Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. As he knows, Sinn Féin supports legislative reform in higher education to clarify the role of the HEA, to increase inclusion and access and to ensure proper governance and accountability. I acknowledge that the Minister and his Department have taken on board a number of recommendations - some, but not all - that Sinn Féin put forward during pre-legislative scrutiny.

They included issues around the role of the HEA in promoting the Irish language, increasing North-South co-operation, increasing the number of board members and the removal of the limit on the number of members on the academic councils. I welcome the inclusion of student representation on the board of the HEA. I call on the Minister to take on board the committee recommendation that trade union representation should be included on the board of the HEA.

Similarly, I welcome the inclusion of the specific role of the HEA in promoting cross-border co-operation in higher education. The education committee also specifically called for a role for the HEA in promoting cross-border student enrolment. I welcome that the Bill now makes specific reference to the role of the HEA in promoting the Irish language. I assume that was an oversight in the general scheme and I am glad it is now included. That said, the role given to the HEA in promoting the Irish language is weaker in this Bill than in the 1971 Act that it will replace and in the Universities Act 1997. I believe it should be strengthened.

Despite these changes in the general scheme, there is still substantial room for improvement in the Bill. We will continue to work constructively with the Minister to try to get the Bill where it needs to be. As things stand, I am not satisfied that the Minister has struck the right balance between the autonomy for the institutions of higher education and the governing oversight. I have engaged extensively with the sector over recent months and the management of every institution accepts the need for the highest standards and for transparency and accountability of public finances. That is without exception and it is beyond question. The Minister will always have my support and Sinn Féin’s support for any policy that achieves that. However, there are many proposals in the Bill which reduce the autonomy of institutions of higher education without any clear relationship with transparency and accountability. I have yet to see or hear a convincing justification for dictating such rigid governance structures such as the mandatory 17-member limit on the governing bodies. These are all unpaid positions. Every governing body has its own unique make-up and tradition. Slashing the numbers allowed on the board seems mistaken. It is a decision that colleges are more than capable of making, as long as they meet certain standards of competency and external representation. The substantial reduction in size will put more strain on members and will reduce representation on the board of different institutions and the wider communities. The removal of the broader representation on the governing bodies will be a real loss. It is unfair to say that the legislation will move the sector to a competency-based governance model. Governing bodies are currently made up of members of academic and non-academic staff, undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students, alumni, local authority nominees, trade union representatives, employers organisations and others. As recently as 2018, a Fine Gael Government passed legislation on technological universities that stipulated a 22-person governing body or 26 in certain cases. A few short years later, that has been reduced even further without any clear explanation of its merits. We need to have further discussions on that

It is claimed that this Bill will promote a student-focused system. However it seems that because of the reforms to governing bodies, students will have less representation on governing bodies in all higher education institutions. The Minister needs to clarify the potential impact this could have on the representation of undergraduate and postgraduate students on the governing bodies, on the representation of academic and non-academic staff and on trade union representation.

Governing boards benefit and are strengthened by external membership. However, this legislation mandates a majority of external members without clear justification or explanation. How strong could the justification possibly be given that board exemptions have been granted for Trinity College Dublin? I have no issue with TCD being shown flexibility to reflect its unique governance structure but I believe that different models can be equally successfully provided for. Certain safeguards are in place to ensure good governance, transparency and accountability. TCD is not the only college with its own unique history and governance structure. I think of the newly formed Atlantic technological university that will soon make Castlebar a university town and I look forward to that. This multi-campus technological university involves thousands of students spread across locations in Castlebar, Galway city, Killybegs, Letterfrack, Letterkenny, Mountbellew and Sligo. The geographical spread and multi-campus nature of this university will mean it is very distinct from most other colleges, yet it is being given no flexibility to anyone, whether student, parent, academic, staff or otherwise. This looks unfair and elitist. The Minister should look again at the rigid and overly prescriptive governance structures and find a fair approach that can be applied to everyone without damaging the unique characteristics, and the differentiated missions of the different institutions.

A stated purpose of the Bill is to clarify the role of the HEA. The Bill seems to strengthen the HEA in some ways, yet in others it seems to be reduced to a regulator rather than a strong independent authority capable of advocating for the needs of the sector. The HEA should have a role in ensuring that the sector is adequately resourced. Under the Bill as it stands, I believe it is not possible to do that. As it currently stands, the HEA no longer has any role as a voice for the sector. A clear example of this is the fact that the CEO of the HEA will be specifically prohibited from commenting on policy. The Bill states that the director "shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy". I know this is not the first Bill to put this limit on this CEO of a State agency but that does not mean we should just accept it as the right way to go. I would like the Minister to explain why this is necessary. This fundamentally means that the HEA will be incapable of advocating for the sector and challenging the Government.

The Bill grants sole powers of review to the HEA CEO and empowers the CEO to make a determination whether further action is necessary following a review. The right of the HEA to appeal decisions must be robust enough to provide higher education institutions with assurances that they can challenge decisions. In the heads of the Bill published last summer, all determinations of actions could be appealed whereas the Bill now allows only for a right of appeal against remedial measures. On top of this, an appeal does not put a stay on the implementation of the measure determined by the CEO. An appeals framework of this nature was not contemplated by the heads of the Bill. I hope the Minister will be prepared to work with the Opposition and the sector to amend this section.

I have met with most third level colleges in the State over the last 12 months and all of them were more than happy to be held to the highest standards of accountability as recipients of public funding. That said, there was also a great deal of concern about the watering down of institutional autonomy. Good governance and accountability can be ensured without sacrificing the autonomy of our third level institutions. The greatest testament to the governance of higher education is that these institutions have managed to maintain the performance of the system over the last ten years. We have seen over a decade of austerity in the higher education sector. Fundamentally governance is not the main issue facing the sector. Legislative reform will be of limited value unless it is accompanied by a sustainable funding model. The Minister acknowledges that. He did so when he acknowledged that even though the numbers have increased, that has not been underpinned by funding in the way it needs to be. During that time, there has been a piecemeal privatisation and deep commercialisation of public third level education. Today, most universities have a majority of revenue coming from sources other than the State. Some of that is positive, such as winning competitive research funding or attracting more international students. However, it has been driven out of necessity due to what the Irish Universities Association has labelled as state divestment from third level education. That should concern us all. The ethos and the focus of these centres of education and research have been shifted towards commercial considerations and huge amounts of time and energy are spent operating on a commercial basis. This is energy that would be better spent on education and research. I do not blame the individual institutions. This has been explicit policy of successive Governments.

I will work with the Minister on this legislation. We want to make it as good as we possibly can. We are rectifying legislation that is 50 years old. We have a duty and responsibility to do that and I look forward to working with him.

See this speech in context