Mr. Glenn Fitzpatrick:

On behalf of the more than 25,000 students of Dublin Institute of Technology, the Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown, and the Institute of Technology, Tallaght, I thank the Chairman and members for giving us the opportunity to present here today on the heads of the technological universities Bill. These proposals are of profound interest to the student unions because they provide for the merger of our three institutes of technology and, ultimately, the creation of a technological university out of the merger process. As the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, said around the time of the launch of the heads of Bill, these proposals represent a potentially seismic shift in the delivery of third level education in Ireland. Given the once-in-a-lifetime nature of the proposals being considered by the committee, we in the three student unions are eager to ensure the final legislation is fit for purpose from a student and wider societal perspective. In particular, we are anxious that it should accommodate the appropriate and active involvement of all stakeholders, including students, in the governance and day-to-day running of the new institutions on the basis of autonomy, equity and parity of esteem. In this context, it is important that the legislation facilitates and supports the mergers of the student unions involved in order to ensure strong, independent student input.
We have proposed a number of changes to the heads of Bill that would make the proposed legislation more inclusive and respectful of the rights, responsibilities and autonomy of all stakeholders, particularly students. In broad terms, the changes we are proposing are to do with important definitional matters, governance structures and processes, and processes through which the technological universities will be created. There are several definitional issues that need to be amended in the Bill itself to make the legislation more inclusive and fairer from a student perspective. We are calling for changes to the definition of "student" and "student union" to ensure unions are clearly defined as independent bodies set up and controlled by students and which provide fair and democratic representation for students in a manner that is untrammelled by fear or favour. In addition, it is important that unions' roles in providing commercial services at reduced rates to students would be reflected in the Bill.
In regard tothe objectives and functions of a technological university, we are broadly happy with what is proposed in the heads of the Bill. We recommend, however, that the proposed function in regard to collaboration be broadened to include the staff and students of the technological universities as well as the other interests mentioned. We are also recommending that the provision on academic freedom be broadened so that students, too, would have the freedom, along with staff, "to question and test received wisdom, put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions" and that they "shall not be disadvantaged for the exercise of that freedom”.
The final definitional issue we wish to raise relates to fees. In order to ensure transparency and equity, we are proposing that the provision at head 69(1) be amended to include a specific statement that fees can be used to fund an independent student union as well as the other services set out in that provision.
On governance, we in the three student unions are largely in agreement with the overall shape of the governing body proposed for the new institutions. In particular, we welcome the proposal that a majority of its members be external and representative of broader society. However, we would like more certainty in terms of the level of representation for the different stakeholders in order to ensure fairness and proportionality between the different interests. In this context, we would like the legislation to provide for the nomination by the student union of two undergraduate students and one postgraduate student to the governing body. In addition, we are recommending that provision should be made for the inclusion of at least one local authority representative on the body to ensure linkages with local authorities and the communities within which the institutions are located.
In regard tothe academic council for the technological universities, we are recommending that its functions be broadened to include approval of all programmes of study, making recommendations for the award of all degrees, and ensuring the university has a quality assurance system that complies with European standards and guidelines. On the composition of the council, the heads of Bill propose that it include an appropriate number of students. Unfortunately, common practice in the third level sector is that students comprise only a small minority of such councils, notwithstanding the role of such bodies in addressing issues of fundamental importance to students and their studies. On the basis of the principle of parity of esteem, we see no reason why students should not comprise up to half the membership of the academic council.
Our final point in regard to governance concerns the provision at head 60 dealing with dispute resolution, including those with the student union. Based on our own experience in DIT, this provision needs to be streamlined. As it stands, procedures relating to disputes between management and the student union are established only following consultation with staff representatives, even though the disputes do not involve those staff, thereby delaying the resolution process. This is not satisfactory.

On the process of establishing a technological university, we recommend the proposed criteria that the merged institutes of technology will have to meet be made by including the following: evidence of a high level of engagement of the institute with learners and the wider community as well as the other stakeholders set out in the heads of the Bill; the quality of educational provision of the institute should be informed by the needs of wider society and well as by those of enterprise; and that allacademic staff above assistant lecturer level should have a professional qualification in learning or teaching or will have achieved same within two years of appointment.
The heads of the Bill provides for the appointment by the HEA of a five-person panel to consider an application by an institution for designation as a technological university. In this context, we feel it is fair and reasonable that there be a student input into this process through Union of Students in Ireland nominating a person to sit on such an the advisory panel.
One other issue we would like to address is a provision to allow the technological universities to put charters in place such as a student charter, a matter that is addressed in the 1997 Universities Act but not in the heads of the Bill. We recommend that this omission should be addressed.
The creation of the technological universities is one of the most profound changes to take place in the Irish educational landscape. It is important that the institutions that emerge from this process help to drive forward our economy and society and also provide a template for a new way of doing business - one that is more respectful, democratic and inclusive of all stakeholders and sections of our society than our traditional universities have been. We hope our submission contributes to this process. I thank the committee once again for the opportunity to make this presentation and we look forward to engaging with the members further regarding Committee Stage of the Bill.