I welcome the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. Amendment No. 1, in the name of Senator Sean D. Barrett, is related to amendment No. 11. They may be discussed together.
Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Committee Stage
SECTION 1
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:
" "education provider" means for the purposes of this legislation an educational institution in the State which provides a programme of education and training at levels 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the National Qualifications Framework;".
I welcome Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and believe this is her first visit to the House as Minister. I noted that she was interviewed for the current edition of The University Times. In the interview, she reminisces about her time in Trinity College Dublin and says she was there with people such as Brendan Kennelly, Eiléan Ní Chuilleanáin, Owen Sheehy Skeffington and Senator David Norris. It is, therefore, a reunion this afternoon. The Minister stated:
... it was genuinely a very formative experience in terms of opening my eyes to a world that I wouldn’t otherwise, I think, have realised. A world of ideas, a world of your right to question things and I think that really was a positive experience.
At the end of the interview, she wondered whether we should "ease off the academic pressure a little bit and give more time for students to talk about ideas." The Minister is very welcome.
The amendments in my name support the Bill and are proposed in the spirit of being useful in bringing the Bill forward. Amendments Nos. 1 and 11 are grouped together, which I welcome. The issue is the wish of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, an eminent institution founded 230 years ago in 1784, to use the title "university" outside the country. I appreciate that is its wish. Certainly, its international educational standards support that. It is the largest medical school in Ireland and has approximately 3,000 students, approximately 80% of whom are from outside the European Union. The organisation has built up the reputation and status whose promotion is the object of this legislation. In passing, one would wonder about the need of the institution to call itself a university for some purposes and not for others. I looked up the top 17 universities in the world and noted approximately half do not use the title "university". An example is Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Oxford and Cambridge are primarily based on colleges. There is also the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
The Sorbonne.
King's College London is ranked No. 16. Also listed is the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Therefore, I am somewhat sceptical about the fixation with titles, although not to the extent of opposing the proposal.
As the Minister was queried about in her interview, TCD had a rather strange fixation with titles during the year.
My starting point would be that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland does have this level of attainment and accomplishment. Can the Bill strengthen this? Do we strengthen the Minister's hand in case people who are not as distinguished, qualified or eminent find loopholes in this Bill? If somebody sets up the "Trinity Economics University", it will be very difficult to prevent that damaging the high standing that Irish higher education has. That is the spirit in promoting the intention behind this Bill and the reason I tabled my amendments.
Under amendment No. 1, "education provider" in the Bill is a person in the State who provides a programme of education and training. The amendment we have put down states that, " "education provider” means for the purposes of this legislation an educational institution in the State which provides a programme of education and training at levels 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the National Qualifications Framework;". In other words, the work we are doing, the work the Minister is doing and the work her Department is doing warrant a stronger definition than the one in the Bill. That is why I have tabled amendment No. 1 and propose it to the House in that spirit.
I strongly support Senator Sean D. Barrett's amendment. I support the general thrust of what he said - his general remarks about the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and so on - but I think we will come to it a little later. The definitions given under the interpretation section by the Government in this Bill are quite extraordinarily lax and flabby. "Education provider" means a person in the State who provides a programme of education and training - a person, an individual. That is daft. This could include the couple who are entangled with the State because they are providing education at home for their children. It is so broad that it covers everything. This Bill is not dealing with persons, rather it is dealing with institutions, and I think the institution should be included in the definition. The provider is not a person. The provider is an institution. I urge the Minister to take this on board.
The Minister's amendment No. 11 begs the question of when a university is not a university. Apparently, it depends on where one is standing when one is looking at it. If one is standing on the Continent of Europe and looking at something, it is a university from Europe but yet it is not a university in Ireland. That is mad also. I cannot really see why an education provider which is granted a university authorisation under this section cannot describe itself or cause itself to be described as a university other than outside the State or for a specified purpose. This is not Doctor Who and the Tardis. Can an institution suddenly become a university for a specified purpose? I do not think so - certainly not a terribly reputable one. I have difficulties with amendment No. 11 for those reasons, but I strongly support Senator Sean D. Barrett in his aim of tightening up the definitions in this legislation.
I begin by welcoming the Minister. I think it is the first time she has been here for an education debate since her appointment and I wish her all the best in her work. If the section relating to institutions marketing themselves as universities outside Ireland but not within the State is to remain, certainly the changes need to be made as suggested by Senator Sean D. Barrett. Like Senator David Norris, I also have concerns about that aspect of the Bill. I have serious reservations about it because the Bill sets a precedent in terms of radically changing the existing system we have of restricting for good reason and safeguarding the use of the title of "university".
The reason we have such a strict system for protecting the title is to protect the reputation of the education system both at home and abroad and to make sure we do not end up in the same position as the United Kingdom a few years ago where any college could call itself a university. I appreciate the legislation is clearly designed to address the concerns of one institution and it is restricted in that respect but I wonder whether this is the best approach to dealing with the issue.
While the Bill is not entitled the RCSI (amendment) Bill, it is designed to address the concerns of the RCSI, an institution which is not designated a university under section 4 of the Universities Act and which, because of section 52 of that Act, is restricted from using the title "university" within the State. I have sympathy for the RCSI's position when it is marketing itself abroad. Nobody could have a query about the high quality of the medical education provided by the college both to domestic and foreign students and the educational component of what they provide abroad. While I have no concerns about the educational aspect of its training, it would be better if we were open and honest about the purpose of the legislation. On the previous occasion it was taken in the House, I was away on business. I had just left when I received a schedule which referred to the legislation. The Bill had not been published and I had no idea what it was about but it was debated in the House three or four days later. It is incredibly important legislation and the way it has been approached in the context of how it was introduced in the House has not been helpful. It would have been better if it had been made clear from the beginning that it was designed to address a particular concern of the RCSI and we could have had a proper discussion on the best way to address this.
My main concern about permitting an institution to call itself a university abroad and not here is it looks duplicitous. There is something fundamentally disingenuous about telling prospective students one thing abroad, enticing them here on that basis and then them finding out something else when they get here. It is wrong and misguided. I accept that the college has concerns. Many of our institutions face difficulties when marketing themselves abroad because any two-bit institution in the United Kingdom can call itself a university and our finest institutes of technology, the RCSI and other institutions that provide top class education cannot. Is this the best way of addressing that? It might be better instead if we considered whether we should call the RCSI a medical university both at home and abroad and accept the fact it will never be a university because it does not provide the broad, interdisciplinary education one expects from one. It would never, therefore, aspire as an institution to that title. However, it provides top class medical education and, therefore, instead of selling a double message at home and abroad, which could be considered duplicitous, we should consider whether the RCSI should be called a medical university both at home and abroad. That would be a better approach. As part of that, any institution that wants to use the title "university" would have to have in place the governance structures expected of TCD, UCD and other universities. Let us have one system that is fair and transparent.
I have serious concerns about what is proposed. I accept there is an issue in the context of institutions marketing themselves abroad. Perhaps a better way to address that would be to ramp up the activities of Education in Ireland. In 2010, the previous Government set out a strategy, Investing in Global Relationships, Ireland's International Education Strategy 2010-2015. Some of that remains aspirational. Perhaps we need a greater emphasis on this and putting more resources into attracting international students here. It in an area in which there is massive potential both in the context of revenue for our institutions in the short term but also in the context of longer-term benefits for the economy through having a network of well educated people across the world who were educated in Ireland and who have an affinity with the country to whom we can reach out when building other business, cultural and economic links into the future. I would do anything to help our institutions to compete globally and attract students here, but I caution that we need to do it in the right way and the hallmark of everything we do needs to be quality and consistency and making sure Irish education is seen as a leader globally.
I wonder if the approach of allowing an institution to use one title abroad and another at home offers the best way to do it. It is a little dodgy and not the best way of approaching the issue. However, I am happy to work with the Minister in finding a better way to approach it and thus address the concerns of the institution concerned, as well as other institutions in terms of how they market themselves abroad. I am sure the Dublin Institute of Technology, Waterford Institute of Technology and other institutes of technology encounter similar issues when competing with institutions that call themselves universities but do not provide an education anywhere near the standard provided here. It is a big issue which we should perhaps address in a better way.
It raises the issue of Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, which is close to university accreditation and a fine institution. I would see it as a further example that needs to be looked at. I understand much of the impetus comes from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, in terms of how it is marketed abroad. I believe its marketing has been remarkably successful in that it is always full and has plenty of students. What is it worried about? In any advertisement it can certainly demonstrate its standing in a way that makes it clear where it stands.
I thank Senators for their words of welcome. This is the first education Bill I have dealt with as Minister for Education and Skills. I am delighted to be in the Seanad to take Committee Stage of the Bill which, as Members know, was introduced by my colleague, the former Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. My previous engagement with the Seanad was good and I look forward to the many fine debates we will have on education.
The Bill primarily addresses the title of a university outside the State. It also addresses issues to do with student support and further education and what information can be provided on schools. I will deal, first, with the general points raised.
I thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for his remarks about the interview, but I have not yet read the transcript of it. I recall giving the interview, but I cannot recall what I said. I hope it was positive. I know that I mentioned Senator David Norris as one of the fine people lecturing in Trinity College Dublin.
There were some general points made about the Bill. I know that Senator Sean D. Barrett has tabled a number of amendments and engaged constructively on the Bill. I look forward to dealing with other issues, including, as raised by Senator David Norris in later amendments, the use of the word "person".
On the matter of international education and the issues raised by Senators Averil Power and David Norris, the Bill provides a narrow definition of what can be incorporated and the type of institution that can use the term "university" outside the State. The Government's amendment seeks to ensure greater clarity in order that the description cannot be used inside the State. Senator Averil Power asked why one would use one description inside the State and another outside it. It is specifically to address the issue of international education and the opportunities provided for the country. There is wide engagement by universities and institutes of technology outside the State and Europe on the huge opportunities presented. Also involved in that engagement, as pointed out by others, is the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland which it is intended will benefit from this legislation.
I will try to address the issue relating to Waterford Institute of Technology. The technological universities Bill will proceed separately from this legislation.
Will it give recognition to WIT?
It will present an opportunity for that to happen.
A number of consortiums are putting forward proposals on a technological university. I am probably straying outside the scope of the Bill. For this legislation, one of the criteria is that at least 40% of the provider's student enrolment in the State must comprise students from outside the European Union who are lawfully in the State primarily to receive education and training. The intention is purely regarding institutions for which at least 40% of their students come from outside the State; the Bill is not intended to deal with institutions such as WIT.
Regarding amendment No. 1, it is my preference not to specify particular levels on the National Framework of Qualifications, as individual levels are not specified in the legislation governing the use of the framework and they could change. What we call level 8 could be called by another name in the future; therefore, specifying the levels in a piece of primary legislation is not the best course of action, particularly as it is not specified in the legislation that established the framework. The definition is consistent with the current body of legislation on qualifications. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 1.
Is the Minister referring to "person"?
No, I refer to Senator Sean D. Barrett's proposal in amendment No. 1 that we specify the level-----
It replaces "person".
We will deal with the reference to "person" later. Amendment No. 1 provides for the amendment of the Bill to state:
“ “education provider” means for the purposes of this legislation an educational institution in the State which provides a programme of education and training at levels 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the National Qualifications Framework;”.
Perhaps the Minister might deal with the use of the word "person".
No, because it comes later. This amendment deals with the levels on the framework, and I do not accept that we should specify levels in the Bill.
It also refers to "person", because it removes "person" and substitutes-----
We will come to it in a later amendment.
I thank the Minister and wish her well again. We will have to revisit this, as there is agreement on both sides that a person could not provide university services. The Minister has said she will deal with it later. Perhaps on Report Stage the reference to "person" will be removed, in whatever formula the Minister has in mind. It is impossible for a person to provide the services of a university.
A person might provide a grind.
Have I got the groupings right? Are we dealing with just amendments Nos. 1 and 11?
Amendment No. 6 refers to "person".
Amendment No. 1 amends a section of the legislation which refers to "person".
Perhaps after we have gone through the other sections where the Minister addresses the issue of "person" we might see if there is something in comments between us. It is accepted that it would not be a person but an institution. We will put it on hold in accordance with the Minister's wish.
The "person" referred to in amendment No. 6 is different. The amendment refers to arrangements entered into "with any person outside the State for the purposes of participating in a collaborative project".
I meant to say amendment No. 8, which proposes to delete “person” and substitute “higher education institution”.
On the Minister's statement on WIT, I accept that this legislation can be used only by one institution, the RCSI. WIT is far from having 40% international students, and no other institution in the country comes anywhere near the figure. In some respects it could be seen as a slap in the face for the institutes of technology, which have been involved in a torturous process over a very long period of time to meet the criteria for designation as technological universities, if that is to happen.
At the same time, the Minister is introducing legislation overnight which allows another institution to adopt the title of university straightaway, without meeting any of these criteria, and with very different governance procedures from those one would expect from any university or institute of technology. That is the point I was trying to make.
I accept that we are in the middle of a global war for talent. Increasingly, this country will be competing not on the basis of corporation tax but on the talent of our own people and those whom we can attract to Ireland to study, undertake research and work here. For that reason, internationalising our education system is a positive thing towards which we should all work. I question, however, whether this approach is the correct one. I do not believe it is.
In this legislation, the Minister refers to herself the power to grant authorisation. That is a wide-sweeping power for somebody like the Minister, who, as I know, has had the benefit of a Trinity education. However, there may be people who do have that who will succeed her as Minister for Education and Skills. There could be corrupt politicians coming in.
We have a situation with English language schools, about half a dozen of which have collapsed in recent times. It does seem that it is a very extensive power to give the Minister. A future Minister could have no university background or any connection with education. He or she could be stuck in by the Taoiseach of the day in order to meet geographical considerations, rather than based on his or her suitability for the job. This happens in politics all the time. It could be a case of granting favours to a friend.
I would be much happier if some body such as the Higher Education Authority could at least be taken into consultation in this process of awarding the right to describe something that is not a university in the country where it is trading as a university abroad. It is a very broad power to give a Minister. I would be quite happy with the current Minister but I cannot predict who all her successors will be in future.
It is not just at the whim of the Minister. There are criteria that such a body would have to fulfil, including that the authority must make awards to at least doctoral degree level. It is, therefore, quite constrained.
Who assesses the quality of the doctoral degree?
It is quite constrained. Ministers have powers to do lots of things but they are within strict parameters. I have no doubt that whoever is Minister for Education and Skills will exercise his or her powers responsibly, but he or she will have to exercise them within the parameters of the legislation. We make lots of legislation across many areas where Ministers have powers, but they have to exercise them within the legislative and constitutional situation in which they operate.
To clarify, amendment No. 8 is the relevant one for that issue.
Senator Sean D. Barrett has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment No. 1. Is that so?
Yes. I was waiting to get to amendment No. 8. In that spirit I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“ “higher education” is defined as education and training provided by a higher education institution at levels 8, 9 and 10 of the National Qualifications Framework;”.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for that lengthy list of instructions with which to comply. Amendment No. 2 seeks to introduce into the interpretation that this is about third level. As Senator David Norris has pointed out, an education provider is defined as somebody who provides a programme of education and training. I am seeking to ensure, as per this amendment, that this is defined as higher education. Otherwise it could be too loose a definition, as the Senator said.
A person could say that he or she was providing a programme of education and training and be given the title, "university", rather strangely and certainly in a departure from the very high standards which the Minister, the Higher Education Authority and the Department, have always upheld. Is there a need to tighten these definitions? The definition of a university is specified under section 4 of the Universities Act.
My colleagues on the Sinn Féin benches have tabled some amendments. My amendment No. 6 proposes the deletion of the references to marketing-----
Hear, hear.
What we seek is the provision of a programme of higher education and training the majority of it provided by the authorised provider. The Bill states, "in whole or in part". I think "in whole" is desirable but, "in part" could be down in single figures. We should require the majority of it to be so provided by the person whom we are licensing in the legislation. Amendment No. 7 is a Government amendment and amendment No. 8 proposes to delete "a person" and to substitute, "a higher education institution". I do not think it is possible for a person to do this.
To continue the sequence I will deal with amendment No. 9.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 to 10, inclusive, are related.
Amendment No. 9 proposes to ensure there is a reference to higher education. Amendment No. 10 is the final amendment in this section.
I will state our proposals more succinctly. Amendment No. 2 proposes a definition of higher education; amendment No. 6 proposes to concentrate on the provision of a programme of education and training and to leave out the reference to marketing and research; and amendment No. 7 is a Government amendment. We have discussed amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 9 refers to higher education; amendment No. 10 proposes that all but definitely the majority of the products should be provided by the person who is being licensed under this legislation.
These amendments attempt to tighten definitions as asked for by the Minister and they are offered in that co-operative spirit.
I support these amendments by my colleague, Senator Sean D. Barrett. Amendment No. 2 gives a clear definition of something of which there is no definition in the Bill, which is extraordinary in a Bill which deals with higher education and gives definitions of an t-Údarás, Appeals Board, authorised provider of education. It even defines the Minister but does not define higher education. That is a gap. Amendment No. 3 proposes that universities be defined as bodies specified under section 4 of the Universities Act 1997. There is no definition of universities but there is a pre-existing definition in primary legislation, in the 1997 Act.
It seems to be perfectly logical and coherent, therefore, to include the definition enshrined in the 1997 Act in this Bill, particularly in the absence of any definition by the Minister.
Amendment No. 6 refers to, "The specified purpose referred to in subsection (1) is to enter into an arrangement with any person outside the State ...". I recommend to Senator Sean D. Barrett that if he is reinstating this amendment for Report Stage, which seems to be the tactic he is adopting, he would include also "person or institution" rather than just leaving it "any person" because having battled against personhood on the one hand, he cannot be seen to be endorsing it too strongly on the other, but I agree with it. I also agree with the idea of removing "marketing". It is a bit crass for a university that it is all about marketing, jobs and so on.
The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, is a very fine institution but it has not distinguished itself in its relationships with states in the Middle East, for example, about which there has been considerable controversy, and its adamant refusal to stand up for its own graduates being persecuted in Bahrain. One would have a number of worries in that regard.
Putting in "higher education institution" and a "majority" of the programme are amendments that tighten the focus of the legislation and I recommend them to the Minister. I will be interested in her comments on the matter, particularly with regard to the question of "person".
To pick up on Senator David Norris's point about the RCSI and its graduates in Bahrain, we have not had an opportunity to discuss that issue directly with the Minister to date, although it was discussed in the education committee some months ago as the college is looking for accreditation from the Irish Medical Council for its programmes in Bahrain. It is an area of considerable reputational risk for Irish education as a whole and I urge the Minister, outside of this legislation, to focus her attention on it and consider the risk for Irish education because it is very serious. There are still RCSI-trained doctors in hospital in Bahrain simply for treating injured protesters. RCSI staff and students have been discriminated against purely on the basis of their faith.
The quality of the RCSI's educational offering is without question in terms of the lectures and so on but the training taking place in hospitals overseas, particularly in Dubai, is questionable. Much of the training is done in militarised hospitals where people have been tortured in the past. That claim was made when we discussed this issue with the Higher Education Committee, HEA, the Medical Council and others in the education committee. The representative from the RCSI denied that torture had ever happened in Bahraini hospitals, even though the independent commission set up by the Bahraini Government has acknowledged that torture did happen in Bahraini hospitals. The human rights environment in which the RCSI is operating is very poor in Bahrain, in particular.
In terms of the training, we would not allow Irish medical students from Trinity College, UCD, the RCSI or any other college train in this State in a hospital where they are not safe and where they would be discriminated against on sectarian grounds or in a hospital where torture has taken place and been condoned by the Government in a health system run by the ministry of defence rather than health officials. There are serious issues to be raised in that regard. I accept that it is a side issue to this debate but as Senator David Norris opened the door for me, I am happy to walk through it and reiterate my concerns in that regard.
It is an issue not just for the RCSI as an institution but also for the reputation of the country in terms of the environments in which our institutions operate, particularly if they carry the stamp of approval from the Department of Education and Skills and are looking for the stamp of approval from the Irish Medical Council to use the term "university". What such institutions do reflects not only on them but on the system as a whole.
As I said, if we want to compete abroad, it has to be on the basis of quality and respect for human rights. It is on the basis of making us a beacon for education and best practice internationally that we will win, not in making short-term decisions to become involved in areas in which education standards are dubious.
I will shamelessly take the opportunity of having the Minister held captive in the Chamber to make a cri de coeur to her in her new capacity as Minister for Education and Skills to seriously examine the structure and number of medical schools in the Republic. To give some background information, in recent years the medical profession in Ireland has done a good job in persuading the rest of the country that we have reached an extraordinary level of international eminence in what we achieve in our medical schools. We have extraordinarily gifted nurses and doctors who have done the country proud when they have gone abroad. They have acted as unpaid reputational ambassadors for the quality of education they received. However, one sometimes has to ask whether this has occurred in spite of, rather than because of, medical schools.
I speak as a University Senator who represents an entity which has several medical schools. I will provide the Minister with some arithmetic. Ireland has a population of approximately 4.5 million people and six medical schools. One can do the arithmetic - we have about one medical school per 700,000 people. In the United States which has the most advanced academic medical structure in the world and the highest number of Nobel prizes, publications, citations, etc. there is one medical school per 2 million citizens approxiamtely. In the United Kingdom there is one medical school per 2 million citizens approximately. In Germany there is one medical school per 2 million citizens approximately. If one adds some of the smaller countries in eastern Europe which have larger numbers, one will find that the rate is one medical school per 1.5 or 2 million citizens. We are absolute outliers in any comparison. One could say this must be a great country which places a huge emphasis on medical education and does not spend money on nuclear submarines or arms but on medical schools to educate young doctors. However, we also have the lowest number of doctors per head of population and career level posts in any country in the OECD. It will be apparent that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we structure medical schools.
I amused myself by going online - I probably broke procedure in so doing - and found that Harvard Medical School's affiliate campuses, that is, its hospitals, have a clinical faculty membership of 10,000. To the best of my knowledge, the aggregate number of full-time clinical faculty members employed by the six Irish medical schools is less than 100. Most of the work at clinical level is done by people who were primarily appointed by the health service and had varying degrees of enthusiasm and small amounts of time designated for educational purposes.
When I say our bright young students graduate with a great medical education in spite of, rather than because of, the medical schools, I speak not with bitterness but with a cold, hard assessment of what we have. I would fear for the future of medical education in Ireland in terms of reputation if we do not do something about this issue. The world is full of countries which shall remain nameless in which there are degree mill medical schools in which people who have reached a certain degree of matriculation standard and with the financial wherewithal will find themselves in a medical school which will give them a degree which may or may not be recognised in different parts of the world.
I would like to see substantial attention being paid not by the health system which is in a near-unfixable mess but by the education system to the structure of how we treat and train young doctors. Do we have the right number of medical schools? Do we have too many? Is it appropriate to have so few full-time clinical faculty members smeared across such a large number of medical schools whereby we do not have full-time representatives in most medical schools in most of the major disciplines of medical specialisms?
One has to ask what level of scrutiny this might attract and be able to withstand in the event that there are future international inspections of medical schools because what we have in Ireland is extraordinarily unusual. There are downstream spin-off effects from it, one of which is that there is a complete lack of a leadership cadre of doctors in the country. The overwhelming majority of hospital-based specialists work for themselves and the health service. They do not have a boss and are not part of a unit within a cohesive structure. They do not have hiring and firing authority. Essentially, there is no senior specialist with any control over any specialist. When I started off as a young consultant in New York, there were four recognisable layers above me, all of whom, with the right motivation, could have fired me if my performance was inadequate. There is nothing like that here. The net effect is that we do not have people in our profession who have a wide vision of how the health service should be reformed. As a result, managers default into what should be leadership positions.
There are many good reasons for us to try to defend the reputation of our medical schools. If they are to withstand scrutiny, it will require intense reform. There is something seriously wrong in a country that has one medical school for a population of 720,000, three times the European average, which has so few doctors and in which there is almost no full-time clinical faculty. We can debate all day which institutions should be called universities and those that should not, but if we are to fix the problem, we need somebody at a high level of authority to decide that this is something which is very important to our society.
Some broad issues have been raised. Perhaps I might start with the last issue raised by Senator John Crown. As he is aware, there has been considerable reform in higher education generally in terms of institutions coming together and working collaboratively and forming clusters in different parts of the country in the context of the proposed technological universities. He has proposed a very significant reform in higher education. Obviously, I am not in a position to say right now that I can do this, but it is a proposal that can certainly be thrown into the mix for consideration. However, there would need to be a great deal of consultation with the various institutions involved in delivering medical education. It is an area in which there has been an ongoing reform programme under my predecessor which I will be continuing, but I am not going to comment specifically on medical schools.
The issue of human rights in the Middle East is one on which there have been very good debates in this House and at Oireachtas committees. I had an opportunity on my first outing as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to raise human rights issues in the Middle East. I will not comment specifically on the matter today because it is very much outside the scope of the Bill and specifically the amendments.
Not if the Minister is marketing in the Middle East.
There are issues of concern to do with human rights, but I wish to focus particularly on the proposed amendments.
Amendment No. 7 is a Government amendment which seeks to remove a superfluous cross-reference to subsection (1). A similar response can be given on amendment No. 2 which deals with the qualifications framework. The definitions and terminology used to describe the awarding powers of an eligible applicant are satisfactory. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with definitions, particularly the use of the word "person". I am advised that it is the appropriate legal term and incorporates what we are talking about, despite the Senator's concerns about the use of the word "person".
Does it occur in other legislation in similar circumstances?
Yes. The Senator made a point generally about definitions, but I am advised that this is the correct terminology. However, I am willing to look at it again before Report Stage.
There are a number of later amendments at which I am willing to look again before Report Stage, but I cannot accept the proposals made in this instance. Amendment No. 6 would have the effect of deleting the purpose in marketing programmes of education provided by an authorised provider or the research services of an authorised provider. We could argue whether marketing what one provides is an appropriate purpose. I argue that it is appropriate if a university is providing services in another country or for students coming from another country. They need to tell them what they do and explain the services and courses they provide and the research they conduct.
They have bypassed the word "university" and explained it in the-----
I argue that it is a valid purpose to market what one provides, whether it is a university or anybody else, as one has to tell people what one actually offers. I am not proposing to accept that amendment either.
I thank the Minister. I have to admit to a prejudice against marketers in universities. They really waste people's time and budgets. They are just spoofers. I am much more interested in the quality of education provided.
Does the Senator have a better term than it?
The Minister knows about the marketers' advice on what was supposed to be wrong with the image logo of Trinity College Dublin's on the shield. It was a complete and utter waste of money and I was trying to stop the Department being seduced by this nonsense. Can we get good doctors out of it? I do not care who is engaged in the marketing, except that the cost should be set at about the level of average pay in a university, not the multiples the people in question receive. The adoption of capitalist terms in universities, within a few years of the capitalist system collapsing and having to be rescued, is bizarre. I do not know what books on the economy my university colleagues read when they put forward this nonsense. Mr. Brendan Kennelly's poetry did not deteriorate after 2008, but marketing, banking - perhaps due to too much banqueting - accountancy and management did. That this failed lingo is being introduced into eminent universities is very sad. That is the reason I am trying to take out the section. I may try to persuade the Minister in a different forum that it is about time the universities got back into the classroom, paid some attention to students, as she said in the interview, and stop parading around in marketing. It is part of the great nonsense of a collapsed business system from which her Limerick colleague, the Minister for the Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, tried to rescue us. However, I have been rather self-indulgent on the issue. I wish they had nothing to do with universities.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 proposed definitions that I attempted to insert. Amendment No. 6 was about marketing. I have had my say and thank the Minister for her patience. Amendment No. 7 is about the person. Leaving in the word "person" is dangerous, as somebody can say, "I, Joe Bloggs, am a person and I have set up an international institution called "Trinity Economics University." I do not want such persons around. I, therefore, ask the Minister's advisers to look at the issue. I had never heard of it previously. I do not think we call CIE or the Department of Finance a person. I do not know why for this purpose a university is defined as a person, particularly when there are charlatans about and we are trying to defend the reputation of Irish universities.
It happened in the case of libel legislation which defined companies as having personalities in order that they could take an active part in libel actions, which I thought at the time was wrong and misguided.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to clarify the meaning of higher education.
In regard to amendment No. 10, when the Bill states "in part provided by the person" we licence, it is important to quantify it. This is an area for charlatans. Some day when I have obtained a licence, I will contract out to a figure of 98% and the licence will hold. I do not think we should give a person with that mentality the chance to do that to us.
There are subcontractors who are no adornment to higher education either.
That brings me to amendment No. 10. During the contributions of Senator Power and other colleagues on the Opposition benches, there has been much discussion of the importance of how universities are evolving. Undesirable elements have been introduced in the Bill and some of the definitions are not as rigorous as they should be. In the spirit in which the Minister has approached the debate, I will not press these amendments. An important thought process has begun and Senator Crown has contributed handsomely to it as well. I did not point out in the Minister's presence that the last medical school was set up in Limerick. It is an important necessity to have one there, but we have a large number of medical schools, as Senator Crown pointed out.
I will not move amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive. There is a good deal of material to return to on Report Stage. I thank the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.