The Minister was in possession on the amendment.
National Council for Educational Awards Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 74:
In page 6, line 14, after "jurisdiction" to insert "for a term in excess of six months".
—(Deputy E. Collins).
This amendment is not acceptable in that it would indicate that a person who has been in prison for a term would be acceptable as a member of the council. It is not likely that a sentence of imprisonment would be imposed lightly by the courts and a person who did not attract the Probation Act or a fine but who was adjudged by the courts to have offended society to the extent that he or she is committed to prison would seem not to be a suitable person for membership of the council. Terms of imprisonment up to six months could be given for a wide variety of fairly serious offences. For example, for such crimes as corruption of youth, fraud and so on, sentences falling short of six months could be imposed. Therefore, I do not see the justification for the amendment. We have already in the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act of 1979 a precedent for the disqualification section. On the other hand, there is no precedent for allowing a term of imprisonment up to six months to be discounted and for those reasons the amendment is not acceptable.
The objective of the amendment was to establish quite clearly that minor misdemeanours would not count for the purposes of section 7. Subsection (e) states:
within the immediately preceding period of five years he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a court of competent jurisdiction.
What happens in the case of a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for one month but whose sentence is suspended? Does that count as a sentence of imprisonment or would the fact that it was suspended mean that it would not count for the purposes of this section?
The sentence would stand. Even if the sentence were suspended that person would still be precluded from membership of the council.
I think that is a particularly harsh interpretation of it. I appreciate the Minister has no responsibility for interpreting the law but he is responsible for ensuring clarity in the Bill. If what the Minister says is true then quite a number of people are being excluded who may be guilty of technical charges and who may have received a sentence of seven days imprisonment or a fine of £10 and obviously the fine of £10 would be paid. That is unfortunate in this Bill. However, if the Minister persists in being stubborn I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 93 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 6, after line 14, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(f) he or she is certified insane,
(g) he or she fails to attend six consecutive meetings of the Council without adequate reason being given by the member or his or her representative for such absences.".
I added these two paragraphs for the sake of clarity. I would have thought it would be a normal part of the Bill that a person certified as being insane should not be a member of the council.
The other matter is more important. If a member of the council fails to attend six or seven consecutive meetings of the council then his or her membership of the council automatically ceases. It is important that people who are appointed to councils and committees in public life should be seen to attend to meetings and participate. It is for that reason that I have inserted this amendment. I think this provision in relation to attendance is in the VEC Act and it is also in the Harbour Board Authorities Act. That is a good provision. It leads to an awareness by a person serving on a council that he or she should and must participate in the deliberations of that council. I do not think the Minister could see anything wrong with it and I would recommend it to him.
The first part of amendment No. 75 deals with the question of insanity. I realise the importance of having sane people on the council but I do not think it is necessary to stipulate by way of a section in the Bill that those who have been certified insane should be excluded. I take the Deputy's point that it is necessary to see to it that people appointed to the council are sane, and the Minister and the Government would be relying on the members of the council to notify them if insanity developed during membership, the person being sane when appointed. The Minister has power under section 8 (5) to recommend to the Government that a member be removed, and there is adequate protection in that provision.
I should like to endorse the Deputy's remarks about the importance of attendance at meetings. Again I would rely on section 8 (5) under which the Minister has power to remove from the council any member who is so negligent as to be absent for six consecutive meetings or possibly less. I agree that it is one of the disappointments that people sometimes do not regularly attend meetings of important committees. They sometimes attend and are registered as present but they do not remain for the full meeting. However, I do not think it is necessary to have a section dealing with that, having regard to the Minister's power to take action under section 8 (5).
Would the Minister not agree that the director or chairman of the council might be loath to inform the Minister that a certain person was not a regular attender? It would be rather petty if the Minister had to examine such minor matters. I am suggesting that a more reasonable mechanism would be as I have suggested, whereby a person who does not attend meetings automatically drops out. A Minister might be personally embarrassed if he had to make a decision about a person's membership of the council. For that reason I suggest automatic suspension such as exists under the VEC Act and the Harbour Board Act. It is a fair and reasonable mechanism.
I would not agree. It was possible to deduce from the Deputy's original statement that it is a minor matter.
A relatively minor matter.
It is customary to report on such matters as numbers of meetings and attendance at meetings of these bodies. There is a sufficient safeguard in the Bill as drafted. If I did not think so, I would certainly accept the Deputy's amendment. Section 8 (5) covers it adequately. That it is regarded as very serious is also to be deduced from the fact that it is the Minister who advises the Government on the matter.
I was simply trying to make life easier for the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 15 to 26 and insert:
"(1) (a) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (5) and (6) of this section, the members of the first Council shall be appointed for a period of five years.
(b) The Government shall not attach restrictive terms or conditions to the appointment of any member of the Council.".
This amendment proposes to delete subsection (1) of section 8 and specifies that members of the first council shall be appointed for a period of five years as opposed to any other period. The most important aspect is that the Government should not attach restrictive terms or conditions to the appointment of any member of the council.
Section 8 (1) (b) of the Bill states:
Subject to paragraph (a) of this subsection and subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6) of this section, a member of the Council shall hold his office on such terms and conditions as the Government shall, at the time of the appointment and on the recommendation of the Minister, determine.
I find that subsection odious. It smacks of political power or abuse thereof; it is negative where it should be positive. The Government have no right whatsoever to attach conditions or lay down terms for membership of the council by any person. If a person of standing is to be appointed it must be assumed that he or she will serve on the council for the betterment and advancement of the council and of education generally. The wording in the Bill is odious and I cannot accept it. I am at a loss to understand why the Government or a particular Minister should insert such a clause.
As is clear to the House, subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 provide for a five-year term of office for chairman and members and eligibility for renewal of the term of office for a further five years. This continuity of membership up to ten years is important and highly desirable, particularly during the initial stage of the council's work. We have a proviso that after 10 years there should be no further membership without at least a two-year break. This is to deal with the possibility of people going stale or, metaphorically speaking, developing hardened arteries with regard to the activities of the council. This is the best way to deal with the twin problems of continuity and people not being quite so sharp or the desirability of another point of view after a period of ten years.
The Deputy referred to the second part of his amendment which states that the Government shall not attach restrictive terms or conditions to the appointment of any member of the council. He mentioned the word "political" which has a very wide philosophic and practical meaning, though I do not know exactly what he means by it. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that a Government would set up a council without having any conditions or terms of appointment? That would be impossible. That is the business of this House and the Government to which the House gives power. I submit that the terms and conditions applying in the case of the council are necessary for the sound organisation of the NCEA.
I submit that if a person is appointed to the council he will receive a letter on the following lines: "You are hereby appointed in accordance with section 8 of the NCEA Act, 1979, for a period of five years and we trust you will further the NCEA in its objectives. Yours sincerely, Minister". That does not need the words, "on such terms and conditions as the Government shall determine". I suggest that in paragraph (b) the Government and the Minister are taking on overbearing powers. It would be quite detrimental to people who would like to serve on the council if the terms and conditions attached to their appointment were restrictive in any way. That is the point I am making and I think it is valid. I am fairly sure that the present Minister would not impose restrictive terms or conditions but I must point out that I do not like the words in the paragraph. They smack of bad administration at the political end.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I withdraw the amendment but I may try to put it forward on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 77 has been ruled out of order and I think Deputy Horgan is aware of that. Amendment No. 78 and a number of others have already been dealt with and discussed. The original amendment No. 30 was defeated.
Amendments Nos. 78 to 88, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 6, subsection (5), line 42, after "Minister" to insert "when he or she is so requested by the Council upon the passing of a special resolution of the Council.".
This is the provision whereby the chairman of the council and any other member thereof may be removed from the council by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister. This section is rather high-handed in that it gives the Minister and the Government exceptionally independent powers in relation to the removal of members of the council. I am suggesting that the removal of the person from the council should be dependent upon the council passing a resolution on the matter.
I should like to refer the Minister to section 6 (5) which states:
The chairman of the Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, be removed from the office of chairman by the Government.
Why is there a need to repeat in section 8 (5) the provision regarding the removal of the chairman when it is already laid down in section 6 (5)? This is repetition and is unnecessary. The words "the chairman of the council and" should be deleted if we are to have proper parliamentary draftsmanship.
The other point I wish to make is that the removal of a member should be dependent upon the council wishing that a member be removed. A few moments ago in relation to the question of the attendance of members of the council, the Minister stated that he would be advised by the council and by the chief executive on the matter and that he would make a decision. There the Minister is establishing the principle of the council advising him in relation to their own functions. I suggest that where the question of the possible removal of a member arises, the council should first consider the matter and report to the Minister. The reason for my amendment is quite clear. It removes to a certain extent the independence of the Minister and the Government who may decide—I am not saying that the present Minister would be a party to it—in a moment of political pique or peevishness that a certain person should not be on the council. The initial move to remove a member should come from the council.
Section 6 (5) empowers the Government, on the recommendation of the Minister, to remove the chairman of the council from office. That is related to the member as chairman. In the section we are dealing with now, we are talking of the chairman as a member of the council. There is a distinction to be made: he could be removed as chairman but he might not necessarily be removed as a member of the council.
Section 6 (6) caters for that. It is the same thing. The subsection states:
Where a person ceases to hold the office of chairman of the Council, he shall at the same time cease to be a member of the Council.
It is only a drafting amendment and I am not putting any political intent into it.
There may be an argument that he ceases to be a member of the council as chairman. I will have a look at the matter before Report Stage and see if it is necessary to put it in. Draftsmen are very careful about putting in things; they are not wont to put in things unnecessarily.
With regard to the amendment which asks for a resolution of the council before a member of the council can be removed, I submit that the appointment to membership in the first place is made by the Government and it is an old principle that he who hires should have the power to fire. The right of removal should remain with the Government. It could be more embarrassing to the council than to the Government to have to remove someone who they knew was not fit to remain in membership of the board. It could be argued that there might be a possibility that people would not be willing to serve on the council if they felt that the power resided in the council to have them removed from office.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 90 not moved.
Amendment No. 90a was already discussed with amendment No. 70a.
I move amendment No. 90a:
In page 6, subsection (6) (b), to insert ", under the protection or procedure of a court," after "makes" in line 45.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 91 was already discussed with amendment No. 70a.
Amendment No. 91 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 7, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute:
"(7) A member of the Council may at any time resign his office by letter sent to the Minister, and the resignation shall, unless it is previously withdrawn in writing, take effect at the commencement of the meeting of the Council held next after the Council has been informed by the Minister of the resignation.".
This relates to the method whereby a member of the council shall resign. The position in relation to the resignation of a chairman is dealt with in section 6 (4). I am using the same logical procedure in relation to ordinary members of the council who wish to resign. A person may resign in a fit of pique or because of a trivial argument. Section 8 (7) states:
A member of the Council, other than the chairman or the Director, may resign his office by letter addressed to the Minister, and the resignation shall take effect as on and from the date on which the letter is received.
That is too final. At the time of the resignation of a person there should be a certain time lapse to give him an opportunity to reflect on his decision and to withdraw his letter of resignation. For that reason I used the words in section 6 (4) which states:
the resignation shall...take effect at the commencement of the meeting of the Council held next after the Council has been informed by the Minister of the resignation.
I am trying to establish a mechanism whereby a certain amount of time is afforded to the member to reflect on his resignation and to give him an opportunity to withdraw his resignation. Subsection (7) seems rather harsh in its present form.
The Bill provides that a resignation should take effect as and from the date on which the letter of resignation is received. This is a psychological kind of amendment. It is unlikely that somebody who will serve on the National Council for Educational Awards would resign in a fit of pique and actually write and post a letter and then regret it afterwards. In a sense, it would be a reflection on the Minister, who recommended the person for membership of the Council in the first place, if he chose a person who lacked the balance necessary to reflect seriously on his resignation from an important council such as the NCEA is to be. If a member resigns it could be some time before the next meeting of the council and the position would be that a person who was dissatisfied with the workings of the council or who challenged the council's actions, would still be a member over a period, until the next meeting took place. For that reason the amendment cannot be accepted.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
The present structure of subsection (7) is too harsh but I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 9, after "direct" to add ", subject to no such person being an Extern Examiner".
It is so long since we last discussed this legislation that I imagine that it puts all of us in difficulty. I feel like an explorer disinterring a mammoth in some arctic tundra.
The amendment is designed to exclude extern examiners from committees and boards established by the council. It seems appropriate that extern examiners should be precisely that and should not have any direct involvement beyond that which extern examiners normally have, in either the setting or marking of examination papers or in the administration or work of the council. When I hear the Minister's thinking on this, I will be in a position to make up my mind as to whether this amendment is necessary or not.
I cannot accept the amendment because it is more than likely that for the most part extern examiners would not be members of the boards. But to exclude somebody who has the expertise which qualifies him for the position of extern examiner, from such a board, would exclude a person with the degree of expertise necessary for such a board. I do not see the thinking behind the amendment. We are trying to get as much expertise as possible together so that all the activities of the board will be of the highest standard and their recommendations to the council would carry the kind of strength we are aiming at.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 9, after "direct" to add "The Council should ensure that the Regional Technical Colleges are adequately represented.".
We are always in some difficulty when drafting amendments to a Bill like this because the Bill goes into such detail that it invites amendments which will add further to the amount of detail involved. I sometimes wish that Acts, especially education Acts could be written in English, so that we would not have to worry so much about amendments. However, I suppose it provides employment for the lawyers.
Basically the aim of my amendment is to provide that the council shall ensure that the regional technical colleges shall be adequately represented on any body established by the council. In putting down this amendment I was struck by the danger, with which I think the Minister will agree, of academic escalation: the possibility that the whole technological education sector as administered, controlled and validated under the structure we are talking about here will tend towards the upper end of the spectrum, towards the national institutes of higher education and, in some way, towards the universities; that it will tend to ignore the specific experience and values of the regional technical colleges which are unique institutions, not in that they combine second and third level education, because you could argue that there are other institutions which do this to some degree, but because of the degree to which they combine these two, and in view of the fact that they are trying to make new advances in the field of education. Their attempts to take genuine educational initiatives will be put at risk unless they are guaranteed adequate representation at all levels, and particularly at the level of any board or structure the National Council for Educational Awards may set up.
If the Minister is prepared to assure us that he would propose to appoint to the council persons who would have this kind of aim in view, I would not press the amendment. Even though we know that what is said on the floor of this House is not of any particular guidance or help when it comes to interpreting legislation, it would be of some assistance if the Minister were, here and now, to give some indication that he would like to ensure that the regional technical colleges do not fall a victim to the academic escalation I mentioned by being unnecessarily excluded from, or their participation downgraded on, any institutions or committees the council might set up.
I cannot support Deputy Horgan's amendment in its present form. By naming regional technical colleges he is excluding Bolton Street College of Technology and other colleges which may have a right to be appointed to boards of studies. Therefore, in my view it is better not to name regional technical colleges. To date the working of an NCEA in establishing academic standards has been very good. I cannot criticise them. They are setting very high standards. It would be better if regional technical colleges were not named, although I agree with the spirit of what the Deputy is trying to achieve.
What Deputy Horgan says with regard to the dangers of academic escalation or a tendency towards the upper echelons of the sector is something we will have to try to avoid. When the RTCs were established the main thrust of their activity was to be the provision of technicians and equipping technicians to go further into either NIHE's or another college of technology. I accept it is important that RTCs should be represented in all the representative areas.
I agree with what Deputy Collins said. As of now, the NCEA is working satisfactorily. There is a large input at the national certificates stage. After the two years national certificate a number of people work in industry, many of them finding very fulfilling and rewarding work. I do not think there is any degree of difference between Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins in this in that the NIHE and colleges of technology are in the same field. That is the field where the emphasis will be laid for all representation on council or board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 7, subsection (4), line 30, to delete "In deciding whether or not to make" and insert "In making".
If a board of studies are appointed by the council to look into a matter, they have an obligation to make a report. I do not think they should have the decision not to make a report. In line 30 the words "In deciding whether or not to make recommendations to the Council" should be changed to "In making recommendations". That is more positive and gives the board responsibility to make a recommendation. It would also remove from the responsibility of the board of studies a mechanism whereby pressure might be brought on them, under the present wording of the Bill, not to make a report because it might embarrass somebody or because somebody might be hard done by if they did not make a report but stayed silent on a particular matter. We can exclude that possibility by changing "In deciding whether or not to make recommendations" to "In making recommendations". In other words, the board of studies will have the responsibility for making a list of recommendations in the framework of a report to the council. That is more positive, simpler and puts an obligation on the board of studies to make a report and thus eliminate the possibility of somebody bringing pressure on the board to stay silent about any matter. We should protect the boards from such pressures.
I do not see the point of the amendment. Under subsection (3) "The Council may request a board of studies to make...recommendations". Under subsection (4), as drafted, the board of studies may decide to make recommendations to the council whether or not the council have requested those recommendations. I do not think there would be any question of embarrassment or anything like the Deputy mentioned. It is not a substantive matter. The drafting seems to cover any eventuality——
Except where pressure will be brought on members of boards of studies to stay silent about a certain matter for one reason or another.
I cannot see that. The board of studies may make recommendations to the council, whether the council has requested that or not. The Deputy will see that in subsection (4).
That is the point I am making. Where a board of studies has been established to examine the matter there should be an obligation on it to make a report to the council. Here the power is given to the board to decide itself whether to make recommendations to the council. I do not think they should have that power. They are primarily being instructed by the council to do a certain job and they should not decide within themselves whether to make a recommendation. They should be obliged to do so. By obliging them to make recommendations you are removing a potential source of pressure that could be brought on the board of studies.
I cannot see that at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 99 is consequential on amendment No. 98 and these may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 7, lines 47 and 48, to delete paragraph (f).
I must admit that here I was thinking primarily in terms of regional colleges where the present system of admission is sound and should be preserved. The minimum academic standard is leaving certificate with, I suppose, a pass standard in five subjects, an interview—a system to which the universities could have due regard—and a type of aptitude test. Those three components of the admissions policy of the regional colleges are worth consideration by other institutions of education and worth preserving. It is primarily a pass leaving certificate, an interview by members of the staff who will be involved with the students in college life and an aptitude test. This system has worked over the past few years in regional colleges. It is successful because of the high degree of employment, to which the Minister has referred, which has been achieved by graduates of regional colleges. One of the reasons for the success of RTC graduates may well be the system used at the entrance point where one tries to look at the students not only academically but as human persons. The present admissions policy should be preserved.
In this Bill the board of studies is given a right to recommend to the council the standard required for admission to courses and therefore the standard may change on the recommendation of the board of studies. That is wrong. It is a very thorny question; it is a complex question. The universities are independent and have their own methods for assessing entrance standards and setting entrance standards themselves. They have a points system which I have openly criticised on a number of occasions and I shall continue to do so until the universities change that system. In the case of regional colleges the entrance standards were set down by the RTCs themselves and should be preserved and should not be taken away as is proposed in the Bill.
The question of admissions policy and standards is not really a function of the NCEA; it is primarily a function of the colleges themselves to pursue and develop as they see fit. By removing the right to set standards of admission you are taking away from the regional colleges a certain amount of independence. That is wrong and I am disappointed that the Minister should come up with this suggestion that the NCEA in effect should lay down standards of admission. Slowly but surely, with pressure on places in third level colleges, the NCEA will pick up the university system and will bring in a system based on academic standards only, academic achievement in the leaving certificate alone, which I do not agree with. It should be replaced by the system I mentioned earlier which is presently used in regional colleges. I would not like to see the independence of regional colleges and of other colleges in the non-university sector taken away from them. It would be a mistake; it is unnecessary and it may be the first step towards basing entrance qualifications solely on academic achievement in the leaving certificate or the intermediate certificate. That would be a grave error and I would ask the Minister to remove this provision for setting standards of admission from the NCEA and leave it with the colleges involved in this sector of education.
I think the Deputy has misread or misinterpreted that part of the section. It is not related to the council at all; it lays down certain things which the board of studies shall have particular regard to. Let us suppose there is a course proposed in chemical engineering for a regional college where such a course does not already exist. The board of studies will be composed of people who have expertise in, say, chemical engineering. What is really being said here is not what the standard of admission to the RTC—to take that example—will be but what it is necessary for a student to have to be allowed to enter the course, what equipment he will have to have so that he can follow that course. This would be the ordinary function of the board of studies and the board will report back to the college, whether an RTC or the National Institute for Higher Education.
To my mind that seems to be one of the essentials and would be in aid more of the students than of the institution or the Council for Educational Awards because a student would like to know if this is the field he wants to choose and if he has built up enough muscle to enter the course and avail of it. It is in that context and not in the context of admission, though that will be looked at by the authority in the institution which is developing the course, that it must be read. It is not interfering with the right of a college to admit students. Very properly it will say to the college that it is only wasting a student's time if it takes him in and he does not know anything about, for example, chemistry.
The colleges have a mechanism whereby students have as a minimum a pass leaving certificate and are interviewed by the staff in the college who would obviously attend to the question of what subjects were necessary.
If they had the particular discipline already, but there may not be anyone there with the expertise if they do not have the discipline.
Staff of the regional technical colleges are very capable and are well qualified and have it within their competence to monitor standards necessary for any courses. There would be no need for them to feel hamstrung by dictates emanating from the NCEA by admission policies. Admission policy should rest solely with the college authority. If the NCEA recommend or suggest standards of entry for courses, then it is taking from the colleges a slice of independence that would be objected to by members of the boards of management and by the academic staff in the colleges who are handling the situation quite well at present. It would be unfortunate if the council were to become involved in admission policy.
I wish to repeat that in this section of the Bill we are talking about the duties of a board of studies, having been asked to do so by the council, to prepare a particular educational package covering certificate, diploma and possibly degree. All the board of studies is asked to do—it has nothing to do with admissions, it could be in vacuo and unrelated to an individual college or institution in the State—is to prepare this in such a way that the person entering the course would know the kind of equipment he or she wanted, the number of years to be spent at it and so on. There is no question of the individual RTC or national institutions being interfered with in any way. It could be totally in vacuo. The council could decide, by virtue of obligations on it, to construct a course, say what people will need to enter the course and what has to be covered for a two-year certificate, a three-year diploma or a four-year degree. It has nothing to do with admission; it is purely in the realm of the council's function as an award giving body.
We will agree to differ.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 99 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 8, lines 4 to 7, to delete all words from and including "shall" in line 4 down to and including "(if any)" in line 7 and insert "shall have regard to standards applying nationally and internationally and shall not recommend a standard which is lower.".
Here we are talking about standards and the Minister is aware of the need to have acceptable standards laid down and adhered to under the NCEA. Section 9 (4) states:
. . . . shall have regard to any corresponding standard required by a university in the State and shall not recommend a standard which is lower than such a standard (if any).
The point is that there may be no direct comparision with an academic standard in the discipline under examination in a university because a course may not be on offer in any university in Ireland. It is a narrow reference and is entirely unsuitable to the NCEA Bill. I am trying to make it more general and insert the words "shall have regard to standards applying nationally and internationally and shall not recommend a standard which is lower".
Deputy Horgan's amendment covers something similar. We have repeatedly tried to establish standards not solely by direct reference to universities as is suggested in this subsection although they may well be used by a board of studies. We should not use university standards solely because we are embarking on the provision of technological and quasi-technological courses in a non-university sector which may not be comparable with courses being offered in universities. We should use the wider phraseology that whoever is assessing or laying down standards in the board of studies or at council level should have regard to standards for the time being in force nationally or internationally within the confines of the relevant discipline under consideration. That is a wider reference criteria and is more suitable to the Bill. The reference to the university in the State is too narrow and restricting and I would ask the Minister to change it.
I do not have any marked preference for my form of words over Deputy Collins' form. They raise an issue which we should discuss in a context which is free of the earlier discussion we had about a related topic. In the earlier discussion we spoke about the advisability of linking this into the university sector generally and the Minister quoted the original CNAA statute in Britain which replicates, in some sense of the word, parts of this Bill.
In relation to what is being discussed under this section, we need a wider basis. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there will and may continue to be for some foreseeable time, perhaps indefinitely, duplication—despite the best efforts of the Departments of Finance and Education and of the Higher Education Authority—in certain areas between institutions that fall under the NCEA and the universities. It is also possible that standards in the institutions and technological sector may differ from standards obtaining in institutions outside the technological sector in the universities. It is altogether possible—for all I know it may even be the case today—that in some areas for historical, personal or other reasons, standards in the technological colleges may be higher than those of the universities; they may have more modern equipment or better teachers. That is not impossible.
When we are calling upon the NCEA to establish certain standards we do not want to tie them to one of two standards because of the very distinct possibility that that standard may be the lower of the two standards available in the country. It is a simple thing to change this without any disrespect to the universities, without begging any of the questions involved and simply adopt a form of words which will make it possible for the council to go to where the best standard is to be found, in the universities or elsewhere, and not to be tied down by a formulation which, if the Bill and the council have anything to do with it, will rapidly be seen to be archaic.
We had a full discussion on this earlier during the course of which I explained that the reference to "university" did not mean that we wanted an affiliation to the university as better understood in our society, unfortunately for too long. I pointed out that I did not want any interference with the particular technological ethos from the university. I stated then that it was deliberately set down in the Bill in that standards in a university are a forum in our society which are known to be internationally recognised. It is purely in that context that the word is used. I would exclude it immediately if I thought any of the possibilities I have excluded were capable of realisation. What we should pay attention to is the fact that our universities, unlike some of the continental universities, are a kind of hybrid in a sense, and there are strong technological areas in ours. We have, often in the same university, what is the marriage of two distinct European types of university.
The use of the word "university" in the Bill in relation to standards refers to something which is a known standard of excellence in our society. I accept, as Deputy Horgan stated, that in many cases the standards may be higher in the technological institute for various reasons—one of those mentioned by the Deputy was that the equipment might be better in a particular field. The reference to the university is purely in the general context. The reference does not mean that the standards in any specific technological institution as of now are lower but is purely in the context of an internationally recognised forum in the field of education. That may, in fact, in a short time become totally unnecessary if the activities of the NCEA continue to be successful. I am sure that will happen. That was the theme of our earlier discussion. The word "university" is mentioned in the charter for the CNAA. If one looks at the experience of the CNAA one will see that the mention of this in the charter did not affect the particular ethos of that body or the work they were doing in the technological field.
Would be the position where a board of studies and the council were assessing a course for which no comparable course was being offered by a university in the State?
In that case the board of studies would be composed of people who would have expertise in the field. That is the function of the board of studies in the situations we have mentioned in the Bill. That board of studies would decide on the course, the standards to be reached in order to enter on the course and the standards required at the end of it. That question had to be decided by all institutions breaking new ground, where they did not have any criteria or existing precedents to follow In fact, it proves the point I have been making about the use of the word "university" in this context, that it is not for specifics; it is to be understood in the general context of an internationally recognised standard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 101 not moved.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following new subsection after subsection (6):
"(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the power of the Council, apart from this section, to appoint committees.".
The reason for the amendment is to ensure that there is no doubt that the council is empowered to appoint committees which might be appointed to investigate or advise the council on any particular matter relating to its functions, or to its internal structures, or on its procedures, or for any other purpose. There was some concern about this. There will always be matters which can be best investigated by advisory committees which would examine the most efficient methods by which the council could carry its various functions, exempli gratia, perhaps to organise a flow of statistical information, the form of accounting to be adopted and such matters. It is likely that such committees will most frequently be concerned with organisation and operation of future systems but they might also be concerned with advising the council on matters relating to its general and particular functions. For example, the ad hoc council we have now has some committees working.
With all due respect to the Minister, this new subsection is not comprehensive enough. While I accept the Minister has said that the committee will be looking into matters of organisation, of course procedures and so on, it is not stated in the Bill. The Minister should be more explicit in relation to the powers of the committees; who should be selected to serve on the committees, what powers the committees will have in requiring people to come before them or have documents presented to them? For example, would the reports of the committees have to be considered by the council and what standing would the committees have in relation to the council? I do not like to see the word "committees" entering in without their powers and responsibilities being fully defined.
It is quite obvious that if a committee is established it will be by the council. In answer to the Deputy's question, of course it will be answerable to the council and report to the council. It is simply to make sure that the council will not be inhibited in its work by a doubt as to whether it has the power to set up committees for the various purposes I outlined when introducing the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 8, after line 15, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) The Council shall establish appropriate procedures under which the relevant authorities in the institutions to which the Act applies shall be advised of any recommendations made to the Council by a Board of Studies in sufficient time to enable the authorities of those institutions (if they so wish) to prepare a case for the consideration of Council prior to a decision being made by the Council.".
This amendment is self-explanatory. It is designed to bring about a situation in which any institution which has submitted a course to the council for validation has at least the right to know in due course of the recommendation by a board of studies before any decision is taken on such a recommendation by the council. We are all aware that human communication is imperfect. It is quite possible that a board of studies, no matter how diligent its research, how exhaustive its inquiries, may simply be under a major misapprehension about some material aspect of the course being submitted to it for validation. Obviously this will not affect matters in cases in which they are recommending validation of the course by the council. But it could happen that a serious injustice could be done inadvertently to an institution if mistakes have been made or indeed if the institution concerned feels that the board of studies has been unfair in its treatment of their proposal, or has made a decision not really justified on the basis of the information supplied.
In the Bill as it stands at present there is absolutely no obligation on anybody to ensure that the institution concerned has sight of the recommendation of the board of studies before it goes to the council for ratification, validation or whatever. From what little experience we have had we can build up a scenario of what is likely to happen under the present Bill. What will happen is that the board of studies will make a recommendation, saying to disallow a certain course or not to recommend validation of such a course. The council, naturally, unless there are very strong reasons tending in the opposite direction, will tend to ratify the decision of the board of studies as being the appropriate body which has informed itself and made a careful decision on the basis of the evidence available to it. Then the institution concerned will explode with rage, indignation, shock and horror. It will claim that its course was not fully understood; it may claim that there was political intervention; it may claim dark and evil influences from here, there and everywhere. They will come into Dublin and camp on the Minister's doorstep in Marlborough Street urging him to force a reconsideration of the matter.
I hope the Deputy will be urging them away.
When I am Minister I will be glad to take on that job. And the Minister will be telling them for at least six months that he has no function whatsoever, that it is a matter for the council. Then, when pressure builds up to a point absolutely impossible to meet, he may say to somebody over a gin and tonic at some reception or other: In the name of God, can nothing be done about this? This will not constitute a direct intervention by the Minister in the affairs of the council but it may have the desired effect if the whole thing is reopened. This circular process could take place many times in relation to many courses. I do not want to exaggerate the possibilities involved but I believe there is a way of short-circuiting this kind of problem, that is, to ensure that there should be some kind of occasion for the institution concerned to have, if nothing else, a final right of reply to the recommendation of the board of studies, particularly if such a recommendation is unfavourable to the course. It may be, for example, that the board of studies might come to the conclusion that with some changes in the course, some changes in the personnel, some changes perhaps even in the entry requirements—although that is a very sticky one—the course might be acceptable and the institution concerned might be prepared to make such changes. But unless it is realistically given the option, this will not happen and the danger of this process will occur.
We should build into the Bill a structure which will allow that to happen. It is not dissimilar in a sense from the kind of structure that exists in relation to the awarding of certain higher degrees, certainly in continental universities where an important part of the award of the degree is that the scholar who has written the thesis has to defend it verbally before his examiners. Indeed, this is also common practice in organisations and institutions like the OECD where the authors of specialist reports on national problems and national economies have to submit to a grilling by their peers before the report is finally authorised.
Therefore I am suggesting, if only to encourage the Minister to remove from other persons the temptation to make his job even more difficult, that he should insert this kind of section in the Bill.
I do not see the dangers Deputy Horgan sees in the exclusion of the terms of this amendment. I suppose, on the face of it, one would think that a council would tend to ratify the decision of a board of studies too easily. But I would expect that the council will be the type of critical council that will have a very close look at recommendations from the board of studies. I know that the procedure, as of now, is one which involves the maximum toing and froing both between the board of studies and the institution and the council and the institution before any decision is taken on a course. This is highly desirable. In a sense this does for the activities of the board of studies and the council what the defence of the doctrine of thesis does in the continental university system in that every possibility is examined. Indeed where the council, as of now, and a specific board of studies in a particular case ask for more staff, different equipment, or more of the same equipment, this is arranged under the present system.
Therefore I would think that under existing procedures, many of the fears the Deputy foresees—and he has a point in this—are groundless. It is true also that the institution concerned has not reached the end of the road if the board of studies has rejected and the council has accepted the recommendation to reject a particular course for an institution because the institution can re-enter at any time and would have to take cognisance of the weaknesses pointed out by the board of studies council in the initial consideration. Substantively, the criticism I make of the proposal is that it is encouraging a subsidiary of the council to deal with an institution more or less behind the council's back, before reporting to the council. It is established as a board of studies to advise the National Council for Education Awards in the first instance.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, I take it that there is, effectively, nothing in the Bill, as the Minister understands it, which would prevent the continuation under statute of the present ad hoc toing and froing that the Minister describes as taking place?
No.
If that is the case, and the Minister would be prepared to make more references to these procedures in his first and very highly publicised address to the newly elected council, I shall not press the point.
Regarding the high publicity, I know the Deputy's expertise in the field, and I would call on him to help me.
Alas, I am cut off from all that now.
I do not think so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10
Section 10, in the additional list of amendments, amendment No. 103 (a) in the name of the Minister, and amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 103 (a).
In page 8, lines 20 and 21, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) If the person who on the passing of this Act is employed as its chief officer (whether that officer is described as the Chief Officer or otherwise) by the body of persons referred to in section 3 (5) (a)* of this Act is still so employed immediately before the commencement of this Act, then subject to his agreement thereto that person shall be the person first appointed to be the Director."
These amendments are acceptable. The Minister is concurring with our opinion that the person to be director should not be named as a person but should be anonymous, which I accept. Where did the Minister get the title "Chief Officer"? That is a new importation. He was always known as the director.
This is the draftsman's word, and it says "whether he is called by that name or not".
He is always called director, to my recollection.
The Minister's second thoughts are definitely better than his first thoughts in this regard.
Hear, Hear.
We improve all the time.
There is plenty of room for improvement.
Humility is my middle name.
I congratulate the Minister on his altered phrasing with a passing sense of regret, because we could have diverted ourselves with this aspect of the section, let alone other aspects, for several hours. It was, certainly, odd, in the first instance to put the person's name, where the person was not specifically identified as such. Looking at my own suggested improvement, I can see that that is not very marvellous, because all sorts of dreadful things might happen between the passage of the amendment and the passing of the Act, other Padraig Uasal Mac Dermotts might turn up and claim precedence, or the existing director might contract a severe case of rabies on his continental holiday and die in the odour of sanctity. All sorts of unpleasant things might happen. He might even lose the grace and favour of the Minister, which is a remote possibility. The Minister's final version of this is quite adequate and I shall not move the amendment in my name.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.
I move amendment No. 106:
In page 8, subsection (3), between lines 21 and 22, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(3) (a) The Director shall be responsible to the Council and shall implement its policy and decision.".
This is one of the most objectionable parts of any section of this Bill and my amendment is designed to point out the objectionable nature of some parts of the section and to put it on the record of the House and into the Bill that the function of the director of the National Council for Educational Awards should, first and foremost, be that of responding to the council.
I find it difficult to talk about this without talking about other aspects of the section, because it is clear from these aspects of the section that, despite the notional subservience of the director to the council, we have, in fact, a situation in which the director, whoever he is—and I have absolutely no personal animadversions to make—is being given virtually carte blanche to run the whole show. He will be running around here and there, popping up like a leprechaun on every board of studies, on every subcommittee. His function in relation to the council will assume a quite disproportionate standing and, indeed, it is difficult to see, if he is a member of so many subcommittees and boards, where he will find time to do the basic thing he is required to do as director. His basic functions as director, as contained in this amendment in my name, is that “The Director shall be responsible to the Council and shall implement its policy and decision.” There is a misprint here—“decision” should be “decisions”.
It is extraordinary that there is no such basic statement of the relationship between director and council in the section as drafted. The whole function of a council is to ensure a spread of authority in this particularly important area. The section, as drafted, effectively takes a great deal of authority away from the council and puts it in the hands of one man, the director, by giving him an existence to a degree independent of the council, which is totally unacceptable. If we are going to appoint, in the language of the popular press, a Supremo to run technological education, let us appoint a Supremo. Let us not dress him up with all the trappings and folderols of a council which has very little real weight compared with the administrative authority being given to a single individual. This is a critical point. We are all aware of the politics of administration. We are all aware of the degree to which the person who is there acquires authority simply by virtue by the fact that he is in control of the situation. He has all the files under his left elbow. He has all the correspondence. He can look things up. He can organise the agenda for meetings.
One man can effectively control a committee very well if he is given the resources and especially if he is given such statutory backing as will enable him to do so. We are in grave danger in this situation of creating the sort of council which will effectively become a one-man show. It should not be a oneman show, it should be a council show, and this is the main function of this amendment. I will refer later to other aspects of the problem, but I impress on the Minister my sense of concern about this trend in the administration generally, a trend which finds itself replicated and probably intensified in this Bill. It is a trend towards a concentration of power rather than a diffusion of power and the improvement of the processes of participation.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 106 in the name of Deputy Horgan. I have serious reservations about the wording of section 10 (3). I was critical of the fact that the director should be a member of the council at all. He should not be a member of the council. The council members should set down policy and the director under the instructions of the council should carry out that policy. I saw a separation of interests and a separation of functions and responsibilities. Because of that I feel that the director should not be a member of the council. He should be a director who carries out the policy and acts on the instructions of the council. That is not to be. The Minister favours the director with members of the council in the first instance and in subsection (3) of this section the wording is such as to lead many to believe that the director will have inordinate powers. The wording is not clear as to what extent the director would have the powers. It is to a large extent put under the cloak of being instructed by the council. The wording is such as to lead to possible differences in interpretation of the whole Act.
I disagree profoundly if it is the Minister's intention to give inordinate powers to the director. I would be shocked and appalled that the director of the NCEA would have over-riding powers in relation to the functions which he would carry out vis-à-vis the council. I would like to think that that is not the intention of the Minister and that his intention is to ensure that it is the responsibility of the council clearly to set out policy and clearly to guide and instruct the director in his office. Unless I have these assurances from the Minister I will certainly support Deputy Horgan's amendment. Indeed, I attempted to look at the whole subsection in amendment No. 107, but we are dealing with amendment No. 106, and I would like a clarifying statement from the Minister.
I listened very carefully to what Deputy Horgan and Deputy Collins have said. It is a very interesting rhetorical exercise to conjure up leprechauns and hobgoblins and various nefarious characters from the misty deep and then flay them. It is an interesting exercise, especially when done with finesse and polished language, but if the section of the Bill is read carefully both Deputies will see that the director's duties to the council are stated very clearly and there is no need at all for this fear that somehow or other this is, as Deputy Horgan said, going to be a oneman band. The implication in what Deputy Horgan has said, and what Deputy Collins has more or less repeated, is that the council will be a council of puppets, a council without minds of their own, that they will suspend all the powers of their intellect and allow themselves to be pulled around any way the puppet master wants to pull them. However, a careful examination of the section of the Bill will show that the Deputies' fears are groundless. For example, I call the attention of the Deputies to the wording of section 10 (3) (a) which states:
The Director shall, in accordance with any direction given to him in that behalf by the council,...
Verba clara—quite clear words—the director will be directed by the council. There is no question of some kind of Supremo—the word Deputy Horgan used—there. The direction is given by the council and he will control and direct the activities of the council in so far as he is directed to do so by the council. It is clear to me from this section that that is the position. We go on to 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.
What is a proposal? It is something that you propose. To whom is he proposing it here? He is proposing it to the council and the council accept or reject. In what way can the director be exercising undue influence over the activities of a council? He is under the control of the council. Subsection (3) (c) states:
The Council shall consider any proposal made to it by the Director under this subsection.
Again, the council shall consider any proposal. There is no implication that the council are in any way tied in their decision. They may accept the proposal or they may reject the proposal but it is the council who do the accepting, it is the council who do the rejecting.
Paragraph 7 of the First Schedule states:
The Council may perform such of its functions as it may deem proper through the Director.
Who deem it proper? The council do and the director is unable to act unless the council so deem it proper. To me the council are very properly in charge. While the imaginary dangers summoned from the deep were quite terrifying in the eloquent words presented by Deputy Horgan, a careful reading of the wording in the Bill will show that they are not of any substance.
The Minister used a very interesting word in his defence of the wording of this section which is fine except that it does not appear in the Bill. If it did appear in the Bill we might be having a different type of discussion. In rejecting the arguments I have advanced, and I presume also the amendments I have advanced to support them, he referred specifically to section 10 (3) (a) which reads:
The Director shall, in accordance with any direction given to him in that behalf by the Council control and direct the activities of the Council and the staff of the Council.
The Minister put stress on the word "direction". I believe this can also be construed in a different way with the stress on the words "in accordance". The effect of this sentence, which he is advancing to beat my argument and my amendment is that the director shall only exercise the various powers given to him so far as—that is the word the Minister used but it is not in the Bill—he is directed to do so by the council.
The council will not be issuing directives morning, noon and night to the director. It seems to me that there will probably be substantial grey areas for which directions have not been issued by the council and in which the director will be free under this subsection to do virtually what he likes. This could develop into what we used to be told during our school days was a bad habit. The danger is that this particular section, unless we amend it appropriately, will encourage precisely those bad habits and bad thoughts on the part of anybody who may be so lucky or unlucky to be appointed a director.
The Minister, somewhat to my surprise, also dragged in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3) in relation to proposals which may be made by the director. I find those two paragraphs absolutely inexplicable because already in section 4 we read:
The members of the Council shall be a chairman, the Director and twenty-three other members,
The director is a member of the council. If the council shall not consider proposals from their own members who shall they consider proposals from? It seems to me that the director, as a member of the council, has a right to make any proposals to the council. I find it extraordinary at best and sinister at worst that he is here being given an extra function, an extra responsibility, an extra entitlement in relation to his activities on the council. He is apparently not just a member of the council, he is a super member of the council.
This is another aspect of the general tone of this section which seems to lay it down that the director is not a man among men. He is something special, he is somebody who for some odd reason is being given a superior status as a council member to other members of the council. I feel we should resist this not just for the sake of democracy and of the participations I spoke of earlier, but simply in aid of the sanity of the person who is director and in aid of the self-respect of the other members of the council.
The director is a member of the council but he is something more, he is also the director. There is no question or doubt about that. I am making two very strong points against Deputy Horgan's position. The first one and the most stubborn one is the actual wording in the section. The words are:
.... in accordance with any direction given to him in that behalf by the Council....
It is quite clear from those words where the direction is coming from. There is absolutely no doubt about the meaning of the words. I believe, for that reason, that Deputy Horgan is imagining dangers, powers and undemocratic positions which do not exist. I used paragraphs (b) and (c), as the Deputy said, in section 10 (3) to indicate what the director is doing. He will be in a special position for making proposals by virtue of the fact that he is a member of so many boards, that he is in fact charged with the direction of the council. He will make proposals. The council will make decisions on those proposals. It is important to remember that. I also referred to what is in the Schedule.
All the statements made by Deputy Horgan posit one thing, which he is not entitled to posit in my opinion, that is that we will have a council of dumb-bells, a council which can be manipulated. The calibre of the council will see to it that the powers given to the council are exercised properly and will see to it that those powers in relation to the director will be exercised.
I was taken aback by the Minister saying that the director is in charge of the direction of the council.
He is director of the National Council for Educational Awards.
The Minister said that he is in charge of the direction of the council which is in clear contradiction of the statement that the council should be a council of strong men who will determine their own direction.
It is certainly not in any way a contradiction.
I must reject the Minister's assumption that I am positing a council of dumb-bells. The Minister has been around long enough and has been around a bit longer than I have to know that manipulation can arise in circumstances where the people being manipulated are not dummies in any degree. Manipulation is facilitated by certain kinds of administrative structures and is impeded by other kinds of administrative and democratic structures. It is my simple statement in relation to this that the kind of administrative structures we are setting up here will facilitate manipulation rather than impede them, regardless of the intellectual calibre of the persons who may or may not be manipulated.
Unfortunately, in this debate we have not been talking enough about the amendment and this is partly my fault. What positive objection can the Minister have to the formulation in my amendment that the director shall be responsible to the council and shall implement the policy of the council and their decisions? It is two lines and is 30 per cent shorter than the Minister's formulation in section 10 (3) (a) of what he claims to be exactly the same thing but what I claim has a different administrative and perhaps even a different legal significance.
It is very simple and is totally unambiguous. I urge the Minister to accept it and to delete subsection (3) (a). With regard to the other point made by the Minister, the director being a special member of the council by virtue of the fact that he is the director of the council, everything he has said here only reinforces my fears about the role the director is being given in relation to the council.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.