Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of amendments in this grouping. As I understand it, the amendment put forward by Senator Gavan is not about discouraging other areas. It seems to be about promoting, protecting and enhancing the public aspect, which is an important aspect. Again, it is a positively framed amendment in that regard.

All of my amendments relate to the objects and functions of an túdarás. This is really important because it sets the agenda that will transform. We will come to some of the details on the functions later. These amendments seek to influence the setting of the tone.

Regarding amendments Nos. 11 and 12, the current high-level aim of the HEA is outlined as leading the strategic development of the Irish higher education and research system with the object of creating a coherent system of diverse institutions with distinct missions that is responsive to the social, cultural and economic development of Ireland and its people and supports the achievement of national objectives. I am concerned that in the new set of objects, the idea of a coherent system of diverse institutions with distinct missions is not there in the same way. We will come to some of the amendments in respect of diversity within institutions, staff and students and how it works but the institutions themselves have very diverse roles. The National College of Art and Design and NUI Galway are very different. This is not just about the question of autonomy but the fact that there is a value in having diverse institutions with distinct missions and the fact that when it comes to many areas of policy, one size does always not fit all and different things are brought by different institutions. Something that may be missing compared with the current aims of the HEA is that acknowledgement of the value in diversity not just within but between institutions and the fact that they may have very distinct missions. This should be celebrated, promoted and stated at the highest level. We have equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusion in higher education. That is internal but there is a value in how the idea that institutions have distinct missions and being diverse is framed within the HEA currently and it should be carried through into the objects of an túdarás.

Amendment No. 14 relates to the language in the Bill. It is currently specified that one of the objectives of an túdarás is to support designated institutions in contributing to social, economic, cultural and environmental development and sustainability through leadership, innovation and agility. On one level, you could say there is a potential overlap between innovation and agility. I have a concern in that agility is a very undefined term. In respect of some other concepts that sound good and for which we fought for years, for example, flexibility in the workplace, I would have understood this from a work-life balance perspective when I was working with the National Women's Council of Ireland and others. However, this became quite different in the understanding of employers when they were promoting non-fixed hours contracts. Similarly, the term "agility" is ambiguous. Innovation is already supported. We should think of public as well as private innovation because public research plays a key role in innovation. Innovation is important but having agility in there seems to be underscoring and emphasising. It matches a concern I will discuss later when we come to the question of the functions of an túdarás. There is a bit of duplication. When you put similes alongside each other, you feel something is getting an extra push compared to other things. Innovation and agility are alongside each other. When we come to section 9(1)(f) on the functions of the HEA, we see a reference to meeting the educational and skills needs of individuals, business, enterprise and the professions. Again, business and enterprise are being framed differently and placed in front of the professions. There is a concern that it could lead to a greater weighting in terms of a certain approach. We do not want the long-term transformative work of our universities in front-line research and intellectual exploration that lay the foundations for the future to be subsumed in terms of the needs of enterprise or the skills the market is telling us it needs in the next two, three or five years.That is why I am a little concerned about the use of the word "agility" and replaced it with the word "excellence". The word "excellence" is mentioned elsewhere in the functions and is a better word than "agility" here. Also, I wish to note that the word "excellence" is referenced for research but not teaching.

On amendments Nos. 15 and 16, students' unions and other representative groups have highlighted and expressed concerns about the term "value for money" as it is used throughout the legislation. The term is outdated because the general focus in public spending is now on effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Even within procurement, we work in the wider frame of the most economically advantageous tender whereas a value-for money frame can often be quite a narrow remit. Sometimes the ways that value for money tend to be measured can be extremely narrow and can lean towards a short-term frame of thinking rather than a long-term frame of thinking for outcomes, results, impacts and effects of educational spending, which will not always come through in respect of a short-term balance sheet but have very significant impacts on society. The investment is education but the benefits and returns accrued do not always come through with a very narrow value-for-money frame. In that regard, I have sought to replace it with an obligation to: "ensure that designated higher education institutions are transparent in their use of public money and that such monies are used in a sustainable and ethical manner". Sustainability and ethics are crucial in terms of moneys. Let us consider the basic principles such as the important campaigns for divestment in higher education institutions. If value for money is the primary frame then initiatives such as divestment become more difficult. The language I have used in amendment No. 15 is a much clearer obligation and refers to sustainability and ethics. The EU due diligence directive is coming but is not strong enough. The global direction of travel must be towards a joined-up analysis of how money is spent.

I have used the word "sustainable" in a separate way, rather than referencing, and I will not repeat the concerns expressed by my colleague. I am extremely concerned about this matter so if there is a re-evaluation of matters in this legislation then I urge the insertion of an up-to-date and appropriate definition of environmental development and sustainability rather than going back to something from 1987, which is before the Rio Earth Summit took place in 1992, in terms of environmental development and sustainability. Crucially, at present we are leaving out and not using the available definition of "sustainable" from the UN sustainable development goals that Ireland negotiated. Ireland, along with Kenya, led the negotiation of what sustainability should look like globally and persuaded hundreds of other countries to sign up to that. So obviously we should use that definition. If we are able and confident enough to ask all the countries of the world to sign up then that we should be willing to use the definition ourselves when we talk about sustainability. That is an important matter and not an academic one. The definition in the Bill, which I am sure has already been discussed, only talks about the present moment and the future yet does not look to things like historical responsibilities, In that regard, it is out of step with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and the recognition of respective responsibilities, capacities and capabilities. That is why I have framed "sustainable" in a different way here and think that it needs to be underscored within the legislation separate from the definition that was provided in the definitions section. I hope that we can change the definition even at this late stage.

I believe I have discussed the matter addressed in amendment No. 16. On amendment No. 17, the Minister highlighted the issues. He has indicated that he is willing to engage on these issues that concern amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

Section 8(1)(d) provides for the authority "to advance equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusion in higher education". Equality is wider than just equality of opportunity, which the Minister has acknowledged. As section 8 lists the top-tier objects of an t-údarás, it is really important that equality is at its centre, and equality in the widest sense, because that will have a cascade effect later in the Bill. Amendment No. 17 seeks the deletion of the caveat "of opportunity" so we have equality in its widest sense, including equality of outcome.

Similarly, amendment No. 18 seeks to insert "equity" after "equality" as equity does different work from equality. The acceptance of the amendment would be a constructive move forward, would be consistent with some parts of the Bill that try to give practical effect to equality measures and would set a better frame for equality measures later in the Bill.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to provide for the value of participation within higher education, which is important. These amendments deal with equality, diversity, participation and inclusion.

One thing in which an t-údarás has a role, as have all universities, is both inclusion for those who are there and ensuring wider participation in universities. I make that point in the knowledge that the overall purpose of the Bill is to widen and deepen participation. I attended the Traveller Pride Awards ceremony earlier today and presented an award to Jason Sherlock of the Mincéirs Whiden Society of the National University of Ireland Galway, NUIG. The society does really important work. Such societies, in working with the college on, for example, the Universities of Sanctuary initiative, have both worked to create inclusion within the university community and have driven and actively promoted wider participation in universities, and have reached out in that way. Therefore, it would be appropriate to insert this provision in section 8(1)(d) as it refers to the objects of an t-údarás.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are fundamentally important. I am sure that other Senators have spoken about academic freedom.