As a long-time supporter of the institutes of technology sector, I welcome this Bill because it will in some ways improve their lot and guarantee their survival as a distinct and separate contributor to our third level system. Five years ago, when I was the chairman of a committee in the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, I learned of the theories of Howard Gardner and Charles Hanly. Gardner claims there are seven different intelligences while Hanly reckons there are 11. I was warned not to use the word “talent” but the word “intelligence”. These were different terms than I had been in the habit of using. A criticism made against the leaving certificate is that it only measures the traditional academic intelligences and not the others. This has not been taken into account in second and third level education.

The Bill, however, has serious shortcomings which make me welcome it with reservations. I regret the Bill will fail to create parity of esteem between the universities and the institutes of technology. I consider that to be both highly desirable and easily achievable. What I welcome in the Bill is that it re-affirms and copperfastens the binary system in our third level education. Under a binary system, universities are one entity and institutes of technology are another. Universities are not jumped-up institutes of technology. Institutes of technology are not failed universities or would-be universities. Under a true binary system, each type of institution has its own distinctive role and, ideally, is held in the same high regard, both by the State and the public. I hope the Bill will put an end to the counterproductive posturing that has dogged the institutes of technology sector over the past few decades.

Many of the institutes have mounted campaigns to be given university status and this has often been vehemently supported by public opinion in their own local areas. The case that comes to mind in particular is that of Waterford. I believe this activity has been counterproductive, because it has prevented the institutes developing to the full their own identity. It is important to understand why people would seek to undermine their own status in this way. I believe it is because of the way the institutes of technology were always treated as the poor cousins of the third level system. In particular, they were not administered as independent entities like universities but were ruled directly — even down to the smallest matters — by the iron hand of the Department of Education and Science.

This is not just a question of headstrong people wanting to do their own thing. If we are to understand third level education, we must appreciate that to realise its full potential this sector must be given the maximum freedom to manage its own affairs and in particular to pursue innovation in the face of changing circumstances. To the extent that we try to micromanage third level education from the top down we restrict its ability to serve the community to the best effect.

It is understandable that many people in the institutes of technology sector came to the conclusion that the only way they would get this freedom would be by becoming universities. Accordingly, many of the institutes diverted some of their efforts from their real job and started to behave more and more like universities — in a classic example of mission drift. In other words, they headed in the wrong direction. This approach failed to succeed and the Bill puts the final nail in the coffin of that misguided campaign. From that point of view I welcome it.

We are entitled to congratulate ourselves that in this country we have not rushed to emulate the mistake the British made over the same two decades, when they turned all their existing polytechnics into universities. The result was that they ended up with a raft of second-rate universities and downgraded the status of university education as a whole in that country. From that point of view, I understand what the Minister is doing and I welcome it.

I believe we owe the credit for steering us away from making that mistake to the OECD, which strongly argued for the continuance of our traditional binary system in its report on third level education in Ireland, published in 2004. With all due respect to the Minister and her Department, it is the OECD which is the true father of the legislation we are now considering. I am pleased the Minister has grabbed hold of the idea. [ar The OECD argued that direct control of the institutes should be taken away from the Department of Education and Science and given to a buffer body that would also administer the universities. That is what this Bill will bring about. However, the OECD also argued for genuine parity of esteem between the two types of third level institution and in that area the Bill is less successful.

In certain important respects, the new regime we are now creating will leave crucial differences between the universities and the institutes of technology. For instance, whereas universities can appoint staff subject to their overall budget, in the case of the institutes, the HEA and both the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Finance must approve any new staff. The recruitment of an institute’s staff must be what is termed “as determined by the Minister”, unlike the universities which are free to determine their own selection processes. Again, if an institute wants to appoint a temporary director, the HEA must approve it. This does not apply to universities and is most intrusive.

On another crucial issue, the Bill provides that an institute’s private income will be reckoned as part of its overall budget. I do not understand this provision. We all know that what this will mean in practice is that if an institute raises private income, its public grant will be reduced accordingly. I hope the Minister will correct me in this regard but that appears to be the situation.

Differences also prevail in regard to accountability, in that the proceedings of every meeting of an institute’s governing body must be published. This is excessive intrusion in the day-to-day affairs of an institution and will make it very difficult for it to discuss anything at all in private. I accept that difficulties arise with freedom of information in other ways but I would hate to see it happen that one could not discuss anything in private as everything would be made public at that level. The proper level of accountability is through an annual report, one which is published promptly within three months of the end of the year.

Many people have already raised the issue that while the Bill provides for academic freedom as a key virtue, it undermines that commitment by failing to guarantee the tenure of institute staff in comparison with their counterparts in universities. I am totally unpersuaded by the Minister’s attempts so far to explain away this discrepancy.

I could continue but I think I have said enough to make the point that the Bill will not put the universities and the institutes of technology on an equal footing, which should have been one of the key goals of the exercise. Even after the passage of the Bill, the institutes, though somewhat better off than before, will still be in a second grade position when compared with the universities. I consider that to be a profoundly undesirable situation and one which will have a detrimental influence on the performance of the country in the years to come.

The institutes of technology have been the underdogs for so long that many people, including some in the educational establishment, appear incapable of thinking of them in any other way. To anyone who considers an institute of technology as an inherently inferior institution to a university, let me point to the example of MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is one of the world’s leading third level institutions. I had the opportunity to travel through India a couple of years ago and I found institutes of technology were far more common there than universities. They are widely respected as a source of high-value graduates.

While the Bill is to be welcomed up to a point, it must also be criticised as a lost opportunity. I regret in particular the decision to rush it through this House without the proper scrutiny it deserves and to hold Committee Stage at a time tomorrow when the Dáil may already have risen for the summer. I am not sure of the up to date position for the taking of business. This indicates a highly cynical dismissal in advance of any amendments that this House might be tempted to propose. I welcome the Bill and the Minister’s good intentions but I believe it needs more attention than it is likely to get.