asked the Minister for Education if he has received the report of the working party on higher technological education; and if he will outline its recommendations.

I have received the report of the Working Party on Higher Technological Education in the Dublin area.

The proposals which it contains relate to: (a) the levels of activity appropriate to NIHE, Dublin and to the VEC; (b) the apportionment of existing courses in the VEC colleges between the NIHE and the VEC; (c) the appointment of existing buildings and related physical resources to accommodate these courses; (d) procedures for the transfer of staff; and (e) a governing structure for the colleges on the VEC side and its relationship to the NIHE.

Has the Minister had any comments by way of acceptance or refusal from the VEC concerned?

I have had no discussions with anybody. The matter has been under consideration in my Department since its receipt a couple of months ago. Recently the governing board of the NIHE asked if they could be given copies. They have been supplied with these and I am awaiting comment.

Would the Minister not accept that the introduction of two areas of control into third level education is harmful, and will he not reconsider the whole position and scrap the idea of having different awarding bodies operating?

I think not. I should like to think about it further when I have heard the comments of the VEC and the NIHE. I think the basis on which my predecessor set up the working party and the philosophy behind what he was trying to do is correct and that we should stick with it.

I do not want to be fractious about this, but if the stated reason for this whole scheme was unification, how can the Minister say that having the universities and the different award bodies operating in this field makes for unification?

The history of third level education is at least as well known to the Deputy as it is to me. Taking account of that history, I believe the object of unification at third level will have to be proceeded with cautiously.

I agree on that, but would the Minister not agree that the dispute which has broken out in the Thomond College in Limerick and which is directly related to what we are talking about is an instance of the harm that this whole new proposal is causing?

By the reference to Thomond does the Deputy mean——

The dispute between the students of Thomond and University College, Cork.

I am sorry the Deputy brought this in, because my information is that there has not been any change at all proposed in the system of assessing for examinations in Thomond College by University College, Cork, this year and it is on exactly the same basis as it has been. How the students came to be under the impression that a change was proposed whereby the number of marks awarded for the continual assessment of that part of their course was to be reduced I do not know. I do not know who fed them this information or what was the basis for it but, I am assured by both University College Cork, and the governing body of Thomond that there is no basis for it.

I take the Minister's point but could I ask the Minister if he received a submission from the students indicating that they are the first group that have been totally trained on the campus in Limerick and that they were led to believe at the beginning of this academic year that the assessment would be made, with a certain proportion of marks going for continual assessment and a certain proportion for the terminal examination? Would the Minister agree that a change has taken place in what was agreed at the beginning of this academic year?

This is not directly related to the question and I have not got the relevant documents in front of me, but my memory is that there is no change. I am open to correction on that and on the narrower point of what was the impression earlier this year, but I believe the apportionment will be exactly the same as it was in the summer and autumn of 1976 and the summer of 1977.