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.