I propose to take Questions Nos. 291, 304, 305 and 383 together. In September 2012 Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT) commenced a BSc in Audiology course despite a request from the HEA in August 2012 that it be cancelled. The course was included in the CAO handbook by AIT without prior agreement from the HSE in relation to the provision of clinical placements. The HEA's concern was that the students on the programme would be proceeding on a course without an agreement in place in relation to the provision of clinical placements, and as a consequence would undertake an incomplete course of study. In November 2012, out of concern for the position of students involved, the HSE agreed that it would support the students who had already commenced the course to access clinical placements provided AIT succeeded in achieving accreditation for the course. Institutes of Technology are autonomous statutory bodies with responsibility for their own academic affairs and it is the responsibility of the institutions themselves to secure accreditation and professional recognition for particular courses where appropriate. It is normal practice with new courses leading to a professional accreditation that they must operate for a period while accreditation is being established. In the case of the AIT course, the Institute initially sought accreditation from the British Academy for Audiology (BAA). However, AIT encountered difficulties in obtaining this accreditation and the BAA subsequently suspended their accreditation process. A number of alternative options for accrediting the course were examined. However, the institute was unable to get the required accreditation and the HEA was advised in May 2013 of AIT's decision to discontinue the programme. On foot of a High Court Judicial Review in August 2013 the HSE agreed to offer twelve clinical placements for the students and to work with AIT to secure other placements on the understanding that a Professor Audiology would within six months write and endorse the course as being equivalent to a BSc in Audiology internationally. Based on the above understandings, the HEA has agreed to fund the programme for this cohort of students. This agreement by the HSE and HEA allows AIT to recommence the audiology programme thus enabling the students to continue with their course. The total legal costs of the action for AIT are not yet available, however I understand that the institute has agreed that it will cover the legal fees for the students involved in the case. The HEA has kept my Department fully informed of all developments in relation to this programme and I have received regular updates on the efforts that have been taken by the HEA in consultation with the HSE to ensure that the issues with the programme are resolved in the best interests of the students.
The HEA has recently written to the President of AIT seeking clarification on a number of issues including the likely timelines associated with the appointment of an external independent Professor of Audiology and confirmation that the students have been fully informed of the risks attaching to proceeding with the course, particularly in relation to professional accreditation. In addition, at the request of the HEA, the Governing Body has initiated a comprehensive review of circumstances surrounding the matter. On finalisation of this review consideration will be given as to what further action is appropriate.