Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Nov 1979

Vol. 316 No. 8

National Council for Educational Awards Bill, 1978: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 11 down to and including "education" in line 14 and insert ", commercial education and business and management studies, philosophical studies, studies relating to agriculture and fisheries, catering, legal studies, public administration, art and design, complementary studies and other such studies as the Council shall so decide as suitable provided outside the universities, whether professional, vocational or technical (including apprenticeship courses) and shall promote and encourage the availability of recurrent education".

This amendment relates to a description of the subjects which the NCEA will have guardianship over. I am not happy with the wording in the Bill. The words used are rather terse and narrow in concept. A wider and more liberal phraseology would better suit the Bill for the sake of future interpretation of its role and functions. In my amendment I have attempted to make quite clear the fields which the council will interest itself in and they are so described as to leave no doubt that the council has a wide range of subjects to control. There will be no problem about interpreting its functions in future.

As regards apprenticeships I feel that the present situation where AnCO is playing a major role in the development of apprenticeships does not recognise the educational context of the apprenticeship courses.

The educational content in apprenticeship courses is insufficient to ensure the educational advancement of the apprentices. Greater educational input is necessary to ensure that our society does not produce a new generation of human robots. Therefore, there is need to ensure that the educational content receives higher priority than at present under the AnCO apprenticeship courses. This is sufficiently serious to warrant mention in my amendment and I draw the Minister's specific attention to it.

In replying I should be grateful if the Minister would address himself to consideration of the correct quantity and quality of the educational aspect of apprenticeship courses. Our regional colleges and colleges of technology should play a greater role in ensuring that an apprentice, when finished his apprenticeship, has a balanced education not alone in respect of his specific career subjects but also in relation to his general educational standard. We have an obligation to ensure that our young people completing apprenticeship courses have a standard of education affording them promotional opportunities within, say, business firms so that they will not feel in later years they are in dead-end jobs but rather that the promotional opportunities open to many other people will also be fully available to them.

Therefore we have a serious obligation to ensure that the educational aspects of apprenticeship are not neglected. It is for that reason that I specifically request that the National Council for Educational Awards have as one of their functions the apprenticeship area so that they will be able to—as the Bill says—encourage, facilitate, promote, especially "promote", co-ordinate and develop education with specific reference to apprentices. I am sure the Minister is sympathetic to the aspiration that this area be well catered for. I am not satisfied, and I am saying specifically, that the AnCO apprenticeship schemes, as at present constituted go into the educational aspect of apprenticeship courses. I am satisfied there is a need for the NCEA to oversee the standards of apprenticeships. Certainly, they may consult with AnCO or with any professional or trading group in order to ensure a proper standard of apprenticeship training.

There are other subjects that should be mentioned because, as the Bill is at present worded, possibly they would be excluded. I refer specifically to philosophical studies, studies relating to agriculture and fisheries, legal studies, catering, public administration and art and design studies. I have added also the words "complementary studies" in order to ensure that the council be fully involved in liberal subjects and all studies complementary to specialised subjects. It would be prudent to specify these other fields of study to ensure that the responsibilities and functions of the National Council for Educational Awards are fully understood as being of a wide and liberal nature and not within the narrow concept that the wording of section 3 (1) of the Bill would seem to indicate.

My amendment is a moderate one. Certainly it is not political in the narrow context of the word. It is an amendment I suggest would benefit the NCEA and would protect them in their future interpretation of the Act.

I should like to make a special plea on behalf of recurrent education. We can make many different kinds of cases for including many different kinds of specific references within the terms of reference of a body such as the NCEA. Of all of them perhaps recurrent education needs to be underlined. The people who could benefit from recurrent education are the forgotten people in our society and it is not often recognised that they are a very numerous group of people. In the 1971 Census there were one million Irish men and women aged between 25 and 65 who had received primary school education only. If equality of educational opportunity is to mean anything it must surely mean something for them as well as for the school leavers of this day and age.

The last line of the amendment urges the council to promote and encourage the availability of recurrent education. I would regard this as being specially relevant to the occupational, human and personal needs of this large group of people. The problem is that, politically, they do not constitute a constituency. They do not have sufficient votes perhaps in any one constituency to elect anybody to Dáil Éireann and they are not organised in groups. They do not have parents, like school leavers, to press their case for them in terms of the provision of third-level places and qualification. I would hope that the National Council for Educational Awards, by paying attention to recurrent education, as is suggested in this amendment, would make these people a very special part of their concern because they represent some of the most valuable unrealised potential in our society. We are for ever talking about our natural resources in a context which implies that the only natural resources we have are inanimate. We should never forget that the most precious natural resources we have are the animate natural resources, the men and women of our country. I would urge, especially in relation to recurrent education, that that group of Irish men and women be singled out for the positive attention of the Council.

I should like to take up the points made by Deputy Collins with regard to AnCO courses. In this debate we are concerned with the National Council for Education Awards; we are not dealing specifically with the training or course content of the whole field of education. It should be remembered that most of the apprenticeship courses are at second level. The Department of Education are aware of the necessity to have a proper education content in the courses followed by apprentices and the Department have, in consultation with the Department of Labour, stipulated what they regard as desirable by way of general education in order to help the apprentice along the lines mentioned by the Deputy.

It is generally agreed that the basic education, including the liberal element, is very important so that a young man or woman may be able to retrain and develop a new skill because the specific skill which may be learned may become obsolete—skills are becoming obsolete with increasing frequency nowadays— and it is for that reason that the Department of Education, in regard to the AnCO courses, have stipulated "educational content". I do not accept the contention of Deputy Collins that the courses as being pursued now are in danger of producing robots. I agree that it is an important area but I submit it is not an area with which we are directly concerned now; we are not discussing that. We are debating a national council for the making of educational awards and I have no doubt that when any area comes up for discussion and decision by the council they will be fully aware of the need for the kind of balance mentioned in the course before they approve of it and make an educational award accordingly.

The Deputy made a good point when he stated that that area is very much concerned with the development of the individual in such a way that he will be able to avail of promotion opportunities later. The balance is important. In assessing any course the council will be fully conscious of this. A point that struck me when listening to the Deputy is that we seem to be ambiguous when discussing this whole area generally in education circles at present. On the one hand we have people decrying the fact that our educational system is overemphasised in the liberal area and, on the other hand, the point made—I concede it is an important one—seems to indicate that our courses in the apprenticeship and technical fields are in danger of not emphasising the liberal part well enough. There seems to be an ambiguity about our approach; it seems that we are not quite sure what we are doing in this regard. The NCEA will be so constituted that there is no likelihood of them ignoring the importance of the liberal content when assessing a course and deciding to make awards in an area.

Deputy Collins may have failed to notice that some of the areas he mentioned are covered by section 3 (1). He specifically mentioned art and design which are covered in that subsection. Deputy Horgan made a strong plea based on the last two words of the amendment and picked up the banner of recurrent education. Deputy Horgan was referring to something that is not unrelated to a matter I dealt with earlier, how soon skills become obsolete and so on, and he spoke of the importance of recurrent education. I agree that it is important but I do not think he applied the right criteria for the consideration of recurrent education when he mentioned the fact that those who want such education have votes. I do not think that is a criteria to judge whether their needs be supplied or not. It is slightly woolly to talk of recurrent education in this context because we are referring to courses set up with the expertise of the advisory committees, followed by a decision of the council, on specific courses. Should those courses be courses of recurrent education for which an award is to be made they come within the competence of the NCEA. The danger seen or the omissions referred to by the Deputies are adequately covered by section 3(1).

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 30, to delete "set by the Council or".

This amendment relates to the possibility of the council being allowed to set examinations as opposed to being empowered to prescribe standards. It is my view that the council should not be an examination setting body. The tradition has always been that the colleges, within their own staff, set the examinations or structured their examinations or academic test and an external examiner was employed to monitor standards and correct papers. That is the proper structure. The responsibility of the NCEA should be to prescribe standards and monitor them. The NCEA should also be empowered to grant colleges and educational institutions the right to give courses under prescribed standards. I am convinced that the council should not be empowered to set examinations because that would be extending the scope of the council in an interfering manner. It would impinge on the rights of the colleges in the examination area. I would be sorry to see regional and other colleges being deprived of the freedom to set their own examinations and the freedom to have a cross-fertilisation of ideas between their own staff and external examiners.

This aspect of the work of the college is important from the point of view of the academic staff who can feel involved in the affairs of the college specifically in relation to monitoring the academic courses and seeing the fruition of a year's work in the context of examinations, in relation to having the freedom to structure and set examinations and having the freedom to involve extern examiners in the work of the college. It is important from the staff point of view and from the educational point of view that there should be the cross-fertilisation of ideas between the staff of a college and extern examiners from other colleges. This cross-fertilisation of ideas will help to unify standards generally throughout the system and this is an important aspect in the academic life of any college. To give power to the National Council for Educational Awards is wrong; it is a retrograde step which I oppose.

Deputy Collins' contention is that the National Council for Educational Awards should not be an examining body. The Deputy outlined the procedure which obtains at present, namely that the council do the monitoring and the institutions set the examinations. As I mentioned earlier, we are not interfering with the existing system. The words "set by the Council or" which the amendment wants to exclude is simply our safety net for the council to cover any eventuality where it might be necessary for the council actually to set the examination. I do not envisage any great use of that power but it is my firmly held belief that that power must be there to cover all eventualities in the case of examining pupils who have either finished part of their course or are doing their final courses in either certificate, diploma or degree areas.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, to delete lines 4 to 27 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,

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 of 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,

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

There is no simple solution to the question of representation or to the make-up of the council. Any system proposed either by the Minister, Deputy Horgan or myself would be open to criticism. On looking at the Minister's amendment I felt that it did not guarantee a broad spectrum of representation on the council and because of that I moved what I consider to be a better approach to the question of representation.

It is of particular importance that the student body be given representation on the National Council for Educational Awards. All of us, especially politicians, are aware of the vociferous opinions of students on a large number of issues. I am impressed with their openness and frankness and with their contribution to the general ongoing educational debates. I do not always agree with what they say but that could not be expected of me. I am thankful to the Union of Students in Ireland for their statistical data which is published on occasion and is sometimes handed to me for my information. They provide a very valuable on-the-spot service for politicians.

At this point we should recognise legally the role that the Union of Students in Ireland play in the evolution of educational policies. It is time that they had a de jure right to be on governmental bodies. We have an opportunity in this legislation to acknowledge their contribution. I have found that their absence from the board of management of the Regional Technical College in Waterford, of which I am a member, has created a vacuum for the board and has possibly created a feeling among students that their voices are not being heard at board level. On occasion that may be the case. The Minister and the Government have an obligation to ensure where possible participation by the Union of Students in Ireland on all policy establishing bodies such as the National Council for Educational Awards. I am not sure if they are represented on the present council but we have an opportunity here to give legal recognition to the part they play especially in the non-university sector.

I have tried otherwise to give a broad spectrum of representation to the various universities, to the NIHE and the board of the National College of Art and Design and I have made specific reference to four representatives of the boards of management of the regional technical colleges which are the premier colleges needing the drive to ensure that there is non-university technical education in the State. They should have a solid presence on the council and the four others should be representative of the boards of governing bodies of other colleges and institutions to which this Bill applies. I am also giving the Minister six nominees. I have not attempted to change the number of the members of the council. I have merely tried to change the composition in the representation of the various interested sectors which I feel should be on the council. I am not happy with the Minister's breakdown of representation. It is too general and, in some cases, unfair.

I conclude by saying that I do not have an unanswerable case. Possibly my proposition is open to criticism, but it will ensure a broader spectrum of representation and that no sector of the colleges involved will have predominance in the affairs of the council. I have chosen a diffused representation rather than a concentrated representation as regards any one sector. I feel that my approach is more justifiable than the one the Minister is proposing.

I propose to confine my remarks to the question of student representation and not to go into the arguments we had on Second Stage to any great degree. As Deputy Collins has said, any carve-up is bound, indeed almost guaranteed, to create more dissatisfied than satisfied people and in this respect, at any rate, the Minister has my sympathy. However, on Second Stage when we were talking about the appropriate proportion of representation, we were discussing the whole concept of whether these people should be regarded as representing the interests which have nominated them. The Minister seemed to be trying to plough a lonely furrow beside the original NCEA concept, which one might argue was the higher education concept as well, which was that even though these people came from these institutions or organisations they did not in any democratic sense represent them on the council or authority concerned. We are now having a procedure which is in a sense a mixture. The people to be appointed by the Minister will not be appointed by him out of the air, so to speak, but will be appointed by him on the nomination of bodies. I argue strongly that it is difficult to see how people who owe their position on the NCEA partly to their nomination by a body or institution and partly to their appointment by the Minister could fail to act in that kind of democratic representative sense. On occasion this might lead to decisions being taken in which institutional interests rather than the overall interests of higher education or the NCEA might predominate. However, we will have to work that out as we go along.

In relation to the representation of students, if the Minister is going to stand by the principle that he is introducing into this Bill, namely that of his appointing persons who have been nominated by organisations, certainly the Union of Students of Ireland would be a more than appropriate body for such nominations. For too long education in this country has been dominated by the providers of education. There has been no really effective voice for the consumers of education, and the students are by definition the consumers of our educational services. This may well be why in some instances the consumers of our educational services have been more extreme in their comments than was politic. The simple reason is that, if you are excluded from representation in the controlling body of a service which affects you very closely, not unnaturally you are going to have a considerable degree of natural and justifiable frustration added to whatever other grievances you may have at any time.

It may be that the Minister is proposing to include among his own nominees such a representative of the student movement in the third level technological sector. If that is the case one must welcome it, but of course subject to certain qualifications. The first qualification is that it refers to just this Minister, perhaps in respect of this council, and obviously this does not bind either him in relation to a subsequent council or any subsequent Minister. The second reservation is that it reduces the already rather small number of nominated places that the Minister has totally in his free gift. The development of technological higher education is important and, given our Irish propensity for institutional warfare, the Minister should not tie his hands too closely. If anything I would be prepared to underwrite a slightly higher proportion of ministerial nominees than he has given himself in this Bill, all the more so if he is proposing to use one of his personal nominations to ensure representation by students on the council. If he is going to do this it will be a very poor second best, but it will at least be second best.

Deputy Collins, in speaking to his own amendment, wants a de jure right for students on the council. My contention right through has been that section 5 (1) is about the most representative council that I can get. I take the point made by Deputy Horgan that the inclusion or exclusion of people very often offends more people than it pleases in this context. As the Deputies know, under section 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (g) the Minister has power to appoint a student. Referring to the plea by both Deputy Collins and Deputy Horgan on behalf of the students, I agree with them totally that it was—to use a horrible modern “in” word—an input in education that was sadly lacking for a long time and that it is a feature of the educational scene now for nearly two decades that students are anxious to discuss both the structures of education in their institutions and the courses and the content of courses. In this they have benefited education even when, as Deputy Collins said, one could not accept in toto their ideas. The very fact that they were there advancing ideas made for more interest in third level education and also made people assess their own ideas and adjust them on occasion. Even if adjustment did not take place, the very exercise was good for the institution. The concern of Deputy Collins, and to a lesser extent of Deputy Horgan, for it being stipulated in the section that students should be appointed is unnecessary. It is quite obvious that provision is made in the section for the possibility of appointing a student under section (5) (1) (a) and 5 (1) (g). With regard to the RTCs, it is also true that the section, as it stands without the amendment, levels the possibility open of appointment of people who are involved in the RTC.

Deputy Horgan rightly remarked that we discussed earlier the whole idea of membership of the council. I still contend that as members of the council they are there with a specific function of assessing and making academic awards in the non-university, the technological sector mainly. I do not see any great difficulty in a member divesting himself of his own vested interests in order to give himself to the particular and specific business of the National Council for Education Awards. In fact, there are very busy people who are doing this quite regularly, people who may be members of various councils and committees. They have to wear different hats and they find no difficulty in doing so.

The RTCs as of now are providing courses which were assessed and which are being awarded by council awards. This will mean that we will have to designate them under section 1 and if they are designated under section 1 any or all of them under section 20 may have representation. Section 5 (1) (g) and section 5 (1) (a) come into play in that instance as well as what I mentioned already in the context of students.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, to insert "management", before "staff" in line 31.

Deputy Horgan put forward this amendment on the Committee Stage but there was a misnumbering of lines. It appeared to propose that the word "management" should be inserted before "professions". I promised to consider this on the Report Stage. The amendment meets the point made by Deputy Horgan that the management of the institutions to which the Act applies should be considered for membership of the council as well as staff and students.

I am grateful for the generous spirit in which the Minister accepted the arguments I made on Committee Stage, so generous indeed that I believe the amendment is virtually the same as the one I introduced at that point. It was an important point to make and one which had to be explicitly put into the Bill. Under the Vocational Education Act, for example, we now have very broad based managements for many of our regional technical colleges. It is important and valuable that people who are asked to give of their time and energies in this very valuable educational work by becoming members of the boards of management of particular institutions should be encouraged by the belief that that commitment can be rewarded at national level as well as at regional or local level by at least the possibility of appointment to the National Council for Educational Awards. It may be that people who are appointed locally, from industry or from the trade unions, to regional technical college management boards may develop over a time an expertise in and a commitment to technological education which they had not even suspected at the time they accepted the invitation. It is very appropriate that this kind of expertise should be rewarded, as least potentially, by making them eligible for nomination to the council.

I should like some clarification from the Minister. The paragraph involved reads "any of the professions or the staff and students of any institution". I understand that the staff could mean the employees of the educational institutions involved. Do I understand the word "management" to be a separate word?

It means, therefore, members of the board of management. Does it mean members of the college council, which is a theoretically more important policy-making arm of, for instance, the regional technical colleges? The Minister knows that the technical colleges have a board of management and a college council. Is he including members of the college council as potential members of the NCEA council?

I support the amendment in its broader concept rather than its narrower concept. The definition of "staff" in section 1 is: "staff means academic staff or administrative staff". It is open to appoint either a member of the academic or a member of the administrative staff.

The college council are the staff.

The college council are local representative people or public representatives who form the college council.

Plus some members of the staff.

Possibly. What does "administrative staff" mean? Has it a clear definition? Does it mean the principal of the college or the senior clerical officer of the college? I admit that I am going into the realms of theory rather than practice. Does it mean the maintenance staff? Would the maintenance staff be eligible for membership of the council? Would the porters be eligible for membership of the council? I recall Paddy Keogh who was a porter in Earlsfort Terrace and who, on retirement, was awarded an honorary degree. He was revered in the office and perhaps knew more about the running of the college than did many a professor. I should not like us to exclude anybody from representation on the NCEA. Perhaps the Minister would clarify a couple of points. First, does "management" mean board of management and/or college council? Secondly, does the word "staff" include staff other than the principal of the college or senior clerical officers?

Regarding the point about the college, if the Deputy refers to subsection (1) (a) of section 5, he will find that members of college councils in regional technical colleges would qualify for appointment to the council. I would draw the Deputy's attention also to subsection (2) of section 5 where the spectrum or the extent of interest is defined as including industry, agriculture, fisheries, commerce or any of the professions or the staff and students of any institution to which the legislation applies. The college council people are covered potentially in those sectors.

My second question concerned the word "staff". Does staff in this instance mean academic or administrative staff? Does it mean the principal or senior clerical officers or would maintenance staff such as porters and also laboratory assistants, for instance, be included? It is a theoretical point.

I would not undertake to do any kind of hermeneutics on this.

We had one of those at home but the wheel fell off.

I would take the word to mean what is meant normally by administrative staff. I know that the Deputy is chairman of a regional technical college board of management and that he would have a fairly practical working definition of the administrative staff in that context. Regarding his specific question about clerical officers, I should expect that they would be covered elsewhere rather than in this amendment which was introduced by me in accordance with the lines followed by Deputy Horgan on Committee Stage.

Would it not be preferable, instead of using the phrase "administrative staff" to use the phrase "non-academic staff"?

Try it in the Seanad.

It would be as difficult to define non-academic staff.

The phrase "nonteaching staff" might be used. I accept that this is not a vitally important part of the Bill but in the interest of clarity it might be well to define administrative staff.

Senator Liam Burke is about to become a non-Senator.

I wonder whether the breakdown of the heating system in the House has any connection with the shock that the Government have received.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendments 5 and 7 are related they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, to delete line 20.

I am seeking here to include as potential members of the council people who are resident outside the State. In educational terms it would be most unfortunate to exclude persons of standing from membership of the NCEA simply because they happen to live in the Six Counties, in England, on the Continent of Europe or in America. Section 7 provides that a person shall not be eligible for membership of the council if he is for the time being not ordinarily resident in the State. This is a most unfortunate policy to adopt. Politically, it is negative and counter-productive. My amendment seeks to delete the provision in this regard. In amendment No. 7 I am seeking to have removed from the Bill the provision in subsection (5) of section 8 which reads that:

The chairman of the Council and any other member thereof may be removed from membership of the Council by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister.

Subsection (6) provides for the removal from membership of the council of a person who ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State. That is a wrong approach on the part of the Minister. Not only will a person be precluded from membership by reason of his being resident north of the Border but even if the chairman or a member of the council who is living in the Republic moves, in the interest of the advancement of his career, to one of the educational institutions in the Six Counties, say Queen's University, he ceases to be a member of the council.

A highly desirable province for one to go to.

That is so but does the Minister realise that it might mean a brilliant man who happened to be a member of the council, having to renounce his membership?

As an Ulster man I would advise more people to go there.

That is all very well but in effect the Minister is providing for a situation in which a brilliant man who happened to be on the council but who might go to Queen's as a professor of education would cease to be a member of the council. The Minister would be depriving the council of that man's service. Both educationally and politically such an approach is wrong. We on this side of the House are most anxious to involve people from the Six Counties, as well as people from England, the Continent and America, in education here but for the moment I shall confine myself to the Six Counties dimension of the question. Surely we must rate as one of our highest priorities the matter of close Border co-operation. I cannot think of a better opportunity for this House to encourage North-South dialogue and co-operation than to allow for the possibility of eminent men living in the Six Counties, being on a premier academic council such as the NCEA. I am at a complete loss to know why the Minister is excluding people living in Northern Ireland from membership of the council.

I live in Northern Ireland.

And the Minister is able to be a member of the Government. Indeed, even if he were living in Belfast he could be a member of the Government. But why is the Minister excluding a person who may be a professor of education in Queen's University from membership of the council simply because he does not reside in the State? When I moved my amendment on Committee Stage the Minister was happy to refer to two Acts passed by the previous Government which I supported and which have the same provision. One was the Unfair Dismissals Act which would be an interpretation of the law as it stands in the Republic. That is an interpretation Act rather than an Act which has for its function the creation of new policies. There is an important difference.

But here we have an education Act dealing with the overall development of the non-university sector which gives us an ideal opportunity to involve in Irish education affairs, people who happen to live in Northern Ireland and who are just as good Irishmen as we are. The Minister is depriving such people of the opportunity of becoming involved in Irish education and of possibly contributing to an all-Ireland education policy. That is a concept which we have not even begun to discuss in this House.

We have two separate education policies, one here in the Republic and the other in Northern Ireland, obviously based on the British model, and that is fair enough. I am not aware of any attempt by any Government to seek to begin to evolve an all-Ireland education policy. I am not aware of any deep involvement by the Department of Education with their Northern Ireland counterparts which could be the beginning of ensuring the overall long-term development of an all-Ireland education policy. I am not aware of any great North-South dialogue on education problems in general. We seem to be happy to limp along in the Republic on our own without any consultation with Northern Ireland and without any involvement or dialogue with our Northern Ireland counterparts. I am simply appalled that Mr. John Wilson, a man from the North——

There is a recognised protocol.

There is. The Deputy should refer to the Minister for Education.

I will say Deputy John Wilson, the distinguished Minister for Education. I am appalled that that gentleman in his distinguished position, and given the opportunities of his distinguished office, has included in this Bill a provision to exclude from membership of the National Council of Educational Awards eminent people in the educational field who are living in Northern Ireland. I am shocked and appalled that the man from the North would do such a thing. It is a slur on the people living in the Republic. It is a slur on the Minister who prides himself on being an Ulsterman to have in this Bill a clause providing that a person cannot be a member of the NCEA if he does not live in the State. To put it another way: if a person happens to live in Northern Ireland he can have no part in the deliberations of the NCEA. I am deeply disappointed in the Minister.

We should call this the thumping amendment.

It is a thumping disgrace.

Thumping would not be against the rules of the House so long as it does not go too far.

Surely that depends on what is being thumped.

Yes. So long as we do not thump one another.

I would have thought that the Minister would be making a greater contribution to the evolution of an education policy if he were to take a more liberal and far-seeing attitude to membership of the council. If one looks at the function of the council, their importance in the long-term evolution of policy in the non-university sector and if one looks at the potential for development in Europe we have much to learn from our counterparts there, leaving aside the national problem of Northern Ireland. Surely if any Minister could have the services of an eminent educationalist from Britain or Germany or France he should have the right to appoint him to the council. But this is not so. The provisions of the NCEA Bill exclude any person who is not living in the State and that is inherently wrong. It is an appalling political error on the part of the Minister to have such a provision in the Bill and I would ask him, leaving party political considerations aside, to remove this clause from the Bill for the sake of education, for the sake of the council, for the sake of our commitment to an extrovert education policy, but most of all we have in this Bill an opportunity to have a dialogue between people living in Northern Ireland and people in the South. We have an ideal opportunity of involving in educational affairs in the South the wisdom and knowledge of people who live in the North. I am pleading with the Minister to allow such a service for the council, to allow a cross-Border dialogue in educational matters, to allow of the facility to harness the wealth of educational experience in the North—and that is part of Irish education—and to allow of the use of that knowledge for the council. I deeply regret that the Minister has seen fit to exclude from membership of the council those who do not live in this State. I expected more of the Minister and his Government. If this provision is left in the Bill it will be a political error of great magnitude. It may have repercussions in Northern Ireland from the point of view of cross-Border co-operation, but mostly it is a reflection of the negative attitude of the Minister to the potential contribution of people living in Northern Ireland in the affairs of the NCEA.

I make one last plea to the Minister to remove the provision. There is no need for it. If he wants to have the service of any person on the council he should not be constrained by such a silly clause as that in section 7 (a) or in section 8 (6) (a). There is no need for such a provision. It is negative; indeed, I would go so far as to say it is anti-Northern Ireland and it is anti-reunification of this country. I beg of the Minister to withdraw it.

We have always heard that northerners tend to discriminate against other northerners and here is an ironic twist on that sad and ancient truth. I am really puzzled by the Minister's hard line on this issue. In earlier discussions on this point he told us that there was no objection or obstacle to people from the North being included on the boards of studies where their expertise and qualifications will be valuable. If there is no objection to people from the North other than the part in which the Minister resides, and one or two other parts also, being on boards of studies, by extension what conceivable objection can there be to having them on the council of the institute itself?

The Minister must make it plain to us today whether the decision to take this line is based on any alleged constitutional or legal difficulty relating to the appointment of people from the North to the NCEA or whether it is purely and simply a policy decision by him. If it is a policy decision by him, it is negative. It need not have been made and having been made it creates a situation that is all the more difficult to undo.

We had a fairly extensive discussion on this point on the earlier Stages of the Bill and I think we went through the arguments carefully. I am not one to accept the kind of formal international type of terminology about North-South dialogue. I am an Ulsterman and hardly a month goes by that I am not in the Six Counties part of Ulster. I had the privilege of going to school for a short while in Belfast and I also attended McGee College in Derry under the very enlightened President Finnegan. At that time there were great hopes of developing contacts between Donegal and Derry as Derry was the natural kind of capital for the whole area of Donegal. We know that political decisions which were resented by all sides in the Six Counties took the possibility of development as a university institution away from Derry and placed it in Coleraine. I have nothing but goodwill for the development of Coleraine, but I still think that this development should have taken place in the city of Derry.

Deputy Horgan in his brief remarks at the end of the long speech by Deputy Collins asked whether there were any kind of legal or constitutional overtones in this. If the Deputy examines the Acts before the Republic of Ireland Act he will see there was the use of different terminology. I want to emphasise very strongly what I emphasised on earlier Stages of this Bill, namely, that the real expertise of members of the boards of studies was very important for the successful functioning of the NCEA. In so far as the development of technology is concerned, the structuring of courses, innovations and so on would be best known to people who would serve on the boards of studies. I pointed out at that time that this expertise all along the line was available to us through the boards of studies.

Deputy Collins talked about the two systems developing in this country, one in the six counties of north-east Ireland and the other in the south and that is something that I regret as an Ulsterman. As the House knows, this was as a result of political developments. I do not believe that there was any educationalist in the North or South who desired this to come about, as the system of education had been developed on the basis of one country up to the unfortunate time our country was partitioned.

There are plenty of contacts between my Department and the Department in the six counties of north-east Ireland and it is my wish that these contacts be developed and kept up. I think that people from further south in the country are inclined to look at the matter as if it were fossilised in some way. We must reflect that many people from the Six Counties come to third level and even to second level schools in the south of Ireland. Some people, particularly those from the three Ulster counties and from other counties also, go to higher institutions—to technological institutions in particular—in Belfast or elsewhere. One can have an idea about two nations rigidly separated, of two administrations that do not impinge on each other; but when I amble down the road from Swanlinbar the whole thing looks like a farce to me.

But you are encouraging fossilisation.

The Deputy was referring to something that does not exist, developments here and there. People who live along the Border and meet people from the Six Counties or from the Republic, as the case may be, at any time are inclined to laugh at all this talk about rigidity and about separate countries used by some political people in the context of the Six Counties.

Bring them in.

When the Deputy was shocked and appalled I could not help thinking that his face belied the depth of emotion he was expressing regarding this particular provision in the Bill. I may be wrong but he did not seem to me to be a Member suffering from Angst out of which he could not get for several weeks. He also mentioned the other element of the EEC. The Department of Education are aware of the advantages of studying the technological sector in EEC countries. This year I had the privilege of visiting a technological, third level university in Holland and also of visiting one of their higher technical schools. The Dutch Government and particularly the Dutch Ministers for Education were very helpful and made all kinds of arrangements for myself and officials to study in some depth the institutions we visited. We are aware of the advantages of knowing what the educational scene is in the technological area in the EEC. We are studying the EEC and taking whatever advantage we can of their system in order to improve our own. There is no question of our discriminating against anyone from the EEC, whether from Britain or any of the others, and there is no question of discrimination against people from the Six Counties.

But there is.

As I said on the Second Stage, the real weight of expertise in the boards of studies available to us is the most important part of this exercise and we are not excluded by this Bill from availing of this expertise. Earlier in the debate I think the possibility was mentioned of the use of members from the Six Counties on the actual council and in so far as we have been dealing with many institutions and organisations that are pressing for membership it is a little surprising that Deputies have said that they would like members of the council to be representative of institutions. Very pertinently Deputy Horgan said that it was a minefield where letting one group in very often satisfied that group and offended several other groups. The wider you cast the net the more people you have clamouring for representation, and this makes the task even more difficult. Having considered the whole debate and my own predilection and fully conscious that other Acts already cited in the House have these words—Acts for which I was not responsible—on balance, I shall accept the amendment. It will mean renumbering subsections.

May I thank the Minister for his generosity? I think he has done education a service by accepting the amendment.

It means we shall have to renumber the subsections.

That will be done.

This relates also to amendment No. 7.

We shall have that amendment moved when we reach it but there will not be a debate on it. It will be deemed to be accepted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, to delete line 55 and substitute "A member of the Council, other than the chairman or the Director,".

This is a drafting amendment which I promised on Committee Stage. It is a matter of avoiding duplication. The chairman may be removed from the office of chairman and from membership under sections 6 (5) and 6 (6). The director is ex officio a member of the council under section 4 and, if he is removed from office or suspended as director, he ceases to be a member of the council. Section 8 (5) now provides for the removal from office of ordinary members.

I think it was I who originally moved the amendment on Committee Stage. I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of it. While it is only a drafting amendment I think it clarifies the position in relation to the chairman who in fact is covered under a previous section.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, to delete line 2.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, to delete lines 55 and 56.

This relates to a board of study making a recommendation to the council. In making a recommendation to the council, the Minister is proposing, in the Bill, to allow the board of studies to recommend standards required and proposed for admission to such courses, under the jurisdiction of the council, which is wrong. It is a very subtle move by the Minister to change entry requirements to colleges and institutions in the non-university sector, and to begin to restrict entrance to this sector, possibly on economic grounds.

On Committee Stage I explained that the entrance requirements, certainly for the RTCs, were three-fold—first, what was equivalent to a moderate leaving certificate result, combined with an interview by members of the staff of the Department concerned within the college and further combined with an aptitude test. I suggested that that model for entrance to a regional college was mature and sophisticated and said that the universities would do well to consider that model, as opposed to their own points system, which I maintain is not necessarily the best model for entrance to a university. Entrance to the non-university sector colleges should be open-ended rather than closed. That does not mean that the places available in the non-university sector colleges and institutions are expandable ad infinitum; they are not, as the Minister will agree. Perhaps the Minister might propose an omnibus terminology for these non-university sector colleges and institutions. The regional colleges, certainly, are very conscious of the need to relate places available in colleges to employment potential. That has been their unashamed approach to this question and it is a sound approach, backed up, of course, with the availability of subjects for recurrent education.

This whole question of availability of places is becoming a serious problem in the university sector. Already we have proposals to reduce the number of medical places, to come more in line with the needs of a developing society. On the other hand, recently we have been made aware of the dreadful bottleneck caused by lack of certain technological graduates. The Minister has had to make certain moneys available for what are, in effect, crash courses. That is the reality of life here at present. The HEA have the overriding function in relation to the co-ordination of places in the university sector, which it is tackling in the context of——

The Deputy's amendment deals with standards, as far as I know. The Deputy is getting away from that subject.

Not really.

He certainly is broadening the subject very much.

I am not going into it in depth. I am merely comparing the question of standards which determine the availability of places, in the wider context. I shall confine myself to the non-university sector. There has been a mature attempt in the non-university colleges to provide sufficient places to do two things—first, to ensure, as much as possible, that the graduate will obtain employment, which is reasonable; secondly to ensure that the needs of the economy are met. There is a rather successful attempt at balancing these two needs. The college management make the assessment of the academic staff, perhaps through the academic council advising the board of management, governing body, or whatever, which is reflected in the decision of the governing body, or board of management, to offer so many places. This is, broadly, a successful approach to the problem of places.

We are now witnessing a subtle attempt by the Minister to change that approach, to give to the NCEA through the recommendations of the board of studies the right to set down arbitrary standards and so to change the whole basis of the entrance policy of these colleges and institutions. I oppose such a change in attitude by the Minister; I would oppose a change in attitude by the National Council for Educational Awards. I suggest that the present entrance policy is mature and is seen to be obviously successful; it should be continued. I am dubious about the reasons given for paragraph (f) of section 9 (4). Obviously the council will implement the standards and will dictate to the regional and technological colleges that they must have these standards. Slowly but surely we shall see a policy based on purely budgetary considerations; the National Council for Educational Awards will slowly but surely force up the entrance requirements to be somewhat equivalent or akin to those for the university sector.

I maintain that this will be based on budgetary considerations and will be complicated by the fact that the higher educational grant system will be modified perhaps in the White Paper or as a general election policy next year, and that the right to higher education grants will not be based so much on the results of the leaving certificate or matriculation as on the rights of entrance to the degree and diploma-type courses, whether in the university or non-university sector. There will be a corrective move educationally to recognise the need to give grants on a broader spectrum in relation to courses being undertaken by students and the grants will be based on the right of entry to the course rather than the number of honours gained in the leaving certificate.

That will be a change in criterion and an advance on the present position where some students, whose families are not well off and who are pursuing third level courses, are not entitled to higher education grants. That change will be met with a negative change to ensure that entrance into the non-university sector colleges will be forcibly controlled by the NCEA on economic grounds.

The Minister will attempt to refute my allegations and I will not be able to prove them here today, but time will prove which of us is right. In my view the recommendation powers given to the boards of study will manifest themselves up to the NCEA which will say to the various colleges "either you have those entrance standards or else". That will be a complete change of policy from the present position where the academic staff control entrance policy.

It would be very wrong to deprive colleges, through the boards of management down to the academic councils, down to the heads of departments, of the right of setting their own entrance standards and policy. This is an unnecessary interference with academic independence. This was an introduction of a system which came about, perhaps unplanned, when the RTCs were established but it was beneficial. I contend that the responsibility given to the colleges was used wisely and was very beneficial from the point of view of the esprit de corps existing in those colleges. They are pleased with their independence in relation to the policy for entrance and with their right to set their examinations and have them examined by external examiners. These are important things in the life of a college and should be preserved, encouraged and protected where they are seen to be successful.

What we have in this Bill is a very subtle attempt to take from the colleges the right to set their own standards for entrance to the various departments of study. I regret this and consider it unnecessary because the staff on the ground are aware of the academic needs for each course. They are also aware of the need to ensure that no potential student is drawn into the system who is not capable of completing the course. It is very important that the academic staff be given independence of thought and administration in this area. Therefore, I ask the Minister to omit section (f).

I rise on a point of order to ask whether we in this House are entitled to the protection of the Acts governing conditions in shops, office premises and factories in relation to conditions under which we work, because they are absolutely intolerable. If we were in one of the Minister's primary schools this morning we would be better off and the Minister knows that——

All my primary schools are well looked after.

The Chair feels the conditions as well as everybody else. I will refer the matter to the superintendent. I know he has done his best to try to provide heat but I will see if he can do any better.

On a point of order, I wish to support Deputy Horgan. I am freezing.

I am not as well upholstered as the Minister.

The Deputy means well thatched.

I will ask the superintendent if he can help us by increasing the heat.

We are all aware of the disease known as creeping infallibility. It affects ecclesiastical persons both in orders and out of orders. If we have in this Bill a situation which is another sort of creeping disease, a disease which will erode the rights of institutions to be flexible in relation to their admission requirements, and if the effect of the section as unamended is as Deputy Collins says, I believe it is very important that we should allow reasonable local flexibility in this area, I urge the Minister to reconsider the point made by Deputy Collins when proposing the amendment.

Having listened to Deputy Collins' contribution on this amendment, I am near despair. How anybody could have spent the time on Second Reading, Committee Stage, and Report Stage, up to this, and have such a total lack of understanding of the functions of the NCEA and of this part of the Bill, I cannot understand. I want to refer in passing to the Deputy's statement that the NCEA on economic grounds would make some decisions in future. Not since I came to this House have I heard a more stupid suggestion than that. In the context of what the council is, nobody who made any kind of study of the Bill could come out with a whopper like that. It bears no relation to the functions of the council. It is a disgrace to have made such a suggestion in the House. If the Deputy had read the Bill or had given any thought to it he would not have made a statement like that.

That is not the only thing that angers me. Deputy Collins misread this section. He had talked for a considerable length of time on his own amendment about something that is not in the section. If he reads the section he will see that what is being talked about is boards of studies and the standard required for admission to particular courses. Deputy Collins spent his time talking about standards for admission to institutions, which is a different thing altogether. I contend that the council and their board of studies would be in total dereliction of duty and cruel and unjust to potential students of institutions if they did not tell them the kind of equipment they should have before they embarked on a course which was being assessed and awarded by the NCEA. I have never listened to anything as superficial as the contribution on this amendment by Deputy Collins.

Deputy Horgan, who spoke briefly on it, was aware of the misreading of the section by Deputy Collins when he said "if its effects are what Deputy Collins says its effects might be". Deputy Horgan knew perfectly well that Deputy Collins was off beam on this section. The amendment is totally unacceptable.

Time will tell.

It is totally stupid.

The Minister's choice of words is unfortunate for a man in his position. Section 9 (4) (f) reads: "the standards required or proposed for admission to such courses...." That refers to the recommendation which may be made by the boards of studies to the council. I am suggesting that the boards of studies may recommend to the council certain standards for admission to a course; that the council in all probability will accept those standards and that the council may mandate the college only to accept——

Rubbish.

——students who have reached the necessary standard.

The Deputy knows it is rubbish.

If a board of studies recommend a standard of entrance to a course it is logical that the council would accept it and would, in turn, tell the colleges that the entrance standard will have to be adhered to. I see nothing illogical in that chain of events.

The Deputy is talking about admissions to institutions when the section refers to admission to courses.

Deputy Collins is replying. The Minister is, of course, entitled to his opinion.

Entrance to courses of study is similar to entrance to colleges. It is a relatively simple chain of events, but the Minister's chain broke somewhere along the line. There is something sinister in this apparently innocuous provision. It may be used for controlling entrance and the number attending the non-university colleges. My argument is that it is wrong to deprive the academic staff of colleges of the right to control entrance requirements. It is unnecessary interference in a system that is seen to be successful.

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

I move amendment No. 9:

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.".

I use this amendment to give me an opportunity to discuss the general wording in the Bill on the definition of standards. Section 9 (4) (g) reads:

Provided that a board of studies in making recommendations under this subsection in relation to the standard required or proposed for admission to a course for, or for the conferring, granting or giving of a degree, diploma, certificate or other educational award, shall have regard to any corresponding standard required by a university in the State and shall not recommend a standard which is lower than such a standard (if any).

I object to the use of the words "shall have regard to any corresponding standard required by a university in the State". We discussed this matter on Second and Committee Stages and I am merely putting down the amendment to repeat my opinion on the use of these words. There may be some courses which have no corresponding courses in the universities. In any event, the courses on offer may vary. Many of the courses on offer in the non-university sector are a radical departure from courses on offer in our universities. I suggest the use of the words "shall have regard to standards applying nationally and internationally and shall not recommend a standard which is lower.". The council should look at the standards applying nationally in a university or those applicable to a professional or trade institute and then look abroad for comparable standards. It should then say that there are standards available for a particular course in Ireland, in America or in Europe but the standards used in, for example, France are the ones we would like to see in Ireland. Based on a logical thorough examination of the situation they should set the standards.

The Minister did not attach much importance to the use of words. When one reads Alice in Wonderland one has to look at the words on a number of occasions and then decide how to interpret them. It is important in wording a Bill to have words which are most suitable to the Bill. I am convinced that the use of the words "nationally" and "internationally" are a better choice of words than those in the Bill. It would be wiser to have them because they have a wider interpretation and they are more meaningful in the context of the NCEA.

We went fully into this point when we were dealing with the Bill on Committee Stage. I went to some considerable length to indicate why the word was used at all in the context. Like the medieval philosophers I started off by saying why it was not there. I did not mean in any way that the university ethos would be superimposed on this very important third level area. I pointed out to the House that the only reason for its use was to indicate the type of prestige award that we were aiming at and which in the ad hoc situation we had achieved.

The whole area of standards is a difficult one. I made use of the adjective analogous in the context to make it clear to the House and, through the House to everybody dealing with the council, that we were in no way importing a different ethos into this domain. This is something we should be aware of. We are inclined to speak of the technological and university sector as being strictly dichotomous but it is not. While in many European countries one will not find technological faculties or departments in the old universities, in Ireland we have a considerable technological section in all the universities and in the university colleges. It is for that reason that I want to insist that in this area and with this council we are in a different position and a different council and are in no way indicating that the university will dictate its ethos in this sphere.

The reference to universities in this State could be regarded as a little restrictive but only if we look at it in the terms in which Deputy Collins looked at it—in specifics. I said originally that we were not interested in the specifics of it; we were just indicating the type of standard and prestige we want for this totally distinct and individual award given by the NCEA. In an earlier part of the debate Deputy Horgan referred to the reference in the CNAA in Britain. The wording used is:

ensuring that the degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic awards and distinctions granted and conferred by the Council in the subjects assigned to the Committee are comparable in standard to awards granted and conferred by universities.

The fact that it is in this charter is no reason why it should be in this Bill. I mentioned it to indicate to the House that "by universities" are the two words used. It is simply in the same field and with the same objective that it is used in connection with the CNAA. I do not need to add any more to what I have said. The universities in the State are recognised internationally and consequently the idea of international recognition is, at least as we say it in Irish, intuigthe from the use of the words "university in the State". All the universities on the island are recognised internationally as are their achievements and standards.

The Minister has a sneaking regard for my amendment.

All my regards are nonsneaking.

The Minister has a small doubt as to the use of the words "university in the State". I think he would prefer "standard required by a university". That is what I gathered from what he said. It would be a better use of words and would be better than taking the narrow definition. We must look at the Bill in specific terms as well as in general terms. The word "universities" or "university" would have been a better choice than "university in the State" which is extremely narrow.

The Minister is very committed to the binary system and therefore to the evolution of the non-university sector. I would have thought he would have been happy to use a different phraseology in the context of the Bill. My amendment is more logical and would lead to a wider interpretation by the council in relation to standards. Now they will only be allowed to look at standards applicable to a university in the State. The importation of the university ethos which the Minister said is not happening is happening. The comparisons allowed to the council in respect of standards under this section are confined to standards applicable to a university in the State. That is a fact whether considered generally or specifically. The only comparisons the council may make are those with a university in the State. That is not what was intended originally and certainly is not desirable because it is too narrow. I would suggest that the word "universities" would be a better substitution for the words "a university in the State". If the Minister is not favourably disposed to my use of the words "nationally and internationally", I suggest that he propose some amendment now eliminating the words "in the State", merely leaving the word "university" as a general comparison.

I made it clear, seeing that the universities in the State are recognised internationally, that the term is far more expansive than would appear at first sight.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, to delete lines 32 to 36 and insert:

"(b) The Director may submit to the Council for consideration such recommendations regarding the functions of the Council as he shall consider appropriate.".

This amendment relates to the powers of the director and his importance vis-á-vis the council as a whole. We had considerable discussion on section 10 on Second Stage and again in Committee. Deputy Horgan put down an amendment which I fully supported and approved and which I thought we would be considering on Report Stage. I regret his amendment is not being considered, because it was an appropriate one. That leaves standing my amendment. I am endeavouring to say in my amendment that the director “may”, not “shall” submit to the council for consideration such recommendations as distinct from the proposals regarding the functions of the council as he shall consider appropriate. I am eliminating subsection (3) (c) of the section as it stands.

The wording of section 10 gives the impression that the director has a pre-eminence in the Bill and has a superior standing to that of the council. I was somewhat taken aback when we were discussing the question of residency that the Minister stated that the real powerhouse of the Bill lay in the boards of studies. The real powerhouse of this Bill is and should be the council. They should be the pre-eminent arm because they constitute the policy-making body; nobody else, no other board of studies should have pre-eminence over them. The wording of the section gives the impression that the director is the bossman, the big chief, is the person around whom revolves the future of the council and the direction the council will take. That is wrong. The director is an employee of the council. He is paid a salary, has certain functions to carry out under the council and under the council's direction. He is merely an employee and should be seen to be such under this section. The wording of the Bill clearly gives pre-eminence to the director, his functions, his duty, position, potential, dictatorial powers not alone in section 10 but elsewhere. That is wrong and I feel it will damage the standing of the council and the relative freedom its members feel they should have under the Bill.

My amendment was defeated; that is why we could not have it again.

I think we have gone over this ground already. The case has been made, of course, of the importance of the director's post. In his various contributions on the matter Deputy Collins seemed to be of the opinion that the director was being given too much power. The director, in his capacity as the chief officer of the council, has an obligation to put suggestions before the council.

I want to make it quite clear that, while I am adhering to the word "shall" the very fact that the council have to consider suggestions or proposals does not in any way bind the council. The council are at liberty to assess, discuss, debate, accept or reject what comes from the director. This being so, the whiphand is that of the council all the time. I see no danger whatsoever to the integrity, independence or freedom of action of the council in their having to consider what comes before them from the director so long as the right to accept, reject or modify rests with the council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

"11.—(1) The Council shall appoint a Registrar whose functions shall be to establish and maintain all the records, minutes, decisions and correspondance of the Council.

(2) The appointment of the Registrar shall be on such terms and conditions as the Council shall decide, and he or she shall be an officer of the Council and may be removed only by a special resolution of the Council.

(3) The Registrar may resign his office by giving six months' notice in writing to the Council.

(4) The Registrar shall have the right to be present at all meetings of the council and any such other meetings as the Registrar shall see fit.

(5) The Registrar shall convene meetings of the Council.

(6) The Registrar shall maintain a register of awards made by the Council".

I consider this amendment of great importance to the Bill. We are here establishing a National Council for Educational Awards which will have the responsibility of the non-university sector, the standards and the granting of awards, indeed the overall co-ordination of the sector. Such a body, with award-giving powers, should have a registrar which office should be a protected office under the Bill. It should have its legal position quite clearly stated in the Bill, with its functions and duties being clearly set out. To my mind the omission from this Bill of the office of registrar is a major one. Nevertheless it is an omission which can be rectified now and, if done, will improve considerably the quality of the Bill.

There should be a registrar whose function should be to establish and maintain all records, minutes, decisions and correspondence of the council. That is extremely important. The director is the chief officer who has many functions and duties to carry out. The present incumbent of the office does trojan work. The burden of the director's work should be kept within certain limits. He should be removed from the function of keeping records of awards made and decisions taken by the council. The keeping of records is of vital importance in an institution responsible for the awarding of degrees, certificates and diplomas and, therefore, should be the responsibility of a special person. There are registrars in our universities, which is as it should be, but the council, which will be carrying out similar functions to the universities in that it will be awarding degrees, certificates and diplomas, will not have a registrar. I suggest that the Minister reconsider his decision and create the separate office of registrar to the council.

We discussed this matter earlier. It is interesting to note that the original advertisement for the appointment of the director mentioned the functions of registrar in connection with the director. However, that does not mean that in the future the council will not have a registrar. I should like to tell the House that there are eight authorised posts of assistant registrar. If the Deputy reads section 11 (1) he will see that there is provision for the council to appoint such members of staff as it thinks fit, subject to the sanction of the Ministers for Education and the Public Service. In order to remove some of the fears mentioned by Deputy Collins about lack of provision in this area, I should like to mention that that subsection covers all posts. It means that there is power in the Bill to appoint a registrar, if the council wishes and if that appointment is approved by the Ministers concerned.

I sympathise with the motives behind Deputy Collins's amendment which is a perfectly valid one. The Minister's approach is ironic in that he says that there is no problem at all about the council appointing a registrar in its own good time, but the position of registrar is important. For that reason it would be no harm to write such an appointment into the Bill, as suggested. I am also aware that there are eight assistant registrars operating within the NCEA. It is faintly ludicrous to have eight assistants to a person who does not exist because, as far as I am aware, the NCEA does not have a registrar at present. Is it intended to appoint a registrar?

Deputy Horgan was engaged in conversation with the Fine Gael Chief Whip when I was making the point that the original advertisement covered director and registrar. In effect, the people mentioned are assistants to the registrar who is also the director.

I accept the existence of the assistant registrars and that the council may create the position of registrar in its general functions, but that should not be left to the discretion of the council. Generally speaking, that is a protected office and the functions and duties of a registrar should be specified in the Bill. It should be seen to be a statutory office as is the office of director. It is important that the office of registrar is established from the outset to safeguard the records of the council and co-ordinate the safe-keeping of correspondence, minutes of council meetings, council decisions and awards.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 11, after line 44, to insert the following:

"(3) Where an order under this section is proposed to be made, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

In the amendment I am seeking to ensure that any order which the Minister revokes or amends is brought before the House. An original order is brought before the House and it would be only proper parliamentary procedure to insert a provision whereby an amended or revoked order is also brought before the House. Earlier in the Bill there is a mechanism whereby an order must come before the House. An order whereby the Minister designates a new college or school as being an institute to which this Bill applies, or any amendment to that order, should come before the House. That is good parliamentary procedure.

An order under section 20 will entail consultation with the council by the Minister; it will involve consultation with any other Minister concerned, and finally it will entail consultation with the Minister for the Public Service. This means that two and sometimes three or more—depending on the areas of interest—responsible bodies will have to be consulted. Indeed, the higher educational authority might have to be consulted as well, on occasion. There is sufficient onus on the Minister to consult to obviate the necessity of the procedure envisaged by Deputy Collins's amendment. Provision is made for a resolution of the House in connection with other orders but in this matter it would not be necessary to bring it before the House. It will not help in speeding up the process. For that reason the amendment is unnecessary.

Deputy Collins referred to the provision for this procedure elsewhere in the Bill. In section 20 there is no way that the order affects the work or functions of the council. It is simply connected with designating another institution which would come under the council. There is a fundamental difference in what the ministerial order does in the two cases. Under the procedure in section 20 there is no need to come before the House as suggested in the amendment.

When we spoke on Committee Stage I said that while I supported the thought behind Deputy Collins's amendment, it was perhaps a little heavy for the situation envisaged. It is important that orders made under this section should be laid before the House in a negative sense, that is, providing that the order should take effect unless a resolution disallowing or disapproving of it is passed by either House.

The Minister made much of the consultation process that must be gone through before an order is made but it only means effectively that after consultation only two people have an effective right to say yes or no, in this case the Minister for Education, and in staffing or financial matters the Minister for the Public Service. The Minister argued that such a process of consultation could not involve such a degree of irresponsibility that he would make an order which would need to be challenged in the House. Will the Minister accept that there is responsibility on this side of the House also? If the Minister were prepared to consider between now and sending the Bill to the Seanad the possibility of putting in a negative order section which would require him to put down an order and have the order pass into law automatically, unless a disapproving motion were passed in either House, that would meet the point. Whatever our views about the merits of the cases involved it is open to the Minister under this Bill to designate an institution after such consultation without the consent of the institution concerned. In the extremely unlikely situation of that arising, it should be open to Members of the House to decide whether the institution concerned has a case and whether that case ought to be answered by the Minister in the House. The Members of the House should have the freedom to put down a disapproving motion to any such order made by the Minister. Will the Minister think about this again before he steers the Bill through the Seanad?

I accept that section 20 does not affect in essence the functions of the council. I accept that there is a difference between this and the order which the Minister has to make under section 3. An order designating a school, college or institute of education will not be made every day, but when the Minister wants to designate a new college it is only right that he should come before the House with an order. At least the procedure should be accepted that where a Minister designates a new educational institute or college as being an institute or college to which this Bill applies, it is good parliamentary procedure to come before the House with such an order or with any amendment to such an order. It at least recognises the Parliament in relation to major matters. I would ask the Minister to reconsider my amendment as it is non-political and is merely to ensure good parliamentary procedure.

Will the Minister have another look at it before the Seanad?

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related to amendment No. 13 and these three amendments may be debated together.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 13, line 3, to delete "Director and such number of other members" and insert "such number of members".

The reason for amendment No. 13 is primarily to exclude the director from being a member of boards of studies. The director has a vast amount of work to do without being a member of what will be numerous boards of studies inquiring into a vast variety of subjects possibly at similar times. The second reason is that the director is himself a member of the council and will, with the other members of the council, be considering the report of a board of studies. He should, therefore, have an open mind about the matter especially because he is director. I take it that members of the council will still be eligible to be members of boards of studies simply because some of them may have some specialised knowledge of a field of study and certainly they should quite properly be members of boards of study. I accept that, but the director is in a peculiar situation in that he is chief executive of the council and he should be slightly removed from the boards of study and from the general problems that arise. He should be able to take an outside look at the problems as they arise and give his independent opinion about matters. His freedom will be somewhat curtailed if he is forced to be a member of boards of studies. He should be left back up in the council so as to be able to look into the procedures and be involved in the consideration of various problems at council level. He should be slightly removed from the boards of studies. I ask the Minister to agree to this amendment.

I would prefer my own formula to that of Deputy Collins. There is not a great deal of difference between them except that my amendment No. 15 is a clarificatory amendment which is designed for the avoidance of doubt, to make sure that the director would have the right to attend meetings of boards of studies if he should so wish. We have introduced a bad principle into the Bill by making the director a member of the council. That is fundamentally wrong and it is unnecessary. Not only is he a member of the council with all that it entails, not only is he director with all the responsibility that that entails, but he is also, the Minister has reminded the House, the registrar. He is going to be the Fionn Mac Cumhaill of Irish educational administration.

Do not forget that he tasted of the bradán fiosach.

He did, but would the present director do so? He is a man for whose energies the Minister and some of his colleagues have had reason to be grateful in the past.

And I presume the Deputy means the nation.

If the Minister means that service to Fianna Fáil is good for the nation.

What is good for Fianna Fáil is good for the country.

That is the view of the old sage who first caught the bradán fiosach.

It is almost too much to expect us to correct this what I believe is a fundamental mistake in the Bill with this very small amendment but it is a small point that would be worth taking.

Just as the president of University College is ex officio a member of all the boards of studies, we thought that to incorporate into the Bill this power for the director would help him to see that the council's policy with regard to the boards of studies would be followed through. Also he would be a kind of link man, thus making for more efficiency in the assessing of courses and the decision to make awards for them.

Deputy Horgan made the point earlier in this debate that pressure was very heavy on the director. He made that point again today and I accept it, but it is important that the potential of acting on the boards of studies should be there. I did agree on an earlier stage that he could not possibly attend all the meetings but the fact that his office would be aware of what the boards of studies are doing is important for the proper functioning of this Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration.
Top
Share