Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. We opposed the Bill in the Seanad. I am sure the Minister is aware of the reasons for that. If not, we will discuss them on Committee Stage.

The Bill does three things, two of which we support. We fully support the initiatives being taken by the Government in terms of the Student Support Act and the provision for PLC courses. The latter is an important step and is something we sought previously. Other issues relating to student support must be examined, but probably not in the context of the Bill. Estrangement from parents is an issue that consistently comes up. Following the introduction of SUSI, when the awarding of student grants was brought into a centralised system, there were significant problems initially in year one, which would always have been the case, but since then much work has been done to streamline the operation. This year a student took a High Court case and won it, which meant she could eventually access her grant. The adjacent-rate grant must also be examined, perhaps not in the context of the Bill, but I wished to flag it.

We are also supportive of the amendment to the Education Act 1998 to provide for a refusal to access specified information which would enable the compilation of information for league tables and comparisons of schools with one another. I accept that we cannot be overly prescriptive. Parents and students need to access information on the quality of education in any institution, but we cannot have a situation in which information is used just to compile school league tables. We would be completely opposed to that.

The main purpose of the Bill, which has been outlined in some detail by the Minister and the previous speaker, Deputy Barry Cowen, is to allow certain institutions to brand and market themselves as universities outside the State. The Minister will introduce strict criteria in that regard, particularly in terms of the rule that 40% of the students of an institution must be from non-EU countries. To the best of my knowledge, that would prevent most institutions from being able to apply. Perhaps she could clarify the position in her closing remarks or on Committee Stage, but it is probable that the only institution that could apply is the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI. It would probably be the only institution that would fulfil the criteria set out in the Bill and meet the requirements of the application process.

If an institution wants to improve its international standing in emerging markets then a name change in itself will not do that. Other measures would be required. King’s College in London and MIT do not call themselves universities, yet they are renowned throughout the world for the quality and output of education provided. We should be aware that having the title “university” is not the be all and end all in terms of improving an institution’s international standing.

A committee meeting was held to discuss RCSI and the human rights situation in Bahrain, which has been raised by many civil liberties groups. It is important that the situation be taken into account. I accept that it will not come under the terms of the Bill, as we cannot just pick on one particular college which might apply and benefit from the proposed change, but we must be careful, in bringing forward such legislation to allow institutions to brand themselves as universities outside of the State, that it does not have an adverse effect. If institutions could qualify and apply for a change in status and brand themselves as universities despite questions with regard to their stance on human rights issues, that could have a negative effect on universities within the State. Governance issues also arise. If an institution which can only market itself as a university outside of the State wished to become a university within the State, then changes would be required to its governance status. We must be careful that we are not taking a retrograde step in terms of allowing institutions whose position on human rights issues is the subject of question to brand themselves as universities.

Attracting international students is important, and not only in terms of education, and we fully support the ability of institutions to do so in order to finance themselves. Colleges must reach out beyond the State to attract more international students. The Minister outlined the economic benefit of marketing Ireland as a top provider of education. The matters to which I referred are critically important in terms of how we brand Irish education. We have concerns with the strict criteria set out. We accept that a balancing act is required. A high standard must be set in order for institutions to be allowed to describe themselves as universities, but my understanding is that only one institution will be able to benefit from the amendment that is being introduced. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position. It is an issue we can examine on Committee Stage. We will table a number of amendments, particularly with regard to the changes to the Student Support Act. We hope the Minister will look favourably on their introduction, given that the Bill deals with miscellaneous issues.

Sinn Féin voted against it in the Seanad. I am probably minded to recommend that we vote against it in this House but we will not oppose Second Stage, rather we will await deliberations and submission of amendments on Committee Stage. Hopefully we can have a detailed discussion on Committee Stage of the particular issues and concerns of ours after which we will make a final decision on whether to support the Bill.

See this speech in context