Last evening when I reported progress I had endeavoured to give an analysis of the concept of the National Institute of Higher Education and the development of the institute under the Fianna Fáil Government. I pointed out the sorry contrast between the confidence the Fianna Fáil Government had in that institute and the contribution it could make to the development of the Irish economy, and the confused attitude the Government are displaying.
It is noteworthy that, up to the moment, no Member of the Government parties and no Minister has intervened in this debate. They are very constrained this evening in the numbers who can contribute. This is quite extraordinary. Everywhere we have gone over the past six to 12 months the young students from the institute, and the staff, have sought discussions with the various representatives, in the mid-western region in particular. Their case has been discussed, or mentioned rather than discussed, at county council, urban council and other meetings. As I speak here this evening, the Nenagh Urban Council, of which I am a member, are discussing it and presumably giving their support to the case being presented by the students and the staff of the institute.
Among those who have expressed soft plámás for the case made by the students and the staff, which coincides with the original aims and programmes of Fianna Fáil for the institute, is Deputy Ryan from North Tipperary whom I have not seen in the House since this debate started. If he can speak words of soft reassurance to students who are entitled to something a little more genuine than that, he should be in here putting on the record what his position is. Deputy Coughlan is here now. I should like to hear from him an analysis of where he sees the difference between what Fianna Fáil have proposed and what the students are asking for, which happens to be the same thing, and what the Government are doing.
Some Government Deputies do not really understand the difference. They are actually giving support to concepts they do not fully understand. Last evening our spokesman on Education, Deputy Wilson, Deputy O'Malley and I outlined at some length the sharp difference between our approach to the institute and that of the Government. When the supporters from the other side take up their positions, I should like Deputy Coughlan, Deputy O'Donnell, the Minister for the Gaeltacht who was here last night apparently to give an impression of concern and interest, and Deputy Ryan, to say precisely what they understand the issues to be and, having said that, to say where they stand on the issues. When you are dealing with young educated people you must prove to them that you are not just relying on old political hackery but that you understand the concepts about which they are concerned. Before you assure them of your support perhaps you would indicate to them on what basis that support has been given. I want particularly to ask those Deputies who have assured these students and staff of their position—on the basis that the Minister will not accede to our motion this evening, though I would be very thrilled that he would—what they propose to do. I regret to say at this stage I am quite sure they will dutifully troop into the lobbies after the Minister and the other members of the Government irrespective of what they have been saying outside of this House. If they do, then let them forever keep their peace about what is their stance about the institute and the students concerned.
In the remaining five minutes I want once again to outline the great concern there is here. Can one imagine what it must be like for students who have entered on a course of studies in any one of the disciplines of concern at present on an understanding that, at the end of that period of study, the National Council for Education Awards would confer appropriate qualifications on them suitable to the studies they had concluded? They are left all through their course of study in doubt and indecision as to where precisely they stand and are being deprived now of the level, standard and nature of qualification they always understood would be theirs as of right. It is deplorable that this is the response we show to young people who have shown a great confidence in the whole concept of the institute as it was first mooted and a great determination to achieve its aims. Equally, I wonder what has happened to the NCEA or what is it intended to do. I acknowledge that when we were in government that had to be and was established on a non-statutory basis. It was then only initiated. I acknowledge that there was more to be done; it would have to be established on a statutory basis. I acknowledge that it had not reached that point by the time we left Government. Certainly everything we did was by way of preparation for that very essential step.
Surely a National Council of Education Awards would be sensitive to our country's agricultural potential, that of the industrial sector and to the country's social development, so crucial to the proper channelling of third-level instruction and education to the national advantage. As one example, it is no secret that in that area there has been quite a significant development in the mining industry. I am not at present aware of any very effective school of mining technology within any of the existing universities. I know there are some studies in that direction at the institute, studies and disciplines that would have to be developed to a very considerable extent. But having regard to the potential of our mining industry so often spoken about from those benches surely it must be seen that the traditional universities are not the educational establishments to have control and direction in this area.
Similarly, if we speak in terms of offshore resources—and all of us have some expectation that there may be some considerable wealth to be derived in that direction—if we want to exploit them to the fullest advantage, is the Minister going to tell me that the best manner in which that can be done is to have an institute brought in under the wing of the existing universities with their traditional approach to third-level education? There is a very definite distinction between the practical application of the techniques of technology and training meant to be applied in that institute and the nature of studies at universities. The Minister must be aware of that. It shows a sorry lack of awareness of that distinction that we have to bring a motion of this sort before the House this evening.
In conclusion, I say this: our position here happens to be exactly parallel to what the students and staff are seeking. It is not that we are doing the popular political thing in following what seems to be now a popular political stance. We have taken this position at all times. We are glad that the students and staff who first entered that institute saw their role as being the one we planned for them. We can assure them that we will fiercely defend that concept as we planned it and that whatever others may say with free and casual support, when we say we support it, we say it out of real conviction and understanding.
