are those who would argue strenuously that it must remain with us. But the fact that a problem may appear intractable is no valid excuse for not tackling it or for not endeavouring to find a solution to it. We have tackled it. It is a matter which requires planning and co-ordination and in the NCEA and the HEA, with their planning and co-ordinating functions, we have the means of achieving our objectives.
Let me return for a brief moment to something I said in the House on the 11th February, 1975, in the course of a discussion on another motion by Deputy Wilson. I said:
It is the Government's expressed intention to devolve authority where appropriate and feasible.
In aiming at this we are not motivated by a desire to abdicate responsibility on our part. We do so because of a firm belief in the value of devolution. In that connection let me say that I believe some of the frustration which people have felt in the past, both those who are engaged in the day-to-day work of education, students, staff and principals in the colleges and institutes, and those others who are more removed from the lecture rooms and laboratories but who are anxious to make a contribution to educational development, derives from a lack of opportunity to exercise creative influence in the direction of change. I suggest that planning is very much concerned with controlling and influencing the direction of change. Our policy in relation to the composition of the governing bodies of the NIHE and the NCEA and the broad ambit of the terms of reference given to the three bodies must go a long way towards reducing, if not altogether removing, the sense of frustration which arises from a lack of opportunity to participate in the making and implementation of policy which influences all aspects of life at local, regional and national levels.
It is a departure which issues a firm challenge to a wide cross-section of interests to make that positive contribution to policy formulation and its implementation which a more centralised system of direction and decision-making has hitherto denied them. It is a challenge which I hope will be met with enthusiasm and issue in a new dynamic not only in higher education but throughout all sectors of Irish life. Local, regional and national needs have been kept in mind in the establishment of the governing bodies of the NIHEs and the NCEA and in the formulation of their terms of reference. We have given scope to a wide range of interests through persons of the highest calibre for the exercise of their expertise at institutional, local, regional and national levels.
I spoke to the NCEA about the glamour of graduate studies—an expensive glamour I might add if what we really need is well-qualified personnel at other levels. Our decision that degree awards should be made by the universities has been much criticised and indeed misrepresented, largely I think because of misunderstanding of our intentions. For example, we have been charged with submerging the identity of the NIHEs by merging them with the traditional universities. There is no intention of submerging the identity of any institution within the system, and when I use the word "system" here I am referring to the entire area of higher education, encompassing long-established institutions and more modern establishments.
Academic escalation is a natural temptation, but our deliberate policy of planning and co-ordination of courses through the NCEA and the HEA is calculated to afford resistance to whatever temptation there may arise for institutions to set their sights on degree-level programmes to the detriment of other worthwhile and very necessary work. We have not left the assurance against undesirable escalation to chance; rather have we created the necessary structures to ensure proper provision at all levels. I think that our neighbouring island presents us with a salutory lesson in the need for careful planning and co-ordination such as we are undertaking. There, flourishing colleges of technology became colleges of advanced technology —they are called CATs—and the CATs have, in turn become universities. The voids left by this process have, in turn, had to be filled by the creation of new colleges and polytechnics at a great cost to limited resources.
Our universities have been accused of engaging in a "carve-up" of the technological sector. There is no need for me to defend the universities against such allegations. Suffice it to say that the universities over the past year have shown new eagerness to play a creative and constructive role in the context of the Government's decisions in relation to degree level courses in institutions which have hitherto been outside the university area of validation. This change is to be welcomed because, and I feel confident that the universities would agree with me in this, for the universities to continue to remain in isolation from the rest of the system of higher education would be damaging to the system as a whole and indeed to the universities themselves. Each institution in higher education has its own individual identity or ethos. The best possible return, qualitatively and quantitatively, is the target to be aimed at and this does not mean that each institution must do everything.
With reference to degrees, I should emphasise that in general terms one must advert to the entitlement of students who aspire to be graduates. We hear a lot nowadays about who will award a degree to one group of students or another but we hear little or nothing about the responsibility of the prospective graduate in the matter. For instance, we hear no reference to the successful completion of an adequate course by the students or to their meeting examination requirements deemed necessary by those who are competent to assess whether their performance measures up to a standard that is acceptable, not alone nationally but internationally as well.
Degrees awarded in Ireland have long been accepted throughout the world, because the people whose responsibility it has been to guard their own standards have fulfilled faithfully the responsibility entrusted to them, and they have been alive to the very serious repercussions that would follow from any doubt that might be cast on the reliability of their awards.
The worth and acceptability of a degree awarded in Ireland, irrespective of the source of that degree, must be guaranteed throughout the world. We must guard against any deviation from acceptable standards that would devalue, or even risk devaluation of, our degrees. That must be one of our guiding principles.
Even if we were not duty bound to do all we can to maintain the high place which our awards have in the world, it would be unfair to our students, to say the least, to speak as if our aim were to give a degree to every student who completed a degree level course as if he had an absolute right to such an award. A graduate must have a degree that is worth having. To give him or her a degree that would carry with it the slightest suspicion of inadequacy would be tantamount to playing a confidence trick on the graduate to whom it has been awarded.
Deputy O'Malley, in common with those who referred to the article in today's paper, seems to assume without any question that what is reported in the article reflects fully what might be the thinking of UCC. Surely this is totally unfair and irresponsible. Apart from saying that, I think it would be inappropriate for me as Minister to make any further comment on a matter that is still coming through the internal procedures of the NUI.
May I ask Deputy O'Malley this question? Why should he be so concerned about the degree awarding power of the NCEA with regard to the needs of the NIHE in Limerick? The fact is that the institution submitted only one degree course to the NCEA in July, 1974—Materials and Industrial Engineering. It rings rather hollowly at this stage to give the impression that on this basis there could have been an intention to have all degree courses ready to be crowned by an NCEA award in 1976.
May I refer also to what I regard as the lack of logic in Deputy Faulkner's approach? How could he write off our universities by saying they have not the expertise to deal with courses in the RTCs and technological colleges? If that were so where would we get the expertise for the NCEA for the same courses— engineering, architecture, business studies and so on? Deputy O'Malley incorrectly suggested that something was foisted on UCC. The fact is that the NIHE submitted their courses to the NUI.
I wish to say in conclusion that when my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, said yesterday evening, and I quote him, "I propose to try to raise a fundamental debate on this subject," he expressed disappointment when he failed to raise a fundamental debate. Nothing I have heard since has gone to the root of this problem. The Opposition are continuing to support a rigid binary system and this Government have decided to move away from that to an interdependent system as a step on the road to more comprehensive provisions. I must put it on record that contrary to the references made to my personal position, I am fully and totally in accord with the Government and any suggestion to the contrary is unworthy of the Opposition.
Mr. Kitt
I thank Deputy Wilson for letting me have a few moments to speak on the motion. I do so principally because of the uncertainty in third level non-university education. The Minister carries responsibility for this uncertainty and today he gave us no evidence of support for the Government's proposals in this matter. I do not think anything we heard tonight from the Minister removed that uncertainty. I am speaking of the uncertainty of the students in the NIHE in Limerick and the College of Physical Education there.
We want that uncertainty removed. Secondly, there is the critical area in the Government proposals in regard to the relationship between the technological sector and the universities. As speakers have said, there is a real fear that the technological sector will be swamped by the universities. The proposals would give the kiss of death to third level non-university students. In the technological sector we are speaking of relatively new colleges which should be given a chance to develop and to stand on their own feet. They have not the tradition behind them that the universities have got.
We are not saying we want rigid structures in education. The Minister will have to agree that we in Fianna Fáil have shown innovation and initiative in second level education. We now have comprehensive schools established and I strongly protest at the accusation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that Fianna Fáil have been conservative in their approach to education. One cannot talk about a comprehensive system or a binary system unless you have realistic proposals, proposals that are workable. The Minister's proposals are not realistic. They will only succeed in stunting the growth of third level non-university education and we must ensure that this sector is given an opportunity to develop. We know now that Irish employers are looking more for technically qualified persons with special skills than academics.
I made notes of the main points made by the Minister who went to the OECD Report to get a word to describe what he said the Government are trying to do in third level education—trying to make the sectors interdependent. His next point was that mobility was very important. I am going over these quickly to show that the Minister did not face up to what we asked him to do—to establish the NCEA statutorily as a certificate, diploma and degree awarding agency.
He spoke about the importance of getting value for investment in education. He spoke about the devaluation of degrees. How it can be done if you maintain international standards I do not know. Nobody is advocating any diminution in the value or prestige of any degree. The Minister deplored Deputy O'Malley's quotation from the Irish Independent article. That showed the confusion the country is in with regard to this very important institute in Limerick and the Deputy was entitled to quote it. Admittedly, it seems to have come out prematurely but it shows precisely the point we have been making—that the universities will do the judging before awarding the degrees, and this is the only measure of interdependence either the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Education said the proposals would bring about.
The Minister for Education went on to say it was not fair of Deputy Faulkner to state that the expertise was not available in our universities to assess some of the courses. Would the Minister like to tell me which university would assess the course leading to a degree in hotel management? Where do you go in the university for someone to assess the qualifications of a chef, for example, on his way up in the system of RTC involvement?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce is completely crazy about this idea of two cultures. He quoted C. P. Snow on the last occasion and again yesterday. It is a distinction I do not accept. It is a false distinction throught up by Snow when he was talking about two aspects of the same culture. I do not see that the universities have a prescriptive right to the Humanities. I do not see why Kevin Street or Bolton Street could not have sufficient conceptual content in their courses to keep them in the same kind of philosophic field, as far as it is necessary for them in their courses, as the universities.
I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the importance of technology, on the need for rational development at third level, that rigid separate-forever structures are not desirable, but I disagree that the proposals and decisions of the Government are bringing about any degree of comprehensivisation or rationalisation, and I think the NCEA should be utilised to the full extent to unify the non-university system and that time and study should be given to how the non-university system will relate to the universities.
I said last night the Minister's image is not good going around to universities trying to get them to validate degrees in the third level section. He was rejected last year and obviously there is trouble now. It is not good for the NCEA. It is downgrading for the national institutes to read these things about themselves. All this fixation about the two cultures of the old days: it is as important to know the second law of thermodynamics as it is to know "Hamlet". That was interesting, perhaps, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was an undergraduate, but I think it got fixed in his mind and he comes up quite regularly with it in this type of debate.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce appealed to the students to think and think deeply, about this whole matter. He called the proposals revolutionary. He described the Minister for Education as a revolutionary in the education scene.
Would the Deputy like to quote?
Go bhfóire Dia orainn.
I have the quotation here but I do not want to delay because I was challenged yesterday about a quotation I gave and I want to put this on the record. I said the Minister for Industry and Commerce arrogated to himself all responsibility for the technological end of things in the Government. This is what the Minister said at column 1922 of Volume 276 on 13th December, 1974—Friday 13th:
I must emphasise, however, that as Minister responsible for national policy in science and technology, all the science and technology and all scientific and technological activities will be my concern.
That is the quotation to which I referred yesterday. I do not want to delay because time is limited. This side of the House has not indulged in university bashing. It is, in fact, saying that taking the pitch cap, as I call it, off the degree and putting it down on the head of the third level, non-university system is not merely going to harm the head but it will harm the body right down to the first year in the National Institute of Higher Education, the one that exists and the one that will be brought into being in Dublin.
I repeat my own thesis. There need not be a lack of what the universities shape students for in the technological institute. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is as good as Harvard in its own way and carries this kind of tone and it is because it does it is so good.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce went through the history of the development of technology. It was all very interesting but it was irrelevant. He talked of the two disparate traditions—the university one, and he indulged in a little bit of university bashing, and the technological one. But what he is doing is taking what he himself says is the crowning academic award in a disparate institution and inserting it into the other system without any preparation, or logic or any rationale.
As I said earlier, the NCEA should be given the full powers we ask for in our motion. How the third level, non-university institutions will relate to the universities is a matter that requires study and care and it is ridiculous for the Minister for Education to go to the OECD report and say you can have a binary system, you can have a unified system or an interdependent system when all the means is he is going to ask the universities to confer the degrees in the technological institutions. That is the full measure of interdependence and comprehensiveness and rationalisation. There is no other.
Our proposals will not hinder either vertical mobility or horizontal mobility. Does the Minister for Education claim that his decisions will make it possible for somebody to leave second year in UCD and go to Limerick to second year and pick up in Limerick? Is that what the Minister is saying because, if he is not saying that, is all he means mobility within the third level non-university sector? There is no comprehensiveness and no interdependence at all if it does not mean mobility between the university and the non-university sector. There is no substance in it. I suggest to the Minister that he should come in here with a Bill, and let us have a debate on it, to establish the NCEA with full powers, certificate and diploma, as the Minister envisages. But I go further: give it degree awarding powers so that the university element will not be brought in to influence the structure right down to the bottom as it influences the content of the leaving certificate and, before that, of the intermediate certificate and, before that, even the first year in the ordinary secondary or vocational school. I am appealing to the Minister to do that for the sake of the national institutes of higher education, the two of them, for the sake of the National College of Art and Design, which should have a structured degree course and should have that degree awarded by the NCEA, for the sake of the RTCs to which, as I said, in special areas they should be entitled to, and I instanced yesterday where international standards were reached by a particular section of a particular RTC and where the students got in competition with prestigious technological institutes in Britain awards and prizes. For all their sakes I am asking the Minister to do what the motion says he should do because all he has done is made a transplant, to use one metaphor, which the technological sector will reject obviously from what we read in today's paper and, to use another metaphor still, the university degree is the cuckoo's egg in the technology sector and, when the cuckoo is hatched, he will shuffle around in the nest and what will happen is what the Minister says happened in Britain, until he throws all the technicians out and the Minister will have to start all over again.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Carter, Frank.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly, and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Healy.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.