The importance of planning the development of post-secondary education and training, in an era where knowledge is the key resource and in an economy that is increasingly dominated by knowledge-based industry, needs hardly be emphasised.

The de Buitleir report represents an attempt to provide such planning, and to that extent deserves to be welcomed. It has several positive features. It recognises the essential contribution that third-level skills make to economic development; it establishes the principle that a national strategic objective for third-level educational attainment is needed; it recognises the importance of second chance education, and identifies the need to increase the number of postgraduate places.

But to some extent the report has been overtaken by events, and many of its recommendations are too tentative and imprecise to form an adequate basis for detailed planning.

The strategic objective advocated is that the Republic "maintain a position well within the top quarter of OECD countries in terms of the participation of the population in post-secondary education and training and in the quality of that education and training". The report assumes, without supporting arguments, that 114,000 full-time places by 2001 will be sufficient to enable that objective to be achieved.

Current enrolments are approaching 112,000, and are almost certain to exceed 115,000 by 2000-01. The Expert Group on Skills Needs is advocating an additional 5,000 places in engineering and computer science areas alone.

The Government, in its most re cent policy statement, clearly sets far more ambitious targets for the third-level sector than the de Buitleir report. Action Programme for the Millennium, as reviewed in November 1999, states that "the number of places in higher education will continue to expand and will ensure that Ireland achieves a position near the top of the OECD countries in terms of higher education and participation".

It is clearly in the State's interest to develop its intellectual capital to the highest possible limit. It is in the knowledge-driven sector that it has shown it has the competitive edge, where human capital is the key resource and factors such as distance from markets, labour costs and availability of raw materials are not as crucial as in lower-skilled, higher-bulk manufacturing industries.

If it is to meet the needs of a high-skilled economy, vigorous action in five areas must be taken.

The State must offer the opportunity for education and training beyond the second level to all who have the capacity to benefit from it. It cannot afford to settle for participation rates in third level of 59 per cent, with which de Buitleir seems content, nor can it accept the present situation where only about 27 per cent of our school-leaving population can be accommodated in our universities.

Acceptance of such low levels of participation would ultimately limit the State's growth potential, and it flies in the face of the strong evidence of direct correlation between economic growth and the growth of human capital through education.

The State must also develop its human capital by enabling as many mature students as possible to return to education and achieve their academic potential. The de Buitleir report recommends 10,000 additional places for mature students, which is welcome, but the great bulk of these are to be part-time.

There are many who cannot leave their jobs to pursue full-time education, and the third-level sector must create the flexible programmes to accommodate those in this situation.

For many, the difficulty of combining work and study is prohibitive and, for all mature students, the financial burdens they must endure are a massive disincentive to continuing their education. This can only be satisfactorily resolved by giving mature students the same rights as school-leavers to attend third-level courses as full-time students and by giving them sufficient financial supports to make this a realistic option.

There is a large section of our young population born into poverty and disadvantage who, at present, have little chance of achieving any form of third-level qualification and are lost to the State's skilled labour force. The only solution put forward by the de Buitleir report is to create quotas for these students within the overall level of provision.

The problem for this cohort is not their ability to compete in the points race, but lack of motivation, lack of sufficient preparation to enable them to cope if admitted to a third-level course, and the lack of adequate maintenance grants if they do proceed to third level. These are the problems that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The continued advance of the technological revolution is creating a demand for ever higher levels of expertise and postgraduate programmes to upgrade skills across a wide range of professions. Yet there is no national policy on continuing education, and the de Buitleir report takes no account of it.

This relatively new educational service will soon be making large-scale demands on the staff, space, equipment, libraries and general educational resources of third-level institutions, and planning and investment to accommodate it are urgently needed.

Finally, there is general agreement, particularly in the wake of the Technology Foresight studies, that if Ireland is to gain recognition as a knowledge society, it must not only achieve excellence in its educational system, but must also develop a world-class research capability.

This will require, above all else, building the human resources, i.e. top-class researchers. The de Buitleir report recognises the need to do this, but provides no targets and no adjustment to the overall provision of places.

At present Ireland produces about 300 PhDs a year. A high proportion emigrate, others pursue an academic career. The remainder have to supply the entire research needs of industry and research agencies.

There is no spare capacity to meet any growth in the State's exceptionally low level of research activity. If the research activities of the Technology Foresight exercise are to be realised, the number of research students will have to be increased tenfold.

The competition for the best graduate students is global, and Ireland has been losing many of its brightest for decades in the most serious form of brain drain yet experienced. It will take a major effort and a major investment to reverse this trend. Planning and action are urgent.

The first priority in the new century must be to underpin securely the economic growth of the 1990s. This means, above all, maintaining the State's lead in human capital. That will require detailed ongoing planning that draws on the expertise of professional educators. The de Buitleir report has made a modest beginning, but much more is needed.

Dr Thomas N. Mitchell is chairman of the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities and Provost of Trinity College Dublin