Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to the House. I very much welcome Senator Barrett's introduction of this Bill and commend him on his extensive and very comprehensive piece of work. I am delighted the Government is not opposing it. That is appropriate because while not all the substance of it is in line with Government policy, the objectives, as outlined by Senators Barrett and Jim D'Arcy, are. The Government is planning to deal comprehensively with those objectives in the lifetime of this Government. This Bill and debate will be a very useful part of the process of discussing how best to reform higher education.

I feel very much in tune with one particular point in the explanatory memorandum, namely, the lack of a codified, single, unitary piece of legislation dealing with higher education governance. That is absolutely right. It is not unique to the higher education sector. We have a lack of codification across legislation generally, including criminal justice and a range of other areas. That is one of many reasons we need legislation like this. We have particular challenges, not only the financial situation but demographic challenges. We have very high levels of participation in higher education in Ireland. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service points out to us that 118,774 students are enrolled in the university sector and more than 80,000 in the IOT sector. In addition, we see a projected increase to an estimated 213,000 students by 2027. That will have implications for the capacity of our system.

We also have complex governance structures, and that is one of the many issues Senator Barrett and the Government seek to address. Senator Jim D'Arcy has spoken about the reforming work of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, in education generally, and higher education is one of the areas which the Minister has plans in place to reform. Earlier this week the Minister spoke to the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, conference and mentioned three themes which summarise his agenda as Minister for Education and Skills. The first theme is improving quality and accountability, including reform of the junior cycle and the national literacy and numeracy strategy. The second is supporting inclusion and diversity, in particular the issue of patronage where major reforms are going on. The third is the agenda of change in the higher education and further education and training sectors, the idea of creating opportunities for Irish adults generally, and it is at that level that he is talking about reform as this third theme.

Under this heading, which he emphasised in the USI speech which I recommend colleagues with an interest in this should read, he pointed out he will publish two Bills, one on technological universities which is at pre-legislative stage with an Oireachtas committee, and a Bill seeking to improve governance of the entire third level sector, which is very much in keeping with the proposals put forward by Senator Barrett. It is very important that we examine how best to reform higher education. There is a national strategy for higher education, as the Minister stated, which provides a blueprint for developing a more coherent and efficient higher education system. The institutional mergers envisaged in the technological universities and the regional collaborative clusters proposed by the Minister should go a good deal of the way to delivering significant reforms.

With regard to the Bill, like Senator Power I disagree with the idea of universities setting their own fees under section 39. Yesterday in his speech to the USI, the Minister emphasised there would be no increase in the student registration charge above that which he already indicated. I wonder whether the structures proposed by Senator Barrett, with which I agree, might be seen as Trinity structures being rolled out to other institutions, such as the division between the academic council and the governing authority. I believe this is an excellent idea but it might not work well in every institution. Senator Power also raised the issue of the provost or chief officer of a university only being in place for four years or up to eight years if renewed. I wonder whether five years would be more appropriate. However, these are all details.

The Bill draws out three themes, namely, restructuring, rehiring and research. Restructuring is the bête noireof anyone working in the third level sector as Senators Barrett, Norris, Crown and I well know. I have had a long association with Trinity College and restructuring has always been on the agenda there and in other universities. UCC went through a very controversial restructuring process some years ago. We have seen issues raised with regard to semesterisation, the abolition of faculties and rebranding initiatives such as that under way in Trinity College. All of these mark the third level sector institutions as always going through restructuring. It becomes a cliche and, dare I say, an interference with the real work of a university in terms of teaching and research.