Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for tabling amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 94. I will deal with the two issues they relate to. I will deal with the matter of the "relevant body" in a constructive fashion and I suggest that if we need to tease through it more on Report Stage, we can do so. I am informed that the term "relevant body" is already defined in section 36(7) of the Bill in the same manner as the amendment and is already used in sections 35 and 36 of the Bill. As these amendments are linked to section 37 and they need to be considered in the context of the meaning of the proposed amendment to that section. I contend that the "relevant body" piece, as defined in amendment No. 4, is dealt with in the Bill as I have outlined.

I genuinely see what the Deputy is trying to achieve on the core funding piece. I will be very clear that there is no policy intention, nor any entitlement in the passage of this legislation, that even a designated institution automatically has a right to core funding. There is no policy intention whatsoever to provide core funding to for-profit private institutions. I take the point that the Deputy wants to legislate against that. The current provisions of section 37 of the Bill are that the HEA, with the approval of the Minister of the day, prepares and establishes the funding framework for the allocation of funding to those institutions of higher education and other bodies that we specify in section 37(1) of the Bill.

This amendment seeks to extract, as the Deputy outlined, a subset of that framework and provide that the HEA may provide core funding to universities, technological universities, institutes of technology or the National College of Art and Design, NCAD. Without being too technical about it, it is not that the HEA "may". The HEA already provides core funding to these institutions but it also provides core funding to a small number of other institutions that are not universities, technological universities, institutes of technology or the NCAD. I am not trying to misrepresent the Deputy as I know this is not her policy intention, but if we take this amendment as worded, the advice available to me is the National College of Ireland, NCI, for example, or Mary Immaculate College, MIC, would not be captured in that amendment. In short, we believe it is too rigid and does not provide the flexibility for the institutions that do not fit within the definition outlined by the Deputy, including MIC and NCI.

We have tried to keep section 37 at a high level in primary legislation to allow that flexibility in funding that is needed from time to time. I again acknowledge the Deputy is trying to not interfere with that flexibility. I get that but there is a concern among officials in my Department that it could be too prescriptive for scenarios that can arise from time to time where funding needs to be provided.

In summary, we believe the "relevant body" piece is already defined in the legislation, that the amendment, unintentionally, would leave out a small number of institutions that are not-for-profit, which is not the Deputy's intention, and that it is too prescriptive an amendment to put in primary legislation.