James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan.

We had a similar debate to this in March last year. It seems incredible that the pandemic has been with us for almost a year. The previous debate took place during the initial lockdown when the Dáil was on a similarly reduced footing, with fewer Deputies in attendance, etc. On that occasion, there was a discussion on the impacts of the Covid crisis on education, full stop, because, at that time, there was no Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I recall that debate because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Connolly, and I were the only two speakers to raise issues relating to higher education and third level. It was probably a question of timing because the focus then, as it is today, was on the leaving certificate examination. It is significant in itself that we now have a separate debate, a separate Ministry and a separate Department, none of which we had this time last year. That is one of the credits and pluses that have come out of the formation of the new Government. As the Minister knows, I advocated strongly for his Department to be created. It is really positive for the third level, research institutions and the further education sector that it is now established and that we have this opportunity to discuss issues that pertain to them.

Some of the feedback I have had in recent months relates to one of the issues I raised almost a year ago regarding the impact of the Covid crisis. Researchers were very concerned about projects being put on hold, grant funding being time-blocked and their ability to draw it down after the pandemic. If the funding expired, how would they resume their research? I have to credit the Minister and his Department for the fact that the HEA, Science Foundation Ireland and others have stepped up to the plate and given many of those projects the ancillary funding to allow them to continue and to get them over the line. That was a real worry a year ago. I must conclude that this is, in some regard, down to the existence of the Department and its stewardship. That is really positive and we must acknowledge it. This is not to say that the sector is without its own financial challenges. In fact, those challenges remain huge and include the loss of international students, accommodation revenue and all the other ancillary revenues. The funding issues that were identified in the Cassells report still prevail and have only been exacerbated by the pandemic. There is some good news for researchers and the new Department is really helpful in that regard, but those systematic, fundamental issues around funding of the sector still exist.

I have two questions for the Minister. As I said, this is a debate specifically on issues relating to third level. I do not plan to go into the leaving certificate issue again, even though some speakers have done so. However, I will ask one question that joins the two dots in terms of second level education and higher education. We heard the Minister for Education speak earlier about the plans being made for the leaving certificate examination. I am a supporter of the traditional examination for reasons I outlined during that debate. I asked her and I am now asking the Minister, Deputy Harris, whether a commitment will be given, if a situation arises where the traditional examination does not take place this year and a predicted grades process or some other solution is found, that any physical sitting that takes place as an alternative or follow-on, as happened last year, will be done in such a way that there will be time for admissions to flow from it. I am asking that we ensure students are not sitting the examination in November to try to get a place in college for September or October. If that path is followed, the alternative physical examinations should take place on time, maybe in August. My view is that we should not take that path but, if we have to, the timing is something we should consider.

My second question is on a broader point but, again, it is related to the current situation. It concerns the curriculum at third level. I recall as a student in Trinity College that we had many debates in the students union about the idea of a broad curriculum whereby rather than people going in to do a course in physiotherapy, computer science or graphic design, for example, students would start off in a very broad first year, perhaps studying a collection of humanities, sciences and commerce courses. It would be a very broad curriculum in first year, which could then be refined in second year into more specific subjects and more structured courses. That would be useful in normal times because it would allow students who are not quite sure of where to put their first steps to explore wider subject choices and options. It would be particularly useful at this time, in a situation where we may have issues coming out of the leaving certificate process with students crossing the bridge from second to third level. It may be something to look at. I do not know if it is practical or possible coming into the new academic year but it certainly could be part of the discussion if we are again in a situation where there is pressure on places and admissions. That kind of refinement could take place going from first to second year in college rather than from leaving certificate into third level. I will stop there to allow the Minister to respond to those points and questions.

See this speech in context