Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have tabled a couple of amendments to this section. I will make a few comments specifically on amendment No. 94, which seeks to amend section 66(1) by proposing that the chief executive officer would impose on a designated institution of higher education a requirement to take a remedial or other measure or measures in accordance with this section, if he or she makes a determination that they must have approval from the board.

My concerns in tabling this amendment are that when we make unilateral decisions, we cannot always be cognisant of the impact of such remedial measures on some of the other areas we spoke about, such as gender equality, equity, race, access and so on. We do not want to be in a position where a university receives any sort of financial penalty that it then passes on to the student population or the priority groups we talk about. How do we make an actual impact assessment to make sure that does not happen? It is about making sure that the board has an input, or at least some sort of assessment has to be given to the board, as to how those remedial measures would impact on the student body.

My other concern relates to where the money actually goes. Where does that financial penalty go? We have not put in any sort of ring-fencing to ensure the money that is paid back to the Higher Education Authority, HEA, when a penalty has been paid, will then filter into those priority groups or targeted areas for which we are penalising. That is why I wanted the board to be involved in that process. It is so that decisions are not made in isolation that have a further impact on students and the work in a way we do not intend.