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.