Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That was a lengthy list of amendments. I thank the Senators for taking me through the amendments. I will start on research while it is fresh in my mind. I have announced our intention to bring forward a research Bill close to January 2023. That will be a really important opportunity. It will be the first time that the State will introduce stand-alone legislation relating to research. There will be an opportunity in that legislation to explore public-public partnerships and some of the broad and legitimate issues Senator Higgins highlighted. I expect that the Bill will be before the Houses next year.

Amendment No. 10 is in the names of Senator Gavan and his colleagues. The Senator acknowledged that there is nothing in the Bill that in any way tries to undermine the public nature of the higher education system. He is asking why we do not explicitly state that we intend to protect and enhance its public nature. There are two answers to that. First, we must be very clear about the tapestry that forms higher education in Ireland. I am the Minister who has taken student loans off the table. This is a Government which very clearly believes that education is a public good. We want to invest more of public funds in our education system. It might not suit some narratives but we are very clear on the idea that education is a public good and that increased Exchequer investment and no student loans is the way to go, along with reducing student costs and charges. The next budget is our first chance to show form on that. However, we must also be truthful. I could point to representations from most Members of this House and of the Lower House asking why we are not providing funding for this not-for-profit college or for that private college that is responding to a particular need.In fact, I believe there are amendments coming up in legislation asking me to extend provision of student grants to private and, in some cases, to private-for-profit colleges. We are providing a pathway to designation. Senator Malcolm Byrne referred to the issue in respect of the National College of Ireland. This legislation allows colleges for the first time to put up their hand to say they wish to be designated. Designation does not correlate with funding but relates to quality and to protection for students. I wanted to be clear in respect of that. This legislation when passed mandates a strategy for tertiary education. This will be an opportunity to further flesh out those details.

I thank Senator Dolan for her contribution and for reflecting on her own experience as a researcher. Again, our research legislation will provide a chance to do some further exploration of that.

On amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I want to be very clear that diversity of our higher education system is one of its strengths. That is the balance we were trying to protect in this. We are recognising that there is a diversity and the policy intent of the Bill is very clearly to maintain diversity within and among higher education institutions. Section 35 of the Bill specifically refers to this because it mandates for the preparation of a performance framework for higher education and research. This section provides that the HEA shall, in preparing a performance framework, take account: "of the diversity of functions, objects and priorities of different higher education providers". The reference to "the diversity of functions" was specifically included in section 35, following engagement with the higher education sector. This sector itself asked us to move on this, to be truthful, and we have included diversity there for the reasons outlined by Senator Higgins and, as I said, at the request of the university and higher education sector. That section addresses the proposed intent of this amendment.

On amendment No. 14, which proposes the replacement of the word “agility” with “excellence”, we had engagement on this and I see the benefit of that engagement coming through in some of the comments because, as was said, we read the legislation and recognise the word “excellence” is used in the previous object and, therefore, we consider the issue of excellence to be addressed in the objects already. The word “agility”, and I accept the word "agility" and the lack of definition, was included in the object to emphasise the need for higher education institutions to be agile and responsive in contributing to social, economic, cultural, and environmental development and sustainability. We believe that having “excellence” in the previous object and “agility” in this section makes sense but we may agree to differ on that.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 propose to delete one of our objects and replace it with an alternative wording. It is important the current object is retained in order to ensure that the higher education institutions are accountable for their performance and use of the substantial Exchequer funding which they receive. There are, however, a number of provisions in the Bill which could be used to ensure that designated institutions of higher education spend Exchequer funding in an ethical and sustainable manner, including conditions of funding, data collection, reporting provisions, guidelines, codes and practices.

On amendment No. 17, Senator Higgins is correct in that we engaged on this on Committee Stage and I have considered it because the issue of equality versus equality of opportunity are two different things. There is no point in arguing to the contrary; it is a statement of fact. I have gone back and have spoken to the drafters and to our legal counsel on this. We are satisfied that we have specific reference to equality in the legislation. The Senator has acknowledged that and we have equality statements, which we have discussed. On equality of opportunity, there are two reasons that phrase should remain. First, we believe in this instance that it is a more targeted phrase because we are specifically talking about opportunity and equality of opportunity. This is not a political spectrum argument of equality versus equality of opportunity. We are trying to ensure that opportunity is to the fore here and that there is value in opportunity. Second, and as importantly, we cannot read the legislation in isolation. We are trying to mirror provisions within the sectoral legislation which travels with this. As the Senator will know, that phrase also appears in the Universities Act 1997 and Technological Universities Act 2018. There is always a risk for both myself and for Senators that when we read parts of legislation in isolation rather than with the sectoral legislation, we can perhaps miss what we are trying to achieve here.

On the words “equity” and “participation”, we believe the provision as drafted covers equity and participation. We are using the words “equality, diversity and inclusion”, EDI, because it has now become very established parlance and there is a very clear understanding right across the sector and among all of us about the EDI agenda and the work that needs to be done there. There is obviously a very strong emphasis in the Bill on equity and I believe the Senator would recognise that as well.

On the issue of participation, section 46 of the Bill provides that the HEA shall prepare a: “strategic action plan ... providing for equity of access ... and participation and the promotion of success in, higher education.” The Bill is not silent on equity or on participation, not that the Senator is suggesting it is.

On amendment No. 20, a very important issue is being raised here about working conditions, pay and, as Senator Gavan said, precarious employment. There is a real problem with precarious employment in the third level sector. The way to address that is through properly funding the sector and, in return for funding the sector, making sure the sector addresses both student and staff ratios and the issue of precarious employment. The Funding our Future implementation group, which we have established and which is chaired by myself, Professor Anne Looney and Professor Tom Collins, has specifically set about improving the ratios of staff to students and to reducing precarious employment as a key metric on which we will measure ourselves and the system’s success in return for the additional investment we expect to be able to begin to make after the next budget in September. From a somewhat legalistic point of view, we believe that this would be the wrong place to insert this provision, considering there is employment legislation, and the likes already in place. I share the view of the Senator in tackling precarious employment but I do not believe this is the right place to set it. I am, however, absolutely determined to tackle, and to work with the sector on, precarious employment.

We had a lengthy debate on academic freedom in this House and I presume we will have another one in a while. We had one in the other House too and it is quite right and proper that we do so, which I do not say in a flippant way. One of the most important foundation stones of a democracy is academic freedom. I certainly hope we all, across the political spectrum, value academic freedom, and I think this country we do value it. Academic freedom is provided for in section 14 of the Universities Act, in section 10 of the Technological Universities Act and in section 5A of the Institute of Technologies Acts 1992 to 2006. This Bill does not amend these provisions in respect of academic freedom, so they travel with it. I cannot stress that point enough. The absolute legislative provisions and the law in respect of academic freedom, which already exists in those three pieces of statutory legislation, come with us in respect of this Bill. Therefore, academic freedom is absolutely protected. This amendment with regard to protecting academic freedom is, therefore, deemed to be already addressed in the Bill. As I said, it is important the HEA Bill is read in conjunction with sectoral legislation.

There is a provision in sectoral legislation for independent dispute resolution to resolve any disputes and student unions, together with staff associations, are required to be consulted on the preparation of any dispute resolution processes.

This Bill has been significantly strengthened in respect of the Irish language. We brought forward more amendments after engagement in the other House, and I mention Deputy Ó Snodaigh in this regard. I believe we brought forward approximately 20 amendments on the language. I am very satisfied with it and I want to thank Conradh na Gaeilge for its work. I do not view it necessary, therefore, to accept further amendments in respect of the Irish language.