Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to accept these amendments. I will take the opportunity to outline why. With regard to No. 11, in the name of Deputy Conway-Walsh, I will be really clear that I too want to see a dramatic improvement with regard to precarious employment in the sector, as do the Government and everybody else in this country. We have to acknowledge that it is a real issue and I do. Similarly, we want to see improvements in the way we support our PhD researchers. It is a question of the mechanism under law through which you set about doing that. Working conditions for staff in designated institutions are covered by employment legislation. We do not believe it appropriate to cover employment matters and the various mechanisms available with regard to employment law and the industrial relations mechanisms of the State in this Bill on higher education. However, the Deputy will know of the funding proposals we have brought forward in Funding the Future, which we will no doubt be debating in the weeks and months ahead. These set out to properly and sustainably fund higher education and will see a very significant improvement in the student-staff ratios that the Deputy was right to highlight as a real issue because they are a real issue. They will also see a fall in precarious employment. I am very satisfied that we will make good progress on that issue through this funding model. If the Deputy holds the policy view that further improvements need to be made, employment legislation is the place to do so rather than in this Bill because any issues arising should always be dealt with through the normal industrial relations procedures in designated institutions. It is very clearly noted that universities, technological universities and institutes of technology are required to have industrial disputes mechanisms in place in accordance with the relevant sectoral legislation.

Amendment No. 19 proposes to include a provision in the functions section that an tÚdarás would "advise the Minister in relation to the adequacy of the level of public funding that is made available". This provision is already covered in section 9(1)(o), which reads:

(o) advise the Minister in relation to national policy on higher education in accordance with section 14, including in relation to the funding required for higher education,

I do not disagree with the Deputy on this matter but I believe it is addressed in the section I have referenced.

Amendment No. 20 proposes to include a reference to “a well-resourced public higher education system” in section 9(1)(o). This is already covered by the wording in this section, which we amended on Committee Stage. I suggest with great respect that the Deputy and I dealt with this issue on Committee Stage when we amended the provision to add the clause "including in relation to the funding required for higher education". We made an improvement there on Committee Stage.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 42 propose to include provisions relating to the funding status of individual designated institutions of higher education in section 33, which is on strategy, and section 35, which is on the performance framework.

Amendments were included on Committee Stage referencing the further and higher education system and the diversity of functions, objects and priorities of different higher education providers. This was considered a more appropriate place to amend Bill.

Reference was made to the Cassells report. The Deputy was right to make reference to the report. Peter Cassells did a wonderful job and did the State service in the job he did. As the Government, we recently made decisions on how to fund higher education. The Cassells report rightly set out the options. Sometimes the Cassells report is portrayed as saying, "Do this and do not do that". It actually did not do that. It stressed that higher education needed to be funded and outlined the different ways it can be done. One of those ways was through student loans. That would be an appalling way to do it. The Deputy and I agree that would be a disgraceful way to do it. It does not work in any jurisdiction and we will not do that.

Another way would be to hike the levy on employers. We will not do that either.

See this speech in context