Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will not use my prepared script in the interests of trying to respond to a number of the very interesting and important issues that were raised. I am glad to be back in Seanad Éireann. Unlike in the other House, I am not a Member here. The Seanad orders its business as the Members wish to order its business. I am here to genuinely engage in good faith. We genuinely engaged on the issue in the Dáil. We did not just come in and use our Dáil majority to say, "Thanks very much, good night and good luck." We brought forward 179 amendments. While they were all brought forward in my name, bar one, many of them arose from opposition contributions and engagement with the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, the Irish Universities Association, IUA, and the Technological Higher Education Institution, THEA. Deputy Ó Snodaigh brought forward quite a few amendments on behalf of Conradh na Gaeilge. We also had very extensive engagement with Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, as I mentioned earlier. I am here to engage in good faith. It will take the time that it takes, and we will work our way through it. I would not be so rude, as a Member of the Lower House, to try to tell the Upper House how to do its business.

At the outset, I wish to state that what we are trying to do in this Bill is to ensure that there is good, robust, modern internal governance in the institutions, which absolutely respects their autonomy. This legislation sets out the importance of autonomy and academic freedom. There is no threat to either, whether legal, policy-wise, implicit or explicit. We took steps in the Dáil, which I am sure we will be able to tease through on Committee and Report Stages, to further strengthen the importance of autonomy. I really value having autonomous institutions. They are a cornerstone of our western democracy. However, we also need to know that there are good, internal, robust governance structures in place. That is what we are trying to achieve with this legislation. We can have the debate about whether we have got the balance right and how to improve it. Let us do that, as we did in the other House. However, let us not suggest that we are setting out to do something that we are not setting out to do. I am not saying that it has been overly suggested here, but I have read about such suggestions. We are not setting out to do anything to undermine academic freedom or autonomy. I would never do that. I do not believe anybody in a democracy would so such a thing. I agree with Senator Mullen that we value the role of our universities. I agree with Senators O'Reilly and Byrne on democratisation, free thinking and independence. I wish to make that point at the outset.

Senators Byrne and Hoey will be pleased to note that in many ways, this legislation is setting out in law what is already done in practice.There are many excellent areas in which the HEA is proactively involved but it does so on a good faith basis that is not set out in legislation. It makes sense to clarify in law what the HEA is when a Bill is being brought forward that defines its role, including its functions, objects and the role of the Minister in the new Department and what that does and how it interacts. I was taken by Senator Hoey's point, and I want to fully agree with it on the record, that the HEA is not just a funding distribution office that hands out cheques for the year. It does a lot more than that and it does a lot of really valuable work. I just came from the launch of the zero-tolerance strategy on sexual violence and I would like to single out Dr. Ross Woods and the HEA for the incredible work being done in getting our sector to the place we want to be at in leading a zero-tolerance approach. I use that as one example.

There has already been a good debate on CEO versus board in the HEA and on the balance of that division. I want to be truthful and clear that we will turn to this in a lot of detail on Committee Stage. We have to be careful not to just read parts of the Bill in isolation. The Senators are all experienced legislators, including having a former Attorney General in the House, and the importance of reading the Bill in the round is genuine because it is not just about picking sections. The CEO has to operate within the law and the framework, and there is an entire section in the Bill that sets out the functions of the CEO. The CEO is accountable to the board in all of his or her decisions. Would we be asking the CEO of the HSE to revert to the board of the HSE on every matter or would we accept that the CEO of the HSE runs the HSE but is accountable to the board? We need to have honest and detailed consideration of the role of a board versus the day-to-day role of an executive and the different functions they possess, including the different functions of a full-time professional versus an expert competency-based board that has a different role.

The legislation is clear that the first step, which we worked on in the other House, is that if there is an issue of significant concern - and that phrase and threshold were put in deliberately - the first step is for the CEO of the HEA to ask the HEI to undertake a self-review. It is not just a case of jumping right in and withdrawing funding; that is genuinely not what the Bill is trying to do and we can tease that through. The HEI can rectify any issue at that stage before we get anywhere near the CEO making any determination.

As I have said already, the CEO can only operate in the framework and in compliance with the Bill. In discussing the balance, which is a legitimate debate that we had and we made some changes in the other House, we need to look at that specific section in the Bill on the functioning of the CEO. We also need to remember that the CEO is accountable to the board at all times in the performance of his or her functions. The CEO has to provide members of the board with information, including financial information. A board, in doing its job, would be holding the CEO to account. Five of the six remedial measures which require CEO approval are funding related and the CEO of the HEA is the Accounting Officer for the HEA. It is also the CEO who is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. When it comes to the Oireachtas discharging its function it is not the board that is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and it is not a chair or member of the board; it is the CEO of the board. Can the CEO be accountable without having the ability to make those decisions and without that power? That is a legitimate question that we should discuss and consider.

I want to talk about Trinity College Dublin and I want to thank Senator Norris for his kind words. I got dizzy by the end of his contribution but I have the utmost respect for the Senator, who has served this House and country with distinction. I always like that Senator Norris can disagree without being disagreeable. He made an important point about funding and I said in my opening comments that this Bill cannot be read in isolation from the other pieces of the jigsaw that we are trying to put together on third level education, the most crucial of which is the funding our future framework on sustainably funding higher education. That has been welcomed by every higher education institution, every president of every university, every chair of every governing authority and probably every party in the Dáil. The issue now is to get on and deliver it and I accept that. Funding is important and it cannot be looked at in isolation.

On Trinity College Dublin, there is an idea that I got some mad notion and went off on one because of the monarch and all this stuff that was being quoted at me. We wish the British Queen well during her jubilee year but I am not in any way accountable to any monarch and neither is this House. The Constitution of Ireland and the Oireachtas are sovereign and there are many better historians than me in this House, but one does not need to be a historian to recognise that, so we will not get far in discussions on the monarch. Perhaps that only gives an indication of a throwback to a different era rather than a liberal and outward looking democratic republic with a parliamentary democracy and Trinity College Dublin is on this journey. I welcome former Senator Barrett and I know he fully disagrees with me on this Bill. I still fundamentally respect him while disagreeing on that but I welcome him back to the House.

Trinity College Dublin completed its governance review and it identified the benefit of additional external membership; not me. Trinity College Dublin envisaged in the review that 40% of its governing authority should be external. That was not me but Trinity College Dublin and this is consistent with the provisions in the Bill which provide that not less than 40% of Trinity College Dublin's board should be made up of external members. I heard from Trinity College Dublin Students' Union about changes to the composition and about giving the students more voice. I want to praise Leah Keogh of the Trinity College Dublin Students' Union and we acted on that. We also heard from the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, more broadly and we acted on that.

Senator Flynn asked for an explanation on why Trinity College Dublin is being treated differently. I am treating it differently in recognition of the legal difference and the fellow structure and I am allowing Trinity College Dublin to have six fellows, as no other college or university in Ireland can. We should bring a bit of balance to this debate and recognise that it is fundamentally, totally and absolutely wrong that the CEO of any organisation is the chair of the board, which is the situation in Trinity College Dublin. Trinity College Dublin is autonomous, independent and brilliant and we love it. We think it is great and we are working with it but this place is sovereign, it will do its job and we will work with Trinity College Dublin. I thank the college for the work it has done, including the work it has done with visitors and I thank it for the co-operative and engaging way it has worked with us on this.

I also want to return to the issue of comply and explain because a good point came up. Am I OK to continue?