Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I join others in welcoming the Minister to the House for the new term. I thank Senator Moran for sharing her time with me.

Like other Senators, I believe this Bill, which I welcome, has cross-party support. It is the culmination of a long process of reviewing the framework for ensuring quality in education and training. It is good to see it before the House. I am glad the Minister has initiated it in the Seanad. It is very worthwhile given how many of us in this House have long had an interest in higher education at third level. I refer not only to the university Senators but also to those with a broad range of experience and expertise, which expertise will be evident from the debate.

I am glad we are debating this Bill just after the inaugural address in Trinity College of the new Provost, Professor Prendergast. The Minister was in attendance and heard the speech. Other colleagues were also present. I referred to the speech earlier and on the Order of Business. The Provost mounted a very robust defence of the universities in general and Trinity College in particular, pointing out that the latter is unique in having achieved a top-50 place amount institutions worldwide. He pointed out that, at its peak, it was 43rd in the world. This fact should be compared with the fact that only one Irish company has achieved a rank by Fortune 500 in its list of top companies. It was approximately 490th. Trinity's achievement is remarkable for an Irish institution. That we have slipped back to 65th place is, as the Provost said, a testament to the economic difficulties we face and the challenges that exist for all, including the university sector. The Provost made a very strong case for preserving the autonomy of universities, particularly with regard to hiring practices.

I do not agree with the Provost's analysis of the return of third level fees but agree with him there is a need to ensure adequate resourcing of the university sector to ensure we maintain a culture of innovation and creativity therein. The Minister has said on many occasions that he agrees with that. A HEA report, issued today, shows the direct benefit to the economy or return on investment from investment by the State in research centres in universities, institutes of technology and colleges. That is very important and provides a very good context for debate.

Quality in education is central to international rankings and our attraction of international students. It is important that we see an amalgamation of the agencies currently providing for quality assurance at third level and in further education. We all welcome that. The new body with the unpronounceable name, as others have called it, does represent a streamlining of existing quality assurance mechanisms.

I have reflected on the name QQAI, as others have. An acronym such as "QI" could preset a difficulty because of the Stephen Fry programme of the same name. There is potential for using "CI", which could stand for "Cáilíochtaí Ireland". It would be like the Fáilte Ireland example given by the Minister. It is certainly a lot more pronounceable than QQAI. A more facetious example would be "QUACK", which could stand for "Quality Assurance for Colleges and Kids", but that would not be very suitable. In any case, a title that is easier to say would be an advantage. Furthermore, it would consolidate the status of the authority for individuals, service providers and, much more important, service users, including students at all levels. It is very important that people be aware of this. Until I read the briefing notes on this Bill, I was not fully aware of the wide range of agencies and bodies providing for quality assurance. That itself shows the need for this Bill.

That the authority will have eight members chosen on the basis of expertise rather than representation is important. I am glad to see, however, that the Minister will be requesting the USI to provide an individual to be appointed to the authority. Thus, the authority will have a representative nature to some extent. As with Senator Power, I was the only student in the room at many meetings when I was president of Trinity Students Union. It is important to have student representation and also that members of the authority be chosen on the basis of expertise.

I am interested specifically in the issue of quality assurance in universities, having participated in reviews within Trinity and having worked as an external reviewer for colleges in Ireland and other jurisdictions. The universities already have a quite established quality review process under way. I am interested in knowing, however, how section 37 will affect that because it seems quite open-ended in terms of empowering the new authority to conduct quality reviews. I am wondering how it will work in practice alongside the reviews already being conducted within the universities.

The provisions on internationalising education in sections 54 to 57 are very important. Universities are already signed up to Ireland's international strategy and to attracting more international students. The Bill will really facilitate that and it is very important.

Will the Minister clarify how the Bill deals with the difficulty with so-called bogus colleges? There was some reference to this in briefings. The Bill will make it easier to tackle the difficulty. It is a very small issue but there has been some media reportage on colleges being set up to attract students from abroad rather than to offer quality education, particularly in the English language sector.

I have two other points to raise. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides for an amendment to the Universities Act 1997. It relates to section 9 of the Act and the universities established thereunder, of which there is none. The Minister pointed that out in his speech. Why preserve the provision? Is it a reference to the new university for the south east, on which we have had some debate already today on the Order of Business and on which there is considerable debate in general?

My final point relates to a point raised by Senator Power, on which I have done a great deal of work in Trinity College. I refer to access to university for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is a particular problem within the university sector. The ITs have a better record on this. Programmes such as the Trinity Access Programmes and the BITE programme in DIT have tried to ensure more developed routes for access to third level for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. What are the implications for those programmes of this Bill? Is there a specific route of progress? Will the certificates offered for participating in the programmes be subject to review under the Bill? I have an open mind as to whether they should. Most of the courses in question are post-leaving certificate courses but I wonder whether they fall within the remit of the Bill.

I welcome the Bill as one of the many reforms in the education sector that the Minister is in the process of carrying out.