Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Apr 1980

Vol. 319 No. 8

National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Agus an dara léamh á mholadh agam don Bhille seo maidir leis An Foras Náisiúnta um Ard-Oideachas. Luimneach, a chur ar bhonn reachtúil, measaim go mba chóir dom i dtús báire cúlra an scéil a thabhairt i láthair.

Ar 12 Nollaig 1968 d'eisigh an t-iar-Aire Oideachais, Brian Ó Luineacháin, T.D., ráiteas ag foillsiú go raibh beartaithe ag an Rialtas institiúid den triú leibhéal a bhunú i Luimneach agus go mbeadh soláthar chaipitil ar fáil chuige sin. Dúirt an tAire freisin ag an am go raibh sé tar éis iarraidh ar an Údarás um Ard Oideachas moltaí a chur ar fáil faoi conas d'fhéadfaí a leithéid d'institiúid a shníomh isteach sa structúr a bhí nó a bheadh ann i réimse an ard oideachais.

Sa chéad tuarascáil uathu dár dáta 30 Márta 1969, dhein an tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas na moltaí seo leanas maidir leis an institiúid nua a bhí beartaithe do Luimneach:

(a) Cólaiste Ard Oideachais a bhunú i Luimneach;

(b) cúrsaí céime a chur ar fáil san institiúid seo maille le réimse leathan de chúrsaí a oirfeadh do mhic léinn nár comhlíon na coinníollacha a bhí leagtha síos ag na hollscoileanna nó nár mhian leo cúrsa ollscoile a leanúint;

(c) cúrsaí a chur ar fáil do dhaoine a bhí fostaithe cheana féin agus a theastaigh uathu a gcaighdeán oideachais a ardú nó a gcuid scileanna a fheabhsú nó cáiliochtaí breise a bhaint amach;

(d) mic léinn a mhealladh ó gach aird in Éirinn tré cúrsaí a chur ar fáil nach raibh ar fáil cheana féin in institiúidí eile, cé gur thuig an tÚdarás go mbeadh tromlach na mic léinn ag teacht on gceantar thart timpeall ar Luimneach;

(e) ba chóir go mbeadh an institiúid nua bunaithe ar na prionsabail seo leanas:

(i) institiúid náisiúnta a bheadh ann ag plé le riachtanaisí na tíre go léir agus le mic léinn ag teacht ó gach aird den tír;

(ii) cúram ar leith a dhéar mh san institiúid de riachtanaisí in cheantair;

(iii) udarás neamhspleách a bheith ar an institiúid ach í a bheith faoi chúram ginireálta an Udaráis um Ard Oideachas;

(iv) bunreacht so-athraithe a bheith ag an institiúid ionas go bfhéadfaí le riachtanaisí na tíre agus an cheantair de réir mar a nochtfaí iad san am a bhí le teacht;

(v) cúrsaí céime, cúrsaí diploma, cúrsaí teastais a bheith ar fáil agus iad á bhronnadh ag Comhairle Náisiúnta na gCáilíochtaí Oideachais;

(vi) Ar dtús, bheadh tromlach na gcúrsaí ag leibhéal an teastais agus an diploma agus thabharfadh na cúrsaí sin taithí do lucht stiurtha na hinstitiúide i bpleanáil cúrsaí céime;

(vii) an caighdeán iontrála do chúrsaí céime a bheith ar aon dul leis an gcaighdeán ins na hollscoileanna; do gach cúrsa eile a bheadh an tÁrd Teistiméireacht (Pas) no a comhionann ag teastáil;

(viii) bheadh obair na hinstitiúide bunaithe ar an dteicneolaíocht ach le réimse fiúntach den éigse.

Mhol an tÚdarás um Ard Oideachas an cur chuige seo leanas:

(a) go mbunódh an tAire Oideachais Bord Pleanála le seisear baill ar a mhéid;

(b) go gceapfaí stiurthóir agus cuid den fhoireann sinnsireach; go mbeadh an stiurthóir ina chathaoirleach ar an mBord Pleanála agus go mbeadh sé de dhualgas ar an mbord na sochruithe cuí a dhéanamh maidir le suíomh d'fháil, foirgnimh a thógáil, troscáin agus fearais a chur ar fáil, cúrsaí a chur le chéile, agus mar sin de;

(c) go mbeadh sé de dhualgas ar an mBord Pleanála freisin dréacht de bhunreacht don institiúid nua a chur faoi bhráid an Udaráis um Ard Oideachas.

Cuireadh an chéad tuarascáil seo den Udarás um Ard Oideachas faoi bhráid an Rialtais ar 2 Aibreán, 1969, sar ar leagadh é ar bhord Tithe an Oireachtais.

Ceapadh stiúrthóir don institiúid agus chuaigh sé i mbun na hoibre ar 1 Eanáir, 1970. Cheannaigh mo Roinnse an suíomh ag Plassey i Mí Feabhra 1970 agus bunaíodh Bord Pleanála sa mhí céanna. Seisear a bhí ar an mbord taobh amuigh de'n stiúrthóir-cathaoirleach. Chuathas i mbun deisiú Teach Plassey i 1971 agus bhí an obair sin críochnaithe i 1972. Tógadh roint foirgneamh réamhdhéanta freisin. Tugadh cead an chéad grúpa den fhoireann teagaisc a cheapadh i Mí Meán Fomhair 1971 agus faomhadh na cúrsaí a bhí le cur ar siúl sa bhlian acadúil 1972-73. Tháinig mic léinn isteach san Institiúid nua den chéad uair i Mí Dheireadh Fomhair 1972.

With the acceptance of the first group of 100 students in autumn, 1972, the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, came into being with programmes leading to diploma and degree awards in administrative systems, business studies, electronic engineering, European studies and materials and industrial engineering. The accommodation provided in Plassey House and prefabricated structures was quickly supplemented by the first phase of permanent building which, with the aid of a World Bank loan, was commenced in 1972 and completed by 1975. This provided accommodation for 1,100 students, 18,500 sq. metres. The new buildings had many new design features and are described as follows in a booklet published by the institute:

The buildings have been planned in the form of two blocks, one on the east side of Plassey lawn, the other to the south.

Laboratories, such as the Machine Shops, Mining, Materials Testing, Foundry, Polymer Technology, Metrology, Thermodynamics and Fluids, and Data Processing are located on the ground floor.

The first floor contains the major Communal Areas such as the Restaurant, Coffee Bar Area, Bar Area and Lecture Theatre. The main circulation route is at this level, linking the main vertical staircases and service towers. This floor also contains the Office Systems Laboratory and the Face to Face Teaching Rooms.

A large Open-Plan Teaching and Library Area is located on the second floor. The language Laboratories, T.V. Production Area, Physics and Chemistry Laboratories are also on the same floor.

The third floor contains the Microscopy, Pollution Control Laboratories, Electronic and Electro-Technology Laboratories. Music Cubicles and the Museum Area. It can be seen that the buildings encompass a wide range of uses and it is intended that most future buildings should provide a similar wide range.

Plassey House is linked to the new building by a bridge at first floor level.

There are five Service Towers incorporated in the south and east blocks; two currently perform a linking function and the other three will provide linkage and services to the future adjacent buildings.

Between the Towers are areas of useable floor space. Considerable attention has been given to the problem of providing this space with as much "servicing permeability", allowance for future change and freedom from structural columns as is consistent with economy. A unique feature of the design is the 1.5 metre wide continuous service channel which runs in each direction within the floor structure between the columns, giving good routine, horizontal pipe and duct runs. Vertical ducts are also provided on this grid, thus allowing for complete flexibility in the most economical manner.

The technologically orientated programme of study has resulted in a high proportion of large-scale semi-industrial laboratories with special servicing, loading and height requirements. The scale of these and their relation to the smaller spaces has required careful and imaginative treatment. The gradation of spaces from heavy laboratory and workshop through light laboratory, lecture areas and restaurant to small offices has made for a wide variety of scale. This, together with attention to detailed design has resulted in a rich and stimulating environment.

As large laboratories and workshops are difficult to accommodate in buildings of conventional width, deeper buildings of up to twenty metres or more in width have been provided. By devoting particular care to the plan and section, it was possible to create areas of considerably greater depth than the 15 metres generally regarded as the maximum for naturally ventilated buildings of more than one storey.

The growth of the institute since 1972 can be gauged by the fact that in the current academic year there are over 1,300 full-time students following degree courses in business studies, administrative systems, European studies, regional studies, public administration, electronic engineering, industrial and management mathematical science, material and production engineering, energy technology and chemical technology with diploma courses in business studies, banking, European studies, industrial electronics, instrumentation and control, computer engineering, materials and production engineering and industrial design. There is also a certificate level course in data processing as well as post-graduate courses leading to the award of master's degrees and doctorates. There are over 100 post-graduate students in the institute in the current academic year.

The National Coalition Government's decisions of 13 December 1974 in relation to higher education included the following in relation to the National Institute for Higher Education Limerick:

(i) The National Institute for Higher Education Limerick shall be a recognised college of the National University of Ireland, with the capacity to evolve into a constituent college of the National University of Ireland or to become an autonomous degree-awarding institution.

(ii) The majority of the members of the Governing Body of the NIHE Limerick shall be nominated by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Education and shall include representatives from the trade unions, agriculture, business, industry and educational interests.

(iii) A Council for Technological Education shall be established to plan and co-ordinate courses and to validate and award non-degree third-level qualifications in the NIHE Limerick and other institutions.

(iv) The National Institute for Higher Education Limerick shall be a designated institution for the purposes of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971.

(v) The Governing Body of the NIHE Limerick shall consist of twenty-five members.

On 5 March 1975 the Government approved a list of names of persons to be invited to act on the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education Limerick. The first meeting of the Governing Body was held on 19 June 1975.

The National Institute for Higher Education Limerick was granted recognised college status by the National University of Ireland in 1976, and the university was the degree-awarding authority for students of the institute who graduated in 1976 and 1977.

On 14 December 1976 the National Institute for Higher Education Limerick was designated by the Minister for Education as an institution of higher education for the purposes of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971.

That, then, was the position when I became Minister for Education. One of my first actions as Minister for Education was to restore to the National Council for Educational Awards its degree-awarding function. I had discussions in the matter with UCG which was the college dealing with the NIHE Limerick on behalf of the National University of Ireland, with representatives of the Governing Body of the NIHE Limerick and with the National Council for Educational Awards. On 18 November 1977, I announced that the NCEA was to be the degree-awarding authority in the case of students who successfully completed degree level courses in the NIHE Limerick and in the NIHE Dublin, the Thomond College of Education and the Regional Technical Colleges.

As a result of my discussions with the bodies concerned, a smooth transfer of responsibility for degree awards from the National University of Ireland to the National Council for Educational Awards was achieved. The NCEA was the degree-awarding authority for the NIHE Limerick from 1978 onwards.

I now propose to summarise the main provisions of the Bill as it has been presented. Section 1 deals with the interpretation of the various terms used in the Bill. Section 2 establishes the Institute which shall be known in the Irish language as An Foras Náisiúnta um Ard Oideachas, Luimneach, and in the English language as the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick. Section 3 defines what is meant by membership of the Institute. Section 4 provides for the functions of the Institute. The functions are:

(a) to provide degree level courses, diploma level courses and certificate level courses, and, with the approval of the Minister, such other courses in education as may seem appropriate to the Governing Body;

(b) to engage in research in such areas as the Governing Body may deem appropriate;

(c) subject to the approval of the Minister—

(i) to buy, acquire, lease, maintain, manage, administer, dispose of and invest all the property, money, assets and rights of the Institute;

(ii) to accept from donors gifts of land, money, or other property upon such trusts and conditions, if any, as may be specified by the donor, provided always that nothing in any such trust or condition is contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(iii) to institute and award scholarships, prizes and other awards;

(d) subject to the approval of the Minister, to do all such acts and things as may be necessary to further the objects and development of the Institute.

Section 5 provides for the establishment of a governing authority for the institute, to be known as the Governing Body, and prescribes its structure and functions. More detailed provisions for the operation of the Governing Body are set out in the First Schedule. The Governing Body is to consist of a chairman, the director and 23 ordinary members. The chairman and the 23 ordinary members shall be appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister. The manner of appointment of the 23 ordinary members is set out in section 5 (4) and is as follows:

(a) nine shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister in accordance with the provisions of section 5 (5) which draws particular attention to the need for adequate representation of industry, agriculture, fisheries, commerce and the professions;

(b) three shall be appointed who shall be members of the academic staff of the Institute who shall be chosen by the academic staff in accordance with regulations made by the Governing Body;

(c) one shall be appointed who is a member of the non-academic staff of the Institute chosen in accordance with regulations made by the Governing Body;

(d) two shall be appointed who are full-time students of the Institute chosen in accordance with regulations made by the Governing Body;

(e) three shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of Thomond College of Education, Limerick;

(f) two shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from members of the teaching staff of Regional Technical Colleges;

(g) two shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister from members of the management boards of Regional Technical Colleges; and

(h) one shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the National Institute for Higher Education, Dublin.

Section 6 provides for the functions of the Governing Body. The Governing Body shall manage and control all the affairs and property of the Institute and shall perform all the functions conferred on the Institute by this Act and shall have all such powers as may be necessary under this Act for this purpose. The Governing Body may from time to time appoint such and so many committees as it thinks proper to assist it in such manner as the Governing Body shall direct and the Governing Body may assign to any Committee so appointed such duties as it thinks fit. The acts of any such Committee shall be subject to confirmation by the Governing Body unless the Governing Body dispenses with the necessity for such confirmation.

Section 7 provides for a post of chief officer of the Institute, to be known as the director. The Second Schedule sets out the conditions governing the appointment of the director.

Section 8 provides for the establishment of an Academic Board for the institute and prescribes the functions of the board. The Academic Board acts as specialist advisers to the Governing Body on academic matters. Its functions relate to the planning, co-ordination, development and overseeing of the educational work of the institute. The membership and terms of office of the Academic Board are determined by regulations made by the Governing Body. Section 8 (3) lists particular functions of the board as follows:

(a) to design, develop and implement appropriate programmes of study;

(b) to make recommendations to the Governing Body for the establishment of appropriate structures to implement such programmes of study;

(c) to make recommendations to the Governing Body on proigrammes for the development of research;

(d) to make recommendations to the Governing Body for the selection, admission, retention and exclusion of students;

(e) to make, subject to the approval of the Governing Body, and to implement the academic regulations of the Institute;

(f) to propose to the Governing Body the form of regulations to be made by the Governing Body for the conduct of examinations and for the evaluation of academic progress;

(g) to make recommendations to the Governing Body for the award of fellowships, scholarships, bursaries, prizes or other awards;

(h) to make general arrangements for tutorial or other academic counselling;

(i) to exercise other functions, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which may be delegated to it by the Governing Body; and

(j) to implement any regulations which may be made by the Governing Body concerning any of the matters aforesaid.

With the approval of the Governing Body, the academic board may establish such and so many committees either consisting wholly or partly of persons who are not members of the institute as it thinks proper to assist the academic board in the performance of its functions and may determine the functions of any committee so established.

Section 9 enables the institute to appoint such members of staff as are necessary subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance and to determine the conditions of service and the pay of such staff subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for the Public Service. This section, as drafted, includes a provision disqualifying members of the Oireachtas and representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities from becoming members of the staff of the institute and also providing for the secondment of any member of staff who is nominated for election to either House of the Oireachtas or is nominated for election to or appointed to be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities. Since the Bill was drafted and in connection with other Bills which will shortly be coming before the House, further consideration has been given to these disqualification provisions. I wish to let the House know that I shall be moving an amendment on Committee Stage to eliminate section 9 (6) and section 9 (7) from the Bill and to eliminate from section 9 (5) the words "Subject to subsection (6) of this section".

Section 10 provides that the staff serving in the ad hoc institute may be transferred to the service of the statutory body and protects the conditions of service, pay and pension rights of the transferred staff, which will not be any less favourable than the conditions they enjoyed while serving as members of the staff of the ad hoc body.

Section 11 places responsibility on the institute to prepare and submit to the Minister, as soon as possible after the passing of the Act, a pension scheme for staff. All provisions of any pension scheme submitted by the institute will be subject to the approval of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service. Every approved scheme will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution within 21 sitting days.

Section 12 requires the Governing Body to submit to the Minister annually a report of the work of the institute. The section also provides that the institute will give the Minister any information about its operation that he may require from time to time.

Section 13 provides that in each year there shall, in accordance with section 12 (2) of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, be paid by the Higher Education Authority to the institute, out of moneys received by the Authority under section 12 (1) of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, a grant or grants of such amount or amounts as the Authority thinks fit.

Section 14 requires the institute to keep accounts which must be submitted annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General. When received by the institute the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General must be submitted with the accounts to the Minister. The Minister will lay the accounts before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 15 enables the institute to charge fees for admission to courses, lectures, examinations, exhibitions or any other event held by the institute or for admission to any event held at the institute.

Section 16 is the usual provision that the expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 17 provides for the short title and the commencement date.

I should like to record my appreciation of the great service rendered by the Planning Board in getting the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, off the ground and overseeing its development in the early years of its existence. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the ad hoc Governing Body which has been responsible for the affairs of the institute since 1975 and whose term of office has been extended until the institute is established on a statutory basis.

The decision of the Government, announced by my predecessor, Mr. Brian Lenihan, TD, in in 1968, was a difficult one, but in hindsight the right one. It must have been tempting to announce the establishment in Limerick of a university college, modelled closely on those that were well established and well respected in Dublin, Cork and Galway, rather that the creation of a new, and, consequently, less understood concept. The latter was the course, quite consciously taken, in the interests of the people of Limerick and of the country as a whole.

It is satisfying, now in 1980, to see that the wisdom of the decision is evident; the graduates of NIHE Limerick are providing the country with a new range of expertise in disciplines ranging from Microprocessor Engineering to European Studies, and while providing existing Irish enterprises with the expertise necessary for the "microchip age", their very presence serves to attract a variety of new industries into this country.

In many senses the need to make a new start in Limerick arose from our success in the sixties in stimulating economic growth. At that time we succeeded in both reawakening Irish business and industry and attracting a considerable amount of foreign investment. Initially, and quite understandably, our development frequently depended on a large labour force eager for work, but for the most part neither highly skilled nor with a background in business or industry. The dynamic growth of the sixties made it quite evident that we had in Ireland qualities which few abroad had previously attributed to us: we could achieve high levels of productivity and rapidly assimilate new knowledge and acquire new skills. Those industrial organisations which came to Ireland in the sixties discovered many of our latent strengths and built upon them. Initially, of course, much of the newly generated employment was not particularly sophisticated or intellectually demanding. However, the 1960s served to lay the foundation for a new era of development, which commenced in the 1970s and is now under way in the 1980s. Ireland is no longer looked upon as a source of cheap, unskilled labour, but as one of the special locations where the engineering, business and scientific expertise necessary for the sophistication of the "microchip era" is available. As an indication of this, employment in the electronics industry in 1979 was double the 1973 level, and during the same period the value of electronic exports has grown from £38 million to £305 million. Already there are over 70 companies in the industry in Ireland, including 12 out of the top 100 US electronic firms. This would have been inconceivable ten years ago, and impossible had we not taken the initiative in the late 1960s to establish the regional technical colleges and to invest heavily in the major technological centre which has been created on the Limerick campus, soon to be followed by a developing Dublin one.

Increasing numbers of our young people are now well equipped for challenging careers within their own country. No longer must large numbers of our most talented youth go abroad for employment—the drain on our life-blood has been stopped—now our able young people make things happen here and industry is now coming to Ireland in order to avail of this talent.

The NIHE, Limerick, Bill, 1980, is intended to make statutory a new and important component of the Irish higher educational structure. It is not intended that NIHE, Limerick, should be inferior, or indeed superior, to the established universities within the State; rather it is intended that its work should be complementary and its standing comparable. Other countries have found need to introduce similar new institutions as their economies develop; I had the privilege of visiting one in Holland. Indeed the parallel drawn with The Massachusetts Institute of Technology by my predecessor when in 1968 he announced the decision to establish the institute still stands. The country is at a stage of economic development where we need a full contribution both from the established universities and the new NIHEs in Limerick and Dublin.

The recently enacted legislation for the National Council for Educational Awards makes it clear that academic standards are set at levels comparable to those in the established universities, while any visitor to the Limerick campus leaves without any doubt that the facilities and equipment already provided compare favourably with the best found within this country or abroad.

While equivalent in standard and standing to the established universities as a designated body under the HEA, the institute is expected to have a special relationship—I emphasise this—with the regional technical colleges. Through interaction with the RTCs and in conjunction with the NCEA it is intended that programmes and regulations should be developed in a compatible way so as to ensure ready mobility of students.

The capital investment and resources necessary to achieve levels of excellence in any discipline of engineering or science are great. However, the best use of our available resources can be achieved only through close collaboration between the various institutions. With careful planning it should be possible to facilitate a student with ability to progress within the State from one centre to another—an old German custom—in order to specialise in his chosen field.

In deciding that degree programmes operated at NIHE, Limerick, and accredited by the NCEA, should be both practically oriented and at the same time comparable in standard to those in the established universities, special constraints are placed on those planning and operating the programmes: not only must the programmes be career oriented but they must also be academically rigorous. The two requirements are not, of course, mutually exclusive, but nevertheless special effort must be and has been taken to ensure that the sensitive balance is achieved and maintained.

While the institute was assisted by its own developmental consultants, and monitored by the extern examiners of the National University of Ireland, and subsequently by the extern examiners of the National Council for Educational Awards, it was recognised that the success and the standing of the institute would ultimately be measured by the performance of its graduates.

It is now widely known that NIHE, Limerick, graduates are eagerly sought out by employers, and many individuals—particularly in areas such as electronic engineering—assess four to five attractive job offers even before they complete their courses. As a result each year 80 per cent of NIHE graduates go directly into Irish employment, while of the remainder some 15 per cent undertake research or further study and fewer than 5 per cent go abroad for employment.

Not as widely known perhaps is the achievement of the smaller number of NIHE, Limerick, graduates who have undertaken postgraduate study abroad in a number of leading university centres. Perhaps the most vivid example is the success of European studies graduates at the College of Europe in Bruges, where over the last three years they have distinguished themselves. In fact in 1979 an NIHE graduate took first place in a class of 130 postgraduate students drawn from leading educational centres throughout the European Community.

Various approaches have been adopted to ensure that NIHE, Limerick, undertakes work which is relevant to the needs of the community at large. Perhaps the most successful of those has been the co-operative education programme whereby every national diploma and degree student spends one or two six-month periods in employment off-campus.

The co-operative education programme introduced in Limerick is new to the country and is perhaps the single most important element of the innovation on the NIHE campus. Quite obviously the students benefit from their practical experience, and equally important perhaps is the fact that the faculty members of the institute have an opportunity while supervising students to visit and establish relationships with a wide range of Irish business, industrial, professional and State organisations. Through this interaction changes in the curriculum are brought about, the need to mount new programmes is identified and various consultancy and research projects are initiated.

During the past year the institute's heavy involvement in the special manpower programme, designed to meet special manpower shortages, has led to a significant increase in enrolment to a total of 2,462 students of whom 1,302 are full time. While the existing facilities have been modified to some extent to cope with the increased numbers, I was pleased to announce recently that a major expansion is at an advanced planning stage. When complete this will more than double the available capacity. In the interim I know that various arrangements are being made to accommodate the increased enrolment planned for the forthcoming academic year.

Because of its special mission the institute has focussed on the disciplines of Engineering and Business and in 1979 over 350 new full-time students entered the College of Engineering and Science while over 280 entered the College of Business. In terms of size alone the institute has therefore become the country's main source of engineering graduates and after UCD the country's largest source of business graduates.

I have avoided entering into too much detail in relation to the provisions of the Bill as the Committee Stage will afford ample opportunity for discussion of such matters. In this connection I may say that I intend to avail myself to the full of the opportunity afforded by the parliamentary procedure to consider carefully all recommendations and suggestions received by me since the publication of the Bill as well as the observations of the Deputies during the course of this debate. One of the most pleasing things in the discussions on the National Council of Education Awards was the input that interested bodies, institutes and Deputies, had to make. For that reason the early publication of the Bill gave me an opportunity of meeting personally many of those who are interested and of receiving correspondence from individuals and institutions that had a like interest. I am prepared to move on Committee Stage such amendments as I see fit following a careful review of all proposals.

I am particularly anxious to achieve a fully satisfactory result in relation to consideration of this Bill as I attach great importance for the future of Ireland to the development of technological education through the National Institutes of Higher Education and the regional technical colleges which will be closely associated with them. This Act for the establishment of the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick, will serve as the model for the legislation in connection with the National Institute in Dublin and for Thomond College of Education. When the provisions of this Bill have been determined I propose to introduce the other two Bills without delay and would, accordingly, anticipate a speedy passage through the Oireachtas for them.

Molaim mar sin an Bille don Dáil mar thógra a bhfuil lán-mhuinín agam as ó taobh leas na tíre agus an oideachais.

We all remember the tremendous campaign which was mounted by the good people of Limerick and the surrounding areas in the sixties to have a university established in Limerick. It was as a result of that pressure that we had the concept of the National Institute for Higher Education and the establishment of the NIHE in Limerick. The decision to establish it in 1968 was a good one. The development of the NIHE has been worth while in Irish education. It has to a large extent been the second arm of our third-level education system. It has pioneered to a certain extent new types of learning. Its inter-disciplinary structure is of interest. Its module system of courses is new to Ireland and experience will tell us how successful this American style of education will be here.

The concept of inter-disciplinarity, which is the basic concept in the NIHE, is interesting. I hope—I say this advisedly—that the standards obtained by the graduates will continue to satisfy the requirements of the National Council for Education Awards. It is important that there be close monitoring of standards and of the graduates who come out of the institute. The growth in student population from 100 in 1972 to the present figure of 2,462 emphasises the awakening of the demand for third-level education. This has become very evident in the past ten years especially.

The pressure of space in all our universities and now even the NIHE is indicative of the demand for third level education in Ireland. We have an obligation to ensure that there is proper planning, that their building programmes are brought to an advanced stage. I am pleased to note that the Minister said that the expansion programme for the institute is at an advanced stage. I must, of course, express serious reservations about the Government's commitment to an ongoing building programme for our third level colleges, institutes and universities. It is quite obvious from the budget that sufficient money is not being provided for a comprehensive building programme for our universities, regional colleges and institutes.

I take the Minister at his word when he says that he is "pleased to note"—and I welcome the fact—that there is a building programme at an advanced stage. I would like him to give an undertaking to the House, because of the poor amount of money laid aside in the budget for the building programme, that there will be no financial constraints causing a delay to the ongoing building programme for the NIHE. The institute is planned to take 80,000 students and it therefore meshes in with the overall programme needed to provide places for the students who will seek third level education in the coming decade. There can be no delay in the provision of a building programme in that institute. It is important that we meet the demands of our young population in this respect.

The technological aspect of the institute has been emphasised. Its involvement in technological and business studies is welcome. It complements our universities and it is needed in our rapidly changing society and in view of the rapid technological changes which are taking place in industry and agriculture as well as in commerce.

All that having been said in praise of the establishment of the National Institute for Higher Education, in praise of its development to date and in praise of its plans for the future it saddens me to have to say I am shocked and surprised that Deputy Wilson, Minister for Education, would introduce a Bill of this type to deal with a third-level institute of education. I went to a university. I qualified after a struggle, I suppose, like many other students. I had the privilege of tutoring in UCD for a short while. On reflection I have come to cherish the concept of independence and autonomy within an educational institute.

There must be independence at that level. There must be quite a degree of autonomy within any third-level institute. The spirit of a college or university is important. Its direction is important. Its independent structures must be set down and understood by its members. If that is done, you can have an esprit de corps or a certain atmosphere, because everyone knows the college is the college is the college. You understand your own place.

Here we have an affront to any principle of autonomy and an insult to any concept of independence for highly qualified teachers. We are not dealing here with a primary school or a secondary school. We are dealing with an institute for higher education comparable with, as the Minister said, and on an equal footing with, any of our universities. When the former Taoiseach was opening the institute in September 1972 he promised something better than a university. We are not getting that in this Bill. Deep disappointment and deep dissatisfaction about the Bill have been expressed by a number of people involved with the institute.

Quite clearly the Minister has left himself open to considering amendments on Committee Stage. He said that advisedly because he knows the volume of dissatisfaction with the Bill and the volume of suggested amendments to the Bill. He knows in his heart and soul that this is not a Bill of which he can be proud. When the NCEA Bill was going through the House he said it could be a monument to him. It may very well be. It is now an Act and has the full support of this House and our good wishes for the people involved in it. I doubt very much that the Minister would want the NIHE Limerick Bill to be a monument to him as Minister.

I took some time to browse through the charters and statutes of our colleges under the NUI. I did so out of curiosity and interest and because I want to examine the evolution of approaches to Irish educational institutes. I should like to refer briefly to the charter for the constituent college of Galway. I could do so equally in relation to UCC or UCD. I completely accept that the Irish Universities Bill, 1908, is old and is about to be revised in accordance with the establishment of independent universities. My understanding is that some of the colleges are quite apprehensive about what will be in the Bill establishing them as independent universities in the context of this Bill. They wonder will the exercise be worth it. Will their independence be threatened? Is their autonomous position now in jeopardy? Will we have a departmental university system instead of a university system?

I should like rather quickly to go through this document entitled "Revised Draft of the Articles of a New Charter for the Constituent College at Galway". I take it it is a statutory instrument under the Irish Universities Bill, 1908. It is number 223 and there is a publication reference Cd. 4212. The price was one penny at the time. I should like to go through some of the regulations, not because they are necessarily valid now, but because they give us an idea of the attitude of the Government at that time to a third-level institute.

Will the Deputy relate that to the Bill before the House?

I want to compare the appointments under the NIHE Limerick Bill with the appointments made in that Act.

It looks somewhat remote to me.

In the course of my contribution you will see that my comparison is valid. In Part III dealing with the powers of the college the college is given power without interference—and this is the point I am making—to teach students, to provide teaching for other purposes, to provide facilities for original research, to institute and award prizes, to accept donors' gifts of land, money or other property for the foundation of professorships and lectureships, and to establish and maintain or license halls of residence. That is a rather interesting point in this charter because there is no reference to halls of residence in this Bill. There is a need to meet the requirements of students many of whom are away from home and many of whom are exploited by commercial landlords. The concept in 1908 of granting power to a third-level college to establish halls of residence is very interesting. It is very far-sighted.

The college has power to "do all such things in relation to the University as may be authorised by Our Charter founding the University or otherwise; To do all such other acts and things, whether incidental to the aforesaid powers or not, as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the College as a Teaching Body". The point I want to make is that these powers are given without interference, without reference back to the Minister or the Government, to UCG, UCC and UCD. I consider that a proper attitude to autonomy for third-level colleges. The president in Chapter VI of the charter was seen as the head and chief officer of the college. We have now changed to the concept of director. I will not quibble with words, it does not matter too much. The president is given fair powers without reference back to the Minister. This is the main difference between this Bill and NIHE.

The governing body is discussed in Chapter VII of the charter and it has relevance to our present day director. Four people were nominated by the Government, four were appointed by the Seanad and the university. That is interesting in relation to having an input and a co-relation between the university and the NIHE. Three people were professors of the college elected by the academic council and four graduates of the university who were members of the college and elected by the academic council. There was also a right to co-opt three people and the various councils adjacent to the college were allowed to nominate one person. Membership of local councils has been criticised on a number of occasions and I do not know if it is valid to have elected members serve on governing bodies but I have an open mind on it. I was a member of the governing body of UCC for a year when I was Mayor of Waterford. It certainly gives a little insight to the persons serving on the governing body of the college, into the workings of the college and it gives a feeling that if, for instance, one is a member of Waterford in college, the Waterford students had recourse to him if they had a problem in relation to the payment of a grant or in relation to paying fees or even in relation to their ability to study. It is not a political thing but simply a matter of a student having a problem. There is nothing wrong with that. There is a lot to be said for it. The Minister in this Bill has power to directly appoint ten people, to indirectly appoint four and by ministerial influence controls the council. I do not agree with that control of the governing body. The composition of the governing body should be independent of the Minister who should have the right to nominate a number of people because of the relationship between the Department and the institute. The governing body should be elected from within the institute independent of the Minister. There is some attempt in the Bill to do that but the manner in which it is structured is not satisfactory and I would like to see a more open approach to the composition of the governing body and to the manner in which members are elected. I am not at all happy that students should be appointed in the manner set out in the Bill, but that is a matter for Committee Stage. Surely the fact that nine members of the governing body shall be appointed by the Government on the advice of the Minister is overdoing it and is putting the stamp of politics on the governing body. That is unsatisfactory and is damaging from an educational point of view and from the view of the NIHE itself. Chapter VIII of the charter deals with the powers of the governing body and again we can see this comparison between interference and non-interference. Here we have a simple statement:

The Governing Body shall manage and control all the affairs of the College subject to Our Charter founding the University, to this Our Charter, and to any provisions in the Statutes of the University and the College, and shall direct the form, custody, and use of the Common Seal of the College.

That was a statement of trust in the governing body. The powers at the time said that the governing body were responsible for the management of the college and for its resources but now we have a situation where practically anything the governing body does is subject to the Minister's approval. I would not be surprised if we saw a publication from the Department setting out the rules and regulations for the NIHE in Limerick in the style of the rules and regulations for primary schools. That is the extent to which this Bill goes. They could not suspend a porter or buy a table for the director's office without getting the sanction of the Minister. That is not satisfactory and it is unacceptable to my party and to me.

In relation to the academic council, they are given fair powers here but the composition of the academic board is not specified properly. "Academic Board" are the words used in the Bill but they are the wrong words, they should be "Academic Council". Chapter II of the charter deals with the officers of the college. They are specified as the registrar, the bursar and the librarian. We have now a director and a full-time chairman. As I said in relation to the NCEA Bill there should be statutory protection for the office of bursar, librarian and registrar. This is an academic body, a third-level education institute and there is need for these protected offices. The whole body of students relies on a library as do the staff and research so the office of librarian should be protected. They saw fit in 1908 to specify and protect in a statutory way, a registrar, a bursar and a librarian but we seem to have thrown that concept out the door.

The question of the appointment of professors, lecturers and other teachers in the college is laid out in Chapter XII:

(2) The Governing Body shall regulate the provision of Assistants and Demonstrators to the Professors and Lecturers.

(1) Statutes of the College shall determine what Professors and Lecturers being heads of departments there shall be in the College. The duties, titles, salaries, and tenure of these several teaching offices shall be respectively such as the Statutes determine.

The attitude in the Bill is that everything must go back for approval. Section 9 (1) states:

The Institute 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.

This is not for a third-level institute or a college for education; it is more in keeping with a primary or secondary school. To say that the governing body, of its own decision, cannot employ servants and officers without going back to the Minister is an absolute insult to the people who are presently on the governing body and to those who will be on the governing body in future years, as if they would do anything to jeopardise the good standing of the institute.

The position in respect of the recruitment of academic, teaching and lecturing staff is not really discussed at all in the Bill. Structures in relation to departments of the institute are not mentioned in the Bill, that there shall be departments or faculties or whatever. This is only a Bill that was manufactured by somebody, God knows who, but the Minister is responsible for it and all I can do is address myself to him, as the Chair is about to remind me.

Exactly; the Minister is responsible.

The Minister, being a former lecturer, is well aware of the structure of university colleges and institutes and I do not have to tell him about them. This Bill does nothing to set down proper structures in the departments and faculties or the rights and responsibilities of lecturers and professors or the method of appointing them. I do not know if they have to be members of a Fianna Fáil cumann to be appointed. There should be a modus operandi set down in relation to academic staff in the institute. There is a reference to transferred staff but there is a complete absence of reference in the Bill to the rights of lecturers, professors and to the method of appointment. That is not acceptable.

The only reason why I brought this to the attention of the House was not to recommend the old charter of UCD or UCG but to contrast the attitude that prevailed in 1908 to the establishment of an institute for higher education, as is UCG. The attitude then in that charter was open, responsible, trusting, progressive and respectful. People serving in colleges know where they stand. They have their independence and autonomy. They are protected by contracts and by their own academic standing. Any man in a university college who is not academically able for his job will eventually leave or get a nervous breakdown. The attitude prevailing through the charter is completely ignored in the Bill.

This Bill is a monstrosity. It sets up the NIHE, Limerick, as nothing but a new branch of the Department of Education. I can see inspectors coming to find out what the stocks of pens and pencils are, what stationery there is, making sure that the proper number of biros are there, that the electricity bill has been paid and so on. That is the attitude in the Bill and it is despicable. I am astonished that the Minister should come in with this kind of a Bill. It is designed to downgrade the Higher Education Authority.

The Higher Education Authority was set up by an Act of 1971. Section 3 of that Act states:

An tÚdarás shall, in addition to the specific functions given to it by this Act, have the general functions of—

(a) furthering the development of higher education,

(b) assisting in the co-ordination of State investment in higher education and preparing proposals for such investment,

(c) promoting an appreciation of the value of higher education and research,

(d) promoting the attainment of equality of opportunity in higher education,

(e) promoting the democratisation of the structure of higher education.

That is very interesting. The HEA is officially the funding vehicle for NIHE because under the Bill the institute is designated for the purposes of the HEA Act. It works under the umbrella of the HEA. If it does, obviously it must submit to the HEA an annual programme for current expenditure, the wishes of the governing body relating to the general development of the institute and the programme for development of the various faculties and disciplines, and the HEA will give it a block grant. That is how it will be financed.

Section 13 of this Bill specifies that:

In each year there shall, in accordance with section 12 (2) of the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, be paid by An tÚdarás to the Institute, out of moneys received by An tÚdarás under section 12 (1) of the said Act, a grant or grants of such amount or amounts as An tÚdarás thinks fit.

The funding mechanism is from the HEA. The development of the institute will be under the umbrella of the HEA. Why then in nearly every decision in relation to appointments, expenditure and acquisitions of property must the Minister's sanction be sought? I can only conclude that the Government wish to downgrade the HEA for some reason or other. I do not know why. Perhaps it is because the civil service do not like power moving out of their hands.

The HEA was set up for the specific purpose of funding and administering in a global manner the third-level sector. That is quite proper and correct. It is the proper administrative structuring I like to see. Why then in this Bill must everything be referred back to the Minister when already everything will have to be referred to the HEA? I do not understand the Minister's attitude. I do not understand why he cannot trust the Higher Education Authority to do the work they have been doing very commendably but which the Minister seems to wish to ignore in this Bill.

The HEA were set up to monitor third-level institutions. That was a half way house. Over the last ten years I heard many criticisms of the independence and autonomy of the universities in the context of the amount of funding from central funds and it was said they were not accountable to anybody. The Higher Education Authority Act was passed with the intention of having a controlling body to act as a buffer between the independence of our higher education colleges and the politicians and the Minister. That buffer system would allow control by the HEA of the activities of the higher education colleges and at the same time it would be a link between the Minister who has to sign the cheques.

I find it inexplicable that there are such repetitive requirements for sanction from the NIHE to the Minister on almost every aspect of their activities. That is very sad. I am disappointed in the Minister. I should have thought he would be proud to establish the NIHE on a comparable standing with our colleges, giving them comparable responsibilities and independence. This Bill must raise fears in our colleges about their future under the Minister's intended legislation. I would like to go through this Bill in detail but I do not wish to be involved in a Committee Stage debate.

That would not be wise.

The Minister went through the Bill section by section and I will do the same.

That is in order, so long as the Deputy does not get into a Committee Stage debate.

My first major criticism which causes me to oppose this Bill is this: all the certificates, diplomas and degrees must be awarded by the National Council for Educational Awards. That is wrong. It is unnecessary and unwise. I am aware of the controversy that arose in the seventies when the then Minister for Education, Mr. Burke, made NIHE, Limerick, a recognised college of the National University of Ireland. The present Minister then felt that the NCEA should have power to confer awards. He is now in power and is obviously adhering to this. I do not think it was ever envisaged that the NCEA would be given a monopoly situation in relation to the granting of awards. In my view that is not healthy educationally; it is retrogressive to give the NCEA complete power to award certificates, diplomas and degrees. It is unhealthy for the institute to be spancelled by this requirement. By all means let the NCEA be involved with NIHE, Limerick, I will not cavil at that, but to actually forbid NIHE, Limerick, to seek awards from other places, such as universities, professional bodies or even international bodies, is wrong. Educationally that is unsound and it is most unsatisfactory that this should be enshrined in this legislation.

The National Council for Educational Awards Act has given the NCEA certain powers. The NIHE have been working through the NCEA. I will not cavil at that, but it is most undesirable educationally to give complete monopoly to the NCEA in respect of the granting of certificates, diplomas and degrees to NIHE Limerick. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the drafting of this Bill in this respect, to let the NCEA retain their powers and to leave the present position where NIHE actually deal with Limerick, but he should not create a monopoly situation as is envisaged in this Bill.

Section 2 states that the institute shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession. That is necessary but it conflicts with another subsection which makes the governing body a body corporate. However, that is a matter for Committee Stage.

Section 3 deals with membership of the institute. I take it that subsection (3), which allows the governing body to confer membership of the institute, means that the governing body may award honorary degrees to worthy people. I would like some clarification of that point.

Section 4 deals with the functions of the institute. I want the Minister to clarify a point. Section 4 states:

The functions of the Institute shall be—

(a) to provide degree level courses, diploma level courses and certificate level courses and, with the approval of the Minister, such other courses in education as may seem appropriate to the Governing Body;

Why do the governing body have to go to the Minister for sanction for any course? Under this subsection the governing body cannot introduce a course in education without seeking Ministerial sanction.

The Deputy is getting into a Committee Stage debate.

I am going through each section—

It is in order to refer to as many sections as the Deputy wishes, but to make a number of points on any section would be more appropriate to the Committee Stage.

I am going through the Bill briefly for the purpose of bringing to the Minister's attention points I will be raising later by way of amendments. I am trying to help the Minister by making him aware of my intentions when we come to Committee Stage.

Section 4 (c) refers to the approval of the Minister being required before the governing body can buy, acquire, lease, maintain, manage, and so forth. The Minister's approval is also required for the acceptance of gifts of land, and so forth. Why have a governing body at all? Why not send down a civil servant to make the decisions? Why appoint such a body unless you have confidence in them? I do not think this Bill holds out much hope for the future of the NIHE. The governing body will not be allowed to make their decisions about their own welfare without Ministerial approval. It is extraordinary.

Section 5 deals with the composition of the governing body, which will have 23 ordinary members and a chairman. The first governing body will last for one year. I do not know why. I do not wish at this stage to comment on the number of members, which I regard as unsatisfactory. I seriously object to the Government, on the advice of the Minister, having the right to appoint nine members. It is completely unacceptable to me.

The Bill provides that the governing body, again with the approval of the Minister, shall appoint a whole-time director. Why should the approval of the Minister be necessary? Surely the governing body, like the governing bodies of universities, should not have to go to the Minister in this way. One would assume that the governing body would advertise the job properly, process applications and have the ability eventually, and the integrity and the commonsense, to make a wise choice for the benefit of the college. No, that is to be the job of the Minister. I hope political influence will not be used but unfortunately it seems from the phraseology that there will be political interference in the appointment of the whole-time director. At the moment the procedure is that three names go up to the Minister and he will pick his own man, for one reason or another. I hope we will not have that situation of Ministerial interference here. It would be anathema to the House, and I will be asking the Minister to remove this requirement of Ministerial approval from that section. It is dangerous and could be damaging to the future of the college.

There is provision in relation to the academic board, which I suggest should be called "the academic council". However, I will look at that provision before Committee Stage and compare it with the situation in other academic institutions. Section 9 provides for the appointment by the institute of officers, again subject to the approval of the Minister for Education, this time with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. There is reference to "officers and servants". What is the distinction? Will the academic staff, professors, lecturers, assistant lecturers or Grade 3 teachers, be regarded as officers or servants? A major flaw in the Bill is that it does not set out properly the methods of appointment of academic staff and the relationship of officers with servants.

The Bill provides that the HEA will give a grant to the NIHE to enable them to carry out their functions and activities, but why go back to the Minister for sanction when it is obvious that the NIHE can appoint only the number of people they have money to pay? Again, this Ministerial presence is objectionable. Such appointments are to be made with the approval of the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service, not the Minister for Finance in this case. We are getting into a macabre situation with all sorts of people doing all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.

A further section provides that the institute shall not remove or suspend any of its officers without the consent of the Minister. That is extraordinary. As I said earlier, why have a governing body at all? Who will monitor all this? Surely it will take an enormous number of civil servants' time and paper to do this. There will have to be duplicate copies of the relevant documents for the HEA, with courtesy copies for the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Public Service, the heads of departments in the college, members of the academic staff and the governing body, leading to an extraordinary state of affairs.

The Chair suggests that the Deputy is engaging in an in-depth discussion on the sections of the Bill which is more appropriate to Committee Stage.

The point I want to make is that, in our university colleges, there is an accepted measure by which one can take one's seat; I think one is paid half salary and one does some work in the university. That is a more modern concept than that of being completely isolated from the institute. However I am sure there will be other opinions expressed on that. I have a fairly open mind on it and I am pleased the Minister has made some reference to his intention in this matter.

Section 9 (7) states:

A person who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein or entitled to hold office as a representative in the Assembly of the European Cummunities, shall, while so entitled, be disqualified from becoming an officer (including the Director) or servant of the Institute.

That is unduly harsh and I would think needs to be looked at. Section 10 deals with transferred staff and section 11 with superannuation where the presence of the Minister and of the Minister for the Public Service is very much in evidence. I cannot cavil with section 12 dealing with report and information to the Minister, although I assume a similar report will have to be made to the HEA on an annual basis.

The First Schedule deals with the Governing Body in respect of which I should like the Minister to clarify the wording of paragraph 1.(2).

The seal of the Institute Body....

What does "Institute Body" mean? It is not defined in the definitions section and I should like some clarification on it. I do not wish to deal with a number of items in the First Schedule because they are matters for Committee Stage, although I shall have something to say about them then.

We have here a Bill which is entirely unsatisfactory, in that it is one to establish a higher institute of education in this country. It is a most disappointing Bill and I would never have expected the Minister to have put his name to such a niggardly and negative Bill, to one that does not give independence and autonomy to a higher institute.

I should like to refer also to representation in Seanad Éireann for graduates of the National Institute for Higher Education, Limerick. No specific reference was made by the Minister to this matter. While I appreciate that his Universities Bill has not been processed there is a case for granting a seat to the National Institute for Higher Education.

I would think that this is dealt with in another Bill.

I am merely saying there might be a reference to it in this Bill and I am asking the Minister to state his position on it.

I welcome also the interconnection—as recommended by the Minister—with the RTCs. Of course there must be an inter-connection; there must be a vertical integration with students in our regional colleges. They must be afforded an open opportunity to progress from one discipline in an RTC to a discipline in another RTC, or vertically to a discipline in the NIHE. That is very important. Of course this raises the question of admissions policy to which the Minister did not refer. As laid down in the prospectus of the NIHE, by and large the degree requirements are similar to a university. Indeed NIHE, Limerick, is involved with the central applications office in UCG. I should like to feel that the policy of NIHE, Limerick, in relation to admissions would be a more generous one than that at present applying to our universities, especially when we are endeavouring to promote participation by RTCs up to degree level within the NIHE. I should like to see overall policy in that respect spelled out in more detail.

I honestly feel this Bill should be withdrawn. It is one that does not meet the requirements of a higher institute of education. It is too restrictive. Also the Minister's presence is unnecessary in view of the existence of the Higher Education Authority and I would ask the Minister to withdraw it. My party will be opposing it on Second Stage, not because we do not want to see NIHE, Limerick, established on a statutory basis; of course we do; it is most important that NIHE, Limerick, is established on a statutory basis but it is much more important that, in so doing, the foundations laid in this Bill be sound and in my opinion, they are very unsound and will lead to a very unhappy relationship between the governing body and the Department of Education. There is no need for the interference by the Department in the affairs of the Institute because the Higher Education Authority has that responsibility, the function to control and co-ordinate the finances and so on, and indeed the general development of NIHE, Limerick.

I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill because it is not one suitable for an institute of higher education. It is one which, if passed in this House, will put the cause of autonomy in our third-level institutes back many years. I am sorry to have to oppose the Bill. I am sorry the Minister has seen fit to introduce it in order to establish on a statutory basis such a tremendous concept, that of the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick. It is a sad day that the Minister introduced such a Bill and perhaps he would consider withdrawing it.

We are here today legislating ostensibly for the establishment on a statutory basis of a new national institution. In reality we are somewhat in danger of creating something more like the glorified community school. I have no quarrel with the concept of community schools as I understand it—I have some quarrel with the Minister's concept of community schools. Of the right kind, in the right place and doing the right job there is nothing wrong with them, especially if they are integrated into the kind of national administrative structure we in the Labour Party would like to see. But community schools—and I shall not delay the House much longer on this—have complained with considerable justification for a long period of time about the incredible restrictions placed on their legitimate freedom of action by the fact that they are tied directly to the apron strings of the Department of Education. Of course the apron strings about which we are talking are essentially financial. In structural terms there is not an awful lot to choose between the subservience of the average community school directly to the Department of Education and the proposed subservience of this proposed National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick to the same source and font of authority, power and resources. Of course it is to be a national institution. It is essential that a national institution have a direct link with the Department of Education and with its political head, the Minister for Education. To wrap it up as this Bill seeks to do in such a spider's web of approvals, sanctions and conditions runs the very real risk of strangling, not quite at birth, because it is a very lusty infant at the moment, but at a very early stage in its development what is substantially one of the most vibrant educational institutions in this country with the dynamism which must inform this stage of its development particularly.

Before saying any more along these lines I would like to review briefly the background to the Bill we are discussing here today. The original decision made by the Government of which Deputy Lenihan was Minister for Education was to resist the very vocal, well-organised pressure coming from the Limerick city and county regions for a university or university college. It must have been a difficult decision for the Government of the day, especially for a Fianna Fáil Government who find it very difficult to resist popular decisions even though they are the wrong ones. I must give credit to that Fianna Fáil administration and that Minister for having taken the right decision for that place and at that time. If we look at the decision in a wider perspective we will see that it was absolutely inescapable that a national institution such as this NIHE of Limerick had to be established in order at the very least to complement the work proposed to be done by the regional technical colleges in the different areas. It did not make much difference at that time where it was to be situated. The important thing was that it should be situated somewhere and if it was situated in Limerick at least there was as good reason to situate it there as anywhere else. The decision was good regardless of the political pressures being brought to bear at the time.

In 1974 the previous Government decided to make the Limerick NIHE, in its ad hoc form as it then was and as it continues at the moment, into an institution which would have its degree qualifications awarded and recognised by a college of the National University of Ireland. I opposed that decision at the time and I criticised it. When I joined the Labour Party in 1975 it was in the full knowledge that any attempts that I might make within that party to bring pressure to bear to change that decision might not be successful, as indeed they were not. I make this point not in any political sense and I am sure that the Minister will not seek to score cheap points off me when he stands up to reply. Anybody engaged in politics will know that when you join an organised political institution such as a political party, especially if you come into it from a position where you have complete freedom from any institutional associations as I had when I was an independent Member of Seanad Éireann, you trade a certain freedom, to speak publicly, in return for a much greater input into the democratic decision-making processes of the organisation you join.

As I have said, I disagreed with the decision not to make the NCEA the degree-awarding body for the Limerick NIHE and was instrumental at the time in publishing large chunks out of a document which I gather was known within the Department of Education as the "Green Book" which showed very clearly the very high calibre of the advice presented to the Government of the day by the Department of Education of the day and rejected by that Government. This advice, if accepted, would have led to an earlier resolution of at least some of the problems in connection with the development of higher education that have bedevilled us for the past five or six years.

I have already said that an NIHE was necessary in order to complement the work of the RTCs, but its work and the work of the RTCs themselves was made necessary by very much larger national and international trends which were creating substantial dangers for our industrial and commercial progress. These national and international trends, particularly in industrial employment and technology, were helping to bring about a situation in which we in this country, with a rapidly growing young population, were educating that population in such a way that they simply were not fitted in many respects for the jobs that were available for them when they left education. There is no point in going into this in any detail because it was a truism, and unfortunately still is today, that the educational system that we had then and still have to a substantial degree was, and is, over academic in character at a time when national investment in education should be mirroring employment, technological and developmental trends in our society generally. We are not alone in this and we may be rather better off than some other countries, which might surprise some Deputies in this House, but there was a problem at the time the NIHE was established and it remains today.

I would like to give the House the benefit of a few quotations from authoritative sources to indicate the dimensions of that problem. The HEA, in their Observations of the Higher Education Authority on Paragraph 7.33 in the Green Paper “Development of Full Employment” have a particularly tart paragraph which is relevant here. It is paragraph 4 of their comments:

Ireland has no monopoly of natural talent and it would be native in the extreme to expect to meet competitors on equal terms if we are less highly trained than they are. It is not in our interest, therefore, to make higher education less attractive for future entrants, or to limit even further the section of society which can afford to take higher education: it would be enormously in our interest to make higher education more attractive and to increase the provision of student places.

Of course, the HEA did not say that on the assumption that expansion per se was all that was needed in higher education. You could expand in the arts faculties in our universities until they provided places for anybody who wanted to go into them or virtually regardless of qualifications, but that would not be an answer to the problems of skilled industrial employment. Expansion has to take place in a planned way and in a way that minimises the wastage of resources that higher education gobbles up in enormous quantities at an ever-increasing rate. The moral discovered over the past few years is that very many of the traditional academic areas are wasteful of public resources and there is an intense need to direct investment in higher education into other areas. Professor A. M. Ross, who is head of the Department of Education Research at the University of Lancaster and is the external examiner in education for the National University in Ireland gave an interesting paper to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in this area. He commented, in particular, on developments in posts in secondary education and posts in compulsory education in the context of the division between academic-type education and technical-type education. He said:

Far be it from me to criticise adversely the efforts of those whose abilities are such that they are adept at theoretical analysis and all the other highly developed cognitive skills which lie behind academic work of high quality. A society such as ours needs such people, especially those who are good at these pursuits. There is, however, in most societies, a tendency to over-produce such people; this appears in socialist societies as well as in our own.

He quoted the example of Hungary in particular and he went on to say:

We have always served well those of our young people whose development comes best through advanced academic study. We should recognise that there are other ways towards fulfilment and the path of advanced technical and vocational education offers for some the best way forward —including some who are at present taking degree courses of the more theoretical kind. This is not, of course, to say that many degree courses in universities as well as in polytechnics are not vocational; the plea here is for the development of middle range courses declared by practical, certainly applied, but stopping short of that further development which turns the technical into technological and the practical into theoretical.

That is a reasonable statement of the situation. I believe that sentiments like those, are obviously important in the overall decision to establish a national institute for higher education along the lines that it was established.

The experience of the National Institute for Higher Education has borne out both the wisdom of the original decision to establish it and has continued to exemplify the problems which it faces. It is ironic that even comparatively recently, according to my information, the ratio of applicants for courses at the Limerick NIHE was in inverse proportion to the employability of qualified people issuing from the areas concerned. All the courses of the Limerick NIHE produce highly employable people but it is a fact, deriving at least in part from the character of our second level education, that those courses—I am speaking here of a year or two ago—which had marginally more difficulty in placing their graduates or other qualified leavers in courses were actually among those in the Limerick NIHE which were most over-subscribed because, of course, they were the courses in the areas which bore most resemblance to the academic areas which have traditionally provided the bulk of the student population in third-level education and in second-level education as well.

There is one good particular aspect at the work of the Limerick NIHE which I would like to pay a little attention to, which was referred to in the Minister's speech when he spoke about a co-operative education programme in which every national diploma and every degree student spends one, two or six month periods in employment off campus. He went on to say:

The Co-operative Education Programme introduced in Limerick is new to the country and is perhaps the single most important element of the innovation of the NIHE campus.

I am not quite sure what the Minister means by "the country". I wonder if he is totally accurate in saying that it is completely new on this island? I know that the Institute of Continuing Education in Derry, formally McGee College, has been doing research and innovation along those lines and although the content of its courses is slightly more arts-than technology-orientated, it is true to say that they probably have a work content as well. I am aware of one post primary school in Derry which has elaborated a scheme which allows its pupils, even during compulsory school-going age, to spend some time in employment outside the class room as part of their general education.

I would like to think that universities and other third-level institutions could learn a lot from this and perhaps Government Ministers and Government Departments could learn from it as well. The degree to which intelligent young people can spend vast periods of their lives without ever leaving the institutional boundaries of the educational system cannot be good either for the educational system or for them. The former chairman of the Higher Education Authority, Mr. Sean O'Connor, suggested on one occasion that the initial years of higher education should be part-time. I believe that such a move would improve the quality of higher education. It might lessen the demand for places or at least allow it to be dealt with in a more flexible manner and I believe it would also be to the benefit of the students concerned and, therefore, to the country as a whole. We should be looking for a far more flexible relationship between work and study not just at the third level but at the upper secondary level as well. I pay tribute to the Limerick NIHE for what they have done in this area.

Some time ago I visited the NIHE and went around it for a fairly extended period, talking to staff and student members about their work, the conditions under which they worked and about the plans they had for the future. Although I was treated with complete courtesy and openness it is true to say that the level of impatience and frustration experienced by the staff in particular, and by many of the students of the institute, at the delay and inertia of their lords and masters in the Department of Education was positively tangible. I was shown expensive equipment, equipment so expensive that it was one of two or three models only of its kind in the entire country, which had not been uncrated for months, or used, because there was no place to put it and probably not even a socket to put a plug into.

We are all aware that some delays are necessary, but the people responsible for the control of the National Institute for Higher Education—and for four years a Minister of the National Coalition Government was in charge of that Department—have brought delay to a fine art. The politics of inertia have come to be used more and more by Government Departments in general, but by the Department of Education in particular, as a way of deferring decisions about the allocation of resources, until the time comes when the job has to be done anyway and probably costs twice as much as it would have cost had the money been made available in the first place.

It is on the basis of this experience, I have no doubt, that such whispers as have reached me about the reaction within the institute to the Bill we are discussing today can be located. They have had some very bitter experiences over the past eight years or so. They looked at this Bill and asked: "Will it make that much difference?" and concluded regrettably that it will not. Before leaving this section of my speech I should like to say I think all Members of the House who contributed to the debate so far would like to pay a particular tribute to the director of the institute, Dr. Edward Walsh, for the work he has done since the setting up of the institute on an ad hoc basis some eight years ago. It goes without saying that there are many components of the undoubted success which has attended the institute, despite its vicissitudes in the period since it was established, but, without a good director, the institute would not have been able to make the most of its advantages or, indeed, to overcome many of the disadvantages with which it was faced initially and during its first eight years of life.

Dr. Walsh had to come into an environment in the city which, although welcoming, was somewhat cagey in its welcome for an institute which was not exactly what it had wanted. I believe he is chief among those who have made the institution a showpiece now for the Limerick region. The work he and his staff have done deserves to be honoured. In passing I would express the hope that, in their undoubted search for excellence, which I am sure they will achieve, especially at degree level, the institute will not neglect unduly the diploma and certificate levels. I am well aware these are, to some degree, the greater responsibility of the regional and technical colleges. On the other hand, there are courses in the NIHE which would positively demand the establishment not just of certificate and diploma qualifications but of certificate and diploma qualifications which are nationally recognised as qualifications in their own right, and not just as stepping stones on to the degree level.

I should now like to turn to the question of the autonomy of the institute concerned. I confess I have some difficulty, philosophically speaking, with the concept of partial autonomy. An institution either has automony or it does not. I do not believe realistically that any institution of this kind, in receipt of such huge amounts of public funds, can legitimately look for or demand total freedom from all restraints in the spending of money. Nor would I think for a moment that they are actually looking for it. Of course they are not.

All institutions in receipt of public funds, in the view of this party, should be subject to appropriate degrees of public control. We can dispense with the word "autonomy" as being a concept which is not particularly useful here. What we are talking about are the areas of legitimate freedom in which any third-level institution, and more especially one established and funded almost entirely by the State, may be expected to operate. Looking at the Bill, I am struck by the contrast which occurs to me between the institutional arrangements for governing this institution and the institutional arrangements for establishing public accountability in other educational institutions in receipt of public funds.

At the primary school level, for example, we have institutions which, as to current expenditure at any rate and as to the greater part of capital expenditure, are supported almost wholly from public funds. Yet, the only direct public input into their immediate local government, as it were, is two elected parents on a board of management: 90 per cent plus public funding, and 33? per cent approximately public involvement. Here we have a national institute for higher education which, quite apart from the question of the composition of the governing body, is to be so hedged around with rules and restrictions as to make effective working very difficult.

I know the Minister may reply that he is thinking in terms of a national institution and that local institutions deserve different forms of public participation in management. I do not think the argument holds. The basic principle we hold to is that of appropriate public control for institutions in receipt of public funds. We believe the amount of public control written into this Bill for this institute is inappropriate and will be seen inevitably as such. Already staff have criticised this aspect of the Bill's proposals.

The Irish Federation of University Teachers say in a statement from which I quote that the structure of the governing body "shows a total lack of faith in the future growth of an independent, dynamic institution at Limerick". They go on to say:

The Bill states that there shall be an Academic Board but makes no specification as to the composition or structure of this Board. Given the lack of an adequate academic voice at Governing Body level, I.F.U.T. believes that the Bill should provide that the Academic Board be composed of academic staff of all levels from different academic areas in the Institute. It is only through the authority of such a body—and not through external control mechanisms—that the academic reputation of the Institute can be established and maintained.

I might suggest to the Irish Federation of University Teachers that the student population also have a valid role to play on academic boards.

Deputy Collins has already referred to the fact that under section 9 the Minister has power not just to veto appointments in general but to veto the appointment of particular people. I have no doubt that on Committee Stage this is an area to which we will devote a great deal of attention.

The NIHE group of the ASTMS which represent many of the staff there have also come out with some fairly trenchant criticisms, relating the Bill to what they have experienced in the past. Their submissions states:

The Institute having no statutory existence, management has always had to seek the permission of the Department of Education before agreeing to any claim involving expenditure—which most do. Such permission has been rarely—if ever— forthcoming, with the frequent result that the ASTMS has been compelled again and again to take to a Rights Commissioner, or the Labour Court, cases which an independent management would have conceded immediately. This was not the purpose for which our industrial relations machinery was established Moreover, since we eventually win most of the cases anyway, it causes quite unnecessary frustration and resentment among the staff involved.

They go on to say:

Two more results of the benign influence of the Department: in an institution now ten years old there is still NO properly-established pension scheme and NO mechanism for promotion.

Regarding one very small point of detail, I would query whether the exclusion from the governing body of members of the European Assembly is entirely appropriate. There may by occasions on which members of that Assembly who are not members of the Oireachtas may find membership of the governing body of institutions such as NIHE, Limerick to be of value to them in terms of keeping in touch with the local scene, which obviously they must do, and, in view of developments in Europe, of particluar assistance to the development of the institution concerned.

Criticisms have been made of the role of the Minister in all these appointments and the sanctions he may exercise. Deputy Collins raised the role of the HEA and suggested that this would be a more appropriate overseeing body than the Minister in relation to many of the conditions and sanctions in the Bill. There is probably a structural problem here in that the function of the HEA is to advise the Minister not to regulate institutions. Their function is completely advisory, so much so that they have not even been able to get from the Minister the staff needed to carry out their own functions in relation to urgently required research into higher education. It is true to say, nevertheless, that over the years since their establishment the HEA have acted as a kind of honest broker between the institutions of higher education and the Department of Education and, ultimately, the Cabinet who make the final decision about the allocation of resources. Though there might be a problem about writing it formally into the Bill, I see no reason why the HEA should not continue to exercise this brokerage function in relation to development, staffing policies, conditions of employment, development of courses and so on of the NIHE, Limerick.

I welcome the Minister's assurance that he has not a closed mind on this topic, but I feel that he could have given us a lot more than a commitment to amend that part of the Bill in relation to the rights of various people who are nominated for political office. I would appeal to him seriously to rethink the content of this Bill as expressed in its details and provisions and to recognise that the establishment of the NIHE as a national institution does not necessarily mean that they must continue to go cap in hand to the Minister for every farthing spent. The history of the last decade has shown the NIHE how frustrating and stultifying this process must be. To pass this Bill in its present concept would be to condemn them to a life sentence.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. At the end of my introductory speech I promised the House that I would listen very carefully to the points made during the course of discussion and that those points, together with those made by the various interested parties, those whom I met personally and others from whom I had correspondence, would be taken into account on Committee and further stages of the Bill.

I was a little disappointed in the contribution made by Deputy Collins. I would have thought he could have done some original thinking of his own and not depended on documentation which was received by all Members of this House who have an interest in this Bill. He went back to the 1908 National University of Ireland Bill to make some points. He was conscious of how inappropriate this was because, as everybody knows, at that time the percentage of the finances of a university subscribed by the State—in this case by the Crown—was very much lower than at present. There seemed to be a certain line of thinking in the argument developed by Deputy Collins that if there were any great degree of State involvement in a third-level institution ipso facto this made for a third-level institution of inferior quality. Had Deputy Collins studied the situation with regard to the third level institutions —and particularly those in the technological field in the European Economic Cummunity, for example—he would have seen that there are institutions there of the greatest excellence which are subjected to a degree of control by the State which is unbelievable in this country.

Debate adjourned.

I wish to give notice that, with the permission of the Chair, I intend to raise, on the Adjournment, the question of the closure of the factories in Birr.

I shall communicate with Deputy Enright during the afternoon.

Barr
Roinn