Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I return to my example of the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI. The decision to pause funding for this programme jeopardised research projects already in train in universities. If the head of one of the institutions affected by this pause in funding appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts as part of an examination of the relevant college's finances for the year in question, he would have to state, by way of explaining the reason a particular research project led nowhere, suddenly ceased or lost money, that the change in Government policy and its decision to pause funding had a negative affect on the university. This would require him to comment on Government policy because it directly impacted on the specific research programme. These circumstances arose at the time and although the issue did not come before the Committee of Public Accounts, it may yet be discussed in the committee in future.

The Committee of Public Accounts is the proper forum established by the House. While the Minister of State may argue that the directors can go before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science or speak to the media, which is true, the proper investigating forum for budgetary matters is the Committee of Public Accounts. For this reason, the directors of the institutions need to be able to make their case before the committee. The provision places institutes of technology in an unfair position because their representatives justify themselves before a committee of the House but are not given a fair opportunity to do so because the areas on which they must comment, namely, Government policy, are constrained, as in the example I outlined.

See this speech in context