Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I have heard Senators Barrett and Crown on this area before. The amendments seek to replace the requirement for consultation with the HEA, in these instances, with the requirement to consult with the relevant powers instead. I am opposed to these amendments on the following grounds. In the first instance, the Bill already provides for consultation by the QQAAI, with relevant providers, where the authority is engaging in any of its core activities. This includes a requirement for consultation in respect of quality assurance and effectiveness reviews. The provision in the Bill for consultation with the HEA supplements requirement for consultation with the relevant providers, instead of seeking to replace it. It is entirely appropriate that the new authority consults with the HEA in respect of institutions funded through the HEA. It would be a cause for concern if the new authority did not consult with the body with statutory responsibility for planning and policy development for higher education and research in Ireland. As part of its statutory role, the HEA has wide advisory powers throughout the third level education sector. It is important the HEA has the opportunity to contribute to the work of the QQAAI.

It may be that these amendments originate from concerns previously expressed in this House during earlier discussions of the Bill, which I remember, about perceived encroachments by the new authority on the academic autonomy of higher education institutions. If this is the case, I will reiterate some of the points made by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon, on Committee Stage. The role of the authority on quality assurance in previously established universities and providers generally, will simply be to act as an external quality assurance agency. It will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the university's internal quality assurance procedures, to which Senator Barrett referred. This mirrors the review provisions set out in section 35 of the Universities Act 1997, with the authority replacing the governing authority of the university as the review body. At present, the Irish Universities Quality Board has a key role to play in respect of quality assurance in the university sector. In establishing the IUQB in 2002, five years after the Bill was enacted, the seven universities' governing authorities recognised the importance of external review of quality assurance. The governing authorities, including the board of Trinity College, delegated their review function under the Universities Act 1997 to the IUQB. Since 2009, the IUQB has evaluated six of the seven universities under the Universities Act, most recently Trinity College in March of this year. The new authority will continue the role of the IUQB in respect of external quality assurance in the university sector. In that respect, it seeks to build on the infrastructure already there, not to duplicate or augment it.

Section 28 of the Bill requires universities to prepare quality assurance procedures and the Bill also provides that any quality assurance procedures already in place under section 35 of the Act are carried forward to meet the requirements. These procedures include long-standing, "university organised" or "internal quality assurance procedures", such as the external examiner system to which Senator Barrett referred. They also include the involvement of external subject matter experts in assessing the value of assessment work and research. The work of the authority will complement these processes rather than replace them.

In reviewing the effectiveness of our universities' quality assurance procedures, the authority will consider whether processes such as external examination and peer review are being universally applied across the institution. It will also assess the extent to which systems are in place to ensure reports and recommendations arising are properly considered and, more importantly, acted upon. In doing so, the authority will use expert international review panels, sourced from outside the authority's staff. The work of the authority will be to support and maintain quality assurance in all sectors, including the university sector. The establishment of the new authority does not represent an attempt to encroach on the traditional academic autonomy of universities. Any new quality assurance procedures established by a previously established university, in accordance with the Bill, will not require the agreement of the authority. This is in contrast to the requirement for other relevant providers to have their procedures approved by the authority. Previously established universities will be required to consult the authority when it is proposed to establish a new quality assurance procedure. This is a clear acknowledgement of the traditional autonomy of universities.

We are moving into a new space in respect of third level education. Members are familiar with what is known as the Hunt report. We now have 33 higher level institutions on the CAO forms. There will be some rationalisation of the initial teacher education provision. No doubt, the House will want to discuss that point. We are doing so because, when I went to college 40 years ago, only 10% of my confrères and citizens went to third level college. That figure is now at 60% and rising. The expectation that people, during the course of their lifetime, move in and out of continuous learning through further education or related matters is new territory for all of us. It is essential that we ensure some mechanism of quality assurance that confirms the good work being done by third level institutions. I am not talking about displacing it, getting in the way of it, making it more bureaucratic or hindering it but making sure that, if one does a course in college X or college Y, there is some comparability in respect of quality assurance. Senators Barrett and Crown suggest in amendments that I will not accept, that the Higher Education Authority should have no role whatsoever in this space of quality assurance. The new body will be involved in quality assurance. We are merging three institutions and, at the same time, the universities have decided to dissolve the IUQB. In other words, we are reducing the number of institutions in the quality assurance space and standardising methods of assessment and evaluation. In anticipation of this legislation - I pay tribute to the previous Administration for initiating it - there has been rationalisation and integration at personnel level. The new body will have a shared workforce from the three amalgamated institutions, with one chief executive officer. For these reasons, I am not in position or convinced by the argument set out therein to accept the amendments in the names of Senators Sean Barrett and John Crown. Having said that, I take the opportunity to thank them for their co-operation in this area. I will be more than happy to return, at a time of Members' choosing, to discuss issues around academic freedom, including a separation between the quality of teaching in third level institutions, on the one hand, and the requirement for some framework for engagement by the regulatory authorities and the Higher Education Authority, on the other.

It might be useful for Members to consider an example of what we are trying to do. The state of Singapore which has a population greater than Ireland's has one institution for teacher education encompassing both primary and second level. The republic of Finland has eight such institutions, while the province of Ontario in Canada has 13. We have 22 and something like 43 education courses. On foot of the Hunt report, we have requested a group of international experts to examine how we can ensure improved quality and consistency across that very broad landscape. The historical reasons for the existence of five stand-alone primary school teacher training colleges are well understood. However, all of the best educationist advice I have received, as reflected in the Hunt report, argues that initial teacher training should be located on a university campus or in a university context. That is what we are proposing to introduce. The traditional call to training, as it was historically known, was for a two year teacher training course which did not receive the same academic recognition as the three and four year arts degrees available in the three or four universities in the State at the time. That changed many years ago when the qualification became a bachelor of education, but it remains a three year course.