Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1978

Vol. 310 No. 3

National Council for Educational Awards Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson)

The following very important proviso is also included. A board of studies in making recommendations in relation to the standard required or proposed for admission to a course, or for the conferring, granting or giving of a degree, diploma, certificate or other educational award shall have regard to any corresponding standard required by a university in the state and shall not recommend a standard which is lower than such a standard, if any. I have already on another occasion indicated that I anticipate and expect that the NCEA will pay particular attention to maintaining the standard of their awards whether at degree, diploma or certificate level and I now repeat the emphasis which I desire to place on this aspect of the matter.

By way of conclusion to this introduction of the Second Stage of the Bill, I desire to draw attention to a statement of a former Minister for Education, Deputy Pádraig Faulkner, in his address to the National Council for Educational Awards on the occasion of the inaugural meeting of the council on 11 April 1972 and to my own statement of 18 November 1977 announcing that the NCEA would be the degree-awarding authority in the case of students who successfully completed degree level courses in the National Institutes for Higher Education, Limerick and Dublin and in the Thomond College of Education, Limerick, and in the regional technical colleges.

The then Minister stated that the existing system of awards could neither continue to meet the needs of existing colleges, nor have any prospect of extension of fulfil the requirements of a third-level non-university sector which was significantly expanded by the addition of the regional technical colleges, the College of Physical Education and the Institute of Higher Education in Limerick. He also stated that the achievement of a national self-sufficiency in this area appeared to be a desirable objective in itself and one which could be realised by pooling the expertise of people from the universities, from technical and general education, from industry, from business, from the professions, and from research.

In my own statement of the 18 November 1977, I stated that the Government, having had an opportunity of considering all aspects of the matter, were convinced that the best interest of the universities and the NIHE, Limerick and Thomond College of Education would be served by restoring to the National Council for Educational Awards the power to award degrees in the case of NIHE and Thomond College of Education. This would afford the NIHE and Thomond College of Education the flexibility and freedom which, with the support of the NCEA, would enable them to develop to the fullest extent programmes, the foundations of which have been firmly laid during the course of their association with the universities.

I stressed that a serious responsibility rested with the NCEA to ensure that the degree awards granted to students who successfully completed courses in the institutions for which the Government decided it should be the awarding body were comparable in value and esteem with similar awards granted by other degree-awarding authorities, on the basis of comparable courses at home and abroad. This was a task which presented to the NCEA a challenge which the Government felt confident they would meet responsibly and wholeheartedly. They had good reason to be confident.

I must not allow this occasion to pass without paying tribute to the work of the chairmen, the various members of the council, the members of the boards of studies, the director and staff of the council who have done Herculean work since the ad hoc council was constituted. Their task, difficult and time consuming at any time, was made much more difficult by the schizophrenic policies advanced by the Coalition Government. The NCEA was established on an ad hoc basis by a Fianna Fáil Government in the full conviction that they would make an extremely valuable contribution to the progress of education in this country. It is on the basis of the same conviction that I recommend this Bill to the House establishing the council on a statutory basis.

Mr. E. Collins

I should like to take up the matter raised by Deputy Horgan relating to an explanatory memorandum. I have always understood that it was customary to produce an explanatory memorandum in the case of major legislation. The Minister stated in reviewing the Bill that there was no need for one because the wording was so clear, yet in the course of his speech he said it was a complicated Bill. If it is a complicated Bill we are surely entitled to an explanatory memorandum and the absence of one reflects badly on the Minister. I assume the Minister takes responsibility for the final form of this Bill. Is that correct? Is the Minister accepting that responsibility?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister introducing a Bill in the House is responsible for it.

Mr. E. Collins

I am glad that is established. Does the Minister accept responsibility for the final form of his introductory speech?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must make his own speech without cross-examining the Minister or the Chair.

Mr. E. Collins

I merely wanted to establish that the Minister is responsible for the document which has been circulated as his introductory speech.

Mr. Horgan

Might I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is not a quorum present?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy demanding a quorum?

Mr. Horgan

I am.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. E. Collins

I want to establish that the Bill and the Minister's speech are his responsibility. In relation to his speech—at least the script I have here—it appears he must have written it in his sleep. During the course of that speech the Minister referred to:

Article 5 provides that 9 of the 23 members...representation on the council.

Mr. Wilson

On a point of information, if the Deputy had been awake he would have heard me say section rather than article.

Mr. E. Collins

I refer to the text of the speech circulated to Members of the House in the course of which there is reference to:

Section (c) of Article 3 (2)...

and to:

Section (2) of Article 3...

and yet again to Article 1.

If that is how the Minister views a Bill we shall have to revise the whole concept of what constitutes a Bill. The alternative is that the Minister did not read the speech given to him by a civil servant, that he came into the House and read the script holus-bolus. In fact he did not find out his own error because he did say “Article 1.” Then, having suddenly thought about it, he realised he could not refer to Article 1 of a Bill—he might refer to Article 1 of the Constitution—he quickly changed his usage of words and thereafter properly referred to the sections as sections. But the fact that he allowed this speech to be circulated containing the words “Article 1” and so on leads me to think that he had not even read the draft prepared for him.

Mr. Wilson

I had read it carefully.

Mr. E. Collins

With regard to the Bill itself, I am nearly ten years in this House now and I can freely admit that this is the sloppiest Bill I have had to peruse, read, examine, analyse and speak on. It needs an explanatory memorandum because it is so sloppy. The gaps in it are glaring; the references in it not at all clear. As the Minister said, the Bill is a complicated one. It is also a sloppy one. If the Minister assumes responsibility for it, which he must, likewise he must accept responsibility for a very bad piece of work. Perhaps he is to be forgiven on this occasion for coming into the House ill-prepared with regard to his speech and a Bill for which he is responsible, because I suppose we should be welcoming back the wandering minstrel of Fianna Fáil from his foreign travels, back to the work he should have been doing for the past year and a half. As was written recently by an educational correspondent, the Minister is to be found everywhere except in his office. That is a sad comment for any correspondent to have to make in respect of any Minister.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Collins can be found anywhere else but in the House.

Mr. N. Andrews

Has the Deputy nothing original to say? Christina Murphy——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No interruptions, please; Deputy Collins on the Bill before the House.

Mr. E. Collins

I am sure the gates of Loughan House are still awaiting the benign presence of Deputy Briscoe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Loughan House has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. No interruptions, please.

Mr. Briscoe

I can assure the Deputy there are no blue shirts in my background.

Mr. E. Collins

No, indeed; neither have I.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not going to discuss the colours of any shirt on this debate. Deputy Collins.

Mr. E. Collins

The manifesto said that the council would be established immediately on a statutory basis. I asked last June when the Bill would be published and was promised that it would be available before the commencement of the present session. The Bill was not produced before the commencment of the present session. I was given an assurance it would be published in November. Nearly one-and-a-half years after the Government came to office we have the Bill. One would have imagined that that would have afforded ample time in which to produce a Bill proper to the NCEA. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The Bill was introduced on Wednesday, 22 November. At that time I asked for time to consider the Bill. The Minister nodded agreement, that it would be ordered for Tuesday, 28 November but that that would have to be by agreement with the Whips. Now the Bill is being forced on the House by the cussedness of the Minister and his party. His allegation yesterday morning that I was not prepared for the Bill was a gurrier type remark in respect of my position as Opposition spokesman on Education. I thought I was dealing with him on an intellectual and sensible basis, but his attitude yesterday morning certainly does not deserve anything from me except contempt in relation to this Bill.

I want now to clarify the position because of his stupid remarks. This is a Bill which will affect third level education in years to come. It is an important Bill. It is one that deserves consideration and, if it deserves consideration, then it deserves time in which to be considered. I asked for that time when the Bill was introduced last Wednesday week because there are many vocational interests affected and many vocational interests would naturally react, either favourable or unfavourably, and so I asked for time to have a feedback, if you like, from the many vocational interests involved and affected by the Bill. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Minister does not want time for such a reaction. He wants the Bill through before it can be criticised by me and before the educational interests involved have time to consider the Bill.

Bills are not widely circulated. They are circulated to Members. It takes time for them to circulate down to the interests involved and so it would necessarily take time to get a reaction. I had my own mind quite clearly made up on the Bill. Obviously the Minister does not want to grant time to the House to consider the Bill. He wants to ram it through for his own little purpose so that no one will have an opportunity of criticising it. The honeymoon is over and it is time now to get down to bread and butter politics and get legislation through as quickly as possible. That, of course, will not be done. We have the Second Stage debate today. We will have another Second Stage session next week and that will be the end of it before Christmas. After Christmas the Second Stage will be continued. Then there will be the Committee Stage. The Committee Stage will be lengthy. As a result of a cursory reading of the Bill last week I have no fewer than 20 amendments, obvious amendments like one correcting the male chauvinism of the Minister in respect of the appointment of a chairman and vice-chairman. Obviously he assumed there are no intelligent women around the country whom he might like to appoint to the chair. There are amendments like that designed to correct the male chauvinism the Minister shows in this Bill. It is an appalling mistake to make in this day and age to have the words "chairman" and "vice-chairman"——

Mr. Briscoe

Many ladies would prefer to be called "Madam Chairman" rather than "Chairperson". This does not prevent a woman being chairman.

Mr. E. Collins

For the enlightenment of Commandant Briscoe——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The title is "Deputy Briscoe".

Mr. E. Collins

Yes, Deputy Briscoe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And Deputy Briscoe will get an opportunity later of talking on the Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

For the enlightenment of Deputy Briscoe, I would like to inform him that common usage now is "chairperson".

Mr. Briscoe

Not necessarily.

Mr. E. Collins

Of course, if he does not want to accept that, that is his own business.

Mr. Briscoe

Many ladies would resent that enormously.

Mr. E. Collins

Things like that will be dealt with on Committee Stage.

Mr. N. Andrews

Things of major importance.

Mr. E. Collins

This is just one of 20 amendments I intend to table for the Committee Stage.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Collins on the Bill, without interruption.

Mr. E. Collins

I am referring to the sloppiness of the Bill the Minister has dared to bring into the House. In the course of his introductory statement he referred to the historical attitude of various Governments. I quote:

My first consideration had to be to set the situation right by restoring a degree awarding function to the NCEA.

That, of course, is the stand he took as spokesman on the Opposition benches. I do not know what he means by his having "to set the situation right". What he is, in fact, doing is confirming the binary system of administration of third level non-university education. He is not doing anything right or wrong. He is establishing a binary system in respect of third level education. There are aspects of that system which are good and aspects which are favourable. There are some with which I would not agree. There are also aspects of a comprehensive approach to third level education which have good facets and bad facets. There is no right or wrong in what the Minister is doing here and so the words he used certainly give a wrong impression, a kind of cheap political connotation of the bravery of the Minister in this field.

The NCEA was established in 1972 on an ad hoc basis. It had power to award degrees. When the National Coalition Government took office they examined the whole area of third level education and in a statement on 16 December 1974 the Minister discussed the pros and cons of both the binary and the comprehensive system. A decision was taken by the Government in favour of a comprehensive system of third level education. It is interesting to note that the Irish Federation of University Teachers in a submission on the Bill has also come out in favour of a comprehensive approach to third level education. I think we can take it that is a non-political body, a body of academics looking at a situation which not only affects their own position but also affects the whole system of third level education, and so they cannot be judged to be political in the context in which the Minister seems to view the whole approach to the matter.

They have come out in favour of a comprehensive system, a system that has a great deal to commend it. It is not a black and white situation. It is a matter of balancing the pros and the cons. In regard to the binary system there is a danger that one section or the other—in this case specifically the non-university sector in the NCEA—might become the poor relation in the third level system. There is that danger and the Minister alluded to it in his speech where he called for high standards of academic achievement. That, of course, is necessary when there is that danger. Indeed, I was perplexed to see in the Bill references to university standards in the binary system. Section 3 (2) (b) (iii) states:

corresponds or is analogous to any relevant standards for the time being in force in universities.

What is meant by: "standards for the time being in force in universities"? What universities are referred to; Galway, Cork, Dublin, Coleraine, Kiel or London University? No specific standards are laid down in the Bill and standards vary in universities. That phrase is vague and gives very little meaning. It is not the only occasion that reference is made to universities. Section 12 (3) states:

The power vested in the Council by subsection (1) of this section shall, in so far as it is practical so to do, be exercised so as to ensure that the standard of any course of study or instruction, or any examination or other test of knowledge or ability, in relation to which the power is exercised or its syllabus corresponds or is analogous to any relevant standards for the time being in force in universities.

We have that phrase, "standards for the time being in force in universities", cropping up again. That phrase indicates that little consideration was given to the structuring of the Bill by the Minister. We cannot ask the council to assess courses of study or awards on the basis of relevant standards for the time being in force in universities. We are establishing the NCEA on a statutory basis for the purpose of allowing it to assess courses, establish standards, confer degrees, diplomas and certificates based on courses having been completed and standards for the time being in force in universities? It is the vaguest phrase I have come across in the Bill. There is no meaning at all to it and it should not have been included. It will cause derision among the members of the council and will give cause for concern to those in the third level non-university sector who feel that the universities have too big a say in the work of the NCEA.

The binary system may inhibit the free flow between the two sectors unless adequate safeguards are made. It is important that students in the non-university third level sector have an automatic right to transfer to any institution in the non-university or university sector. Under the binary system there is a danger that universities who are independent of the non-university sector may decide that the original standards of entry to the non-university college were not sufficient for their purpose. They may adopt that narrow attitude rather than look at the standard of academic achievement of the student attained in a course of study. One must be concerned with reports today which indicate that our leaving certificate is not being recognised by certain English universities for entrance purposes. If our leaving certificate is now being questioned our university degrees may also be questioned, as they have been in relation to one or two faculties.

The binary system may lead to a situation where the non-university sector under the NCEA might become the poor relation of the third-level system. That must be avoided at all costs. If it happens the whole system will be superfluous at great expense. That will happen unless the certificates, diplomas and degrees awarded stand up to the test of public scrutiny. It is very important to ensure that there is a free flow for students between the non-university and university sectors. This also applies to the staff of the non-university colleges and the universities. There must be free access to each sector. The lecturers in the non-university sector must feel free to transfer from that sector to the university sector, and vice versa. An important aspect which would facilitate a free flow is the superannuation scheme which will be adopted by the NCEA when established. That matter is dealt with under section 14. It is important that the scheme subscribed to by the staff be flexible so that staff can transfer from the technological colleges to the university colleges.

I understand that a scheme was recently established for local authorities and that is the scheme which would be most attractive. We are talking about 500 lecturers in the non-university sector. Another aspect of the binary system which deserves mention is the question of the degree of duplication which may arise. In an integrated system everything would be done through a centralised acceptable scheme but under the binary system there may be a danger of duplication of resources. I should like to mention the whole complex structure now evolving in relation to the financing, planning and co-ordinating role of the NCEA vis-à-vis the HEA and in the context of the Department's involvement in the whole area of non-university education. Section 3 of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, states:

An tÚdarás shall, in addition to the specific functions given to it by this Act, have the general functions of—

(a) furthering the development of higher education,

(b) assisting in the co-ordination of State investment in higher education and preparing proposals for such investment,

(c) promoting an appreciation of the value of higher education and research,

(d) promoting the attainment of equality of opportunity in higher education,

(e) promoting the democratisation of the structure of higher education.

The Higher Education Authority were given the function of furthering the development of higher education. The raison d'être for their establishment was that they would be the central authority where higher education would be developed.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. E. Collins

I was referring to the role of the Higher Education Authority in the sphere of third level education. In the context of the binary system now being established by the Minister, there is bound to be confusion in relation to the planning and co-ordination of the third level sector. I should like to refer again to the submission which I received from the Irish Federation of University Teachers dated 22 November and to quote from that submission. The second paragraph, page 2, states:

IFUT believes that there is a need for a single body which is competent and has the authority to plan the development of 3rd level education in both the university and non-university sector. It further believes that the Higher Education Authority, suitably modified, is the appropriate body to undertake this role. In order to carry out this enlarged function properly, it will be necessary that the Authority undergoes a significant expansion of its facilities. In addition it will be necessary that the membership of the Authority be adjusted to take account of this expanding role.

The submission continues:

The corollary of this proposal is that the NCEA would revert to its original role as an academic validating body for the non-university sector. However we envisage that the HEA would be required to consult the NCEA in relation to proposals for development in the non-university sector. Similarly in relation to proposals from the university sector the Authority should be required to consult a statutorily established Conference of Irish Universities.

While we envisage that the funding of the major part of the non-university sector should continue to come directly from the Department of Education, we would see the need for adequate mechanisms of communication between the Authority and the Department in relation to the funding of the new development.

That is a comprehensive approach by the Irish Federation of University Teachers and it has much to recommend it. This is a non-political body who are interested in the future of higher education.

The same submission discussed also academic validation and made an interesting point that I shall quote:

While welcoming the restoration of degree awarding powers to the NCEA we would oppose a statutory limitation of the possibility that some colleges might apply to one of the universities for the award of degrees.

That is an interesting viewpoint put forward by IFUT. There is no mention in the Bill that the NCEA will have the monopoly of awarding degrees in the non-university sector. As far as I know, there is no explicit, positive statement that the NCEA will have the only right to award degrees, diplomas and certificates in the colleges mentioned in section 1 of the Bill. While the NCEA, when they are established properly, will have rights in relation to the colleges specified in section 1, and specified in an order made under section 20 of the Bill when it is an Act, there is no limitation on the right of a college to seek recognition for its courses from one of the universities. I should like a statement from the Minister on this.

It is possible to infer from the Bill as now structured that the colleges may still be allowed to seek recognition for their courses from institutions of higher education other than the NCEA. Perhaps that is good. Freedom of academic standards is important in this third level sector. The universities have always been proud of their independence. They abhor interference from outside. It is good that colleges in the non-university sector should be allowed to look at their destinies, the manner in which they want to go, the path they want to tread, and decide accordingly whether to go to the NCEA for certain awards and/or to go to a university or a university college for other awards. This may lead to healthy competition. It may help the non-university sector to avoid the possibility of becoming the poor relation in the binary system now being established by the Minister.

I want to dwell on the question of the binary system versus the comprehensive system. This is a small country with a population of three million or so, the same size as the population of a large English city. We seem to be setting up a complex structure of third level education. I have serious doubts and reservations on whether we are wise to adopt the binary system. In the long term, a comprehensive system, a unified system, has more to offer to the non-university sector than the binary system. The traditions of the universities, Trinity College and the Colleges of the NUI, have much to recommend them. To date their degrees have been accepted in foreign lands. There is an excellent argument for ensuring that the tradition of academic excellence is passed on in a different form to the non-university sector. The non-university sector is a different animal from the university sector.

The establishment of the regional technical colleges in the early seventies was an excellent development. The NCAD is mentioned in the Bill but Kevin Street and Bolton Street are not mentioned for some peculiar reason. These technological colleges take a different form. They have a different entrance qualification. They have a different structure of learning. They deal with technological and technical subjects and complementary studies which are vital to the future of this country. The structures of the non-university sector, the manner in which they pursue their courses, the manner in which they teach their subjects, the manner in which they assess entrance qualifications, and the manner in which the NCEA assess qualifications at certificate, diploma and degree levels should be completely different from and independent of the assessment methods of the university. They are completely different sectors and healthy sectors. This is a good move. I am somewhat familiar with it.

In relation to the granting of the degrees, diplomas and certificates, it might be good to use a unitary system so that we would know that what we have and hold dear in the traditions of our universities, their standards of academic excellence, could be used for the benefit of the non-university sector. This could have been done through the HEA. It could have been adapted and its membership could have been substantially increased. Its powers could have been changed and its functions could have been made stronger than they are. The powers given to the HEA in the Act could have been stronger if the Government had been serious about the functions they wanted it to perform.

I will not vote against the Second Stage of the Bill but I will be putting down a large number of amendments. On balance, I have a personal liking for a unitary system in Ireland because of the size of the country. The necessary flexibility to adapt to a comprehensive system could be achieved without too much difficulty and with the goodwill of those in the universities and also the goodwill of many excellent people in the vocational sector in the regional colleges and colleges of technology. The role the regional colleges and the colleges of technology have played in education in recent years is worthy of note, mention and praise in this House. I was saddened to a certain extent by the absence of any reference in the Minister's speech to the role they have played in education in Ireland particularly in the past decade.

Newly established regional colleges have done exceptionally well in establishing themselves as institutes of education to which young people want to go. That is the acid test of their success. They want to go to the regional colleges because of the high standards insisted upon not only by the boards of management and college councils but also, and more important, by the staffs from the principals down to the class three lecturers and part-time lecturers. It is a matter of sadness that the management structure in the colleges which was laid down on an ad hoc basis in the early seventies has not been formalised. The Minister is only too well aware of the unrest in many regional colleges about the structure of management. I do not refer to Cork College because it got in fairly early and got its structure and carried on. The other technical colleges did not get their proper structure of management and the “ad hockery” of the Department in this area is to be deplored. If unrest is allowed to develop into industrial action, not only will we have a very unhappy and dissatisfied staff but many courses throughout the regional colleges will be upset. This requires not lip service but a commitment to resolve it. The Minister is fully aware of this problem and I am sure he will take the bull by the horns and resolve it before it worsens.

In my view a unified system would be the best system in the long run for a small country. I do not want to be misinterpreted and I do not want any mud slung at me when I say that. It is not that I favour the universities because I do not, for they have not adapted to changing times. They have not introduced courses to suit the seventies and eighties. I do not hold any brief for the universities. I am merely looking at the sector as it is developing. I hope the binary system succeeds but I feel that in relation to the long term development of the non-university sector the umbrella of the HEA, adapted to include representation from technological colleges, schools of science, art, business, engineering and so on, could have been adapted to be the overseeing body for the third level sector. That is my personal opinion and I am entitled to express it. I express it not in a political sense, but, as I said, as a personal opinion.

I am not voting against the Bill because I hold that opinion. This Bill will establish a binary system. I am satisfied that is the wish of the Government and that it will be followed through by the Minister. I am giving a personal opinion that the comprehensive system, the unitary system would be a better long-term vehicle than the binary system and the HEA could have been expanded to cater for this sector.

There are a number of references to the HEA in the Bill. Section 16 specifies that:

In each year there shall, in accordance with section 12 (2) of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, be paid by An tÚdarás to the Council, out of moneys received by it under section 12(1) of the said Act, a grant or grants of such amount as An tÚdarás thinks fit.

I would like clarification of that. I assume it relates only to the expenses of the NCEA itself in its administrative capacity and that it does not refer to the expenses of the various colleges in the system to be operated under the Act. I take it that the Department will continue to finance the colleges which they already finance. This is peculiar because three of the colleges mentioned in section 1, the NIHE Dublin, the NIHE Limerick and Thomond College are funded by the HEA directly whereas the other colleges, the National College of Art and Design and the regional technical colleges are funded from the Department. We are going to have a fragmented system of funding. Some of the colleges will be funded through the HEA and others will be funded directly by the Department. I do not know if that is sensible, but I doubt it.

Reference is made to An tÚdarás in section 3(2) (e) which says that the NCEA may

through an tÚdarás, advise the Minister in relation to the cost of providing, or continuing to provide, or the financing of any course of study or instruction approved of by the Council or the cost of modifying any course of study or instruction to the extent necessary to secure its approval by the Council.

Why is this paragraph necessary? I understand why there may be a need for it in relation to the colleges designated by the HEA, but up to now the other colleges have been financed directly by subventions from the Department. It now appears that all advice must go through the Minister and through an tÚdarás. This indicates that an tÚdarás will have a bigger say in the future. This is fragmentation.

I do not know the real meaning of this section. For instance, it would be simple for the NCEA to tell the Minister directly what the cost of the courses will be, especially in the colleges not designated by the HEA. There should be no problem. It would be simple to sit down and write a letter to the Minister. Why does it have to go through an tÚdarás? Is there some long-term thinking here that all the colleges will be funded by the HEA or is it a mechanism where the HEA will have a budgetary say in the running of all the colleges? If so, why establish the NCEA on an independent statutory basis? If the HEA is going to do the work of the NCEA, there is no need to establish the NCEA. Either we are going to have an NCEA with full standing, power and rights or we are not. If we are going to mess around with a half-way house situation, that will be very undesirable to say the least.

The rolé of the HEA would need to be clarified under this Bill. I am sure that reservations have been made about the role of the HEA in the third level sector. Members of the HEA want to know where they are going and what functions they will carry out as the original authority established to monitor activities in the third level sector. This point has not been clarified; it has been muddled in references in the Bill. If there had been an Explanatory Memorandum that might have helped. That did not happen and it is not to the Minister's credit.

What will be the role of the Department of Education in relation to the financing of the NCEA and of the colleges under their auspices? At the moment they fund regional colleges and the National College of Art and Design, and the HEA funds the NIHE Dublin, NIHE Limerick and Thomond College. There is a fragmented system that is not understood by anyone. The HEA might not know what the NCEA were doing in one field and the NCEA might not know what the Department were doing in respect of any course not designated by the HEA. Therefore, the Minister is encouraging confusion whereas he should have taken the opportunity of the Bill to clarify, to streamline and to crystalise the various systems of financing, of administration and of governing the third-level sector.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. E. Collins

I am delighted to have such an excellent and auspicious audience. This indicates the concern that Members of Fianna Fáil have for the Bill.

Mr. P. Lawlor

Fine Gael must have no concern for it.

Mr. L. Lalor

They have all gone home.

Mr. E. Collins

The Government Whip should know that Standing Orders provide that the Government side are obliged to maintain a quorum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would leave the matter of Standing Orders to the Chair or even to Deputy Blaney and get back to the Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

I am merely informing the Government Whip of his functions and responsibilities. Before being so rudely interrupted I was referring to the role of the Department in the non-university sector of third-level education. The fragmentation in this system in respect of finance, planning and so on is not being rectified in this Bill. It is well known that the development section of the Department was allowed to go into limbo.

Mr. Horgan

The Minister for Economic Planning and Development promised to revive that section.

Mr. E. Collins

Perhaps it, too, is under review as so many other problems are under review from what we are told at Question Time. Even the manifesto may be under review now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that the Deputy review the Bill before us.

Mr. P. Lalor

He is stuck.

Mr. E. Collins

I am not and I look forward to continuing next week on this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy will have been briefed by then, perhaps.

Mr. E. Collins

The Government Deputies may not have been present for the Minister's speech when we were told that the Bill was complicated. Perhaps for some Members of the Government side the Bill is more difficult to understand than is the case for other Members, but what is difficult for me to understand is that the Minister is allowing the confused situation to continue in the third level sector. Indeed, it is likely to become more confused in the coming year. The liaison between the Department, the HEA and the NCEA is not established in this Bill. Therefore, one gets the impression that the right hand will not know what the left hand is doing in the area of planning and co-ordination. It was a serious omission by the Minister not to tackle this essential question of planning and co-ordination in the non-university sector in the context of the role of the Department of Education vis-à-vis both the HEA and the NCEA. This whole area should be examined in depth and streamlined and it is most unfortunate that this has not been done.

The word "planning" is not used at all in relation to the function of the council as specified under section 3 of the Bill. We expected to see the words "planning" and "co-ordination" which were often linked together in debates on the NCEA. It now appears that the council are not being given the planning function in full. Although the Minister did mention it in his speech, it is not inscribed in the Bill. This showed, in the Minister's word, a schizophrenic policy in relation to the role of the NCEA. In passing he used the words "schizophrenic policy" of the National Coalition Government in relation to this sector. This is not correct. The policy which the National Coalition Government adopted was a comprehensive policy and that was spelled out quite clearly in a policy statement by the then Minister in December 1974. There was no schizophrenia evident in that but there is certain schizophrenic thinking in a number of sections of this Bill.

In particular the planning role of the NCEA must come into question, principally because the financing of the colleges is not coming through the NCEA. Finance is what determines real planning. If you have finance you can do your own planning. The question of finance is still fragmented. Some of it comes from the Department and some from the HEA and no financing or funding operation is being given to the NCEA under this Bill. The absence of the words "planning" and "co-ordination" leads me to conclude that it was because of submissions made by the HEA to the Minister that the planning function was not put in. Again a halfway house measure is being adopted by the Minister. In relation to finance it is not streamlined; in relation to planning, it is still being left over. Section 3 reads:

(1) The functions of the Council shall be generally——

that is a peculiar phrase to put into a Bill, it is very vague, not specific, very weak, not strong

——to encourage——

that is fair enough

——facilitate, promote, co-ordinate and develop technical...education.

That is not very strong phraseology; it is rather weak. That is unfortunate.

Mr. Blaney

It is decidedly delicate.

Mr. E. Collins

Decidedly delicate. I thank the Deputy for his assistance. If you are going to establish an authority on a statutory basis you give them teeth; you specify, you give them teeth and you leave nobody in doubt as to the power of the NCEA. If they are to be given the role of being the umbrella under which the non-university sector of third level education is to develop in the coming years, this section does not give the NCEA the teeth which they deserve. The only conclusion I can reach is that the HEA had their say with the Minister and because of representations made to him the question has remained unresolved as to who is to plan and co-ordinate the non-university third level sector. It has not been resolved and this Bill does not resolve it fully once and for all. I am sure the Deputies over there would like to see it resolved.

I have many more problems to cover. The composition of the Council of the NCEA is a delicate area. There were howls of protest, and quite properly, that the National College of Art and Design, our next-door neighbours, have not been represented on the council. I have had voluminous representations from the staff of NCAD. The Minister obviously saw a glaring gap in the Bill when he himself did not give the college a place on the Council. I inform the Minister now, through the Chair, that I will be moving an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that representation will be given to the NCAD on the Council of the authority. They deserve it because the NCAD is a very important college in the non-university sector in regard to the whole development of art and design in Ireland and in relation to industrial and commercial development. The central area of activity in that branch of education lies in the NCAD and that the Minister omitted to give that college representation is a glaring defect. One might even consider him forgetful. Certainly he was not slow today in recognising that he had forgotten about it.

Debate adjourned.