I move amendment No. 32:
In page 9, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) and section 7(1), a constituent university may extend its name in such manner as it considers appropriate to indicate that it is the successor to its corresponding constituent college.".
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 9, before section 11, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:
"11.—(1) Section 2 of the Dublin City University Act, 1989, is hereby amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the deletion of ‘and shall perform the functions assigned to it by the Act of 1980 as amended by this Act'; and
(b) by the insertion of the following after subsection (1):
‘(1A) The University is and shall continue to be the body corporate of that name in existence immediately before the commencement of section 6 of the Universities Act, 1996, with the same perpetual succession, power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire, hold and dispose of land and any other property, as it then had.'.
(2) Section 2 of the University of Limerick Act, 1989, is hereby amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the deletion of ‘and shall perform the functions assigned to it by the Act of 1980 as amended by this Act', and
(b) by the insertion of the following after subsection (1):
‘(1A) The University is and shall continue to be the body corporate of that name in existence immediately before the commencement of section 6 of the Universities Act, 1996, with the same perpetual succession, power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire, hold and dispose of land and any other property, as it then had.'.".
This is a technical amendment to ensure that the corporate status of both Dublin City University and the University of Limerick continues after this Bill is passed. The effect of the amendment will be to amend the respective Acts of 1989.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 39 and 43 are alternatives to amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 38 is an alternative to amendment No. 37 and amendment No. 53 is related. Amendment No. 40 is an alternative to amendment No. 39 and amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are consequential on amendment No. 43. We will take amendments Nos. 34 to 43, inclusive, and amendment No. 53 by agreement.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 9, before section 11, but in Chapter I of Part III, to insert the following the new section:
"11.—Without prejudice to its ethos and traditions, the objects of a university shall include—
(a) to strive for academic excellence and to advance knowledge through teaching, scholarly research and scientific investigation,
(b) to protect and promote academic freedom,
(c) to promote the right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos, traditions, and the principles of academic, operational and management freedom, consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and accountability to the public,
(d) to promote learning in its student body and in society generally,
(e) to promote the cultural, social and economic life of society, while fostering and respecting the diversity of the university's traditions,
(f) to promote the official languages of the State, with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures,
(g) to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research,
(h) to disseminate the outcomes of its research in the community at large,
(i) to reflect a commitment by the university to principles of equality, and
(j) to facilitate lifelong learning through the provision of adult and continuing education.".
This amendment is a superior statement of the objectives of a university to that included in the Bill. Paragraph (a) states "to strive for academic excellence and to advance knowledge through teaching, scholarly research and scientific investigation". The emphasis on academic excellence is essential because it goes to the core of the mission statement of any university and has been part of the ethos of our universities since they were established.
We also sought to include a specific object to protect and promote academic freedom. During the Second Stage debate on the future of Irish universities we argued that the promotion and protection of academic freedom is pivotal to the future role of university life, it is what has given it its strengths from the outset and it is the one characteristic which has enabled academics, irrespective of the university in which they work, to make a distinctive and distinguished contribution to our social and cultural life. It is important to state in a mission statement such as this that we cherish the concept of academic freedom and that we want to make it an objective of every college and institution. No academic working in a university should be afraid of constraints on his or her academic freedom, on his or her ability to do research in any way he or she determines or on his or her capability of critical inquiry in the university.
Paragraph (c) promotes the "right of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its ethos, traditions, and the principles of academic, operational and management freedom, consistent with the effective and efficient use of resources and accountability to the public". That was included in the Minister's position paper in November 1995 and it was considered an extremely important provision by the heads of the universities because it guaranteed autonomy in terms of academic operation and freedom of the college to order its affairs. They regarded the Bill, as then published, as an attempt to curtail that freedom. Hence, they welcomed the provision in the Minister's position paper that this section would be included in the Bill. However, they were disappointed when it was not included. We want to reintroduce it to make a statement about the State's relationship with the universities.
Paragraph (d) seeks to "promote learning in its student body and in society generally", while paragraph (e) seeks to "promote the cultural, social and economic life of society, while fostering and respecting the diversity of the university's traditions". Paragraph (f) wants to "promote the official languages of the State, with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures". We all want universities to include the promotion and preservation of the Irish language and culture as part of their mission statements. Many universities have been doing that for some time and have performed well in that regard. Paragraph (g) seeks to "promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research" and paragraph (h) seeks to "disseminate the outcomes of its research in the community at large". Paragraph (i) seeks to "reflect a commitment by the university to principles of equality, and paragraph (j) seeks to "facilitate lifelong learning through the provision of adult and continuing education".
The Minister's objectives presuppose obligations on the State. There is little point including this section in the Bill unless the State is prepared to play its part in enabling the universities to accomplish all these objectives. The State has not done that to date; for example, State investment in research and development has been appallingly low. At present, the heads of the universities are concerned about the crisis of poor and obsolete equipment. There has been much discussion of the technological race and the need to produce highly trained and qualified graduates, particularly in the areas of computers and technology. However, colleges and universities do not have the state of the art equipment required to train and prepare such graduates for the employment market. Leaving aside EU funding, there was no provision in the 1996 budget for the purchase of equipment. In 1995, £2 million was made available and the same figure was allocated to universities in terms of equipment grants. That amount would not go far in terms of equipping one university not to mention the seven included under the Bill.
Following the fire at the National Microelectronics Centre, it cost approximately £10 million to rebuild and re-equip one laboratory. It is possible that an insurance company paid this amount but that example provides an illustration of the type of expenditure involved. The State makes legislation in respect of institutions such as universities and informs them about what should be their mission statements. However, the record shows that the Government has been extremely remiss in allocating funding to allow universities to achieve their goals.
The majority of multinational companies establishing businesses in Ireland are concerned about the shortage of graduates in the areas of computers and technology. There is a manpower mismatch in the economy at present. The only way to produce the necessary manpower and eliminate the shortage of graduates is by investing in equipment for and research in our universities. The CIRCA report shows that Ireland, perhaps with the exception of Portugal, comes at the bottom of the European league in terms of investment in higher education research. The State's contribution to such research is paltry and miserable. The entire thrust of the CIRCA report is that there must be a more even balance between the State's Exchequer contribution and those of the EU and the private sector to higher education research.
The private sector has driven such research in Ireland for the past ten years. Had the universities not encouraged private industry and firms to invest, the situation would be critical. Had European funding not come on stream and had the universities not had the skills and capacity to draw down such funding and win European research contracts, there would be fewer jobs available and less research being carried out in our universities. We should take our hats off to the universities who, in conjunction with the private sector, drove higher education research. However, State funding for this research has not been good during the past three to four years.
The CIRCA report is objective and independent and should be published because it paints a damning picture of official neglect of higher education research in Ireland. That does not sit well with our stated objectives of industrial promotion and attracting multinational, hi-tech companies. We boast that graduates are available to work for such companies. However, unless the failures of the past two to four years are quickly remedied, that will come to haunt us in due course.
The point I am making is not political because it has been made in many independent reports. The amendment states that universities should promote the cultural, social and economic life of society. I agree that universities have a key role to play in these areas. The universities will be critical in driving the country forward during the next ten to 15 years. We have entered the age of the information society and knowledge based industries and the old manufacturing, smoke stack industries have disappeared. We should replace the emphasis on funding the physical infrastructure with an emphasis on funding the intellectual infrastructure. The State is not doing this.
We must consider the complete picture of how funding is allocated vis-�-vis industry, universities and general training and the budget may have to be reapportioned in respect of those areas. If we accept that we are part of the information society where modern employment will be generated, it makes absolute sense to invest in that area. The universities and higher education research represent the best vehicles for doing this.
Another area dealt with in the stated objectives relates to the facilitation of lifelong learning through the provision of adult and continuing education. The universities have been innovative and effective in developing adult education programmes, many of which are not funded, to any great degree, by the Higher Education Authority. Some funding has been provided for a number of adult education programmes but, by and large, much of this originates from either the resources of universities or people who attend adult education courses. When one considers that many of these courses break through the education poverty gap or trap, it is appalling that inadequate funding and assistance is being made available for people to attend them — particularly when funding for undergraduate education is taken into account.
Unemployed women and the spouses of unemployed men pay perhaps £300 per year to attend an adult education course in UCC, Maynooth, Trinity College or other universities. To such people, £300 is a large amount of money and they must also pay course fees, etc. Most universities state that they provide subsidies for people attending adult education courses but, in reality, people who have never had experience of education for historic, social or economic reasons are being charged fees. In many cases, such people were not in a position to partake in second or third level education but it is tremendous that the universities have taken on the challenge of furthering their education. However, they will be charged fees for attending courses while the bulk of middle class undergraduates will not be obliged to do so
Government press releases refer to the social exclusion and the need for access to university life. However, adult education, mature students and the second chance scheme are the most under funded student categories. These areas open the door to social inclusion, provide opportunities for people who never had the experience of education, who have made wonderful progress in a short period and whose academic records, once they come into the system, is superb. These people are keen to return to education but theirs is the only sector where major financial obstacles exist.
Most universities offer approximately 100 places in first Arts to second chance and mature students. UCD receives approximately 800 applications and UCC receives 400 while Maynooth has 80 places available. If we want to open up our universities the areas of adult education and lifelong learning will provide the key. By extension, the partnership areas established under the PESP and other agreements are considering initiatives to bring people into education and try to change attitudes in certain unemployment blackspots where the pattern of education participation and completion is low. Members are aware of the areas to which I refer. There is a strong case for adult education to provide the key for people in these communities to enter education and develop skills. However, it is the Cinderella of the student support system.
Many parliamentary questions have been tabled about the fact that most independent mature students only receive the adjacent rate maintenance grant; most of them do not get the full grant, meagre as it is. I thank the Chairman for his forbearance and tolerance but this is an important part of the Bill. The State is telling the universities these are to be their objectives but there is little point in saying that unless the Government is prepared to invest to enable the universities to achieve those objectives.
Deputy Martin's contribution was thought provoking. Obviously the objects and functions of a university are critical. I congratulate him on setting out the all-encompassing objects of a university in his amendment.
The Bill as drafted contains the objects of a university. I was swayed by the arguments of the Irish Federation of University Teachers about the objects in the Bill as drafted and that section 11 (e) and (f) would hamper the freedom of action of the universities and should not be delineated in the Bill. We must strive to give as much autonomy to universities as possible, this also pertains to other Parts of the Bill.
Amendment No. 36 proposes to delete "cultural and social" and substitute "cultural, social and economic". Amendment No. 37 proposes to delete paragraph (d) in page 9, lines 40 to 42, and substitute "to promote the extensive use of the Irish language and the cultivation and promotion of the rich and distinctive linguistic and cultural resources of Ireland,". This tries to strengthen that point. The other amendments propose to delete paragraphs (e) and (f). They all have to be read in conjunction as they all refer to the objects of the university.
Universities play a critical role in the economic life of our country. I was swayed by the argument of IFUT that universities have a specific responsibility as regards the job creation policies of a particular Government. That is too restrictive. The objective of enhancing the social, cultural and economic life can still be encompassed in the Bill. However, in terms of the ability of universities to go and develop, this constrictive section should not be allowed stand.
Amendment No. 37 strengthens the hand of the universities. There is a dearth of courses in the Irish language, which is virtually unused at third level. This needs to be addressed particularly when one considers that there now seems to be a popular promotion of the language at primary school level. Hopefully this will continue and more students will find they have the capability and interest in pursuing courses through Irish. Obviously there has to be some response on behalf of the universities so that they can deal with this.
Deputy Martin spoke long and eloquently on his amendment. I would like to hear the Minister's response because the points he made are central and critical to the Bill. We should debate the objects of the university and many of the issues stipulated by the Minister are worthy in themselves. There is no harm trying to augment them and be more precise about what we see as the objectives of the university. The idea of the autonomy of universities taking first place is appropriate and should be the purpose of the Bill.
The use of the terms "objects" and "functions" in the initial section in the original Bill is not wonderful or elegant English. Perhaps the term "objectives" as opposed to "objects" should have been used. The standard of English in university legislation should be high. I will not lecture on standards as I am not an English teacher.
Amendment No. 38 refers to the promotion of the Irish language. The Minister proposes to promote the official languages of the State; the term "official languages of the State" is also in our amendment No. 34. We have two official languages, English and Irish. This was introduced to promote the first official language — Irish. Perhaps the Minister can advise as to whether there will be any discrepancies as regards the University College Galway Act, 1929, vis-�-vis the promotion of the Irish language. The promotion of the Irish language should be an objective. We have to promote the standard of English but we should not promote English as the only language.
In amendment No. 40, the Minister proposes to delete paragraph (e) and substitute "(e) to support and contribute to the realisation of national economic and social development". I can see why she has amended it; if the objectives of the university are to support and contribute to the realisation of national economic development she has to do the same. It is the autonomous role of academic and economic society to suggest innovation and to put forward policies which may or may not reflect what we as politicians think should be done or what the economic development of a particular Government is at the time.
Academic freedom is uppermost. That is fair if we agree with what academics have to say and if they persuade us to go down that path, However, I am sometimes critical of the fact that, being academic, they may not be realists. Setting out the objectives of a university means it has a role to contribute, but not particularly to Government policies — I am wary of the language being used. They certainly contribute to the State and to current thinking, within economic frameworks, on job creation policies. However, I do not think they should be attached to any Government policies. They should be allowed to make their point and if they can persuade Governments to act on what they have to say, that is fair enough.
In amendment No. 43 the Minister proposes "to promote gender balance and equality of opportunity among students and employees of the university". I assume that is an addendum to her original section but I wonder how one would go about that because it will be very difficult. Has the Minister any ideas how she proposes to do that?
There is a broad measure of agreement underlying the discussion of these amendments. The first thing to establish is that universities have a central role in the development of the country. That was acknowledged by Deputy Martin. Universities are one of two major components of the higher education system catering for all adult age groups. Deputy Martin mentioned those returning to education in the community, and universities provide an opportunity for lifelong learning and continued intellectual, cultural and artistic growth.
As regards society as a whole, universities contribute research and new knowledge to the generation of critical thinking and analysis. Universities provide a resource of skill, enterprise and innovation for the economy to meet the needs of agriculture, business, industry, the professions and the public service.
There was some passion in the Deputy's contribution about the need for funding, and how universities will meet the objects of this Bill. In 1987 total State expenditure to the university sector was £105.5 million; in 1990 it went up to £128 million; in 1993 it rose to £156.9 million and in 1996 the figure was £227.6 million. It is worth noting what we now expect the universities to do on their own behalf as well as that of their students and the community, as laid out in the objectives of the Bill.
The amendments I am proposing ensure that while the section states in broad terms what the universities are established to do, it does not mean that the section decides exclusively on all the objectives of the university. As regards amendment No. 35, it would have been easy to lengthen a shopping list but I took it in broad terms to give flexibility. I am already addressing the amendments that Deputies Martin, Coughlan and Keogh are proposing, through my proposed amendments to sections 11 and 12, and the amendment to section 12(3). I would ask the Deputies to refer back to that.
I do not consider that the important objective of economic development should be deleted and incorporated with the cultural and social life which is proposed in amendments No. 34, 36 and 39. I accept the spirit in which Deputy Martin opened the debate. He agreed there was an important economic role as well as one for the development of the cultural and social life of the country.
Deputies will note my proposal in amendment No. 40. I have received representations from some universities that the references to innovation and job creation policies and objectives are excessively detailed and instrumentalist: horror of horrors to be accused of imposing anything so draconian on them. I propose to delete this reference and further amend the object to include both economic and social development. We are keeping the framework broad and the activity flexible.
On a related matter, I do not favour the removal of the important object to educate, train and retain higher level professional, technical and managerial personnel as proposed within Opposition amendments Nos. 34 to 39. I think these are very reasonable objectives for a university. They are consistent with the thrust not only of my White Paper but also of the Green Paper. The universities have a very large input into economic development including such education and retraining as this object addresses. That both Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats should wish to dilute a statutory statement of these objects, comes as something of a surprise to me. That refers back to earlier contributions to the debate on the need to recognise that the universities have a large input into the economic development of our country.
I agree with Deputies Martin and Coughlan that an object should be added to address the important issue of equality as proposed by amendment No. 34. They will see that in my amendment No. 43. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are necessary because of the insertion of this new object.
Tá sé an-tábhachtach dom go mbeadh sé mar cuspóir do gach ollscoil an Ghaeilge a chur chun chinn. Is doigh liom go bhfuil sé seo á dheanamh ag ollscoileanna éagsula cheana féin ach anois beidh sé mar príomh chuspóir acu uilig é seo a dhéanamh ar chur faoi bhráid na Dála Bille ar bith a léirigh chuspóir mar seo do na h-ollscoileanna. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an Bille mar atá se fiúntach agus éifeachtach faoi cheist na Gaeilge.
Deputy Coughlan need not fear any diminution of power in the UCG Act, as it was referred to, which is not being repealed in any way. It is one that gives special emphasis to the role of the universities and the Irish language.
I am satisfied that Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 37 and Deputy Martin's amendment No. 38 relating to the promotion of the Irish language add nothing meaningful to the substantial provisions already contained in section 11; indeed, they tend to weaken them. In the case of amendment No. 38 in particular, there is no acknowledgement — as there is at present in the section — of the diversity of language and cultural traditions in society. This diversity is to be celebrated and its promotion is a worthy object of a university. I have no doubt that Deputy Coughlan's remarks concur with this.
I find amendment No. 53 — proposing that a university would be obliged to provide courses to degree level through Irish -surprising. In the Second Stage debate on the Bill I was accused by Deputy Keogh and her parliamentary colleagues of being excessively proscriptive and infringing academic freedom. Here is an example of both. Under this Bill universities can, of course, provide courses through Irish. I would greatly favour them doing so but however worthy the motives, I do not propose to trespass into the academic affairs of any university — I mean that right across the choices they have — and limit their academic freedom by prescribing in legislation how they should conduct any course. For that reason, and being mindful that this Bill must be seen as one that acknowledges the academic freedom of the universities to decide their own affairs, I take the thrust of Deputy Keogh's remarks which are to allow ourselves the objective regarding the Irish language but not to be pushed into conceding in legislation how the affairs of universities should respond to this.
Some of the Minister's amendments meet our amendments and may have been provoked by them or by outside consultations. However she has missed my point about the obligations on the Government to enable universities to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill concerning its mission statement. The Minister went through the figures from 1987 to the present day in terms of expenditure on third level education. We all know that third level education benefits considerably from EU transfers, particularly from the Social and Structural Funds. I will take only the Structural Funds to illustrate my point. If we all agree that universities have an important strategic role in economic development, is it not a sobering thought that of the £6 billion or £7 billion we will receive in EU Structural Funds between 1994 and 1999, the universities will only receive £36 million in capital funding? Does that not say something about the central role in which we have placed our universities?
The STIAC report suggested that about 80 per cent of all research in Ireland takes place within the universities while the CIRCA report identified research as the essential mechanism in attracting jobs in industry. The CIRCA report clearly criticises the lack of funding for higher education research. The European White Paper on training identifies the need to have information technology as the core element in employment creation, particularly in the developed world. The less developed world of eastern Europe and the Far East will win the labour intensive industries. There is no question about that. The function of the developed world is to capture and produce a skilled labour force that can accommodate, attract and develop knowledge based industries.
The most important capital injection in this country has been structural funding, particularly the most recent round which was negotiated by Deputy Albert Reynolds. At that time people laughed at him when he said he had secured £6 billion. However, he did secure it and that funding has underpinned much social and economic development. However, the universities only received £36 million. That illustrates a lack of strategic, centralised Government planning.
For years there was an equipment grant allocated by the Department. I understand that over the last four or five years it amounted to £2 million. However, in 1996 it was a nil grant. Can the Minister explain this? There is an equipment crisis in the universities which impairs their capacity to provide the best training for students. A far more coherent response is needed from the Minister.
The Minister has argued that amendment No. 38 regarding the Irish language would dilute the section. I reject that argument. We are specifically identifying the Irish language as having a key position in the universities. It is important that each university has the objective of promoting the Irish language as the language of general communication, to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction and to provide for the cultivation of the language and its associated literary and cultural traditions as subjects of teaching and research. We are arguing very strongly for that. The amendment in no way takes from the diversity of Irish culture or the language. It is an effective amendment and the Minister should accept it. It is wrong to try to undermine it in a churlish way.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (c) of amendment No. 34. Will she explain why that was not included in the Bill? The commitment outlined in that paragraph was given to the universities prior to publication of the position paper in November 1995 and was subsequently taken out of the Bill.
Questions about investment in third level, the amendment concerning the Irish language and the removal of a section have been raised. Regarding the removal of a section, the Deputy will notice that what he thinks has been dropped reappears under section 54.
It was taken out of the original Bill.
I have answered your question because I know you are concerned.
The Deputy spoke of investment in third level education. I have no difficulty agreeing that investment by Government in human resources produces an enormous economic and social return. The Deputy is wrong in suggesting that EU funding is delivered entirely to third level institutions. There have been interventions to ensure that large sections of the community who would never aspire to third level have their journey mapped out for them. I am sure the Deputy is aware that interventions such as the Early Start Programme, Breaking the Cycle, curriculum changes and the education centre development are EU funded programmes.
At the pinnacle of investment is capital buildings funding with £120 million available and over £70 million going to the regional technical colleges. Previous Administrations made aspirational noises in the direction of the regional technical colleges but the reality was such that I had no difficulty making a heavier weighting towards investment in the regional technical college sector than the university sector. That was followed by a new initiative that broke barriers, where the universities, alongside state investment, went into partnership with private industry. That resulted in extra places and the development of capital programmes.
I suggest to the Deputy that we are on the same side. We are seeking increased investment and we want to be reassured that that investment is not just benefiting one section of society, that the funds are not earmarked too late for too many but are part of a progression. On behalf of the Government I accepted the NESC report on early school leavers last Monday and I calculated that it will be nine years before we can judge the success of the Early Start Programme. We want to prevent people from dropping out of education as early as 15 years of age. Even after nine years these children will not be entering the universities — they will be entering the senior cycle. Some of the intervention is spectacularly successful in the short term.
The underlying philosophy is that education is the key to life chances and that some sections of the community have never been handed that key. To ensure equality of access one must intervene and invest long before university level. I am confident that the partnership which has developed between the State, the EU and the private sector will meet the needs of this tiger economy. We must acknowledge the central, educational role that universities play and put that role on a statutory basis.
I do not know whether the Deputy intends to call a vote on the amendment dealing with the Irish language. For a number of months I have been accused of being statist and interventionist. Deputies should consider my intentions as regards the Irish language as stated in section 11 (c) —"to promote the official languages of the State, with special regard to the preservation and promotion of the Irish language and cultures".
By inserting this section into statute we will give universities the flexibility they need to respond to an objective on which we are all agreed. I am very confident that they will respond without the need to be overly prescriptive in telling them what should happen with regard to Irish. I accept the spirit of the amendment but suggest that Deputies refrain from putting in place the nuts and bolts of how to run a university.
The Minister has refrained.
I know the Deputy is keeping an eye on me but I would suggest that my wording meets his objectives.
I accept the Minister's comments on amendment No. 53. I should have said "may" provide courses to degree level through the medium of Irish.". It is critical that we have an intention and commitment within the universities to promote the Irish language. We should not be interventionist however; we must signal our concern about the level of teaching through Irish and the number of courses which are available. I do not know whether Deputy Martin agrees with the Minister's comments on that but this debate, in itself, is important and may put down a marker.
We should be able to have a dialogue with the universities. Perhaps this debate will send out a signal that they should pull up their socks and we should not be afraid to say that. That is not interventionist but sensible and, whatever subsection we decide on, it is important to emphasise the Irish language and provide third level courses for those seeking them.
It will be interesting to see the influence of gaelscoileanna in a few years but the fact is that most people lose their Irish once they leave school. I spoke reasonably fluent Irish when I left school but, despite efforts over the years to continue speaking it, the knowledge declined because of lack of practice. We need to avoid that.
I did not indicate that I was pressing a vote on the Irish language amendment but the universities have been very good at promoting Irish, not only in terms of formal degree courses but in general communication. I have no difficulty with a general provision except that there is concern about the terminology in the section dealing with the official languages. There is this idea that we are promoting English and there is no need to do so. The Royal Irish Academy approached me and the Department on this matter. The academy feels there should be a specific commitment to promote Irish because it is still a minority language. What we are signalling to the universities is that we want them to see a role for themselves in the promotion of Irish. We do not need to tell them that they have a role in promoting English.
The Minister mentioned other arguments about Breaking The Cycle as examples of the use of resources. Breaking The Cycle was made possible because of the reduction in enrolments. To what degree would EU funds have financed that programme? Would the Minister accept that she had 336 teachers available because of the fall in student numbers? The decision as to how these teachers are used determines which programmes are introduced. Is that not the truth?
There is a holding element. If the teachers' unions had their way falling enrolments would mean just giving everyone a Smartie.
It was made possible by the fact that teachers were available because of falling enrolments.
It was a brave decision.
I would argue the merits and demerits of that another day because there are many disadvantaged pupils who have not received additional teachers.
I do not agree.
Like the home school liaison programme, this was possible because of falling enrolments.
— research, pupil-teacher ratio, disadvantaged funding, etc — the Deputy is under-estimating the reaction to the measures I introduced.
When I talk about universities and their role in the economic life of the country, I am not speaking in terms of the universities versus Breaking the Cycle or Early Start and so on. That is the wrong way to look at it. From the country’s point of view if we are saying that, to develop jobs in the next 20 years, we must capitalise on the information revolution and invest in research, then the universities need additional investment. I am not talking about investment from within the education budget but from the overall £6 billion which was made available for operational programmes. One could argue that £36 million out of £6 billion for the university sector, and the higher education research in particular, says a lot about our strategic planning. We need to acknowledge our deficiencies in higher education research as revealed in the STIAC report and many others. The entire country will benefit if we recognise that deficiency and plan for the future. It is not good enough to sectionalise this and say that if we do this we are hurting everyone else. That is not my intention.
I agree with Deputy Keogh. Bhí a lán Gaeilge agam uair amháin ach tá sé beagnach imithe anois mar ní raibh cleachta ná taithí agam leis. Tá brón orm go bhfuil sé imithe uaim.
The jury is out on Teilifís na Gaeilge. Most people have goodwill towards the language but we are realistic enough to understand that this is a gamble by the Minster for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. We have enough confidence in the Minister and the Irish people to give this a try for at least three years, so let us see what the response is from those who watch the programmes. Charity begins at home and those who promote the Irish language should give a lead and ensure that the station receives adequate support. We should also consider co-operation between the universities and Teilifís na Gaeilge as happens in Britain with the Open University.
Last weekend there was a conference in Limerick of researchers and post-graduates from nine Irish universities. Rather than requesting the Minister to do this, that and the other, it is important that private enterprise invests more in research to enable graduates and students to carry out work which will benefit this country. Multinational companies have not invested to any degree and we should recommend that they do.
There is a lot of hypocrisy and insincerity in Irish education which is a battleground of vested interests. The Minister is caught in the middle and gets no help from anyone. People who should know better should keep their mouths shut. I am often surprised by religious groups who come to see me looking for money for their schools. If I told them I would give them the money, even though Deputy Keogh needed it more urgently, they would not worry. The concept of love thy neighbour goes out the window very quickly when it comes to education. It is man or woman mind thyself, and the religious are no different from anyone else. They are an endangered species but are still in authority in some places and are vigorous in fighting for their rights. I wonder if religion means anything at all when it comes to fighting your corner.
The Minister needs help and is serious when she says that Irish education is changing. The number of students is falling and she has to manage resources in the best interests of all concerned. It is important that she does this and puts down a blueprint for the future to get the best possible return on limited resources.
I agree with Deputy Kemmy on private investment in education but that is a matter for the universities. To a large extent they have been successful. However, the State also has a role to play and, as Deputy Rabbitte will testify, there is not sufficient research and development carried out in this country. This will hurt us in the future, particularly in relation to the development of indigenous industry.
Section 11(e) states that one of the objectives of universities is "to support and contribute to the realisation of national economic development, innovation and job creation policies and objectives,".
Amendment No. 40 will change that.
I found this very objectionable. It is clear that this Bill will be very different following the amendments to it, however, I did find it offensive and restrictive to suggest that universities should be an arm of the State in relation to those matters. I am astounded that section 11(e) found its way into the Bill in the first place and I am glad it is being amended. However, like so many other things, it should not have been there and I wonder about the Minister's commitments to these amendments which, thankfully, have been forced upon her. It says a lot about the mindset of whoever drew up this Bill and their objectives in restricting the autonomy of the universities.
I am broadly in agreement with the Members' contributions. I am moving amendments Nos. 35, 40, 41, 42 and 43 taking on board the breadth of discussion which this section has encouraged. With the support of Deputy Kemmy, this will be an interesting debate which will help shape the future of education without being overly prescriptive.
I enjoyed Deputy Kemmy's comments and I agree with the need for private sector investment. However, the reality is that the private sector and EU funds have driven higher education research in the past ten years.
Over the years the religious orders were very effective in securing funding and we should express our gratitude for their achievements in education. Second level principals will testify that huge gaps are now emerging in management structures since the demise of the religious orders. They were doing a lot of work which was not being paid for by the Department and lay principals are now finding it difficult to get staff to carry out these functions.
Nuns have become legendary in their capacity to extract money from politicians and if one became Minister for Finance every so often things could be very good in this country. I accept that the Minister is taking on board the spirit of what we are saying but we will formally move our amendments.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
