Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1980

Vol. 95 No. 4

Thomond College of Education, Limerick, Bill, 1980: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Professor Murphy

Senator Séamus de Brún spoke the last day and I joined with him and Senator Andy O'Brien in welcoming the Bill. Senator de Brún is hankering after times that will never come again. He said he deplored the present habit of students to protest and revolt as soon as they were, in his words, "privileged to have a third level education". No sooner did that happen than they started complaining about the circumstances in which they were going to college. Senator de Brún may not have heard of it, but students no longer regard education as a privilege, they demand it as a right. For too long education was the privilege of very few. It is not yet the privilege of half enough people. If the prices of meals are too high, or if fees are put up out of the range of grants, then students are perfectly entitled to protest.

I share Senator de Brún's welcome for the Bill because we have here a new kind of institute, a new, modern, streamlined, method of training primary teachers. The position of students in Thomond College is an enviable one. It is an extremely well-equipped college and we could say about those students "Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire". The National University had some contact with Thomond College. It was not a very happy experience. As the Minister said the last day, it was no fault of the NUI but it underlines the fact that the best body to handle and validate the degrees of these institutions is the NCEA and not the NUI.

Limerick is lucky in the context of Thomond, Mary Immaculate and the National Institute for Higher Education. When one considers the agitation that went on 15 years ago when there were cries for Limerick's right to a university, the Government were very well advised then to resist such clamour because it was in the best interests of the people of Limerick that they were not given a poor relation, imitation university and that they were given the realisation of the best concepts of modern third level education. I welcome the Bill. I am sorry that the infant days of Thomond were marred by an unfortunate dispute. It is enough to say, perhaps, that there were not proper communications established. That was a cause of a lot of the trouble. I hope nothing of that kind will recur.

I regret I cannot give the Bill an unqualified welcome. After all, it may be the last occasion on which I will be able to congratulate the Minister. If that sounds ambiguous, I mean it to be. In the first place I may not be able to congratulate him if he is here to bring in the Universities Bill, and more and more my misgivings grow on that score. There is also the possibility, as rumour has it, that we may not see him wearing his educational cap and gown for long more and that he will shortly be in partibus infidelium which I recommend to him as a nice, free translation of Iveagh House.

I express the same unease to which I gave voice during the debate on the National Institute, Limerick, Bill and the National Institute, Dublin, Bill. I am sorry to be repetitious, but it is a very serious matter. The more I listen to people and the more I sound out opinions, the greater my sense of unease. Not only does the letter of these Bills threaten undue Departmental interference, but there are responsible people in the institutes concerned who believe that this interference will be translated into practice. Perhaps if we have grounds for misgivings about the draft of Bills in general, there are probably even more grounds for misgivings about Thomond in particular, because Thomond is about teacher training. It is not primarily about research, it is not primarily about post-graduate skills, and so Thomond does not have the larger brief that the national institutes have, and is more likely to suffer from ministerial interference, if we accept that there is such.

Is the Minister's Department already playing a tougher role in Thomond than elsewhere? Would he be concerned if he thought that this were so? Would he do something about it? Paradoxically, would he interfere in these early and crucial years to stop interference? There is specifically a fear that with the recurrent phrases "with the permission of the Minister", "subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe", and so on, every name put up for appointment and every name put up for membership of the governing body will be gone into with a fine comb.

Oddly enough, I do not express the same specific misgivings about the governing body on this occasion. I am delighted to see that, in respect of section 5, the composition of the governing body as I make it out in my crude calculations tots up to seven people appointed under ministerial influence out of 23, a welcome and starting contrast to the position in the case of the two national institutes. I welcome that. I am not complaining about it, but naturally I am curious as to why this should be so in the case of the Thomond Bill and not in the case of the other two Bills.

On the question of the composition of the governing body, it seems very curious that there is only the slightest and most nominal representation from the universities. Why bother having one member representing the universities? It would be more logical, perhaps, to have none at all. Why specifically are there members from AnCO and not, say, from the National College of Art and Design or an Comhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta, because there has been a real input into Thomond from rural science? I know this because two of my own colleagues in UCC have been active in building up a four year BSc programme. My quarrel is not with the method of selection of the governing body as such, but rather with its composition.

Mr. Wilson

I cannot win.

Professor Murphy

Of course the Minister can. That is what the Minister is there for.

There is also the information that the Higher Education Authority has recently circulated a letter to this institution and to the national institutes, demanding that appointments will have to be ratified by the HEA in all cases. Once again I suggest to the Minister that it is undesirable that the appointments system should be influenced by outside agencies, least of all by the civil service itself. Once you set up a body and give it the dignity of a statutory existence, once you constitute a governing body and academic council, surely trust is of the essence. How can there be credibility attached to appointing bodies if their decisions are open to reversal for no — to them — apparent good reason? If Thomond recruits the services of reputable external academic assessors for a particular appointment and if, subsequent to the appointment being made it is cancelled by, say, the civil service or the HEA for some such reason as, for example, that the particular candidate does not seem to have the conventional qualifications, it could quite be in question that a man might be appointed who has no degree but who is of such remarkable stature that any imaginative appointing body would grab the chance of getting him. This is the kind of case where one could easily have the decision upended by, let us say, the more staid and conventional agencies outside. There is unease about that particular aspect, not only in respect of Thomond but of the other institutions as well.

As the Minister knows, and as was raised in the other House, there is some misgiving also that section 4 of the Bill does not authorise Thomond to institute post-graduate courses. This is seen, naturally enough, as an indication of further Departmental interference, that the omission of this post-graduate provision is deliberate, that the Minister, so to speak, wants to monitor each application for a post-graduate course.

My colleagues on the last day, on Committee Stage of the National Institute, (Dublin), Bill began, at a certain stage when the Minister responded very positively to the points we were making, to say to me sotto voce“that is enough now, leave him off the hook, it is not fair to be harassing him like that.” I am sorry to be harassing him but I think that this Bill, in common with other Bills we have been debating, raises the most crucial and, if I may say so, unanswered questions. Having said all that, I say with equal sincerely go néirí go geal leis an institiúd nua.

Mr. Howard

Coming from the area of the mid-west, I feel that there are a few observations that I should make on the Bill that we are now discussing and as the Minister has told us that the purpose of the Bill is to establish on a statutory basis the Thomond College of Education in Limerick, I would like to say that I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill. I welcome the establishment of the college. There is one aspect of the Bill about which I do have reservations and which I will come to in due course. I welcome the college's work in providing courses in physical education, fulfilling, if you like, what was an unfilled want in the educational field in this country. Previous to this there did not exist a national college for physical education. The coming into existence of Thomond College in Limerick meets that need and closes the gap that existed there, and it is to be welcomed also on that account. I welcome the fact that it is providing courses in special study and in-service courses, as they are described, for teachers.

Thomond College opened in 1973, and in the period since then it has proved its worth and shown its value and the teachers who have emerged from it have gone on to make a very valuable contribution in the communities and schools to which they went. I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged in his speech that it must be the aim that the standard of the people emerging from Thomond College will be on a level at least with those emerging from similar institutions and colleges in Britain and in Europe. I also welcome the decision to have a rural science programme in due course in Thomond College.

It is only right that I should compliment the board of management that has been there and the college director who guided the destinies of the college since 1973. Their efforts have indeed been worthwhile and have been reflected in the facilities, in the buildings and the developments that we have seen at Thomond College. I am confident that when the available land is developed fully and integrated into the system in Thomond College, in fact we will have a showpiece in that particular field of education that we can all be immensely proud of.

I believe that with the right guidance, with the right initiative and the right commitment and financial resources the progress that has been made can be multiplied several times over. I have mentioned initiative, commitment, financial resources, and I think it is absolutely important that we recognise that all these are needed in toto and that we should reject anything that would in any way imperil or impede the full application of these qualities.

Some months ago we had a discussion on the NIHE Limerick Bill and there were two major areas of contemplation when we discussed that Bill. First of all, there was the composition of the governing body and secondly, the overpowering presence of the Minister and the Department in the day-to-day administration of that institution.

I am glad to say with regard to the first one — that is the composition of the governing body — that it is not necessary to make the same arguments that I and others made on that occasion. There is certainly an improvement in the balance, and the insistence of the Minister then on appointing or being in a position to influence the appointment of the majority of the members of the governing body is not there to the same extent in this present Bill. I want to say that I welcome that.

On the other issue, what to me appears to be the overpowering influence and presence of the Minister and the Department in the operation and in fact in the day-to-day running of the college is very much in evidence again here, because right through the Bill you have phrases such as "as may be determined by the Minister"'; "subject to the approval of the Minister", "such conditions as the Minister may prescribe", "the Minister may by order revoke", "if the Minister considers appropriate", "with the consent off the Minister", "with the concurrence of the Minister", and "if approved by the Minister".

Having read the Bill and having been confronted with these phrases in relation to every worthwhile task that the governing body would be expected to perform I think it is quite legitimate to ask what really can the governing body do on its own responsibility and on its own good faith? I want to ask the question: what can be more calculated to imperil bold, courageous, imaginative planning than as it were to have this continuous series of restraints imposed upon the people charged with guiding the destinies of the institution? What can choke initiative and what can stifle progress more than to have a body of people charged with a certain task operating under the shadow that there is somebody there who is in a position to say "no"?

Now, is there a theory somewhere that the people who will eventually be appointed to this governing body will be lacking in some way or, on the other hand will be reckless and irresponsible, that we believe that it is necessary to surround them with this litany of constraints and safeguards? I would for my part be prepared to make an act of faith in the sincerity, competence and the commitment of people who are likely to come on to this body to do what in their honest opinion and in their judgment is right and proper for the success and the development of the college. I would not tie to them, as it were, this impediment that we introduce constantly throughout the Bill.

I want to attempt to visualise what is the atmosphere, what is the attitude prevailing at a meeting of this governing body when they are convinced that there are certain steps, certain developments that should be taken in the interest of the college? If they believe in their hearts that a particular course of action is right, they have not the freedom to proceed to put that course of action into effect. They have continually to balance with it the thought: "Is this going to be acceptable; how much of it will he wear or will the Department wear; and in what way can we shorten it or alter it or tailor it to the point where it will gain ministerial or departmental acceptance?" I believe that is a wrong and faulty basis on which to start out in relation to this particular institution or college or to other similar ones.

Therefore, while I welcome the decision to establish on a statutory basis the Thomond College of Education in Limerick, while I commend all involved in it and all associated with it and all who had any part to play in it and the remarkable success and achievements that have been there to date, I will finish by emphasising that I certainly object to and I cannot see the necessity for introducing this continuous encirclement of safeguards and restraints on the freedom of action of the governing body of an academic institution such as this.

Professor Martin

I want to make just a few points, because the Minister has listened with great patience to our comments on not only this Bill but the NIHE Dublin Bill. In a way the tide of rhetoric has been flowing in the same direction. I would like to make a point in sympathy with the Minister and the Bill, and that is in relation to section 12. I make it as a symbolic point, not as a Committee Stage point, in regard to where he says the governing body shall, as soon as may be after the end of each academic year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report of its proceedings during the year. The governing body then shall supply the Minister with such information regarding the performance of its functions as he may from time to time require.

That is an admirable provision but it does not appear an admirable provision because the involvement of the Minister in every phase of the Bill is such that a sensible provision like that takes on a sinister colouring. The Bill is badly drafted, it seems to me, in that it gives far more prominence and menace to the ministerial presence than I think even the Minister, especially this Minister, would want. On the other hand, it seems to me that the reason for such a provision as that is fairly clear because some of these institutes for higher education have shown once or twice in their history a tendency to kick over the traces and exercise an independence from the normal obligations.

Professor Murphy

Like UCD?

Professor Martin

Like UCD — do you mean as UCD?

Professor Murphy

No, I mean American colloquial "like UCD".

Professor Martin

I do not speak that demonic tongue, I am afraid.

Mr. Wilson

I think there are possibilities here for me.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Martin to continue without interruption.

Professor Martin

One of the things that I had in mind did not involve UCD at all. It involved UCC. When NIHE in Limerick was under the tutelage, fosterage of UCC certain crises arose and conflicts which were far from edifying. UCC actually played quite an honourable role in that matter. It is important that an institute of higher education anywhere must be accountable to the people and as a representative of the people in this case, to the Minister. I find that all right. My chief objection to the Bill would be that it seems to me an extremely neurotic Bill, a Bill in which you are trying to batten down the hatches against every possible outbreak of irresponsibility on the part of the institution involved. One thing is missing from it. It is this — and it is the most old-fashioned idea in the world — that any seat of learning, be it a university, a national school or a secondary school, depends for its efficacy on the people who are in it and the students who have passed through it and the links between those students and their teachers, the links between the past and the present, in other words its own genius loci, its own sense of its worth.

Therefore, I think one of the reasons why institutions which have been set up in our own time, in this enlightened age of ours, frequently come into collision with the media and the public and the Government and civil service is that they are not allowed to develop their own sense of loyalty and continuity. How, for instance, has such an obsolete system as the English public school system survived through so many Labour governments in England? How is it that they dare not lay hands on Eton and Harrow and such institutions? They seem obsolete. I will tell you why: because those schools have built up such loyalty among their past pupils whom they bring back and put on the board of governors, all their alumni; in other words it becomes a great centre of learning because people love it, because it is allowed the ability to foster its own people. So, even in the most hostile atmosphere these institutions survive.

Mr. Wilson

There was a rumour that

Eton was moving to County Cork — ahead of the posse.

Professor Martin

With the change of Taoiseach it is unlikely that that is going to happen now. They may move to Kinsealy. The point I am making is this, that on the board of the governors there is no specific provision made for the past students of the institution, for those people who come out of the institution and would be very keen to be on its board of governors. The sense of continuity is not there. Therefore, the people who are going to be the loyal to the institution, jealous for its good name, anxious for the perpetuation of its values, the people who would be valuable in that respect will find that there is no formal provision made for the alumni, the past pupils, for the graduates of these institutions. I do not say they are excluded because they can come in under other banners of these institutions and be on the governing body. I think that is a serious human deprivation.

We pretend as we go on through civilisation and develop that we keep on learning and improving. We do not: we forget sometimes the most important things in the past. The thing that has preserved universities and colleges, even national schools, even the most humble forms of educational ministry has always been that principle of continuity, the fact that is an alma mater in the sense that the people whom you put through it have a loyalty to it, that you earn their loyalty, that you cultivate their further interest.

That is the serious lack in the Bill. It is a rather cold Bill. It looks as if everything is going to be organised by a Minister and then by civil servants, but the dynamism, the inner inspirational quality of the institution itself seems to me to have no kind of profile in the Bill at all. That is a defect. It may be a defect that has arisen from a failure of confidence because of a few unfortunate instances, most recently between the Department of Education and one or two of these institutions, between the universities and one or two of these institutions. The answer to that difficulty. I think, is not to curtail the autonomy of the institutions but actually to foster it and to give it a better chance to develop itself.

That would be my prime objection to the Bill. I suppose the Minister is weary listening to this point being reiterated in different forms. The fact that it is being reiterated must mean that there is some validity in it.

Mr. McGuinness

I welcome the statutory setting of this college particularly in the field of teacher training because we come from a tradition of not so very long ago, not so many years ago, when there was very heavy-handed control of teacher training in this country, where teachers were, to a larger extent, trained as though they were allowed to come out and teach our children with a very limited experience of life. The fact that this college of education is being established in the way it is is an important sign of the times in the development of teacher training so that teachers are trained as adult people and in a much more modern fashion than they were in the past. It is to be welcomed that this college is to set up in the way that it is.

Nevertheless, I must, at the risk of being repetitive, share some of Senator Murphy's disquiet about the necessity for ministerial approval in so many ways. This again is a point which was made by Senator Whitaker in the debate on the Dublin NIHE and indeed on previous Bills of the same kind, in particular with regard to section 9 which deals with the appointment of people and also of their terms and conditions of employment. Previous speakers have said enough about the kind of principles of independence involved in this but I would like to say something about the practicalities of this, because I have personal experience of working on a body analogous to a governing body were all terms and conditions of employment have to have the approval of the civil service department. It makes for a very great practical difficulties, particularly where changes of terms and conditions of employment arise. I have in fact found myself in the Labour Court in the invidious position of being the employer who is technically opposed to applications by staff which I really approve but which I am not allowed to approve of by the Department who are looking over my shoulder. I am aware that this has happened with regard to the Minister's own Department, for instance, in the Institute of Advanced Studies. The same situation arose with the Labour Court there.

It can lead to unjust delays and difficulties when there is this need for a kind of niggling approval all the time. Also, it does not state in the Bill whether they mean a prior approval by the Minister or subsequent approval by the Minister. If if it is subsequent approval one can get the invidious situation which Senator Murphy is referring to that somebody could be appointed and then dis-appointed afterwards. If it is prior approval that is meant it can lead, with no ill-will at all on the part of the Department concerned, to very considerable delays. This applies also to the terms and conditions of employment. It is not necessarily that the Department of Education will wish to make difficulties but simply that they have a great deal of work on their hands and these things can get pushed to one side. You look around and you find it is three years ago you applied for this particular approval and it has not happened yet.

It is rather impracticable apart from being undesirable in principle to look for all this Ministerial approval particularly where you have the Minister for Public Service joined in also and perhaps the Higher Education Authority. All this approval is just not practicable, and it would be much better just to allow your governing body to be a reasonable body of persons and let them make their own decisions.

I agree with the point made by Senator Martin that there is a need for public accountability where public money is being spent and where these institutions have a responsibility to the people but I think it could be covered by general accountability as by the provision of a report and as by general oversight of expenditure. I feel that there is not really this need for piecemeal approval everytime anyone wants to make any move whatsoever.

Aire Oideachais (Mr. Wilson)

An chéad rud is mian liom a rá ná mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Senanadóirí. Mar is dual, do chuireadar smaointe romham, smaointe fiúntacha, cé nár aontaiodar liom i gcuid mhaith des na rudaí a dúradh san óráid a thug mé nuair a bhí mé ag tosnú ar an Dara Léamh.

Senator O'Brien, who had contributed to the discussion on the National Institute for a Higher Education Dublin, Bill drew again on his experience as a member of the vocational education committee to strengthen his welcome for the Bill seeing that he has serious difficulty in getting for his own vocational education committee trained metal work teachers and physical education teachers. He mentioned something which I fear is a fact, that physical education had been to a great extent neglected in our schools. Now, this Bill is giving statutory backing to a very fine physical education college, the National College of Physical Education incorporated in the larger concept of Thomond which covers both physical education teachers and the specialist teachers of woodwork, metalwork, building construction and engineering workshop theory and practice.

He paid to the tribute to the Gaelic Athletic Association in rural Ireland which provided a great deal of physical exercise of school life, and other athletic organisations, of course, did this in other schools in other areas.

He also welcomed the large physical education centres where he thought that the teachers from Thomond will also have a role to play. His final remark was about rural science. I will correct Senator Howard, who seems to think that the rural science courses for teachers have not started yet; they have; they started in this academic year 1979-80.

D'fháiltigh an Seanadóir de Brún roimh an mBille seo agus do mhol sé é mar chéim ar aghaidh ionas go mbeadh na múinteoirí go léir oilte ar, mar a dúirt sé, chomhchéim staidis agus is dóigh liom, go háirithe ón dtuath go bhfuil sé sin ana-thábhachtach. Dúirt sé gur thaithin sin leis na múinteoirí, agus rud maith é dos na daltaí freisin. Dúirt sé san am a chuaigh thart gur oileadh múinteoirí ar chúrsaí ghearra a riaraigh na coistí agus an Roinn Oideachais ach diaidh ar dhiaidh go raibh na cúrsaí sin ag dul i bhfaide agus sa deireadh go raibh sé sásta leis an rud atá á dhéanamh againn anseo i gColáiste Thuamhumhan.

Senator de Brun's statement with regard to this in the light of what has happened recently in Thomond. If Senator Martin was referring to that dispute the Department of Education was not concerned with it all. It was a matter between the students and the administration of the college. I am glad to say that that whole dispute has now been settled and we hope it will not recur. Senator Murphy referred to it and said there was a certain lack of communication. I examined the case fairly closely and I did not see that there was any justification for refusal to take an examination because I was convinced by the statements I had heard from students whom I met privately and from correspondence with the college that it was indicated as early as 1978 that this examination would have to be taken by the students. There was a misunderstanding, and nearly all misunderstandings are due to some inadequacy in communication. I am glad that the dispute was settled. I took it that Senator de Brun's remarks were made in that context rather than in a general context.

I would be in agreement with Senator Murphy that student input into the education debate has been of considerable interest. One did not have to agree with all the proposals put forward by students but, in the sense of the irritation making the pearl in the oyster or the gadfly that Socrates talked about producing some action from thought, the students have performed a useful role provided, of course, that they adhere to their own arguments and concentrate on them rather than being wheeled away by extraneous matters or sometimes flippant matters.

professor Martin

I should like to say that, as the Minister was kind enough to mention by name, it was not that I was referring to. I was referring to the contretemps that occurred between NIHE Limerick about two years ago, the validation of degrees, the investigation of their processes, the bringing in of the Strathclyde, and the tension between NIHE and Cork and so on. That was really what I had in mind.

Professor Murphy

I had something else in mind but I will not go into it.

Mr. Wilson

I understood that the words used by Senator Martin were with reference to the Department of Education being in conflict. In Opposition, and in Government, I made it clear what my own policy was with regard to the validation in the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick and I cannot be accused of being inconsistent in that.

Professor Martin

No such accusation was made.

Mr. Wilson

Although inconsistency has its virtues, they say. Senator Murphy referred — I am in full agreement with him — to the excellent physical conditions obtaining in Thomond College. He said, "aoibhinn beatha an scoláire." What we want to do is to come on with the next line, that they will be "ag déanamh léinn". There is no doubt, and the house is fully aware of it, that it is a beautiful site along the banks of the Shannon, that the grounds are extensive not just merely adequate. The buildings are good and purpose-built and there is no excuse why both a pleasant and profitable sojourn should not be spent there by the future teachers in these specific areas for our country. It is bound to have an effect on them afterwards. I hope that with Wordsworth we might think that beauty born of wondrous sound— I am sure the gurgling Shannon is wondrous in that area — will pass into their faces.

Senator Murphy went on to deal with the original build-up for a university of Limerick. We shared membership of an organisation which heard a good deal of the case being made and that union was asked to put its weight behind the idea of a university in Limerick. The decision was a right one, as Senator Murphy said. The whole complex, the National Institute and Thomond, is on the road to success.

The substantive criticism of Senators Murphy, Martin and McGuinness was that there is a undue Departmental interference. Senator Murphy asked me if the Department was already playing a tougher role in Thomond than elsewhere. My answer to that is; not to my knowledge, and if it were I should know. He asked would I be worried. I presume it was not a rhetoretical question. My answer is: I would. The third question was would I interfere. That was a most ingenious paradox, as he indicated himself. He was asking me if I would interfere to stop interference, I presume. The answer again is: yes. I was on a very sticky wicket when Senator Murphy was thanking me for only appointing seven me with the NIHE stick at the same time.

He did instance AnCO, ACOT and NCAD as the individual institutions that would have an interest and who could claim a right to a member on the governing body. He mentioned ACOT specifically in connection with the rural science area. As was said by both Senators Murphy and Martin they are not excluded in the terms of the Bill, nor are we specifically tied to one from university area. I know that the National College of Art and design train teachers. Its courses also involve art teacher training. It is very difficult to be specific about a whole lot of organisations in a Bill. The fact that ACOT is now and potentially in the future a great influence on a very important sector of the country would indicate that they should have an interest in the governing body of the teachers of rural science. This fact would argue that they will not be left out of consideration, but I admit they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill.

Senator Murphy referred to the Higher Education Authority letter. I do not want to slough off any kind of responsibility with regard to that. As the Senator knows, the 1971 Act set up the Higher Education Authority and gave it considerable independence. It would be ironic if in this debate we should indicate that the Minister should have some power or control over the Higher Education Authority because we are specifically trying to avoid that in accordance with the tenor of this debate.

I wonder whether the Senator, when he mentioned appointments, really meant posts. The Departments of Finance and of the Public Service have an interest in the posts more than in the appointments. I do not think there is any effort or attempt to cover by statute any interference in the specific appointments. Senator Murphy also made the point that post-graduate provision was left out. I should like to mention — it is of interest in this connection though there is no cause and effect interest in it — that when introducing the Bill I said that there were schools crying out for teachers, particularly teachers of the special subjects mentioned already, engineering work shop theory and practice and the building construction areas. Many Senators mentioned this shortage from their own experience, including Senator O'Brien. The concentration, in fact, is on the production of teachers with their degrees from the National Council for Educational Awards and getting them into the schools. I contend that section 4(1)(a) would not preclude post-graduate degrees. It states: "to provide suitable degree level courses for the purpose of the training of teachers for services in such schools and institutions..." Section 4(1)(d) which mentions research could also be adduced as a part which would support the provision of post-graduate courses in Thomond College.

I have mentioned that Senator Howard is mistaken in thinking that the training of rural science teachers has not started. It has started. The first year will be 1979-80. He paid a compliment, one which other Senators and I paid, to the director and those who have been carrying the burdens of administration and enduring the growing pains since it first got under way, at least since the physical education part of Thomond College got under way. As the House knows, the other part only got under way in the academic year 1979-80.

With regard to the Senator's reference to resources I should like to say that a sober assessment of the resources will indicate that this is one of the best endowed educational institutions in Irelans or elsewhere. I made the point in my introductory speech that, in fact, it was the first purpose-built training college of its kind in these islands—whatever "these islands" are but I include Britain in that. There is no problem about resources. The resources have been allocated and the institution will be sustained at the high level at which it was launched. Senator Howard repeated those doubts and worries of Senators Murphy and Martin about the governing body and what it can do. A careful perusal of section 6 (1) and (2) will indicate that it has considerable powers, as it should have. That section states that the governing body shall manage and control all the affairs and property. The affairs are multifarious affairs. There are at least four different types of teachers to be trained in this institution and the property, as I have indicated, is large and very valuable. This is no small task for the governing body. The section continues: "and shall perform all the functions conferred on the College by this Act and shall have such powers as may be necessary under this Act for that purpose." The governing body is not any emasculated body. It is a body with considerable powers and serious obligations. The quality of the people who are there already in the ad hoc position and the quality of those who will be finally appointed to it will be such as will enable them to perform these functions efficiently and well and be a credit to our educational system.

Senator Martin on section 12 indicated that he found it eminently reasonable. Section 12 states:

The Governing Body shall, as soon as may be after the end of each academic year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report of its proceedings during that year.

He said it takes on — guilt by association, I suppose — a different and dubious colour when associated with other claims of ministerial power in the Bill. I am sorry he thinks that. We had a long discussion on this when dealing with the Bill on the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin. I would be sorry to think that there was any substance in the fears expressed on this. I agree with Senator Martin — he made this point also in the debate on the Bill dealing with the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin — that an institution develops its own ethos and its own spirit. The staff, the student body and the graduates of the body all play a part in developing this genius loci. In ancient times, of course, genius loci was often represented by a snake. I hope there was no particular significance in Senator Martin's choosing those words to indicate what he was talking about but then the snake of Aesgulapius was regarded as something that would cure disease. We have it on our health board symbols. Senator Martin, when speaking on the Bill dealing with the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin, threw the shadow a little forward to the university legislation. I got the impression that, perhaps, he might be thinking that the post-graduates in the university might be deprived of a say in those institutions.

Professor Martin

What was the Minister's answer?

Mr. Wilson

My answer was that they would not be deprived. Certainly, as far as membership of the governing body is concerned, and when the years, like great black oxen, produce more graduates in the area there is no reason why they should not be on the governing body because there is nothing to preclude them. I have already dealt with the matter of the unfortunate instances of incidents between the Department and institutions. I am not aware of any. I thought the Senator was referring to the most recent dispute with regard to the examination at the end of the second year.

I take Senator McGuinness' point about a very heavily restricted teacher-training course which did exist. It was, possibly, too short. The idea behind the whole structure originally was to give the Irish language — rightly so — its proper place in the training of teachers. It is a strange thing that many teachers of high quality came out of this over-restricted atmosphere which obtained for a long time in teacher-training. I do not believe students would tolerate it nowadays, but it is true to say that despite the handicaps teachers of very fine calibre were produced. Perhaps we at times attach too much importance to the influence we can exert in educational institutions, and virtue will finally prevail and moral muscles will be strengthened despite any cocooning or cosseting that may go on.

I agree with Senator McGuinness that the Bill indicates that the college will be treating people as adults, with many advantages over people who were trained in the past. Senator McGuinness also mentioned section 9 and I should like to quote from that section 9:

The college may appoint such and so many persons to be its officers (in addition to the Director) and servants as, subject to the approval of the Minister given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, it from time to time thinks proper.

It was the phraseology that the Senator took exception to. I would like to make a distinction between posts and appointments, because it is the number of posts rather than the specific appointments, the individuals appointed and their qualifications, that are in question there. I do not believe that the provisions of the section will in any way militate against the good conduct of the affairs of Thomond College, nor will they interfere with the training of the teachers or the quality of the teachers who come from it.

I will conclude by thanking the Senators for their contributions. We did not have as long or as wide-ranging a debate as we did on the Bill dealing with the National Institute for Higher Education in Dublin, but there was so much of a pattern in the structure of the various Bills that we have dealt with that this was to be expected. It did not in any way interfere with the quality of the contributions which was as high as it was on the other Bills. Is mian liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil libh mar gheall air sin.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.