(Director, Athlone Institute of Technology) called and examined.
Athlone Institute of Technology — 2001 Accounts.
Professor C. Ó Catháin
Today we are dealing with the 2001 accounts of the Athlone Institute of Technology and the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology.
Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege and should be apprised as follows. As and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents; and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may only be exercised with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with the transcript of the relevant part of the proceedings that the committee considers appropriate in the interests of justice.
Notwithstanding this provision in legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded that under Standing Order 156, the committee should refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.
I invite Professor Ciarán Ó Catháin, director of Athlone Institute of Technology, to introduce his officials.
Professor Ciarán Ó Catháin
They are Dr. Patrick Mulhern, head of development; Mr. John McKenna, secretary and financial controller and Mr. Bill Delaney, our project accountant.
I also welcome the representatives from the Department of Education and Science.
Ms Ruth Carmody
I am from the technology and training division of the Department. Mr. Tony Dalton represents the third level building unit.
I invite Mr. Purcell to introduce the Athlone Institute of Technology accounts for 2001 and the section 7 report.
Mr. John Purcell
There is a supplement to my audit report on the accounts of the institute for 2001 because it appeared to me that financial management in the institute was not as rigorous as it should have been. I came to that conclusion on the basis of a number of issues brought to light on the audit. These include an unsuccessful attempt at fund-raising, a failure to secure private sector funding for a publicly funded research project, and spending more than €200,000 on design and planning fees for a building that did not proceed.
The first issue reported draws attention to expenditure of €132,000 in fund-raising activity over a two to three year period but which did not raise a single euro. On the face of it, the fund-raising project was misconceived and over-ambitious in trying to compete with the established foundations operating in the university sector.
The second issue reported concerns the institute being awarded Exchequer funding of €1.4 million from the HEA under the programme for research in third level institutions for a research project in polymer science. The aim of the programme was to put in place a public private partnership financial framework for joint funding of research and development in third level educational institutions. At least 50% of the capital costs were to be met from non-Exchequer sources. Once again, the institute failed to come up with private sector money, although it had maintained in July 1999 that it had secured an irrevocable gift of €1.3 million. The research project went ahead without the construction of a new research facility, which cut down on the funding requirement, and the remaining shortfall on the capital side was met from recurrent income.
The third issue is related, in that the HEA, in awarding the research project to the institute, was prepared to provide funding only for a building of 260 sq. m. However, the institute had determined to construct a larger building of 857 sq. m., incorporating space for the research project. In response to a request from the institute, the Department set aside a provisional budget allocation of €1.27 million towards the cost of the new building. As it turned out, money became tight in 2002, and the freeze on third level capital development in 2003 meant that the proposed funding became unavailable, and the building could not start. In the meantime, the institute went ahead with appointing a design team and obtaining planning permission, and in so doing incurred expenditure of €200,000, without getting the Department's specific approval. It is unclear at this stage if that building will be constructed. According to the director of the institute, it is contingent on winning research funding.
The committee will also note that dedicated space for polymer-related research is being incorporated into a new building expected to come on stream within the next few months. According to the director, that has been partly funded by using the surplus on fees paid by non-EU students attending the institute. I understand that the issue of whether that income may be used for such a purpose has not yet been finally resolved in discussions at an interdepartmental group and with the Department.
With regard to the opening statement, would Professor Ó Catháin like to comment on the three issues to do with the expenditure incurred, or would he like to deal with each separately?
Professor Ó Catháin
I would be happy to deal with the three issues if the Chairman so wishes. We have provided an opening statement, including background information on the institute, to the committee, and we do not intend to go into that, since it deals with a great many other issues. However, perhaps I might deal with the three issues. In 1998 the institute had endeavoured to try to emulate what goes on in the university sector by setting up a foundation within it. When I arrived as a director in 2000, I had looked in detail at how it was being progressed and what were the aims and objectives. I was not content that we were getting any value from the promotions office, and we attempted to put in place several monitoring reports and evaluations in order that we could assess the promotions office's role. Notwithstanding that, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said that we spent approximately €132,000, and to date no revenue has come in from that. However, the bulk of the costs were from the secondment of the promotions officer to the institute, and while he failed to bring in the anticipated revenue, in essence he increased the institute's profile as a third level provider in the midlands and farther afield. As a consequence of the groundwork done during that time, the institute is now involved in establishing an international centre for local and regional development with three other partners, one international and two on the island. I understand that funding is now being secured for that.
As a consequence of the groundwork done between 1998 and 2001, something is now happening. However, we gained experience of setting up foundations through my visit to Cornell University, where we discussed how it goes about raising funds. I was told by those involved that it takes about three years to start generating a flow. There were also legal issues surrounding setting up a foundation for the institutes of technology sector which do not apply to the universities sector.
Regarding the centre for biomolecular and biopolymer research, it was the first time that an institute of technology had been successful in achieving PRLTI funding, and it was a learning experience both for the institute and for our sector when it came to the question of how to run a project. The Comptroller and Auditor General said that we had secured an irrevocable gift. I am not sure that I would describe it as such. My understanding was that one of the financial institutes had said that it would fund it under a section 843 provision and that this was also verified for the HEA by an independent financial adviser, forming part of our submission to the HEA for that funding.
After we had examined the matter, the funding was allocated to us. As part of our application, we had provided an outline of what we wanted to do. We had applied for a larger building of 857 sq. m. in our outline, and the HEA then allocated the PRLTI funding to us, but on the basis of 20 sq. m. per student in the centre. Its funding would therefore have allowed for approximately 260 sq. m. When that came back to us, we engaged with the Department of Education and Science to try to maintain the bigger building, since we saw it as critically important to the region that we should be able to increase the capacity for knowledge and research in the midlands. In our discussions with the Department, it was very enthusiastic in its support for the concept of what we were trying to do, and it would still be conscious of our aims regarding the development of a research base in the midlands.
As has rightly been said, the Department provided a provisional budget of IR£1million, or €1.23 million. It was then a devolved project, and we went ahead and had the design done and the planning permission secured. Then the Department's change in circumstances meant that the funding was withdrawn, and we have now paused that building, but we are hopeful that we will be able to build it. When the next call is made for PRLTI we will be making a bid and we hope to be successful. We will then be able to revisit the issue and build the research building.
As has been said, in the interim, we have been developing an innovation and research centre with Enterprise Ireland, and as part of that we have added 224 sq. m. to house part of what was the centre for biomolecular and biomedical research. That will be opened in early January. We had €120,000 of private funding from donations from several companies, and we have added to that from services that we have generated in the last three years for our international students. Although there has been some discussion with the Department regarding how that funding is spent, we have also indicated to it how we intended to do so. It has been approved by our governing authority, and the Department has now adopted an interim measure for this year to determine how we can deal with that funding. If one considers the recent OECD report, one sees that it clearly recommends that, to incentivise HEIs actively to seek external sources of funding, the Government should make a clear statement that income generated from sources outside those provided by the State will not be subject to offsetting against State funding. That would allow the institutes of technology and others to use the surplus revenue that is coming in for their particular objectives or strategic aims.
I have one or two questions before we go to the lead questioner. Regarding the appointment of a promotions officer, the original target figure was €28.9 million. It was therefore extraordinary that, from the person's appointment in May 1999 until the employment ceased in January 2000, there was no review of the work being carried out. The person appointed to the job was, I believe, a teacher. Given such a high target figure and the hope of raising that amount of funds, one would imagine that someone from a background in the area of business and promotion would have been more suitable. To have an objective of €28 million and to collect no money was quite an extraordinary achievement.
Professor Ó Catháin
I would not disagree with the Chairman. I inherited the promotions officer when I arrived in 2000. In January 2001, the incumbent departed after we had put in place arrangements to manage his activities and monitor what he was doing. Up to that time, he appeared to have a free hand and was not accountable to anyone. He appeared before the governing body and made some reports. While the target of €28 million was ambitious from an institute of technology perspective, a number of projects had been identified for which the college wanted to generate funding. There was a view that while the individual appointed did not have the business and marketing skills needed for such a post, it was felt that perhaps since he had many contacts, he would be in a position to use those as regards the generation of funds.
Has a replacement been appointed?
Professor Ó Catháin
No. I am now dealing with that area.
I have a final question about the research centre. Regarding the agreement on funding, in July 1999 the Higher Education Authority said the institute had an irrevocable fund of €1.3 million from its fund-raising activities towards the cost of this project. In May 2002 the HEA accepted that the level of benefits from section 843 assumed by the funding approval was excessive. What assessment was carried out as regards the expectation of getting section 843 tax benefit funding? There was no benefit whatever from that.
Professor Ó Catháin
The institute tendered for a financial institution to come in under section 843. One tender was received which was from the institute which gave the irrevocable pledge in 1999 stating that it would be interested to put the funding in place for the building in line with section 843. However, on evaluation it was felt that the benefits of section 843 conveyed no real benefit to the institute or the Exchequer, because of the size of the project. In that regard it was recommended that we should not proceed with section 843 project. As the project was relatively small, I believe the HEA tends to accept that.
Was the entire business element of this case not totally flawed, based on the evidence before us? Was it not a flawed business application?
Professor Ó Catháin
No, it was not a flawed business application. As I said at the outset, Athlone was one of the first institutes of technology to receive funding under PRTLI. It has been a learning experience for the institute and indeed for our sector. It may be that it has sharpened us up as regards ensuring that everything is in place prior to submitting additional bids for funding. On the other hand, in terms of what the institute said it would achieve from the scientific viewpoint, it has delivered on everything it promised. Four postdoctorate and nine postgraduate students have graduated through the institute as a result of the funding received. In that regard we delivered, from the scientific perspective.
Were there additional design fees for the new building now being built from the original €200,000 plus spent on the ambitious facility that was not constructed?
Professor Ó Catháin
There were additional fees on the other building.
How much and over what period?
Professor Ó Catháin
I cannot answer that at the moment, but I could make the figure available to the committee. The part now under construction is a continuation of the innovation side we are building which is being funded through Enterprise Ireland. I just do not have that figure to hand.
On a final point, was it not extraordinary that the original concept was to construct a building of 260 sq. m. at a cost of €40 per sq. m. and the institute decided to design a building of 850 sq. m. which was going to cost €3.5 million? Where did the college hope to get the funds to build that, regardless of its ambition?
Professor Ó Catháin
It was always felt that the Department of Education and Science would have given us some of the funding. The application was submitted to the HEA on the basis of the larger funding. We had hoped that the HEA, in terms of the initial funding, would have made the required allocation, but that was not the case. When it allocated funding only in respect of the 260 sq. m. building, we then engaged with our own Department to see whether it would support the building programme. It was very enthusiastic in its support. It was to donate €1 million to our budget and we then went on to design it. We are hopeful that this building will be constructed and that we will continue to deliver the research that we want to undertake in the midlands.
Has Professor Ó Catháin got the figure for the consultants?
Professor Ó Catháin
I do not have it here, but I can supply it to the committee.
I am disappointed he has not got that figure in light of the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General has brought to the attention of the committee the huge fee spent on design costs for a building that was not constructed. Now he has not got the design fee for a building that is actually under construction.
Professor Ó Catháin
I believe it is estimated to be around €60,000, or 13%, of the cost of the building.
Is that on top of the moneys already lost for a building that was not constructed?
Professor Ó Catháin
That is correct.
May the committee publish Professor Ó Catháin's opening statement?
Professor Ó Catháin
Yes.
Before calling on Deputy Curran, I congratulate Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who was to be the lead questioner today, on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We wish him the best of luck. I know he has an adequate stand-in in Deputy Curran.
I thank the Chairman. Before I start my line of questioning, it is always somewhat frustrating when we are reviewing matters in an historical context, particularly with the fund-raising aspect which dates back to 1998. I appreciate fully that Professor Ó Catháin was not in his current position then, but unfortunately he is the person before the committee today who must try to fill in the blanks.
In 1998, when it was decided to set up what is referred to as a foundation development fund, how was it to be structured or what exactly was the concept?
Professor Ó Catháin
The concept was for it to be set up in a manner similar to the trusts in the universities sector, with particular reference to the American model. Most of the main universities in America have foundations. They use a number of sources from which to get money. Some of these are graduates, others multinational companies and some are philanthropists who like to donate. If one looks at this in an Irish context, the universities sector received around €500 million through philanthropy within the last few years. Athlone Institute of Technology was seeking to get a share of that.
How was this going to be structured? What was it as an entity? What charitable status did it have in terms of a governing body and directors? Will Professor Ó Catháin explain in those sort of terms?
Professor Ó Catháin
The intention was that it would just be a foundation. It was to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the institute. However, there were legal issues as regards how that could be set up, so in fact it never happened. When I came it was operating as an arm of the institute and reporting directly to the governing body and the then director.
Then it was decided at some point that it was necessary to have a full-time person employed to do the fund-raising. Was that position advertised?
Professor Ó Catháin
No, it was not advertised.
A member of staff was head hunted.
Professor Ó Catháin
He was not a member of our staff. He actually came from outside the institute. He had, I believe, been acquainted with the then director who felt that he was the ideal candidate because of the extensive contacts he had both nationally and internationally. It was felt that he could use those for the benefit of the institute.
This person was a teacher in another area who was known to the then director who asked him whether he would like to work with the institute as a fund-raiser.
Professor Ó Catháin
That is correct, more or less.
Did he have a job description or was it a looser arrangement?
Professor Ó Catháin
It was quite a loose arrangement. When I arrived in 2000, we tried to pull him back in. A job specification was given to him, which dealt with the particular areas he was expected to deal with, but it was quite a loose arrangement.
He stayed in that position for three years.
Professor Ó Catháin
That is correct.
How many times would he have reported in the three years?
Professor Ó Catháin
In my time, he reported to the governing body at least twice per year. However, I would have met him on a monthly basis in terms of what I wanted to see him do. That is where the differences occurred because of his understanding of the role and mine, and what I wanted out of it as well as what it was costing the institute. I felt I was not getting what I wanted out of it and in the end I wrote to him at one stage, prior to Christmas 2000, outlining my concerns. Shortly afterwards, early in January, he tendered his resignation.
I presume that he understood that the role was to bring in revenue. I do not say that flippantly. There was a reporting procedure over an extended three year period and I am surprised that alarm bells were not raised earlier. I am surprised that there was no specific job description and that it was not more focused. I presume that is as it occurred.
Professor Ó Catháin
I would not disagree with anything the Deputy has said. When I came in, back in February 2000, I endeavoured to try to pull it under control because I was not happy with it. The individual is probably a free agent and was left to his own devices early on when he came in.
Where is that individual now? Has he gone back to teaching?
Professor Ó Catháin
He left us in 2000 and has done a number of things since. I understand that recently he took up another full-time position with a very eminent body in the State.
I want to move on to the research centre. When I read the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it was quite complicated to piece the story together. There was much coming and going. There was a learning curve as the professor's institute was the first to be awarded. At the same time, a project was embarked upon without the sources of funding being put in place and guaranteed. The professor mentioned that he hoped the Department would do whatever, yet he brought this to an advanced stage without any firm commitment that all this funding would be in place. I remain dissatisfied with what is referred to as an irrevocable gift of €1.3 million. That seems to be the cornerstone of the original financial package, yet it seemed to evaporate. Can the professor elaborate on that for the committee?
Professor Ó Catháin
There seems to be a misapprehension about this irrevocable gift. In my mind there was no irrevocable gift to the institute, but rather an irrevocable pledge from a financial institution that it would fund the private part of the project under section 843. That was independently verified and provided to the HEA as part of this submission.
Mr. Purcell will clarify that.
Mr. Purcell
It was difficult to piece the story together and the difficulty is reflected in the way it is presented, for which I apologise to the committee. I do state in the supplement that it was the chief executive of the HEA who gave me that information. I can quote from the letter because we also sent queries to the HEA asking why it continued to fund the project when the basic conditions applying to that project were not complied with. We can develop that if the Chairman so wishes.
In a letter from the HEA, the chief executive states:
In accordance with the requirements of the PRTLI cycle one programme, Athlone Institute of Technology formally confirmed by letter on 22 July 1999 that the institute had secured an irrevocable gift of IR£1million towards the cost of the project.
That was reflected in the report. The director gave some clarification that what the HEA told me was not precisely correct, but that is the direct quote which was used in the report and attributed to the chief executive of the HEA.
I thank Mr. Purcell for that clarification.
Professor Ó Catháin
My understanding from our correspondence was that it was an irrevocable pledge from the financial institution. The HEA may have taken it up incorrectly, but I cannot answer for the HEA. From our side, it was an irrevocable pledge from the financial institution that it would fund the private element under section 843.
There certainly seems to be a degree of misunderstanding on what this €1.3 million actually was. The bottom line is that it evaporated, which meant that the project never got off the ground. From a management point of view, the institute was designing a larger centre that would have been thought appropriate to this particular scheme because the research centre was based on 13 researchers in a 260 sq. m. building. That was what the HEA envisaged the institute should be doing. At the same time, the institute was designing something three times that size. It has no firm finance in place, just the hope that it might get something from the Department. Is that correct?
Professor Ó Catháin
Yes and no. The original application made to the HEA was for the big building. There was a design contract that had to be done as that was part of the bidding process, to put in a basic design and cost plan for the original bid to the HEA. When the HEA allocated the funding to us, it did not go with the size that we wanted but allocated 20 metres per researcher.
Was there ever an indication that it would go with a larger size? What was the basis that it should be three times the guideline? Was it just wishful?
Professor Ó Catháin
We put in our application but we did not get much feedback from the HEA at that time. I do not know to this day why the HEA did not run with the original project that we put in. I only know that the HEA came back to us and stated that it would fund 260 sq. m. of that. Having done that, we then engaged with the Department which gave us a favourable response. On the basis of that favourable response in terms of additional funding, we went ahead and designed the building.
Is the professor saying that the figure that has now become available, 20 sq. m. per researcher which totals 260 square meters, was an unknown figure when his team was doing its initial designs? Has it only emerged since?
Professor Ó Catháin
It emerged after the submission was put in and when the allocation was awarded to the institute.
Would it have been reasonable to expect such information should have been available?
Professor Ó Catháin
It probably should have been made available to us. I stated at the outset that we were one of the first institutes of technology to receive the PRTLI funding. It was a learning exercise for us and for the sector. The university sector may have been much more aware of that. If one looks at some of the projects that have been funded under the PRTLI initiative, not all of them have been funded on the basis of 20 sq. m. per researcher either. There was often latitude with the space to allow the research centres to develop and expand.
My final question goes back a while. If the professor were to embark on this project again, would he source the finance differently?
Professor Ó Catháin
I certainly would. I came into this when we were in the middle of it. We would look to make sure that if there were irrevocable pledges on funding that it would be a cast iron guarantee.
How long was the professor under the impression that the money was in place? At what point did he realise that it was not going to come on stream?
Professor Ó Catháin
When we tendered for the proposal under section 843, only one bid came in. When the analysis was done on that, it was felt that the financial benefits to the institute and to the Exchequer were minimal and therefore it was decided not to go down that route. That was after consultation with the HEA.
That €1.3 million was referred to as an irrevocable gift by the HEA due to fund-raising activities. I do not know if the Department had correspondence on this. The HEA would have been under the impression that the institute had that money sitting in the bank. That was my impression of it. Did that impression lead everyone to proceed in a particular direction?
Professor Ó Catháin
That was the model for section 843, where we would get the pledge, go through the tender process and the funding would come in. At no stage was the HEA under any misapprehension about the issues in Athlone Institute of Technology. We have had intense discussions with the HEA from the time the funding was allocated to recently when it is not in the process of doing the final audit of the work that has been undertaken.
I thank Professor Ó Catháin.
Professor Ó Catháin
Section 843 was not in the succeeding cycle. It was taken out because the HEA realised that the benefits were not as great as envisaged at the outset.
All the witnesses are welcome. I want to continue the line of argument. The institute has performed a miracle in education during the years in its locality. However, what we are discussing has nothing to do with that, as the professor will appreciate. I would like to consider some of the excellent work the institute undertakes but there are disturbing aspects to this matter under discussion. This committee operates on the basis of value for money and, from our perspective, a matter of this kind cannot be left unchecked. Since joining the committee, I have learned that remarkable matters pass unheeded unless they are checked.
From the audit carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, it appears that what the professor tried and the principle behind it was highly commendable. I hope the research centre in Athlone will become a reality. However, considering the position of the universities, I was surprised the institute ran into so much unwarranted trouble. Sometimes one can do little about trouble that one encounters. However, this was not uncharted territory but a path that had been travelled before, not by the institutes of technology but by the universities. To get €28 million for an institute such as that at Athlone would be a fair achievement and I put it to the professor that he was out of his depth. He was fishing in a pond where he had no hope of catching a fish. Would that professor agree that he was out of his depth from the beginning?
Professor Ó Catháin
I agree that we were out of our depth, although if one considers the areas involved, there were quite a number of projects. However, I accept it was ambitious for an institute of technology to take this route. In essence, sufficient thought was not given to the legal issues surrounding the foundation or the area of tax incentives for companies to fund an institute. It was after the beginning of the attempt to set up the foundation that such matters were considered rather than them having been cleared up in the first instance. However, the institute received some guidance and support from the universities in terms of setting up foundations.
It obtained everything but money. That is what went wrong.
Professor Ó Catháin
Absolutely.
It is not the committee's concern how good or bad the fund-raiser was. I presume he did his best possible in the circumstances. However, I have never heard of a salesperson, which is what this person was, who did not collect one penny in three years. This salesperson is the type who would not sell fur to the Eskimos. Given that he took such a length of time with no financial benefit to the college, who was supervising the fund-raiser and asking how much money was being raised or where it was being sought? Many universities raise significant funds overseas. Who had day-to-day control of this fund-raiser?
Professor Ó Catháin
He reported directly to the director's office and to the governing body. When we could not tie him down or get the necessary information, we moved quickly to either bring him into line or let him make a decision as to whether he wanted to stay with us or leave. We wrote to him in December 2000 and he left in January 2001.
Given that it is the institute's intention to proceed with this project, and we wish it luck, will a fund-raising element be involved?
Professor Ó Catháin
It is essential. If one considers the recent OECD report, it states that those working in higher education need to look beyond the Exchequer for funds. At the same time, we would be seeking Exchequer funding for many of the projects the foundation was set up in 1998 to undertake. While we tried to help the Exchequer in raising the funding, this did not happen and we will have to come back to the Exchequer. In the years ahead, I hope we will be able to raise the necessary revenue, be it from gifts or otherwise.
I wish to return to the so-called gift of €1.3 million. Will the professor explain when a gift is not a gift? I assume a bank gave the institute this commitment. Is that correct?
Professor Ó Catháin
Yes, it was one of the financial institutions. It was funded under section 843.
What was in it for the bank?
Professor Ó Catháin
It would have received capital allowances on it over the seven years of the lease period.
Is a document from the bank on file which states the bank was giving the €1.3 million? Is that available?
Professor Ó Catháin
A document is available from the financial consultants who advised the institute in this regard. They wrote to the HEA in early July stating they had inspected the correspondence from a private institution to the Athlone Institute of Technology confirming the irrevocable and securely pledged commitment to advance non-Exchequer funds of €914,306 and that the funds would be made available to Athlone Institute of Technology in accordance with the expenditure pronounced and submitted by the institute.
How does this accord with the investigation of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Mr. Purcell
We could get into semantics about what is an irrevocable gift or pledge. This sounds pretty solid given that the institute's financial advisers on this matter wrote on behalf of the institute to the HEA. In plain man's language, it could be seen as a gift. As the director explained, section 843 did not turn out to be the great boon which was projected in regard to this scheme, not only for Athlone Institute of Technology but for the third level education sector generally. We put this question to the HEA and I think the director said earlier that it has been abandoned as a mechanism for future programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, funding. It clearly did not deliver in regard to the first phase of that programme.
How soon will the entire project at Athlone Institute of Technology be completed?
Professor Ó Catháin
We are waiting for the next call of the PRTLI, which is expected early in the new year. We will make a submission to it, which takes about ten months to go through because it is internationally peer reviewed. If the call comes in early January, it will probably be October or November next year before a decision is made. If we are successful, it will probably be another 18 months after that.
Would the institute expect to be successful in the context of the size of the project for which it received planning permission?
Professor Ó Catháin
Yes.
Therefore, if the professor appears before the committee some years in the future, the project might be successfully completed.
Professor Ó Catháin
Absolutely. That is our intention and is also the view of the Department of Education and Science. It is a paused project but we hope the funding will become available.
What is Ms Carmody's and the Department's view on this?
Ms Carmody
I think it would be more appropriate for Mr. Dalton to speak on the building side which relates more directly to his area.
Mr. Tony Dalton
I am part of the third level building unit. The Department would support this. The difficulty with this project, no more than any project at third level, is the current freeze on third level capital resources. A major review has been undertaken of all the capital projects at third level and the report was published by the Minister some two weeks ago. The pace at which any project develops from now on is a matter being examined in the context of this report. Every project, including the project at Athlone, is paused at this time. Many are at architectural planning stages. Some are more advanced than others, but they are paused at whatever stage they are at, and this project is the same.
The Department supported the project at Athlone but when resources became tight it did not have the resources to put into it. If resources become available again the project would not necessarily proceed ahead of another one but it would be favourably considered.
I have other questions, but not on this topic. I will return to them later.
I would like clarification regarding the Higher Education Authority, which was reluctant to give funding, and the Department, which was prepared to give funding. Did the left hand not know what the right hand was doing? Does this indicate that there were two critical wings of funding to third level institutions? Is there not a total conflict of opinion on this major development of 850 sq. m?
Mr. Dalton
We were attempting to achieve different but not conflicting objectives. The call for proposals in the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, would have been specific in terms of the proposal that would have to be brought forward. The HEA, rightly applying its formula, would have come up with a certain building size. The proposal brought forward by the institute was for more than the research that was going to be carried out under that programme. The Department would have supported the institute putting in place what we considered, in terms of scale, a modest infrastructure. However, within the one building there would have been a component dedicated to the PRTLI. Therefore, the two would not have been exclusive. It would not have been a case of the HEA saying yes to a smaller part and the Department taking a different view. We would not be comparing like with like. The Department was looking at the larger facility to allow more than simply the programme for the PRTLI to go ahead.
Would it not be advisable on such a development to have round table consultation between the HEA, the institute and the Department in order to get agreement? Is that not the origin of some of the problems — that there was no agreement in principle on the scale of the development and the funding, and no agreement with the principal players?
Mr. Dalton
I take the Chairman's point. Perhaps in hindsight that ought to have happened. The HEA was concerned with progressing the programme and, as Professor Ó Catháin mentioned, it was fairly stringent. It still wanted more development and the Department was prepared to accommodate that. It did not conflict with anything the HEA was trying to achieve under its programme. It came unstuck at the stage where we did not have the resources to allow the overall project to proceed. However, I take the Chairman's point about round table discussions on these matters.
What is the status of section 843 from the Department's point of view?
Mr. Dalton
I am not best placed to answer that question. I do not have the details with me. However, I understand that it has been significantly downgraded in terms of funding under the PRTLI due to the lack of success of earlier cycles.
Can Professor Ó Catháin explain to the committee why the Athlone Institute of Technology takes in more overseas students from China than from any other country?
Professor Ó Catháin
When I joined the institute in 2000 I had experience of working in the international markets, both in the private sector and the further and higher education sector in Northern Ireland. I had contacts in China which I used in my previous employment. At that time the Government was also developing the Asia strategy. Enterprise Ireland has been working with the institutes and universities in developing and promoting Ireland as a centre of excellence for international education. The institute took the bull by the horns and aggressively marketed ourselves in China, and this marketing has been very successful.
I always associate Athlone with adult education. The institute established a new department a few years ago. Can Professor Ó Catháin give the committee some indication of how successful it is, particularly the outreach programme and the work with local schools? What is happening there is unique.
Professor Ó Catháin
We established a department of adult continuing education in 2001. Year on year we have approximately 1,000 students now enrolled from all over the midlands and further afield, studying for certificates, diplomas and degrees as well as a postgraduate MBA which we run jointly with Coventry.
We also set up foundation programmes to run as outreach centres in Boyle, County Roscommon, in Portarlington, County Laois and in Longford. Currently we are in discussions to establish a centre in County Offaly. We have also run centres in Kinnegad, County Westmeath and within the institute itself.
Under some of the access initiatives, we have developed and adopted 12 local schools — two in each of our surrounding counties. We work particularly closely with them in terms of our schools liaison——
Are these secondary schools?
Professor Ó Catháin
Yes. The schools liaison person and access officer deal with the schools exclusively and regularly visit them. We have a good rapport with the counsellor and career guidance teacher in the schools, with the principals and with the staff. We bring the students to the institute on numerous occasions during the year for various activities.
We are conscious of the high failure rate in mathematics, particularly at ordinary level. It was approximately 17% two years ago and this has decreased to approximately 14%. We are also aware that some of the social mixes and classes coming to the institutes do not have funding to go to grind schools. Two years ago we came up with an initiative whereby we run a Saturday maths programme primarily aimed at the 12 schools with which we work. They send in a number of their leaving certificate pupils, mainly from disadvantaged areas, and we provide them with 15 weeks of additional tuition in ordinary level maths.
At no cost.
Professor Ó Catháin
At no cost to the student. We fund it ourselves directly through our access initiative. It has been very successful. There has been an average of 60 students per year for the past two years. Out of that 60, there was approximately 32 students in year one and approximately 40 this year, although we are waiting on the final figure. These are students who have come into the institute this year on our programmes, who heretofore would not have been able to come in because they would not have been successful in maths. The schools have said that the way we have designed the programme and our close work with them on it has been very successful. We will be continuing it again this year.
The graduate drop-out rate seems to be lower at the Athlone Institute of Technology than at most other institutes. Why is that the case?
Professor Ó Catháin
The last time I came before the committee a report had been published indicating a drop-out rate of approximately 41% at the Athlone Institute of Technology. This year, according to review in The Sunday Times, this rate has decreased to 14% and is the lowest drop-out rate within the IoT sector. We attribute this to a number initiatives within the institute, such as peer mentoring and a buddy system. We have a strong student services group, both in terms of counselling and career guidance, and we work with the students’ union. This enables us to identify students who may not stay or who may have a problem. We have worked particularly closely with them in ensuring that we can meet their needs whatever they are. If a student need additional tutorials, for example, these can be put in place early on as opposed to when it is too late.
The first six to eight weeks is the period when we have a hit squad. Students who we feel are not attending classes or not coming in are immediately contacted and counselled. We find out what is happening with them and if there is a problem. Yesterday I spoke with a mature student who found herself out of her depth in the course that she was on. We have been able to provide her with additional tutorial support over the next month which will bring her up to the level she needs to be at. This has helped significantly in terms of bringing down our drop-out rate.
Can we note the accounts? Agreed.
I thank Professor Ó Catháin and his staff for coming before the committee. That concludes the Athlone Institute of Technology presentation and the accounts have been noted for 2001.
The witness withdrew.