Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection debate -
Wednesday, 16 Apr 2014

Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of Technological Universities Bill: Discussion

This purpose of this meeting is to consider the draft general scheme of the technological universities Bill. Last month the Minister for Education and Skills referred to the committee the general scheme of the technological universities Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The joint committee agreed to seek written submissions from a list of key stakeholders by 28 March 2014. To progress the matter further this meeting will hear from eight of the stakeholders.

I welcome Professor Brian Norton from the Dublin Technological University Alliance steering group, which represents DIT, IT Blanchardstown and IT Tallaght; Mr. Paul Hannigan, representing Institutes of Technology Ireland; Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick, representing DIT students' union in conjunction with the students' unions at IT Blanchardstown and IT Tallaght; Mr. Tony Donohoe, representing IBEC; Mr John MacGabhann, representing the Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI; Mr. Tom Boland, representing the Higher Education Authority; Mr. Ned Costello, representing the Irish Universities Association; and Dr. Padraig Walsh, representing Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI.

Before commencing with the presentations I wish to advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also advise witnesses that the opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Mobile phones interfere with the broadcasting equipment and today's proceedings may be broadcast on "Oireachtas Report" and online. I ask everyone in attendance to ensure that mobile phones are completely switched off rather than left on silent mode.

I invite Professor Norton to make his presentation on behalf of the Dublin Technological University Alliance steering group.

Professor Brian Norton

The Dublin alliance is made up of DIT, IT Blanchardstown and IT Tallaght. We are working together to produce a technological university for Dublin, emphasising a practice-based student experience to complement the more research-led experience in traditional universities while continuing to embrace the diversity of students, offering real flexibility in learning and in the pace and place of learning - on campus and online - and retaining the three existing campuses, DIT in Grangegorman, and the campuses in Blanchardstown and Tallaght. The aim is to create a new type of university graduate who has core skills but is innovative, creative and entrepreneurial. The institution aims to be a true force for innovation and the international standing of Ireland.

We welcome the legislation, which supports the idea of a new frontier for Irish higher education, providing a diversity of institutions that meet different learners' needs and the different needs of society, stakeholders and industry, while also driving forward the quality of talent.

Talent is seen as the key driver for economic and cultural success and social inclusion within Ireland. The general scheme outlines clearly the main objectives of a technological university, with which we are in agreement. We also are in agreement with the proposal for a very strong model of governance which is based on competency but also rooted in the locality. An important consideration in bringing together institutions which have particular localities is that they would continue to serve those localities well. There is a balance to be struck between focusing on the locality and seeking to achieve very strong competence-based governance.

The legislation makes provision for flexibility in the workplace and in financial management, particularly in respect of supporting new enterprise development. That is critical. Indeed, the long tradition within the three institutions of supporting new business development is as important as supports for foreign direct investment.

Our detailed submission contains a number of technical points to do with the legislation, which I will not go into here. I will, however, draw members' attention to the point that in respect of the processes to merge institutions before moving forward to seek designation, there is no specific provision during the merged phase for an academic council or senate which would draw from the constituent institutions. That is an issue we would like to see addressed.

In broad terms, the proposals could be said to strike too much of a focus around particular numbers of students and so on, which might reduce our flexibility into the future. We have a commitment to work collaboratively with students, colleagues, social partners and external stakeholders. It is important that the legislation would enable us to realise a system of higher education delivery that is relevant to Ireland's future needs.

Thank you, Professor Norton. I invite Mr. Paul Hannigan, president of Letterkenny Institute of Technology and speaking on behalf of Institutes of Technology Ireland, to make an opening statement.

Mr. Paul Hannigan

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to appear before the committee to discuss the draft general scheme of the technological universities Bill. Institutes of Technology Ireland welcomes the Minister's publication of the document as another milestone in the implementation of the national strategy for higher education. As we embark on this task, I am sure we all share the view that the overall objective should be a coherent, high-quality, vibrant and nimble higher education system which provides an excellent service to students, society and the economy at the lowest achievable cost. We have provided a written submission to the committee, some of the main points of which I will touch on in the time available to me.

There has been a substantial productivity increase in higher education institutions in recent years, with student numbers increasing by 25,000 and staff numbers reducing by approximately 2,000. On the budgetary side, in the period 2003 to 2012, real Exchequer expenditure per student in Ireland increased by 16.4% at first level and 11.6% at second level. At third level, on the other hand, there has been a decrease of 20% in real expenditure per student over the same period. On the capital side, a devolved grant to higher education institutions has not been made since 2011, which has led to a decline in campus infrastructure and core facilities for students, such as information technology equipment.

In regard to governance, we are strongly of the view that defining the reserved and executive responsibilities of the governing body and president, respectively, is a model of good institutional governance. These provisions were made in the Institutes of Technology Act 2006 and are working well in practice. We do not agree with the suggested role for an academic council, which would, in our view, compromise the roles of the governing body and president. We have concerns also about the proposal under head 55 that the Minister would have an unfettered right to impose agreements on higher education institutions to which they are not a party. Unfortunately, that practice has happened already, notwithstanding legislation to the contrary. Also under the governance heading, we are proposing that the Higher Education Authority Act, which is now 43 years old, be amended to clarify the respective functions of the authority itself and the executive staff.

A significant change we are seeking in the draft general scheme is to have all existing institutes of technology classified as designated awarding bodies. The institutes have been making their own awards for close to a decade on the basis of an authority originally delegated to them by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, and, latterly, by its successor body, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI. The successful operation of delegated authority over this period, which was granted to the institutes following an extensive series of external reviews, attests to the academic maturity of the sector and its unwavering commitment to delivering high-quality taught and research programmes underpinned by robust quality assurance processes which are owned by the institutes themselves. As we attempt, in line with the national strategy for higher education, to move beyond a simplistic binary notion of a higher education system towards a system of coherent, diverse and collaborating higher education institutes, HEIs, we must recognise the achievement of the institutes in the quality assurance arena and establish their awarding powers on the same footing as their fellow HEIs in order to enhance their capacity for working together.

I will conclude by asking the committee to bear the overall objective in mind when considering the draft general scheme and, at a later stage, the Bill itself. I am happy to take any questions members may have.

Thank you, Mr. Hannigan. I ask Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick to make his presentation on behalf of Dublin Institute of Technology's student union, as well as the student unions of Blanchardstown and Tallaght ITs.

Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick

On behalf of the more than 25,000 students of Dublin Institute of Technology, the Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown, and the Institute of Technology, Tallaght, I thank the Chairman and members for giving us the opportunity to present here today on the heads of the technological universities Bill. These proposals are of profound interest to the student unions because they provide for the merger of our three institutes of technology and, ultimately, the creation of a technological university out of the merger process. As the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, said around the time of the launch of the heads of Bill, these proposals represent a potentially seismic shift in the delivery of third level education in Ireland. Given the once-in-a-lifetime nature of the proposals being considered by the committee, we in the three student unions are eager to ensure the final legislation is fit for purpose from a student and wider societal perspective. In particular, we are anxious that it should accommodate the appropriate and active involvement of all stakeholders, including students, in the governance and day-to-day running of the new institutions on the basis of autonomy, equity and parity of esteem. In this context, it is important that the legislation facilitates and supports the mergers of the student unions involved in order to ensure strong, independent student input.

We have proposed a number of changes to the heads of Bill that would make the proposed legislation more inclusive and respectful of the rights, responsibilities and autonomy of all stakeholders, particularly students. In broad terms, the changes we are proposing are to do with important definitional matters, governance structures and processes, and processes through which the technological universities will be created. There are several definitional issues that need to be amended in the Bill itself to make the legislation more inclusive and fairer from a student perspective. We are calling for changes to the definition of "student" and "student union" to ensure unions are clearly defined as independent bodies set up and controlled by students and which provide fair and democratic representation for students in a manner that is untrammelled by fear or favour. In addition, it is important that unions' roles in providing commercial services at reduced rates to students would be reflected in the Bill.

In regard to the objectives and functions of a technological university, we are broadly happy with what is proposed in the heads of the Bill. We recommend, however, that the proposed function in regard to collaboration be broadened to include the staff and students of the technological universities as well as the other interests mentioned. We are also recommending that the provision on academic freedom be broadened so that students, too, would have the freedom, along with staff, "to question and test received wisdom, put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions" and that they "shall not be disadvantaged for the exercise of that freedom”.

The final definitional issue we wish to raise relates to fees. In order to ensure transparency and equity, we are proposing that the provision at head 69(1) be amended to include a specific statement that fees can be used to fund an independent student union as well as the other services set out in that provision.

On governance, we in the three student unions are largely in agreement with the overall shape of the governing body proposed for the new institutions. In particular, we welcome the proposal that a majority of its members be external and representative of broader society. However, we would like more certainty in terms of the level of representation for the different stakeholders in order to ensure fairness and proportionality between the different interests. In this context, we would like the legislation to provide for the nomination by the student union of two undergraduate students and one postgraduate student to the governing body. In addition, we are recommending that provision should be made for the inclusion of at least one local authority representative on the body to ensure linkages with local authorities and the communities within which the institutions are located.

In regard to the academic council for the technological universities, we are recommending that its functions be broadened to include approval of all programmes of study, making recommendations for the award of all degrees, and ensuring the university has a quality assurance system that complies with European standards and guidelines. On the composition of the council, the heads of Bill propose that it include an appropriate number of students. Unfortunately, common practice in the third level sector is that students comprise only a small minority of such councils, notwithstanding the role of such bodies in addressing issues of fundamental importance to students and their studies. On the basis of the principle of parity of esteem, we see no reason why students should not comprise up to half the membership of the academic council.

Our final point in regard to governance concerns the provision at head 60 dealing with dispute resolution, including those with the student union. Based on our own experience in DIT, this provision needs to be streamlined. As it stands, procedures relating to disputes between management and the student union are established only following consultation with staff representatives, even though the disputes do not involve those staff, thereby delaying the resolution process. This is not satisfactory.

On the process of establishing a technological university, we recommend the proposed criteria that the merged institutes of technology will have to meet be made by including the following: evidence of a high level of engagement of the institute with learners and the wider community as well as the other stakeholders set out in the heads of the Bill; the quality of educational provision of the institute should be informed by the needs of wider society and well as by those of enterprise; and that all academic staff above assistant lecturer level should have a professional qualification in learning or teaching or will have achieved same within two years of appointment.

The heads of the Bill provides for the appointment by the HEA of a five-person panel to consider an application by an institution for designation as a technological university. In this context, we feel it is fair and reasonable that there be a student input into this process through Union of Students in Ireland nominating a person to sit on such an the advisory panel.

One other issue we would like to address is a provision to allow the technological universities to put charters in place such as a student charter, a matter that is addressed in the 1997 Universities Act but not in the heads of the Bill. We recommend that this omission should be addressed.

The creation of the technological universities is one of the most profound changes to take place in the Irish educational landscape. It is important that the institutions that emerge from this process help to drive forward our economy and society and also provide a template for a new way of doing business - one that is more respectful, democratic and inclusive of all stakeholders and sections of our society than our traditional universities have been. We hope our submission contributes to this process. I thank the committee once again for the opportunity to make this presentation and we look forward to engaging with the members further regarding Committee Stage of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick. The next speaker is Mr. Tony Donohoe on behalf of IBEC.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it on a important issue for the business sector. I am here explicitly to talk on behalf of the business sector. I want to briefly raise some points that are covered in a more detailed submission which has been circulated to committee and I would be pleased to address any issues the members may wish to raise.

IBEC believes that the proposed technological university offers considerable scope to improve how business and higher education institutions work together on a range of issues. These include the development of more work-ready graduates; the provision of employee education and training; more effective knowledge transfer between higher education and business; and a structure that acknowledges the importance of close-to-market research and provides consulting-problem-solving services, particularly for small and medium enterprises. There are many good examples of the above strengths in the existing institutes of technology. The sector has a strong regional presence and well-developed links with local businesses. However, from a business standpoint, it is critical that the proposed technological university designation is not a relabelling exercise of existing institutes of technology. The proposed change of status should drive improved performance. It should stimulate the development of a new type of institution with a distinct mission and a character that differentiates it from existing universities. That is why this Bill is so important. In order to deliver on these ambitions, the technological universities need to be agile, responsive, engaged with the business community and, most of all, they need to be delivering high quality teaching and research. Governance plays a critical role in all of this.

IBEC welcomes the objectives set out under section 50. We particularly welcome the emphasis on supporting entrepreneurship, enterprise development and a skilled workforce. The emphasis on collaboration with business and other education institutions is also welcome. Where we would respectfully suggest the draft Bill could be improved is around its provisions concerning quality and institutional autonomy. There is very little specific mention of quality in any of the heads of the Bill. In considering this issue, the joint committee could draw on the work of the technological universities quality framework project which is already under way and doing some excellent work in this regard. This states that at the heart of the technical universities' mission is the provision of education and training programmes across levels 6 to 10 of national framework of qualification. The draft Bill does not specifically mention this breadth of provision.

There is an important related point on funding, on which my colleagues from the institutions have already touched. During the past six years expenditure per third level student has fallen significantly at a time when competitor countries are increasing investment. We have reached a tipping point in terms of the impact of these funding cuts on quality. This message is beginning to reach international audiences and will undermine our efforts to attract mobile investment.

My second substantive point relates to institutional autonomy. International evidence suggests there is a strong correlation between university performance and self-determination. At a time when deregulation is regarded as a more efficient way of organising so many other areas of economic activity, the Irish university sector remains highly regulated, particularly in terms of HR management.

The suggested provisions in head 55, which provides a directive power to the Minister on remuneration, numbers of public servants and collective agreements, undermine the concept of institutional autonomy. Higher education institutions need the autonomy to set strategic direction, manage income streams, and manage and reward performance to attract the best teaching and research staff. With autonomy comes accountability. The Higher Education Authority is already doing some very worthwhile work with its new performance evaluation framework and the addition of other metrics around employer engagements, students' satisfaction etc. will set a more realistic performance framework through which to direct universities.

IBEC wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to present its views on this important legislation. We would suggest its enactment proceeds as speedily as possible. Five years have passed since the launch of a process to develop a national strategy for higher education. The technological university is one component. In the interim, there has been significant uncertainty in the sector which has been exacerbated by the funding cuts that I mentioned. This legislation will mark an important milestone in the reform process.

Thank you, Mr. Donohoe. The next speaker is Mr. MacGabhann on behalf of the Teachers' Union of Ireland.

Mr. John MacGabhann

The Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI, wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to present its views on the heads of the Bill - the general scheme of the technological universities Bill 2014. This short oral presentation supplements the main union submission which has already been provided to the committee. We will attempt to address five generic concerns of the TUI in this presentation. They relate to collective agreement, transfer of undertakings, information and consultation, regional provision and access, and academic freedom and tenure. By way of context, I should explain that the TUI is the recognised trade union for academic and research staff who work in the institute of technology sector. More than 4,000 of our members work in the sector and they develop, lecture on and are engaged in research in relation to the full range of higher education programmes on the national framework of qualifications from level 6, which typically would be apprenticeships and professional development courses directly to business, to level 10, which would be doctoral studies.

In terms of collective agreement, the members of the TUI voted to accept the Haddington Road agreement in 2013. We registered this collective agreement with the Labour Relations Commission and this agreement provides both for security of employment and continuity of employment. There is a possible tension between the provisions of the heads of the Bill for technological universities and the Haddington Road agreement. The TUI requires and is entitled to expect that the protections of the Haddington Road agreement will prevail and will apply to our members for the full duration of the agreement. This, as far as we are concerned, is of fundamental importance to any proposed restructuring of the higher education institutions.

Linked to that is a concern we have in regard to the transfer of undertakings, or rather the absence of reference to that in the heads of the Bill. We are extremely concerned that the statutory instrument, the protection of employees on the transfer of undertakings regulations 2003, is not referenced in the heads of the Bill and we demand that clear provision be made in the Bill relating to the terms of this statutory instrument. We will vigorously oppose, and make no apology for it, any attempt to transfer our members either to a merged institute or a technological university, which is further down the line, unless the terms of the transfer of undertakings protection of employment regulations, TUPE, essentially apply.

We are unequivocal in insisting that the terms of collective agreements on remuneration, terms of employment, conditions of service and pensions will continue in cases where a transfer might occur. We will also insist that all our members are transferred to the new entity. We do not accept as valid the provision in the heads of the Bill that on "establishment day" of a merged entity or a technological university, staff could be arbitrarily transferred to other public sector bodies other than the merged entity or technological university. An attempt to effect such transfers on such an arbitrary and quixotic basis will be opposed, if necessary my means of industrial action, as we are a trade union.

I must be frank in respect to information and consultation as there are differences of approach in respect of some of the proposed amalgamations that are emerging, some of which are better by a distance than others. The TUI considers that, broadly speaking, there is an unacceptable absence from the heads of the Bill of robust provisions for real and meaningful consultation with trade unions - and therefore the staff they represent - and the provision of full, relevant information prior to any decision to either merge or apply for university designation. We believe that the heads of the Bill must expressly reference the terms of the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006. We have raised these concerns with institutes of technology already that have not engaged in adequate consultation and have not provided the required information relating to plans to merge with other institutes. We have formally stated that where consultation and information are not fully provided for, we will utilise whatever options and mechanisms are available to us to protect the interests of members. I should in fairness say that the level of engagement with the Dublin Technological University, DTU, has been markedly better than has been the case in respect of some of the amalgamations that are being proposed, for example, in Munster - loosely referred to as MTU, Munster Technological University - and in Connacht. However, the depth of the engagement does not suffice.

In terms of regional provision we are very concerned that the heads of the Bill, if implemented as currently drafted, could lead to a dramatic reduction in regional provision of programmes and a corresponding inequity in respect of access to higher education. The root of our concern is that this could become simply a means to rationalisation. Of itself, rationalisation may occasionally have merit but it can equally do huge damage to the regional provision. The institutes of technology, IOT, sector is charged with and renowned for the regional provision of programmes which meet the needs of local industry, enterprise and communities. Local provision also directly enhances access to higher education programmes, particularly for students whose family income would not allow them to study away from home. That has become more pronounced in recent years. A regional provision has also greatly reduced inequality based on income level. That is borne out by the fact that enrolments in the IOT sector are broadly speaking on a par with enrolments in the university sector. Also, because of our concern about increasing inequity, which we see manifest, the TUI is opposed to the heads of the Bill allowing the Higher Education Authority and new technological universities to introduce new student fees or essentially increase student fees.

The TUI fully supports the traditional principle of academic freedom. That is a prerequisite for university status throughout the world and has, arguably, greater significance now than ever before given what we perceive as an ideological drift towards privatisation. We make a clear distinction between academic freedom and institutional autonomy. We regard the former - academic freedom - as being the absolute prerequisite. In practical terms, academic freedom is inextricably linked to security of tenure. The heads of the Bill seeks to reduce security of tenure by removing, for example, the need for a ministerial inquiry in the case of dismissal. I admit that is an extreme example. The TUI is opposed to that and is concerned about the impact such a change would have on academic freedom and the quality it assures. Without tenure of employment the principle of academic freedom is merely window dressing. We insist that tenured employment must be set at an appropriate proportion of the academic population. We suggest it should be in the region of 95% for academic and research staff. We are very concerned in this regard therefore about the casualisation of the academic workforce which has occurred in recent years, not exclusively as a result of the recession. We are particularly concerned about the continued use of precarious employment contracts, including the odious zero hours or variable hours contracts. Such contracts frequently purport to create flexibility or "teaching only" positions but in our view the very concept of a teaching-only provision in the academic context at third level is itself a contradiction in terms and is entirely inappropriate to the democratic functioning of higher education institutions.

I invite Mr. MacGabhann to conclude, please.

Mr. John MacGabhann

We support the provision of multi-level, high quality, higher education. We perceive higher education to be a public good. In a sense that has become part of the social contract. We are committed to working co-operatively with those who will work co-operatively with us. We are not opposed to the concept of technological universities per se but we need to be far more convinced than we are in respect to the rationale and model as set out in particular in the heads of the Bill. We look forward, as do others, to engage with the committee on further stages.

I thank Mr. MacGabhann. Mr. Tom Boland will make a presentation on behalf of the Higher Education Authority.

Mr. Tom Boland

The committee will be aware that the heads of the Bill have been published at a time of significant reform in higher education. This reform is focussed on consolidating the higher education institutions into a smaller number of institutions, forming a well co-ordinated and coherent system of institutions, each with a clear mission, delivering quality outcomes for students and addressing national objectives set by the Minister and the Government. The draft legislation supports important elements of that reform and as such it is very welcome. It provides the legal avenue for the consolidation of institutes of technology and for the process for the designation of technological universities. Both of those are central aspects to the restructuring of the system.

Arising from the publication of the higher education strategy in 2011, the HEA has, with other key stakeholders in the education system, been involved in the development and implementation of the reform programme – the most comprehensive reform programme in the history of the State. This reform programme is also an important element in the Government’s overall programme of reform of the public service. In addition to the national strategy document itself, the reform is based on the publication of other major policy advice from the HEA to the Minister for Education and Skills, including Landscape for Higher Education, which dealt with issues of consolidation and co-operation of the existing higher education institutions; Future Labour Market Demand for Higher Education Graduates; pilot surveys of students and employers on their perspectives on higher education; a review of initial teacher education and commencement of a programme of consolidation of 19 existing centres into six major centres of excellence; and criteria and process for designation as technological university.

The HEA has also commenced the implementation of a new approach to system governance and the funding of higher education known as strategic dialogue. The key focus of this process is to better align institutional performance to national objectives set by the Government and to fund the institutions in part by reference to outcomes. Arising from this process each higher education institution will enter into an agreement with the HEA as to how it will address national objectives and the measures by which its performance is to be assessed. By way of a side note, I support the comments by Tony Donohue from IBEC on the proposals on pay and conditions set out in the Bill. It seems to me that the strategic dialogue process and the funding that could be tied to it is a much more effective way of ensuring accountability for abiding by pay and conditions than statutory provisions set out in the Bill.

The first round of this dialogue process is now nearing completion and the HEA will shortly provide the Minster for Education and Skills with the first report of the performance of the higher education system under this new approach. The process will be developed year-on-year, as all parties, including the HEA, gain experience and deeper understanding.

As has already been mentioned in previous submissions, it should be noted that this programme of reform is being undertaken in an environment of severe resource constraints on the institutions and strong growth in demand from students. This both reinforces the need for reform but also adds to the challenges and risks. A new strategy for the financial sustainability of the system is needed to ensure that we adopt an appropriate funding model for higher education that balances the demand for graduates with the quality of outcomes.

The heads provide for the process and criteria for technological university designation. The creation of technological universities is a significant development in the higher education system, with the potential to provide a new and welcome dimension to higher education provision, especially in the technological sector. I welcome IBEC's comments on that. It is essential, however, that any such university is capable of achieving recognition as a university at both national and international levels. It is for this reason that a fair but rigorous process as well as clear criteria must surround the setting up of such universities, and the heads will provide for that.

The HEA welcomes the changes proposed in respect of the governing authorities of technological universities and institutes of technology. We particularly welcome the move towards a more competency based approach to governing authority membership.

I would like the committee to note that the HEA sees this particular legislation as one of a suite of legislative provisions necessary to support the full implementation of the national strategy. Other areas requiring attention include the powers and functions of the HEA itself necessary to give statutory underpinning to our new mandate for a more outcomes focused, system approach to the governance and regulation of higher education; the composition of the board of the HEA, adopting a competency based approach in that context, and similarly in the case of the universities; the governance structures in the institutions; and other related matters. We look forward to proposals on these emerging at the earliest opportunity but in the meantime, we strongly welcome the Minister’s proposals being discussed here today and we will engage constructively with the Minister and his officials as the legislation makes its way through the legislative process.

I thank Mr. Boland. I ask Mr. Costello to make the presentation on behalf of the Irish Universities Association.

Mr. Ned Costello

I welcome the opportunity to address the committee on the draft scheme of the Bill. It is important legislation, both for the prospective technological universities and for the higher education system as a whole.

I will begin by clearly stating the position of the Irish Universities Association, IUA, on technological universities and their designation, which is that, essentially, any institution that is called a university, in the way it looks, acts and behaves, must be a university. That means it should be characterised by provision at least at levels 8 to 10, although that does not preclude provision at other levels, and it should have a strong emphasis on research also. If those clear criteria are met and they can be further elaborated, any institution, technological or otherwise, that merits the title "university" should get it.

On the subject of criteria, in a number of interactions with the Higher Education Authority we stressed the importance of clear criteria for designation. Those provided for in the heads of the Bill are somewhat less stringent than we believe they should be, however, it is important that there are clear criteria in the Bill and we commend the Minister for inserting them in the primary legislation and not leaving it to secondary legislation.

I refer to regional provision. As Mr. MacGabhann stated, it is important that there is fully balanced regional provision throughout the country. Something we need to be aware of is that the consolidation and establishment of technological universities could leave many regions without an institute of technology. In that context, it is very important that within technological universities there continues to be adequate provision for levels 6 and 7 education and that there is not a drift entirely into level 8 and above because that will disadvantage a number of students, and particularly students whose attainment levels will not allow them succeed in a level 8 course. We have some evidence of that already.

On the sustainability of higher education, there is the old adage that structure should follow strategy and one of our concerns is that there is an emphasis in policy on structure whereas the pressing concern is the financial sustainability of higher education overall. As a number of speakers stated, we are in a crisis in that regard and unless it is solved, we will not be in a position to undertake the institutional reform and have successful institutions. It is a critical issue. The IUA is having an international symposium on the sustainability of higher education on 29 September and I take the opportunity to invite members of the committee to that event; we will issue them with a formal invitation shortly.

On the question of governing authorities, we welcome the provisions in the legislation. Some years ago the Minister asked us for a report on governing authorities, matters of university governance and higher education governance overall. In that report we proposed a configuration very similar to that proposed in the heads of the Bill, namely, that governing authorities should be smaller and that their membership should be competency based.

One point of detail is that we believe strongly that the determination of the competency framework should be a matter for the institutions themselves and should not require the approval of the HEA because diversity is an important part of national policy, and this is where we believe institutions are best equipped to determine the competency framework their institution needs with regard to its mission.

We believe collegiality is very important and we were somewhat surprised that there is a provision in the heads that decisions of governing authorities be made on the basis of majority voting rather than primarily by consensus. We believe consensus is important in that regard.

Accountability and autonomy was mentioned by a number of speakers. There are provisions in the heads, and they have been cited, that run directly against institutional autonomy and contradict some of the other provisions in the Bill on remuneration and so on, which follow the norm for legislation. The specific provision on the directive power of the Minister is an unusual provision. It may even be unique because it allows the Minister, without reference to anybody, to direct that an institution comply, for example, with a collective agreement to which it may not have been a party. I hasten to add that we have no difficulty with collective agreements, but it overturns the principle of volunteerism, which underpins all industrial relations.

Similarly, on numbers, if this provision went through there would be nothing to stop the Minister saying that a particular discipline in a university reduced the numbers in that discipline. This could be used, I admit in extremis, but we must account for the fact that, sometimes, in extremis happens. It could be used in a directive way, and it could impact directly on academic freedom as well as institutional autonomy.

There are provisions about which we are seriously concerned but, overall, we welcome the legislation. I am sure it will improve further with dialogue and with input from the committee and other parts of the democratic process. We look forward to seeing it progress.

The last speaker is Mr. Padraig Walsh on behalf of Quality and Qualifications Ireland.

Mr. Padraig Walsh

Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, would like to thank the joint committee for its invitation to make this presentation. We have also put in a submission. By way of context, QQI has a legislative responsibility for the external quality assurance of the 14 institutes of technology included in this draft legislation. The Qualifications (Education and Training) Act of 1999 allowed for the institutes of technology to be granted delegated authority by the then Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, to make their own awards within the National Framework of Qualifications. By 2006, all 13 institutes of technology, following individual external evaluations, were delegated awarding powers up to the level of honours bachelor degree in the NFQ. Since then, all the institutes have been granted delegated authority for postgraduate taught programmes, and many institutes have received delegated authority for postgraduate research programmes within prescribed disciplinary areas.

Between 2008 and 2011, all 13 institutes of technology underwent institutional quality reviews, which incorporated evaluations as to whether the institutes were operating quality assurance procedures in line with the 1999 Act and the 2005 European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. These evaluations also examined how well the institutes were managing their delegated authority responsibilities. The outcome of all these reviews are publicly available. With the establishment of QQI under the Act of 2012, the autonomy of the institutes was extended further with the clarification of the institutes' status as awarding bodies with powers, for example, to award joint degrees.

The journey I have described is one of institutions being given more autonomy and more responsibility balanced by periodic evaluation and public accountability. That is entirely in keeping with the central principle of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance whereby the primary responsibility for the quality of education and its assurance lies with individual higher education institutions. All global rating and ranking systems for higher education are led by countries and systems characterised by high levels of institutional autonomy.

The general scheme of this Bill further proposes that any technological university so established will become a designated awarding body under the 2012 Qualifications and Quality Assurance Act.

While there is a legislative difference in the relationship with QQI, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, and the universities, Dublin Institute of Technology and RCSI, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, all designated awarding bodies in their own right, and the other 13 institutes of technology, QQI’s policy approach since our establishment in 2012 has essentially been the same for all. We act as the external quality assurance agent for awarding bodies.

QQI is aware that it is not the intention of some of the institutes of technology to pursue technological university status at this time. The general scheme is silent regarding any change to the awarding status of these institutes. QQI believes it is important for these institutes to have clear ownership of their own awarding activities. This proposed legislation may provide an opportunity to solidify an appropriate designation in that regard for institutions, many of which have been operating with delegated authority to make their own awards for more than a decade.

The mission of a self-awarding public higher education institution is largely shaped by the institution itself within the framework of national policy. Well-functioning and successful higher education institutions are well led and well governed. The governance specifications in the general scheme are consistent with the system wide findings in a review recently combined by QQI into the institution quality review process conducted by its predecessor’s bodies which found the need to decrease the size, range and complexity of governance structures.

As the body responsible for ensuring higher education institutions establish and operate access, transfer and progression procedures consistent with the 2012 Act, the inclusion of the nominees of the newly established education and training boards in the proposed governance structure is welcomed by QQI. The competency-based outline of the governance system is also clearly consistent with best international practice.

QQI is committed to extending its current model of annual dialogue visits for the self-awarding institutes to the institute of technology sector after this year, reflecting a relationship between QQI and higher education institutions that is more appropriate to a maturing sector. QQI will seek to collaborate with the institutes to support the design of quality assurance that enables the developmental trajectory. We are pleased to be providing input to the aforementioned technological university quality framework which is being designed by all 14 institutes of technology.

QQI would also be happy to suggest some technical changes that would make the general scheme more consistent with the terminology of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012.

I thank all our guests for presenting to the committee today. The one trend running through all the presentations is that higher education funding has been reduced while enrolments have increased. This is happening alongside these reforms in question. Since 2008, there has been a 12% reduction in funding but a 15% increase in enrolments. What assessment has been done of the necessary staffing and funding requirements to develop those institutes which wish progress to technological university status? While we are putting in the legal structures for that development in this Bill, it will not happen unless the funding resources are available. As Mr. Tony Donohoe said, we must avoid a rebranding exercise that does not allow these institutes to develop properly.

Do the institutes of technology believe the heads of the Bill are sufficient to ensure level 6 and level 7 courses continue to be a mainstay of these institutes? There is a chance of regional imbalance with those institutes that have suggested they may wish to go forward to technological university status being in certain regions. Do more detailed requirements need to be inserted into the Bill to avoid such an imbalance?

I welcome the delegations. I must declare an interest as I come from Waterford city and the south east has a particular interest in this legislation as one can imagine. I arrived at this issue initially as a sceptic. I agree a university needs to behave as one and it cannot be simply a rebranding exercise. Neither can we have two tiers of institutes of technology. There must be a clear logic to this development. We can also learn from mistakes from the past. For example, the previous national spatial strategy looked correct on paper with the development of gateways and hubs. However, we ended up with too many gateways and hubs with something for everyone. The real intent of the spatial strategy was somewhat lost as a result. I hope the same does not happen with the establishment of technological universities.

I have been won over, however. The technological university approach is the right way to develop this sector. Coming from the south east, I believe Waterford should not be aping Cork, Dublin or Galway. We need a university in the south east that is embedded in the needs of enterprise and the community. The bar has been set reasonably high for the criteria that will allow that to happen. Are all the delegations satisfied that the criteria have been set to the highest standards to ensure these new technological universities will live up to their name? Are there concerns about them?

The south east is a good example of where there are several institutes of technology. With the merger of Carlow and Waterford Institutes of Technology, we must ensure we have sufficient numbers of levels 6, 7 and 8 courses with the same number as levels 9 and 10. This is an opportunity to look more holistically at education with the education and training boards in place. There are opportunities for much greater engagement and collaboration between the institutes and the boards.

I am concerned with the governance issue and the suggested role of an academic council which could compromise the role of the governing body in a technological university. What are the views of the delegations on this? I also agree head 55 will allow the Minister the unfettered right to impose ethics on higher education institutions.

It is an important issue, and many presentations were made.

You can speak again if you want.

I accept that. Those were just my initial observations.

I appreciate the Chairman's letting me speak now. Given that the Seanad is debating education legislation at 3 p.m., I will have to leave. However, I will read the transcripts to see all the answers and other issues that arise after I leave. I thank the witnesses for all their presentations. It is good to have the different perspectives of so many groups. Both Mr. Boland of the HEA and the Dublin Technological University Alliance steering group mentioned the need for greater clarity about the criteria. The draft scheme of the Bill is too vague. The Hunt report recommended that if there were to be technological universities, different institutions would form clusters rather than one institution evolving into a technological university. It also recommended that any new technological university should be different from the existing ITs and universities. Following on from this, and the work done by the HEA on it, the Marginson report proposed a set of possible criteria to try to achieve that and indicated the standard to expected regarding scale, research and industry links, etc. Even at that there was not enough clarity for me about the difference between the technological universities, the ITs as they stand and the universities, and what exactly would be unique about a technological university.

Is there agreement for a start? At the very least the Marginson criteria or something similar should be included in the Bill. There is a need for clarity. It is too important a matter to make it up as we go. From the point of view of individual institutions and from the landscape point of view, as Senator Cullinane noted, we need to be mindful that the whole picture fits together, there is no duplication, the system works and we maximise our strengths. It is in everybody's interests and we are all on the same page regarding it. In addition to the criteria Marginson set out, what is the difference between a technological university and the existing ITs and universities? What extra criteria should we put into the legislation? We should have clarity on these so at least the institutions know the criteria on which they will be judged.

Student representation is essential in all of this, as I have said in every speech on higher education I have made in the Seanad. From a quality assurance point of view as much as any other, we must have strong student representation on all our governing authorities and good procedures for listening to students and getting feedback on the quality of lecturing. It is in everybody's interests to have this because it is good for the institutions. In some respects it challenges existing practices. Some colleges have been very good on this, some less so. Most universities have three student representatives on their boards. The Bill should provide for standard practice and set three as a minimum. I agree with the point that there is necessity for there to be a student union representative. As a former student union officer I would have grave misgivings about the idea that an institution would decide which student sits on its board. There are serious issues with this. It is essential that the student representatives be elected representatives of the student body.

I welcome the witnesses. I recently attended a symposium in DIT on the issue of preparing for the technological university regarding quality and standards, which was very useful as a backdrop to this Bill. To follow up on Senator Power's question, I have a question for Professor Norton, Mr. Boland and Mr. Hannigan. What will be the difference between, say, a level 8 degree in mechanical engineering or hospitality-hotel management from GMIT in Galway and the Waterford Technological University or DIT when it becomes a technological university? How will the student experience differ in a technological university from that in an IOT, both offering level 8 in that category?

My next question, on funding, is for Mr. Costello, who has very great concerns about it, Professor Boland and anybody else who wants to address it. How is it proposed that we will address the funding and drop-out issues at third level? Figures from the HEA show that for the academic year 2010 to 2011 11% of level 8 students dropped out or withdrew in first year and 29% of students at levels 6 and 7 dropped out. Bearing in mind that it costs the State an average of €3,300 for level 8 students and approximately €450 for level 6 or 7, it is a massive financial loss to the State through early drop out and withdrawal. It is a major investment by families and the State and a poor experience for the student.

I do not blame the institutions but I ask how they will address it because the causes are much earlier. How are they working with second level to ensure better student choice? How will the new technological university model address it? Will we have the same problems? If 4,000 level 8 students drop out, the State loses €13.2 million. We have major funding problems at third level and maybe investing more in second level career guidance would be a place to start.

The Senator is going off the topic.

No, because we are addressing funding issues.

The Senator is not addressing questions to the witnesses on the scheme of the Bill.

I would be grateful if we could examine it. Will the new technological university model be any different regarding early drop out? My final question is for Professor Boland. How will we marry the need for centres of excellence nationally, which I support, with regional provision outside Dublin?

There is no mention of the merger of the south-east technological universities in the scheme of the Bill. How can we speed up the merger? Mr. Donohoe of IBEC mentioned concerns about quality. Could he expand on the main concerns from the perspective of IBEC? Is it regarding general educational standards? This is a very important issue and in this economic climate we need to target our graduates regarding business and the IBEC perspective. Would anyone else like to contribute on concerns about quality through these mergers?

Professor Brian Norton

Deputy McConalogue asked about funding. It is an issue and we are at a point in the economic cycle where revenue is available. Irrespective of this legislation there needs to be an improved funding base for institutions to function effectively and in relation to student hardship. Many cases of students dropping out are due to student hardship and family circumstances, etc. There are other developments, for example in the context of merging DIT, ITB and ITT, the relocation of DIT to Grangegorman which would bring costs together and reduce costs, for example the institutions would have only one president. This would allow them to put more resources to the coal face. There would be savings which would enable one to do certain things. There would be expenditures, as always with institutional change. Both Deputy McConalogue and Senator Cullinane raised the critically important matter of levels 6 to 7.

One of the differentiating factors is providing a level of opportunity and for legibility of opportunities for different learners to move between different levels and modes of study in different locations. They should be able to take a module in this or that location and build a degree, which is the important part of what it is about. I am not sure one should include that in legislation because the demand for particular levels of programmes and types of programmes varies with the economy and this, that and the other and to legislate at a particular point in time may be inappropriate. However, the legislation should enshrine the commitment of a technological university to the area because that is our commitment. In the particular consortium of three institutions I represent, the level of study is growing, not declining.

With regard to the criteria referred to by Senators David Cullinane and Averil Power, they are reasonable and appropriate in a broad sense. The idea of an international panel then making a judgment is important because what might be a criterion today might not be tomorrow. Higher education is developing internationally and one might want to be more rigorous or use different criteria at some point in the future; therefore, one needs to be cautious about what one includes in legislation and avoid things that might be contradictory, for example, having things that are a percentage of another number and that other number being a function of other things can lead to some contradictory and oddly shaped institutions. A number of people are using the walk like a duck, talk like a duck argument about a university, but if one does this, one can end up with strong contortions.

A key factor is flexibility and the ability to move between part-time and full-time modes of study. I agree that there should be progress from further education and with levels 6 and 7 being part of the criteria. I do not over-emphasise any particular aspect, for example, research or high levels of qualifications.

I agree strongly with Senator Averil Power that student representation should be by a students' union and that it should represent both undergraduates and postgraduates, as my colleague in the DIT students' union said earlier.

Senators Averil Power and Fidelma Healy Eames raised the issue of differentiation. We are looking at a practice-led institution; ours is not an institution that will produce people to tell others to do things. The people concerned can do things; they are entrepreneurial and international. This is a small, open international trading economy and our graduates work internationally and in the city. That understanding is critically important for success. They are also active citizens and active participants in the democratic process and do not just have an economic role.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames asked what would be the difference between GMIT and WIT in the future, but I cannot speak for these institutions, sadly. Looking at it in the context of a technological university in Dublin, level 8 provision will have legible access from levels 6 and 7 and there will be an ability to move between full and part-time and between workplace and study modes.

Professor Brian Norton

No; it is difficult to move between full and part-time modes of study.

What about between levels 7 and 8?

Professor Brian Norton

Within level 8. If one is a level 8 student, one of the opportunities we provide is to study part time in the work environment, then full time, etc and have the ability to take modules in different locations. For example, in the hospitality sector a student might be able to take certain modules in the city centre or Tallaght or Blanchardstown while working and build his or her degree in that way and, because of the scale of the institution, gain a huge breadth of opportunities to interact with facilities and staff, thereby enabling us to construct programmes. The nature of advances in sectors is fast and new sectors emerge during the four years of an undergraduate programme. The ability to have pathways to change direction and the scale to do this with reasonable effectiveness while using public resources effectively is important. A philosophy that must be linked with this - it is a bigger agenda for another day - is that we intend that all those enrolled graduate. People coming into a programme are inculcated with good learning skills and provided with appropriate pathways to appropriate qualifications. We will not have the waste mentioned.

Mr. Paul Hannigan

I will try to answer the questions generally without referring specifically to those who asked them.

There is a fundamental problem from our perspective that we have failed to convince the political system that there is a crisis in higher education with respect to funding. No matter how we have tried to do this in the past few years, we have failed. The problem is that we, like any other sector in the public service, have taken one for the country in the context of making sure there is economic revival. People took on board the serious cutbacks made for each institution and tried to work through them to come out the best they could at the far end. We are in real difficulty and need to have it addressed. A consistent message is developing with respect to the overall development of higher education and whether it is the institutes of technology, the universities or the HEA, we are saying the same thing. We have to move beyond trying to convince the political system. There is a real issue which needs to be dealt with and there will be huge implications if we fail to deal with it.

From the point of view of level 6 and 7 provision, in fairness to the HEA it has listened to the institutions in the past few years and tried to equalise the funding model with respect to the provision of level 6, 7 and 8 programmes and that has been an incentive for institutions to maintain the provision of level 6 and 7 programmes across the country. Nobody is walking away from this provision, which is clear from the comments made so far. That is the consistent message from institutes of technology.

I am probably better placed than anybody to comment on regional provision as president of LYIT. It is important that politicians look at the contribution institutes of technology and universities have made across the country. There has been a turnaround in society with respect to education generally. When one considers the completion rate for the leaving certificate examination, the transfer rate to higher education, the price and value people are putting on higher education, the provision of that service throughout the country and the movement of students from second level to higher education, it is very much a regional product. The enrolments of universities and institutes of technology predominantly comprise people living within the region in which they are located. There is a strong regional input from higher education generally. That allows us to engage with business, as Mr. Donohoe outlined, create opportunities for new businesses coming into regions and then create opportunities for graduates to stay in and develop these regions. Regional provision is, therefore, important from our perspective in the context of any discussion. We want to continue to meet the targets and ambitions we have set for ourselves.

The retention of students is a complex issue. I have been involved for the past ten or 15 years and we produced the first review of retention in the IT sector in 1999. We looked at the myriad issues that impacted on whether a student remained in a programme. We have not been good at relaying into the public domain that when students discontinue a programme, the majority make their way back the following year, perhaps into different programmes or new areas of study. Conscious and definite decisions are taken by both students and families to redirect from where they had started out. In one way that is a positive in people making a decision early to correct what they have done and move to another area of study. There are also the issues outlined by Professor Norton such as hardship, etc, which have had a major impact in the past few years. Every institution is aware of this issue and making definite attempts to address it.

The issue of the criteria has been clearly articulated in the documentation from the HEA. Some of the institutes see them as overly stringent in the context of what is being asked of them in moving towards a technological university, but that debate will have to be engaged in on an ongoing basis. I take into consideration what has been said by Mr. Costello and committee members about universities having had to meet the criteria to be called a university. I accept this.

Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick

I refer to Senator Averil Power's comment on student representation. That was the crux of what we were trying to hit home in our submission. Process, policy, procedure and legislation should be included to account for the worst case scenario and prevent it from happening.

The difference is night and day between a representative of a students' union elected to a committee and a student who may have been taken in from the corridor 15 minutes beforehand but not given an explanation as to why this had happened. At a very low level there is a difference between a class representative sitting on a programme board and feeding in to quality mechanisms who has been trained by a students' union in how to relay information on behalf of the class and somebody who may have been taken in a few minutes beforehand. Unfortunately, such incidents happen. I get a cold shiver up my spine when I hear about colleges holding separate elections to positions, the holders of which do not sit on governing bodies. This undermines the ability of a students' union to claim it fully represents the students. That is the crux of our submission. The ethos of an independent students' union should be enshrined in order that it can fully represent students.

It would be remiss of me not to raise the issue of funding. We need to talk about Higher Education, a paper released by the Nevin Economic Research Institute, is a good starting point for this conversation. Society may have lost sight of what higher education is supposed to be about with regard to having a value system; perhaps this is why it has been undervalued in recent years. Perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse in discussing new and fantastic ideas without having the resources to implement them. The USI believes higher education is a public good, that the money for it should come directly through the Exchequer and that there should be no financial barriers whatsoever to education.

The students' unions in IT Tallaght, Blanchardstown and the DIT will hold a student-led conference on technological universities on 14 May. We will issue invites to members of the committee and hope to see them there.

Mr. Ned Costello

I thank committee members for their questions and observations, which are all very interesting.

I will begin with the criteria. Senator Averil Power correctly mentioned the Marginson report. At the time we made a submission to the HEA stating we felt it had set the bar very low. I commend the Minister because he has upped it relative to the Marginson report.

With regard to the qualification level of the staff of technological universities, everybody accepts that there must be a starting point, but the criteria provide for an absolute. The HEA recommended there be a trajectory, whereby at the beginning a certain proportion of staff would have doctoral qualifications and the aim would be to increase this over time. That would be a positive approach. We have made significant investment in postgraduate and doctoral education in Ireland and should see many graduates migrating into the university and technological sector. The bar would be raised, but it would be done in an organic way.

With regard to level 10 educational provision and research, it is very important to have collaboration between technological universities and universities. Research and level 10 education are expensive and demand scale. We can see very good examples of this in the clusters, but it needs to go further.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue and Senator Fidelma Healy Eames raised funding and transition issues. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked what planning had been engaged to cost and provide technological universities. The answer is somewhere between very little and none. In recent years we have seen a progressive erosion of Exchequer funding for higher education and I see no plan to reverse it. This is at the heart of the sustainability difficulty. A number of measures could be taken to deal with it. Any system will involve a mix of public and private funding of higher education and we must acknowledge that there has been a significant transfer of the cost of higher education to individuals through the increase in the student charge. Whether €3,000 is the right level merits debate. To return to the Nevin report, one of the reasons for holding the symposium is it is important to have a debate. There is no direction or debate, which is a problem.

Two years ago a €25 million temporary budget cut was made to higher education funding and the funding was to be restored last year. Regrettably, it was not restored; it should be. That would at least be a gesture of good faith in the system.

On Monday an article I wrote appeared in the Irish Independent. I made the observation that there had been a significant transfer to social welfare payments, by which I meant dealing with the unemployment crisis, and it was very important that this had been done. As we see a return in employment growth to somewhere near normal levels there will be a dividend and Exchequer resources will be freed up. A commitment needs to be made to invest these resources in higher education. We know education generally and higher education is the best route to a job. We have an opportunity to create a virtuous circle and it should not be missed.

The drop-out issue is slightly related to funding. It is where one sees some of the effects of the financial crisis. The student experience has been worsened by larger class sizes and reductions in services to students because of falling resources in institutions. There must be some causal connection.

Another aspect which is important is transition from second level to higher education, an issue which has been actively examined by the Department and the universities. We are considering simplifying the number of entry routes into higher education. In this regard, Mr. Hannigan made an interesting point. In a system with highly denominated courses people possibly take the wrong course. Perhaps they return to the system later, but there is a cost associated with this. Simpler entry routes will, I hope, lead to some of this problem being addressed.

There is also the fundamental issue that the second level system does not prepare people as well as it could for higher education. The modes of assessment and teaching are different. One goes from the highly structured and prescriptive points system, with its emphasis on rote learning, to higher education where there is a strong emphasis on independent learning. There is a disjuncture between these two tectonic plates. This is an issue for the policy system.

Will Mr. Boland address the same issues?

I will bring him in later.

Many of the questions have been answered, but I wish to make some comments. That the committee can engage in a pre-legislative process is a welcome development. I thank the delegates for coming before the committee and their contributions. This process gives interested stakeholders an opportunity to flag their concerns, wishes, dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the legislative proposals. The involvement of the students' unions is particularly welcome. There are many vested interests, some of which have greater strength than others with regard to numbers, advisers and the mechanisms available. I consider the students as having a vested interest and they should have a higher profile. I welcome the contribution they have made today. The avenues through which their participation can be strengthened were listed and I support many of them.

The funding issue is a little like world peace; we all support world peace and increased funding for the third level sector. The question we must face is from where we will take it. The Bill aims to find greater efficiencies and eliminate duplication in the system. This will increase funding by one means or another.

It must be acknowledged that this is the motivation for much of what we are doing. I would be delighted to see a further increase, but we have broader responsibilities and must ask tougher questions about from where funding will be taken to be invested in third level education. This is not for one second to say third level education is not worthy of that funding.

The plans for the south east were not addressed. It is a commitment-----

(Interruptions).

Will the Deputy check to see whether he has a mobile phone or an iPhone on him?

I do not. The plans for the south east formed a commitment in the programme for Government. I appreciate that, for whatever reason, they are not represented in the heads of the Bill, but I would be interested in the delegates' opinions on the progress made to date. Some have knowledge of it.

On what proposals?

The plans for the south east. It is a commitment in the programme for Government.

I thank the delegates for their contributions, most of which I was able to watch on the monitor in my office. I seek clarification on the plans for the south east, as referred to by Deputy Jim Daly and Senator Hildegarde Naughton. In terms of higher education, access is the main issue for my constituents. We need to consider how the country will move forward. What can we do immediately on that front? A loan scheme has been mentioned. What are our guests' opinion on same? Has any of them encountered problems with emigrants who want to return to Ireland but, as a result of not being resident in the State for a time, do not qualify for free fees? I encountered this issue recently, given the demographic shifts which occurred in the past few years. A large cohort of emigrants want to come home, but they find themselves locked out of the "free" education system.

Speaking colloquially as a Kerryman, we see major potential for the development of a technical university in the south west, incorporating IT Tralee. What is the realistic timeframe for rolling out the technological university system?

Senator David Cullinane referenced a matter that I wish to address, namely, the academic council and its place in the Bill. Professor Norton and Mr. Hannigan mentioned this issue in their initial contributions. Will they elaborate on it? Mr. Boland might also comment on how the council would work, given the reservations of the institutes of technology sector.

Does Mr. Boland wish to address any of the questions that have been raised?

Mr. Tom Boland

I hope I can do justice to some of them. One of the underpinning themes is funding of the system. It is the Higher Education Authority's opinion that the current funding approach to higher education is unsustainable and that the creation of new universities must be undertaken in the context of a sustainable funding system for the sector as a whole. An impression may have been given that the Minister and his Department are blind to the difficulties. I am well aware that they are not. Although the funding structure will remain in place until the end of 2015, the HEA is working with the Department on developing a process and, ultimately, proposals around how higher education can be funded in the future. It is a complex issue and I will not attempt to second guess the outcome today, but the Minister and his Department are alert to the issue and it is being addressed.

Regarding levels 6 and 7, it is essential that we maintain a highly diverse higher education system. One reason for the reform programme was a concern about the homogenisation of higher education and mission drift. We have new mechanisms to safeguard against them. We have clear profiles for the institutions and how they comprise the system as a whole. In our discussions with them about creating compacts or individual agreements with them we will always have the national need in mind. Through that process and our funding, we can ensure the level of provision from levels 6 to 10, inclusive, that society and the economy need. As Mr. Hannigan stated, the institutes are not walking away from levels 6 and 7. We can be reasonably confident of dealing with the matter.

The HEA has advised the Minister on what the criteria for technological universities should be. He has accepted these, although none is set down in legislation. It would not be appropriate to do so. I understand the criteria for technological universities will be fleshed out in regulations. By and large, I expect them to reflect the criteria recommended by the HEA. The heads provide for this: "Regulations made under subsection (1) may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of those regulations". I do not want to speak for the Minister, but the criteria fleshed out in the regulations will be close to the HEA's recommendations.

Senator David Cullinane raised an issue of engagement with the education and training boards, ETBs. A significant part of the structural reform we are putting in place is the development of regional clusters of institutions, in the first instance universities and institutes of technology. We see these clusters engaging with other aspects of the education system, particularly further education, as managed by the ETBs. This will be a way to join the totality of post-second level education with how it interacts with regional societies and economies. This is important.

I wish to comment on the subject of student representation. I had occasion - I believe it was last Monday week, but I am unsure - at the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, congress to address this issue. It is firmly the view of the HEA that students should be represented in all of the decision-making fora of higher education institutions, not just on the basis of sufferance, grace and favour, but also on the basis that they have a legal right to be present. In good governance structures all company directors and governors should have an equal voice and be given the opportunity to express themselves. We strongly support the USI's opinion on the appropriate involvement of students in appropriate numbers in all of the decision-making systems of higher education institutions.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames asked what would be different about the student experience in a technological university as against in an institute of technology. I will quickly cite our explanatory memorandum on the criteria. In considering Ireland's future economic development and the contribution of higher education there is a particular need to ensure economic development is supported and fostered by active, enterprise-oriented and university level institutions. This requires that the disciplines offered, the pedagogy employed and the research undertaken all be underpinned in a deliberate and strategic way by active and focused engagement with enterprise and technological industries. While such an entity could be formed from existing universities, a university designated with this specific mission provides the opportunity to place this mission at the heart of the university system rather than relying on traditional universities to alter their courses incrementally over a longer period. The key objective is greater speed in introducing to university level a strong enterprise focus in disciplines and research. That is what a student will experience.

The question of early drop-outs was raised. I am sure the Senator accepts that there will always be some level of dropping out, as there are no guarantees. By international standards, our level is low. Approximately 80% of students complete their courses in the university sector and slightly fewer in the institutes sector. This is positive. There are issues, but they are not being ignored. Mr. Costello mentioned the transition agenda. The idea of broader entry and giving students an opportunity to reflect for some months before they specialise in particular areas can help them to be more certain about what they are doing. Mr. Costello also referred to the current funding problems.

The Higher Education Authority is seeing an increase in drop-out in some areas. It is fair to assume that this is related to funding difficulties in the institutions which simply do not have the resources to provide the type of student supports that would be necessary to assist the academically weaker students.

On the south east, I do not want to comment on any particular application for TU. However, the timeframe and creation of any technological university is in the hands of the institutions. This requires leadership, trust and collaboration. All of these things are necessary. That said, the HEA is not a disinterested bystander in all of this. In the event of our identifying that institutions are having difficulty in this space, we would be prepared to intervene appropriately. In the first instance, this is very much down to the institutions concerned. By and large, we are seeing creative and proactive engagement by the institutions in this space.

Thank you. Would Mr. MacGabhann like to respond to some of the questions?

Mr. John MacGabhann

With the chair's permission I will respond to the questions without necessarily identifying from where they came. First, I want to endorse what has been said in regard to levels 6 and 7. They are absolutely critical, including on a democratic basis. There are a significant number of adults who wish to return to learning but do not have the prior academic achievement that would allow them go directly to level 8. These people are located in the regions as well as in the larger urban areas. We are quite likely now to revisit history in the short term in terms of our once more having a deficit of skilled trades persons because we have not put in place at a sufficient level a floor under the collapse that has occurred in the apprenticeship model. It is vital for economic sustainability that we put in place a floor and that we maintain it. This will have to be done regionally.

Senator Healy Eames asked what the difference would be between a level 8 provided by one institution versus another. I do not mean to be glib but there should not be any significant difference in that regard. The QQI mandates a particular level-----

It is claimed there is a difference.

Mr. John MacGabhann

I do not believe so. There may be a difference in terms of scale. Professor Norton referred to the economies and facilities that scale may provide. I would be exceedingly worried if there were a material difference in qualitative terms between a level 8 provided by one institution and another.

On the question of access and attrition, it must be borne in mind, and this links into funding as well, that what is at issue is not only the numbers currently in third level but the average of 60% proceeding to third level year on year. We are facing a demographic bulge that is working its way through primary and into post-primary level. Any planning that must be done must be for numbers significantly in excess of current numbers.

On funding, the TUI believes that the battle in this regard has been already lost. The political system needs to prioritise funding for third level. It has not done so to the extent required. It has instead relied on the relatively soft belief that one can transfer to private funding. Private funding in the Irish context means fees for the student. We do not have significant philanthropic availability in this area. In any event, it is unlikely to have hugely burgeoned in recent times. The TUI has previously suggested that those who are beneficiaries and can afford part of the burden should be taxed with the provision of funding. By this I mean those industries which through a liberal rate of corporation tax benefit most from the graduates who are supplied by our universities and institutions. We have previously suggested that a modest levy of, perhaps, 1% should apply in addition to the corporation tax, specifically for transfer to the funding of third level. We see no moral or practical reason this could not work.

In regard to retention, inescapably it is the case that at levels 6 and 7 and, perhaps to a degree at level 8, the absence of the more individualised style of provision which the learner needs, which is caused by an attrition in terms of staff and increasing pupil numbers, has an affect on the ability of the student to complete and the ability of the institute to support completion. I would like now to return to a matter not yet raised. Anybody who believes that deregulation of human relations functions, which essentially means deregulation and the dismantling of industrial relations agreements, is the way forward either in the short or medium term is pressing the wrong button because the group quintessentially at the heart of any progress in this regard is the academic cohort, namely, the staff. One cannot effect the changes that are sought without the allied and enthusiastic involvement of the academic staff. I know only too well that academic staff are notoriously difficult to coerce. They are not likely to become any more easy to coerce as time goes on.

Thank you. Would Mr. Donohoe like to comment?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

On the question regarding quality, I would not like to give the impression that I was critiquing the quality of third level output. I was in my earlier remarks commenting on the heads of the Bill and the absence therein of any commentary around the validation, monitoring or reviewing of programmes. I would like now to comment on quality in general and on business perception around it because commentary around this issue is often fairly lazy.

When IBEC raises the issue of quality with companies, which it does on a fairly regular basis, 75% say they are satisfied with the quality of outputs from Irish higher education. Whether or not that percentage is positive or negative, it has been remarkably consistent. This should not be confused with some of the commentary one hears about specific skills deficits, particularly around ICT and engineering. That we are experiencing particular skills deficits does not mean third level is broken.

The other aspect of quality which IBEC emphasises is that of employability. This also pertains to technological universities. Again, slightly nebulous but very important are the skills, learning and attributes that graduates will require in the workplace. Why do we put emphasis on this? First, as they are likely to be in multiple careers, flexibility and learning to learn, which is probably the most powerful thing which higher education experience can give a person, is important because they will have to continue to reinvent themselves. Careers are typically much shorter now. Business is changing at such a rapid rate we cannot even forecast the types of occupations that are likely to exist in the next 20 years. What is important are the attributes and skills developed for young people to survive in this world, which we can just about begin to imagine. I recently read a report from the UK Skills Commission which speculated about the types of jobs that will exist in 2030, one of which is the occupation of ethical hacker. When sitting next to IBM's university engagement manager recently at a conference, I raised this issue with her and she told me IBM has an ethical hacking division.

In regard to what quality would look like for the technological university, flexible learning pathways are important. I do not wish to repeat what has been said regarding levels 6 and 7 but they are very important.

Related to that, a piece of work was carried out to review apprenticeships. I am not sure if the committee members had a chance to look at it, but it is potentially very interesting and links into the role of the TU because it posits the notion of advanced apprenticeships from level 5 to level 10. It fits into the idea of professionally ready graduates, which is at the root of quality as well. It is about the delivery of regional and national economic objectives and high quality occupational training. As Tom Boland said, this defining enterprise engagement piece is what quality will look like within the TU. It provides an alternative to the gold plated standard of the BA honours, to which too many families appear to aspire. Ultimately, some of the young people who go through these educational experiences might not get the jobs they had hoped to get. Again, the closeness of the TU to enterprise will, one hopes, make them qualified in the jobs that are more likely to be available in the labour markets.

With regard to the idea of levying multinationals, it is not something on which I would be jumping up and down, so to speak. Not only does higher education provide staff for these multinationals, the multinationals provide well paid, highly rewarding careers for their employees and a livelihood for their families. However, there is a point to be made regarding funding. Some universities get 50% of their funding from non-State sources. That raises issues around governance and deregulation of autonomy because they are functioning in an international market that is highly competitive. If we constrain them too much, they will be unable to do that. That is not to suggest that education is some type of commodity or to get into that debate, but that is the reality of these institutions. If the TU is of the scale we hope it will be, that will be the market it will compete in as well for research and talent.

Dr. Padraig Walsh

With regard to the comment by Senator Healy Eames about the level 8 programmes, we would not expect, and we would be concerned if there was, a difference in the quality of people emerging as graduates of programmes at the same level. The Senator referred to mechanical engineering in particular. On a worldwide basis one probably would not see much difference in the academic programmes people would develop within mechanical engineering. It is also a professionally regulated programme, including at European level. The experiences students might have in different institutions could be different.

The point Professor Norton made about the ability of a technological university to offer programmes across the range is one of the big distinctions. One could have a comprehensive offering across the range between level 6 and level 10. Currently it is quite difficult to see institutions doing that. The university sector will largely offer between levels 8 and 10. Although there are level 10 awards in a number of the institutes of technology, they tend to be to relatively small numbers of students. One of the things that has come out of this Bill in the criteria and in the national strategy is that there is no movement from an institute of technology in its current form to a technological university without amalgamation. The concept of critical mass is part of the national strategy and the national landscape. There is a recognition that if one wishes to offer that, there is a protection in size. There are levels below which, particularly in technological areas, it is very difficult to offer the necessary comprehensiveness. That is one of the things that is permitted within this.

As well as this Bill, we are doing all this in the context of a changing national landscape. The issue of regional clusters is very important. There is a comprehensive examination of that and the ability to move from further education into higher education. One of the dangers people have mentioned here is the difficulty of people coming in unprepared or unsure. Broadening entry might facilitate a greater chance for people not to make errors in their choice as they go in. One of the advantages of having comprehensive offerings across levels 6 to 10, and this might be where the Senator might see a difference in the mechanical engineering graduate, is that it is likely that in a traditional university that person will have come through from leaving certificate in school, whereas in the current institute of technology sector, and it would still be permitted within the technological university, there is the ladder effect of certain people coming in at level 6 and progressing to levels 7 and 8, and people who either do not progress or do not need to progress can find satisfying careers without having made the mistake of coming in on a level 8 programme and then dropping out.

With regard to the drop-out rates, a significant number of people, perhaps 10%, drop out in the sector. I work a great deal in the European area and there are many countries that are extremely envious of the persistence and completion rates we have in Ireland. We have a very high completion rate, which is testimony to the high quality offering from our higher education institutions.

I wish to make a few points before calling Senator Healy Eames. One relates to the point Mr. Tony Donohoe made about apprenticeship education. I worked in the student registrations section of Dublin Institute of Technology in Bolton Street many years ago. A student there who was doing a postgraduate course had started out in Bolton Street as an apprentice. He then did a night course and completed a certificate and diploma. He then studied full-time, got his degree and went into a postgraduate course. That is the way our education system should be and I hope the new technological universities will retain that. The institutes of technology, including DIT, are particularly good in that regard. Perhaps Professor Norton would discuss the role of apprenticeship and how he envisages that in his vision for the future.

The second issue is fees. Is the funding available to establish these new technological universities? Is there a need for extra funding for that? That is one issue, and there is also the issue of funding in general. My view is that we must bury the idea that tuition fees would be reintroduced and work from the assumption that they will not. Then people should knock their heads together about that. What is stalling the debate is this prospect or hope, which some people have, that there might be fees or loans, as Deputy Griffin suggests. I believe it is stalling a proper look at the issue. That is probably a political point.

The Association of County and City Councils made a submission about the need for democratic representation on the new boards for the technological universities. I agree with that. It is already in the system and councillors would represent the communities. Does anybody have a view on that aspect? It is something the committee will examine in its report. Does anybody wish to comment on the issue of social inclusion? Is that a very important element and should it be addressed in the legislation? Are there any gaps in the legislation that must be filled? We can make recommendations on that in our report, which we will produce shortly.

Finally, there is a political point. Mr. John MacGabhann's point about level 8 being the same in all institutions is very valid, but would he not say the same for the junior certificate, FETAC level 3? One of the arguments against the junior certificate reforms is that there would be different standards in different schools. Could one not make the same argument in that regard?

I thank the witnesses for their responses, which were very helpful. I have some follow-up questions on the points made. One of the witnesses mentioned a transitions project being considered to aid retention in third level. I am delighted to hear about that. When will that happen? This ties in with the response Professor Norton gave about the flexibility envisaged in the new TU model. Does he envisage an opportunity if a student makes a poor choice? Even though our retention levels are supposed to be comparatively good, it has a desperate impact on families when the student withdraws in January.

The number of children I know in this position is immense. It is almost taken as a norm but I do not see it as a norm. Will the new TU model create opportunities? Can a student who realises by Christmas that he or she has made the wrong choice get an opportunity in January to join his or her new and preferred course with guidance in-house? Why must students wait until the following year if the model is flexible? The matter was considered before when we looked at a more modular approach to education.

With regard to the funding deficit, it was stated that one of the first things that could be done is reinstate the €25 million that was cut. That leads me to my initial argument that if third level supported second level, the €25 million cut could easily be made up by the State not having to fund the cost of early drop-outs which cost more money than we have acknowledged. Mr. Boland may have the figure I seek. How much does the State invest in students who drop out every year? What is the average cost per year, which he puts into his reports, to allow for early drop out?

Mr. Tom Boland

I do not have the figure with me but I can see if we can get it for the Senator.

That information would be helpful. I believe that third level should work with second level by investing in career guidance. We know there is a pull on funding in that area but there is quite a strong argument to support the idea that the function of second level is to serve third level. What has third level education given back to second level students and their families to ensure they make better choices early? Such an initiative would help families, particularly the ones who are at the pin of their collar, a fact acknowledged by Mr. Hannigan. The initiative would help the State as well as the student's experience. We must not forget the impact it would have on a student.

I have a question on the quality of lecturers, a matter on which I am sure all the delegations will have something to say. I was a lecturer in a third level institution for a period. As I see it, a lecturer plays a role in teaching and research and connects town with gown. Some lecturers are brilliant at one area but not so good in another, and rarely one can find a lecturer who combines all three roles well. Should the technological universities Bill have a requirement that lecturers can combine all three roles? Should we have a minimum requirement? We want and need elite institutions. We also want a quality third level education system. Do the delegations agree that a lecturer should have a combination of all three skills?

I am anxious to hear views on access for returning emigrants.

I want to hear about elected councils.

I will start with Professor Norton again.

Professor Brian Norton

The access issue is very important. An anecdote relating to the DIT was given, so I will give an example. With philanthropy we have provided access programmes and mature access programmes. People have progressed from those programmes and studied all of the way through to PhD level. What is interesting is that the retention of such students is greater than for student numbers in bulk. Therefore, we know that with appropriate tailored interventions for students, one can get very successful achievements.

The cost of higher education is a problem for a variety of student groups who do not meet a particular criterion. Returning people, children of recent migrants, and so on are an issue in this category. I do not know what the actual data would say but it is our experience that such people tend to study part-time. Another issue is the availability of part-time education and its provision. They work to provide the fees which are lower for part-time courses. There may be a whole separate issue, perhaps separate from this legislation. However, one needs to look at how such education is funded and the scale of the issue, but it is sufficient right now.

The Chair asked about the apprenticeship system. Mr. Donohoe was very modest earlier but he is part of the group that looked at a review of apprenticeships so he can speak a lot about the matter. There are a number of key things about apprenticeships. First, apprenticeships need to be ranked at a proper level in the system. They have been out of the system but they should be at levels 6 and 7 in the system. Second, apprenticeships should cover a range of levels and be much broader. Apprentices should be able to graduate from levels 6 or 7 and work all the way up to level 10. Apprenticeships should no longer be confined to a large amount of the construction and engineering disciplines and should cover a much broader range of disciplines. Third, the taught component needs to be credit bearing on the qualifications framework. That means if people lose their employment, which has happened recently in the construction sector, they should be able to bring their credit to other programmes.

The system would be improved with those kinds of changes. Perhaps a type of Schoolsnet funding model would bring employers into funding the systems. All those measures would go some way to addressing the TUI's concerns. If employers are proactive in funding the system, they may begin to address a future apprenticeship model that works and is sustainable from the student and institutional perspectives.

With regard to the issue of democratic representation, I will speak specifically about the Dublin Technological University Alliance. We are very concerned in moving from an institution that is very much rooted in the city centre, Tallaght and Blanchardstown, that we do not lose that which is critically important. We want it to continue to serve those areas. We think local representation is important, which links back to an issue we have with the academic council. The legislation, as constructed at present, has a merger stage, but it does not reconstruct the academic council to be representative of those constituent groups.

The Irish Taxation Institute has other issues with the role of the academic council which I will not dwell on too much but will single out the issues. We are less concerned about it because a successful academic institution needs many of its dimensions to work in harmony. The dimensions that must work going forward are: collegial harmony both from colleagues' and students' perspectives; the Government's perspective regarding governance, accountability and so on; management of the enterprise; the proper use of resources; and the industrial relations context. Legislation needs to be constructed in a way that ensures there is that kind of shared governance.

With regard to the issue of teachers, lecturers and so on, I have had the honour to be President for nearly 11 years in an IT context. When I joined, it was a requirement that all newly joined members of staff obtained a qualification in third level teaching and learning. It has always been the case that progression from assistant lecturer to lecturer required a balanced approach in terms of submitted contributions to teaching, research and public service. I reassure the Senator that a huge majority of our staff, following a rigorous process, passed that bar.

Mr. Paul Hannigan

I will respond to a few issues and Mr. Costello will go into more detail. There is a real issue about how we deal with people who have emigrated from Ireland but want to get back onto programmes here. We need to find a solution and Mr. Costello has suggestions that can help.

In terms of the academic council, it is important to note Professor Norton's comment that we must strike a balance between governance, management and the academic council. At the moment the council seems to have a different role than it currently has within institutes of technology. In the context of what Dr. Walsh said, we are very conscious of the important role that academic councils play, particularly in the quality assurance area. We want that maintained because we think the relationship works quite well at the moment and it is a case of trying to retain and build on what we have.

In the context of the overall situation, mention was made of taking the fees issue off the table. However, fees matter to students who want to go to an institute of technology or university. They feel that they already make substantial contributions through fees which will increase over the next few years. From a student perspective, they already pay for the service.

We must look at how that is addressed in the overall funding situation. We are looking at the development of lecturers in the context of an overall institutional contribution to the region in which we operate. Three roles were mentioned and any institution will see itself as trying to develop in all of those areas. We can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the staff that are appropriate to address the issues concerned. That is how it works. There is good engagement from the lecturing staff in the context of community engagement with the regional perspective at institutes of technology.

Can I come in on that point?

No, we must be out of this room in ten minutes.

Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick

Senator Healy Eames asked me for my perspective on dropouts. The worst-case scenario involves a student identifying two courses with a similar name and outlook in the prospectus and choosing the wrong one. The course ends up being completely different from what the student expected. We have run campaigns highlighting 31 October as the date for saving free fees. The date was not well advertised. Students engaging in this kind of conversation should be seen as a positive thing. It is a problem for the system rather than individual higher education institutions. The feedback from fees and income officers and guidance counsellors is the same, that the system is unfair on students and on higher education institutions. It is a big decision to drop out of college but the system does not allow it to be seen as a positive step. People get into college and are going through inductions and getting used to life in college when, all of a sudden, it is early November and they have not thought about dropping out. I point to the system in that regard but otherwise I will stop.

Should there be a later date?

Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick

A later date, more information and more of an effort at second level to ensure students understand the choices they are making. What is the motivation for certain choices? Is it coming from family pressure or economically driven decisions? There are a number of reasons that a student may make the incorrect choice. There are systemic problems rather than individual problems with higher education institutions.

Mr. Tom Boland

I will be brief. On the issue of councillors, raised by the Chairman, there is an issue of engaging the key stakeholders when considering the composition of governing boards. There is also an issue of ensuring we have people with the competences needed. Increasingly, governance of complex institutions requires more boards that are highly accountable and have the skills needed. My sense is that the balance in the legislation is good and there is nothing in it that would prevent councillors being engaged through other processes. A competency based approach to governing bodies is a sound one.

With regard to transitions, members can expect a statement from the Minister within days about good progress in that space. The point about the different roles of an academic and different workload allocation and how it applies in the context of technological universities, the last criterion the HEA advised the Minister on in respect of technological universities was that workload practices and employment contracts must be reflective of a modern university including, inter alia, the flexibility of delivery of programmes for diverse learner groups, the length and structure of the academic year, the efficient utilisation of the institutions' physical resources and other infrastructure. It is a matter to be addressed specifically in the context of the development of technological universities.

Mr. Ned Costello

Two issues arise in respect of the question from Deputy Griffin about returning migrants. The first concerns people who are abroad who want to send their children to Irish universities and the second is the people who have come back. Both matters centre on the residency requirement to be eligible for the so-called free fees scheme, which involves being tax resident for three of the past five years. We have not seen a major indication of a problem but it is hard to know whether the rules do not allow the demand to be manifest. We are anxious to examine it and the Minister has raised it. The challenge will be twofold, the first of which is to ensure we can do something without a significant leakage of revenue because the regime must apply throughout the EEA. The second issue is one of cost and revenue and where the money will come from. This nests within the bigger funding issue but it is a matter I am about to write formally to Mr. Tom Boland about to start engagement.

I welcome that. I take the point that this has not manifested itself as a problem because of how the system is set up. From speaking to people on Facebook who have been forced to emigrate, this is primarily people who have emigrated rather than second-generation immigrants.. They feel they cannot come back because they are locked out.

Mr. Ned Costello

It is an issue we are happy to take up.

Mr. John MacGabhann

The Chairman asked if there were gaps and the one we have identified is the transfer of undertakings. It is a declaration of war if there is any suggestion, as Mr. Tom Boland has made, that they should be scrapping contracts. That will not happen. There was one issue he omitted in his description of the system, which is the enormous workload on the lecturing cohort in the institutes of technology. It is abnormally high by any comparison, particularly international comparisons. It is an impediment to the institute of technology sector in progressing towards technological university status. It throws out of kilter the balance sought by Senator Healy Eames between research, work with community and teaching.

I will not address the junior cycle, which is a separate debate. I am happy not to address it if the members are happy not to hear me address it. Under the noses of the political system, there is attrition through the employment control framework each year. It is going on unremarked and there is a withholding tax the HEA is proposing to apply to the residual funding available. The withholding tax, for the attainment of particular national objectives, is arbitrary to say the least and is certainly not welcome in straitened circumstances.

On the question of collegiality, the academic council is critical. I echo the comments of Professor Brian Norton. The problem is not with the academic council but the absence of a structure that is adequate in terms of merged entities. We must ensure the engagement required with the academic workforce is ever present. I also endorse what has been said on behalf of the students. There should be full engagement with the student body as citizenry.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

Most of the questions were not directed into my area of competence. The Chairman presented a compelling portrait of the Bolton Street apprentice. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the model proposed, it offers the potential to turn that into reality. We would appreciate any fair wind the committee can give it by interrogating, exploring and discussing the model. With regard to democratic representation and without wishing to sound anti-democratic, I urge a word of caution and point out that in most modern universities there are tighter competency-based structures. Our submission refers to the Danish model. The suggestion of 20 members for the governing body is too large for efficient decision-making. We suggest between 11 and 15 because it is important the governing body can manage and is not a collection of representative interests.

That is not its function. The structure should exist for the academy to reach out to the town but the governing body is not the place, nor is the academic council, which should really sit as an advisory body and have competence in the areas where it works, such as quality assurance, academic programmes, etc.

Mr. Padraig Walsh

I will make two points on transitions, although Mr. Boland has largely referred to them already. The broadening of entry routes may assist in stopping people from making poor choices. This would require more flexibility within the higher education system for people to move around. We must be careful, however, not to go down the route other countries have gone, such as the United States, where people can spend years trying to find a major and where there are far more significant dropout rates. It must be managed carefully in this regard.

That concludes our hearing today. I thank everyone because it has been a good discussion. We will examine all the transcripts and submissions since not everyone was before the committee today to make a presentation. We will examine the matter in its entirety. We will then compile a report and we will be in touch with you when it is finished. Thank you again for your input. The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow when we will examine our report.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 17 April 2014.
Top
Share