Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996

Vol. 472 No. 4

Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Broughan

Before the debate was adjourned last week I referred to one of the central problems in the universities sector, the difficulties encountered by students from deprived socio-economic backgrounds in gaining access to third level. This is borne out by figures produced by the Minister recently. Between 1982 and 1992 the proportion of students who proceed to college increased from 20 per cent to 36 per cent. While the proportion of students from the higher professional class increased from 67 per cent to 89 per cent, the proportion of students from the unskilled-manual work class increased from 3 per cent to 13 per cent. This remains the most fundamental problem the House has to deal with.

In the White Paper, Charting our Education Future, the Minister adopted sensible policies under which resources will be targeted at first and second level to bring about change and break the cycle of inequality in terms of access to third level education. Last week at Dublin City University, which is located in my constituency, she launched the north Dublin access programme which I welcome. I have criticised the university in the past for not maintaining close links and a close relationship with surrounding areas which have a population of between 300,000 and 400,000. They include some of the most deprived areas and worst unemployment blackspots in the country. This issue had to be addressed. I pay tribute to the Minister and the university, therefore, for inaugurating this programme under which 14 second level schools in the Coolock, Darndale, Finglas, Cabra and Ballymun areas will be designated as feeder schools. All of these schools have already been designated as disadvantaged and are located in the Northside, Ballymun and Finglas Partnership areas.

The university has made a number of changes in its organisational structure. It appointed an access officer, established a summer school and provides tours of the university to improve access for students from poorer sections of the community in which there is little or no tradition of pupils proceeding to third level.

The university has introduced a direct entry scheme to give a second chance to those who, because of various drawbacks and disadvantages, did not proceed to third level having completed second level. This scheme, which I welcome, should be extended to the six other universities.

I pay tribute to the Minister for the work she has done during the past four years. Her decision to abolish third level fees will long be remembered, particularly by working parents who found the cost of sending their children to college a severe burden. The idea of proceeding to third level is beginning to permeate through deprived housing estates in my constituency.

I congradulate the Minister for increasing the maintenance grant by 5 per cent this year. Students studying abroad are to be assisted under the mutual Higher Education Authority scheme. Despite this, recent studies which have been discussed in the House, show that students in urban areas are grossly discriminated against under the maintenance grant scheme in that the family income limits appear to offer more flexibility to the self-employed and those from a farming background.

I pay tribute to the Minister for taking these welcome initiatives to improve access to third level which remains the central problem in the university sector.

I take this opportunity to bring another scheme to the Minister's attention. It was presented to her the day she launched the Breaking the Cycle scheme in Darndale national school, which is in my constituency. The Northside Partnership, which covers the Dublin North-East and Dublin North-Central constituencies, has piloted a third level maintenance scheme in Coolock, Kilbarrack, Donaghmede, Edenmore, Baldoyle, Artane and Killester. It includes areas with the lowest access rate to third level education. Dublin 17, for example, has an access rate of only 10 per cent while Dublin 6 has a 70 per cent plus access rate. Many rural areas have an 85 to 90 per cent access rate.

The Northside Partnership inaugurated this higher education support scheme in the past two years. It has assisted over 100 students from these deprived areas at a cost of approximately £60,000, averaging £600 per student. The students admitted to the scheme were not given direct funding but their books, travel, secretarial and other necessary student costs were met by the Northside Partnership. In the current academic year, it will spend approximately £80,000 on the scheme. Recently a study of the scheme was prepared by Ms Phyllis Murphy called "Higher Education: Dream or Reality". The Minister got a copy of the study a couple of months ago on the announcement of the Breaking the Cycle scheme. She will be aware of the cost benefit analysis contained in the study which shows how valuable the scheme is.

Those on the north side of Dublin believe this is another valuable initiative. Perhaps the Department of Education and the Department of Enterprise and Employment might look at the scheme with a view to funding future partnership allocations. Indeed, it might be extended throughout the country. As I have done many times in the House, I commend the Northside Partnership on such a remarkable and farsighted initiative.

Turning to the Bill, there are genuine fears in relation to governance and visitation. The Minister will respond generously to some of the fears expressed, although in some cases there was widespread hysteria which was not merited. Our universities have a great tradition as unique bastions of research and cultural freedom dating back over a number of centuries. It is important to get the structures in relation to governance and accountability right. The Minister is prepared to consider comments and reasonable requests. The Bill will enable the seven great universities to continue their fine role in our educational system. I would like to see all the universities, particularly TCD and DCU which are surrounded by areas of great deprivation, making an effort to involve young people who live within a stone's throw of their campuses.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I commend the Minister for reserving places in third level institutions for students from deprived backgrounds. It is an extremely progressive step which should be encouraged. Although this operates on a pilot basis in Dublin, the Minister should look at other deprived areas so that we will ensure the maximum number from such areas can avail of third level education. It may be downhill all the way from here, but it is important the House recognises something constructive which will give young people opportunities. I am ad idem with the Minister on this matter but, unfortunately, our paths diverge on the Bill.

Any examination of the Bill would suggest it smacks of the Labour Party ethos. Everything and anyone provided for in this legislation——

Mr. Broughan

The Deputy can do better than that.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

——must conform to the general norm that we trust nobody but ourselves. The Bill seeks to nullify intellectual and academic freedom. It also seeks to nullify the independence of the universities, which is its very purpose. It placed strictures on the terms and tenure of employment of the staff of the universities. It is extraordinary that the Minister has given enormous powers to the Higher Education Authority which has advised her that it does not want them, that they are unnecessary and will lead to inordinate levels of bureaucracy.

The Bill could have given an independent status to the universities and have allowed them to develop their individual ethos, culture and international standing. It is appropriate when discussing such a Bill to pay tribute to the progress made in third level education and the international standing of our students, professors and lecturers. We can hold our heads high on the level of achievement from these bastions of education. I assure the Minister that what she proposes is destined to give us a "yellow pack" system comparable to that introduced in the UK in the 1970s which has not served that country well.

The university sector does not object to accepting responsibilities and being accountable. The management and staff of the universities would welcome such initiatives. If the Bill was directed in that way, they would welcome it with open arms. They would agree with the maxim promoted by the Government but which it has failed to deliver, that is, openness, transparency, accountability and, latterly, credibility. The Bill demonstrates an out moded way of thinking which would hinder the development of any organisation to enable it to compete internationally and, therefore, it negates the objectives set out when it was introduced.

The key asset of any organisation is its people. The question arising within organisations, whether business organisations or educational institutions, is how do we give people scope. How do we get the best from people so that they contribute to the best of their endeavours for the betterment of the organisation?

University management and staff are happy to be measured on results and performance and at the end of the day on the outcome. The provisions in this Bill, however, are totally out of line with the strategic management initiative espoused within the Civil Service. The Minister is going against that initiative. Surely she recognises that the Bill is incongruous and does not stand up to scrutiny. She and her officials should consider the Bill side by side with what is promised and what it is hoped to achieve under the strategic management initiative.

The problem with the Bill is that it has been a long time in gestation. It has been lumbering for such a long time that when it has finally arrived at the station it is off the tracks. The provisions were spawned in what I would term a "controlled era". Any reading of the Bill lends one to that conclusion. I am surprised that an excellent concept signalled by the Minister as being part and parcel of the Bill has disappeared. The Minister said that it would be easier for people outside the university system to become president of a university, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. If it was such a good concept a short time ago surely there is still justification for it. I can only presume the Minister has been compromised in some way by existing presidents who prevailed on her to remove that provision from the Bill, but that is a mistake. When introducing amendments she should consider reinserting that provision.

The Bill will transfer resources from research and development to delivering reports. This country is so full of reports lying on shelves and gathering dust that the last thing we want in the late 1990s is another Bill that will ensure we have more reports. That is not an objective of the strategic management initiative.

Any examination of the remit will show that the NUI has been, by and large, removed, yet it continues in existence at a cost to the State of £1 million gross per year. That is not logical or cost effective and is not an efficient way of operating. Suffice to say that if the NUI does not have a meaningful role, in the form proposed by the Minister, it will have no purpose. It is proposed that four universities out of seven will be placed in a subsidiary position. They will be involved in meetings of the NUI, heads of universities, rectors and various Government Departments. Where is the cohesion, efficiency, effectiveness and unity of purpose in that? All those meetings will lead to bureaucracy, confusion and obfuscation, not to efficiency of management which, presumably, the Minister desires. The system will become a maze of in decision and inactivity.

In a letter to the staff of universities, who were concerned about their position, the Minister indicated that their conditions cannot be worsened. I presume, therefore, the generous provisions for professors regarding pay, tenure and allowances cannot be changed. The Minister probably would have interfered with the conditions of service of staff members were it not for the fact that when she checked the legalities of the proposals in the Bill as presented she found she would be contravening the constitutional property rights of individuals. She therefore indicated that she will make amendments in this area, and I welcome that, but she retains a role in the administration of pensions of staff members. I and others ask why she has done that. Is it necessary? If we look at the position of other groupings, staff members pay into a pension fund and each pension fund puts in place specialists to examine the investment and the return. In the event that groups oversee the investment and return on pensions, why does the Minister have to intrude? That is unnecessary. It is adding a further layer of bureaucracy and is absolute madness.

The Bill smacks of too many "try-ons" and is incoherent. Fianna Fáil believes that it cannot be amended sufficiently because the base upon which it is founded is false and erroneous. It is without the type of foundation that is proper and necessary for such legislation. When we get back into Government we will repeal the Bill because the necessary amendments cannot be made to make it a workable entity.

The Minister was very careful to take care of existing presidents and inserted provisions to protect them, but she has not done so for the staff. They wonder why she is so selective in giving special regard to the presidents of the various universities while she does not have the same regard for them. She has been influenced by ad hockery and special interests.

Unfortunately, there is no educational direction in the Bill that will further enhance the international standing of our universities. I want to ask the Minister a pertinent question. Why is Trinity College getting a private Bill of its own? The word in Cork is that University College Cork will not be worth a full shilling when the Trinity College Bill goes through this House. The grapevine has it that nothing will happen to Trinity College as a result of the Bill. Amendments will be made here and there but when the Bill goes through the House, it will be seen that the forces working in the background have ensured that nothing will change in Trinity College. I pay special tribute to the Provost of Trinity College who stood up to the Minister on this issue, and the Minister backed down.

We must have a level playing pitch in these matter and it would be in the best interests of everybody if this Bill was introduced in conjunction with a Trinity College Bill. In that way we could compare like with like and be assured that no "sweetheart" deals were being negotiated for Trinity College over and above the other colleges. The people in the other universities have serious reservations that both these Bills can be taken together.

When the Minister introduced the regional technical college Bill she was anxious to ensure that the colleges remained independent. It is extraordinary that that lack of consistency, ranging form the third level technological sector to the university sector, has not continued. For instance, if the Minister thought it was a good idea that the regional technical colleges remain independent, why did she not reach the conclusion that it would be equally consistent for the universities to remain independent, rather than lumping four of them under an NUI that should be taken out of the system?

Rumour has it that the real reason for keeping these universities together is the Irish dimension. Irish will be a necessary qualification for entry to the NUI universities, but two science subjects will be adequate for Trinity College. We have spoken about equality, but can the Minister not see that certain students will be at a distinct disadvantage because of the rules and regulations she is imposing on the various universities? Is that progressive? I do not think it is. The £1 million the Minister would save by dispensing with the NUI in the form she proposes could be put into the development of the Irish language in the entire university sector. That would be welcome but I am certain that what is being done here will discriminate against certain students because of the universities they attend. I want to refer to the number of people who avail of second chance education. Many housewives want to go back to university. This is a new phenomenon and it is an area to which the Minister will have to give serious consideration because mature students need some type of funding. The Minister should extend the grants scheme to facilitate such students where possible and if she does that, I will laud her in this House.

Mr. Boylan

I compliment the Minister for bringing forward the Bill and for her excellent work. She is a hard-working, dedicated, far-seeing Minister who has restored confidence in the education system. Teachers and pupils can have every confidence that the guidelines she is setting down will bring us into the next century and give our young people an opportunity not only to get a good education but meaningful employment, which is all important.

I do not have any difficulty with the Bill in so far as it goes but, regrettably, it does not go far enough. The Minister is propagating the class distinction that exists between the universities and the Dublin Institute of Technologys. Why were the Dublin Institute of Technologys excluded form the Bill? Their exclusion highlights the non recognition of the contribution the Dublin Institute of Technologys have made to education for many years. The blue collar jobs come from the Dublin Institute of Technologys but there is an attitude that only certain types of students attend them. The same distinction was drawn in regard to the vocational education committees by foolish parents over many years. Some people believed that only students from certain family income groups attended vocational education committees and, unfortunately, that view existed for far too long.

It was many years before parents concerned about their children getting a proper education realised that the vocational education committees offered a wider range of practical subjects. These included woodwork and mechanical drawing for boys and cookery and pre-nursing classed for girls. The vocational education committees are now bursting at the seams with students and others are clamouring to attend them because they provide opportunities for students to make up their own minds about what they want to do in life. There is now competition from the colleges which have broadened the range of subjects they provide, but that is being done on a level playing pitch.

In the third level sector a major distinction is drawn between attending university and the Dublin Institute of Technologys. Parents who previously wanted their children to become lawyers, doctors or accountants now see industry as offering them the best opportunities. The real money is to be made in industry but those jobs are only attainable with the qualifications that can be obtained in places like Bolton Street, Kevin Street and the other Dublin Institute of Technologys. Unfortunately, no recognition is given to that in this Bill. The Dublin Institute of Technologys are regarded as places where children who are not academically minded attend. That is wrong. Recognition should be given to the qualifications that can be obtained in these institutions whether in regard to the construction, electronics or computer industry in which major job creation is currently taking place. I cannot understand why we do not recognise these qualifications. They may not be totally academic but the skills are needed. The courses are broad-ranging and demand much time, effort and study. The perception that attendance at a Dublin Institute of Technology college does not convey the same status as attending a university is wrong.

I recognise the role of the universities. The National Institutes for Higher Education were excellent fora of education. The one on the north side of Dublin was recently raised to the status of Dublin City University and rightly so. Many thousands of students achieved excellent qualifications and secured wonderful employment with NIHE qualifications. That it was given university status did not change that, but it was a recognition by the State of what had been achieved.

I recall when one had to get a special dispensation to attend Trinity College. Now children of all religious beliefs can attend without question. That is a step forward.

Maynooth College is growing fast and will receive university status. It has location, spaces and is accessible from places such as Lucan. It will be less costly to keep students from the country in Maynooth than in Dublin city where accommodation is extremely costly and difficult to obtain.

Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Dublin Institute of Technology is excluded from this Bill and is not given recognition. We must move away from creating categories such as white collar and blue collar jobs and class distinction, by giving the Dublin Institute of Technology recognition. The construction industry and all its component parts and the computer business for which we are becoming renowned are based on graduates from the Dublin Institute of Technology. Thousands of young people employed in Intel in Leixlip are highly skilled and qualified and come from the institutes of technology such as Bolton Street and Kevin Street. Companies are clamouring to employ these graduates whose qualifications are not full university qualifications but are equal to and as important as those of a barrister, solicitor or doctor. These colleges should be given the recognition so richly deserved. The distinction between universities and the Dublin Institute of Technology should cease. They should all be brought under the one umbrella so that people will get recognition and their degrees will carry the same weight.

The Minister might take note that, for the self-employed, farmers and business people, the income limit for maintenance grants is not realistic and is totally out of line with modern day costs. While I appreciate that fees have been abolished, it is extremely costly for young people from the country to take digs in Dublin. I do not want to go into the detail because the Minister will know it. The income limits are far from satisfactory and are a source of complaint. A child should not be disadvantaged because he or she happens to live a distance from third level institutions.

I was annoyed at the Minister's assertion that "We are extremely fortunate to have such a diversity of university institutions". It would have been far better to have said we are extremely fortunate to have such a diversity of third level institutions. The Minister can compliment each Dublin Institute of Technology college on the work they do but she should offer them some light at the end of the tunnel and include them, if not in this Bill, then in the immediate future. Amendments have been tabled relating to Trinity College and Limerick University and we might have to do something to ensure the Dublin Institute of Technology will be included.

Mr. T. Kitt

I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say on the case made by the Dublin Institute of Technologys. I admire the role they play in education and the bigger role they play in our economic development. In the professional areas, the Dublin Institute of Technology plays a substantial role whether it be in architecture, electronics, science, business studies, law, hotel management, marketing and design or music. The Dublin Institute of Technology has a major role to play and has been developing it in recent times. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in response to Deputy Boylan's points.

It is essential that there be clarity in the Minister's thinking and direction when it comes to policies. That is not evident in this Bill. The Minister has consulted widely on a number of issues during her tenure, has operated on the basis of consensus and consultation and has come up with some policies which I would be the first to say were aimed in the right direction. In this case, it does not give me any pleasure to say that never in the history of education has a Minister for Education demonstrated such muddled thinking, confusion and lack of vision as she has shown in bringing forward this legislation. There is much interest in this Bill. It is not evidenced by the number of people debating it tonight, but the Minister is aware that many of my colleagues and our spokesperson have contributed to the debate. From the time the Minister presented the position paper until she published the Universities Bill, her handling of this issue has been questionable. I do not make this point lightly. For example, there has been a considerable change of emphasis between her original position paper referring to the right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos and traditions and to academic operational freedom, and the Bill.

The public reservations she announced recently lead me to believe she should now withdraw the Bill and redraft legislation to deal with the substantive issues on which we all agree. My colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe, has made the same point. I make that point sincerely because there is a build up of frustration for those in the field of education. The recent communication from the Dublin Institute of Technology is another example of the genuine confusion and lack of clarity. People want some real direction. It is a muddled landscape. It is time to start again and the Minister would do a better job if she did so. I am convinced the Minister's strategy is to confuse issues by including certain beneficial aspects in the proposed legislation to mask the main thrust of the legislation which is to facilitate political intrusion into the detailed workings of the universities.

I do, of course, agree that UCC, UCD and UCG, as well as St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, should be established as constituent universities of the National University of Ireland. The welcome restructuring of the National University of Ireland should have been introduced by way of separate legislation rather than being linked with the proposal for wider administrative changes based on a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of the nature, role, functions and operating realities of the Irish universities.

Having said that, I agree with the first of the three stated purposes of the Bill relating to the restructuring of the National University of Ireland. I regret to say that the second and third of the stated purposes do not stand up to rigorous assessment as to their need. The Minister should explain to this House in clear and unambiguous terms specifically why she sees the need to provide a revised composition of governing authorities of universities. Is there something wrong which must be corrected or are there improvements which can be made which would benefit the functioning of the universities for the good of the general community?

The Bill is seriously defective in that it removes the autonomy of a university, curtails the academic freedom of staff and fails to guarantee the ethos of a university. It is well established that there are three basic freedoms in any democracy, those being freedom of the press, freedom of the Judiciary and academic freedom. In removing the latter this legislation strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It demonstrates the true colours of the Labour Party whose arrogance we have almost come to accept. This party seems to really believe that they know what is best for all of us. They will not be let away with it on this occasion. The Minister is on the run and we will keep her running until she drops the ball. She would not be the first prominent member of the Labour Party to drop the ball.

The Bill omits any reference to the promotion or encouragement of freedom of speech or thought. In a speech to the Adam Muckiewicz University of Poznan on 24 June 1994 the President, Mrs. Mary Robinson, said:

It is right that our universities should seek to be relevant to the needs of society. But what society most needs, whether it realises it or not, is a continuous constructive but critical judgment from within. So the university and the writer will have to continue to assert the right to stand at a tangent to the rest of society, to take an oblique but engaged view. In society's own interest we ask for the freedom to be critical in analysis; dispassionate in the search for knowledge but passionate in its defence.

The Bill has rightly been described as intrusive in that it involves the Minister and the Higher Education Authority in meddling on a day to day basis in the affairs of universities. Quality assurance in most professional faculties is already guaranteed by visitations from professional bodies for degree recognition and validation. The Minister wants to put in place a system more akin to that which exists in the UK, a system that is intrusive and expensive, which has in effect reduced the quality of all courses. What the Minister is proposing can be likened to periodically pulling up a tree to check that the roots are OK. The Minister's proposals would drastically change the rights of university staff and would override completely existing terms and conditions of service. All staff are defined as employees who may be suspended or dismissed. The 1908 Act gave academic staff much better protection. The Minister's suspicious attitude which demonstrates a lack of trust in universities and their objectives is regrettable.

No provision is made for promotions on merit or any sort of professional advancement but absolute discretion on rigid and artificial staff structures is given to the HEA. This is currently the de facto situation and has damaged both staff morale and good will. The Bill should allow the universities to operate a staffing structure based on merit and overall budget constraint on the lines of modern management practices.

The Minister has stated that another purpose of the Bill is to provide structures for accountability and transparency in the affairs of universities. Would the Minister tell us what is wrong that needs to be corrected? Already, through the Higher Education Authority, the State exercises a very detailed level of control over the universities and other designated institutions. The Higher Education Authority Act, 1971 includes the following functions of the HEA: the funding of universities and other designated third level institutions; the development of third level education to meet the need of the community; and advising the Minister in relation to all third level education, including that offered outside the Higher Education Authority designated institutions.

Budgets are approved by the Higher Education Authority for each university and other designated institutions, and accounts are submitted to the Higher Education Authority by each institution. Operating statistics, development plans and other regular reports are also submitted to the HEA. The chairperson of the Higher Education Authority is appointed by the Minister for Education on a whole-time basis and there are 18 part time members of the authority. In addition to all of this, the accounts of the universities are independently audited and, just like the Government Departments, come within the mandate of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Surely there are adequate structures already in place to ensure accountability and transparency in the affairs of universities, or is the Minister suggesting that there is something amiss? The words "openness and transparency" are being used as a smokescreen to allow for greater political control and intrusion into the everyday operation of universities.

I wish to refer to the wider contribution of the universities in Irish society, including the very significant contribution which they make directly and indirectly to research, enterprise and job creation. The State grant is allocated each year by the Higher Education Authority to each university on the basis of a unit cost formula, presumably with the objective of achieving greater equity and transparency. I suggest, however, that there lies the root of the present misunderstanding. The unit cost mechanism is fundamentally flawed in that it is based only on student contact hours and takes no account of the wider service of the university to the community. The end result is that the grant encourages the maximisation of direct teaching by putting as many students as possible through the system at the lowest direct cost per student. We need look no further afield than Britain to see that it is not possible to reconcile mass education with scarce funding without a compromise of standards. Different types of teaching institutions are needed to deliver mass third level education and further education on this type of unit cost basis. Those developments are already taking place in Ireland on an excellent and cost effective basis in the regional technical colleges and through the provision of a wide range of post-leaving certificate courses.

It is counterproductive, however, to confuse this issue with the nature, role and functions of universities in relation to their capacity to provide research. These functions can be categorised as follows: (1) Research and development support for industry; (2) direct job creation through campus companies and otherwise; (3) attraction to inward investment in industry and tourism; (4) global research networking; (5) contributions through representation on Government, EU and OECD committees; (6) enhancement of Ireland's cultural and technological image; (7) participation in the formulation of national development policies; and (8) provision of an independent voice for social change and societal developments.

Some people mistakenly speak about expenditure on education. I would remind the House that we should more correctly refer to investment in education. I suggest that rather than proceed with inappropriate legislation based primarily on misunderstandings, misconceptions and simple lack of knowledge of the facts of higher education, the Minister should proceed separately with legislation which would be to the benefit of the National University of Ireland. As for the other changes, I fear that we are in grave danger of adversely impacting on the functioning of the universities, demotivating university staff and diminishing many of the excellent, social and economic contributions made by the universities to the general community. The Minister should consider instead requesting the Higher Education Authority, in detailed dialogue with the universities, to consider and advise her upon any administrative changes which would result in enhancing the outputs of the universities, not only in terms of student numbers, but also under the heading of each of the social and economic functions which I listed earlier. The Higher Education Authority already has a statutory role to advise on all aspects of the higher education system so that my suggestion does not create any new structures or precedent.

Since the Universities Bill was published on 30 July 1996 the Minister has wasted much of her time and energy in back tracking and defending her actions. As a result of her approach to this issue there have been hundreds of letters to the editors of our daily newspapers, discussions on radio and television and debates in universities in which strong opposition to this legislation has been expressed. I am convinced that if forced through this House it will have a rocky passage through the Seanad. I am not aware of what discussions are taking place with individuals in that Chamber but it has been signalled clearly by individuals, who represent the universities in that Chamber, that they will have major problems with this legislation. The concerns of those opposing the Bill are real and coherently expressed. The time has come for the Minister to start listening. The only option open to her is to clean the slate and start all over again. If the Minister is not prepared to do that it will be left to Fianna Fáil in Government to repeal this Bill, when enacted, and introduce legislation to deal with the substantive issues on which we all agree.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Universities Bill should have been substantive legislation and extremely forward looking. If it had been so and if it had encompassed the principles originally set out by the Minister, this side of the House would have welcomed it. We have instead a misconceived Bill which is interventionist in nature, unhelpful and uninformed by the realities of university governance.

Our universities face a multiple challenge, more than ever they are at the heart of national development and deserve better than these proposals. The Bill has generated widespread criticism right across the political spectrum from outside as well as from inside our universities. Some of those criticisms are misinformed. In particular there has been unfounded and unfair criticism of officials in Government Departments. There has also been criticism of the Higher Education Authority which misrepresents the responsibilities of the officials and the Authority in the constructive manner in which they have carried out those responsibilities. However, many of the criticisms are well founded. The Minister has sought to take powers that are excessively instrusive, that potentially compromise the integrity and independence of university governance, quite needlessly override the freedom of universities to order their own affairs and call into question the employment status of certain universities staff. That is unacceptable. The central theme of the Bill is an implied criticism of the standards of accountability in our universities and that criticism is seriously misplaced.

It is right that all institutions, especially those which are publicly funded, should continually explain the relevance and effectiveness of their governance. It is surely the case that the universities are well capable of identifying and carrying through such changes themselves. They have much experience in managing change. After all they have been doing so for some considerable time, in some instances long before this House was established. We should trust them to continue to do that.

There is an absence of trust in the State's dealing with the university system. That trust has been eroded by the major changes in the content and nature of this legislation since the initial proposals were published. Trust is now rightly recognised as the central element in the governance of nations. How can we hope to inculcate and nourish this trust in and governance of society if we do not first recognise the integrity of a major social institution, such as our universities?

The universities have, in their contribution to society over hundreds of years, carried this trust. Any legislation brought in by this or any Minister for Education should build on that contribution to society, not undermine it, as this Bill does.

My experience as a student and as a graduate of both University College, Galway and University College, Dublin and as a former Minister for Education, has led me to conclude that we can and should trust our university system to oversee and manage the changes, which they are well capable of doing, and lay down the standards of governance themselves. If legislation is needed for that I and my party would be the first to work with the universities in the public interest to introduce it.

The Bill has distracted attention from the achievements of our universities and of our regional technical colleges, achievements which are obvious in delivering world class standards in teaching and research to successive generations of students. Despite serious under-funding, this contribution is now the bedrock of national economic life and the central element of competitive advantage in an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy. With this, the universities and the regional technical colleges have demonstrated an unstinting commitment to providing access as a means of overcoming social disadvantage. In fairness successive Governments have made substantial strides in the use of our third level system to overcome social disadvantage. Myriad programmes, which are not taken into account within the universities funding mechanism, demonstrate that the universities are more socially responsible and open than this legislation would lead one to believe. The truth is that the public has considerably more confidence in the standards of governance in our universities than the Minister.

The deficiencies in this legislation are so pervasive, deep seated and insidious as to require extensive amendment. I welcome the Minister's decision, in the face of widespread pressure and criticism, to amend the legislation. Although it has been forced on her it is, nevertheless, commendable. There is nothing to be gained by the Government or the Minister in toughing it out and seeking to push through botched legislation. For those reasons the amendments are welcome. A series of ad hoc amendments, however well informed and motivated, brought forward in a panic under public pressure and negotiated behind closed doors is a seriously deficient way of getting university legislation.

University legislation rarely comes to this House. Universities are long-term business and, therefore, any legislation should seek to deal with them in that fashion. For that reason, any amendments should be well thought out and stand the test of time long after this and future Governments have come and gone. The manner in which the Minister is seeking to reshape this Bill is not the way to do it. It is too important for our universities, economy and society.

I suggest the heads of Irish universities, under the chairmanship of the HEA, form a working group on university governance and management and invite suggestions from individuals and representative bodies. It should examine standards in other countries with a view to avoiding the worst mistakes of others. It should learn from the best and report in three months. The group's brief should be to provide guidance on systems and procedures of governance which will facilitate, not impose, our universities in continuing to deliver world class standards in teaching and research. This may require legislation.

Some of my colleagues referred to the situation at the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is a cause of great dismay that the Dublin Institute of Technology has not been included in the Bill. It is evidence of the continued neglect of that institution by the Minister for Education. In December 1995 the Minister established an international review group which, having assessed the work of the institute, recommended that it be allowed to confer its own degree awards from 1998. The Dublin Institute of Technology believes this recommendation is an endorsement of its reputation as a leading and progressive educational institution operating at degree and post-graduate level and that this should be acknowledged by elevating its status to that of a university.

The Dublin Institute of Technology has been contributing to the educational needs of this country since the 19th century and it is widely recognised as being of university standard. The Minister should make the necessary amendments in the Bill to confer such status. I introduced the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1992 in the Dáil and at the time I said degree awarding status should be given to the institute within a year or two. I am still of that opinion. The commitment I gave on that Government's behalf should have been implemented by its successors and I regret that it has not. Dublin Institute of Technology has the history, excellence, staff and vision to merit university and degree awarding status. I recommend that the Minister confer that status.

I also urge the Minister to bring forward the technical elements of this legislation relating to the status of Maynooth College. They will be widely supported. The Minister should also consider the procedure I have suggested as a solid and informed basis for producing the landmark, positive, empowering legislation which universities require and deserve as they face the new millennium.

The Minister should take greater interest in research and development in our universities, in co-operation with her colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology, by funding and ensuring a greater supply of PhD students in the research area. Valuable research and information has been yielded by such programmes. The Department of Education and the Department of Enterprise and Employment should augment the funding for PhD students to carry out research on specific projects. When one considers the price of research in the commercial sector, research in universities is extremely good value. For a few thousand pounds per year one can secure expert investigation and research on solid and advanced projects while research in multinational firms can cost millions of pounds. This area represents a good investment and I urge the Minister to see if the Department's role in this regard can be improved.

The use and benefit to the nation of campus companies must be acknowledged. Many of them do tremendous work on small budgets. They are centres of excellence based on university campuses. While strict auditing and financial procedures must be applied to such companies, as they should to all Government projects, the network and structure of campus companies should receive more support.

Will the Minister consider progressing the concept of a science park in Dublin at a much quicker pace? A science park is not just another industrial development idea. It is put forward as a centre of excellence where scientists involved in research can congregate and provide a boost to the scientific and technological infrastructure which is needed to develop industry. The role universities, regional technical colleges and other third level institutions can play in the development of a science park could be pivotal. The concept should be given serious consideration.

When the establishment of the IFSC was proposed people assumed it was just another fancy idea that would not work. I predict that if the concept of a science park is taken seriously in a structured way and if the necessary taxation and investment criteria are laid down, a science park based in Ireland, given our historical love of education and science, could be as successful as the IFSC. However, it must be viewed as a serious project and supported by political will. The concept has been suggested for a number of years and if the IFSC had been given the same consideration, the Minister would only now be examining the final report and proposals for its establishment. In the case of the IFSC, however, the then Taoiseach decided it was important and urgent so it was fast tracked and rapidly established. The Minister for Education should see if the science park concept can be fast tracked too, because it is extremely important that it be given such treatment.

I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to my comments, particularly on the intrusive nature of this legislation. She should consider my proposal that the Higher Education Authority call together the heads of the universities and, within a short timespan, work out amendments that would be satisfactory for the long-term benefit of the universities.

I also wish to comment on private third level institutions. Some of them believe they are of university status and that their status should be enshrined in legislation. Will the Minister give some thought to a clearer strategy for private third level education? I am aware she is a member of a political party that would not be comfortable with the notion of any institution other than existing public educational institutions taking on the serious business of third level education. However, in the modern world it will be increasingly expensive and difficult for the State to undertake the entire cost of third level education.

There is no reason private sector third level education cannot coexist with the State sector. To treat such institutions as second class institutions is not correct. The correct course is to appreciate the investment and to insist that the standards of such institutions equal the highest international standards of third level education. The Government can play a leading role in the area of standards. It is critical that standards in private third level institutions are supervised. Structures to do that can be put in place if there is the political will to do so.

There is another thorny issue in this regard which requires a great deal of discussion. The issue is whether one should grant aid students who attend private third level colleges in the same way as they are grant aided to attend State third level institutions. Is there a case for only providing financial support if a student goes to a public institution and not providing it if the student goes to a private institution?

I hope the Minister will consider my comments. My central message is "hands off the universities". They have done a fine job for many centuries and will continue to do so in the future.

They do not need this or any Government dabbling in their affairs; they have their integrity, independence and governance ethos. If the Minister leaves it at that she will see that those universities will serve our nation well in the future.

Debate adjourned.