Ms Clare Austick:

I thank the Acting Chairman and members of the joint committee for this opportunity to participate in the pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Higher Education Authority Bill 2021. The USI welcomes the latter believes that, in general terms, it goes some way to meeting the needs of the higher education sector.

The USI welcomes the list of objects outlined within the general scheme under head 8, particularly the inclusion of students’ needs as a primary consideration for decisions within higher education. The USI firmly believes students' needs must remain the priority across the sector to ensure students receive the most meaningful, high-quality college and academic experience possible.

The USI warmly welcomes the emphasis placed on student engagement, participation and student success in head 9 on general functions and supports the continuous endeavour towards a high-quality educational experience for students in higher education. The USI embraces the inclusion of the phrase "[to] promote, support, and fund excellent research". However, it is worrying that the challenges facing researchers in terms of precarity will not be covered in this legislation. Clear commitments to improving conditions for postgraduate students must be constructed and then upheld at HEI governing bodies and authorities. In addition, USI is gravely concerned about the reference to value for money and believes it must be carefully considered to ensure the conversation does not diverge towards one of further marketisation of higher education.

The USI fully supports the appointment of a student representative of a national student union to an t-údarás under head 17.

The USI welcomes the commitment to promoting student engagement between students’ unions and designated HEIs within the Bill under head 43. This provides a statutory footing for the national student engagement programme, an ongoing collaboration between an t-údarás, the USI and Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI.

The USI welcomes the provision of a student forum under head 44. Having said that, the operational detail for this forum is not outlined within the general scheme. It is imperative that this detail is developed alongside local and national student representatives to ensure the success of this forum.

Head 45 provides for a student survey of students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level to be run. This is welcomed by USI because it is an important piece of work which captures the student voice and provides an evidence base for the development of future policy.

Under heads 77, 90 and 98 on the composition of governing authorities for universities, TUs and institutes of technology, the USI welcomes the best practice framework to improve governance. However, we are concerned there is no requirement of a specific numbers of students in each governing body outlined. The USI is also deeply concerned that there are no amendments to the National College of Art and Design Act 1971 to resolve the challenges faced by the National College of Art and Design Students Union, NCADSU, in being recognised as eligible to become student representatives on the board. Similarly, with head 81, the USI is concerned that there is no required minimum number of students on academic councils.

It is positive to see the emergence of a clear theme underpinning the general scheme of the Bill, which appears to recognise the importance and value of student representation, engagement and participation. The provisions in place are promising but they must not be allowed to become a series of tick box exercises and must eventually translate into real, tangible and effective actions and outcomes for the student experience and quality of our colleges. The ambition of USI is to improve the quality of higher education and to increase access, participation and engagement across the sector. If the provisions detailed in the general scheme are operated and implemented in full, then that progress can be made. I again express my sincere thanks for this opportunity.