Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for bringing forward the Bill and stimulating debate on higher education. We are in broad agreement with most of the policy objectives of the Bill in so far as we agree that there should be a modern approach to management of public expenditure on higher education, clarity on academic tenure and freedom and, as has been mentioned, the consolidation of legislation. However, any policy objective set out in the proposed legal framework should not impinge on the ability to design an equitable education system in which people have equal access to educational facilities to study what is important to them, be it science, the arts or other subjects and should not be dictated solely by the needs, for example, of multinational companies or big business. We must not neglect the need to simultaneously provide an education that will help people to find employment. The change should not come at the expense of the university as a learning environment.

I have some concerns about particular sections of the legislation that perhaps Senator Sean D. Barrett might clear up. Perhaps my understanding of section 28(4)(c) is incorrect, but I am concerned that a probationary period of two years is high. There is also concern about allowing for termination owing to financial exigencies. That could mean that a university could fire people at will if it was running a deficit. Education requires more than just putting 600 students in a lecture hall.

Another issue that arose was related to section 39(1) which could allow universities to set student registration fees at will. I accept that the next section allows the Government to review the issue, but we seek clarification on the matter, as we would not be willing to support a measure that would allow fees to be introduced under such a guise. The level of financial pressure experienced by students is phenomenal and they should not have to worry more about how they will pay for their dinner than how they will do in their exams. To date, college counselling services are stretched to the limits because of the psychological effects of the financial pressures on students.

As a young person who is not long out of higher education in DCU and UCD, I hear from university students across the island. I am aware of the changes the education sector has undergone, some of which are a result of the global financial crisis and its particular manifestation in Ireland which encompasses an increased demand for higher education places. We support students in availing of further education courses, but there has been a decline in public funding for the sector. In response to changes and modernisation there have been mergers and alliances, including clusters of higher education centres. Colleges do not have much option but to engage in such a practice. However, the change has the potential to ensure an increase in the quality of education provided in the institutions concerned. There is no point in amalgamating emerging institutions unless there is a sufficient level of funding invested in them to ensure they serve a local need. The need for consistent, decent funding for the higher education sector must be addressed. We must ensure the educational needs of young people are also properly addressed. In the 1980s it was the norm for young people to leave school and enter the workforce with no higher education qualifications. That has now changed owing to the development of education services and increased access to third level institutions. As a result, one now needs a degree more than ever. It is a necessity more than a luxury as it might have been in the past. The changing face of employment does require a third level education.

Computer-based working seems to be the new factory sector. Perhaps this Bill could be part of the much-needed conversation around identifying what level of investment is required in education and how we spend the investment for the sector in a far better and more equitable fashion. There does need to be more discussion on the priority of spending for higher education. It is a public good for which it should be acknowledged.

The need for balanced strong and sustainable public investment is obvious. There should also be inclusion of citizens from further afield than just the learning professions that are listed specifically in the Bill. Like others, I would go so far as to say there may even be a case for student representation in this process. That is the cohort of people who will have to deal with the ramifications of committee decisions, apart from lecturers and teachers in universities.

I welcome the Government’s decision to allow this Bill to proceed to Committee Stage and look forward to further discussion on it.