Private Members' Business. - Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (27th Dáil) – Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996

Private Members' Business. - Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Ms O'Donnell

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My party's spokesperson, Deputy Keogh, has outlined our position on the substance of the Bill. I as the Minister for Education to give serious consideration to a particular matter, that is, conferring university status on the Dublin Institute of Technology.

One would expect the Minister to engage in a comprehensive consultation process before bringing forward major legislation but that did not happen in this case. Few Bills brought forward in recent years have caused as much controversy and met with such a hostile response as this one. This lack of consultation explains why it makes no reference to the Dublin Institute of Technology which is one of our most important and long-established third level educational institutions and which, since January 1993, has been an independent entity with its own governing body. Its constituent colleges include some of the best names in the field of technological education, including Bolton Street and Kevin Street.

The Dublin Institute of Technology has 10,000 full-time students with a further 12,000 engaged in part-time studies. This makes it the largest third level educational in the State. Out of a total of 22,000 students, 4,500 are pursuing degree and postgraduate courses. This puts it on a par with St. Patrick's College, Maynooth in terms of degree student numbers.

Under legislation introduced in 1992, the Dublin Institute of Technology was given the right to make its own awards at certificate and diploma level. It does not award its own degrees although it has the legal power to do so but this requires an order to be made by the Minister.

An international review group set up by the Minister was asked to report on the matter earlier this year. It reported that the Dublin Institute of Technology "demonstrated a level of maturity which justifies a recommendation that it be granted authority to award its own degrees". It recommended that full degree awarding powers be extended with effect from the 1998-9 academic year. The National Education Convention had previously recommended in its report that responsibility for the institute be transferred from the Department of Education to the Higher Education Authority. The review group further recommended that the Universities Bill be amended to take account of its findings; in other words, it was signalling that the Minister should give consideration to granting the institute university status.

The Bill does not contain any good news for the Dublin Institute of Technology. Effectively, its interests have been ignored or overlooked. The Minister could have taken the opportunity to take a radical initiative, that is, to create a new university but she decided not to do so. My party believes this matter should be considered in more depth on Committee Stage.

On the face of it, there is a clear case for awarding the Dublin Institute of Technology university status. It is strongly committed to research and development and operates a number of specialised units and campus companies. It has good external links with both the private and public sector but its capacity to develop as a technological institute is severely limited because it does not enjoy university status. For instance, it cannot have visiting professorships or professorships associated with industry. This is a major drawback for an institution which, perhaps, has the closest relations of any educational body with industry.

Awarding the Dublin Institute of Technology university status would rid it of the perception from which it suffers both at home and abroad. Because of its name and peculiar status and a certain amount of conservative academic snobbery, it is perceived as being something less than a true university. Yet, its graduates collect the same parchments as those who attend our fully fledged universities. This is unfair on the students of the institute and their parents who make sacrifices to send them there.

It is time the Government gave consideration to putting the Dublin Institute of Technology on an equal footing with the universities. I can only assume the Minister does not want to create another university because it would lessen the centralised control which both she and her Department exert over the third level sector. The thrust of the Bill when put forward originally was bureaucratic and centralising. Institutions which had enjoyed autonomy, in some cases for centuries, were to be subjected to ministerial interference and central Government control to an unprecedented degree. Much of this has blown up in the Minister's face. Even the Higher Education Authority has come out against her proposals.

The Dublin Institute of Technology must be encouraged to develop as a centre of excellence in the field of technological education at third level. The best encouragement it could receive from the Government is elevation to university status. This issue should be considered on Committee Stage.

Mr. Nolan

I wish to share time with my colleagues, Deputies Killeen and Liam Fitzgerald.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Nolan

Like many other contributors from this side of the House, I am critical of the Minister and the Government for the manner in which they have proceeded with this legislation, the purpose of which is to put new structures in place to allow the universities to confront the challenges they will face in the next century. If enacted in its present form, it will restrict and constrain their ability to do so. It is an unacceptable attack on their academic freedom.

All our universities, with the exception of Limerick University and Dublin City University, predate the foundation of the State. It is worth noting that Limerick University and Dublin City University were granted such status by a Fianna Fáil Administration in 1989.

While the Bill contains a number of acceptable provisions, the Government has failed to award the Dublin Institute of Technology university status. This is a glaring omission and should be rectified on Committee Stage. The Government should consider the case put forward by the institute. Its six constituent colleges have 13,500 full-time equivalent students, including 4,500 pursuing degree or postgraduate courses. Its recognition as a university is logical.

Granting university status to the Dublin Institute of Technology would be in accord with the recommendations of the international review group set up by the Minister last year. There is no apparent reason for the Minister not acting on these recommendations and transferring funding and responsibility for overseeing the institute from the Department of Education to the Higher Education Authority as recommended by the review group.

Fianna Fáil believes the real reason the Minister has refused university status has more to do with concentrating power in the Department than doing what is best for our universities and colleges. This is reflected in the Bill as published. It seeks to curb the independence of our universities and to bring them more under the control of the Minister and the Higher Education Authority. Is it any wonder the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, in an article, called this Bill "Thatcherite" in its basic lack of understanding of what universities are about? Fianna Fáil is committed to repealing this legislation, if enacted, on return to power. The Bill is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn immediately.

All third level institutions have responded to social change and have served the needs of students very well. Governments of the late 1960s and early 1970s are to be commended for their foresight in what is a growth area in education. I recall when it was the exception rather than the rule for students to go to third level education, and I would like to see even more students going on to third level. Considering that in 1908 there were only 4,000 students attending universities, in 1960 there were 10,000 and today there are up to 50,000, we are making progress. For an individual to progress in today's world, a good basic education is very important. The quality and standard of education by third level institutions provides a good basis for life.

The success of many universities in recent years has attracted private investment, which is very welcome, but much greater investment is needed if we are to maintain the standards attained in the past ten to 15 years. The quality of education will deteriorate if the Minister insists on pushing through this Bill. She should take cognisance of our proposals on Committee Stage. While there are many good aspects to the Bill, I ask her to consider its deficiencies.

Mr. Killeen

Bheadh sé deacair a rá nach bhfuil gá le Bill ollscoile ag an am seo os rud é gurb é Acht 1908 a ritheadh i bPairlimint na Breataine an príomh Acht ó shin. Ritheadh Billí i 1929, 1971, 1991 agus 1993 ach go háirithe a raibh tionchar acu ar chúrsaí oideachais ollscoile agus déanfaidh mé tagairt do chuid acu amach anseo.

Is mór an trua nár ghlac an tAire leis an deis stairiúil seo atá aici chun Bille fiúntach a chur os ar gcomhair. Ní chreidim gur féidir an Bille seo a leasú agus molaim dí agus don Rialtas é a tharraingt siar agus ceann nua a chur in a áit. Ba chóir dí barúil na n-ollscoileanna agus a lucht riartha a chur san áireamh sa Bhille nua agus meas éigin a chur ar a neamhspleachas.

There are a number of sections in the Bill about which I am concerned but because of time constraints I will be unable to refer to all of them. Section 9 empowers the Government to declare an institution to be a university under the terms of the Bill. A very strong case can be made for the Dublin Institute of Technology to be elevated to university status, as recommended by the international review group. Many speakers referred to that matter and outlined the case in some detail. The extraordinary record of the Dublin colleges of Dublin Institute of Technology since the last century ought to have been recognised in the Bill. The role of parents and students in seeking the upgrading of those colleges is commendable and illustrates good relations between the various elements of the Dublin Institute of Technology colleges.

There is much room for outreach courses as part of the third level system. Because of the decline in population, with spare classrooms and extra teachers in many locations, at least first year of a large number of courses could be accommodated in second level campus buildings in virtually every county. There is huge potential for savings of taxpayers' money and for access to third level courses for a greater number of school leaves and particularly for women who wish to rejoin the workforce. The Minister will be aware — I was in contact with her about this matter — of an attempt to have an outreach course provided in Ennis. Limerick regional college has agreed to that, but because deliberations are awaited no progress can be made on that issue.

Sections 11 and 12 set out objectives and functions of universities in a manner which fails to acknowledge the unique features of the university as an independent institution in society. The provision in section 11(d) that universities shall promote the English language is amazing and is in direct conflict with the University College Galway Act, 1929. Section 11 (e) raises questions of a fundamental nature regarding the relationship between universities and the Government of the day in the area of economic policy. In section 11(f) the word "higher" is used in such a context as to remove any role for universities in the education of na gnáthe daoine. In section 11(g) the phrase "and quality of" is tautology. The language in several sections is imprecise, sometimes to the point of being meaningless. It is difficult to believe that nobody within Cabinet took exception to various provisions in sections 15 to 22. The lack of trust inherent in the Bill is not a good basis for a healthy partnership in the future.

Contracts of employment have been entirely scrapped for many employees of universities, particularly in sections 22(5) and 29(3). The status of current agreements with these members of staff has been undermined and questions remain regarding superannuation rights — there is probably an illegality here. This matter should be cleared with staff before we proceed with the Bill.

The right to academic freedom is fundamental in any university. The Bill fails to realise the outstanding contribution made by universities to academic, artistic, cultural, economic and social life. There is huge untapped potential which can be realised only in the context of academic freedom. The whole area of research and development has been, sadly, underfunded. Universities have sought to rise above this mediocrity with commendable success and they should be encouraged. The assistance available for post graduate research and development students is paltry.

Several European universities are among the institutions which have survived since the reformation. The fundamental attack on the independence of universities is a negation of their role. Monasteries have a long and distinguished record of providing education for the children of Europe. That type of education should be restored because there are many advantages for the country, including cultural, touristic, financial and the promotion of peace and understanding at home and abroad. Universities have a role in improving the way in which the country is perceived and its place in the developing world.

In section 28 the Minister has power to override university charters. This provision, as well as many others, differs in several important respects, particularly in regard to independence and staff matters, from the proposals for university legislation in 1995. The Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, provides for wide Government control of universities and under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993, all university accounts are verified. Will this Bill so undermine universities as to reduce them to a drab grey landscape? The ethos of Trinity College and Maynooth appear to be recognised somewhat grudgingly, but what about the other colleges? How can representatives who are appointed rather than elected represent those whom they are supposed to represent?

Section 31 refers to quality assessment. This is one of the few areas in which I agree with the general thrust of the Bill. The current discussions between the Higher Education Authority and the conference of heads of universities ought to be built on rather than ignored. Section 14 deals with the role of public representatives in management in education. Nobody could better act as guardians of taxpayers' money than public representatives, many of whom have played a great role in encouraging and promoting innovative ideas on the political stage on behalf of universities. Public representatives acknowledge that other groups should be represented on governing bodies. In regard to Dublin universities in particular there is a need to increase the size of the bodies to facilitate that.

The Third Schedule provides that no more than two consecutive terms may be served by a member and if people lose their council seat they are debarred from membership. Since that is not provided for in the case of the Oireachtas I strongly caution against its inclusion in the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party is opposing the Bill and has undertaken to repeal it in the future because I fear for the implications of this Bill being passed in its present format. I now pass over to my colleague, Deputy Liam Fitzgerald, who, I understand, intends to share his time with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Since the Irish Universities Act was passed in 1908 this represents the first opportunity to discuss legislative proposals on the future of our universities and third level education generally in terms of the late 1990s and into the next millennium. The Minister referred to the Bill as historic but it is only historic in that particular context, and I put it to the Minister that in many other respects the Bill represents nothing more than bureaucracy gone mad. It is a deliberate intrusion, in a most authoritarian way, into what was hitherto the commendable, traditional independence of our universities. Its effects will undoubtedly inhibit rather than promote innovation. The Bill will dampen the culture of enterprise and academic and intellectual freedom. It represents a licence for the governing of our universities by Government diktat.

In some respects many of the Bill's provisions are daft and they will have an opposite effect to what the Minister purported to be her vision of university education in the future. I have always believed that the freedom of our universities to be innovative and to promote the academic, artistic, cultural, economic and social life of our nation was the cornerstone of university education. We are now witnessing a kind of revisionism which seeks to challenge the success of our universities which is acclaimed not alone by some of the most renowned universities and third level institutions around the world but also by industry, the research institutes and some critics of our educational institutions both at home and abroad.

One of the areas in the Bill that is most baffling is the attempt to address the changing role of universities in our economy. By virtue of some sections of the Bill the Minister seems to be suggesting that the role of our universities heretofore in meeting future challenges in regard to economic activity has been of limited success. I challenge the Minister to produce that evidence in terms of research, reports or studies that have been carried out by national or international organisations.

One of the greatest threats to the role of our universities is to their independence. The Bill attempts to promote a culture of dependence, contrary to what has always been a culture of independence. This type of culture will ultimately stifle the very ethos the Bill is seeking to promote.

I regret the Bill fails to address the Dublin Institute of Technology. Throughout the late 1980s I had the honour to serve on the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology. By virtue of legislation in 1992, the then Minister for Education, Deputy Seamus Brennan, established the Dublin Institute of Technology on a statutory basis. I am deeply saddened that, despite reports from an international body which this Minister commissioned, she ignored the Dublin Institute of Technology when bringing forward what should have been substantial legislation on third level education, the manner in which it is addressing the academic, cultural and artistic needs of our society as well as the applied scientific and technological needs.

I put it to the Minister that the Dublin Institute of Technology has taken up the applied challenges in a significant way. Despite considerable constraints over the decades, some of which I was party to, the Dublin Institute of Technology has proven in a spectacular way that it can meet the challenges of technology. It went out into the marketplace, sometimes hampered by the 1930 Act, to take on research and innovation. According to the international review group established by the Minister. Deputy Bhreathnach, the Dublin Institute of Technology proved itself to be worthy of recognition as a full university.

I want to refer briefly to a number of points made by the international review group. The Higher Education Authority submitted in excess of 50 amendments to the Bill which the Minister is due to consider. It is amazing that the Minister brought forward a Bill which the authority that is the custodian of university education says she should amend in so many different areas. When considering those amendments the Minister should incorporate the Dublin Institute of Technology to give recognition to its track record, which is second to none, and to the overwhelming view among its staff, students and their parents that the Dublin Institute of Technology has reached a milestone.

Recognition has been accorded to the Dublin Institute of Technology also by the international review group which stated that it has demonstrated a level of maturity which justifies the recommendation that it be granted authority to award its own degrees. It suggested also that, in accordance with the White Paper, the funding and oversight of the Dublin Institute of Technology should be transferred from the Department of Education to the Higher Education Authority at the earliest possible date. I commend those views to the Minister. I am sure she has had an opportunity to study them and I hope when she sits down prior to Committee Stage to respond to our party's amendments she will seriously consider giving proper recognition to an institute which, despite the legislative inhibitions enshrined in the 1930 legislation, has shown spectacular academic success, has an outstanding record in the technological applied education area and has won recognition not only nationally but from professional bodies throughout Europe.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Many previous speackers referred to the Dublin Institute of Technology; that is obviously the result of a well organised lobby by the Dublin Institute of Technology and its students. It must be heartening to everybody that the students and their parents have such commitment and interest in this institution that they are prepared to engage in this lobbying. It is encouraging for the institute that the Minister established a review group and I hope she will take account of its views and allow these institutions award their own degrees. They have provided many highly trained people for much needed jobs and they deserve any help they can get. I am sure the Minister will do whatever is necessary and what she believes to be right in regard to these institutions.

It must be remembered that the Minister, Deputy Bhreathnach, abolished third level education fees. This meant middle income people living in the Border counties had the choice of sending their children not just to universities in Northern Ireland but to universities and third level institutions in the Republic and that was greatly appreciated by them.

If one looks at the numbers of people attending third level education we find that Monaghan has the third lowest number in Ireland. We have to look seriously at the reasons for that. I believe it is because students leaving Monaghan have to maintain themselves and pay travelling expenses out of their own resources, and none of them can live at home because there is no third level facility in Monaghan. A farmer in my constituency who has profits agreed by the Revenue Commissioners at £10,000 must, for education grant purposes include the REPS grant of £4,000, loan interest of £3,000 and depreciation of £3,000. This puts him outside the income limit for a maintenance allowance. There are many different forms of assessment, one for old age pension, another for health benefit, another for education grants. This is an area that must be seriously looked at if all our people are to be treated equally.

The issue of establishing closer links with the Northern Ireland universities is another matter that should be looked at from the point of view of the Border counties. The Queen's University and the University of Ulster are interested and would be prepared to create links to help students in Monaghan through the first two years of their education at least without the cost of having to maintain themselves in our cities.

The main Opposition Party, having been many years in Government, have much they now want to offer to education. It is great to be in Opposition and to look for controls on spending while on the other hand advocating spending in certain sectors.

Miss Coughlan

The Deputy's party was in Opposition long enough.

Mr. Crawford

I find it difficult to understand that young people on social welfare get paid if they participate in a FÁS scheme, but if they go to university they do not. I would like the Minister to look at that also.

I will now hand over to my Opposition colleagues who want to put their new ideas to the Minister.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to contribute on the Bill. Listening to Deputy Crawford, one would think he had been here for a lifetime. I tell him bluntly that the people who founded and financed our education system were Fianna Fáil, now the major Opposition party.

As a graduate of the University of life and a student of Ballindangan National School I have followed the debate and controversy surrounding this proposed legislation with considerable interest. This Bill has been in gestation for many years, although not quite as far back as the time of King Charles I of England and Plato, both of whom were referred to by the Minister in proposing the Bill. Having read the Minister's long statement, I had to check to see to which Plato she was referring. She obviously intended to refer to Plato the philosopher, son of the distinguished Athens family who, in 387 BC, instituted the Academy as an institute for the systematic pursuit of philosophical and scientific research. This Plato, we gather from Aristotle, was wont to lecture without manuscript. Moreover, the text presented by the Minister is more like the work of the other Plato, the Greek poet and writer. This Plato, who was a contemporary of the philosopher, wrote 28 comedies mostly on political themes — one of his best known plays was "Perialges" translated in English as "The Sufferer". The Minister's 1996 AD production could have a similar subtitle.

Regarding this Bill we must first ask why we need it and who wants it. Legislation is necessary regarding the recognition of Maynooth and the continuing emergence of Limerick University and Dublin City University. However, this Bill proposes to go into areas far beyond these matters.

The Minister kindly said she will listen carefully to the views of fellow Deputies and give them full consideration. This is very welcome, but the Minister, in advance of consulting the Oireachtas, has already substantially backtracked on her own proposals and has given assurances to interested parties. As a consequence she intends to introduce a substantial number of amendments to the Bill. This is in addition to a considerable number of amendments Deputy Martin has already indicated he will make to this flawed Bill. No doubt the universities and the newly appointed Higher Education Authority board through their representatives in the Seanad and representations made to other Members of both Houses will put down other numerous amendments. One of the most important universities in this State, Trinity College, is to be the subject of a Bill. Whether the Trinity College Bill is a separate Bill is not a matter of great importance, but the present Bill should be presented alongside the proposed Trinity College Bill. To try to rectify a Bill such as this by tabling numerous amendments is not in the least satisfactory and risks poor or bad legislation passing through this House in the confusion.

Not everything in the Minister's Bill is bad. She certainly should not backtrack at the merest whiff of criticism. Her efforts at justification and backtracking in her statement make very bad reading indeed. I assure her that properly thought out and presented proposals would have my support. The universities want everything their own way. However, they are the beneficiaries of more than £220 million this year alone from the Exchequer. The Minister and her colleague, the Minister for Finance, and the Dáil have a right to know how this money is being spent and be assured it is being spent in pursuit of policies approved by the State. This does not mean the Minister or her representatives need to be involved in the detail of university housekeeping. It would be wrong to suggest that all university life is academic. The growth and development of University College Cork, now under Professor Michael Mortell, and the emergence of the National Microelectronics Research Centre, Cork under Professor Gerard Wrixon are practical examples of how universities can identify a need and, in a practical and constructive way, bridge the gap between commerce and knowledge or, to put it another way, translate innovation and research into implementation and earnings. Cork University has always been the business university of the southern region — its slogan was "what Finbar taught, let Munster learn".

Sections 22 and 23 refer to guidelines. I am dubious about the concept of guidelines being enshrined in legislation. The draft legislation provides that breaches of guidelines would be published in Iris Oifigiúil. How this is relevant to readers of this publication is not clear to me. The Minister said a breach of the guidelines would only be a breach of non-binding guidelines. Lest anybody be worried about a breach of non-binding guidelines, an amendment is being tabled to the effect that a departure from these non-binding guidlines would not result in conditions or restrictions on the payment of moneys to universities. The only other sanction the Minister could impose would be to take the recalcitrant parties off her Christmas card list.

I support section 35 of the Bill regarding the keeping of accounts and records. Whether or not this materially changes the current situation is not clear but the Minister and the Exchequer are entitled to the keeping of proper books and accounts audited by an independent outside party. It is not always right that all audits on behalf of the Government should be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. The office does an excellent job and has produced many excellent reports for Dáil sub-committees. However, because the Comptroller and Auditor General has so many clients, so many responsibilities and so few people to carry them out, these reports, however accurate, have lost much of their value by the time they come before the Oireachtas. Why can the universities, like the television service, not employ qualified auditors from the private sector, approved by the Minister? Such professional auditors, with access to specialists in educational accounting around the world, would produce ideas, suggestions and assistance of benefit to the universities and their individual administrators.

Section 22 and Chapters 7 and 8 of the Bill contain provisions relating to budgets. The proposals do not represent proper budgetary controls. Budgeting should be done on a rolling basis over three years. There should be no question of even considering an excess over a year's budget being built into the budgeted expenditure for the following year. It is also necessary to take into account any university borrowings made with the approval, authority or guarantee of the Minister for Education or the Minister for Finance. It is the problem of universities if they cannot live within their agreed expenditure. If they could not pay salaries once or twice, the problems of budgetary overruns would quickly disappear.

The Minister referred to her intention to include provision that tenure, pay allowances and pensions of existing staff will not be less beneficial after the passing of the Act. This was also done in the State telephone, rail and bus companies where it created new difficulties further down the road. Care must be exercised not to create additional benefits, perceived or otherwise.

I have left the detailed provisions of the Bill to our spokesperson, Deputy Martin. I have confirmed myself to principles applicable to most Bills. Will the Minister present a new Bill dealing with the matters that need to be addressed immediately? She may anticipate further criticism during this debate. I welcome Deputy Martin's contribution. He has made his mark as education spokesperson on this important legislation which affects all families who have availed and will avail of third level education. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Kitt, Eoin Ryan and O'Hanlon. We will get another opportunity on Committee Stage, if it reaches that.

The Bill will do more damage to the rainforest than good to the universities. It will add to the mound of paper which has bedevilled this State. We are all in favour of control of money. However, controlling every detail tends to lead to loss of control. One of the problems anyone with management experience has is that of the having too many or too few rules. Too many rules result in as much loss of control as too few. The Minister should ensure the Bill is efficiently structured. Proper accounting procedures should be in place and a money audit should take place within the universities to ensure they are spending the money correctly and obtaining good value. The only way to do this is through an audit system, not by creating a bureaucratic mound of reporting with a huge number of civil servants and staff in the Higher Education Authority. controlling the flow of paper.

The question of the structure of boards in universities will have to be left for another day. I would like to refer to the position of University College Galway.

Sílim go bhfuil sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh sé ráite go soiléir sa Bhille seo go mbeadh baint lárnach ag an nGaeilge le riaradh na h-ollscoile seo agus go gceapfaí daone ar an mBord le déanamh cinnte do go mbeadh ar chumas na h-ollscoile freastal ar phobal na Gaeilge. Níl aon institiúid tríú leibhéal oideachais ginearálta fágtha a bhfuil an Ghaeilge á húsáid go rialta ann. Is í Gaillimh an ceann is giorra dó ach feicim sa Bhille seo nach bhfuil aon tagairt lárnach don Ghaeilge nó nach bhfuil aon soláthar praiticiúil ann le déanamh cinnte go mbeidh áit lárnach ag an nGaeilge sna h-ollscoileanna go mór-mhór i gcoláiste na h-ollscoile i nGaillimh. Beidh mé ag súil le leasaithe ón Aire nuair a thiocfaidh an Bille seo faoi bhráid Choiste na Dála le cinntiú nach bhfágfar an Ghaeilge ar lár. Is aisteach an rud é gur faoi Rialtas de chuid na hÉireann a gcuirfear deireadh le nó a thosófar ag maolú go mór ar stádas na Gaeilge sna h-ollscoileanna nuair a smaoiníonn tú gur tháinig céad míle duine amach ar na sráideanna i mBaile Átha Cliath i 1908 ag iarraidh a chinntiú go mbeadh áit larnach ag an nGaeilge i gcúrsaí oideachais in tíre seo.

Ag deireadh ba mhaith liom tacaíocht don méid atá ráite ag mo chomhleacaí faoin Dublin Institute of Technology. Níl údar ar bith, ó tharla go bhfuil athbhreithniú iomlán á dhéanamh ar na h-ollscoileanna, nach dtabharfaí cead don Dublin Institute of Technology tré ollscoil a dhéanamh de, céimeanna a bhronnadh. Creidim gur deineadh scrúdú neamhspleách ar an Dublin Institute of Technology maidir le cúrsaí caighdeáin agus creidim freisin go ndúirt an scrúdú sin go raibh cúrsaí an Dublin Institute of Technology ar leibhéal sách ard le go mbronnfaí céimeanna. Tuigtear dom freisin go bhfuil an Higher Education Authority i bhfábhar an stádais seo agus mar sin credim go mba cheart an Bille seo a tharraingt siar agus athbhreithniú iomlán a dhéanamh ar a bhfuil ann. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an oiread lochtanna ann nach feidir caoi a chur air no é a dhéanamh feiliúnach anois. Bheinn ag súil go bhfaighimis Bille gur feidir leis an bpobal glacadh leis, gur féidir leis na micléinn glacadh leis agus gur féidir leis na h-ollscoileanna glacadh leis. Is aisteach go bhfuil éirithe ag an Aire leis an mBille seo cantal a chur ar bheagnach chuile dhuine agus cheana fein go raibh uirthi tarraingt siar as an oiread sin rudaí. Tá tábhacht le hethos Choláiste na Tríonóide ach, mar a dúirt mé ag an tús, tá fíor-thábhacht freisin dúinne san Iarthar le stádas agus ethos Choláiste na hOllscoile i nGaillimh, rud nach bhfuil soláthar déanta dó sa Bhille seo.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I agree with the criticisms of the Bill made by my colleagues. I support the case for raising the Dublin Institute of Technology to university status. It is not just a Dublin issue. People in my constituency are concerned the provision has not been included in this Bill. It is in accordance with the report of the review group initiated by the Minister in 1995. The leader of our party and Deputy Martin issued a statement on this issue, which I fully support.

I ask the Minister to look at the question of access to university. The Clancy reports show that in the Border counties of Louth, Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal there is a low rate of access to university. The Minister referred in her speech to knowledge being the basis of a richer culture, greater social justice and the creation of a better quality of life. She should be concerned at this lack of opportunity in the Border counties. As regards overseas investment, 11,000 jobs were created in this country last year, only 47 of which came to my county. One of the principal reasons given for this is that high tech jobs are knowledge intensive and companies need to be in close proximity to universities and third level institutions. I ask the Minister to create proper facilities in areas far removed from regional technical colleges or universities and to develop outreach programmes. If the rationalisation of the vocational education committees goes ahead in the form promoted by the Minister it appears there will be two broad areas, Cavan-Monaghan and Laoighis-Offaly, that will not have a third level facility. If we want equity and if we do not want everything to be in the greater Dublin area this issue should be addressed.

Mr. E. Ryan

I am disappointed at the way in which this Bill has been handled and we have not been given proper time in which to debate it.

Last November the Minister published a position paper on university reform. At that time, I welcomed the elements contained in that paper, but I did so on the basis that the paper would not be completely ignored when it came to drawing up the legislation. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.

We are debating a Bill that has rejected both the letter and spirit of the Minister's position paper and proposes to impose an authoritarian regime on universities. As such, the Minister refuses to recognise that our universities have always behaved honourably and have contributed constructively, that they have led, not just reflected, change in ways consistent with their own ethos and traditions. It is regrettable the Minister has chosen to ignore this track record and deny our universities the opportunity to build on this record, each in accordance with its own culture.

Some time ago the Taoiseach quoted John Redmond who gave a strong commitment that no Home Rule Government would ever interfere with Trinity College or Queen's University, Belfast.

This Bill is offensive to all our universities and they have made the Minister aware of this. It is pointless for the Minister to say she will be generous with amendments when the spirit of the Bill is against everything the universities need: freedom to develope their ideas and research out of reach of government police; freedom to continue their contribution, not only to the educational life of this country but also to its broader economic and cultural life and freedom to continue their accountability under the stringent provisions already provided for under the Higher Education Act, 1971, and the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.

From my talks with the university sector, I understand the universities are not unwilling to be accountable. The Minister is trying to suggest they are. The universities are already accountable. What the universities do not want — and in this they have my full support — is to be stifled and muzzled by Government and, more particularly, by the rhetoric of the Labour Party. I am fascinated that the Labour Party, when in Government, always want to control everything and put their own people on the boards. It is preoccupied with getting its own people into as many positions of power as possible.

In view of its long history and great work done by the Dublin Institute of Technology it should be included under this Bill. The Universities Bill, 1996, seeks "to constitute or establish certain colleges and universities as universities under this Act". I strongly recommend the Minister include the Dublin Institute of Technology under this Bill.

Mr. M. Kitt

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenneally.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. M. Kitt

I welcome the comments made by all sides about university status for the Dublin Institute of Technology as it affects students throughout the country. My overall criticism of the Bill is that it does not provide the correct balance for accountability in respect of public funds or affirm the freedoms that are necessary for the universities to discharge their unique role in society. The Minister's approach is heavy-handed and bureaucratic and at odds with her earlier statements about the necessity of freedom for universities. I understood the Minister always acknowledged that balance but I do not see it in the Bill. Instead, the Bill is primarily concerned with a regulatory regime for the universities but they consider this would paralyse them from acting as creative institutions. Neither do I agree with the role proposed for the HEA. It is a complete invasion of the normal managerial competence that the boards of governors and the presidents of universities should have.

The universities are committed to the principles of public accountability. They have their own auditors and the Comptroller and Auditor General and their reports are made available to the Minister, the Higher Education Authority and the public. I am concerned also about the conditions of employment of existing staff. In the past I criticised the situation of students doing their higher diploma in education. When I inquired from universities about this I was told that in Galway there were only 185 places in 1994-95 when there used to be 300 places and that there were 1,371 applications for those 185 places. This is totally unfair to students doing a primary degree who expect to do the higher diploma in education. The matter should be examined immediately, although I criticise any university that would use an unfair random or lottery system.

On the issue of finance, I have been told by University College, Galway, that less than half its income comes from the State. That is interesting given that tuition fees are paid by the State. However, that does not mean any additional grant is paid to the university, it is a State subsidy to students. Student numbers in Galway have increased by 60 per cent in the past ten years. I suggest the Minister discuss this matter with her colleague, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, a college professor, who would be able to tell her much more about what the role of universities should be.

Mr. Kenneally

I thank Deputy Kitt for sharing his limited time with me. It is reprehensible that this debate is being guillotined given that many Members of my party and I have not had a proper opportunity to speak on the Bill. I will confine my remarks to the need for a university in my city of Waterford. This campaign has been going on for some time. The Minister will be aware that the legitimate claim for a university will not go away, will not be watered down and will not be dropped until we have achieved parity with every other city on this island. It is not a claim for a particular facility but a demand for something which is the right of the people of the region and a necessity if we are to thrive as a region and have a facility without which we are seriously disadvantaged.

Some time ago the Higher Education Authority established a subcommittee which set up a technical working group which reported in favour of a university in Waterford. Incredibly, and for whatever reason, the Higher Education Authority saw fit to change the recommendation of its working group. I have little doubt that this decision was politically influenced. Whatever the reason for the change of heart it operated to the detriment of our city and region. This is totally unacceptable to the people of the regions and all the more so because the Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, before the general election in November 1992 gave a commitment on local radio that Waterford would have its own university. There has been no delivery on that promise and no sign that it will happen but the Labour Party does not appear to be in the least embarrassed by its gesture of bad faith. Given that the Labour Party has suffered and has had to accommodate in others such bad faith and a decline in standards recently it is unlikely to be ashamed of anything ever again. In contrast Fianna Fáil has endorsed the recommendation of the expert group and will implement it after we return to power after the next general election. Despite what comfort the discredited Rainbow might draw from the opinion polls, the Government is becoming more unelectable day by day.

A recent newspaper report suggested that the rats had got at the Universities Bill and eaten anything of value. I agree with the sentiments but not with the direction of blame. The Minister is merely reflecting the aspirations of her party which has been using its uncharacteristically long stay in Government to provide for its future. Part of that future has been in the area of education and this Bill is the living proof of it. I oppose the whole ethos of this Bill vehemently. I oppose the principle it is trying to bring about and I support my party decision to repeal it after the next general election.

Mr. Martin

I am disappointed so many speakers had to cram their final contributions into a few minutes. It is regrettable that the scheduling of the Bill was not better handled by the Government side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In accordance with the Order of the House, I must call on the Minister for Education to conclude the debate. The Minister has 15 minutes.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

In my opening speech I indicated that on the basis of continuing dialogue and the views of Deputies I intended to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. I am surprised at the reaction of some Opposition Deputies who seem to consider that the process of consultation and dialogue is a sign of weakness and retreat. I consider consultation and a willingness to respond to the views of others as fundamental to the exercise of democracy and the principle of partnership in education to which I am deeply committed.

In the words of Dr. Daniel O'Hare, President of Dublin City University, "consultation in this depth about complicated legislation is a new departure to be encouraged not denigrated". It is incumbent on me, as Minister for Education, following the consultation which has taken place, to table such amendments as will improve the Bill. These amendments will be consistent with the Bill and its underlying objectives and principles which have remained unchanged. I would remind the House that the Bill has three main objectives: restructuring of the National University of Ireland; provision of revised governance structures; provision of a framework for interaction between the universities and central Government, and for accountability to society generally.

I certainly cannot agree with Deputy Keogh that the National University of Ireland should be abolished. I have listened to the debate in the National University, in the constituent colleges and in the recognised college at Maynooth. The consensus is that these colleges all want to be constituent universities of the National University. Surely the Deputy would not wish me to ride roughshod over the wishes of these communities and abolish such a long-standing institution as the NUI?

In response to Deputy Lenihan who was confused as to the future role of the NUI following the enactment of the Bill, the degrees and other qualifications awarded by the constituent universities will be designated as NUI qualifications. The NUI will also have the power to appoint external examiners for the constituent universities.

I welcome the recognition by many Deputies of the need for broad governing authority structures in universities. The main areas of adjustment lie in the detail. I intend to increase the upper limit on membership of governing authorities. I will allow for potentially more students, academic staff and non academic staff on governing authorities than in the Bill as published. In the case of the constituent universities, I intend to increase the number of NUI representatives. In the case of all universities I will amend the Bill to allow each university to decide, if it so wishes, that the members representing both graduates and artistic and cultural interests can be drawn from the academic staff. I intend to authorise the visitor, rather than the Government, to appoint the person or body to run the university during any period where the governing authority has been suspended. Similarly, where a commission fails to determine the composition of a university's first governing authority, it will be the visitor, rather than the Minister for Education, who will appoint the person or body to perform the commission's functions. These amendments will further reduce any potential involvement in these areas that a Government might have.

I do not agree with Deputy Keogh's suggestion that the Bill would bear down particularly heavily on Trinity College, the oldest of all our universities. It is proposed that the charter of Trinity College will not be amended by this Bill, but will be amended by a private Act, sponsored by the college in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Bill.

Deputy Martin's claim that the charters of the NUI are being abolished, is simply wrong. He should read the Bill. The charters of the constituent colleges will remain in place as the fundamental legal and constitutional instruments of the constituent universities with amendments only in a limited number of areas necessitated by the provisions of this Bill and for the most part in accordance with proposals made and invited by the NUI.

Several Deputies have questioned the role of the Higher Education Authority and the State generally in the provisions of the Bill, with accusations that the Bill is based on a centralising philosophy. Yet, all sides of the House recognise the need for proper accountability. Any provisions should seek a balance between institutional autonomy and the needs of public policy and accountability. As Deputy Frances Fitzgerald said, we need to continue to discuss this Bill in Committee to ensure we get the balance right. To refine the balance I propose to bring forward amendments in a number of areas.

Deputy Bertie Ahern asserted that the Bill will restrict, confine and constrain universities' freedom to face new challenges. I was amazed at this because clearly it is not the case. If we study and appreciate the provisions of the Bill as published, we can see that we are reaffirming institutional autonomy. However, because people seem to have difficulty in understanding its simple provisions, I intend to insert a provision confirming that a university has the right to regulate its management and academic affairs in accordance with the principle of academic freedom and its independent ethos and traditions in a manner consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and its accountability obligations.

Mr. Martin

It should have been inserted in the first place.

Ms Bhreathnach

As regards the role of the Higher Education Authority, I refute categorically Deputy Coughlan's assertion that the Higher Education Authority is an extension of the Department. The Higher Education Authority is a statutory body established by the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971. Under this legislation it acts as a buffer between the State and the universities. It has performed this function with great integrity since its establishment. The Higher Education Authority Act was enacted 25 years ago and since then the universities have grown in size. There has been a corresponding growth in the importance of the Higher Education Authority and the Bill provides an opportunity to allow the universities and the Higher Education Authority to develop that partnership.

The functions in this Bill which relate to the Higher Education Authority can be considered under three categories: advisory; reporting and review; and functions in relation to consistency in the format of annual reports and accounts. Deputy Keogh is wrong in saying the Bill will "transform the Higher Education Authority into a State universities board, a centralised body that will exercise increasing power and influence over the country's university institutions".

Under the Act, the Higher Education Authority has a statutory function to co-ordinate State investment in higher education by allocating resources to the universities and to advise the Minister on general policy. The Higher Education Authority has a statutory obligation to advise me on, inter alia, legislative measures in relation to institutions of higher education. The Higher Education Authority provided me with advice on the Bill and I have given careful consideration to its advice.

The Bill provides that the Higher Education Authority may issue guidelines. The guidelines are intended to enable the Higher Education Authority to bring to the notice of universities best national and international practice. The guidelines will not be binding and departure from them by a university will not result in restrictions or conditions on the payment of moneys. I intend to explicitly state this to address any misinterpretation of the role and effect of the guidelines. In view of the misconceptions associated with the role of the Higher Education Authority under the Bill, I will amend it to consolidate the provisions relating to the role of the HEA.

Some people have expressed concern that the Higher Education Authority will have access to information on private funding. There is concern that such a development would hamper the universities in raising private funding. It was never intended that would happen. I have made it consistently clear since the opening of this debate. I intend to amend section 35 (1) to provide necessary reassurance for those who have difficulty in understanding the terms of the Bill.

I welcome the vigorous and open debate on this Bill both inside and outside the House. I welcome the widespread recognition of the need for legislation to reflect the central role of the university in modern society. Universities have a wider and more diverse role in the development of society than ever before and most of them receive in excess of 90 per cent of their funding from the State. I must correct an impression from the Fianna Fáil back benches about funding for University College Galway.

Mr. Martin

At least our backbenchers made a contribution.

Ms Bhreathnach

The Bill recognises the role of the university and seeks to provide the framework to enable universities to develop the nation's knowledge, to extend its cultural heritage and expand its intellectual development as effectively as possible. I look forward to bringing forward the amendments I outlined on Committee Stage to ensure that the autonomy and traditions of our universities are preserved and enhanced in harmony with accountability to the wider community and for the investment made by the State.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 55.

Tá

Ahearn, Theresa.
Allen, Bernard.
Barrett, Seán.
Barry, Peter.
Bell, Michael.
Bhamjee, Moosajee.
Bhreathnach, Niamh.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Bree, Declan.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Burke, Liam.
Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Eric.
Carey, Donal.
Costello, Joe.
Crawford, Seymour.
Creed, Michael.
Crowley, Frank.
Currie, Austin.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dukes, Alan M.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Finucane, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Brian.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Flanagan, Charles.
Gallagher, Pat.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Philip.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kenny, Seán.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McDowell, Derek.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
Mitchell, Jim.
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Mulvihill, John.
Nealon, Ted.
Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Séamus.
Penrose, William.
Quinn, Ruairí
Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, John.
Ryan, Sén.
Sheehan, P.J.
Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Upton, Pat.
Walsh, Émon.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Brennan, Matt.
Brennan, Séamus.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Byrne, Hugh.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Coughlan, Mary.
Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Noel.
Doherty, Seán.
Ellis, John.
Fitzgerald, Liam.
Flood, Chris.
Foley, Denis.
Foxe, Tom.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Haughey, Seán.
Hughes, Séamus.
Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Keogh, Helen.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Martin, Micheál.
McDaid, James.
McDowell, Michael.
Moffatt, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Morley, P.J.
Nolan, M.J.
Ó cuív, Éamon.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Quill, Máirín.
Ryan, Eoin.
Treacy, Noel.
Wallace, Dan.
Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael J.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jim Higgins and Brian Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Dermot Ahern and Ivor Callely.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996

Private Members' Business. - Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1996