Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

As Deputy Nolan said, despite the undoubtedly huge challenges we have economically, the level and quality of education at all levels remains high. The challenge is to protect and enhance it and in particular to protect, enhance and add to, as best we can, investment in education at all levels. As the months and years go by in this protracted economic crisis not only here, but worldwide, increasing numbers of people realise how essential it is that governments concentrate their efforts on investment in the future, on investment in education and training. Despite the enormous challenges the Government faces, it should be congratulated on substantially maintaining an investment in and a commitment to education at all levels. If people were to examine the economic situation in which we are in and the financial challenges we face, it would surprise many of them that we have still managed, for example, to bring forward an impressive school building programme, which is under preparation for implementation.

We are concerned in this debate with third level education, the importance of standards and of having an integrated system of standards and quality assurance in third level education. This is an important Bill in that regard. Essentially, it does not appear - the Minister can correct me if I am wrong - to change the basic policy formulation in regard to how standards are to be maintained and assured but it will amalgamate the four bodies that previously were responsible for the different sectors into one. I made a point recently in regard to another area where an amalgamation of agencies was taking place. It is vitally important that when we are doing this we understand the rationale for doing it. We should have an expectation that the rationale would extend beyond simply financial savings, important as that is. Anything we can do to save costs is vital and it is important we should do that.

However, as legislators, we should also be looking to see is there a rationale in substance for making the policy change or implementing the changes proposed. There is in this case. It has been well set out by the Minister and it is clear. In 1999, when the systems for evaluating quality were brought forward in the various sectors, they had a job to do and they have done it admirably. It appears to make sense that the respective expertise they have built up in the different areas could be more appropriately done through one agency which can bring all the various areas under the one roof when it comes to the narrow area of standards and their assessment. The same instruments will not be appropriate to assess all of them, but we should have an integrated system which we can understand and in which we can have public confidence that the same standard is applied to the assessment of standards. I may have phrased this in a very convoluted way. This is what the Bill does and it is important that it should do so.

It is admirable in the current environment that the Government has maintained a very considerable commitment to third level education and the Minister has been very clear that we will continue to maintain it. There is a crisis, or certainly a real difficulty, in the third level sector in respect of the source of funding. It is a labour-intensive business and it is vital that we enhance standards and provide opportunities for young people. We invest in them as individuals, but through them we invest in the future of the country. We have previously debated third level fees and it is extremely important that we maintain our position on the funding of education being a public good. Often this debate is not as elaborated as much as it should be.

Certain things in society are worth funding as public goods. Of course some of the benefits attach to the individuals who gain a third level education, but for the type of society we want to promote we must pool our resources through taxation and in respect of third level education make it available to those who merit availing of it. There is no controversy about whether second level education and primary education should be public goods funded by the Exchequer. I believe third level education is a similar public good and worthy of protection and funding. This does not make life any easier for the Minister or the Government when it comes to judging from where the funding will come and whether there needs to be a better public debate about Exchequer funding of third and fourth level education. If it is as vital as we believe it is for the future of the country, with investment being so important, perhaps we should sponsor a higher level of debate on the issue and the desirability and importance of funding third level education.

I made a point on having the various sectors under one roof for the purpose of qualifications and quality assurance. There has long been a debate on the dichotomy between university education and the technical and vocational sectors. It is right they should be drawn together in the Bill. However, further debate is necessary on the future direction of third level education, where we allocate resources and which areas we privilege for resources. If we compare ourselves to some of our competitors in Europe, we see they are far more advanced and far better at promoting technical education, educational skills and training than we are.

Even public attitudes towards the various types of third level education differ. There is a sense in people's minds that university education is privileged when it is compared to technical and vocational education. This is a pity when we consider the type of skills that will be necessary in the future. I do not state this to disagree with what Deputy Nolan stated about the importance of fostering the humanities and ensuring people who come out of third level education are well-rounded individuals with an appreciation of the value of education. However, it is important to examine whether our third level education system might give more attention to the technical side than it has done up to now.

In recent days I read a proposal from an advanced policy maker in this area to move medical and law schools from the universities into the vocational sector. I cannot see this happening any time soon here or in any comparable country but it makes one pause to consider the technical and scientific skills associated with the study of medicine. Must the study of medicine be located in a university in the traditional sense we understand it? I am using this example as a way of identifying the issue rather than advocating that we do so, although it reminds me of a related point. When we discuss reducing costs and rationalising the third level system as best we can we must consider whether we need the number of medical and law schools we have in the country.

The Minister has been very progressive with regard to the primary school sector. Several months ago I discussed with him the sharing of services between schools in a provincial town where, for instance, one school has a gym and another has another well developed facility. Of course these facilities should be shared. I am aware similar opportunities have been availed of in the third level sector but given the size of the country and our cities, opportunities for synergies and shared facilities must exist. Those of us with exposure to the third level system, whether having been there or knowing people there now, know how patches are protected and how people are reluctant to give way to sharing facilities or, dare I say it, merging departments or academic facilities. I would have no difficulty if the Minister were to say he would consider this. For these reasons the Bill is worthy of our support. It is a clear and desirable measure and its rationale has been clearly set out.

I wish to ask the Minister about the transfer of staff to the new authority, an issue which other speakers have also mentioned and I believe the Minister has addressed it. What I find very striking is that in regard to the previous transfer from the old bodies such An Foras, CERT and Teageasc, section 52 of the 1999 Act brought forward all rights and entitlements and not only pay. A policy decision must have been made to confine the benefits to pay in this case.

See this speech in context