Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 58, line 26, after "may" to insert ", with the approval of the Board,".

Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 provide that the chief executive of the HEA requires board approval for the publication of a report of a review under section 64. This is important where there is potential reputational risk to an institution. It is the view of the sector and, I suspect, that of the committee that it would be appropriate for the CEO to require the approval of the board of the HEA before the publication of a report of a review. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 137 and 138.

Amendment No. 139a in my name removes the provision that the chief executive can make a determination to provide assistance in accordance with section 66 following a review under section 64. The amendment has been tabled because it is proposed to remove section 66 of the Bill, relating to the provision of assistance by an tÚdarás, and, therefore, this provision is no longer necessary. This, too, is something that came from engagement with the sector. It would like to be in a position to request assistance but does not wish to have that assistance forced upon it. That language may be slightly inaccurate. I apologise; some of my language should be tighter. It is just a change of emphasis in terms of assistance. In light of the fact that we will be removing section 66, amendment No. 139a removes a provision that is no longer required.

On amendment No. 139, I am not proposing to accept the amendment. It proposes to insert a provision that HEA board approval will be needed by the chief executive in order to make a determination to take action following a review. This whole legislation is a question of balance. We are all trying to get the balance right. My amendment proposes that, for reputational reasons and the like, the chief executive cannot go ahead and publish the report of the review without the approval of the board. It is still appropriate for the CEO to be able to take action. In fact, it is empowering and important for the CEO to be able to take the action without the requirement of a board meeting. For that reason, I prefer the amendment I have tabled, so I do not propose to accept amendment No. 139. It is important that when the HEA identifies an issue in a higher education institution, the HEA can react in a timely manner. Of course, all present have great confidence in the sector, but we also have to legislate for times when things go wrong. Being able to act in a timely manner is important. The steps include a request for self-review and a report from the institution by the CEO. I think we have the balance right in this area.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 140. It provides that an appeal can be taken in respect of any determination made by the CEO under section 65. The Bill provides that an appeal can only be taken against the imposition of remedial measures. That is important too. If there are remedial measures, one can taken an appeal in respect of one's unhappiness with that, but if there is not a remedial measure, I do not think there is a need for an appeal. As I stated, amendment No. 139 removes the provision that the chief executive officer can make a determination to provide assistance. I have dealt with that. I wish to flag that I am considering introducing an amendment on Report Stage to provide for an appeal in respect of the appointment of a reviewer. I will consider amendment No. 140 again prior to Report Stage. That is basically what I am saying. I think we have the balance right without amendment No. 139, based on the amendment I have brought forward. I will consider the issues relating to amendment No. 140 in advance of Report Stage.