Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

There is broad welcome for this Bill. I will concentrate on some specific aspects and on education in general.

The Schedule states that the director of an institute of technology 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. The Government will argue that is a long-standing convention with respect to the Civil Service, but it appears to be a draconian measure. If that applied to Iraq or the former Soviet bloc, we would be a little startled. That the directors of the newly developed institutes will not be allowed express an opinion on policy is a barrier that must be broken down. This Bill would have been an ideal opportunity to start that breakdown. My party will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to deal with that and I hope that the Government will look at it in a positive manner. Otherwise we will ask in the future how we put up with such a situation. We must examine that convention right across the Civil Service. If Secretaries General of Departments were allowed speak publicly about issues such as decentralisation, we might adopt a different attitude.

I hope this Bill will be a precursor to allowing graduates from institutes of technology to vote in Seanad elections, and that they will not be kept as the preserve of a few universities. Society has evolved and I ask the Minister for Education and Science, in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to consider permitting graduates of these colleges, the former regional technical colleges and ITs, now the institutes of technology, to vote in Seanad elections.

In her speech, the Minister referred to access to third level education and stated that all our citizens should have a fair and equal opportunity to share in the considerable personal benefits of participation at these levels. I acknowledge participation has increased from 44% in 1998 to the present 55%, but in vast areas of the country, it is very low. While it is important to put funding into third level, until such time as we provide sufficient funding for educational disadvantage at the initial stages of education, we will hinder many people with educational difficulties. Such people generally come from poorer backgrounds because people with money can pay for intervention. Until that is done, there will always be that disadvantage.

For a number of years I have been talking of literacy difficulties. We do not have the ability in our educational system, due to the curriculum in the teaching colleges, to identify literacy difficulties. This leads to juvenile delinquency. I asked the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, to initiate research on the issue to find the correlation between literacy difficulties and juvenile delinquency, because I believe there is a strong correlation. In a few years' time we will see possibly a "Prime Time" programme, with dramatic music, showing what has been "discovered", when many of us know the situation has existed for years.

My county of Wicklow, which borders many counties and is divided geographically, does not have a third level institution, either a university or an institute of technology. The county is generally served by Carlow, Tallaght, Waterford and Dún Laoghaire. The local authority has taken an initiative to purchase the old Claremont convent in Rathnew. We are hoping to establish a third level outreach centre with the institute of technology in Carlow and I ask the Minister to give whatever support she can to its establishment. Access to third level from Wicklow is down the list. We are possibly in the bottom quarter of counties with regard to third level access. Due to historical reasons, we did not have educational facilities.

Deputy Carey spoke of third level funding. There are mixed views on this. There was much merit in Deputy Carey's argument that, for example, a bar owner might get an educational grant while the bar worker or his or her family could be denied it.

I feel strongly about one issue. Graduates of third level institutes should give back something to the State, be it by working here for six months or a year after graduation. Someone who qualifies as an engineer should perhaps have to work for a local authority for a period, or for a State body, while someone who qualifies as a doctor might help in the public health service. Those graduates should give something back to society. The local authority in my area has received approval for 12 engineers on non-national roads, a subject dear to the heart of the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, but it can currently get only four engineers. Despite the copious amounts of cash we are getting from the Government, we cannot use it. We must bring in a system whereby graduates will give something back to society.

I broadly support the Bill but will repeat my objections. The draconian measure whereby the directors of the institutes of technology cannot express opinions on policy must be re-examined. If we are serious about putting the institutes of technology on a level playing pitch, there must be Seanad voting rights for their graduates. In regard to my constituency, the Minister should give some backing to establishing an outreach centre at Claremont college, which is dear to my heart.

See this speech in context