John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I second the motion. We should acknowledge that much has been achieved not only by this Government but by successive Governments in bringing us to a point where there is an acknowledged level of expertise in the country which is a tribute to third level institutions. If it was not there, the large multinational companies which depend on hi-tech, graduate and skilled employment of a sophisticated nature, would not have located here. That this is a stable democracy and English speaking are contributory factors but one of the primary reasons we have been successful in this area is because of the quality of our second and third level education. That should be acknowledged at the outset.

Nevertheless, things are not immutable; they need to change and we welcome this review. It is important to put it in the context of the Lisbon agenda which talked about making Europe the world's most dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010. That is a laudable aspiration and I am pleased some concrete moves were made at the conclusions of the Presidency on 25 and 26 March in regard to how we progress these things. There are commitments in the programme for the Irish Presidency of the European Union in regard to how we advance matters in education and the Lisbon agenda.

There are a few aspects on which we might dwell, one of which is the issue of research and investment in research. Figures have been given as to the relatively low level invested in Europe relative to the United States, first, in industry and second, overall. We have a target in terms of a percentage of GNP and I hope we will reach it. An important issue here which is becoming more evident is the increasing tendency to have research funded by commercial operations. Even in the universities or in Teagasc, the agricultural research institution, more research is being generated and supported by private enterprise.

I do not have any reservations about that, other than that it should be patently clear that the research results from private funding. There was a high profile case in the United Kingdom recently where it was obvious that the research had been contaminated because a particular vested interest had generated funding for the research. In my view, those results were compromised.

The European Union is rich in human capital, which is one of our greatest assets. It is disappointing, however, to read some of the comments in the 19 January 2004 edition of Time magazine, which have been brought to my attention by Science Foundation Ireland. It is perhaps predictable that Time magazine would adopt a particularly American view of the world. The article refers to the brain drain from Europe and quotes European researchers who are based in the United States. One of them, an Italian at New York University, is quoted as saying, "The US is a place where you can do very good science, and if you're a scientist, you try to go to the best place. In soccer, if you're great, another team can buy you". The article continued by stating:

Science is the same, and the big buyer is the US: in 2000, the US spent €287 billion on research and development, €121 billion more than the EU. No wonder the US has 78% more high-tech patents per capita than Europe, which is especially weak in the IT and biotech sectors... Some 400,000 European science and technology graduates now live in the US and thousands more leave each year.

There is a definite problem there but, thankfully, the article continues by stating:

The good news is that the gripes are finally getting through in some European capitals. After a year in which researchers slammed it for putting key funding on hold, the Irish Government has put a new emphasis on science, especially the kind that can benefit the rest of the economy. The 2004 Government budget includes new tax relief for companies that invest in R and D. It also boosts funding for the State-backed Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) by 62%, in a move meant to speed construction of a solid scientific-knowledge base and make Ireland more attractive to firms in high-value sectors.

The article also includes a quotation from somebody working in the University of Utah, who said, "It's an enormous improvement from how things used to be in Ireland". Thankfully, therefore, that progress is being acknowledged.

Senator Minihan referred to the need for management accountability with regard to how universities conduct themselves. That is perfectly correct but we have to take it at two levels. One is the actual enterprise itself and how it is managed. It is important that universities should be accountable because large amounts of State funding are going into them. We have to know that such funding is being used correctly and that such large businesses are managed properly. The other issue, which sometimes becomes confused with the latter one, is the academic autonomy of universities and it is important that Government should not interfere in that area.

In the past, we have debated such motions in the House, some of which were controversial, including one concerning the governance of Trinity College. The academic freedom to think and challenge orthodoxy is sacrosanct and should not be contaminated in any way. The establishment frequently dislikes what students or even senior academics may have to say but, nevertheless, if we do not have those people to challenge the way in which society is organised, as well as challenging ideas and research, the country would be a poorer place and the excellent quality of university education would be compromised.

The points system is another issue that deserves our consideration. I note that a 1999 report referred to the need for a wider range of skills. If there was true competition between universities, the points issue would not be as dominant. One of the disappointing aspects for those of us who are traditionalists is that sight is being lost of the vocational side of education. There is a definite streaming of students into medicine because a high number of points is required for university medical courses. If young people get the necessary points they feel they should pursue medical studies but we all know that medicine is not like that. There has to be a vocational dimension and aptitude also counts. Senator Minihan spoke about the need for a preparatory introduction to the wider range of academic disciplines before a student goes on to study medicine. We are losing sight of the vocational aspect in areas such as medicine and veterinary science.

Senator Minihan also raised the fees issue and made the point that the Government is committed during its period of office to not re-introducing third level fees. Perhaps the OECD could examine the various ways in which Government moneys could be delivered. Such moneys can be delivered directly through the universities, intermediaries or students, if that is thought prudent. The award to the student could pay for the education, rather than paying the money directly to the university. Those are nuances, however, and I am sure they can be examined further.

There must be a greater inclusion of people from excluded areas and classes in third level education. Increasingly, it appears to be the case that there are more and more degrees available. I do not have any objection to that, but basic academic standards must be reached so that degree courses can be properly accredited and worthwhile degrees awarded. Degrees should not be awarded by some institutions in Ireland that do not really have a status equivalent to the required standards. That is another area that needs to be examined.

University staff should be properly paid and their work should be recognised. When one considers what some people in Law Library earn, it is somewhat ironic that those who taught them law earn very much less, although they probably have done more for society than those who later gained very large incomes.