Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, and I congratulate the Progressive Democrats on tabling this timely motion on education. The Lisbon Agenda sets out to improve competitiveness in Europe and good quality jobs are a priority, as the Taoiseach said at the spring Council meeting. In order to achieve this, we need to examine higher education. I congratulate the Minister on inviting the OECD to report on the role of education and the structures of higher education in Ireland.

In 1965 only 11% of the population went on to third level education, whereas today more than 50% of the population participates in higher education. Let us look at the growth and funding of the international student population. The number of educational institutions has mushroomed, with institutions in every major town. We need to take a planned approach to education and research and development in the third level sector. We need to consider what approach we should take to teaching and learning.

We must have a new structure to meet the demands of society. What has changed in the past two decades in higher education in terms of access and participation, lifelong learning, subject mix, availability and distribution of courses, research performance and contribution to society? There are no changes taking place in higher level education. Models will have to change if we are to measure performance and funding will be needed to deal with the outcomes.

We are having major discussions on access to education. I think it was Senator Dardis who questioned the points required to get a place in veterinary, radiography or medicine and whether a student must achieve 575 points, close to the maximum, to do medicine. We have very noble people in these professions, but we have to look at access as well as training and new teaching models. We have to look at the individual learner and how he or she is participating in higher education. The OECD will have to see how best to match funding with the outcomes expected by society in this millennium.

We have to consider duplication and whether the institutes should be offering various courses or engaged in research. Should we rationalise to make optimum use of the potential? Should we second people in the institutes to carry out research, although not necessarily every institute should be engaged in research and development?

There is a great deal to be looked at and if we do not do it, how will we have a vision for the future? I do not understand why anybody is objecting to this move. We need a new vision before we can bring forward a new model for funding. It is absolutely necessary and the OECD report will be the basis for discussion in the future. There will be accountability for performance and funding. We have to have quality assurance that all the courses on offer are validated and that with increased social mobility, course content and qualifications are recognised throughout Europe. We cannot be a knowledge based competitive economy unless we put resources into our students to achieve success. We are renowned for high academic achievement, but the outcomes need to match the funding.

Higher education will be required to be transparent and accountable and I hope when the OECD publishes its report it will endorse funding for the way forward. I would not ask for funding until I knew how the money would be spent and that the accountability and transparency of the education system and how teachers may be moved from one area to another had been examined so that we will be a competitive knowledge based economy by 2010.