Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and thank him and his officials for the work that has gone into this comprehensive legislation. In a previous role, I was familiar with some of the background work involved.

The Bill aims to replace the Higher Education Authority Act 1971. The HEA was established three years prior to that. The Minister referred to how our higher education system had transformed considerably over the half century since. Approximately one in ten of those aged between 18 and 20 years of age used to go on to higher education. Today, that figure is more than six in ten. Our universities have a much greater research function now and we have seen the growth of the regional technical colleges, RTCs, which became institutes of technology and technological universities. There is also a greater emphasis on second-chance education now.

Of importance is the recognition of the change in the role of the university, particularly by the State. Previously, attending university would have been viewed as training for the professions. Now, there is an understanding about how universities are driving innovation, contributing to solving societal and economic problems, and shaping Irish and global life.

Any regulatory regime that we put in place through this legislation or otherwise has to be concerned with trying to ensure that we continue to meet the objective of having a globally recognised excellent system of higher education. I have always had a problem with university rankings because they only measure certain elements. It is important that we have a globally recognised excellent system that meets the needs of Irish society primarily. We can be proud of the contribution made by staff and management down the years to this achievement.

Previously, economic policy was based a great deal on tax and talent. In this century, the battle will be around talent. As a result, we must ensure that our universities are the driving forces behind talent and that we support them in that regard.

Since a great deal more power is being granted to the HEA under this Bill, it is crucial that the authority have an adequate number of staff to deal with some of the new responsibilities being given to it. Echoing something that Senator Norris said and perhaps speaking from my experience in another life when I worked with the HEA, another matter that is crucial but is not sufficiently spelled out in the legislation is the relationship between the Department and the HEA. For example, the Minister can give direction to the authority regarding its annual plan and so on. There may be a requirement to spell that out in more detail in the legislation.We need an administrative and regulatory structure that supports academic excellence. One mistake that is often made is that academic autonomy does not mean the ability to do whatever you want. Academic independence must be respected. Due to the challenges we had in some of our higher education institutions, this legislation addresses some of the questions around financial accountability on the part of our institutions.

I will turn to the objectives and functions set out in sections 8 and 9. I refer to two of the functions that were set out in section 3 of the original 1971 Act. One was "promoting an appreciation of the value of higher education and research" and another was "promoting the democratisation of the structure of higher education". I am a little concerned that in the functions being provided for within this Bill, there does not seem to be the same level of emphasis on those aspects. This is at a time when the concept of liberal education is under threat. I am not even talking about complete totalitarian regimes but what has happened in Hungary, for instance. It is important that we have an authority that promotes and respects the democratisation of higher education, as well as the value of higher education and research. I am not just talking about the economic value or the value for the individual but the role of higher education in contributing to institutions. That is something the Minister might reflect on. While there is rightly a lot of emphasis on the access agenda, the 1971 Act referred to "promoting the attainment of equality of opportunity in higher education". There is less talk of promotion in this Bill. The language used is about supporting it. There is a slight difference between promoting and supporting but we can get into some of that later. It is important that we raise awareness about access.

Having watched the debate on the Bill in the Dáil, it is clear the Minister took on board many of the proposed amendments, addressing quite a number of concerns of various stakeholders. It is certainly the case that the authority, an t-údarás, will now have a far more regulatory rule, which will move it into a different position. It is also proposed to reduce the board size of an t-údarás. To follow up on Senator Norris's point, there is no difference there as the Minister has always appointed the members of an t-údarás. It is just a case of having a reduced board, which is to be welcomed. Regarding the composition of that board, there is the question of international experience and internationalisation. There should be a guarantee of one member of an t-údarás who is either from outside the State or from inside the State but with experience of international education.

I welcome the commitments Senator Dolan mentioned around student engagement in Part 4 of the Bill and access and lifelong learning in Part 5. I ask the Minister to give some assurances on the issue of designated institutions and authorised providers. This was raised on section 53. The Minister will be aware that a question has arisen around the National College of Ireland and its future status with regard to the legislation. Perhaps he might provide us with some clarity on that matter. On oversight, in section 66 there are nine remedial measures the CEO can take with regard to the designated institutions. The Minister said that only three of those require HEA board approval. In the interests of checks and balances, nine should require some reference to the board. Otherwise it would be conferring a lot of authority on the chief executive.

University governing bodies are considered in many cases to be too large and unwieldy. Provisions in this regard are set out under section 76. Given that the role of the governing body is the strategic direction of the university, appointment to its governing body should increasingly be competence-based. We need to find mechanisms within our universities to represent the views of all stakeholders. Given the modern role of universities, which we have set out, that competence-based requirement will be essential. Broadly, I am very happy with the legislation and I hope the Minister will look favourably on some of the amendments tabled on Committee Stage.