Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill. It is long-awaited legislation, the aim of which is to transfer the responsibility for the management of Ireland's institutes of technology from the Department of Education and Science to the Higher Education Authority. Along with the Minister I congratulate all involved in the institutes of technology and, previously, the regional technical colleges in how far they have brought them. I welcome the fact that this legislation can bring them that step further and give them greater autonomy.

In transferring the responsibility to the HEA, the scope of this legislation entails the amendment of a large amount of existing legislation. The Institutes of Technology Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Regional Technical College Acts, the Dublin Institute of Technology Acts, the Higher Education Act, the Universities Act, the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act and the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act. The need for this legislation has been flagged for some time and should bring with it a positive implication for our institutes of technology and for the crucial role that they play in Ireland's educational and economic development.

Placing the institutes of technology under the control of the Higher Education Authority, and removing them from the Department of Education and Science, is recognition of the true and important role of our ITs. It is also a clear indication of the importance of the IT sector for Ireland's future development and is a further recognition of the distance that the institutes of technology have travelled in educational terms since the first regional technical colleges at Athlone, Carlow, Dundalk, Sligo and Waterford opened their doors in 1970. Since their inception, the network of institutes has been extended throughout the country, with the latest institute of technology opening in Blanchardstown, County Dublin, in 2000.

Our institutes of technology are a vital part of the higher education sector in Ireland. The institutes have diversified in terms of course choice and now offer courses in everything, be it engineering, science, business studies, industrial design, music, art, aircraft systems, law, taxation, tourism, software development, general nursing, agriculture, video or film. No doubt I have left some courses out. Now, with the Dublin Institute of Technology planning a move to a new unified campus at Grangegorman, which I greatly welcome, further growth and development in the sector should be supported.

It is perhaps inevitable that the focus of the Department of Education and Science will be most frequently directed at primary and secondary education. Given the challenges that face the Department in these areas, such as providing the best possible education for the children of all families, the challenge of meeting the needs of those with special educational requirements and the pressing need to stem the rising problems in terms of discipline and early school leaving, the institutes of technology can be overlooked. This is not appropriate or acceptable, and I welcome the Institutes of Technology Bill 2006 because it allows for greater autonomy and development of our ITs.

In 2004, the OECD published its review of higher education in Ireland, which, in addition to the wide-ranging finding across the education spectrum, made a number of precise recommendations for our institutes of technology. The OECD review of the Irish third level education system stressed the need for a unified approach to tertiary education. The key recommendation was that while Ireland should retain a differentiated tertiary education system, steps should be taken to integrate the components better than at present.

The OECD committee also noted there was a fragmentation of policy and policy implementation which had stifled development of the sector, and this was reinforced by the division of management between the Department of Education and Science and the Higher Education Authority. Such a fragmentation of policy should not be allowed to continue, and the legislation being debated today must be effective in closing off this problem. It is important that under this legislation, in section 15, the institutes will now submit their reports to the HEA and not to the VECs as was the case up to this, and that financial arrangements will also be a matter for the HEA. The OECD report noted that even between institutions with a record of co-operation, the current situation was clearly unsatisfactory, commenting: "Even in the case of Cork, where collaborative arrangements over degree programmes work well, an attempt by the two institutions to develop a joint marine/nautical research and teaching centre was frustrated by an inability to arrange complementary funding from national sources within a workable timeframe."

It is clearly not in the interest of our educational institutions to allow the situation to continue as it is, and one of the key recommendations made by the OECD in 2004 was to bring the institutes of technology and the universities under a single funding authority. In making this recommendation, the OECD report also firmly stated that the new arrangements should contain a mechanism to prevent so-called mission drift in either direction. It is important that the role and work of our educational institutions are not unnecessarily duplicated. The review group also noted that transferring the funding of the institutes of technology to a single funding authority would remove a range of managerial constraints that the institutes believe disadvantage them in comparison with universities and hinder them from reacting quickly to pressures and opportunities in their regions. The legislation addresses this.

I welcome the fact that the roles of the governing body and of the director are clearly defined in the Bill and that the governing body will now decide on the policy direction of the institutes while the director will be responsible for the implementation of that policy. This removes the potential for conflict that existed in the system and which has caused difficulty.

Has the Minister thought of changing the title of director to that of president? It is not a huge issue but it merits debate. From an international perspective, the title of president is more clearly acknowledged and understood, while that of director might be taken to mean, perhaps, a director of a department or a member of the board. Internationally, the title of director now often applies to heads of research as well. Perhaps the Minister might consider this on Committee Stage. Dublin Institute of Technology has a president as its head and consideration should be given to extending this title to all other institutes.

Perhaps the Minister will clarify the bodies or people who will be entitled under section 20 to report to the Minister on the operation of the college, including giving them access to all records. In the interests of clarity it would be better if these bodies or persons were clearly defined in the legislation. It is not quite clear at present who or what those bodies can be.

In dealing with the duties of the governing body under section 21A, the Bill states that the governing body should require the director to prepare statements of the policies of the college with regard to access. I will now focus on the issue of access for disabled persons to our institutes. The Minister will no doubt be aware of a survey carried out by AHEAD, published last year, entitled Participation of and Services for Students with Disabilities in Institutes of Technology 2004-2005. A total of 14 of the 15 institutes responded to this survey.

Some of the results make for sobering reading. Of the 14 institutes, there were 1,366 undergraduates with a disability, representing 2.76% of the undergraduate population in the institutes. The best participation rate was 5.5% in Tralee while the lowest was in Cork at 0.52%. I am not sure what the reasons were for the differences in each institute. The participation rate has only increased at a marginal level since 1993-94, from 0.53% to the current 2.76%. This is an issue for the management of the institutes. Only four of the respondents said that full consideration is given to students with disability in the future planning of their institutes. Only three institutes employ a disability officer, one of whom is part-time. Six of the institutes have carried out an access audit and one of the eight who had not was beginning the process. All faculty buildings in five of the institutes are accessible to students with disabilities; they are not in the other nine institutes.

The HEA's action group on access to third level education in 2001 recommended that each university and institute of technology have a minimum of one full-time permanent post of disability officer, but this has not been implemented throughout the institutes. It would be easy to lay responsibility for this at the door of the institutes. However, as the HEA pointed out in 2005, universities have, on average, between €500,000 and €1million of ring-fenced funding available for disability initiatives but institutes of technology have an average of approximately €50,000 available.

I welcome the fact that under this Bill the institutes will have to outline their policy in the area of disability. It is clear that much more must be done to ensure greater access for these students and to ensure a fairer system of funding is in place to cater for students with disabilities.

I am concerned at paragraph 9 of the amending Schedule relating to the director giving evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts. It states that a director "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy". This type of provision sneaks into most legislation but I dislike the stranglehold and silencing it inspires.

An institute of technology can have a major impact on the area in which it is located. Athlone IT, for example, serves Westmeath, Offaly, Roscommon, Longford and further afield, while Carlow IT serves Carlow, Laois, Kilkenny, Wicklow, Wexford and wider areas. They have an immensely important job not only in educating their students but also in helping to attract industry to their regions and providing the skill sets needed for those industries. In doing this they contribute a great deal to trying to achieve the Government's supposed policy of balanced regional development, which are often buzzwords rather than reality.

It is ludicrous to stop the head of an institute of technology from expressing his or her opinions and views on how Government policy is affecting his or her institute and its aims and objectives. Will the Minister reconsider this point and not be afraid of real debate? Perhaps many of the opinions they will offer will be positive. Either way, we should be delighted to get these expert views, not hide in fear of them.

Section 27A states that VEC recommendations for appointments to the governing body by the Minister cannot include staff members of a college or DIT. Will this will also apply to the chairperson of the governing body? Has the Minister any concerns about the feasibility of a staff member becoming chairperson of the governing body when, effectively, the director or president is that staff member's boss? This could lead to difficulties and I ask the Minister to give some consideration to the potential difficulties that could arise.

Paragraph 7 of the amending Schedule states that the term of office of the director shall be ten years. No such rule is being applied to the office of the chairperson. Why is this the case? There have been instances in the past where chairs have been in place for over 20 years.

See this speech in context