Mr. Tony Donohoe:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it on a important issue for the business sector. I am here explicitly to talk on behalf of the business sector. I want to briefly raise some points that are covered in a more detailed submission which has been circulated to committee and I would be pleased to address any issues the members may wish to raise.

IBEC believes that the proposed technological university offers considerable scope to improve how business and higher education institutions work together on a range of issues. These include the development of more work-ready graduates; the provision of employee education and training; more effective knowledge transfer between higher education and business; and a structure that acknowledges the importance of close-to-market research and provides consulting-problem-solving services, particularly for small and medium enterprises. There are many good examples of the above strengths in the existing institutes of technology. The sector has a strong regional presence and well-developed links with local businesses. However, from a business standpoint, it is critical that the proposed technological university designation is not a relabelling exercise of existing institutes of technology. The proposed change of status should drive improved performance. It should stimulate the development of a new type of institution with a distinct mission and a character that differentiates it from existing universities. That is why this Bill is so important. In order to deliver on these ambitions, the technological universities need to be agile, responsive, engaged with the business community and, most of all, they need to be delivering high quality teaching and research. Governance plays a critical role in all of this.

IBEC welcomes the objectives set out under section 50. We particularly welcome the emphasis on supporting entrepreneurship, enterprise development and a skilled workforce. The emphasis on collaboration with business and other education institutions is also welcome. Where we would respectfully suggest the draft Bill could be improved is around its provisions concerning quality and institutional autonomy. There is very little specific mention of quality in any of the heads of the Bill. In considering this issue, the joint committee could draw on the work of the technological universities quality framework project which is already under way and doing some excellent work in this regard. This states that at the heart of the technical universities' mission is the provision of education and training programmes across levels 6 to 10 of national framework of qualification. The draft Bill does not specifically mention this breadth of provision.

There is an important related point on funding, on which my colleagues from the institutions have already touched. During the past six years expenditure per third level student has fallen significantly at a time when competitor countries are increasing investment. We have reached a tipping point in terms of the impact of these funding cuts on quality. This message is beginning to reach international audiences and will undermine our efforts to attract mobile investment.

My second substantive point relates to institutional autonomy. International evidence suggests there is a strong correlation between university performance and self-determination. At a time when deregulation is regarded as a more efficient way of organising so many other areas of economic activity, the Irish university sector remains highly regulated, particularly in terms of HR management.

The suggested provisions in head 55, which provides a directive power to the Minister on remuneration, numbers of public servants and collective agreements, undermine the concept of institutional autonomy. Higher education institutions need the autonomy to set strategic direction, manage income streams, and manage and reward performance to attract the best teaching and research staff. With autonomy comes accountability. The Higher Education Authority is already doing some very worthwhile work with its new performance evaluation framework and the addition of other metrics around employer engagements, students' satisfaction etc. will set a more realistic performance framework through which to direct universities.

IBEC wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to present its views on this important legislation. We would suggest its enactment proceeds as speedily as possible. Five years have passed since the launch of a process to develop a national strategy for higher education. The technological university is one component. In the interim, there has been significant uncertainty in the sector which has been exacerbated by the funding cuts that I mentioned. This legislation will mark an important milestone in the reform process.