Good morning. I welcome the representatives to this meeting of the sub-committee. We thank them for making a submission and coming here to talk about it. I do not mean to be a hustler but we have only 20 minutes to discuss it. We have read carefully the submission. I, therefore, ask whoever is to make the presentation to synopsise it. The main questioners will be Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole, although other members of the sub-committee can chip in. While we have absolute privilege as Members of this Chamber, the representatives have qualified privilege.
Presentation by the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology.
Witnesses: Dr. Mary Meaney, Dr. Ciarán Ó Cathain, Dr. Kieran Byrne, Mr. Joe McGarry.
Dr. Meaney
On behalf of the council of directors, I thank the sub-committee for inviting us and giving us the opportunity to express some of our views. As the Chairman said, Members have our presentation and read it. I will synopsise the presentation and make one or two additional comments.
The basis of what we are saying is that we request the introduction of legislation to extend full voting rights to the graduates of institutes of technology. We believe the current system whereby candidates who win six university seats are elected to the Seanad is outdated and recognition must be given to another sector of higher education, namely, the institute of technology sector which we represent. We are disappointed that 24 years have elapsed since the passing of the seventh amendment that allowed for the inclusion of graduates of the institutes to the voting panels. We find this regrettable.
In terms of what we propose, given the changes in education nationally and internationally, we suggest that members should consider extending voting rights to all graduates who have attended third level institutions on a full-time basis for the equivalent of three years. In terms of progression under the national qualifications framework, it is suggested that at level seven this would fit into the Bologna process whereby graduates who have achieved that standard - not in terms of years completed but in terms of educational standard - will in the future gain an ordinary or general degree. We propose that all graduates who have achieved that level should be granted voting rights and be included on the panel.
We believe the inclusion of the institute of technology sector would also add other advantages. We point to the regional spread of the institutes of technology. There are 13 institutes in total, all of which offer degrees accredited by the Higher Education Training Award Council, the national awarding council. Institute of technology graduates offer a wider social dimension than those of the universities because traditionally the make-up of the student population of the institutes of technology comes from a wider social background. Therefore, there is an opportunity to increase social diversity in the Seanad by including institute of technology graduates.
We also suggest that there is the possibility of introducing a multiplicity of professional perspectives. The institutes of technology offer a wider range of professions than those traditionally offered by the university sector. There are in the region of 80,000 graduates of the institutes of technology who would be eligible to vote under the measure we propose.
As I am sure members are aware, a recent OECD report notes that 50% of the 25 year old age cohort hold a third level qualification. Some 50% of the intake to third level is through the institutes of technology sector.
I open the discussion to our questioners and any member of the delegation can chip in with a reply. I thank Dr. Meaney for her presentation.
I thank Dr. Meaney and the other members of the council who made the submission which we very much appreciate.
The previous delegation informed us that 50% of the population now hold a third level qualification of one form or another. How do the representatives justify the other 50% being excluded from the right to vote for candidates to this House, if reforms of the types the council outlined were to be put in place? If one in two of the population is entitled to vote under a reformed Seanad by extending the graduate vote to third level sector, why should the other 50% of the population be excluded?
The council, in its presentation, made a distinction between the university sector and the technological sector and proposed a new composition of 4:2 for the six university seats. Can the representatives expand on this proposal? Given that for many years the council has rightly fought to have its graduates as part of the university graduate sector, why would it make this distinction in terms of the new composition it wants us to consider?
Dr. Byrne
In response to that question, I do not believe the purpose of what we are proposing is to exclude, but rather to include and extend an inclusiveness to those who have graduated through the alternative route, as was pointed out by Senator Ryan earlier this morning. I do not believe there is any rationale for the kinds of differentiations now made between those who graduate, irrespective of the graduating body or graduating authority.
More broadly speaking, in terms of the 50% exclusion to which Senator Hayes referred, as educationalists we would not foresee a situation developing in the future where it would always be the case that 50% would be excluded. We must extend access to university and higher education to a much wider constituency and be far more inclusive in our embrace than the 50% participation of the past suggests. If wider reforms are envisaged for the Seanad to be more inclusive than that, that is a separate matter.
Yes, in the case of a wider suffrage.
If we came up with a proposal suggesting that every elector in the country had a right to vote and that would mean the end of the university seats, would the council welcome this, given the fact that its members cannot currently vote for candidates for those seats?
Dr. Byrne
That would depend on a number of conditions. However, there is a responsibility on the part of graduates to contribute to the Seanad as it was conceived and founded, in terms of its founding principles. A considerable amount of taxpayer's money has been invested in those who graduate from higher education and there is a responsibility on that body or constituency to make a contribution to policy making, planning and to the debate and critique within the environment at this level. I see that responsibility being discharged in that way.
There is a bit of a charade here. Nobody in this House believes the university franchise should not be extended. We wish to hear the delegation's views on the other issues. The question about the 4:2 ratio has not been answered. My immediate response to the 4:2 suggestion is that we are reinforcing a difference which we already believe is an anachronism. As we subscribe to the delegation's opening argument, there is no point wasting time on it. That will emerge from what we will report.
I am not clear about the 4:2 proposal, why we should create that distinction and if there is a case for it. There cannot be a case for it. All the points in the delegation's opening argument imply there should not be a 4:2 set up. We would like to hear the delegation's view on the wider issue of the working of the Seanad, not just on representation. The delegation is focused on the representation issue but we wish to move it beyond that.
Dr. Meaney
The thinking behind the 4:2 proposal is that the institutes of technology are newer institutions and they have fewer graduates at this time than the universities.
That sounds like protectionism.
Dr. Meaney
It is not. We need to ensure we have representation across the regional——
It is a more humble proposal.
I accept that point. However, that would be an initial position and we must consider the long-term. If one looks forward ten years, for example, there is no case for having a four plus two situation at that time.
Dr. Meaney
No.
That is what we want to know. Does the delegation have a view on the wider role of the Seanad, in terms of what it should be doing and how it should relate to the delegation, for example? Does the delegation believe its views are heard here?
Dr. Meaney
No.
We like that level of honesty.
How would they be heard?
Dr. Meaney
With regard to third level education, we are fighting strongly to have our views heard, given that we constitute 50% of the intake into higher education. At present, however, our views are not heard to the same extent as the universities. We welcome the fact that at least people are examining the constitutional position, although we are disappointed that it has taken 24 years to do it.
So are we.
Dr. Meaney
Indeed. It is imperative that there are Senators from the institutes of technology sector. There are people from the sector on other panels but it is essential that we get a voice in this Chamber. That is the reason we made the 4:2 suggestion, even if it is for the medium term.
I want the group to look at the broader issue, not just the representative aspect. Has the council ever been invited to come before any committees of the Houses to outline its views and, if so, would that be a regular occurrence?
Dr. Ó Catháin
We have been invited before the Committee of Public Accounts on a couple of occasions.
It is probably because of that brand new silver sign outside the Athlone Institute of Technology.
Dr. Ó Catháin
Not only the Athlone institute but all the institutes.
Do not mention Athlone.
Dr. Ó Catháin
In general, we have not been invited. That might be our own fault in that, as a council, we might not have been sufficiently proactive. There is a change now within our sector whereby we are seeking to be more proactive on a range of issues. Given the diversity and multiplicity of the courses we provide, the number of graduates in the sector and the social fabric of the institutes, we have a valuable contribution to make, but to date we have been slow in making it. Today is probably the start in that we are getting the opportunity to air our view as to how our graduates should be represented in the Seanad in the first instance. From that we will seek to make a more valued contribution across the social agenda from an educational and from the institutes' perspective.
Something the council could consider after leaving this meeting is how there might be a consultative bridge between us on the operation of legislation. We are keen to look at formal consultative processes and how they might be established with interested parties.
Dr. Byrne
That would be a welcome development. The last experience we had with regard to major legislation for higher education was the Universities Act 1997. That excluded any consideration of the institutes of technology and any consideration of the wider framework of higher education and the landscape that encompasses. That is an example of the exclusiveness of the process.
The delegation will be aware that I sometimes work in the technological sector of education. I will not discuss the representation issue because the only disagreement on this side might be about whether the seats should exist. However, to the extent that there are third level seats, everybody I know——
Do not raise hares.
Some members have funny notions. It goes to show that being a graduate does not necessarily give one insights.
The notion of universal suffrage.
There will be one seat reserved for former general secretaries of the Irish National Teachers Organisation.
I would hate the 4:2 arrangement because I would have to decide in which constituency I should run. I am against it. The six seater would probably be a better way to ensure representation. I agree with the delegation on the regional issue. It is extraordinary that of the six sitting university Senators, I am the only one living outside Dublin.
That sounds like an election statement.
It is even more interesting that in the constituency Senator O'Toole and I represent, the two highest polling unsuccessful candidates were also Dublin based. We need some sort of rebalance to reflect the distribution of third level education.
The argument is that once the 80,000 graduates have a vote, the institutes' people will be elected. Does the delegation perceive it in that way? If there is such a massive constituency, high profile people will stand for election. Presumably, anybody can stand for election on the new panel being suggested, as is currently the case. One need not be a graduate to stand for the University of Dublin or the NUI panel. How has the delegation arrived at the notion that with the allocation of these two seats its people will automatically be elected? It is inevitable that a high profile person in business, the voluntary sector or education will come forward. The idea that the graduates will elect other graduates is not definite.
Dr. Byrne
We are where we are because we were where we were, so to speak. If we are moving on from there to discuss an inclusive six seats, that will change the consideration substantially. We would argue that higher education in Ireland is now in a post-binary context, without the old differentiations between universities and other institutes of higher education. The universities are only one model of institutes of higher education and we are all involved in it.
How long has the council been in existence?
Dr. Meaney
Since 1992 and the introduction of our legislation.
Are there sufficient authoritative records of graduates? Where are they?
Dr. Meaney
Our awards have always been given by what was the National Council for Educational Awards, which was changed under the qualifications Act to the Higher Education and Training Awards Council. The records of all our graduates are held by one source, unlike with the universities.
So people could have access to them at the appropriate time.
Dr. Meaney
Nice people could have access.
What proportion of the number coming out of the institutes are university graduates, in terms of being graduates with accredited university degrees?
Dr. Meaney
All the 13 institutes of technology offer degrees which are accredited by the Higher Education Training Awards Council. As regards our intake, we have approximately 50% of the intake, of which approximately 40% will graduate within the category about which we are talking, namely, those who currently have attended on the equivalent of three years' full time.
All the 13 colleges offer diploma and certificate level courses. The certificate courses take two years, while the diploma courses take three years. Why did the delegation make the argument in its submission for three rather than two years? I presume some of the people who attend the colleges will do two years and go into industry.
Dr. Meaney
Our thinking is that we are looking forward to the international and the Bologna process.
Is three years the standard?
Dr. Meaney
Three years looks like where we are going internationally. We must look at that in terms of what a primary qualification would be.
What is the position in terms of degrees?
Dr. Meaney
It looks like that will happen. It seems that in terms of the Irish national qualifications framework, diplomas will be put at level seven, which is where the ordinary degree will be.
If all the graduates from the institutes were given the vote, would your group be willing to facilitate the electoral college, the returning officer, etc.?
Dr. Byrne
I am sure we could do that.
I thank the delegation for its submission and lively interchange. We appreciate your presence this morning and the work you are doing in the colleges.
The witnesses withdrew.