Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 62 to 64, inclusive, contain matters to which the Minister should have regard when developing a strategy for tertiary education. Amendment No. 62 specifies that the Minister will have regard to the United Nations sustainable development goals. It is particularly important to reinforce that in view of the fact that, unfortunately, the definition of "sustainable development" in the Bill is not consistent with the United Nations sustainable development goals and predates the Rio Convention. It is a definition from the 1980s prior to any understanding that we have of climate change, even though Ireland was one of the key negotiators of the United Nations sustainable development goals. This is another opportunity to demonstrate that there is an understanding of the United Nations sustainable development goals in the development of the tertiary education strategy. It is all the more important given the failure to reflect them in the definitions in the Bill.

Amendment No. 63 refers to section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act. Again, this relates to the public duty in equality and human rights. There is an obligation and an expectation that regard would be had to those. However, I am trying to specify that regard would be had to the development of a strategy for tertiary education.

Amendment No. 64 refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ireland has ratified that convention. We know there is an extraordinary under-representation of persons with disabilities, not just among students but also among staff across our higher and further education institutions. It would be appropriate for the Minister to consider that convention when developing the strategy for a tertiary education.

Amendment No. 65 again mentions the Irish Research Council. I will probably not press the amendment because I understand that we debated the matter to which it relates when we discussed specific research bodies. I will return to this in the context of the research Bill.

Amendment No. 66 provides that when assessing the demand for higher education at regional and national level and in each discipline, an t-údarás would give consideration to "the needs of society to address issues of poverty, social and economic inequality, racial inequalities and inequities and gender inequalities and inequities".It is ensuring that the collective public good needs, which are so crucial, are reflected. There is a danger in higher education that we simply look solely to the demands of industry, for example, rather than what the public wants to explore and develop and the collective public needs around equality. That is a way of giving practical effect to that public duty on equality and human rights and is an example of how that could be done.

Amendment No. 113 provides that where a governing authority is required to make a strategic plan, approved by a chief executive, that it would have the opportunity to propose amendments to it. I am really worried by this. It is really poor practice if there is a situation where a chief executive can produce a strategic plan and tell the board it must say "yea" or "nea". It mirrors some of what we have seen with a creeping tendency in many areas of "chief executivisation" of crucial and deliberative processes. I do not think it would be appropriate if, say, county managers were able to tell councillors something was "yes" or "no". It is really important that when the board of An tÚdarás is presented with a proposed strategic plan it is able to say that it is good in a particular regard but lacking elsewhere. It returns to the idea that no single individual will have the full vision for tertiary education. They need to be able to draw on constructive input from people who may have exceptional expertise in another area or discipline, or on good governance and insight into the growing trends and international expertise on students and their needs and participation, as was mentioned. It seems like a strange omission where there would be such a binary choice for the plan for tertiary education. If we are bothering to put in place a board of An tÚdarás, then let us make sure it can actually do some work for us and make proper amendments and suggestions on the strategic plan for tertiary education.