Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 1979

Vol. 313 No. 10

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

Question again proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Collins

I should like to discuss the main defects in the section as it stands. It is an unsatisfactory section in that the specific functions being given to the NCEA under subsection (1) have not been spelled out. There may be difficulty in interpreting the section when the Bill becomes law. That would be most unfortunate and a number of amendments have been put down by Deputy Horgan and myself clarifying the position. My amendment No.9, which was not accepted and which I subsequently withdrew, would have clarified the situation substantially. The absence of a reference to art and design was noted here and the Minister corrected that omission, but only after pressure had been put on him by Deputy Horgan and myself and people involved in the National College of Art and Design. The Minister moved amendment No.11 to deal with that matter.

The second major defect in the Bill relates to the area of apprenticeship training and teaching. During his speech on 3 April the Minister mentioned that there was a responsibility on the Department of Education. I am sorry that the responsibility which should belong to the NCEA in respect of the education of apprentices has not been enshrined in this Bill. The Minister accepts that he has responsibility in relation to the educational content of apprenticeship courses and grave dissatisfaction has been expressed outside this House in relation to that educational content. The Minister has the opportunity to rectify that defect and ensure that apprenticeship courses have the correct amount of educational input. He could have done so by giving responsibility to the NCEA, where it properly lies. They are the award-giving body in relation to certificates and diplomas and in the future I think it will be part of their function to give awards in relation to apprenticeships. AnCO should not duplicate the work of the NCEA and nobody has yet defined the position concerning awards to apprentices. They are entitled to recognition for courses attended and work done. There is no reason why masons or carpenters should not have an award system, just as people who are involved in the technical sector.

Another omission relates to recurrent education in the absence of a statutory body to deal with adult education. The Minister is probably aware that Fine Gael intend moving a Private Members' Bill in my name to set up a national council for adult education. This is especially desirable in view of the complete disinterest of the Department in the field of adult education, which is deserving of development and commitment and should not merely be given the lipservice support we so often find in this House. Until such time as a statutory body is established, reference in the NCEA Bill might be worthwhile and might complement the work of the statutory body on adult education which, hopefully, will come into being during the life of this Dáil.

The next major defect in this section relates to the absence of reference to primary, higher and honorary degrees. The Minister has said this is covered in the wording of the section, but I feel the present wording may lead to court action in the future concerning the right of the council to award higher and honorary degrees. No Member would like to see this happen.

I am also concerned about the question of allowing the NCEA to set examinations. Tremendous exception has been taken to these powers being given to the council by people who are actively involved in the non-university sector. The NCEA should be seen to be a validating awards body and should not be given the power to interfere in a direct manner with the setting of examinations. The present system of employing externs and co-operating with colleges and institutions has worked satisfactorily and the colleges enjoy their own freedom in developing their own types of examinations and assessment systems. That should be left as it is and the wording of the Bill is unfortunate in that it clearly states that the council can set examinations. This will do substantial damage to the staff in colleges. They would prefer greater freedom in relation to this aspect of their work.

The next major defect in the section relates to the co-ordination function in regard to degrees, diplomas and certificates. The council can themselves coordinate this function. My opinion is that they should assist the colleges in coordinating their own development of courses and awards. Serious damage is being done to the successful working of the colleges by putting in the heavy hand in this section and giving inordinate powers to the council in relation to the setting of examinations and in relation to the co-ordination of the courses within the colleges. That is most unfortunate and most unnecessary.

Again, on the question of examination standards and standards to be used as a guideline, the wording here has been unfortunate. The submissions I have received were unanimous in condemning the importation into the Bill of the wording "standards for the time being in force in universities". As I stated last night in relation to certificates and diplomas, there may be no comparability available. There may be no comparable courses offered in universities. Whatever philosophic input the Minister would like to see in the Bill, the bare bones of the matter are, of course, that there may not be comparable courses available. That phrase should be withdrawn, or should be amended, and either Deputy Horgan's amendment which uses the words "nationally and internationally", or my own amendment which refers to "relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the Council", would meet the situation adequately. It is most unfortunate that the Minister has imported this phrase into the Bill, and perhaps he would consider withdrawing it on Report Stage.

Subsection 2(e) relates to the functions of An tÚdarás, the Higher Education Authority. I am not satisfied that, in drafting this Bill, proper and full account has been taken of the role which the HEA were statutorily instructed to play in higher education. The Minister said last night that the HEA were allowed to see the draft heads of the Bill. I do not know if that means they were invited to have an input into the Bill, or whether they were merely shown it and not given the opportunity of amending it or of having an input into it. Certainly I am not satisfied the Minister is going in the right direction here. He will be seen to be continuing to favour a fragmented system of third-level education. This is the most unfortunate and retrograde step taken in this Bill. The move by the Minister to encourage fragmentation at third level is to be condemned and certainly I condemn it.

This section is badly phrased and lacks clarity. The omissions are glaring and the powers and the functions being given to the council are inordinate and overpowering vis-à-vis what one would consider to be a proper balance of power which the colleges should enjoy. There should be a balance of power; there should be an openness between the colleges and the council. This has not been achieved in this section. It is an unfortunate backward move in the context of the non-university sector.

Mr. Horgan

This is one of the core sections of the Bill we are discussing. It is interesting to note that, not only has it been subjected to considerable critique and attempted amendment from this side of the House, but the Minister himself has brought in a number of not insignificant amendments to the section in the course of this debate.

In all fairness to the Minister, it must be agreed that he was probably a loser either way. If he had waited any longer to have the Bill more suitable to his own way of thinking before he brought it into the House, he would have been subject to further abuse from this side of the House for having delayed it longer, whereas by having to import his own amendments at this stage, he shows that the first thoughts presented to us were not necessarily the best thoughts.

I want to make two points of detail and two points of fundamental principle in relation to this section. The first is on subsection (2) (e). This subsection which we are now discussing for the first time, as it were—it was not the subject of any amendment earlier on in the proceedings—gives the council the function, through An tÚdarás, of advising the Minister in relation to certain matters. The matters on which An tÚdarás are to be able to advise the Minister include "the cost of providing, or continuing to provide, or the financing of any course of study or instruction approved of by the Council". I feel very strongly that that phrase should not be there. While it is arguable that the council should have the function of advising the Minister in relation to "the cost of modifying any course of study or instruction to the extent necessary to secure its approval by the Council", which is also in the subsection, the base line costing and financing of courses are not matters which are appropriate to an academic awards body.

This is, fundamentally, an academic awards body, not a planning body. The costing function which is envisaged in this subsection is, effectively, a planning function. I do not feel it is either necessary or desirable that it should be added to the council's already substantial responsibilities in the field of higher education. If the council are to do their job properly in relation to the academic side of their work, they will have their work cut out for them. It is quite unnecessary that they should be asked to advise in these wider areas as well.

The second point of detail refers to our old friends, the universities. While it is true, as the Minister said, that there is a reference in the CNAA Charter of Statutes to standards obtaining in universities, it is also true that in the CNAA statutes to which he referred, this particular obligation is laid not on the council as such, but on committees of the council, and committees of the CNAA fulfil much the same purpose, I should imagine, as the boards of studies are intended to do under this legislation. I still hold, to some extent, to my original criticism that, if only for reasons of tidiness, the council, as a structure, is something into which the universities, as such, need not have been imported in this context.

The first of the two more fundamental issues I want to raise in relation to this section is that it repeats and intensifies what I believe to be a basic error in the approach by the Government to this question, that is, it focuses on the question of institutions rather than on the question of courses. Ultimately, what it will be doing is validating courses, but we have not had any really clear explanation of why one has to interpose the institutions as recognised or designated institutions, entities, between the courses and the council. The institutions will exist in any case. The courses will be presented to the council in any case. Ultimately it is the courses, rather than the institutions, which the NCEA will be validating. They do not validate an institution or a college. They validate a course and the standards of that course. The institution concerned is responsible for the standards of that course but there seems to be no reason why the institution as such should be imported into the Bill. Not only does it seem not necessary to import institutions into the Bill, but the very fact of importing them gives rise to considerable anomalous complications, some of which we have tried to remedy in this section, particularly in relation to the liberal arts position. I will come back to that.

I ask the Minister to give the House some idea of his thinking as to the responsibility of the NCEA as they would exist under this section in relation to courses which may be presented to them for approval or disapproval. The reason I ask is that there was a case in the not too distant past—I hope the Minister will correct me if I am under a misapprehension—in which an institution, a regional technical college, presented to the NCEA a course, in applied chemistry I think, for validation. They were told by the NCEA that the NCEA did not have the resources to validate such a course and they were advised by the NCEA to apply for validation to the City and Guilds. What is the point of having the National Council for Educational Awards, if they not only do not have resources to validate courses presented to them but go further and advise the institution in question to present their course for validation to a non-Irish validating body? This piece of foolishness—I would not dignify it by any other name—was eventually cleared up. The institution concerned rejected the NCEA's advice and the NCEA subsequently had second thoughts, but that it should have happened in the first place is bad.

We must have an assurance that the NCEA will have all the resources necessary to carry out the task and that they will not, simply by virtue of shortage of resources, ask any institution to submit courses to non-Irish validating institutions. I would be interested to know whether there will be any need, after the passage of this Bill, for any Irish institution to acquire validation from any non-Irish institution rather than from the NCEA. I appreciate that there will be situations in which an Irish institution could seek validation from both the NCEA and a non-Irish institution, and it would be within the rights of any institution so to seek. If the NCEA are to be what they are or are to operate under this section, they should be capable, at least technically, of validating every non-university award regardless of whether the institution themselves choose to add to the number of scalps on their belt by going to another validating institution outside or inside the country.

I referred earlier to the problem caused by the interposition of the institutions between the course and the council. During the earlier discussion on this section the question of liberal education was brought up. We will have to amend this section to disjoin liberal education from technological education precisely because the Bill was drafted in a way that is based fundamentally on institutions. If we had not made that amendment it would be impossible for the NCEA to validate any award in a college or institution which could not have a technological component or because of the lack of a technological component. The case which was brought up was the question of the Irish School of Ecumenics at Milltown which was already validated in respect of at least one course by the NCEA. When we were making that amendment in order to make it possible for the council to validate awards in non-technological institutions, which was a positive thing, we were also creating some kind of potential problem at least. The potential problem which we were creating is in regard to the relationship that should exist between liberal and technological education within institutions which are largely devoted to technology. In this context the original phrasing of the section was preferable because it implied that there was not only a possible but a very proper relationship between liberal and technological education within the same institution. Over the past ten or 15 years in this country and for a longer period in other countries, there has been a substantial growth in technological education. While that growth in technological education has contributed to economic growth and perhaps even to employment in certain areas, it has very often been unaccompanied by any degree of reflection or analysis such as liberal education can provide for the purposes and uses of technology. At certain levels one could argue that by expanding technological education as all modern States have done, there has been very substantial ongoing and continuing subsidy by the State to the private sector of employment and therefore indirectly to the profits which are generated in that sector. It is because that sector is permanently under criticism that any State investment or State subsidy to that sector—as, for example, in the area of higher education—should be accompanied by fundamental and, if necessary, radical critiques of the way the whole system is run. Technical education divorced from values and from judgments about the kind of technology that we have, about the use to which it is put and about the further role of technology in our society is an emasculated education which ultimately will create only further social and economic problems in the guise of providing short-term solutions to problems of trade.

In conclusion on this section, I urge the Minister to bear this in mind and to reflect between now and Report Stage on the possible negative side effects that we have engendered by divorcing, at least in verbal terms, liberal and technological education as we have done during discussion on this section.

Mr. Wilson

I will take the main points that were made in the general treatment of section 3. They were really by way of summary of points already made by Deputy Collins, and Deputy Horgan has added a couple of other points on parts of section 3 which did not come up for discussion by way of amendment. The freedom enjoyed by the colleges now dealing with the National Council for Educational Awards, the ad hoc body which this statutory body will replace, will be in no way impaired by the provisions of this Bill. The freedom and input into the examinations system which they have now will continue. The role of the external examiner was outlined by me yesterday, and it is in that context that we are to understand what we have in the section with regard to standards.

Many people have been complaining about the importation of the word "university". I spoke at length on this yesterday, and indeed in discussions outside the House with interested parties, and explained that the word was used by way of analogy, and that it did not indicate that there would be any importation of ethos, but simply that we would see to it that within their own sphere the National Council for Educational Awards would be giving awards which would claim in the nation and outside the kind of recognition in a different sphere which the university awards have. In relation to co-ordination, a governing body of any college cannot co-ordinate outside their own walls. It may be a way of having agreement and discussion with another institution and reaching a co-ordination of courses, but the council has the over view. The council can ensure that through co-ordination a student will have greater freedom for developing his or her discipline by being assured that, having finished in one RTC, there is a place into which he or she fits in a higher institution or in an institution to which he or she can make a sideways transfer. An tÚdarás have their own statutorily defined role in third-level education. I and my Department are aware of this and we are also aware of the expertise and experience of An tÚdarás, apart altogether from the statutory obligation of consulting them in this field. There has been and will be no neglect of An tÚdarás.

Deputy Horgan referred to section 3 (2)(e). I will just give an example of where the council through An tÚdarás, both having a role in the matter, might require the provisions of section 3 (2) (e). If the council decided through their relevant committee and or external examiner that an extra term was needed in a certain course there would be a role there both for the council and An tÚdarás because there would be implications for costings—"In relation to the cost of providing or continuing to provide..."

Mr. Horgan

Would that not be "modifying", which I agree could be left in? The latter part of the subsection "cost of modifying" is all right, but "the cost of providing or continuing to provide" is not.

Mr. Wilson

In modifying one is actually providing and continuing to provide. They are not mutually exclusive in this instance.

On the more general point made by Deputy Collins, the Deputy went into hyperbole. He talked about this being a "most unfortunate and retrograde step" and talked about fragmentation and so on because of the system he alleged I am responsible for. I know that Deputy Collines does not fully believe what he said because he is on record as saying in the House—Official Report, volume 310, of 30 November 1978—that:

There are aspects of that system which are good and aspects which are favourable, there are some with which I would not agree.

The Deputy goes on to say that;

There are also aspects of a comprehensive approach to third-level education which have good facets and bad facets.

Obviously, the Deputy let his words run away with him in relation to the "most unfortunate and retrograde step" and so on.

Deputy Horgan referred to the controversy about the merits of binary and comprehensive third-level education. It is foolish to take hardened positions on this. For example, I would see Limerick—Thomond College, the NIHE Limerick and the training colleges—developing into a technological university by the end of the century. I would favour allowing new institutions to develop their own muscle and gain their place, settle down and specialise. Hardened positions should not be taken in the educational world.

Deputy Horgan also referred to the amendments I brought in. In a democracy surely this is the whole purpose. One listens to the people with the expertise, one is sensitive to the suggestions and, in consultation with the experts in a Department, one produces the best possible Bill. One listens to the Opposition speakers, to the organisations involved and then comes up with the best possible Bill.

Deputy Horgan went on to refer to the fact of the Bill focussing on institutions as being a basic error. The Bill is a Bill for educational awards; that is self-evident from the name of the Bill which is concerned with the making of awards. Only in so far as institutions apply to the council for validation assessment and the making of awards, are institutions concerned in it. The point the Deputy made about the applied chemistry is totally new to me. I did not know anything about it. The Deputy started off very dramatically with it and then went on to tell us that the whole problem had been solved anyway.

Mr. Horgan

Somebody got sense.

Mr. Wilson

I find the suggestion coming from the NCEA that the school or college should go the City and Guilds a very odd one indeed. I am not aware of the case the Deputy referred to.

Mr. Horgan

The case was Tralee RTC.

Mr. Wilson

I am pleased that the RTC in the Deputy's native town was able to solve their problems without pestering me with it.

The final point made by Deputy Horgan was with regard to liberal education. I am glad he is pleased with my amendment to the section. I agree fully with his point about the importance of the liberal arts input. Of course there is a danger, of which I am sure the Deputy is aware. We did not want colleges that were designed as technological colleges to take off as liberal arts colleges. I want to emphasise that there is that danger. The thinking behind the NCEA, the establishment of the RTCs and the institutes was to emphasise technological education and to make provision for it, and we must keep that firmly in mind.

The relationship between the liberal arts content and the technological content in institutions which will apply to the NCEA for awards is very important, and I think Deputy Horgan touched on something very fundamental. It was the intention of the Government when establishing the technological colleges that there should be a liberal arts content in the curriculum and I agree with the Deputy that there is a lack of balance where this is not the case. For example the MIT always prides itself that it is one of the great technological institutes in the world but that its liberal arts section is very strong. As Deputy Horgan said, the kind of reflection and analysis that are predicated of the liberal arts education are important in that context. A business studies publication under the auspices of the NCEA pointed out the dangers of over-specialisation in business education, strangely enough as exemplified in Western Germany where concentration was on business education only to the neglect of the liberal arts element. The result was that when methods and technology changed, the people who were involved and who had got the narrow education were found wanting and they found it very difficult to re-educate themselves. For that reason I agree with Deputy Horgan that it is very important to have a liberal input. The divorce of liberal arts from technology is something over which I should not like to preside. It is not the intention of the Department or of the Government and it is not my intention that there should be such a divorce because even from the point of view of having effective technology it would be a mistake.

I should like to thank the Deputies for their contributions on the section. I think the section is a flag under which the NCEA can sail very effectively.

Mr. E. Collins

The Minister accused me of indulging in hyperbole. I regret the implication. Of course he quoted me out of context in the debate as contained in Volume 310 of the Official Report of 30 November 1978 in that in that debate I said there were advantages and disadvantages in the binary system and in the comprehensive system. Of course I said that. I would be rather stupid if I did not say that either system had advantages and disadvantages. I was putting forward a reasoned argument and I cannot understand why the Minister accused me of indulging in hyperbole today when I said that the promotion of a fragmented system in which the Minister is now involved is retrogressive.

To clarify the position for the Minister I should like to quote from the Official Report of 14 November 1979. Soon we will need an index of the various days on which we discussed this Bill. I made it quite clear it was my opinion that the binary system is unfortunate. At column 1210 I said:

Basically, this Bill is promoting a binary system at third level and promoting a fragmented system. This is unfortunate. I believe in the comprehensive system and the Minister himself is, in the long run, in favour of a comprehensive system.

That was the conclusion I came to after giving a reasoned argument to the House. That is what any Deputy should do. It is far better than running with the hare and hunting with the hound, which is too often the case in this House. At column 1211 I said:

The present system is fragmented, and the Minister has lost an opportunity to unify, even to some degree, the present position in relation to the Dublin colleges, the regional technical colleges and the National Institute for Higher Education at Thomond College. The opportunity has been lost to create a unified system in relation to financing, staffing, and the utilisation of resources. Why should the Department of Education finance regional technical colleges, Dublin VEC colleges and Thomond College while the HEA fund the NIHE in Limerick and the National College of Art and Design?

I went on to say:

This is a regretful aspect of this Bill. It does nothing to bring together the various strands involved in the administration of third-level education. The Minister is to be faulted on this major error. If the HEA was amended as to its composition and if people from the non-university sector were brought on to the authority the HEA would be the proper vehicle through which State funds would be passed to all third-level institutes and colleges.

I went on to discuss this matter at some length. I think it was a reasonable contribution and I take exception to the Minister saying I was indulging in hyperbole. That is not the case. I am well aware of what is in the Bill. I do not wish to criticise the Minister and for that reason I will not go into it further. As far as I am concerned, a comprehensive system or a move towards a comprehensive system would have been a much more constructive approach and that fact that the Minister has not taken that approach is unfortunate. The minor refernces, the near off-hand references to An tÚdarás in the Bill is symptomatic of the attitude of the Minister. This section is unsatisfactory and I will oppose it.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No.29 has been ruled out of order and we proceed to amendment No.30 in the name of Deputy Collins. Amendments Nos. 32, 43, 47, 51 to 57, 59, 61 to 65, 78, 81, 84, 88, 139, 143 to 151, 153, 155 and 162 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 67 to 71, 73, 80, 86, 151 to 123 are related. Therefore, amendment No. 30 will be moved and we will discuss with it amendments Nos. 32, 43, 47, 49, 51 to 57, 59, 61 to 65, 67 to 71, 73, 78, 80, 81, 84, 86, 88, 115 to 123, 139, 143 to 151, 153, 155 and 162.

Mr. E. Collins

I move amendment No.30:

In page 4, line 37, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".

The reason for the amendment is to substitute "chairperson" for "chairman". In these days when women's rights are being brought very much to the fore, the male chauvinism displayed by the Minister in this matter is unnecessary. It can be corrected easily and such correction would meet with the approval of the majority of people, not only women. I see no reason why we should be keeping strictly to the terms of section 11 (b) of the 1937 Interpretation Act which states that where the masculine gender is used, where appropriate the feminine gender should be construed. We do not have to interpret that section strictly. The Minister must not use the masculine gender simply because of that section, simply because of the technique used by the parliamentary draftsman. I suggest that the Minister of the flowing mane should have taken the opportunity to make an impression on the female section of the community who are in the majority in regard to voting power.

Mr. Horgan

The Deputy should not be praising the Minister at my expense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister's mane has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

This is very important. Why should we always use the masculine gender when discussing males and females? In modern times the more popular term is "chairperson". "Chairman" offends many women who have an equal part to play in developing the State institutions. I would ask the Minister to adopt modern usage in this instance.

Mr. Horgan

In broad terms I support the amendment but I should like to make some comments on the subject. I am against sexism in education and elsewhere. I am also against tokenism in any form. It can be surprisingly easy for persons of whichever gender to respond to the legitimate pressure of the women's movement here and in other countries to adopt token solutions without searching underneath the surface for the root causes of the problems which the women's movement is facing without analysing these causes or being prepared to do anything fundamental about them.

The irony is that we do not change the situation fundamentally by changing a word in a Bill, and yet there are some words which are important. If I recall it correctly, the Creation story in the bible laid importance on the naming process. It is by naming a word that we comprehend it. That naming process has a political dimension because if we change a name we sometimes change the way we look at the object and we take part in the political activity of changing things. Frequently, when suggestions like this for change are made, every reason is advanced other than the one which is truly felt by the person opposed to the change. Very often the reason it is really felt is that the new way of describing something is offensive to the person concerned because in some sense it is threatening. To take away the word "man" is almost to unman. One can see a psychological factor operating here. What to put in its place is another matter. There are elements in the women's movement who would prefer the formulation adopted by Deputy Collins. On the other hand there are other elements who believe, and with some justice, that there is nothing wrong with the word "woman" and that it would be quite possible to amend it by inserting the words "or chairwoman" as the case may be. If there is nothing wrong with the word "woman" there is nothing wrong with inserting it in that context.

Before commenting on what the Minister has to say I do not, as Deputy Collins may have done, under-estimate the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself because what we are asking him to do really is to take the initiative and there are all sorts of arguments against taking initiatives and one does not have to be on the Government benches to experience those arguments. But the invitation here is to the Minister to take an initiative, largely of symbolic value but of a symbolic value that could be of real significance to the way we think about things, to the way we think about relationships between men and women in our society, to the way we think about the right of all people in our society to participate in all its institutions.

Mr. Wilson

I would like to make a few general remarks on this amendment because the remarks by Deputy Collins in proposing it and by Deputy Horgan were in general terms. I would have no objection to accepting the amendment if I thought that it was necessary or if I thought that in any way the present form of the Bill could be attributed to male chauvinism on the part of anybody, either myself or my Department or parliamentary draftsmen. Deputy Collins rightly adverted to the 1937 Interpretation Act and it adequately covers this point. I agree with Deputy Horgan that there can be an element of tokenism in such usages. There can be on the other hand, as he said, a resentment and a refusal to use certain terms because of either a conscious or subconscious fear that there is a threat in them. In my own organisation there are some women who chair meetings and they object to being called "chairperson" because they say that that is making a distinction on the basis of sex.

Mr. Horgan

Chairpersons are women and chairmen are men.

Mr. Wilson

That is precisely the point that the Deputy made. The parliamentary draftsmen confirm that there is nothing in the anti-discrimination Acts which could be argued as superseding the Act of 1937. I am talking now in the purely legalistic world. It is not necessary to specify here that the Interpretation Act covers this but, of great interest to the Deputies and to the House is the fact that in the two Acts, the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act of 1974 and, more interestingly, the 1977 Employment Equality Act which specifically deals with some of the old wounds of our way of looking at things and of treating people, both the word "he" and the word "chairman" are used. This is of particular relevance because the Employment Equality Act has a specific purpose—to remove a fundamental injustice. So I refuse to wear any kind of male chauvinist hat. I reject the suggestion that Chauvin plays any part in my life or thinking in regard to my fellow human beings.

Mr. E. Collins

The Minister said that the Interpretation Act covers the point. It does in a legal sense but what I am looking for in my amendment is a move towards a more modern use of words. I do not believe in tokenism either and I would reject it. What I am looking for is a meaningful up-dating of parliamentary usage of words. I believe that the time has come when we should move away from the concept of the word "chairman" covering "chairwoman". I do not agree that the word "chairperson" should be interpreted as covering a chairwoman. I think "chairperson", with the dropping of the word "chairman", would cover a male or a female. It is desirable to use the word "chairperson" so that, rather than using three words we should use one word. "Chairman" or "chairwoman" is long and the word "chairperson" covers both and it would be preferable. I was hoping that the Minister would take this parliamentary initiative in updating the usage of English in our Bills going through this House and consequently in our Acts of Parliament. I firmly believe the Interpretation Act is out of date in its usage of words and needs to be updated. That was the reason for my amendment.

Mr. Horgan

In relation to the discussion that is taking place it is fairly obvious that the change which Deputy Collins is recommending here is not legally necessary. The question is, is it socially desirable? There is no harm or bother at all about putting things into Bills that are socially desirable even though they may not be legally necessary. I would appeal to the Minister, certainly between now and Report Stage, to think again about the social desirability of a change of this order—not necessarily this precise change. I could not agree with the Minister more when he points to the justifiable indignation on the part of women who see a response to the situation in which we find women as chairpersons and men go on calling themselves chairmen.

Mr. E. Collins

I do not want that either.

Mr. Horgan

I know the Deputy does not want that but in a sense it is almost an index of how hard it is to shift people's attitudes and how slow they are to shift, that the introduction of the word "chairperson" as a tactic should have been met by this counter tactic from the male side that when women call themselves chairpersons, men go on calling themselves chairmen. I fully accept the Minister's bona fides that he is not a male chauvinist in this matter but I beg leave to doubt that the Interpretation Act of 1937 did not have some subliminal male chauvinism written into its context. The women's movement in 1937 was nothing like as strong as it is today.

Mr. E. Collins

The Bill was obviously written by a parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Horgan

Parliamentary draftsperson, as the Deputy wishes—it is all the same to me. But the social situation, and the question of relationships between men and women in regard to institutions, which is in some senses a political one, was quite different in 1937. Look at the Constitution of 1937; look at the section of the Constitution which deals with the woman's role in the home—still very true for very many women in our society but less and less true for many women who spend the greater part of their adult life in the work force. We are dealing with a different situation 40 years afterwards. I do not think it is too much to ask the Minister to reflect on the consequences of those 40 years, between now and Report Stage, to see whether he could take some gentle, meaningful initiative in this regard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. E. Collins

We will let it stand.

Question: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Collins. Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 50, 79, 82, 85 and 140 are consequential and may be discussed with amendment No. 31.

Mr. E. Collins

It is unfortunate that amendment No. 140 has been included and I would ask the Chair to withdraw it from the list. I think it relates to the First Schedule of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a similar amendment. I do not mind if the Deputy wishes, with the permission of the House, to take it. Amendment No. 140 seeks also to delete the words "the Director". The Deputy will note that it is the same amendment.

Mr. E. Collins

Oh, yes, it is; I am sorry.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 4, line 37, to delete ", the Director".

This is a matter of principle. I firmly believe that the director should not be a member of the council. The director should be seen as a chief executive with direct responsibility for implementing policy, which policy has been laid down by the council in their deliberations at meetings. It is important that the director should not have a direct input except as is allowed for in section 10 (3) (b) which states:

The Director may from time to time make such proposals regarding the functions of the Council as he shall consider appropriate.

That is the mechanism allowing the director access to the board. Of course he should have the right to be present at meetings of the council in his capacity as director but I feel he should not partake in the deliberations of the council when it comes to laying down the overall policy of the council. It is a personal preference, but an important one. I would prefer to see the director removed from the policy-making responsibility of the council. He has a very important function in regard to the overall administration, indeed in the overall development of the workings of the council but he should be relieved of responsibility of actually setting down policy. He should implement policy as laid down by the council. The council will be composed of many experts in their own fields. That is as it should be. But the director should not be given the extra responsibility of deliberating on the laying down of policy which he will be implementing at a later stage. That is an incorrect approach to the workings of the council. It is an unnecessary imposition on the director. The director should be seen quite clearly to be a chief executive of the council carrying out policy as laid down.

Mr. Horgan

May I ask the Minister whether, under the present dispensation, the director is a member of the ad hoc council of the NCEA?

Mr. Wilson

Yes, he is a member of the ad hoc council.

Mr. Horgan

While I sympathise with the intent of the amendment put down by Deputy Collins I believe that the major battle in this area—and I believe it is a major battle—will have to be fought later on section 10. I propose to reserve the bulk of my argument until we get to that section.

Mr. Wilson

Deputy Collins said that he believes strongly that the director should not be a member of the council. I believe equally strongly that he should be a member of the council.

Mr. E. Collins

And that is that.

Mr. Wilson

No, I do not start off with a closed mind. In a sense Deputy Collins is talking about old thinking. In the business world we have had quite a revolution in thinking in regard to who would be represented on boards. The old thinking would exclude employees from the board altogether. In our semi-State companies we have new worker directors. For example, we have teachers on the management boards in educational institutions when the non-workers, the non-professionals, learn a lot from having people from the work force sitting alongside them. In particular the director of the NCEA is the person who is not merely present at all council meetings but he is also the person who has the expertise derived from membership of boards and committees so that his input is very considerable at council level.

I feel very strongly that because he is in direct contact with all the institutions, by reason of his office as director, to which the Bill applies, by reason of his direct contact with committees and other sub-committees of the council his presence is essential. He is permanent. The ordinary members of the council may serve for a period of ten years and no longer. The director is the permanent official who knits the whole operation together. He would be more effective as a member than just as an attender. I have very strong feelings about this, that he should be a full member of the council.

Deputy Horgan asked what was the ad hoc position. The ad hoc position is that the director is a member of the council and this, over the last few years, has proved very satisfactory. There is no particular reason which can convince me that it should be otherwise.

Mr. E. Collins

I cannot reconcile the reference to 1937 thinking; I was not born then and I cannot be accused of thinking in that context.

Mr. Wilson

1937 thinking can be born in 1960.

Mr. E. Collins

This is the first time I have been accused of such thinking. The Minister's argument is specious. He says he has introduced a concept of industrial democracy but there is no industrial democracy in the Bill because there is no representation for the ordinary workers on the council. The director has responsibility for directing the staff under him and in that context he cannot be seen as an ordinary worker employed by the council. In fact, he is the most senior officer, the managing director of the company. I do not believe that such an officer, because he is a member of the council, would be seen to be encouraging or promoting any concept of industrial democracy. If the Minister is interested in promoting industrial democracy he should make provision in section 5 to ensure that the academic and nonacademic staff have a role to play on the council by representation. There is no representation for the ordinary working staff on the council. If the Minister examines the Bill in relation to the ordinary employees of the council he will see where he is lacking in his interest in industrial democracy. The director cannot be described as an ordinary worker of the council.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Collins

The number of members on the council has been settled at 23, including the chairman and director, but there may be a need to change that figure in the light of representations which have been made. There has been tremendous interest in the composition of the council and amendments have been tabled to section 5 relating to this matter. I appreciate the Minister's dilemma in relation to this matter but I do not like to see large numbers on councils or committees because it invariably ends up with everybody wanting to have a say. It often happens that the amount of work done is minimal. I would prefer a small council but so many bodies are interested in the composition of the council that the Minister should have another look at the number involved.

Mr. Horgan

I note that several of my amendments to later sections have been ruled out of order on the grounds that they propose a charge on the revenue, presumably because they sought to increase the total membership of the council. I wish to serve notice, for procedural reasons, that if between now and Report Stage I reconsider the later sections with a view to possibly reducing the overall size of the membership of the council I will have to table consequential amendments to section 4. If it is permitted to do that under the rules of order and if I find it necessary to do so I will seek to amend this section on Report Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

At this stage the Chair cannot give a ruling on such a matter. It will be a matter for the Chair later to decide on the amendments submitted.

Mr. E. Collins

Surely if the House agreed to allow Deputy Horgan introduce such amendments he would be allowed do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any amendment on Report Stage must conform to the rules governing that stage. The Chair cannot give a ruling now on something that is not before the House.

Mr. Horgan

Am I correct in thinking that one of the basic rules, one with which I sought to conform by raising this matter, is that the matter should have been substantially mentioned on Committee Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Generally that would cover the point but not always.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 34 is in the name of Deputy Collins but amendment No. 36, in the name of the Minister, is an alternative proposal. The amendments may be discussed together.

Mr. E. Collins

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 4, subsection (1), to delete lines 42 to 54 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 6 and insert:

"(a) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick,

(b) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin,

(c) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of Thomond College of Education, Limerick,

(d) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of University College, Cork,

(e) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of University College, Dublin,

(f) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of University College, Galway,

(g) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Board of Trinity College, Dublin,

(h) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Union on Students in Ireland, who shall be a full-time student in a college or institution to which this Act applies,

(i) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Board of the National College of Art and Design,

(j) four shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Boards of Management of the Regional Technical Colleges,

(k) four shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Boards of Management or governing bodies or boards of institutions specified in an order made under section 20 of this Act,

(i) six shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister.". e

This amendment deals with the composition of the board. There should be a wider spread of representation on the council. We have three models to consider, that presented in the Bill, that contained in my amendment and the one proposed by the Minister in his amendment. I am not saying that my amendment is the answer or that the Minister is correct. Indeed, irrespective of the amendment adopted there will be criticism. One of the major changes in the amendments is the change of heart to allow representation from the board of the National College of Art and Design on the council. Such representation was omitted. That was unfortunate although I believe the Minister may have been playing a game of chess when the Bill was being drafted. His move that time caused a violent reaction from within the NCAD. They clarified their own desires in the matter then. The Minister engaged in a checkmate move which succeeded to a certain extent. It is proper that there should be representation from the NCAD. We hope that the NCEA and the NCAD will work together in relation to giving awards and the development of the national policies in relation to art and design. I know the Minister is aware of the need to evolve a radical art and design policy throughout the country under the aegis of the NCAD. I am pleased that he has seen fit to give representation to the NCAD.

I have tried in my amendment to give representation also to the Union of Students in Ireland. It is right that they should be satisfied in regard to representation. They are not specified in the Bill or in the Minister's amendment. They have a part to play. I meet presidents of student's councils and they are very interested in the work going on in their colleges and in having continuous contact with the boards of management and the academic councils in the colleges and institutions. They are anxious to see their colleges developing and prospering. Young people have a part to play in the development of their colleges. They have their own points of view and are the life and soul of the colleges. They have their rag weeks but they also have their serious side. As well as attending to their studies they promote the social and cultural life of their colleges and of the community in which they live. They should be specified as having a right to be on the NCEA, the governing body for all non-university colleges.

It is a pity the Minister has not seen fit to specify the students in this section. He probably will say that he intends to appoint one under paragraph (g) in his amendment No. 36 but there may be pressures on him which might not allow him to appoint a student. That is the reason why I have made a direct move to include them on the council. I have had to reduce the number from the NIHE. I believe they are not entitled to four each. The Minister is now satisfied that four is too many and he is reducing the number to two. I have also reduced the representation of Thomond from two to one and I have given one each to the university colleges.

I have specified one representative from the NCAD. I have introduced a concept in paragraphs (j) and (k) of allowing the boards of management of the regional technical colleges to appoint four members. This means that the boards of management will have to get together to nominate four people to the council. I believe that is a fair way of giving the RTCs specific powers in relation to appointing specific people to the council. I hope they will see fit to appoint staff from the regional technical colleges, which is the reason for phrasing my amendment in the manner I did. I do not mean that the appointment of members by the boards of management of the RTCs are necessarily to be members of the boards of management of the RTCs. I hope they will recommend for appointment one or two members of the staff and perhaps two members of the boards of management in order to keep the balance.

In paragraph (k) I have made provision for four appointments from boards of management or governing bodies or boards of institutions specified under section 20 of the Bill. I have used that mechanism to allow the Dublin Institute of Technology, whose student population is around 5,000, the opportunity of participating in the membership of the council. The position in Dublin has not been clarified. They are awaiting the Minister's initiative in regard to the clarification of the future of those colleges. I am giving the opportunity to the colleges and institutions, which will be specified by order under section 20, to nominate a balance between members of the staff and members of the committees of the boards.

This leaves six to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister. This will allow him a fair number to represent him on the board. I am sure he will act in good faith in the appointment of members to the board to ensure that the many interests involved in the non-university sector will have an opportunity of being represented on the council. I have no reason to believe that he will not use his discretion wisely.

I believe that my amendment is as fair an approach to this problem as anybody can come up with. It provides a very broad spectrum of representation on the council and should commend itself to the House. The Minister's amendment is also changing the representation. In subparagraph (f) he has given four to the staffs of any university in the State, or any college or institution which is a constituent college of a university and in subparagraph (g) he has given three from amongst "those who are members of the governing or managing body or of the staff of, or are students at, any institution to which this Act applies". He reduces his option to three which is unfortunate. I am allowing nine, if one takes into account the student representative, on the boards from the staff and student bodies of the colleges while the Minister is only allowing three. My approach is more liberal and would be welcomed more by the people involved. I take it we are not discussing amendment No. 37 now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. Amendment No. 37 is ruled out of order becuase it involves a charge on the revenue. Amendment No. 35 is also ruled out of order.

Mr. E. Collins

I did not realise that amendment No. 37 was ruled out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have not reached it yet but it is out of order.

Mr. E. Collins

I want to refer briefly to representation on the council by members of trade unions. Deputy Horgan's amendment No. 37 mentioned that the Teachers Union of Ireland should have representation on the council. That is the major union involved and they have made representations to Members of this House to have this representation, but there is a flaw in that amendment which I intended mentioning, if it had been moved. Some staff members belong to the ASTMS and some of the staff of the NCAD are members of the Workers Union of Ireland. Therefore, I had reservations about the TUI having exclusive representation on the council. As I said, they should be represented on the council and I hope such a move will be made to give them representation but it must be remembered that there are other unions involved.

Mr. Horgan

When we attack this question, no solution that anybody comes up with will satisfy everybody. I prefer the Minister's second thoughts to his first, but there are problems even about them. Before referring to amendments Nos. 34 and 36 I would like to make a general point which is of some substance here.

We have inevitably a proliferation of institutions in the complex society in which we live. With the proliferation of institutions, we have a proliferation of governing bodies, councils, advisory bodies of this and of that. More and more the practice seems to be that in order to be a member of this, one has first to be a member of that. This is partly for organisational reasons and partly because of the way in which careers are structured, in higher education no less than anywhere else. As we have committees, so we have committee persons; as we have councils, so we have council persons. As each committee person rises in the ranks he achieves and acquires more and more responsibility. If I might make it more concrete by analogy: it is like a rocket which takes off and lifts into the stratosphere. If we regard a committee person as a rocket, each successive layer of the stratosphere he penetrates endows him with a further patina of administrative responsibility. By the time he has broken free of the earth's gravitational pull to arrive in all his glory on the council of the National Council for Educational Awards, he has acquired so much administrative responsibility en route that his original job has been largely lost sight of.

I suspect there are many decent hardworking people in this country today who devote no more than about 5 per cent of their time to the jobs they were originally appointed to do because their appointment to that particular position has involved them in a particular administrative responsibility which, in turn has involved them in a further responsibility at a different tier or level of administration and so on. They will end up doing none of the jobs properly and discharging none of their administrative responsibilities properly. We should be careful, to say the least of it, in creating systems which encourage further proliferation of responsibilities of this kind.

In relation to the amendments we are discussing, this is very relevant. Up to now, although the Minister in some parts of his amendment, I am glad to see, has broken away from it in part, we have been talking in terms of representing people who are almost by definition guaranteed to be already representing some other interest on another body. This is particularly true, for example, of the NIHEs. With the exception of ministerial nominees, one gets to be a member of an NIHE because of some other responsibility one already holds. If the council of the NIHE is going to appoint one, two or four members to the NCEA that will be an additional responsibility for those people.

I do not know of any short answer to this problem but I feel it should be mentioned. Otherwise we run the very grave risk of creating in this council, and perhaps in other areas of Irish life as well, a mandarin class of people who spend their time doing nothing less than going to each other's committees and whose contact with reality becomes attenuated to the point of insignificance.

There is a particular danger obvious in education, and it is a danger which is compounded by the idea that education is so important that it must be left to the experts. With all due regard to expertise, I believe education is too important to be left to the experts. One of the most important aspects of this Bill, which is dealt with in a very real way in these amendments, is the relationship between the numbers of experts and others. "Others" in this context means those appointed in the public interest by the Minister for Education. We should not be shy in facing up to the need to ensure that the public interest on such bodies and organisations is always substantial enough to offset the well-meaning, but sometimes rather blinkered, view of the experts. In addition, when we come to decide on the appropriate balance between experts and others—I do not like using the word "non-expert" because it implies a diminution of responsibility—we have to come to terms with the fact that education is a very specialised area and the experts have a head start. They are at their job full time. If there is a genuine conflict of interest between the institution or professional interest on the one hand and the public interest on the other it takes a very determined person all his or her time and energy to catch up with the defenders and the promoters of the professional or institutional interest. If we are to make a mistake we should err on the side of generosity towards the public interest.

I would not be averse to a relative increase in the number of persons that can be appointed by the Minister for Education without having his hands tied under amendment No. 36. I would like to see such persons not merely as representative of areas of business, industry and commerce which have a strong relationship with technological education but as representative of the liberal, academic value-oriented world which the Minister has already spoken of.

In relation to the small print of the amendment, I welcome the decision of the Minister to appoint somebody on the recommendation of Bord an Choláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne is Deartha but I am confused as to the relationship in numercial terms between that appointee and the appointees from the other institutions on their recommendations. For example, the National College of Art and Design is to have one nominee appointed. Two are to be appointed on the recommendation of Thomond College of Education and two each from NIHE, Dublin and NIHE, Limerick. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what rationale he has devised to justify the discrepancy. Is it on the size of the student body? That would be an odd way to decide a recommendation because it is a rationale which is not evident in any other part of the Minister's amendment.

I do not know how many students there are in Thomond College but I doubt if there are very many more than there are in the National College of Art and Design. The NIHE, Dublin has no students at all at present. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will tell us why he chose one for the NCAD and two for the others. I would not be averse to leaving all institutional appointments at the level of one and Minister taking to himself any surplus that might thereby be created.

In relation to amendment No. 36 (f) I am in agreement with the Minister freeing his hands. It is likely that he will appoint on an institutional basis but he leaves himself free not to do so. The last line of (f) refers to an institution standing for the time being designated for the purposes of this section by the Minister. In relation to sections 1 and 2 of the Bill which are already discussed, I raise the question now: are we to have two forms of designation? Is there to be one form of designation for an institution for the purpose of the Act whose courses will be validated by the NCEA? Under this amendment will there be a different form of designation for colleges, universities and other institutions whose courses will not be validated by the NCEA but which will have to be designated in some sense by the Minister in order that their staff or management can form part of the council? It gets rather cumbersome and one wonders whether it is strictly necessary.

The first line of amendment No. 36 reads:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 44 to 54,...

That should be lines 43 to 54 not 44 to 54. Perhaps the Minister will look at that in due course.

Mr. Wilson

I appreciate that Deputy Collins and Deputy Horgan stated that in the composition of the council there was a difficult problem and that no matter what proposal one came up with it would not be solved to the satisfaction of everybody who had an interest in it. I thank the Deputies for their remarks and I thank all those who wrote to me with their suggestions. As has been indicated by the two Opposition speakers, the interest in this section of the Bill has been very great.

My proposal in amendment No. 36 seems to be a representative and flexible one which should command the support of the House and the people concerned in this area of education and educationalists generally. Apart from the chairman, the director and four individual members from the university—I prefer the word "members" to "representatives"—I take Deputy Horgan's point about this, the two NIHEs are to have two each and Thomond is to have two also. I will refer later to Deputy Horgan's comment on this. There will be a National College of Art and Design representative and as is stated at (g):

three shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from amongst those who are members of the governing or managing body or of the staff of, or are students at, any institution to which this Act applies.

I take the point made by Deputy Collins about the importance of student representation. They have a very serious contribution to make. The students nowadays show an interest not merely in educational matters but in social matters and so on. I agree with the Deputy's remarks and feel that amendment No. 36 (g) covers the position adequately without mentioning a specific union or group.

With regard to Deputy Horgan's general point that in a complex society such as ours we have a proliferation of institutions and consequently heavy burdens on individuals who move on their point of departure upwards and consequently tend to lose touch with their original institutions which they are supposed to represent, it is not an easy problem to solve—if there is any solution. In regard to Muintir na Tíre, Canon Hayes said that if you wanted to get something done you should always go to a busy man—the very fact that he is busy indicates a man who tends to get things done. It tends to happen that people are appointed to a great number of organisations because they are held to be people who can get things done. I suppose there is a danger of reaching a kind of mandarin situation. In fact in the US very often they have professional administrators who are switchable from one institution to another. They qualify as administrators and do nothing else. In our context generally the person involved as an expert educationist is also heavily involved as an administrator.

I appreciate what Deputy Horgan said about the dangers of experts being blinkered, taking a narrow view of problems coming before them and perhaps education is too important to be left to the experts. It is more than likely that when the Minister turns to look for people who will have a useful input on such a body as the National Council for Educational Awards in the public interest he will have to go to people who are known performers in their particular fields. Whether it is in industry or anything else they will be people who will be very busy anyway in their own line and will have extra burdens imposed on them by membership of the council. There are—and we should know it and say a word of appreciation—very many people who with considerable stress to themselves and no particular advantage give themselves to such councils and committees. Were it not for this I think our complex system of democracy would not work at all.

I take Deputy Horgan's point about the importance of having someone with the stamp of the reflector, the analyst on the council and I hope to use my own powers of appointment in that sphere. Regarding the point made by Deputy Horgan in respect of Coláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne is Deartha, I should say that when he mentioned Thomond in particular, Thomond is to be not merely the national college for physical education but will also train teachers in rural science, metalwork and woodwork. That part of Thomond is practically completed and will be in action and it will be a sizeable institution. The fact that it will have a multiplicity of disciplines is important in this context of representation. An Coláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne is specifically involved in art and design and I am sure it will be well represented by the person appointed. It is not in any way a judgment on the importance of an institution—in this case because there is only one—or that it is in any way inferior or less entitled to consideration than those getting two.

Deputy Horgan made a point about designation which I did not quite grasp—did he refer to section 1 (1)?

Mr. Horgan

I was referring to the last line of the Minister's amendment No. 36 in paragraph (f).

Mr. Wilson

It says:

Four shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from amongst those who are members of the staff of any university in the State, or any college or institution which is a constituent college of, or is recognised by, such a university, being a university, college, or institution standing for the time being designated for the purpose of this section by the Minister.

That is a designation under section 20.

Mr. E. Collins

I would cavil with the Minister's amendment No. 36 specifically in relation to paragraph (g) which says:

Three shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from amongst those who are members of the governing or managing body or of the staff of, or are students at, any institution to which this Act applies.

I do not think that provision goes far enough to meet the requirements of the staff side or the side of members of the boards of management or of the student section. The spirit of the amendment is that you have one student, one staff representative and one member of the boards of management of the RTC or indeed of the DIT. The RTC and the DIT together must account for a minimum of 80 per cent of work done under this Bill. Yet the Minister is reducing representation from that sector to three which is completely inadequate and is unfair. The Minister is reducing the status of the RTC and the DIT, the composite colleges within that institute to miniscule proportions. It is very unfair to do that in paragraph (g). My amendment is far more generous in that respect. I have one student, four from RTC and four from other colleges or institutions designated under section 20. I was allowing nine to come from the RTC and the section 20 designated colleges network. That is a far better and fairer reflection of the representation justly deserved by that section. Reduction of representation for that sector to three as intended by the Minister in paragraph (g) is extremely wrong and does great injustice to people in the RTC and the DIT sector. I ask the Minister to reflect on this and to be more generous to the governing sector and to the staff and student sectors. I am seeking a better deal for the RTC and DIT people.

Mr. Horgan

I do not wish to appear to be nit-picking but the Minister referred me to section 20 in relation to paragraph (f) of his amendment. That section gives the Minister power to designate any college, school or other educational institute apart from a university whereas paragraph (f) of the amendment relates almost entirely to universities. There is no ministerial amendment later that would delete the words "other than a university". I do not see how there could be any such amendment because section 20 is fundamental to the whole operation of the Bill. What I in quired originally was whether the Minister was envisaging one designation procedure for institutes recognised under the Bill and referred to in paragraph (g) of the Minister's amendment and another form of designation for the university constituent colleges. Perhaps that is something we could deal with fairly quickly.

The Minister's defence of his delegation of one member on the recommendation of the board of the NCAD was somewhat muted. I should be glad to hear whether his formula has the approval of the president and board of that institution.

I recall amendment No. 5 which has been passed as providing in the definition section that staff means either academic or administrative staff. I should be rather unhappy if I considered that paragraph (f) of amendment No. 36 in relation to the universities would be interpreted by the Minister in practical terms as giving him the right to appoint the administrative staff of the universities. I am confident that the Minister's intention here is to appoint academic staff to the universities. The same objection might be raised in respect of paragraph (g) of the amendment in relation to the designated institutions.

Mr. Wilson

I would point out to Deputy Collins that there are nine in that sector in accordance with my amendment. These are made up of two, two and two for the NIHE's and Thomond and three as provided for in paragraph (g). Therefore, it is a matter of the same numbers relating to the purely technical field.

Regarding the point made my Deputy Horgan, paragraph (g) refers to section 20 but the universities as referred to in paragraph (f) stand on their own.

To answer the other point made by Deputy Horgan, we did not ask for clearance from the boards of any of the institutions who have been allocated representations.

Mr. Horgan

That was not my question. I wondered whether they were pleased and happy with the situation.

Mr. E. Collins

Lest the House might be misled inadvertently by the Minister, the point I made in relation to paragraph (g) was that the provision of this paragraph governs the regional technical college sector and, in effect, the Dublin Institute of Technology group of colleges. The effect of paragraph (g) is to restrict to that sector as well as to the possible representation of students the question of student representation because in relation to paragraph (g) "student" is specified. I would assume that under paragraph (a) of section 5 a student would not be so nominated because it is intended now to nominated a student in accordance with paragraph (g) specifically. If that is the case and if one student is appointed there is being reduced the possible representation of members of the governing and managing bodies or of the staff or students of any institute to which the Bill applies. Therefore, I assume that what is intended in respect of paragraph (a) is that there will be appointed people from outside the system as presently constituted and that in accordance with paragraph (g) there will be appointed three from the system as is represented at present by the RTC and the DIT sectors. If that is the intention, and I have not heard to the contrary, representation of the RTC and DIT sectors is being reduced from three to two. These sectors represent the major portion of the non-university sector both from the point of view of students and staff. The representation they are being given, even within the terms of the Minister's amendment, is miniscule in proportion to their importance in the non-university sector.

For that reason I ask the Minister either to reconsider paragraph (g) or to give us assurances that the representation from the RTC and DIT sectors in relation to a representation of one student, two staff members and a board of management representation of three would be more than what is specified in paragraph (g) and that it is his intention to use the provision of paragraph (a) to give greater representation to staff, students and members of boards.

Mr. Wilson

I have pointed out that my amendment proposes nine representatives in the purely technological area. I would merely comment on Deputy Collins's remarks in the light of something that was said pertinently by Deputy Horgan, that was, that one of the dangers in this whole business is that of a blinkered approach. Perhaps the use of the word "representation" is unfortunate in this context. I would envisage the people acting on the council as representing not purely the interest of the students but of technology in general. The same applies to a person from any institution. Naturally, being human he would think of his own institute but on a national council such as this he would be expected to represent more than merely the interest of his institution.

In all, then, there is a representation of ten. These are one each in accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) and a representation of two, two, two further back in the amendment. That is a good spread of representation and I will use my powers to nominate to balance the team each time. That is the purpose of the Minister retaining power under section 5 (1) (a). It was in this context that Deputy Horgan felt we would not have a blinkered approach, that even he would be satisfied if the Minister had power to nominate more members to the council.

Mr. Horgan

I should like to refer to one or two points, one of which the Minister may have neglected to advert to, that is, whether he intends in relation to appointment from the university area to appoint from the educational rather than from the administrative area.

The Minister said that under the section the universities stand on their own. They stand on their own but they stand out. In higher education legislation we have two forms of designation. We have designation under the Higher Education Authority Act and we have designation under the National Council for Educational Awards Bill. The designation of universities under the National Council for Educational Awards Bill appears under section 5 (1) (f) without as much as by your leave if the Minister's amendment No. 36 is accepted. There is no procedure in this Bill for Ministerial designations under section 5 (1) (f). There is no specific power given to the Minister as there is in section 20 in relation to the non-university institutions. At the very least it seems that we will have to have two lists of designated institutions, one list of institutions designated under section 1 and another list of institutions designated under section 5 (1) (f). Is that the Minister's intention? It is not formally in the Act. It comes in in the subsection in amendment No. 36. Perhaps the Minister would consider this matter between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Wilson

My amendment stands on its own and is not in any way related to the terminology used in the Act for establishing An tUdarás. The word should be interpreted in the context of section 5 (1) (f) and only in the context of section 5 (1) (f).

Mr. E. Collins

If the Minister decides to designate an institution under this section how will he do it? On some nice sunny morning will he decide to designate a college or will he have to come into the House and designate by order? There is a procedure in relation to designation and it should be adhered to.

Mr. Wilson

The words are quite simple.

Mr. E. Collins

Will the Minister designate as and when he pleases? I should like to re-enter amendment No. 34 on Report Stage.

Mr. Horgan

On subsection (f), in line 3 from the bottom a full stop after the word "university", omitting the rest from "being a university", would make it clearer. It appears that there is no need to go through a designation procedure.

Mr. O'Donnell

In compliance with Standing Orders, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise on the Adjournment the disastrous effect of the postal strike in the tourist and ancillary industries.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will ask the Ceann Comhairle to communicate with the Deputy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would like to point out that the line numbers in a few copies of the Bill were misplaced. The error has been corrected and the line numbers shown in the Minister's amendment are correct.

Mr. Wilson

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 44 to 54, and in page 5, lines 1 to 6, to delete paragraphs (b) to (h), and substitute the following:

"(b) two shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin,

(c) two shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick,

(d) two shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of Thomond College of Education, Limerick,

(e) one shall be so appointed on the recommendation of Bord an Choláiste Náisiúnta Ealaíne is Deartha,

(f) four shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from amongst those who are members of the staff of any university in the State, or any college or institution which is a constituent college of, or is recognised by, such a university, being a university, college, or institution standing for the time being designated for the purposes of this section by the Minister, and

(g) three shall be so appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from amongst those who are members of the governing or managing body or of the staff of, or are students at, any institution to which this Act applies.". e

Mr. E. Collins

I am opposing amendment No. 36.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understood it was agreed.

Mr. Horgan

If the Deputy is opposing it we may not have an opportunity to amend it at a later stage.

Mr. E. Collins

May I re-enter amendment No. 34 on Report Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot rule on that matter at this stage. If the amendment is defeated it is disposed of.

Mr. E. Collins

In the circumstances I would not like to deprive the House of a debate on a further amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 37 has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Wilson

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 7, to insert "pursuant to subsection (1) (a) of this section" before "as regards".

This is a drafting amendment for the purpose of clarification of the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 5, subsection (2) line 9, after "the" to insert "management.".

The reason for this amendment was that, as drafted, I believed the phrase "professions or the staff and students of regional technical colleges" did not include management. I am still not happy that management is included because the Ministerial amendment to the definition section which we originally accepted extended "staff" to include "administrative staff". The problem about this is that it is precisely the management of the other institutions who are represented on the council and it seems unfair to exclude by definition—as I think this definition does—the management, not from essential representation but from the possibility of representation on the council.

Mr. Wilson

The Deputy proposed the amendment of section 5 (2) by the insertion of the word "management,".

Mr. Horgan

It would then read "management, staff and students".

Mr. E. Collins

Would it not read "management, professions"?

Mr. Horgan

No.

Mr. Wilson

That is the way it would work out.

Mr. Horgan

I suspect the reason this has happened is that I was basing my amendment on a copy of the Bill on which the numbering of the lines had slipped. It was no intention of mine to insert the word "management" before the word "professions" or "staff". The fact that "the" occurs in both areas is adding to the confusion. With the permission of the House, I will amend my amendment to make it clear that I wish the word "management" to be included between the words "the" and "staff", rather than between the words "the" and "professions".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is line ten in the correct copy of the Bill.

Mr. Horgan

Yes.

Mr. Wilson

We will have a look at that on Report Stage.

Mr. Horgan

I thank the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related and amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are alternate proposals. We will discuss amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 together.

Mr. E. Collins

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 10, to delete "and students of regional technical colleges" and substitute "of regional technical colleges and other colleges and institutions to which this Act applies".

If another amendment of mine had been accepted there would have been representation from the Union of Students in Ireland and there would be no need for reference to students of regional technical colleges in this amendment because the students would already have representation. If the USI have not the right to direct representation on the council but would depend on the whim of the Minister, then amendment No. 40 is not relevant. For the sake of clarity and in order to ensure that I am not misrepresented in my amendment, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wilson

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 10, to delete "regional technical colleges" and substitute "any institution to which this Act applies".

This broadens the scope of the subsection.

Mr. Horgan

I am satisfied that the Minister's wording is adequate and I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 42.

Mr. E. Collins

I have reached the same conclusion in regard to amendment No. 40.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 not moved.

Mr. E. Collins

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 5, subsection (3), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(b) Where a member ceases to be a member of the body or institution which he represents, that person shall also cease to be a member of the Council.".

This merely ensures that bodies and institutions who are represented on the council will have the assurance that they will at all times have a person representing them there. If, for one reason or another, a person ceases to be a member of the represented body or institution, then he would also cease to be a member of the council. It is not my wish to spancel anyone but it is important that this should be so.

Mr. Horgan

There is much substance in what Deputy Collins has said but there are difficulties as well. A person may cease to be a member of an institution for perfectly understandable reasons. He may not be fired or sacked or in any way blot his copybook and the Minister may be quite happy to have him continue on the council for the remaining period. In circumstances where a person has left an institution in bad odour, as it were, it is obviously essential that he should not continue to be a member of the council. Between now and Report Stage we might think of a formula which would obviate the possibility of this happening and I am sure the Minister will be as anxious to ensure this as we are.

Mr. Wilson

This is a very important point. We are dealing with technology and there are many provisions in the Bill which enable me as Minister to appoint people who have an expertise in a specific area. It is in the area of technological education that there is most interchange and interplay between the actual institution and business. manufacturing industry, engineering, electronics and so on. I would be reluctant to write something into the Bill which would force people off the council who have expertise as soon as they ceased to be members of institutions which have nominated them for membership of the council.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.