Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

These amendments seek to address the manner in which the Minister may give direction to an t-údarás. Amendment No. 46 seeks to specify that in giving a ministerial direction, it will be done in consultation with the board of an t-údarás. Amendment No. 47 seeks to delete section 11(1)(b), according to which the Minister may give a direction in writing to an t-údarás concerning, "the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government".

I am concerned that it is too widely framed. I am aware of the caveat that the Minister may provide a direction in writing for any purpose relating to the Act. I am concerned about that, but I am more concerned about the instructions that may be given to some of the higher education institutions, requiring them to comply with a ministerial direction that does not include the caveat restricting it to purposes to relating to the Act.

I feel that section 11(1)(b) is too widely framed. There is a concern around unfettered powers of Ministers to issue direction that could be used inappropriately by a potential future Minister, given that the legislation refers to directions concerning, "the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government". It blurs the lines of Government policy and national policy as we cement it into legislation and statutory provisions such as regulations.

Amendment No. 51 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill. It provides that nothing in the legislation, "shall be construed as preventing An tÚdarás, or designated higher education institutions, from freely expressing its views on matters concerning higher education". The Irish Universities Association has expressed concern that in some respects the independence of the HEA is being eroded in this Bill. It is particularly concerned that the oversight provisions result in a shift in the balance around autonomy and control. It is in light of that that a provision which specifically sets out the advocacy role and rights of institutions is proposed. It would be a constructive way to alleviate concerns about the advocacy role that an t-údarás and individual institutions may play.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend section 38(2)(d), relating to compliance with the guidelines, codes and policies issued by an t-údarás under section 143. Amendment No. 149 seeks to provide that in developing codes, guidelines and policies under section 143, an t-údarás will consult with trade union representatives of both academic and professional staff. The Minister will be aware that we have discussed the issue of student unions at some length. However, there is concern that throughout the Bill, the role of trade unions as partners is not cemented in relation to an t-údarás and individual higher education institutions. Consultation with the trade unions of both academic and professional staff is important in that regard.

Amendment No. 154 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 143, which would provide that where a designated institution of higher education departs from guidelines, codes or policies, the institution be afforded an opportunity to provide an explanation as to which parts of the guidelines, codes or policies it is departing from, the extent of any such departures and the reason for the departures. I am conscious that the comply-or-explain principle was something that had been put forward by some of the universities. I have put my own version of it here because there are areas where it is appropriate to have a comply-or-explain approach and where an explanation might be provided. However, there are certain areas where there are implementations regarding equality, human rights and so forth where I believe that an option of explanation should not be sufficient because those are matters which directly affect the rights of others. I have somewhat caveated the comply-or-explain discussion and proposals that have been put forward by saying it is appropriate in some areas and there are other areas where compliance might be required if there is a potential negative impact, for example, in regard to the rights of individuals. However, I do think that this explanation process could allow for constructive learning on the part of an t-údarás in regard to what governance mechanisms are working well and effectively in each institution. That completes what I have to say on this grouping.