Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Institutes of Technology Bill 2006. I am pleased to see further reforms in this education sector, which has been developed over a number of years since the regional technical colleges were first set up. Various legislation has been passed in this area over the years and we see further advances today.

I will address some of the issues Deputy Timmins raised. I agree with some of his assertions and perhaps not with others. For graduates of the institutes of technology to be allowed vote in the Seanad elections to the third level panel is long overdue. I think the first time I voted was in a referendum in 1979 to allow for the change in representation. Until then the NUI and TCD had three seats each in the Seanad. It was elitist. I was probably a student in UCD at the time but I was happy that people in other third level institutions should have equal rights in terms of representation in the Seanad. That was passed overwhelmingly; only a very small percentage of the people opposed the proposal.

Nevertheless, it has never been enshrined in legislation. I made inquiries about this a few years ago. This issue is a hardy annual, as it were. People ask why the Oireachtas will not implement the legislation and the will of the people but I have been told, although I have not seen it officially in writing, that the wording put to the people was deficient. Like some other constitutional referenda, when an attempt was made to implement the wording it was discovered it would not achieve what the people were told it would achieve. The people who drafted the legislation were probably graduates of one of the universities but they did not do their colleges any favours on that issue. I support Deputy Timmins's sentiments in that regard.

The other point he raised is the provision whereby the director will be unable to express a view different from or in opposition to Government policy. The Deputy has great difficulty with that and he indicated the Fine Gael Party will put down an amendment to change it on Committee Stage. There is good reason for the provision. It might be interesting if Secretaries General were free to express different policy views from the Government of the day but in a democracy the elected Government has been given authority by the people to set policy. When it passes legislation people are required to implement the policy. If people do not like the policy, it will be possible in a subsequent election to change the Government.

To provide for a situation where accounting officers for institutes of technology can work to a different policy agenda from the Department of Education and Science, the Higher Education Authority or the Government would be a recipe for disaster. There would be mayhem across the third level sector if every officer was free to paddle his or her own canoe in terms of what he or she considers suitable policy. I urge the Deputy to reconsider in depth before putting down such an amendment on Committee Stage. I would be surprised if the Fine Gael Party accepted that this is the appropriate way to proceed.

I serve on the Committee of Public Accounts with Deputy Noonan, who is the impartial chairman of that committee. The strength of that committee is that when dealing with the financial affairs of bodies — sections of this legislation deal with the administrative and financial functions of the institutes of technology — it is always clear that Secretaries General, Accounting Officers and members of the committee do not get involved in policy issues. They examine the administration and implementation of policy, as set down by the elected Government, and whether it is being implemented according to proper procedures.

If the remit was widened further to allow different policies to be implemented, the public would be entitled to ask who is speaking for a Department or college — the elected Government or Minister or the Secretary General or director. I hope the Fine Gael Party will consider that broad issue. If it proposes to change the situation in this case, the logic of its argument is a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between the Civil Service and the Government, a relationship that has served the State well since its foundation. I do not believe that is the party's intention so I hope it considers the matter carefully.

I am pleased that participation rates in third level education have increased in the last decade or so from 44% to 55%. It has always been a concern for me that people in County Laois had one of the lowest levels of participation in third level education in Ireland. It is one of the reasons I entered public life and put my name forward for election. Public representatives are regularly asked, particularly when they visit schools, why they entered politics. One of the reasons I offer is my hope to do better for my county, and one of the ways of improving life in one's county is improving the level of education there.

Members will remember being told in their youth that a good education is essential. That maxim continues to be true from one generation to the next. We must ensure that what our generation achieved is passed on to the next generation. County Laois is adjacent to the Carlow Institute of Technology, formerly the regional technical college. I am extremely proud of the institute. In my capacity as a Deputy I have visited it on a number of occasions, given that I represent the native county of many of its students. Many of them commute to the college daily while others stay in Carlow during the week and return home at weekends. A number of people in County Laois attend Athlone as well, but to a lesser extent.

Carlow Institute of Technology is a model institute. I consider it to be a south Leinster institute, given its wide catchment area. The college authorities have been working with local authorities in the surrounding counties to broaden people's awareness in those counties of the role of the Carlow institute with a view to improving the educational facilities in the region. I am pleased with the synergy between the Carlow Institute of Technology and the operation of the national development plan. The only reference to Portlaoise in the national development plan is its designation as an inland port and transport hub for the country in view of its proximity to Dublin and to some of the main motorway routes to the south and west. Furthermore, many of the mainline rail services pass through County Laois.

In that context, there is a proposal, which is just at gestation stage, that there be an outreach from Carlow Institute of Technology in Portlaoise to provide third level education on logistics. This is in line with the national development plan. On the outskirts of Portlaoise, close to the motorway, the local authority has identified a large tract of land for logistics purposes. It would be a tremendous boost and would be complementary to the commercial activity in the town if there were an outreach facility from Carlow Institute of Technology to provide third level education in transport and logistics. I am not aware of any such facility elsewhere in the general region and I believe it would be an excellent facility.

It would have the additional advantage of establishing a formal outreach programme from an institute of technology in County Laois, something that does not exist there at present. It would also be of benefit to prospective students of Carlow Institute of Technology in that there would be an opportunity to participate in a new range of courses which would be developed in consultation with the Higher Education Authority.

There has been a long-standing debate about the difference between the universities and the institutes of technology, which are called polytechnics in England. We have a dual system and the colleges have separate functions. In England, the colleges have been combined to some extent but I do not know if that has been a success. Some people believe this legislation is a step along the route of giving university status to the institutes of technology, but I do not believe that is the case or that it is necessary. Given the population of Ireland we are more than well served by the number of universities in the country.

It is important to increase the international standing of our universities rather than dilute it by automatically adding more. There is a benefit in bringing the universities and the institutes of technology under the HEA's remit. It can strategically examine how they are operating and act as a conduit for finance, administration and policy decisions. It is not necessary for the institutes of technology to merge with the university sector. Most people involved are practical on the matter and see the benefits in the continuation of the current system

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I cannot help considering the Bill from a financial perspective. The legislation is concerned with the administration of the institutes, leaving the implementation of curricula to institute directors. Many sections outline the director's role in the event that an institute runs up a deficit, borrowing is required and property is to be disposed. That is essential and the traditional approach is taken, but I am concerned more about what happens when there is a surplus of funding — maybe that is set down in the legislation.

The building up of surpluses is, in a curious way, as serious as running up a deficit. A surplus build-up means that the Government, through taxpayers' money, has provided funds to a third level college for educational facilities and courses. For a variety of reasons, the courses may not take place and the students who should have benefited from them are losing out. That has been evidenced at the Committee of Public Accounts. I accept the Department of Education and Science has come to grips with these issues in the past few years, but this can still happen from time to time, depending on economic cycles. Mechanisms must be in place to ensure unspent moneys are not accumulated, especially if the Department or the HEA could utilise the funds more productively elsewhere.

For example, during the IT boom some third level colleges found it difficult to recruit lecturers for IT courses. Anyone with the qualifications to teach in the area were being snapped up by IT companies offering much higher salaries. Although teaching posts were advertised in colleges, many were not filled. For many of them, the recruitment process had to begin again six months into the academic year. Often in such circumstances the courses never got off the ground, even though funding was in place. A mechanism must be in place whereby if such problems arise they are reported and the funds can be diverted during the academic year for other current expenditure purposes in the college or to another college with a shortfall for other courses. The same problems with recruitment can easily arise in the sciences too. My concern is that the students who could have benefited from such courses may not have had the opportunity of doing so.

Deputy Timmins was brave enough to say that graduates from all third level institutes should make a professional contribution to society by working here for a certain period after graduation, and he has a legitimate point. Last year I attended a debate at the Literary and Historical Society in UCD as a Government Deputy. It was a difficult job because when I was in college, the only self-respecting action of each student was to give out about the Government. It was the same that night where the motion was about how badly the Government was doing its job. The debaters challenged me on the problems with the health service. I returned the challenge by asking how many in the audience were medical students who would graduate that summer. There was a fair number in the audience. When I asked how many were going to stay in Ireland to work in the health service, they unanimously informed me they were all going abroad to America, Australia and the UK. I can understand the benefits for young medical graduates going abroad to further their professional experience, but inevitably many of them will settle abroad if their careers there are good. Irish society, meanwhile, will have invested taxpayers' money for 20 years in their education, yet it gets nothing in return.

There is a point in asking graduates to make a professional contribution to society. It is a serious issue that merits debate. As Deputy Timmins stated, the shortage in engineering graduates means we have to recruit abroad, yet at the same time our graduates are going abroad. It may simply be a sign of the global village we now live in.

It is important that directors of institutes of technology are accountable to the Dáil and can be called to discuss matters arising from reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They are responsible to speak before the relevant Oireachtas committee if necessary. I am pleased with the reserve functions of the governing bodies as opposed to the administrative, day-to-day functions of the director. The director's main function is the provision of a course of study. If a college does not have provision for proper courses of study, it should not be in business. The function of the governing body is to appoint a director and an academic council. The director is required to prepare a strategic plan. I note the term of office for a director is ten years and boards can be appointed for up to five years, both positive developments. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context