Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. My colleague, Senator McDowell, has already adverted to the strange situation where we get five minutes in which to make Second Stage contributions in respect of a Bill of this importance. It is in keeping with a pattern in recent years of less and less respect for the deliberative process in these Houses, in particular the Seanad. I regret that. I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. He galloped through it but, thankfully, with the help of a script, it was possible to follow. It strikes me that a very cursory approach is now being taken to the legislative process. That is a very unhealthy thing.

I welcome the Bill. It provides a legal basis for the functioning of an t-Údarás um Ard-Oideachas and the role of the Minister. He mentioned the significance of this legislation 50 years on. We are told in the briefing that the purpose of the legislation is to reform the legislative framework for the higher education system "enabling improved policy development and planning in the sector, a focus on the needs of the learner ... and ... oversight and regulation of higher education institutions." I wish that the relative independence of institutions in the sector would be upheld. I see new detailed structures for their new governance structures, which is fine, yet it appears there is a real danger of micromanagement of their activities by the State. There will be amendments on Committee Stage. I hope they will be fully supported, starting with the six university Senators who will, naturally enough, have a particular interest in this legislation. I expect and hope for support across the House for what will, in effect, be amendments that seek to guarantee and copper-fasten good governance.

From my contact with the universities in recent months, it is clear they are very conscious of good governance locally within their university structures. However, they believe that some of the measures in this Bill as it stands cut across respect for the good governance that can be done locally. In this day and age, much is said in our society about the principle of subsidiarity but there is real reason to be concerned about the excessive power being given to the CEO of the HEA under this legislation to take remedial action in issues as important as the funding of universities without, in many cases, recourse to or support from the board of an t-údarás. The universities believe that if we are to be judged in our governance, we ought to be judged having regard to the question of whether there is support from the board of the HEA for the actions of the CEO.

I know the Minister has listened, but it is clear the question is has he listened enough. Certain amendments have been taken on board, for example, regarding the power of the CEO to take action without reference to the board. I was struck by the thin nature of the justifications on offer for allowing this strange situation to endure, especially in matters as important as funding. It seems recourse to the board must be had in more minor matters, one might say, for example, where there might be a need to retrain somebody or some such issue. When it comes to issues as serious as the funding of universities, a fortiori, there should be a requirement for the CEO to have the support of the board before taking action and not to act unilaterally.

The explanations on offer as to why the Government is satisfied with things as they stand so far, and that the Attorney General, for example, has looked at this and is happy, makes me wonder what that means. Does it mean he thinks it is constitutional or that he likes the cut of the jib of the legislation? This kind of vague rationale is simply not enough when we are talking about the extensive powers being given to the CEO of the HEA in a way that cuts across the institutions. The health of our society needs to have a measure of autonomy, not least a measure of significant autonomy. We are not talking about a lack of accountability.The universities want to be accountable but good governance means good governance and that there is always oversight of those who have considerable powers.That is why there will need to be amendments that insist on the requirement that the CEO of the HEA goes to the board in order to be able to take significant action. Given that we can have incorporeal meetings and meetings by Zoom, it is not impossible in this day and age to arrange meetings very quickly to deal with serious matters, such as funding, where an immediate overnight decision will not be taken anyway. With respect, the Minister and his Department need to listen more to the concerns of the universities on that.

As the Minister is aware, the universities continue to have concerns about the requirement to comply with codes, guidelines and policies. It is an established tradition and feature of university life that there is either compliance or an explanation for non-compliance. The Minister said that overall, that is still there in the architecture of things. Where is it? The universities certainly do not feel that it is there. I will conclude by commenting on the issue of the appeals committee. It seems to be a no-brainer that the composition of the appeals committee should include an independent, external, international figure. It is also no-brainer that public servants should not sit on an appeals committee. What we are looking for here is independent adjudication of whether decisions are properly taken. Those are among the matters that I and others hope to return to on Committee Stage.