Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 19 February 2004
10 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science if the review of capital funding for third level institutions is complete; when he will release funding for priority third level capital projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5240/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraIt was originally expected that the review group would report to the Higher Education Authority, HEA, not later than 31 October 2003. However, the task was more complex than expected. Extensive work has been completed by the group, and that is at an advanced stage. It is the intention of the group to have a report submitted to the HEA by the end of March. The authority will then advise me of its views. I will then make decisions in respect of the capital investment programme for the third level sector in the context of the capital envelope of funds available to me.
I considered it prudent to re-evaluate and review the overall position on third level capital projects and to establish priorities for future years. The review was commissioned against a background of very considerable demands on the Exchequer for capital financing for higher education projects and the need to set out clearly the priorities and phasing of future investment programmes in the sector.
The remit of the review group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Kevin Kelly, is to develop criteria for prioritising projects mindful of existing building stock and future requirements and to prioritise on a project basis accordingly. Each institution has met the group, made a presentation of its institutional strategy and set the capital development proposals in such a strategic context.
While all major projects at third level remain paused pending the outcome of the work of the review group, the Deputy will know that I have made provision of €25 million in the 2004 Estimates for the capital element of cycle three of the programme for research in third level institutions, or PRTLI, to start this year. That allocation is a clear recognition of the Government's commitment to the programme, which will play a key role in developing world-class capabilities in research and innovation.
I welcome the fact that the report is due by the end of March. I make no apologies for being parochial on this question. On 15 November 1999, the Department told the colleges of education that they had been placed at the top of the third level agenda for capital investment. In particular, I wish to put the case for Mary Immaculate College in Limerick, where both students and staff are working in really atrocious conditions. They have been a victim of that pause. Will the Minister give any hope to that college?
Being parochial is not a sin, though sometimes in this House one would imagine it to be so. The Deputy need not apologise for it. I can give Mary Immaculate the same comfort as I can give any other institution. The project will be thoroughly evaluated, and I will respect the outcome of the review process. It is important that the process be needs-based. The group has been asked, in evaluating the proposals that it is putting forward to me, to have regard to the following criteria: health and safety; environment and access; student numbers and profile; national policies; regional and institutional balance; programme balance; collaboration between institutions; the national spatial strategy; the needs of the Border, midlands and western region; land purchase; urgent replacement projects; projects required to improve access and to accommodate student stock increases, which would affect Mary Immaculate; overall adequacy of built space vis-à-vis student stock and staff numbers; addressing a space deficit; institutional strategies; and so on. Being as familiar as I am with the college’s circumstances through various representations made by Mary Immaculate, I am sure that it would qualify under many of those criteria.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
