Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 3

Universities Bill, 1996: Report Stage.

Amendment No. 1 is related to amendments Nos. 3, 10, 11, 18, 19, 48, 54, 88, 135, 140 and 142. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss these amendments together. I think that is satisfactory and agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 23, after "1980," to insert "THE DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1994,".

These amendments concern our determination to secure university status for the Dublin Institute of Technology. We hoped the Minister would use this opportunity to review the legislative framework currently governing the Dublin Institute of Technology. All Members received considerable representations from students and staff of the college over a long period but on Committee Stage the Minister refused to consider accommodating the Dublin Institute of Technology within the remit of this Bill. We were motivated by the review of the quality assurance procedures in the report on the Dublin Institute of Technology made by an international review team, which states:

The review team suggests that the relevant authorities should consider whether key features of the proposed legislation [that is, the Universities Bill] should be extended to the Dublin Institute of Technology and if the legislation should be amended in the light of such analysis.

No attempt has been made to implement that fundamental recommendation of the international review group which analysed the quality assurance procedures and overall operation of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The existing Dublin Institute of Technology Act has outlived its usefulness — it is far to restrictive on the Dublin Institute of Technology's capacity to grow and develop. It only allows for the appointment of staff subject to the approval of the Minister for Education with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance; the selection procedures for staff are determined by the Minister and the Dublin Institute of Technology; the appointment of research fellows, research assistants, etc. is subject to regulations laid down by the Minister for Education, again with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance; it can only charge fees for lectures, examinations and exhibitions subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Minister; it may only acquire land subject to the approval of the Minister, and so on. These provisions are not applicable to the universities and we managed significantly to reform the Bill in a number of these respects; for example, a number of amendments relating to fees were accepted on Committee Stage, including amendments proposed by the Minister.

The impact of our amendments will be to create a legislative framework for the Dublin Institute of Technology which would facilitate its growth and development as a university and would allow it to compete internationally with other institutions for funding, particularly from the private sector, and to acquire additional land and property. We know the Dublin Institute of Technology requires additional land, buildings and funding. It has been made clear that it will not receive all the funding it requires from the State and we acknowledge the Exchequer has limitations and will not be able to fund all the development which is required at Dublin Institute of Technology. Clearly the institution must seek private sector funding, as the existing universities are doing at present. Most of them have secured huge private sector funding, particularly for research-based projects — over 1,000 jobs have been created in the university sector through research projects funded by the private sector alone. Within its existing legislative framework the Dublin Institute of Technology cannot compete with the universities in securing this vitally needed additional funding. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not use the opportunity provided by the Universities Bill to accommodate the desires and aspirations of Dublin Institute of Technology.

The Minister has agreed at long last that the Dublin Institute of Technology should have degree awarding powers but that announcement conflicts with the interim report of Teastas, which has mapped out a different ladder of progression. It seems to confirm the status of Dublin Institute of Technology as being essentially within the non-university sector for the foreseeable future, lumped in with the other non-university colleges, CERT, FÁS, the private colleges, etc. The Teastas report excited considerable disquiet and upset in Dublin Institute of Technology. It is concerned that, far from moving on to a new legislative framework, it is being ring-fenced within the Teastas framework, which is decidedly the non-university sector.

The only way for Dublin Institute of Technology to move forward is to grant its wish to be given university status. Our amendments have that purpose and we have outlined the degree to which existing legislation is too stifling to facilitate the growth of Dublin Institute of Technology. I cannot understand why the Minister did not use this Bill, which was prepared so long in advance and after receipt of so many position papers, to review the Dublin Institute of Technology's legislative framework to accommodate its needs and give it university status. We will not have another opportunity in the context of third level education and universities to discuss the Dublin Institute of Technology issue and universities generally. We should use this legislation to facilitate the Dublin Institute of Technology cause.

All these amendments are designed to persuade the Minister that the Dublin Institute of Technology should become a university. We had a lengthy debate on this point on Committee Stage when it was put to the Minister that, as it stands, the Dublin Institute of Technology is totally constrained in how it can grow, borrow money, acquire land etc. Considerable concern was expressed both by staff and students that no one was listening to the campaign they had mounted. It is essential for the growth of the institute that it be accorded university status. My amendment No. 19 provides:

The Government shall, no later than three years after the commencement of this Part, make an order providing that the Dublin Institute of Technology shall be a University for the purposes of this Act.

This would provide a timeframe for the process because as of now the Dublin Institute of Technology sees no end to it. We tried to get some commitment from the Minister to support the efforts of the Dublin Institute of Technology to achieve university status but she refused to give it. That is most unfortunate and disheartening for the people campaigning for this status. The Minister missed an opportunity and the students involved are concerned they will be left in a halfway house. The Minister said there is a section in the Bill wherein university status can be sought. However, as Deputy Martin said, when will there be an opportunity to address this in the short to medium term? It will not happen. It has taken nearly five years to get the Universities Bill to this point and there will not be an opportunity for a considerable time to debate the issue. The Minister seems to have got bogged down in the notion that the Dublin Institute of Technology was merely seeking a change of name so that it would look and sound better. However, a great deal of change can come about as a result of it attaining university status. Fortunately, because amendments have been made to the Bill, universities will have more autonomy than provided initially.

The Dublin Institute of Technology seeks such autonomy. Under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992, the Minister has vast and extensive powers in regard to the Institute and to a great extent they stymie its growth and development. A degree of autonomy is sought by the institute so that it can develop. It has problems at present with bad facilities. Its buildings are too small, it has no sports facilities and technology is not advanced enough. It is actively looking for a new green field site. If it had the ability to go out and seek funding abroad, as universities have, the possibilities of growth and development would be greater. The Institute has put forward a very compelling argument and I regret that the Minister does not want to listen to it. Will the Minister explain why she wishes to stop the clock in regard to the Dublin Institute of Technology? Why can she not give it the autonomy it needs to develop its courses and services for students?

I support the amendments to afford university status to the Dublin Institute of Technology. We have an opportunity to give the Dublin Institute of Technology a clear signal from this House regarding its growth and development. Members of Government parties have indicated to the students, their representatives and officials and the institute's academic staff that their case merited favourable consideration and that they would receive such consideration. University status would also mean a great deal to the students internationally upon graduation.

The Dublin Institute of Technology is growing as a distinct and distinguished institution in its own right, building on the legislative base put in place in 1993. It has made major strides with the active support of my Department which can be measured in its investment in the Dublin Institute of Technology. I have been committed to its development and staffing and student numbers have increased substantially. Many new courses at certificate, diploma, degree and postgraduate level have been developed. Current funding amounts to £50 million, a massive investment and vote of confidence in the Dublin Institute of Technology. In addition, since 1993, over £18.5 million of capital funding has been invested.

I congratulate the Dublin Institute of Technology on its progress since 1992 in building a single integrated institution, not an easy task but one that has been achieved. The Dublin Institute of Technology has a vital role in higher education in providing qualifications at certificate, diploma and degree level. The successful completion of the process for awarding degrees is another step in the development of the Dublin Institute of Technology and I put in place the formal mechanism to evaluate the institution for degree awarding powers. My proposal to grant degree awarding powers is clearly not a reaction to pressure that has been put on me, but is the next stage in the successful process of development of that institute.

Section 9 will provide a mechanism by which an institution can obtain university status. It is the first time that a formal mechanism whereby an institution may become a university will be placed on a statutory basis. If, in the future, moving to university status will enhance the mission of the Dublin Institute of Technology, section 9 will provide an appropriate mechanism.

We could do it for the Dublin Institute of Technology today.

In response to Deputy Keogh, I will clarify the Government's approach for the overall development of the higher education sector. Developments in higher education, particularly over the past 20 years, have been based on a differentiated system of third level education. One part is formed by the universities and the designated institutions under the Higher Education Authority with State funding allocated by the Authority. The other part includes the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology with State funding allocated directly by the Department of Education.

Universities are essentially concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes together with basic and applied research. The main work of the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology is in certificate and diploma programmes with a smaller number of degree programmes and a growing involvement in regionally oriented applied research. However, within each sector and between the two sectors, a diversity of institutions offer differing types and levels of courses. There is a necessity to maintain and build upon these courses to ensure social and economic requirements are met as planned for in the Green Paper. The Dublin Institute of Technology can continue and grow as a technological institute rather than as a university and I consider a technological institute to be of equal standing to a university.

Not at all.

It is not necessary for a higher education institution to be a university to attain high standards and international acclaim. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, for example, have gained national and international acclaim without the title "university"; the same applies to the institutes of technology in Tokyo and Melbourne. Future decisions on university status will not be closed off with section 9 in place. I have great confidence in the mission of the Dublin Institute of Technology and I have placed investment in places, courses and facilities at its disposal.

I appreciate section 9. The Minister could do it in regard to the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The Minister read a mini Second Stage speech in regard to the Dublin Institute of Technology. The last part of her speech makes very bleak reading for the community in the Dublin Institute of Technology. It was disingenuous of her to say that under section 9 certain processes may be put in place in the future to facilitate the granting of university status to a particular institution. It is clear Government policy, as articulated by the Minister, that the Dublin Institute of Technology will not become a university and will remain in the non-university sector. The Minister should be honest and tell the community in Dublin Institute of Technology that this is Government policy. The Dublin Labour Deputies should tell the students and staff in the Dublin Institute of Technology that the Minister does not envisage the Dublin Institute of Technology becoming a university and wants it to remain an institute of technology.

They have told them the opposite.

The Labour Deputies have told the staff and students of the Dublin Institute of Technology they should not worry as the Bill facilitates the granting of university status to the institute in due course.

That is correct.

They have also told them they want the Dublin Institute of Technology to become a university and that is why it was given degree awarding powers. The Dublin Institute of Technology has had an arrangement with Trinity College for many years whereby it can award degrees to students. As this arrangement already exists the granting of degree awarding powers is no big deal. The Minister made this concession in response to the very effective campaign of the students and staff of the Dublin Institute of Technology.

She was irritated that so many letters were sent to her. She admitted as much on Committee Stage and described the letters as circulars. I think it was Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn who took the Minister to task for her intolerance of what most of us would regard as normal democratic procedures. Such correspondence from the public should not be considered an irritant. The Minister said that the Dublin Institute of Technology will not become a university and it is Government policy to retain it primarily as a certificate and diploma awarding institute. This is a short-sighted approach to the development of education. The Dublin Institute of Technology has no difficulty in meeting the requirements of its mission statement and would have no difficulty in adapting what it has been doing so successfully over many years in a new climate.

We are still awaiting the formulation of proper criteria by which an institute can become an institute of technology. The Dublin Institute of Technology Act introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Seamus Brennan, set up the Dublin Institute of Technology as we know it. The Minister said that the Waterford Institute of Technology will be set up by way of ministerial order but we do not know when this order will be introduced. All the other regional technical colleges are seeking institute of technology status. Because she was caught in a corner and was under political pressure the Minister established a steering committee to formulate the criteria by which institute of technology status could be granted to regional technical colleges. The Minister said the Dublin Institute of Technology will remain an institute of technology and will not become a university, yet we do not know the criteria by which institute of technology status can be granted. A number of applications for institute of technology status have been submitted and the steering committee is dealing with this thorny political issue which the Minister created.

I would prefer if the Minister was honest and made it clear to Labour Deputies that it is Government policy not to award university status to the Dublin Institute of Technology and to retain it in the non-university sector. This confirms my original point about Teastas, that its view that the Dublin Institute of Technology should be kept in the non-university sector is holding sway. This does not augur well for the future of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Institutions must grow and develop and we must provide the framework to enable them to do this. The legislative framework governing the Dublin Institute of Technology is much too restrictive. For example, the institute must obtain the permission of the Minister to confer honorary degrees or awards. This is a ridiculous arrangement and the Minister should have availed of the opportunity in the Bill to review many of these issues.

The Dublin Institute of Technology has advanced considerably over the years and will continue to develop in the future. Deputy Keogh's amendment gives the Minister latitude by providing for a process by which the Dublin Institute of Technology could be granted university status. I now know why no consideration was given to including the Dublin Institute of Technology in this legislation. The clear and firm policy of the Minister and Teastas, which she created, is to retain the Dublin Institute of Technology in the non-university sector and not allow it to become a university.

I thank the Minister for her detailed reply in which she set out her thoughts on the Dublin Institute of Technology. She made the case for the retention of the present status of the Dublin Institute of Technology and referred to the award, certificate and diploma courses which may be offered to students. The arrangement with Trinity College whereby Dublin Institute of Technology students can be awarded degrees is fine in so far as it goes. However, there is a mistaken belief that the institute wants to be called the New Dublin University, a cross between Trinity College and DCU. This is not the case; rather the Dublin Institute of Technology wants to continue its present system of education. It is content with its name but is not content with its status and the constraints it imposes on it.

This issue is all about control and keeping people in a certain box. The Minister will be in charge of this issue. This smacks of State control of the education system, a policy on which the Minister seems to be very keen. This is the real reason the Minister will not encourage the granting of university status to the Dublin Institute of Technology.

It is very unfortunate that the Minister should have described valid correspondence from students as circulars. I received similar letters and while they contained the same wording the important point is that they were signed by different individuals. The Minister should not denigrate people who took the time and effort to put their points of view forward.

Is the Minister saying "no" to the call by the Dublin Institute of Technology to be granted university status? Will she clarify if acceptance of these amendments would give the Dublin Institute of Technology university status? Does she accept the case made by us that the granting of university status would open up further avenues for the Dublin Institute of Technology in terms of its ambit, growth and development and funding opportunities? I ask the Minister to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to these questions.

Is the amendment agreed?

Will the Minister respond to my questions?

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 70.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • 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, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Éamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 32, after "made" to insert", after consultation with the existing governing bodies of the universities referred to in section 4,".

The Minister made much of the fact that there has been a considerable degree of consultation with interested parties and the universities. She published the Bill, but there was a major outcry about it and we spent some 20 hours in committee essentially remarking the Bill. My amendment would allow consultation with the governing bodies of the universities. Section 2 of the Bill States:

This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefor by order or orders made by the Minister under this section, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision, and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different Provisions of this Act.

The governing bodies of the universities wish to be consulted. My amendment is a relatively minor one, but it is important. Universities are autonomous bodies and should maintain their autonomy in so far as it is practicable and possible to do so. Even basic manners demand that there should be consultation with the existing governing bodies on a fundamental change that will make such a difference to the running of universities in the future. That should be included in the Bill because it would send out a signal to the governing bodies about our approach to the universities and the governing bodies as part of the partnership in education about which we hear a great deal. If we are to send out the right signals, it is important to ratify the process of consultation within the Bill. It does not appear to be a major element of the Bill, but it would be significant in the message it would give. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment in the spirit of partnership that she wishes to see in education and in the spirit of accepting the consultative role of the governing body.

I support the amendment. I am surprised that the Minister has not taken the opportunity afforded by Report Stage to concede this amendment because, even after the passing of the Act, consultation with the governing bodies of the universities affected by it will be necessary. On Committee Stage we discussed in detail the operation of the commission that will be established in each university and which will involve the Higher Education Authority and the president of each university, in the context of appointing the new governing body that will be established when the Act is passed. I disagree with that provision.

We cannot predict with certainty what will happen in future, but I suspect that in one or two cases consultation will be necessary as the process develops. I do not understand why the Minister will not allow this amendment, given that consultation does not impose an obligation on the Minister to accept points made during the consultation process. It would not impose obligations on the Minister in terms of having to accept the points made via the consultation process. The amendment cannot be construed as impeding enactment or implementation of the Bill. It makes particular sense in the case of Trinity. The amendments relating to Trinity are an acknowledgement that it is a special case because of its history, tradition, ethos and freedom from Government intervention. Significant aspects of the Bill will not affect Trinity for at least three years, or sooner if Trinity publishes a Private Members' Bill which would harmonise its position.

It may be prudent to include this amendment in the context of Trinity. I am not sure how the fellows of Trinity will produce a Bill or what the interactions will be in terms of that process. That cannot be predicted with certainty and that is why it makes good sense to provide for a consultative mechanism as suggested by Deputy Keogh, particularly in the two scenarios I have outlined where potentially consultation would help iron out problems experienced by institutions. In the case of Trinity it may be necessary to have a consultative process, particularly in the context of the private Bill that will have to be produced and of deliberations that are ongoing in Trinity.

We hear lectures from time to time about partnership in education, consultation and so on, but all the legislation introduced so far is the antithesis of partnership and does not provide for consultation. If the fundamental principles of the White Paper are identified as partnership, pluralism and so on, why will the Minister not accept an amendment such as this which simply calls for consultation with existing governing bodies?

On a point of clarification, is it correct that we are allowed to speak twice on Report Stage?

Acting Chairman

Yes, for not longer than two minutes on the second occasion.

Given that I will reply to the amendment, may I speak three times?

Acting Chairman

Yes, and when the Deputy winds up the debate nobody else may speak.

Section 2 is the commencement provision. Its function is to allow for flexibility in bringing the legislation into effect and in that respect it is a standard provision. Deputy Keogh proposes that before the Minister for Education makes an order in this House to bring provisions of the Bill into effect there must be consultation with universities. I oppose the amendment on a number of grounds. We have had heated debates here defending our right to make decisions. It would be inappropriate therefore if the Oireachtas, having enacted an Act, had to depend on the outcome of consultations with bodies outside the Oireachtas before effect could be given to the will of the Oireachtas.

The inclusion of a statutory open-ended requirement for consultation could delay the introduction of legislation indefinitely. In all the contacts we had with various sections, no request was made to examine the standard provision. At times I have been slapped over the knuckles about consultations that take place outside this House. It would be an extraordinary turnabout to accept this amendment to the commencement provision. In effect it would be saying that although we have passed legislation in the House we do not want it to commence until consultation has taken place. In ensuring that universities are ready to implement the provisions of the Bill, there are informal contacts between the Minister and the universities.

What does the Minister mean by informal contacts?

The standard provision is acceptable and I am confident universities are anxious the legislation is enacted.

The Minister said that there will be consultation, albeit under a different name.

I did not say that. I was very clear about it.

The Minister said that there will be the usual informal contacts between officials and university heads, and I take her word for that. I suspect that is consultation by another name, but it is not being included in the Bill. I have no difficulty with consultations. I am glad at long last the second trade union involved with the staff have an opportunity to meet the Minister, and that meeting will take place today. I said on Committee Stage that that trade union had not been facilitated with a meeting whereas a meeting took place with IFUT. I presume today's meeting will be with the programme manager — that poor man is run off his feet meeting delegations and groups.

Greater transparency in the informal contacts may be appropriate. The informal contact process has been extremely effective because I understand it was through informal contacts between officials and university heads that hundreds of amendments have been put forward to the Bill, leading to radical change. I have no difficulty with further informal contacts in terms of commencement of the Bill.

I am a little puzzled by the Minister's response to the amendment. She said that consultation is inappropriate because, having enacted a Bill, the will of the Oireachtas could be thwarted by consultation with the universities, but I question that. The Bill states: "This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefore by order or orders made by the Minister under this section". There are not 1,200 universities, although, thankfully, there is a number of them. The Minister said that informal contacts exists — presumably they are well used. Obviously there are already channels of communication, so what is the big deal about consulting with universities about commencement of the Bill?

I find the Minister's refusal to accept the amendment inexplicable. It would be wise to have a consultative process in place, not only through informal contacts but through formal channels.

I assume from the Minister's reply that telephone calls will be made, people will meet informally and the Minister will be told when the Act should come into operation. It would be more appropriate to have a formal method of consultation on the matter. The provisions of the Act should be as transparent as possible. To ensure a speedy enforcement of its provisions the Minister's officials will have to communicate with the universities and, as a matter of courtesy, this should be covered in the initial sections of the Bill.

The Minister said the universities did not request her to do this. Perhaps they thought she might do it anyway. The universities have asked me to table an amendment in this regard. It is one of a long list of amendments they want made to the Bill. While this is not a major part of the Bill, it is significant. Nobody is trying to delay the commencement of the Act but if informal consultation will take place, why not provide for it in the Bill?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"‘Dublin Institute of Technology' means the institute established by the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992;".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 26, to delete "January" and substitute "October".

This is a simple straightforward amendment. Basically, the financial year is defined as a 12 month period commencing on 1 January each year. While funding is provided by the Government on a calendar year basis, the current financial year in all universities ends on 30 September and some universities want that date retained. In other words, they want to continue a system that has worked effectively. I am sure the Minister can accept the amendment.

The financial year runs in tandem with the academic year and the universities want to retain this arrangement. There should be no difficulty in doing this.

In amendment No. 4 the Deputies have suggested the redefinition of the financial year. This would require universities to budget for an academic rather than a calendar year. While this would obviously be useful for the universities, it would not take account of the State's budgeting arrangements for funding the universities. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. While I am aware of the Deputies' concerns, universities should be able to account on a calendar year basis. It is worth nothing that section 37(2), as amended by the select committee, will ensure the Bill does not require the accounts to apply to a calendar or an academic year. The revised provision simplifies the dates on which the accounts are to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General and allows for flexibility if changes in procedure occur in the future.

I am somewhat disappointed the Minister has not accepted the amendment. The system has worked effectively up to now. I am not aware of any outcry about the current arrangements. We must always be wary of the State endeavouring to place additional administrative burdens on universities or any other institutions under its care. The Minister's decision will result in changes to which universities will have to adapt. It is unfortunate she did not consider the viewpoints put forward on Committee and Report Stages and accept the amendment. We have no evidence of major financial irregularities or scandals in regard to universities or third level institutions and I am not aware of any negative comments from the Comptroller and Auditor General about the financial management of our universities. This is another example of unwarranted interference by the State.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, line 19, to delete "31 (4)" and substitute "31 (3)".

This is a technical amendment which arises because of the amendments to section 31 made on Committee Stage. Because of those amendments it is necessary that the cross reference refers to section 31(3) rather than 31(4).

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments No. 6 and 7 are related and No. 8 is an alternative to No. 7. Is it agreed that we take amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 23, after "was" to insert "first".

Amendment No. 6 addresses a concern raised by Deputies Martin and Coughlan on Committee Stage. It will ensure that an officer of a students' union or of a student representative body must be a registered student when first elected or appointed to the position. The amendment addresses the concern expressed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan that students who are officers of a students union can stand for re-election or for election to other officerships of the students union and still come under the definition of "student" in the Bill.

Amendment No. 7 introduces a definition for student union in the Bill. Deputy Keogh proposed such an amendment on Committee Stage and has again proposed amendment No. 8. I agreed on Committee Stage to consider the issue further. The definition I propose is fairly broad because I do not want it to accidentially exclude any existing student unions or lead to excessive inflexibility in the future.

I welcome that the Minister has responded to our concerns on Committee Stage and that she tabled an amendment to ensure that students have primacy on the student body and the governing body in terms of being re-elected. However, I do not understand why the Minister did not accept Deputy Keogh's amendment instead of tabling amendment No. 7. This amendment defines a students' union as "a body established to promote the general interests of students of a university and which represents students, both individually and collectively, in respect of academic, disciplinary and other matters". Deputy Keogh's amendment states that " 'students' union' is a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected and which promotes the general interests of its members". The key words are "represents" and "elected".

When we discussed these amendments on Committee Stage, we highlighted the fact that students' union officers are elected on a democratic mandate to carry out the wishes of its members in a given institution. I have met the students' unions on an ongoing basis over the past two years and they are concerned about the failure to allocate money directly to them since free fees were introduced. The governing bodies in some universities have established other bodies, such as the student welfare services. It could be argued that the Minister's definition could include such bodies, which are an arm of management but which do a lot of good work in looking after the general well-being of students and promoting their interests in terms of getting grants for clubs and societies. However, they are not an elected representative body. I am concerned, therefore, that the Minister's definition is defective. A students' union is a representative body elected by the students to act on their behalf to improve their welfare and further their interests in a given institution.

The Minister should accept Deputy Keogh's amendment, which is better than the Minister's amendment, and not allow party political point scoring to blur judgements. Deputy Keogh's amendment seeks to ensure that officers are seen to be elected. We tabled amendments on Committee Stage to ensure that only full-time elected officers should be on governing bodies. Elections are held every year and the full-time sabbatical officer is usually elected president of the union in a presidential style campaign in the university.

These campaigns are usually the begining of a fruitful political career for many young people. Many of the Minister's colleagues in her party and in Democratic Left started their political careers in universities. We should nurture and cherish this training ground for future politicians. Members on this side of the House also know people who were elected to students' union movements.

Any definition of a students' union should include the fact that it is a democratic institution elected by and representative of its members. However, this definition does not say by what means a students' union could be established. It could be established without any mandate and devise its own functions or objectives.

I also accept amendment No. 6. I am delighted the Minister responded to the points made on Committee Stage because I did not think she was convinced by our arguments that students' unions should be included in the definitions. However, the Minister's amendment is flawed. On Committee Stage we argued that people should be elected because we want governing bodies to be as democratic, autonomous and accountable as possible.

My amendment states:

In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"‘students' union' is a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected and which promotes the general interests of its members as students and represents the students, in general and individually, in academic, disciplinary and other matters relating to the governance of the university;".

This amendment may be similar to the Minister's amendment, but the critical words are "a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected". The Minister's amendment states: "‘Student Union' means a body established". How is this body established? The way this amendment is worded could result in the university authority making a decision about who is represented on the students' union, which is the opposite from what is required. I presume that is not the Minister's intention.

We all agree the students' union should be representative of the students and the way to achieve that is to elect officers. I did not take a great interest in politics at university but I remember that elections were hard fought. People may have wanted to pursue political careers in the future, but there were also people who had firm ideas about how the union should operate.

These people were elected on their own manifesto and this is critical. Just as there will be a general election in the next couple of months and people will have an opportunity to vote for the political parties and the policies which they put forward, the representative body for students must have an electoral mandate. In other words, the students should have the ability to direct the way the union is going. If it will promote "the general interests of its members", as I state in amendment No. 8, and represent "the students, in general and individually, in academic, disciplinary and other matters relating to the governance of the university", it is critical that it pursue the mandate from the students body which elect it. Although the Minister has gone some way towards recognising that there should be a definition as the students wish, the fact that there is no acknowledgement of the election of such a body is a glaring omission and the Minister's amendment is far too loose in that regard. I rarely say I have all the answers but my amendment is desired by the students' union as it recognises the role of the union. It would make the Bill much tighter and concise and is appropriate.

I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Keogh's amendment. I would hate to see amendment No. 7 accepted because it is a defective definition of a student union. Will the Minister outline in her reply what bodies in particular she was anxious not to exclude? In the opening remarks the Minister said she was anxious that no existing union or body would be excluded by any definition. Was that a general point or can she give specific examples of existing student unions which would be excluded by Deputy Keogh's amendment? I do not know of any student union which would be ruled out by amendment No. 8 but there may be some.

Can the Minister state why that representative dimension is omitted from her amendment? We received the Minister's amendments late last night and this morning but I would be loath to agree the passage of that amendment on first reading. As Deputy Keogh said, it could be used in the future and university management could establish the student unions of the future in any new universities established under section 9. Who is to predict the future?

Essentially, a student union is a body which elects its officers. It is a representative body and it belongs to the members and nobody else. The wording of amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Keogh is far superior to that of amendment No. 7 and it should be accepted in the spirit of good legislation.

Having considered the issue further, I am satisfied that the definition I am proposing is a broad one which will not exclude accidentally any existing student unions. In many cases across the student body — not all student unions are affiliated to a national student body — all officers are not elected by students. Some are elected by other groups of elected people.

In response to Deputy Martin's concern that the universities would set up their own student unions, there is nothing in the provisions of this Bill which would give them the power to do so. I am satisfied with amendment No. 6 and that the definition which I propose with regard to amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is a broad one. Having considered the matter, I recommend amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to the House.

I challenge the Minister on what she has said. If she looks carefully at my wording, it states that a ‘students' union' is a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected and this was carefully worded with the advice of the students. I challenge the claim that it would be impossible for university management to establish a student union. There is that possibility because the Minister's amendment is loosely framed and nobody can deny that. The Minister's amendment does not obviate that possibility.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

" `Student Union' means a body established to promote the general interests of students of a university and which represents students, both individually and collectively, in respect of academic, disciplinary and other matters arising within the university;".

Amendment put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

" `students union' is a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected and which promotes the general interests of its members as students and represents the students, in general and individually, in academic, disciplinary and other matters relating to the governance of the university;".

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 69.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Broughan, Thomas.
  • Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Éamon.
Tellers Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and Keogh; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, line 37, to delete "19" and substitute "18".

This is a technical amendment which arises because of amendments to sections 18 and 19 made by the select committee. Because of those amendments it is necessary that the cross reference refer to section 18 rather than section 19.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(c) Dublin Institute of Technology,".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(4) By virtue of this section, Dublin Institute of Technology shall become and be a university.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No. 12 and the two may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 31, after "An tÚdarás," to insert "and the passage of an Act by both Houses of the Oireachtas,".

Amendment No.13 is somewhat similar to amendment No.12. The objective of our amendment is to ensure that any proposal to designate a constituent college as a university under this Bill would have to be laid before both Houses either in the form of an Act or an order.

Amendment No. 13 states:

The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless the Minister has first caused to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a draft of the proposed order and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.

Essentially, amendment No.12 seeks to establish the primacy of the Oireachtas in these matters, which should be the theme throughout the Bill. This matter was debated on a number of occasions on Committee Stage. I would accept the laying of an order before the Houses and the Minister's amendment goes some way towards meeting my concerns.

I am prepared to support either proposal but I assume we will be asked to accept the Minister's amendment. It is very important to establish the primacy of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Concerns were expressed about section 8 and I am glad that the arguments put forward on Committee Stage had the desired effect. At the very least, the Minister will be obliged to lay a draft of the proposed order before the Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving that draft must be passed by both Houses. It is extremely important that there be an input by the Dáil and Seanad on this issue.

Deputies Martin and Coughlan proposed to the Select Committee, and have done so again in amendment No. 12, that, instead of an order, a full Act should be necessary for the incorporation of an education institution into the university. I indicated to the Select Committee that I considered that the involvement of the Houses of the Oireachtas would be a positive addition to this section. Therefore, in amendment No. 13, I propose that it would be necessary for a positive resolution to be passed by both Houses before such an incorporation can take place. This is the appropriate role for the Oireachtas in respect of this important issue.

I welcome the fact that the Minister's amendment meets the concerns we expressed on Committee Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 9, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"(2) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless the Minister has first caused to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a draft of the proposed order and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 15 is an alternative to amendment No. 14 and the two may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 9, line 36, after "experts" to insert "and such employees of universities to which this Act applies as it thinks fit".

Under section 9, the establishment of a new university can occur only after consideration of the advice of a body of experts and that of the Higher Education Authority. A further guarantee of quality and accountability is that the order establishing a university must be made by the Government and ratified by both Houses of the Oireachtas before it becomes effective. Deputies Martin and Coughlan tabled an amendment on Committee Stage that the officers of the existing universities be consulted on the establishment of a new university. They have tabled amendment No. 15 on Report Stage. I indicated that I considered such a proposal had merit. Therefore, I tabled amendment No. 14 which states that the Government will include such employees of existing universities as it thinks fit among the experts who will examine the case of an institution to be designated as a university under this Bill.

I welcome the Minister's positive response to the amendment we tabled on Committee Stage. Her amendment substitutes the word "employees" for that of "officers" and I assume this is aimed at broadening the range of people who could be selected to work with the international expert group to determine the process for any new body to become a university. I welcome that development because the establishment of additional universities is an important and fundamental phenomenon and we must ensure that it is done correctly. I accept that an international review body of experts is an objective way, particularly from and academic and education perspective, to lay down criteria and assess the basis on which an institution can be established as university.

Nonetheless the utilisation of existing institutions here, in particular existing universities, is equally valid. They would have considerable expertise and experience at their disposal and would be in a position to offer effective, constructive advice to such a body or to the process leading to the establishment of a new university.

Obviously the international body of experts would be particularly influential in addition to An tÚdarás having a role to play. It is important to acknowledge the expertise within existing universities and create a mechanism within this Bill to facilitate its utilisation.

I welcome the Minister's amendment and am prepared to withdraw mine in favour of hers, as it is an effective response to the issues raised on Committee Stage.

I agree with Deputy Martin that was an initial omission which had to be rectified. It would be extraordinary if the body recommended by An tÚdarás — which shall include international educational experts — seemed to exclude those within our universities with the requisite knowledge and expertise since their inclusion would be very welcome. The Minister has seen fit to table her amendment and insert the words "and such employees of universities to which this Act applies as it thinks fit" which is appropriate because different ranges of expertise exist within our universities. It is advisable to have as wide a pool of expertise as possible available and we do have such a pool available. I am glad that has now been acknowledged and that such people will be called upon in relation to the establishment of any additional universities.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I note that amendments Nos. 16 and 17 in the names of Deputies Martin and Coughlan are related and suggest they be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, to delete lines 42 to 44 and substitute the following:

"shall introduce a Bill to be laid before the Oireachtas to warrant the establishment of any such new university".

Section 9(2) reads: "After considering the advice of the body and any recommendations of An tÚdarás, but subject to subsection (3), the Government may, by order, provide that the institution shall be a university for the purposes of this Act and, on the making of the order, it shall be established accordingly". In line with amendments Nos. 12 and 13 — which dealt with the incorporation of an educational institution into a university — the Minister should introduce a Bill to warrant the establishment of any new university, as is the present practice. I am surprised she has not tabled an amendment to the effect that an order be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Since we are doing so in the case of the incorporation of an educational institution into a university, I cannot understand why we should not do likewise in the case of the establishment of a new university. After all, we are talking about the primacy of the Oireachtas, stipulating that the establishment of a new university should be by order or by a Bill to be laid before both Houses.

The Minister agreed with that condition in relation to section 8. I am asking her now to agree to a similar provision in relation to section 9 whose provisions relate to the establishment of additional universities.

Deputies Martin and Coughlan, in amendments Nos. 16 and 17, have proposed that, instead of an order to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, a Bill would be necessary for the establishment of any new university whereas I do not consider that to be necessary.

Deputy Martin raised the question of making an order under section 9(3). No doubt he will now noted its inclusion in that subsection. The introduction of a Bill would impose unnecessary rigidity on the relevant procedure and I have been advised that such an approach would raise constitutional issues. I have also been advised that to provide in legislation that the Houses of the Oireachtas would be bound by procedures in introducing future legislation would amount to improper fettering of the right of the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit.

For that reason I cannot support these amendments. I reiterate that, under this section, the establishment of a new university can take place only after consideration of the advice of a body of experts and of the Higher Education Authority. I should point out that a further guarantee of quality and accountability is encompassed in the stipulation that an order establishing any new university must be made by the Government and ratified by both Houses before becoming effective.

An Act of the Oireachtas established Dublin City University and the University of Limerick. This Bill will establish the legislative framework for seven universities. What will be the legislative basis for the establishment of any additional universities in terms of composition, governing bodies and so on? Essentially this is new legislation which will underpin the legislative base of seven universities, many provisions of which will be specific to each university in terms of the representation on governing bodies in particular. It does contain specific recommendations, stipulating how many graduates and representatives of outside bodies should be on the governing body of the University of Limerick or Trinity College. I assume there will be a need for similar legislative provisions in relation to any new university to be established. Otherwise there would be a legislative vacuum.

Henceforth, whenever a new university falls to be established, presumably someone would have to say that in accordance with this Bill, we should specify that its governing body will be comprised of a number of representatives from academic councils, a number from non-academic councils, representatives of graduates, the students' union and so on. I cannot see how that can be done without this Bill, when enacted, having to be amended. New legislation would have to be introduced to insert a new university. Otherwise the rules, regulations, guidelines and the manner in which any new university would be structured could be at variance with the provisions of this Bill.

At the very least will the Minister acknowledge that this Bill will have to be amended in future simply to incorporate any new universities to be established under section 9?

Deputy Martin raised a very interesting point, that the provisions of the Bill may be defective in relation to the establishment of additional universities. I would like to take advice on this matter and return to it in another forum if the Minister has not adverted to it. Perhaps she will clarify the matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I may not call the Minister again.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos.17 and 18 not moved.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 10, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"(5) The Government shall, no later than three years after the commencement of this Part, make an order providing that the Dublin Institute of Technology shall be a University for the purposes of this Act.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We come to amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are alternatives and amendment No. 27 is related to amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 27 together if that is satisfactory.

May amendments Nos. 21 and 22 be taken separately?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 27 will be taken together.

There are two separate issues here. One concerns the Irish language on which one could spend some time and the other concerns the general issue of the objects and functions of the university.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If amendment No. 20 is negatived, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 cannot be moved as they are alternatives.

That is fair enough. I move amendment No. 20:

In page 11, to delete lines 5 to 27 and substitute the following:

"12. — Without prejudice to its ethos and traditions, the objects of a university shall include —

(a) to strive for academic excellence and to advance knowledge through teaching, scholarly research and scientific investigation,

(b) to protect and promote academic freedom,

(c) to promote the right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos, traditions, and the principles of academic, operational and management freedom, consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and accountability to the public,

(d) to promote learning in its student body and in society generally,

(e) to promote the cultural, social and economic life of society, while fostering and respecting the diversity of the university's traditions,

(f) to promote the official languages of the State, with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures.

(g) to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research,

(h) to disseminate the outcomes of its research in the community at large,

(i) to reflect a commitment by the university to principles of equality, and

(j) to facilitate lifelong learning through the provision of adult and continuing education.".

The reason Deputy Coughlan and I tabled this amendment, which sets out the objects and functions of the university, is that we consider we have a better formula than the Minister, a point we articulated on Committee Stage. We considered that an object of the university should be to protect and promote academic freedom. This is omitted from the Minister's list of objectives. Our list is more expansive. Our amendment seeks in paragraph (c) to promote the right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos, traditions and the principles of academic, operational and management freedom, consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and accountability to the public. This was the wording used by the Minister in the position paper in November 1996. It may appear in another formula in the Bill but it should be a core object.

Section 12 and our amendment raise the whole issue of resources. There is no reference in the section to sufficient resources being available to universities to achieve the objectives set out by the Minister, the principal one being paragraph (f) of the Bill which seeks: "to educate, train and retrain higher level professional, technical and managerial personnel". We have had an example in the past few weeks of how wrong the Government has been in that respect. We have not provided the universities with the resources or the support necessary to train and educate enough young people for a number of industries, particularly in the computer science, technology, languages and engineering areas.

We are all aware of the dreadful skills shortage. The Government has reacted with a set of panic measures designed to provide places for thousands of students, many of whom will not graduate for three or four years. The Minister is asking the universities to consider a number of conversion courses which may help in a stop-gap way but have serious implications for quality. We should not be over-reliant on conversion courses to provide enough graduates for our electronics industry, the tele-marketing area and so on.

One of the strategic failures of this Government has been that of manpower policy and a failure to recognise that universities, regional technical colleges and PLCs have an important strategic function in terms of job creation, attracting multinationals to this country and providing the skills base to meet the labour demands of the new information society. That has never been acknowledged by the Minister. There has not been sufficient ongoing contact with the heads of universities and regional technical colleges on this issue. That is the reason for the panic reaction to the series of measures announced by both the Ministers for Enterprise and Employment and Education recently. There is a shortage of places and resources in our universities to enable them to achieve the objective set out in section 12(f).

In the past two years sufficient resources were not provided to the universities to enable them to train more graduates in the computer science, technology and engineering areas. Tele-marketing is an area which has grown enormously.

We are aware of the difficulties in trying to secure a place on a language course in university, particularly combined with an economic subject. A number of such courses are available at Trinity College, University College Dublin, University College, Cork, University of Limerick, University College, Galway and Dublin City University. Some 15 students can secure places in these elite type courses. One may need in the region of 450-500 points to secure a place in such courses which are vital to our future industrial and economic needs.

I sound a warning, by including in a Bill such as this extensive objects and functions we should acknowledge a clear obligation on the part of the State to resource universities adequately with the wherewithal to achieve these objectives. The equipment in use in many laboratories in our universities is obsolete. The need to update the equipment has been identified to us by many university heads as one of the crucial problems facing universities. These are the laboratories in which the young graduates of the future are being trained to participate and compete with the best internationally in the worlds of science, technology, engineering and so on. If the laboratories in our State universities are obsolete how can be expect our universities to attain and achieve the objectives set out in the Bill? It is hypocritical and smacks of a certain type of approach, particularly from the Labour Party who like to put fine sounding rhetoric into legislation. Unfortunately the follow through is weak and only lip service is paid to the rhetoric.

Over the past four years the universities have been starved of recurrent capital funding to update equipment. From 1993 to 1995 the seven universities between them received £2 million per year. One can imagine how much equipment such money would buy and when divided among seven universities the sum is miserly. In 1996 the universities received no allocation under that heading and this year they will receive £1 million, which is a miserable amount also. This illustrates the wide gap between the wonderful rhetoric in the Bill to define the objects of universities and the resources provided by the Government to achieve them. The Government's greatest strategic failure has been to omit to identify the needs of industry and provide sufficient graduates. The economy is booming and companies are coming here but they are becoming increasingly concerned that we do not have as many trained graduates as we told them we had, hence the panic measures announced by both Ministers. I could expand on the technological area but the Minister's lack of initiative on technology has been appalling right through the educational system, from primary and second levels right up to third level. The lack of provision in the this area has been a major failure of the Minister.

I support amendment No. 20. The protection and promotion of academic freedom does not figure in the Bill but it should be among the objects of the university. Throughout the debate we have heard about the freedom and autonomy of universities. Within the context of a university it is extremely important that there be freedom of expression and freedom to develop academic excellence. A number of objects of a university are stated in amendment No. 20 but that one immediately strikes home and it should be acknowledged within the Bill because it is a fundamental aspect of a university. On Committee Stage there was some discussion on the preservation and protection of academic freedom by and for the universities. The logical conclusion of that debate is to enshrine it within the Bill.

A related amendment is my amendment No. 22, which would delete the current paragraph (d) of section 12 and substitute the following:

To promote the extensive use of the Irish language and the cultivation and promotion of the rich and distinctive linguistic and cultural resources of Ireland.

Deputy Martin's amendment No.21 is not dissimilar. As I said many times on Committee Stage, the Bill should put much more emphasis on the development of the Irish language. The current paragraph (d) reads:

to promote the official languages of the State with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures.

What we need to promote is the extensive use of the Irish language but that is not occurring in our society. Many parents have changed their attitude to Gaelscoileanna and we must all delight in and support that. I am glad the Minister did an about-face on the recognition of the Gaelscoil in Ballybrack.

Is an election due?

It must be coming. The universities must place more emphasis on Irish if we are serious in our intent to promote it. I do not gain-say that a great deal is being done but in order to send the right signals, to make it an objective that we use the language in our universities and to promote its use, we must put a more definitive provision in the Bill. The Minister's wording is aspirational but it does not put any onus on the universities as regards the objectives. I have been consistent on this matter and I ask the Minister to take a more pro-active approach and to enshrine this within the objects of a university.

Arising from the Deputy's remarks on our amendment No. 21 and her amendment No. 22, the Minister should reiterate and re-emphasise the promotion of the Irish language within the universities, as they are the role models for many of our academic attainments. Although it may be within the objects of a university, it should be copper-fastened within the body of the legislation. In recent times the language has rightly been promoted through, for example, the funding for Telefís na Gaelige, the re-emergence of teaching children through the medium of Irish and the Gaelscoileanna movement. We need these developments followed up through second and third level.

Amendment No. 20 proposes a new paragraph (b) to section 12: "to protect and promote academic freedom". That problem has been raised in all discussions on this legislation in the past few weeks and the provision should be included. The Minister may say it is implicit within the Bill but it should be spelt out to ensure that when the legislation is interpreted it is clear that we have academic freedom. The State should not over-emphasise its role within universities. If we are to allow them to develop they may not always agree with what we have to say but that is for the best. Such a provision will allow them to challenge us. Our amendment provides a tighter definition of the objects of the university.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share