Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 are related and may be discussed together.
National Council for Educational Awards Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (resumed).
SECTION 3.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 15.
In page 3, subsection (2) (a), lines 19 to 32, to delete sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and substitute the following:
"(i) (i) the Council is satisfied have attended or otherwise pursued or followed courses of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of, an institution to which this Act applies and which are courses which for the time being stand approved of by the Council, and
(II) have either—
(A) attained a standard regarded by the Council as satisfactory in examinations or other tests of knowledge or ability which are either prescribed or set by the Council or for the time being stand so approved of and relate to such courses, or
(B) performed in a manner regarded by the Council as satisfactory other exercises which both so relate and for the time being stand so approved of,
or
(ii) have either attained a standard regarded by the Council as satisfactory in examinations or other tests of knowledge or ability or have performed other exercises in a manner regarded by the Council as satisfactory and who have carried out, under the supervision of an institution to which this Act applies, and in a manner regarded as satisfactory by the Council, a programme of research approved of by the Council,".
—(Minister for Education.)
The proposal to give the National Council for Educational Awards power not just to validate examinations but to actually set them is one of the most regressive aspects of the Bill. From the Opposition benches I and other speakers have criticised the Bill for many reasons not least because it adopts a pathetically subservient attitude towards universities. It appears, in relation to this function, as if this subservience to the whole idea of universities and the way they can and should organise their business is to be carried into concrete expression by giving the NCEA the right, whenever it sees fit, to set examinations for the awards it proposes to validate.
The amendment we are discussing is designed to strip the NCEA of this power as being unnecessary and irrelevant to the proper performance of its functions as conceived by the original Fianna Fáil administration, by the last administration and as is now conceived by me and no doubt by Deputy Edward Collins. Instead of the NCEA validating properly organised courses in various institutions we are apparently to have a mini-university all of its own, something that once given power to set examinations would be sorely tempted to do so. Will we have the director of the NCEA going around in cap and bells to every third level institution where he is validating a course, like a minichancellor of a mini-university, handing out mini-degrees on behalf of the council because it not only validates the awards but sets the examinations on which they are based? The decision to give the council these powers strikes at the heart of innovatory tendencies in higher education. It is a slur on the competence, on the professionalism of teachers in many disciplines, in many institutions throughout the country and for that reason we feel bound to oppose it.
I reiterate my opposition to this power which the Minister is giving to the council, the power of setting examinations. In amendment 15, in the rephrasing of subsection (2) the Minister retains for the council the right to set examinations. I think this should be removed and I oppose the amendment on that ground. I do not know if the council has been consulted on this matter. I am not aware whether they are in favour themselves of setting examinations but it is quite clear from the history of the NCEA that they have not had the power to date, they have not used it to date and why they should suddenly be given the power now is very interesting. I should like some reasoned argument from the Minister as to why he is suddenly giving the council power to set examinations.
In recent years the staff in these colleges and institutions have enjoyed developing the various courses, adopting an attitude of flexibility to the introduction of new courses, weighing up the success of existing courses, reducing certain courses which were seen not to be popular. They have enjoyed this freedom and also the freedom of examining standards nationally and internationally. They have enjoyed the responsibility of asking external examiners to set examinations and establish standards acceptable to each college. That freedom has led to a healthy atmosphere within the colleges and institutions and a sense of involvement and esprit de corps among the staff. I think they wish to guard their right to oversee as they think fit the direction in which the college is going. This is freedom to set standards in a general way—not in any way contrary to the policy of the NCEA—in consultation, obviously, with the NCEA which has validated courses and examinations to date, but also in consultation with experts in the field from inside and outside Ireland. If this is to be taken away from them we are doing irreparable damage to the standing of the staff in each college and to the concept of a flexible third level, non-university sector. We would be doing a great disservice to the non-university sector if the Minister insists on pushing through this section and amendment.
Courses, after all, will justify themselves in time on close examination of people involved in the industry. If the standards set are too low the course will die and the college will suffer. The courses that have high standards and their colleges will continue to prosper. That is as it should be because it means that the staffs, the lecturers, heads of Departments and principals particularly have the responsibility of the future of courses and their colleges in their own hands. To take that away from them as is proposed by the Minister is doing a great disservice to the third level, non-university sector.
I ask the Minister not in any political way but purely in the context of what is educationally sound and desirable to leave the principle of validation with the NCEA but to leave the setting of examinations to the various colleges as has been the practice to date. I think the Minister should look at the matter in this way. I am sure that if he consults the people in his Department they will have the opinion, based on their experience with the colleges and their success in their flexibility and in their devotion and in the pride they take in the development of their colleges, that the staffs would prefer to have the question of setting examinations left to them. If the Minister is not prepared to change his attitude in this matter I shall bring this amendment to a division.
Were the true position as interpreted by Deputies Horgan and Collins I, too, would be in total agreement with them but there is no suggestion of any change in the procedure that has been followed regarding examinations by the ad hoc National Council for Educational Awards. It may be interesting for the House to hear what the present system is as operated by the ad hoc NCEA. The council appoints and pays an external examiner for each approved subject of a course. These external examiners visit the college during the course of the year to satisfy themselves on the progress of the course. In particular, they must visit the college not later than six weeks after the commencement of the Hilary term, the second term of the academic year, to agree on the examination paper with the internal examiner, that is, the staff of the college. That has been the system and will continue to be the system. The paper, in the first instance, is drawn up by the college staff, as Deputy Collins said. It is fairly usual for each teacher to make an input and provide one or two questions on this particular part of the programme.
As is well known, there is no hard and fast rule about this: the people in charge of the course are the best judges and the freedom exists now and will continue to exist. Some teachers may not make any contribution and the entire paper may be prepared, by agreement, by the head of the department or by a senior teacher of a particular course. In any case the coordinator of the first draft is the head of the department and he will be responsible for agreement of the paper with the external examiner. That has been the situation since the ad hoc council were set up and it will continue to be the procedure under the new arrangement. The external examiner goes through the paper then. That, too, will continue to be the position. He makes any change he considers necessary and may add a question or two himself, but it is he who finally settles the format.
It is well to mention that on a few occasions it has happened that the council's external examiners had to set the entire paper and correct in full the examination papers. This happened when staff in some area were not available to prepare the paper. The council would regard having to write the examination papers only as a fall-back position. The system that operates now is the one that will continue because it has been found to be satisfactory. There is not any change envisaged. All the benefits mentioned by Deputy Collins in regard to freedom of choice and to flexibility and so on are valid reasons and I assure him that healthy interest, that feeling of freedom and of innovative power remain even with the new amendment. Damage, irreparable or otherwise, will not be caused by the acceptance of the section as suggested by me.
If there is not any change envisaged what is the reason for inserting the words "set by the council"? Up to now the council have not been setting the papers. An external examiner has been engaged for this purpose and he, in consultation with the colleges, sets the papers. Therefore, we should not include the words "or set by the council". They are offensive to many people working within the system. Wording such as "in consultation with the institution to which this Act applies" is looser phraseology and this is what is called for. A looser phraseology would be more acceptable to the lecturing staff in the colleges. I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 17 but reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage in order to ensure that it will be stated clearly that the council will not have the power to set examinations, because to provide for such power for them would enable the NCEA to take up that power fully. Despite the practice to date, despite the goodwill on the part of the Minister for on the part of the present director, or indeed despite the goodwill that the council may have, a future council might interpret the legislation in a totally different way. It is stated clearly in subsection (2) of section 3 as it stands that the council have the power to set examinations; and we know from past experience in relation to other legislation that Acts are interpreted in terms of what they contain and not in terms of anything that might be said here. It is not right to use the phraseology proposed by the Minister because the council should not have both the validating and the examination-setting functions. It is defeating the objective of establishing a validating body to give that body also the power to set examinations. Such a situation is unacceptable in principle. To include this provision would be to give to the new council powers far in excess of what the Minister indicated is the position to date. Therefore, I ask him to reconsider the amendment with a view to rephrasing it.
There were two other points which I made before we adjourned on the last occasion but which may have escaped the Minister's memory. But before reminding the Minister of those matters I wish to point to the fact that what we are discussing here is not merely a difference of interpretation but of fact. I can appreciate the Minister's intention in trying to persuade the House that there is not involved any change in procedure as between the present ad hoc NCEA and the NCEA as they will operate if this amendment becomes the section. It is ludicrous to hold that, because in certain circumstances in the past an external examiner had to set an entire paper and perhaps even correct all the examination papers, that is the same as the setting of an examination by the council.
We are all aware of the practice in higher education generally whereby all institutions employ external examiners. I should not be surprised if there were occasions in the past when, for example, a similar situation occurred in the NUI and where for one reason or another an external examiner had to set an entire paper. Let us take for example a situation in which an external examiner from the University of St. Andrews had to set, for some reason outside the control of the NUI, an entire paper in microbiology in UCD. There is no pretence that the student going into the great hall in UCD as it was then would be sitting for an examination set by the University of St. Andrews. The examination paper would go out under the rubric of the National University of Ireland, of the fundamental institution in which the student is studying. Therefore, we can delete the words "set by the Council or" without in any way interfering with the freedom of external examiners to do the work they have been doing extraordinarily in the past and which they may be called upon from time to time to do in the future. It is not necessary to give the council the power to set examinations in order to give external examiners the right to do what the Minister has described them as doing.
There are two other points in relation to the Minister's amendment which I mentioned beforehand. The Minister did not mention them in his reply today and I would be grateful if he would give us the benefit of his thinking on them. In section 15 (II) (B), there is a reference to "other exercises which both so relate and for the time being stand so approved of,". In relation to these other exercises, where are they to come from? Are they to be specified by the council or are they to be specified by the institution? At the very least there is a grevious lack of clarity in this subsection.
The third point which I mentioned before we adjourned related to the research section of the Minister's amendment. On my reading of the research section it seems that the council will have to corporately approve of every single research programme carried out by any individual in any third-level institution outside the universities. This is centralism beyond the beyonds. It is quite extraordinary and unnecessary that the council should be involved in individual programmes of study at the third-level research area. I would argue that it points to the general unwisdom of having a Bill which is based on institutions as such rather than on courses as such.
Where are these eponymous other exercises coming from? Is the Minister really satisfied that the best way of organising higher education research outside the universities is to have each individual post-graduate student come to Dublin with his cap in his hand and his little satchel on his back to get the approval of the director and of the entire council of the NCEA?
I should like to reiterate what I said with regard to the method of examining. When I outlined the present procedure in detail and the role of the external examiner acting as the council's agent, I thought that the Deputies would accept that the words set are easily intelligible within the context of that activity by the external examiner and that there was no cause for alarm. If it were interpreted otherwise there would be legitimate cause for alarm. The system obtaining will continue to obtain. A change in the system is not envisaged. This simply indicates the extent of the council's interest to the external examiner.
The point made by Deputy Horgan about section 15 (II) (B) referred to other exercises which are undertaken with a view to gaining an award from the council. The words are clear. It seems that the candidate who is looking for the award will be more than willing to have exercises, whether in research or study, assessed by the council. With regard to research, the same situation obtains. If a candidate is doing research and wants an award he seeks approval from the council. Deputy Horgan made a dramatic statement about the student coming cap in hand to Dublin with his little satchel and seeking in some humble way approval from the council. It is quite normal in any context to submit whatever work has been done to the person who is assessing the results of research.
Arising out of the Minister's reply to my last point, it is unclear from this section as it appears in the Minister's amendment who will actually be assessing the research done by the students themselves. In relation to non-post-graduate work, to graduate and diploma work, it appears that, if we are to accept what the Minister has said, the assessment procedure will be carried out under the aegis of the individual insitution. It will be approved by the council. There will be external examiners appointed and paid by the council. Will the individual institution have any such function in relation to the research student or will the sum total of his work be totally assessable by the NCEA without intervening reference to the institution of which he is a student?
It is better to put the thing in the context of, say, an institution. Take the NIHE in Limerick. There is a student there who wants to do post-graduate research work. He is operating in the institute; he has a tutor or adviser. The course which he is following for the award will be submitted in the normal way to the council. I expect, as happens generally, that the council will choose somebody with expertise in that field. The work will be done in the institution and the council will assess it through their agents.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.
I indicated that I was withdrawing amendment No. 17 and reentering it on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 17 has not been moved because it is obviated by the insertion of the new words and the substitution of the subsection which it proposes to amend. Amendment No. 18 may be moved.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 3, subsection (2), paragraph (a) between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(iii) the Council is satisfied have completed research under the supervision of an institution to which this Act applies,".
I submit that amendment No. 15 covers that point adequately.
The Minister is opposing the amendment. Is the Deputy withdrawing it?
No.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 19 is in the name of Deputy E. Collins. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and amendments Nos. 21 and 130 are cognate; amendment No. 129 is related to amendment No. 130. Therefore, we may take together amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 129 and 130.
Will it be in order to have separate decisions on these amendments?
They may be put separately in their appropriate places. The Chair will keep Deputies reminded of this as we proceed.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 3, subsection (2), to delete lines 33 to 47 and insert:
"(b) recognise a degree, diploma, certificate or other educational award conferred, granted or given to persons who successfully complete such courses, if it is satisfied that the standard in general of both—
(i) a particular course of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of, an institution to which this Act applies and relating to professional, scientific or vocational education (which course may be partly concerned with liberal arts), and
(ii) the examinations or other tests of knowledge or ability conducted in relation to such course.
corresponds or is analogous to any relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the Council.
(c) approve of such course of study or instruction, if it is satisfied that the standard in general of both—
(i) a particular course of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of, an institution to which this Act applies and relating to professional scientific or vocational education (which course may be partly concerned with liberal arts), and
(ii) the examinations or other tests of knowledge or ability conducted in relation to such course.
corresponds or is analogous to any relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the Council,".
Amendments Nos. 19 and 129 relate to the matter of standards. There is a reference in section 3 (2) (b) to "any relevant standards for the time being in force in universities". That is unfortunate phraseology. Many of the courses being established in colleges and institutions in the non-university sector have no parallel in universities in Ireland, though they may be found in some universities or institutes of higher education in, perhaps, England or America. Most of the courses relate to technological professions and the comparability with standards in universities is out of place in this Bill. I have tried to change the wording to read "any relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the Council". That would meet the position of the council, who have prime responsibility for setting standards and validating courses. Their standards will prevail in the non-university sector. In establishing such standards they may make reference to standards acceptable in industry or related professions and may, on occasion, make reference to comparability with standards in some universities where such courses are available.
The words used in the Bill are too narrow for proper interpretation and I ask the Minister to be realistic about this. The words "in force in universities" are out of place in this Bill and in the context of the courses being established. When one examines the many courses for which certificates or diplomas are awarded, one sees that there are no comparable standards in universities. In many cases the standards are acceptable to an industry or a professional institute. We have no wish to bring everyone in the regional technical colleges up to a degree standard. Certificates or diplomas are awarded at the end of 80 per cent of courses in these colleges and there are no comparable university courses in this country. In the making of awards at the certificate and diploma level the comparison required in section 3 (2) is ridiculous. I will ask the Minister to explain how this comparability will be operated at certificate and diploma level.
My amendment separates subsection (b) of section 3 (2) in order to make it clearer. This was somewhat compressed in the Bill. The first part of my amendment deals with the recognition of degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards and the second part of the amendment allows the council to approve such courses of study. This makes for clarity. The words "being acceptable to the Council" are preferable and put the responsibility on the council to set their own standards. It is important for all to see that the NCEA have their future in their own hands and that they cannot blame any other institution for the establishment of standards. The validation of courses and the setting up of standards of academic excellence are the responsibility of the council.
I referred on Second Stage to the danger that, because of the manner in which the Bill was being put forward, degrees awarded by the NCEA may be seen to be second-class awards. This would be dreadful and it is not something which any of us would like to happen. I am very conscious of the need to establish high standards and to ensure that they are acceptable not only for the Irish scene but also for people who may have to go abroad to obtain work. It is very important that the awards made by the council are acceptable abroad. International comparability is essential if the council are to prosper.
In that context the research carried out by the institutions to which this Bill will refer must be given substantial funds to ensure that there will be ongoing research in all the colleges and institutions so that there will be no question of their academic standards falling. I did not mean to refer to this aspect at this stage. I do not wish to draw the wrath of the Ceann Comhairle because I can discuss it on another section. I am just referring to the fact that there is a need for international standing for the awards, and there is a need to put the responsibility and the onus directly on the council for establishing and continuing the standards of the awards the council will make.
For that reason it is wrong to import university standards. There must be no way out. The council may set their own standards having consulted standards perhaps in universities and among professional and semi-professional bodies. Having consulted those other institutes the council must then carry their own can. They must then establish their standards. Only then will the responsibility be quite clearly seen by the public to be taken by the council. The words I have used are quite clear, "to any relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the council". I do not mind the council consulting with universities, or whatever, but in the end the buck stops on the council's desk. That should be clearly stated in the Bill.
There are two aspects of this situation which arise under the amendment. The first is the problem itself and, secondly, the remedial action which ought to be taken to solve it. The problem is that the gratuitous insertion of a specific reference to the universities flies in the face of everything the Minister is trying to do in this Bill. It is almost a sleeveen attitude to the universities at a time when one should be insisting that, if technological education is to come in out of the cold, it comes in out of the cold on its own terms and by virtue of internationally accepted standards which are already widely recognised and accepted in technological education elsewhere, and in many places where they do not have to have specific reference to the university even though there may well be some degree of interpenetration of personnel at various levels.
It is sad to have to relate that the word "university" itself is not in as common currency as might be supposed. It does not mean the same thing all over the world. It means something here and in Britain and in most of the Western European countries, but there are many countries in which the word "university" is not as hallowed and protected as it is here. In part of the United States, for example, the word "university" is regarded with considerable suspicion as referring to the growth of degree mills and similar institutions.
In countries where the word "university" does not mean what it means here, many people when they are looking for safeguards for standards look not to universities, as such, but to the many very high-powered institutions which are established and guaranteed and in which standards are organised and controlled by the State or by a body analagous to the NCEA. There is absolutely no reason why we should (a) insert a specific reference to the universities in the Bill, and (b) why we should not look eleswhere for a model and look for another form of words which will give the council all the standing they need.
The wording suggested by Deputy Collins is "corresponds or is analagous to any relevant standards for the time being acceptable to the council". My amendment No. 21 suggests standards "nationally and internationally for the course of a similar nature". As reference to amendment No. 130 will make clear, that is a typographical mistake. It should read "for a course of a similar nature". There is a third possibility which has not been suggested by way of amendment but which I would urge on the Minister as a positive option, that is, instead of talking about the universities, instead of talking about standards in the universities, instead of talking about standards for the time being acceptable to the council, instead perhaps of talking about standards nationally and internationally for a course of a similar nature, we should be talking about standards which correspond with or are analagous to any relevant standards for the time being in force in the discipline.
It seems to me, with the best will in the world towards Deputy Collins, that the formulation he has chosen, "standards for the time being acceptable to the council" may be open to the slight objection that it does not impose on the council reference to any outside standards at all. I do not believe the council will be afraid in any degree of reference to outside standards, provided they are suitable outside standards. These standards should either be as suggested in my amendment, those which are nationally and internationally recognised for courses of a similar nature, or those which are for the time being in force in the discipline concerned.
It is impossible to guarantee strict equality of standards because examiners differ, students differ, institutions differ, functions of courses differ, and the economic and social circumstances of the countries in which they are operating differ as well. Maybe the discipline should be the over-arching international umbrella to which the relevant standards should be referred. I see the Minister's desire to use the universities in this way as a very short-sighted one, one which if it is passed, will be looked back on in a very short time indeed as a very quaint survival from the days in which we thought the universities—and they have done a lot for our country—were the be all and the end all of higher education.
It is important to spell out the thinking behind this terminology and it is better to begin by saying, in the manner of the mediaeval philosophers, what it is not. What it is not is what the Deputies have come to the conclusion it is. For example, it does not mean importing the university ethos into the technological sector. It does not mean that the university thinking should influence the technological sector. It does not mean that the material studied to get an award under the NCEA should be the type of material studied in a university, but it is important to state by way of analogy that the kind of standard required is the standard which in its own sphere of technology is the standard achieved in a different sphere and a different ethos by the university. As Deputy Horgan has indicated, the university has been in the field in western Europe from the Middle Ages, in Boulogne, Paris and so on and, while having their ups and downs over the years, they are associated with certain standards of excellence.
The whole purpose of mentioning them in this context is precisely to indicate that what the council are claiming and what this House wants is something that is not a second-class standard, a second award, but is there on an equal basis with the standard of the university award. It is very important to repeat that it does not mean importing a university ethos. There are large technological sections even in our own universities. It does not mean importing that ethos into the technological sector. By anology it means a standard which is nationally and internationally recognised as one of excellence.
Many universities outside this country—for example, the British technological universities—provide both degree courses and technological courses that are not provided in the universities here. We are talking about a new council making awards in the educational sphere, a council whose awards will be nationally and internationally recognised in their own sphere, and taking account of their own ethos in the same way as are awards in the universities which have had hundreds of years of history behind them and which have already achieved something recognisable by way of standard in our cultural context.
I agree with Deputy Horgan that some universities are not worthy of the name. There are degree mills, as he called them, in some countries; but there is a general accepted meaning for university standards. By analogy, and only by analogy, and without interference with the ethos, that is what we are aiming at for the awards of the NCEA. Many of the colleges of advanced technology in Britain advanced into a degree-awarding position themselves and are called universities at present, but they are technological universities with their own ethos and awards standing equal to those of the old traditional universities.
I am in general agreement with Deputy Collins and Deputy Horgan that if, for example, the use of the word could be interpreted in any way as indicating either a sleeven—that is a lovely word —or subservient attitude to universities, that would be a bad thing. I do not think it is so interpreted. It is there to indicate that we are in the awarding business on an equal footing with the universities. The charter for the corresponding council in Britain, the CNAA, provides that academic awards conferred by the CNAA are comparable to awards granted and conferred by universities in a country where some of the medieval foundations have lasted down to the present time and have established standards in the university sphere. This did not damage in any way the new technological institutes. It did not damage the awards made by the CNAA and it did not damage their standing in educational awarding.
The word "analogous" has been mentioned and it is the Ceann Comhairle's contention that there are two separate spellings of the word in the Bill. It may mean a drafting amendment. It is rather peculiar and I wonder which one is right. On page 3, line 46, it is spelt "analogous" while on page 9, line 34, it is spelt "analogous". Whether that is better I will leave the Minister to decide.
It should be "analogous", there is no question about that. I used to earn a very modest penny at that language.
We will call it a clerical error. I am still not convinced by what the Minister has said in reference to the universities. It is an unfortunate and unnecessary importation. There will be certificate courses, especially technician courses, for which the NCEA will be making awards, and of course there will be no possible comparability with the courses in the universities. There are no courses of comparison available in the universities. Therefore, I do not know how we are going to have the comparison made. It is an impossible comparison which has no relevance and therefore it is put back to its own devices, certainly on certificates and to some extent on diplomas. In that context the word "university" is unnecessary, unfortunate and irrelevant.
English law has no relevance to what we are doing here today. I have no wish to follow the English model. This is an Irish Bill to meet Irish circumstances. We ape British Bills too much in this House, and that is unfortunate. I do not wish to say more, but I have on a number of occasions seen very technical Bills drafted here following on Bills drafted in England which have been from four to ten years old and when they were examined in the House they were found to be faulty. Therefore, I have no wish to follow the English model.
A more important point to bear in mind relates to the legal position. The council are awarding degrees. It is the council's function to award a degree, diploma or certificate to a person who has reached a certain standard of academic excellence. Therefore it is the council which is setting and accepting the standard; it is the council's pride and legal responsibility to establish a standard. Some crackpot who has failed a final examination could very easily go into court and maintain that the standards set by the council were not in keeping with those in universities to which the council referred. There could follow a silly legal battle, the only people making money being Junior and Senior Counsel and judges wasting court time on the ridiculous. I am sure that is how it could end up.
The fact of the matter is—and it is a legal point—that it is the council which make the awards on their own standards. That is the reason I used the words I did in my amendment. If awards are made on that basis they cannot be contested in court. The awards cannot be brought into disrepute and, if the standards are in disrepute, it is the council who will bear responsibility for bringing the courses into disrepute, when we will all see clearly where the liability and responsibility lies in relation to courses.
The Minister, I think, agrees with me that it is very important that we ensure high standards. I do not think the reference to the universities achieves that. The council must be seen to be standing on their own feet. It is for that reason I used the words I did and placed the primary responsibility for its own future on the council by actually naming them in relation to the making of awards.
The other words "nationally and internationally for the course of a similar nature" used by Deputy Horgan are an alternative. Deputy Horgan referred to my amendment and said he could see how it could be questioned. I disagree with him there. We should make it quite clear that the council who are making the awards should have the clear responsibility, that the awards they are making are acceptable to the council. Therefore, it is on the council's head the responsibility lies in respect of the making of awards. There can be no buck-passing, no statement in a possible press release to the effect: "Oh, well, they were not really our standards; they were standards in force in the university at the time and it is the university's fault." In relation to the setting of standards it can be nobody's fault except the council's.
I mention in passing that there has been a question of the leaving certificate being called into question as a standard for university entrance in England. That question has been raised, but I shall leave it at that. I should not like to see awards made by the council meet a similar fate at home or abroad. That would be an absolute disaster. Unfortunately also—I have read on one or two occasions—of some degrees of our universities being questioned abroad. If they are being questioned abroad and we allow the council freedom to use those standards, automatically we are allowing the council to accept standards which may not be acceptable abroad. Surely that is not intended in this Bill? Surely that is the last thing the Minister would like to see in relation to awards made by the council? Let us put the responsibility where it properly lies—on the council—and let it be clearly seen to be on the council's head.
I was intrigued to hear the Minister lean, not for any reasons of false chauvinism, on the British experience in support of the phraseology he has chosen for the section and which Deputy Collins wants to amend. Perhaps, unlike Deputy Collins and more like the Minister, I have no rooted objection to British legal formulations. If they happen to have stood the test of time in that culture and are deemed suitable to ours, there is no particular reason we should not borrow when borrowing is legitimate. In fact, one could argue that one of the strengths of Anglo-Irish culture and many aspects of Anglo-Irish life has been precisely that it has been the meeting of very strong historical, cultural and political forces which has created a fusion and a bond which is a very strong one.
I was intrigued to hear the Minister call on the experience of the Council for National Academic Awards in support of his general thesis because I have here in my hand, as the late and unlamented Senator Joe McCarthy once said in a different context, the charter and statutes of the Council for National Academic Awards. I have perused the charter and statutes in the last ten minutes with extreme care. Nowhere in the charter and statutes of the CNAA do I find any formulation even distantly resembling the formulation in the section of this Bill Deputy Collins seeks to amend.
There are three references to the universities on the first page of this document; none at all that I can see on the second and third pages. The first reference is simply a reference to educational establishments other than universities. The second reference is one to educational establishments other than universities. The third reference is to an educational or research establishment other than a university. There is absolutely no reference to university standards anywhere in the document at all. Deputy Collins may be disheartened to find that the English model which he has spurned in the last ten minutes is almost precisely the one which is in his amendment, because the operative section of the charter and statutes of the Council for National Academic Awards of the United Kingdom reads:
3. The Council shall have the following powers:
(a) To grant and confer Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic awards and distinctions to and on persons who shall have pursued courses of study approved by the Council at educational establishments other than Universities and shall have passed such examinations or other tests as may from time to time be required by the Council;
Let us look at Deputy Collins's amendment:
(i) a particular course of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of, an institution to which this Act applies and...
and which are courses which for the time being stand approved of by the council. The wording is almost identical. Therefore Deputy Collins has some eating of words to do if he opposes the formulation of the Council for National Academic Awards.
I did not even read it.
All I can plead in extenuation of him is that he was misled by the Minister for Education who does not appear to have read it either. I find myself convinced, both by the CNAA charter and statutes and indeed by Deputy Collins's amendment, into believing that Deputy Collins's amendment rather than mine is the more appropriate. The reference to universities in this context, which we are now seeking to delete, is parochialism of the worst kind.
Nonsense.
If the Council for National Academic Awards, with universities that are, to put it mildly, no less prestigious than ours, saw absolutely no reason to give that council reference to any standards other than the standards which the council itself thought suitable, why should we think any different?
I cannot but be horrified when I hear Deputy Horgan say that referring to universities in Western Europe was parochialism. Salerno established for medicine, man's first need; Bologna for law; Paris for philosophy, and the Deputy thinks we are being parochial by referring to such universities. Go bhfóire Dia orainn. Deputy Collins raised a point about the responsibility for standards. I agree that the responsibility is on the council to see that the standards are high and are accepted nationally and internationally. The existing ad hoc council, and any future council, relying on this legislation will be fully conscious of its obligation in the maintenance of standards.
I should like to tell Deputy Horgan that I made a passing reference to the CNAA. The reference to the word "university" in the Bill stands on its own used in the analogous sense I have outlined to the House. The reference I should like to give to the House—Deputy Horgan said he had perused the Charter and Statutes and could not find it—is in the Second Schedule 8 (5) (a) which states:
Ensuring that the Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic awards and distinctions granted and conferred by the Council in the subjects signed to the Committee are comparable in standards to awards granted and conferred by Universities;
I do not wish to make much of those words but I wanted to state that there was a reference in the Charter and Statutes setting up the sister council in Britain. In general terms we have used the word purely because in a different ethos and in a different educational sector the word stands for something national and international. It has stood thus for century after century. There is no intention on the part of the Bill to import that particular geist or ethos into the technological sector; it is simply stating, for the benefit of the people involved in the sector, that their standards will be recognised nationally and internationally for their own virtues, their own strengths in the same way as over the years awards were recognised in the university sector.
I have been strengthened by the fact that the words used in the NCEA Bill were similar to those in my amendment. That is fortuitous. I purposely did not read the NCEA Bill because I did not want it to be drawn into the British model. If an RTC has a technical course available how can the NCEA refer to standards in the universities in relation to such courses when it is patently obvious that there is no comparable course in the university? Leaving aside the relevance of the standard of degrees and the relevance of the standard in relation to certain diplomas for which there may be comparability within universities in Ireland or abroad and concerning ourselves with the bulk of the courses run by RTC's, the basic courses for which the NCEA was established in the first instance, there is no comparable course available in the universities. How can one use the university model even in a general sense, when there is no comparable course in university? That is a plain question and I would like a plain answer.
I do not think Deputy Collins understood my use of the word "analogy". It is as true to say philosophically that God is bad as that God is good and we only say that God is good by analogy. To take his reference to the certificate courses and sub-degree courses, the standard of excellence required there is to be a nationally and internationally recognised one in the same way as the First Arts hurdle in the university is internationally recognised as a step along the road to the award of a degree in the university. That is all it means; it does not mean that one influences the other in any way to their detriment.
I am sorry if I may sound mundane but I do not believe we are examining a thesis in philosophy; we are examining a down to earth Bill which will need clarity if it is to be operated properly. In that context, no matter what philosophical comparability the Minister would like to see in relation to the word "university" being applied to standards in relation to awards, the fact remains that it could be open to misinterpretation by some people if they feel aggrieved. It was for a reason of clarity that I said I disliked the word "university". It is a most unfortunate and unwelcome use of the word. Many people who are involved in the third level non-university sector have objection to the use of the word "university". It is unfortunate that it has been imported into the Bill. It will lead to misunderstanding and may lead to legal cases in the future. The Minister should change it and adopt Deputy Horgan's amendment or mine.
I have surrendered my copy of the Charter and Statutes but I accept unreservedly what the Minister has stated. I should have read a few pages more.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 3, subsection (2), paragraph (b), line 42, to delete "partly".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 3, subsection (2), paragraph (b), line 47, to delete "in universities" and substitute "nationally and internationally for the course of a similar nature".
I was given to understand by the Ceann Comhairle that there could be separate decisions on those amendments.
Yes, if the Deputy wishes to press it. The usual procedure is not to move the amendment.
I wish to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 3, subsection (2) (c), lines 49 and 50, to delete "such course of study or instruction" and substitute "course of study or instruction approved of by the Council".
My purpose in moving this amendment is to ensure that the sense of the subsection is absolutely clear, that the ongoing assessment of a course by the council will be carried out only in respect of approved courses.
This relates only to assessment of the standards. The usage of the words "approved of by the Council" is in keeping with what the Minister intends in subsection (2) (c). I take it that it has no substantial consequences, that it is merely making proper usage of the words?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 3, to delete lines 56 and 57 and insert:
"(ii) assist the colleges and institutions to which this Act applies to enable them to co-ordinate".
This amendment relates to subsection (2) (d) and is an important amendment. Section 3 (2) (d) (ii) allows the council to "co-ordinate or assist in co-ordinating in such manner as it considers appropriate, any two or more such courses of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of, one or more institutions, to which this Act applies." My amendment defines that a little more by simply using the word "assist". The reason for this is that, since the establishment of the NCEA and the RTCs especially, they have been allowed to co-ordinate the development of courses within the colleges and institutions. They have done their own business in relation to the courses they wish to see established in their colleges. They sometimes like to see outside bodies bringing courses into their colleges.
Waterford RTC run a course in accountancy which is recognised by the chartered institute. This amendment would allow the colleges and institutions the right to continue to assess their needs in relation to courses. I believe the council should not have full power in relation to the promotion of degrees, diplomas and certificates of educational awards conferred by colleges or institutions. This is an important shift of emphasis. At the moment the colleges make their own decisions, develop their own courses and know what direction their colleges are moving in.
The objective of my amendment is to ensure the continuity of that academic freedom. The Bill proposes—I find objection to this—to give the power to the council to co-ordinate those courses at their own behest. That is a very obnoxious move by the Minister and will certainly not be welcome in the regional technical colleges in particular and perhaps also in the other colleges and institutions to which the Bill refers.
It is the same thing as the examinations wording. The Minister is giving to the council powers in a more absolute way than has been the practice to date. I ask him to allow the academic and administrative freedom which the colleges have at the moment in relation to the development of their courses and departments. The colleges and institutions should be given power rather than giving to the council the overriding power to co-ordinate courses in any one or more of the colleges. The wording of subsection (d) (ii) will be seen as a sinister move by the Minister to give the council excessive power in relation to the development of courses in the colleges. That is the reason I put down this amendment. I assure the Minister that if the present wording in the Bill stands it will create illwill especially in the regional technical colleges.
During the Second Stage of the Bill we rang the changes on the difference between words like "plan" and "co-ordinate". I, like Deputy Collins, am apprehensive about the use of the word "co-ordinate" in this particular context. It seems to me that when used in this unadorned way it has a sense much stronger than the word normally has. It implies that the NCEA will be able to co-ordinate regardless of the wishes of institutions instead of simply allowing itself to be the handmaiden of co-ordination within the sector generally. Perhaps when the Minister is replying to the amendment he can sketch out in some concrete way precisely how this co-ordination function will be achieved.
It is almost analogous—to use the wording of the Bill—to a planning function, which I thought the Minister believed should not be exercised by the council as constituted under the Bill, if they are to be given the power to co-ordinate regardless of the wishes or the felt needs of particular institutions. This is effectively a planning function which should be exercised somewhere else and, if it is not, it should be enough to leave in the power to assist in the co-ordination of courses. In any event, we would be glad to hear from the Minister how this co-ordination function will be exercised.
The function of co-ordination is an important one for the council to have. Deputy E. Collins was concentrating on one institution—the one in which he has a direct and specific interest and which he helps to be the success they are. As far as any other regional technical college is concerned, save Waterford, they have no other power. They have power to organise their own courses and there is no intention that anybody should be given the power of interference.
The council of awards are there to assess courses submitted to them. For example, let us take the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick or the National Institute for Higher Education in Dublin. If the council did not have a co-ordinating function, they would not be in a position to validate a course in a regional technical college which would link into, fit and would not have a co-ordinate in a national institute for higher education. The whole idea of the RTCs and the national institutes was that there would be mobility. The council, in assessing courses for awards, should be in a position to facilitate mobility as between RTCs and the national institutes for higher education. There is also the problem of the art courses. I would envisage the council having a co-ordinating function and a role for the National College of Art. "Co-ordination" means facilitating mobility of students as between one RTC and another or between an RTC and a national institute.
I want to make clear what I am saying. The council must be seen to be working hand in hand with the colleges and institutions where they have an overseeing function. It would be very wrong and a retrograde step to give the council overriding powers in relation to the development of courses in colleges. It will mean that the council will become the omnipotent masters of the development, or otherwise, of regional colleges or NIHEs or colleges of technology and that is wrong. It is unwise, unnecessary and objectionable.
There must be seen to be co-operation between the council and colleges. There must be seen to be an open avenue of discussion available to colleges and institutions. There must be seen to be a certain amount of independence in relation to the development of courses or departments in colleges. Section 3 (2) (d) (ii) does away with the happy medium. I am looking for, that is, one in which there is a reasonable amount of academic and administrative freedom and autonomy within these colleges in relation to the development of courses, departments and staff and other ongoing resources.
Under the Bill as it now stands, a college in the country may get a phone call from Dublin, that great place where people come to shop, telling them that their desire to develop a course in fishery science or in agricultural science has been looked at but that it might be put in another college somewhere else in the country. That power lies only with the council, according to the first word of this subparagraph, which is "co-ordinate". It does not say only assist in co-ordinating; it gives the council the power to co-ordinate in their own right, without reference to the governing body or the boards of management in the colleges concerned, to promote degrees and so on. It is that to which I object.
This is a major objection to this Bill because I have seen the genuine goodwill that exists in colleges in relation to the future of those colleges. I am here to preserve, foster and harness that goodwill. This is one of the aspects of this legislation which will damage that spirit in the colleges and to that extent it is an extremely retrogressive step.
The wording I need is clear. It says that the council, for the purpose of promoting degrees, diplomas, certificates and other educational awards conferred, granted or given by it, "assist the colleges and institutions to which this Act applies to enable them to co-ordinate". I am clearly putting the emphasis on the colleges, giving them the power to co-ordinate their own courses. The principals, heads of departments and staff meet and they know what they want. It is they who should have the prime responsibility of co-ordinating and developing courses and promoting degrees, diplomas and certificates within their colleges. If that responsibility is given in a primary sense to the council substantial damage will be done to the college and to the standing of the staffs in the colleges, particularly the heads of departments, lecturers and principals. Damage will also be done to the functions of the boards of managements of the regional technical colleges or governors of other institutions. That is most undesirable if we are thinking in terms of local involvement and interest in the development of courses and awards systems within colleges. This is a serious matter and it is an amendment on which it is important enough to force a division.
I should like to reiterate that a college cannot co-ordinate outside itself. There is no function for the council in the whole field referred to by Deputy Collins. Section 3 (2) (d) states:
for the purpose of promoting degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards conferred, granted or given by it—
it can co-ordinate but only for that purpose. That is what is important. It cannot interfere at all in the organisation of the RTC or the institute. I submit that it is important that the council, which has the overview in the situation from assessing all over the country, should have the co-ordination power given to it by section 3 (2) (d) (ii).
If a student gets an award in a regional technical college, say Waterford, and wants to go on for a third or fourth year to the NIHE Limerick, with the involvement of the NCEA, that student cannot be told: "No, your course is not suitable for acceptance in NIHE Limerick", which also comes under the aegis of the NCEA as far as awards are concerned. The council, having the overview, the assessment power, having seen the situation and having kept in mind that it is important that if the student wants to go up the ladder to degree level he is equipped to do so, should also have the co-ordination function. This makes it much easier for the student and for the institution. There is no interference with the academic freedom of the student. A rational view is obtained by the council purely in the context of assessing for awards.
The Minister is being naïve in the matter. Obviously any decision by the council in relation to degrees, diplomas or awards will directly and immediately affect the decision of a management board of a college to develop or not to develop a course. I do not want a red herring to be put up on this. It is an important change of emphasis in relation to the present position regarding the promotion of degrees, diplomas and certificates.
The principals and the heads of departments chat among themselves and with other college principals and heads of departments. They see a way forward in a particular direction and are happy that it would be good for the college to go in that direction. The system works and the colleges are being developed successfully. It should be left at that. The council should only be allowed to assist the colleges and institutions to which this Bill applies to enable them to co-ordinate in a statutory manner rather than giving the council the overriding purpose of co-ordinating.
The wording in the Bill indicates that the council may assist in co-ordinating as well. The very fact that wording was used in conjunction with the word "co-ordinate" implies that there was a case to be put forward and that the council should assist in co-ordinating in certain circumstances. What I am saying is that the council should assist in co-ordinating as a primary function. To import the concept that the council should co-ordinate of itself without consultation and without necessarily discussing the matter with the college authorities or with the staff is anathema to me in the context of the section dealing with the regional technical colleges. It would also apply to the colleges of technology although in Dublin they are under the umbrella of the City of Dublin VEC.
The changing of emphasis and the giving to the council of the primary function of co-ordinating is wrong. It is a backward step and will do damage. I am convinced that the council should only assist the colleges in co-ordinating and the primary responsibility for co-ordinating degrees, diplomas and certificates lies with the colleges of technology and the RTCs.
To repeat, section 3 (2) (d) (ii) simply relates to the functions of the council in promoting degrees, diplomas, certificates or other educational awards. That is the context in which it must be taken. I do not think that Deputy Collins has faced up to the difficulty of a regional technical college, say Waterford, wanting to co-ordinate a course with Limerick. How can it do it? It simply gives the council a rational power. Some cases have come to my attention where the lack of co-ordination has caused hardship to students. If a student has completed a certificate under the aegis of the council, the council has the overview and has smoothed the path for that student into a national institute or into another regional technical college which may be taking the particular course to a higher level. There is no interference with the academic or administrative freedom of the RTCs.
I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-submit it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 24, 83, 111, 112, 114, 137, 163 and 164 are related. The Deputy will move No. 24 and we shall discuss all the other amendments with it.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 4, subsection (3), lines 14 and 15, to delete "with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service and" and substitute "having consulted an tÚdarás".
Basically, the object of this and related amendments is to remove the Minister for the Public Service from the scene altogether, putting it very simply and as something which I think the Minister would welcome, something which the Cabinet may have imposed on him rather than that he inserted it himself in the Bill. We are establishing an academic council whose functions will be of an academic nature, whose independence will be important and whose freedom of action in relation to staff and to current and possibly capital expenditure must be protected. It is very important that these functions are seen to be untramelled by civil servants and by a Minister. I object strenuously to the importation of the requirement to have the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service into this Bill especially in reference to academic matters aside from any question of financial expenditure or matters of staffing and things like that. Here we have the Minister for Education whose primary concern is with matters educational and who, according to this Bill, may not now assign to the council such functions relating to technical, industrial, scientific, technological or commercial education... as the Minister thinks fit.
It is ridiculous that if the Minister for Education wishes to assign a function, certainly an academic function to the council, he has to go through the procedure of getting the concurrence— not only consultation—of the Minister for the Public Service before he can give additional functions to the NCEA. I understand that the Minister should consult with such other Ministers, if any, as the Minister considers to be concerned in regard to the granting of functions but I fail to understand why he must have the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service. I am deeply suspicious and I advise the Minister to get rid of that gentleman from this Bill at least because I feel that in regard to the freedom the Minister for Education would like to have, not only relating to academic matters but also in relation to financial and staffing matters, the heavy hand of the Minister for the Public Service would become very evident when proposals were put to him. Educationally, that would be very unsound, as the Minister well knows. Apart from the inability of the Minister for the Public Service to prognosticate on inflation rates and growth rates, I imagine his capabilites in regard to the NCEA might be found wanting especially where the public purse is concerned. The ghost of the Minister for the Public Service will be seen quite clearly and very often in the Bill. He should not be there at all because he is a very bad ghost who will hinder the Minister for Education and hinder very substantially the development of the NCEA. I suggest that he should be removed to some old ivory tower which might better suit him.
The other matter related to my amendment is the introduction of an tÚdarás, a very interesting importation into the Bill. It is referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 3. The whole question of an tÚdarás is very important. Why has the Minister brought it into this Bill—or indeed why has not an tÚdarás been given its proper role in this Bill under the 1971 Act? It is of high importance that this matter be clarified here before we move further on this Bill. In the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, an tÚdarás in addition to the specific functions given to it by that Act was assigned "the general functions of (a) furthering the development of higher education..." That is a very important phrase and perhaps the Minister would discuss it a little more in the House, not necessarily on this amendment but perhaps on section 3 in its generality. It is clear to me that the HEA has the primary function of developing higher education. Yet, we have a Bill here dealing with higher education albeit not in the university sector but the non-university sector and the functions of an tÚdarás are not being recognised in the NCEA Bill except in a minor way in relation to grants. I do not know if it is grants in relation to NCEA's administrative expenses or grants relating to the overall expenditure of the non-university sector—we shall come to it later. We must clarify this matter because the Minister is all at sea. The HEA Bill is quite clear in its powers and the powers granted to the HEA have been ignored in this Bill. The primary function of the HEA to further the development of higher education has been ignored in this Bill.
In my amendment I provide that the Minister, having consulted an tÚdarás— which I think he would be obliged to do in regard to any matter affecting higher education; he may also consult other Ministers—may by order assign to the council other functions. To me that would be a normal procedure in relation to the development of the NCEA. But if that is the case also in regard to the primary function of the NCEA under section 3 in its totality, the absence of any part to play by the HEA is an extremely interesting omission and certainly needs explanation in this House. I wonder if the HEA were consulted at all about the drafting of this Bill. The quality of the drafting is so extraordinarily poor that I doubt that Mr. Seán O'Connor played any part in it at the drafting stage. I think he would have produced a better drafted piece of legislation. However, regarding the amendment, I ask the Minister to remove the bad ghost and explain a little more about the lack of functions of the HEA.
To take first the Deputy's point about the Minister for the Public Service, I do not think that the inclusion of that Minister will have any deleterious effect on the operation of the Bill or on the workings of the council. From my knowledge of him in relation to education I do not consider him to be a ghost who will shake his gory locks at me.
He has not got any locks to shake.
Ghosts grow their own locks. The Minister has been good to education. The Deputy seems to be puzzled that an tÚdarás are mentioned in paragraph (e), subsection (2) of section 3.
I am puzzled as to why they were not mentioned earlier.
It is the same section. As the Deputy very pertintently remarked, an tÚdarás have a statutorily defined function in relation to third level education, a function which arises from the 1971 Act which set up an tÚdarás Um Ard-Oideachas. That Act provides that an tÚdarás be consulted on any matter relating to their functions. There is no need to gild the lily, to repeat and give powers in this Bill that an tÚdarás have already by reason of their special functions in relation to third level education. The 1971 Act makes clear the role and function of an tÚdarás. This role is mentioned specifically in paragraph (e), subsection (2) of section 3 of this Bill. Therefore, there is no need for the importation of an tÚdarás to this section.
I cannot believe the Minister. Here in section 3 we are establishing a wide spectrum of functions for the HEA without any consultation with the HEA being evident or considered desirable on the Minister's part. Yet, in relation to the continuation of courses being financed by the council through an tÚdarás all the council can do is to advise the Minister through an tÚdarás. There is no reference in paragraph (e) to advising an tÚdarás or to the council advising the Minister directly.
The fact is that the HEA have been left out of the Bill. I do not see the functions of the HEA being incorporated in any way in this legislation except perhaps in a minor sense in paragraph (e) which conforms with paragraph (b) of section 3 of the HEA Act. The question of a proper involvement for an tÚdarás has been ignored totally in this Bill. That is unfortunate. As I said on Second Stage we should be moving towards a unitary system of third level education. The Minister agrees on that point. Surely, then, he should be taking every opportunity to further the concept of unitary education in the long run at third level by allowing the HEA to play a greater role in the development of the non-university sector.
I admit freely that the HEA are held in suspicion by many people in the non-university sector and that if that authority were to be given a full and proper part to play in the development of the non-university sector there might be a need to amend the Act in order to change the position of the authority. However, we could do that at a later stage without upsetting unduly the schedule of the Oireachtas but, accepting that the composition of the HEA Authority can be amended to bring into recognition the part being played by them in the non-university sector, there cannot be any objection to their playing a wider role than that envisaged for them in this Bill. They are playing their part successfully in the university sector within the confines of the available moneys. The knowledge that the authority have at their disposal and the wisdom they have accumulated should not be ignored but should be harnessed and used.
I submit to the House that the Minister and the Department are fully conscious of the functions, the role and the power and indeed of the contributions of an tÚdarás. As Deputy Collins mentioned, an tÚdarás are referred to in paragraph (e), subsection (2) of section 3. They had the opportunity of reading this Bill before it was presented to the House. The institute named in the Bill are funded through an tÚdarás and consequently they have some function in regard to the allocation of moneys for courses in those institutes.
The regional technical colleges are not funded from an tÚdarás but I wonder if it is the view of Deputy Collins that an tÚdarás should fund these colleges. Is this one of the areas where he thinks an tÚdarás should be operating? This Bill is about a council for educational awards. In so far as an tÚdarás have a role with regard to the council, they are consulted as they are consulted about all problems that arise in the university sector.
On Second Stage, at column 1211 of the Official Report of 14 February 1979 I said:
The present system is fragmented, and the Minister has lost an opportunity to unify, even to some degree, the present position in relation to the Dublin colleges, the regional technical colleges, and the National Institute for Higher Education at Thomond College. The opportunity has been lost to create a unified system in relation to financing, staffing, and the utilisation of resources. Why should the Department of Education finance regional technical colleges, Dublin VEC colleges and Thomond College while the HEA fund the NIHE in Limerick and the National College of Art and Design?
The Minister challenges me to say whether I agree that the RTCs should be funded by an tÚdarás rather than by the Department. Why is the Minister encouraging the present fragmented system of financing? Why is he allowing the Department to subvent some colleges and institutions in the third-level sector and why are the HEA funding other colleges in the non-university third-level sector? Does the Minister not feel that there is something askew in that sector in relation to finance? Does he not agree that a more rational approach to the matter would be for all the colleges referred to in the Bill to be funded by either the HEA or the Department?
Would the Deputy take the funding away from the vocational education committees?
I will not jump to the bait as easily as that. Is the Minister satisfied with the situation whereby the HEA fund some of the colleges and the Department fund the others?
I asked that question on Second Stage.
I will answer the Minister. In certain circumstances it would be better for the RTCs to be funded by the HEA. One of the circumstances would be a change in the composition of an tÚdarás, that it would be more representative of the non-university sector than at present. If that were done there would be more confidence in an tÚdarás in relation to such matters as funding. Is the Minister aware—and if he is not aware he should ask the civil servant sitting beside him—that the delay in appointing staff to RTCs is a disgrace to him and his Department? Is he aware that there is great dissatisfaction about funding?
We are widening the scope of the amendment.
The Minister asked me a question and I am trying to answer it.
That does not arise on this amendment.
If An tÚdarás had powers in relation to the colleges which he referred to a short while ago, would the Minister accept that there would be the same delay in making appointments and the same delay in making the initial funding allocation to the RTCs? Is the Minister aware that the boards of management of many RTCs do not know where they stand in relation to the development of certain courses because they are not given their allocations in time to plan the academic year? They cannot allocate staff and resources to areas in need of development because they do not know when they will get the money and because of delays in sanctioning the appointment of staff. Is the Minister happy with that situation or would he prefer to have a more professional approach adopted? I suggest that many people in the RTC sector would welcome a change in the method of financing assuming that certain conditions were met, such as changing the composition of the HEA, guaranteeing allocations in time for the academic year and a reduction in the delay in sanctioning staff.
On the amendment, I do not see mention of the Minister for the Public Service acting in any way in a manner which would be injurious to the interests of the NCEA. I am fully aware of the function and role of an tÚdarás in the higher education field. They are spelled out specifically in the 1971 Act setting up an tÚdarás. An tÚdarás got the draft heads of this Bill before it came before the House. They are mentioned specifically in section 3 (2) (e) and will be consulted in accordance with their function and role as spelled out in the Act.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The Minister is putting a heavy chain around his neck. I hope he does not sink.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 4, subsection (3) (a), line 19, to insert ",or education in art or design," after "education".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 4, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following new subsection before subsection (5):
"(5) (a) Any degree, diploma, certificate or other educational award conferred, granted or given to or on a person by the body of persons which, immediately before the commencement of the Act, called itself the National Council for Educational Awards, shall, from such commencement be regarded as having been conferred, granted, or given by the Council.
(b) Any course of study or instruction conducted by, or provided under the supervision of an institution to which this Act applies and which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, stood approved of by the body of persons referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall for the purposes of the Act be regarded as having been approved of by the Council immediately after the commencement of this Act.".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the awards conferred by the ad hoc council be recognised by the council after the commencement of the Act. This is the usual thing because it has been operating in an ad hoc capacity. It is also the purpose of the amendment to ensure that any course of study or instruction which stood approved by the ad hoc council immediately before the commencement of the Act shall be regarded as having been approved by the council immediately after the commencement of the Act. This amendment meets amendment No. 132 in the name of Deputy E. Collins. Amendment No. 132 proposes that all awards made and acts done before the commencement of this Act, by the body of persons then calling itself the National Council for Educational Awards shall, on such commencement, be recognised by the council. My amendment provides for the recognition of awards given by the ad hoc body and section 13 protects the rights of staff. Adequate provision is made in these two sections for the transfer of functions from the ad hoc body and it is important to have continuity.
Where is the protection of staff mentioned in the amendment?
It is not mentioned in this amendment, but it is mentioned further on. We will be covering the continuation of recognition of awards and of courses and later on we will be dealing with staff.
Amendment No. 28 was submitted after my amendment No. 132 was put down. My amendment was shorter and stated as follows:
In page 10, before section 14, to insert a new section as follows:
"All awards made and acts done before the commencement of this Act, by the body of persons then calling itself the National Council for Educational Awards shall, on such commencement, be recognised by the Council.".
The Minister subsequently put down an amendment which is broader but basically says the same thing. I can accept amendment No. 28 because I feel it is necessary. It would be quite ridiculous if acts carried out and awards conferred by the ad hoc council were not confirmed by the statutory council. This omission from the Bill was a drafting error of major proportions. As it stands, the Bill before us does not give protection to acts done and awards made by the ad hoc council. This major drafting error reflects either the lack of thought put into the Bill or the dreadful work done by the parliamentary draftsman concerned. There is a responsibility on the Government of the day and the Minister directly involved to see that whatever legislation comes before the House is sound and well thought out. It is obvious from amendment No. 28 that this was not so. The Bill was hastily or sloppily drafted. If I withdraw amendment No. 132 at this time——
We will come to it later.
I am satisfied to take it with amendment No. 28.
We will take the two together. I would say to the Deputy that the Minister is responsible for the Bill and we should not hammer the parliamentary draftsman.
I will hammer the Minister then.
You may hammer the Minister as much as you like. He will be able to deal with it.
I will hammer the Minister only on political points. Amendment No. 132 is related to amendment No. 28 and because I put down amendment No. 132 prior to the submission by the Minister of amendment No. 28 this matter came to light. The Minister in a somewhat obtuse fashion acknowledged that fact.
I find that amendment No. 132 has already been ruled out of order as involving a potential charge on the revenue. We cannot discuss that amendment.
I will discuss amendment No. 28.
I will refrain from hammering.
That is fair enough. So do I in this context because the introduction of my amendment facilitated the introduction of amendment No. 28.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
It is important that we should discuss the generality of section 3 in detail, not only because of the number of amendments which have been put down but because the wording of section 3 has been found to be so objectionable, imprecise and faulty. I cannot accept the section as it now stands and I will oppose it, not because I oppose the giving of functions, either specifically or generally, to the NCEA but because the granting of these functions is so badly worded in this section. The intention of the section is diverted on a number of occasions because of the wording.
There are other parts of the section to which I have political objections, for example, the council being given certain powers in relation to the co-ordination of courses. I object to the use of the word "universities". The importation of the concept of standards in universities, despite whatever philosophical importance they may have for the Minister, reduces the acceptability of the Bill to many people directly involved in the non-university sector.
The position which the HEA should play and are not playing in this section leaves me to feel that the fragmentation of the third-level education system is to be positively encouraged. That is an unfortunate move. The Minister should have taken the opportunity in this Bill to move, as slowly as he likes, towards a unitary system at third level. He has not seen fit to do so and has continued a policy of fragmentation.
The wording of the Bill also omits reference to a number of areas of academic interest to which the council should address themselves more positively. This is unfortunate. In particular I refer to the omission of reference to apprenticeship courses. We discussed that in detail and we are all satisfied that the academic content of apprenticeship courses is not to our satisfaction as educationalists. The philosophy of AnCO in relation to apprenticeships is not sound educationally. It may be sound economically and from the point of view of industry but we have a higher priority and must ensure that young people pursuing apprenticeship courses are protected educationally and given the facility of continuing their education, which they will appreciate to a far greater extent later on in life if not in their teens. It is for that reason that the inclusion of apprenticeship courses was important. I very much regret its omission.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.