Mr. Tom Boland:

The committee will be aware that the heads of the Bill have been published at a time of significant reform in higher education. This reform is focussed on consolidating the higher education institutions into a smaller number of institutions, forming a well co-ordinated and coherent system of institutions, each with a clear mission, delivering quality outcomes for students and addressing national objectives set by the Minister and the Government. The draft legislation supports important elements of that reform and as such it is very welcome. It provides the legal avenue for the consolidation of institutes of technology and for the process for the designation of technological universities. Both of those are central aspects to the restructuring of the system.

Arising from the publication of the higher education strategy in 2011, the HEA has, with other key stakeholders in the education system, been involved in the development and implementation of the reform programme – the most comprehensive reform programme in the history of the State. This reform programme is also an important element in the Government’s overall programme of reform of the public service. In addition to the national strategy document itself, the reform is based on the publication of other major policy advice from the HEA to the Minister for Education and Skills, including Landscape for Higher Education, which dealt with issues of consolidation and co-operation of the existing higher education institutions; Future Labour Market Demand for Higher Education Graduates; pilot surveys of students and employers on their perspectives on higher education; a review of initial teacher education and commencement of a programme of consolidation of 19 existing centres into six major centres of excellence; and criteria and process for designation as technological university.

The HEA has also commenced the implementation of a new approach to system governance and the funding of higher education known as strategic dialogue. The key focus of this process is to better align institutional performance to national objectives set by the Government and to fund the institutions in part by reference to outcomes. Arising from this process each higher education institution will enter into an agreement with the HEA as to how it will address national objectives and the measures by which its performance is to be assessed. By way of a side note, I support the comments by Tony Donohue from IBEC on the proposals on pay and conditions set out in the Bill. It seems to me that the strategic dialogue process and the funding that could be tied to it is a much more effective way of ensuring accountability for abiding by pay and conditions than statutory provisions set out in the Bill.

The first round of this dialogue process is now nearing completion and the HEA will shortly provide the Minster for Education and Skills with the first report of the performance of the higher education system under this new approach. The process will be developed year-on-year, as all parties, including the HEA, gain experience and deeper understanding.

As has already been mentioned in previous submissions, it should be noted that this programme of reform is being undertaken in an environment of severe resource constraints on the institutions and strong growth in demand from students. This both reinforces the need for reform but also adds to the challenges and risks. A new strategy for the financial sustainability of the system is needed to ensure that we adopt an appropriate funding model for higher education that balances the demand for graduates with the quality of outcomes.

The heads provide for the process and criteria for technological university designation. The creation of technological universities is a significant development in the higher education system, with the potential to provide a new and welcome dimension to higher education provision, especially in the technological sector. I welcome IBEC's comments on that. It is essential, however, that any such university is capable of achieving recognition as a university at both national and international levels. It is for this reason that a fair but rigorous process as well as clear criteria must surround the setting up of such universities, and the heads will provide for that.
The HEA welcomes the changes proposed in respect of the governing authorities of technological universities and institutes of technology. We particularly welcome the move towards a more competency based approach to governing authority membership.
I would like the committee to note that the HEA sees this particular legislation as one of a suite of legislative provisions necessary to support the full implementation of the national strategy. Other areas requiring attention include the powers and functions of the HEA itself necessary to give statutory underpinning to our new mandate for a more outcomes focused, system approach to the governance and regulation of higher education; the composition of the board of the HEA, adopting a competency based approach in that context, and similarly in the case of the universities; the governance structures in the institutions; and other related matters. We look forward to proposals on these emerging at the earliest opportunity but in the meantime, we strongly welcome the Minister’s proposals being discussed here today and we will engage constructively with the Minister and his officials as the legislation makes its way through the legislative process.