Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 23 Jan 1997

SECTION 3.

Debate resumed on Amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 20 and 21 to insert the following:
"‘Dublin Institute of Technology' means the institute established by the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992;".
—(Deputy Martin) .

We are dealing with amendment No. 3 to section 3 in the name of Deputy Martin. Amendments Nos. 3, 19, 23, 29, 30, 87, 92, 150, 290, 308, 312 and 315 are being taken together by agreement.

We have already discussed a number of issues pertaining to this fundamental amendment which seeks to include the Dublin Institute of Technology within the remit of the Universities Bill, and to upgrade its status to that of university. We are extremely concerned that the Minister did not use this opportunity to accord such status to the Dublin Institute of Technology. Given its size, the volume of degree courses, student numbers and the standards of excellence it has achieved, we feel it has a strong case to be included in this Bill and to enjoy university status.

The Minister's response on 12 December does not go far enough. It merely confirms what was promised in the original Dublin Institute of Technology Act, that it would have its own degree awarding powers. The Minister seemed to have no regard for the nature of the representations made by students, parents and staff of the college. She belittled and undermined the correspondence and the representations made to every Member on this issue.

Since the recess, other matters have arisen in the public domain which are pertinent to this issue. The review of quality assurance procedures in the Dublin Institute of Technology, which was conducted by an international review team recommended, that it should be considered within the context of this Bill. The review body also noted that it is Government policy, as set out in the White Paper, Charting our Education Future, that the funding and overseeing of the Dublin Institute of Technology should be transferred from the Department of Education to the Higher Education Authority. It strongly urged that this policy be implemented at the earliest possible date. We know from the newspapers and the recent communication from Teastas to the Minister that the matter has gone through Cabinet, and that it is the Minister’s intention not to transfer Dublin Institute of Technology to the Higher Education Authority but that it will remain under Teastas. The idea of Teastas is that it would become a national certifying body for the non-university sector. This is a key point.

It is extremely important that this issue be clarified today and that the Minister outline her intentions regarding the Dublin Institute of Technology. It wants to become a university. It wants its own degree awarding powers and to take its place among the other universities. It does not want to be under the Teastas framework.

There is little point in bringing in an international review team if, after it has deliberated, no action is taken and the Minister responds in a minimalist way. There is little point in having a high powered commission to review bodies such as Dublin Institute of Technology if we are not prepared to act effectively and significantly on their proposals.

I cannot add a great deal to Deputy Martin's contribution. We have received a tremendous amount of correspondence on this issue from interested people. Some of it was repeat literature which was sent out generally, but much detail was provided in different, well constructed papers on the issue.

A compelling case has been made by students, representative organisations and the colleges. In one instance, reference was made to the fact that "the ability of Dublin Institute of Technology to compete internationally, particularly in the European context, is severely limited by the current status". That is a compelling statement. We are part of the European Union and we have been encouraged to participate fully within it. We are also compelled to compete to maintain economic growth and the performance of our economy so we must be on the best possible footing to deal with the issues raised in some of the correspondence we have received. I have not yet heard a compelling reason from the Minister for not granting the status being sought and not doing so now.

We have received the report of the review body which appears to suggest it should happen. We are also aware of the long tradition of these colleges, the youngest of which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Their long tradition in education and the case they make is compelling. The Opposition feels strongly about this issue. If we can be convinced that another course should be taken, fair enough, but I have not been convinced by anything the Minister or any member of the Government has said. It is an important issue for the colleges and they have campaigned vigorously on it. They have formulated papers to make their case and sent them to Members of the Oireachtas. I ask the Minister to give the matter further consideration and to deal with it on Report Stage if possible.

We had a lengthy discussion on this and similar amendments during the first day of the committee's deliberations. I remind the Minister of the ongoing strong and vociferous campaign on this issue. She was critical of the way it was presented which was a little unfair on her part. I have received many representations on the issue. Students, parents, staff and officials of Dublin Institute of Technology are adamant about the status that should be accorded to their courses and the institute. They believe that to develop the echelon of courses and the college, Dublin Institute of Technology should be given this status. It is now in a type of halfway house.

Deputy Martin's point regarding Teastas is interesting. If memory serves me correctly the Minister said at our previous meeting that it was a matter for the future and that it was not being ruled out. That led one to believe we were on course for granting this status. However, if the institute is under the aegis of Teastas, how will that develop? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Are we on course for granting full university status or has that option been ruled out? It would be hopeful for the people involved to know they are on course and that there is an end in sight. Otherwise it is disappointing and disheartening for the many people who have campaigned on this important issue and particularly for the students.

Deputy Keogh suggests that ruling out a university future for Dublin Institute of Technology is an option. When an institution is given degree awarding status, which is a welcome development, there is no question of that option being ruled out. Anybody who knows the institution and the students — there are hundreds in my constituency if families of past students and so forth are taken into account — will know they will not rest until university status is secured. It is important that the Minister gives a view over and above the statement of December, which was an important and significant step and was welcomed and acknowledged as such.

The decision to give degree awarding status arose from the international review which indicated it was appropriate. This Bill proposes a mechanism for instituting new universities which is dependent largely on an international review. The international review that has just been completed, apart from suggesting that degree awarding status be conferred on Dublin Institute of Technology, recommended that it be transferred to the Higher Education Authority and that relevant aspects of university legislation be applied to Dublin Institute of Technology. That is strong support and shows that, internationally, Dublin Institute of Technology is seen as qualifying for maximum possible status.

Having welcomed the Minister's commitment to move in that direction, can she give us the timescale for making regulations to give Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status and an indication of her future thinking? Will this institute have to go through another review within the next few years, given that it has just been through one, in order to move to another phase in its status? I was a member of the City of Dublin vocational education committee in the early 1980s when the colleges were still constituent second level colleges of the committee. I was also a member of the board of Kevin Street College of Technology and I saw the dramatic changes in structure in the years up to the present and the emergence and growth of Dublin Institute of Technology.

The colleges are reorganised into a faculty arrangement similar to that of a university. However, I was concerned, and I raised it with the administration, about their commitment to their traditional certificate courses and apprenticeships and how they relate to our concept of a university. They pointed to many models in Europe and to the one on this island, the University of Ulster, which provide degree courses in addition to a full range of certificate and other skills based courses. There are many models in the UK, on this island, in Germany and in other countries of universities that have maintained their commitment to apprenticeship training and other certificate courses. That was a genuine concern and I am sure the matter is being discussed in all Government parties with some energy. One of the concerns regarding post university status is that such an institute could lose its commitment to that important element in education. Many models show that does not necessarily happen, although it is the case in other models. Given people's good sense, and having talked to many senior personnel and lecturers, they realise the value of their apprenticeship training and that this element gives the institute its depth and individuality.

I favour the establishment of the Dublin university of technology as soon as possible. The Minister faces many regrading issues throughout the country, which is a sign of the dynamism of the education sector. For example, in my area, the Finglas vocational education committees, which have become post leaving certificate colleges, wish to become centres of further education. It is a sign of the dynamism of the education sector that everybody is pushing for expansion. This institution and others will not sit quietly and the Minister, Department and Government will not be able to move as quickly as they would like. However, we should move as quickly as possible. I am interested to hear the Minister expand on her views, which we have in writing, on the future of this institution. Thousands of students, past, present and future, are also interested.

Mar a deir an seanfhocal "Tús maith leath an oibre". We have made a start regarding the degree awarding status of the Dublin Institute of Technology. However, I re-emphasise the points made by other spokespersons about a vision for third level education. I have serious concerns regarding the entire third level education system at present. The Dublin Institute of Technology wants university status and it has travelled half way down that road by getting degree awarding status. The regional technical college in Waterford is to be upgraded but, again, we are only half way down the road of what we need to do with regional technical colleges. Imbalances and inequalities are being created in the sector. If the Dublin Institute of Technology is due degree awarding status, why may it not be a university? We should listen to the views contained in the review carried out by the Department and an international body and take the visionary first step with regard to the Dublin Institute of Technology.

I am also concerned about Deputy Martin's point regarding Teastas. As has been stated on a number of occasions, this will be possibly one of the last opportunities to deal with the university sector through legislation. As a consequence, there should be some co-operation and acceptance of points of view regarding amendments. We all want what is best for the universities and the students. I ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments, even for Report Stage if she cannot do so now, and grant the Dublin Institute of Technology university status.

I do intend to accept the amendments. The Bill deals with the existing universities and I already indicated my willingness to respond positively to amendments. I hope we can move on quickly.

Regarding the Dublin Institute of Technology and the position of the Opposition parties, I wish to restate my commitment to the development of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Numbers have increased substantially and there are many new courses, including degree, certificate, diploma and postgraduate courses. The recurring funding is over £50 million for this academic year. In addition, since 1993, over £18.5 million in capital funding has been invested.

I congratulate the Dublin Institute of Technology on its progress, particularly since the legislation was enacted. However, I must correct the misinformation that the Dublin Institute of Technology was party to an application to become a university. It sought that in initiating the degree awarding status process. However, the report which was published noted what was stated in the White Paper. It covered the Government's intention to amend the Higher Education Authority Act to allow it to become an authority for the university sector and the extra universities. I will make copies of the White Paper, where the intentions are clearly detailed, available to members of the Opposition. There are no surprises.

I announced that I had accepted the main recommendation of the review committee to give the Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status. For those who do not realise it, the Dublin Institute of Technology awards degrees from Trinity College, Dublin. Deputy Flaherty asked about timetables. I indicated that the cohorts at the beginning of the 1998 academic year will enter the portals of an institution which will award its own degrees at the beginning of the new century. The review group completed its work and its main recommendation about degree awarding powers for the Dublin Institute of Technology has been accepted. The process to allow that to happen in 1998 has been put in place.

I ask members to return to the main business of the legislation which relates to the existing universities. However, in rejecting the Progressive Democrats proposal that the Dublin Institute of Technology would automatically become a university in three years, I point out that section 9 of the Universities Bill provides a mechanism by which an institution can attain university status. This is the first time a formal mechanism by which institutions may become universities has been placed on a statutory basis. It is important to hasten slowly as we bring about extraordinary changes in the landscape of education. If moving to university status enhances the mission of the Dublin Institute of Technology in the future, I am pleased that section 9 provides an appropriate mechanism.

I am conscious of the mission of the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical college sector. Given the allocations from the Department, I have confidence in the sector and particularly regional technical colleges whose main work is in certificate and diploma programmes with a growing involvement in regional oriented applied research. Universities are essentially concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes. At my meeting with the Dublin Institute of Technology regarding my intention to place an order before the House this year to allow it degree awarding status in 1998, the reassurance I got from the Director of the college that the output at certificate and diploma level would be maintained was very welcome. Universities are essentially concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses. The regional technical colleges and Dublin Institute of Technologys fulfil a role in the certificate and diploma field they are committed to maintaining.

I have been saddened at the titles and names being bandied around suggesting that one title makes an institute less important than another. There is a mission in education, very clearly spelt out in the White Paper, that sees an education system at a higher level, not just in the university sector but in others. The Massachusetts and California Institutes of Technology have gained national and international acclaim without using the title "university". There seems to be a particular hangup that the word "university" grants people status. The status of an institute lies in the quality of its provision and the quality of that provision has concerned many of the parties involved in the development of education.

The publication of the interim report from Teastas this week is timely. It gives us confidence that quality is maintained at any level or in any field where qualifications are awarded. Deputies should read this report carefully so that they can be reassured, as I am, that we are putting a framework in place that was promised in the Green Paper — I refer Deputy Martin to that — where the qualification and certification role is one where quality is safeguarded.

I am surprised at the knee-jerk reaction that the Dublin Institute of Technologys are under Teastas. Again, I refer them back to the report and to my quick acceptance of the recommendations of the committee I put in place. This is all a further development of what is signposted in the White Paper. I would be confident it will leave an institute in place that will award its own degrees and that we will put a certification authority in place that will oversee processes that will have responsibilities in different areas for certification. In the spirit of Deputy Coughlan's contribution, we should move forward in planning a provision together. It would not be well served if we overreacted in a simplified way to demands for overnight changes, rather we should continue at a pace that has been set by technical working groups, the steering group and the proposal to change the Higher Education Authority legislation so that the third level education sector can be planned together. I am not accepting today's proposals by the Opposition. The main body of the work of this Bill, which is dealing with the university institutions already established, means we have, for the first time, a formal mechanism in place that does not create a cul de sac for other institutions.

I am extremely disappointed at the Minister's response because she has deliberately sent out mixed messages to the Dublin Institute of Technology and has refused to deal with the core issue I raised at the outset of the debate, that is, where does the Dublin Institute of Technology stand within the Teastas framework as opposed to the HEA? The Minister seems to be indicating, from her comments on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other such institutes, that Dublin Institute of Technology should see its mission in terms of providing certificate, diploma and degree courses but in a non-university context. That is a message from the Minister that will worry people in Dublin Institute of Technology considerably. We should have a clear statement: is Dublin Institute of Technology's future in certification and accreditation within the Teastas framework, which is for the non-university sector, or is it to achieve its own status as a university? Will its accreditation, functions, funding and oversight come under the Higher Education Authority as recommended by the review body? The Minister said this morning that the review body only noted the White Paper. I have read the White Paper and I take it the review body did also. It did not just note it but strongly recommended and argued that the policy articulated in the White Paper be implemented at the earliest possible date and that the funding and oversight of Dublin Institute of Technology be transferred from the Department of Education to the HEA. The Minister talks of moving slowly. Without causing offence, the Minister is moving at a snail's pace and is far too slow for many of the institutions.

The Minister speaks of hangups about titles. Very few people have hangups about titles. The Minister initiated the debate on Sunday night when upgrading Waterford regional technical college to an institute of technology. I welcome and support the decision but she did so in isolation and without any comprehensive package for the non-university third level sector. The Minister made no proposals for any other college. I urge the Minister to visit Cork city and witness the depth of anger and feeling among students and staff of Cork regional technical college. They made a submission to the Minister two years ago on this very issue. There is immense anger at the Minister's handling of the matter, which could have been far better.

I understand there is a Fine Gael dinner tonight in Waterford and that urgent representations were made. I know the Tánaiste gave commitments in 1992 that a university would be developed in Waterford, which he could not deliver, so something had to be delivered before the next election. In order for Labour to get in ahead of the Fine Gael announcement tonight we had the announcement on Sunday. That is not the way to promote change on a rational and planned basis. It is being done for political reasons. One would imagine one of the criteria for upgrading colleges such as Dublin Institute of Technology and the Waterford Institute of Technology was that the Minister would consult with the local Minister of State, who happens to be a Labour Deputy. That would now appear to be the consultative process. Will consultation with the local Labour Deputy be a fundamental criterion for determining whether an institute in a given region will be upgraded? It is farcical. The Minister should establish set minimum criteria by which regional technical colleges should be upgraded to institutes of technology. Those criteria should be published and then every college would know what they have to do to meet them and achieve that status. We cannot limit everybody; we must allow them to grow.

While I welcome and support the college in Waterford, Cork has a compelling case to become an institute of technology in that it has the highest points rating in the CAO/CAS listing, the greatest amount of postgraduate research of any regional technical college and a considerable number of degree programmes. We need a comprehensive, rational, national plan in this sector. There are four national centres of technology in Cork also. It does not make sense that they retain the level and service they have at present. There are other colleges in the regional technical college sector which have equally strong claims. It is not good enough to take this route.

As regards Dublin Institute of Technology, the issue the Minister is missing in this debate is that it is fundamentally constrained by the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992. The report refers to that and states that the development of applied research, for example, has been a notable achievement given the constraints on the institute prior to the 1992 legislation. It refers to the funding of Dublin Institute of Technology and states that its capacity to grow, borrow, acquire land, develop and so on is fundamentally constrained by the 1992 Act. It was a welcome step forward at the time. However, on reflection and in terms of what is happening today in Dublin Institute of Technology, it is too restrictive. That is why Dublin Institute of Technology sees the introduction of the Universities Bill as fundamental. Given the snail's pace at which this House moves in terms of legislative change, the long process leading up to the publication of this Bill and the large number of amendments tabled prior to Committee Stage and now this debate, one can understand the fears of those in Dublin Institute of Technology that they will not get an opportunity for a long time again when this Bill is passed.

There is no point saying that, for the first time, we have put a mechanism to become a university on a statutory basis. That mechanism de facto was there irrespective of this Bill. Dublin City University and the University of Limerick become universities under legislation. There is no reason the Minister could not have accommodated Dublin Institute of Technology in this legislation. It is wrong to suggest that the case for Dublin Institute of Technology has been answered by the inclusion of a clause in the Bill. Listening to the Minister this morning, it is clear she has no intention of according university status to Dublin Institute of Technology. That is what I have taken from her comments on missions and so forth.

We must be concerned about the lack of significant and much needed development of the physical plant and facilities of Dublin Institute of Technology. It is working under extreme difficulty and needs more than what it has been given to date. The Minister has been in office for four years and she can wave her hands indignantly, but that is the position. The social and recreational facilities available to students are appalling and need dramatic and urgent improvement. Before Christmas students protested about the sporting and recreational facilities at Dublin Institute of Technology. The following week students involved in music in Dublin Institute of Technology protested. It is unbelievable that students in a third level institution must put up with such conditions in this day and age.

The neglect is terrible.

The Minister has been in office for four years. She had priorities and tended to follow her favourite Labour Deputies. The library and information technology area of the college requires urgent consideration.

The Minister is not showing a degree of commitment in terms of legislation, funding or the recommendations of the review body to give any hope to Dublin Institute of Technology that she wishes to grant it university status. We are pressing this amendment on behalf of the students, staff and parents of this college who have campaigned effectively and rationally over a long period to upgrade its status. An international team has assessed this issue independently. This legislation should incorporate Dublin Institute of Technology and that is the reason we are pressing the amendment.

We did not start the issue of titles, the Minister did last Sunday in a belated announcement which we hope she will follow through. She has created severe difficulties for her colleagues in other locations and she would want to move quickly and rationally to redress that because the Cork problem will not go away. As I speak, there are thousands of students outside the City Hall in Cork, and have been for three days. They are there of their own volition; it is a spontaneous response. If the Minister spoke to people, we may not have these scenes on the streets of Cork or elsewhere.

The Minister seems to have a major problem meeting groups. Officials and the programme manager, who is a busy man, must meet groups on the Minister's behalf as she will not meet them. I cannot understand why in a democracy a Minister will not meet delegations from third level institutions or different groups. That has been a recurring feature of her term in office. There is a barrier between her and a range of groups which I find disconcerting and unsatisfactory in the context of an open democracy.

The last contribution was appalling. We should be able to debate the issues in the Bill without making insulting attacks on the Minister. It is unnecessary and does not help an intelligent debate on a substantial issue and sector. I am able to argue the issues and I give credit to the Minister who inherited an education system which was seriously underfunded from primary cycle, where children were and some still are in the most appalling conditions, to third level where there was considerable overcrowding and huge needs. She has responded not only to those practical needs but to a fundamental restructuring of the education system.

This Bill and that setting up the education authorities will transform the education sector. No Minister is able to do everything and that type of personalised, abusive——

There was no abuse.

——and, in many ways, inaccurate debate goes too far and harms the issues.

This is a dynamic sector and the Minister is trying to respond to demands from different parts of the country. This amendment looks at Dublin Institute of Technology. It is important that we sort out the structure and relationship of Dublin Institute of Technology. It is inappropriate that it must write to the Minister to employ a temporary secretary. Its transfer to the Higher Education Authority was the expected outcome. The Minister spoke about the knee-jerk reaction to Teastas. It was Government policy that it was to be transferred to the Higher Education Authority which was backed up by the international review. The Minister will understand the concerns about the Teastas proposal. While being disappointed about the slow pace of progress in relation to university status, this seems to be moving backwards. It will be given degree awarding status and it would be more appropriate for a degree awarding institute to be under the aegis of the HEA, which is self-evidently obvious.

The Minister may consider it a knee-jerk reaction but if she thought about it a little longer, she would understand the initial responses in that regard. The door has not been closed. The Minister indicated that she is providing a mechanism for the recognition of a university in section 9. In her reply, will she outline how she interprets the recommendations of the review committee on applying the relevant aspect of the university legislation to Dublin Institute of Technology? Will Dublin Institute of Technology be one of the institutes which might be looked at in the near future when this legislation is passed?

I will not raise local issues but it is unfair to attack Deputy Martin for voicing concerns on an issue in his constituency about which feelings run high. I asked the Minister some questions which she did not address in her lengthy reply. I asked her what the implications were for the Dublin Institute of Technology since it will be under the aegis of Teastas which is the certification body for the non-university sector. Maybe the Minister did not hear me the first time but I asked her about Teastas and I would like her to address that issue. It gives the impression that the Minister does not intend for university status to be granted to the Dublin Institute of Technology, something she must address.

She has fudged the issue. She said that sections within the Bill provided for the setting up of a university. We know that. We want to know if she intends for the Dublin Institute of Technology to avail of that facility. Is she supporting it on that? That is the crucial issue. We know the granting of university status is available under the Bill but, unless the Minister provides for it, nothing will happen. She spoke about 1998 as the year in which the Dublin Institute of Technology will be able to grant its own degrees. I suggest she is fudging the issue because she will not be in office then. Unless the Minister gives straight answers on this, she will disappoint the students and people involved with the Dublin Institute of Technology.

She is sending out a garbled message about mission statements and how great is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In other words, she says that this debate is about what is in a name. It is not about that but about what an institute can do when given university status. That is the issue. It is its autonomy and how it can grow.

The issue is if, within some reasonable length of time the Dublin Institute of Technology will be conferred with university status in order for it to grow in the way it wishes. The Minister has acknowledged that it will provide certificate and diploma courses. A dramatic change is not being sought but rather the development of the institute. The Minister must address this issue and be aware of the signals she is sending out. The basic question is if the Minister will support the Dublin Institute of Technology to develop its role and grant it university status.

I am aware that the Minister intends to make an order awarding powers of degree conferral to the Dublin Institute of Technology for the academic year 1998-9. When does the Minister envisage the Dublin Institute of Technology being granted full university status?

The committee report acknowledged my intention for the Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technical college sectors to become part of the responsibility of the HEA, something which requires amendments to this Bill. I do not know why I bother saying that because it is not being heard.

I have been asked when the Dublin Institute of Technology will be granted university status. I think I will be here forever and will have been talked out of office at the rate we are going. I ask the Deputies opposite when we can progress. Section 9 provides for the establishment of additional universities. There is no time limit but I have already accepted and am committed to the Dublin Institute of Technology receiving the powers it seeks by 1998. There will be no cul de sac created for any institutions because a framework or mechanism is being put in place to allow institutions such as the Dublin Institute of Technology, if that is what it seeks to do, to go through the stages of becoming a university.

I am sure the Deputies opposite would agree that it would not be right for any institution to change its status overnight. We must be confident not only that the third level sector develops in the area of undergraduate and graduate education but that we retain institutions which see their mission as including certificate and diploma courses which are not the business of the universities.

The Teastas report was an interim one which the Government decided to publish. The Departments of Education, Enterprise and Employment and others involved in certification will consult with each other to formulate Heads of Bills for the Government to put Teastas on a statutory basis. That will allow the Oireachtas to discuss and debate this issue, something we have not always been able to do. The Teastas report was warmly welcomed because it outlined a framework to deal with the area of certification, be it certificate, diploma or degree which was, for too long, outside any framework.

The Dublin Institute of Technology and regional technical college sectors will become the business of the Higher Education Authority which will require legislation and this has already been signalled in the White Paper. The remit of Teastas requires it to put in place a process which strikes a balance between the autonomy of the Dublin Institute of Technology awards process and the supervisor and regulator of the qualifications framework. The Dublin Institute of Technology awards process will, therefore, get approval from Teastas. It is recommended that the Dublin Institute of Technology be able to award its own degrees. I could repeat that but I have an idea I am not being listened to. I stated that the Dublin Institute of Technology will award its own degrees. This was stated and conveyed by me to the Dublin Institute of Technology prior to the submission of the Teastas report to Government on Tuesday. The process is slow. While we can hurry some of it, other aspects take time to put in place.

A White Paper has been published, and I have indicated the areas where legislation is required to develop the education system. This Bill is the first in a programme of legislation I have brought before the House. We will progress it as swiftly as I am allowed by the committee.

My confidence in the Dublin Institute of Technology sector has been put on record. When and if we pass this Bill, section 9 will provide the mechanisms to allow institutions to become universities. I will not accept the amendment.

The Minister repeated much of what she said earlier. It is not that we do not understand the degree procedures, etc. Will she support the Dublin Institute of Technology in its efforts to attain university status?

If we pass this Bill, there will be a mechanism for the institutions to seek university status. It is open to any of them to use it. I am being asked to promise to support something which it would appear the Deputy is desperate to ensure is not passed. Her question has left me almost speechless.

I support including in the Bill a mechanism by which the Dublin Institute of Technology or any of the other institutes can become universities, but there will not be a mechanism unless the Bill is passed. I seek the Deputy's support for this. It will then be open to the Dublin Institute of Technology to establish its future. I am not placing any barriers in the way.

"Yes" or "no" would have been sufficient.

While an answer of "yes" or "no" would have been sufficient, the Minister's degree of intolerance towards debate has left me speechless. She is almost in a temper and has no tolerance for an alternative point of view.

This is our fist opportunity to debate this Bill. It underwent substantial changes before it got to this House, negotiated by people outside the House who are not elected. It is a bit much for the Minister to be indignant and consult her officials in a derisory manner regarding matters raised by Opposition spokespersons, the most recent instance being her outburst in response to a legitimate question raised by Deputy Keogh.

This is our first opportunity as legislators to consider this legislation. The Minister earlier requested that we get to the main business of the Bill. As Opposition spokespersons we have determined that the Dublin Institute of Technology is a main issue and one pertinent to this legislation. We do not apologise for raising it and do not see it as a peripheral concern, irritating as it is to the Minister that we should have the cheek to raise this matter.

We are empowered, and are entitled as democratically elected representatives in this House, to introduce these amendments. We can also put whatever questions we wish to the Minister and she should not be vexed about it.

We have not received straight answers to two fundamental questions. The first was put by Deputy Keogh as to whether the Minister would support the idea of the Dublin Institute of Technology becoming a university. The second is the Teastas Higher Education Authority issue, which is now a very important issue for the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Once this Bill is passed the Dublin Institute of Technology will not be covered by the legislation and it will not be a university as determined by this legislation. It will then continue under the Teastas framework -I have read the interim report and have not made a knee-jerk reaction to it — because it is clear that the degree awarding process will be approved by Teastas for the Dublin Institute of Technology. Will the Minister confirm this, and will she also confirm that it will remain within that framework for the next few years?

Two main questions have been put to me, both of which seek my support for the amendment which I am not prepared to give. However, I look forward, as we go through the different sections of the Bill, to indicating support for other amendments put forward by Deputies. I do not wish to be impatient, but it is difficult to answer questions for the third and fourth time.

The Minister has not answered the questions. If she answered them there would not be a strike.

I cannot answer questions with words put into my mouth. It is in order that I consult my officials. I hope Deputy Martin is not suggesting I should not consult with them. Will he clarify this?

Deputy Keogh asked if I will support a campaign for the Dublin Institute of Technology to become a university. I will not support a campaign for the Dublin Institute of Technology to become a university within three years, which is the purpose of the amendment. However, I am establishing a mechanism which will allow the Dublin Institute of Technology to proceed. A process will be in place which will enable the Dublin Institute of Technology to be a beneficiary to the Universities legislation when it is passed.

Deputy Martin asked how, if the Dublin Institute of Technology is not within the ambit of this Bill it could be a beneficiary under section 9. Given the Bill will be passed, the degree awarding status it sought will be in place from 1998. The Dublin Institute of Technology is in the extra university sector unless it avails of section 9 when the Bill is passed.

Teastas has the responsibility for the extra university sector, and putting Teastas on a statutory basis will allow us to debate matters as much as the Deputy wishes. As it stands, however, there are two areas that will affect the Dublin Institute of Technology. First, if the Bill is passed, there will be a formal mechanism whereby the Dublin Institute of Technology can be invited to seek university status. Second, the Dublin Institute of Technology is part of the activity the Government has given to Teastas in respect of the extra university. Therefore, if the Dublin Institute of Technology is not actually in the university, it is being given the facility to award degrees. I am conscious that the autonomy of the Dublin Institute of Technology and its awards process must be maintained. However, a mechanism will be established by Teastas in respect of the process whereby degrees are awarded by the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The Minister continues to refer to the mechanism in clause 9. Our argument is that the Bill itself should be the mechanism. We are pressing the amendment for that reason.

I am not accepting it.

I do not accept the argument that the Dublin Institute of Technology must wait three to four years, which is the reality in terms of passing the Bill without accepting the amendment. The clear argument is that this legislative opportunity gave the Dublin Institute of Technology the entrée to university level. The Minister is rejecting that initiative and the amendment, which is essentially aimed at using the legislative process and the Bill to give the Dublin Institute of Technology university status. We are pressing the amendment because we have read the report of the international review body, considered the overall situation of the Dublin Institute of Technology, accepted its argument that the constraints of the 1992 Act are too restrictive and do not facilitate expansion from its point of view particularly in the area of applied research which is extremely important in the development of any institute to university status in terms of attracting funding from the private sector. It is clear the Dublin Institute of Technology requires a new legislative context to be more secure and effective in terms of attracting private finance and funding. The other universities have been spectacularly successful in generating funding from the private sector, particularly in the areas of research.

The report into the research capacity of universities and the type of funding in which the State and universities together are engaged highlighted tremendous deficiencies from the State's point of view. The State is not investing in research to any great degree. The report pointed out that the private sector is funding the majority of higher education research projects. The Dublin Institute of Technology argues that if it remains in the its present legislative straitjacket, its capacity to generate private financing will be considerably undermined. It will not be in a position to compete as effectively as the universities for international research funding, either from the private sector or from funding contracts issued by the European Commission. These are the twin areas which offer real opportunities to third level institutions to attract finance. That is a critical issue, for the third level sector and the economy, which must be debated on another occasion. It is scandalous that because there is so little investment in research and development in our universities our capacity to attract foreign investment in the future will be fundamentally undermined. That must be corrected.

There was no reference to research and development in yesterday's Budget Statement which is another example of getting our priorities wrong in terms of where money should be invested. The Dublin Institute of Technology made its argument in the strongest possible way but I do not believe the Minister listened to it with any degree of sincerity. The argument seems to be that we should move ahead and allow Teastas — which is perceived as being a large and not very effective quango by many of the institutions that come under its remit — deal with the problem.

The review body strongly recommended that the functions and funding of the Dublin Institute of Technology should be transferred from the Department to the Higher Education Authority. The report does not state that the contents of the White Paper were noted. It strongly recommends that the oversight and funding of the Dublin Institute of Technology be transferred to the Higher Education Authority. The Dublin Institute of Technology will come under the remit of the Teastas framework for the next number of years. There is no point in equivocating about that reality because the Minister confirmed it in her previous reply. The Dublin Institute of Technology will continue within the Teastas framework and this will cause significant concern to the students, staff and director of the college. Teastas will have the overall say in terms of the degree awarding process within the Dublin Institute of Technology. Those currently on the inside track in terms of policy direction in this area have determined that the Dublin Institute of Technology will not be placed in the university sector and will remain in the extra university sector defined by the Minister.

The statement of 12 December was a response to the campaign. The Minister was put under pressure by Dublin-based Deputies and I note there are few Dublin-based Labour Deputies present. Many of them are missing and some were absent for the vote at our last meeting and were substituted by other Members. I wonder why that is the case. Clause 9 is now being included as a consolation and the Dublin Institute of Technology is being informed that it may eventually be granted university status. As of now, the reality is that the Dublin Institute of Technology will not be included in the Bill if the Government parties vote down our amendments. It will continue within the Teastas framework which does not please the staff of the Dublin Institute of Technology. That fundamentally opposes the recommendation of the international review body which was independent in its deliberations.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.

Brennan, Matt.

Burke, Raphael P.

Connolly, Ger.

Coughlan, Mary.

Flood, Chris.

Keogh, Helen.

Martin, Mícheál.

Moffatt, Tom.

Walsh, Joe.

Níl

Bhreathnach, Niamh.

Kemmy, Jim.

Bradford, Paul.

Kenny, Seán.

Broughan, Thomas P.

McGinley, Dinny.

Crawford, Seymour.

Pattison, Séamus.

Fitzgerald, Frances.

Sheehan, P. J.

Flaherty, Mary.

Upton, Pat.

Amendment declared lost.

We now proceed to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives to it; amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential upon it; amendments Nos. 126, 171, 173, 183, 186, 187, 191, 192, 194 and 196 are consequential upon amendment No. 6 and all may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, subsection (1), lines 21 to 25, to delete the definition of "employee" and substitute the following:

"‘employee', in relation to a university, means a person employed by the university in any capacity, and includes an officer of the university;".

This concerns the definition of the word "employee". The Bill as published used that word to refer to the academic and other staff of the university. The term replaced the terms "officer" and "servant". However, I have received representations from staff representatives in the universities that the term and status of officer should be retained. I have no difficulty in responding to their concerns. The heads of the universities support the representations of the staff and, accordingly, I propose these amendments.

The term "officer" now includes all permanent full-time academic staff, the chief officer, whoever is an officer at present and whatever other employees the governing authority determines. I agree with the intent of the amendments proposed by Deputies Keogh, Martin and Coughlan relating to officers and employees. The amendments I propose on the matter have been approved by the parliamentary draftsman and will have the same effect.

Deputy Keogh has further proposed the inclusion of a reference to "officers" in a number of places in sections 16 and 22. My amendments to the definition section should adequately address Deputy Keogh's concerns.

I find the Minister's statement interesting. It represents a significant understatement of the issues behind these amendments. The definition of employee in the Bill as published caused deep concern in the academic community in all the universities. Related to this issue were the concepts of security of tenure and of academic freedom which are essential to the life of a university. This amendment does not merely tinker with names or definitions. It is fundamental to the Bill in so far as it gives security of tenure and should recognise the significant role of an officer in a university.

The academic staff have a special role to play in a university. The majority of academics I know have a strong commitment to their institutions, to their subject areas, their research and to society. In many ways, the profession of academic is a vocation. Security of tenure is a key element and the proper recognition of an officer is essential to the concept of academic freedom. People must have the freedom to articulate alternative points of view; to inquire in a critical manner; to take on the establishment if necessary; to express views that may be contrary to those of a governing body or president of a university; to articulate views that challenge the conventions of society and to challenge the views of the Government. An academic must have such freedoms safe in the knowledge that his or her position and rights, as defined by statute, would never be undermined. He or she must not fear dismissal or discrimination because of his or her views.

It was for this reason the academic staff of the universities were motivated to press for this amendment. IFUT, which represents academic staff in the universities, made strong representations. The central issues it identified were those of academic freedom and security of tenure. It was concerned that the traditional relationship between academic staff and universities would not be undermined. IFUT was also of the view that if the amendment was not made the provision could lead to the introduction of rigid and inflexible work practices among academic staff, as have emerged in other third level institutions governed by restrictive legislation.

We welcome the Minister's acceptance of the principle of our amendments. We had tabled them to force discussion on the issue. The most important functions of a university academic are founded in the concept of academic freedom. Nothing in the Bill should undermine that. Since their foundation, our universities have been places for freedom of speech, debate and critical inquiry.

The Select Committee went into private session.

Top
Share