Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 52 is an important provision. It relates to the concern about the very high level of discretion that is afforded to the Minister in making appointments to the board of an t-údarás. The amendment would require that any persons who were proposed to be appointed to the board would have to be recommended by the Public Appointments Service for such potential appointment. This is to ensure transparency in the process and to add an extra safeguard in respect of the Government. I note that while there was ministerial discretion previously with regard to the appointment of members of the Higher Education Authority, there are significantly greater powers being afforded to an t-údarás, including greater powers in respect of the penalties it may apply to higher education institutions. Given the significantly increased and strengthened powers of an tÚdarás it is crucial that there is full clarity regarding any persons who may be appointed to it.

Unfortunately, there have been situations where persons who had been politically appointed to boards in the State have not always delivered the standard we would have hoped for in their performance. It is important that there should not just be a clear independence of the board but that there would be seen to be a clear and transparent process relating to the appointments to the board of an t-údarás. I note that other Ministers have chosen to employ the Public Appointments Service in respect of appointments to significant roles and significant boards in the State. Where there is a board that will be exercising significant power the transparency requirement becomes much more important. In that regard, I urge the Minister to take advantage of the fact that the Public Appointments Service is there. The final decision would be the Minister's, but the Public Appointments Service should have the role of recommending potential appointees.

Amendment No. 54 seeks to address an issue we see throughout the Bill. I have already signalled the very serious concern, which I place alongside the concerns of students unions, about the fact that there is a distinct lack of a requirement for trade union representation of both academic and professional staff either on the board of an t-údarás or, and we will come to this later, on the boards of individual higher education institutions. This amendment would mandate that of the 12 members of the board of an t-údarás not less than two members would be trade union representatives, one representing professional staff and the other representing academic staff. It is not excessive that in a board of 12 members there would be two members who are able to represent those who work in the higher education institutions, either as academics or in the extensive professional staff who work in this area. This is a very important matter.

I will not move amendment No. 55 as I have decided on reflection that this issue is addressed by Schedule 2 in terms of transparency. I was glad to see the point that I inserted in a previous legislative measure has been echoed in Schedule 2.