In accordance with the requirements of accountability and transparency which are declared to be one of the objectives of this measure, I should declare an interest as a graduate of Dublin University and a lecturer in Trinity College, at present on leave of absence from that institution. I am sorry to disappoint the Deputies opposite by making it clear that we do not believe this Bill should go to Committee but should be rejected in this House. It may be rejected in another forum, but that should not be raised here.
Regarding the third objective of this Bill, accountability and transparency, I will begin with the extraordinary public statement by the Higher Education Authority on the authority of the chairman and under his name and his secretary dated 29 October 1996 in a newspaper advertisement taken in the national press under the heading "Proposed University Legislation". In the final paragraph of a very extensive statement issued by the Higher Education Authority it is stated:
Transparency and accountability in the affairs of the universities must clearly be key principles in safeguarding the public interest in its financial investment in universities. The Higher Education Authority operates in a financial accountability framework which has been developed in accordance with accepted and internationally applicable best practice. Within that framework, contrary to misleading impressions given, a university budget and the allocation of funds to the various activities within that budget are matters for determination only by the university authorities. The role of the HEA, in accordance with its statutory functions, is to allocate between the universities, in accordance with clear objective criteria, such funds as are made available by Government and to ensure, in accordance with public financial policy, that deficits are not incurred. The Higher Education Authority believes that this process has worked well, with a satisfactory outcome for both the universities and the State. It has not sought and would not wish that any change in this process would be reflected in the legislation.
That is an extraordinary statement made by a statutory body, acting under the aegis of the Minister which plainly states, so far as the third purpose of the Bill is concerned, that the Bill is not required. The body which is charged by legislation of this House with advising the Minister on these matters said the present arrangements are working well and that there is no need to change them. For that reason alone my party opposes that measure.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether public funds had been applied in respect of the publication of this statement in the national newspapers in which the Higher Education Authority states it does not need the guidelines provided for in section 33 as the present arrangements are working well. Section 33 has detailed provisions for reporting to An tÚdarás, which refers to the Higher Education Authority. There is a clear provision that guidelines can be issued under subsection (9) which states:
An tÚdarás may, from time to time, after consultation with any or all of the chief officers of the universities, issue guidelines relating to the proportion of the budget of a university to be applied to the different activities of the university.
That is a controversial subsection and has already been referred to in the debate. The Minister is introducing a Bill providing for this extensive measure of bureaucratic control over the universities and the body which is charged under legislation with exercising the control says it does not need this legislation. That is the clear import of the statement issued by the Higher Education Authority. Perhaps that section will disappear on Committee Stage because the Minister has said there will be amendments to the Bill.
One of the fundamental objectives is declared to be accountability and transparency. When the body established by a Fianna Fáil administration many years ago has satisfactorily performed that task I do not see the need for this legislation. Accountability and transparency were not invented in the life of this nation at the last general election. Many institutions were established down the years to so provide and if they are working well there is no need for legislative change or to waste the time of the House on this measure.
In relation to the first declared objective which is to establish the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland and St. Patrick's College, Maynooth as constituent universities of the National University of Ireland, no Member would object if that was the wish of the colleges. I am confused as to why this metaphysical entity, the National University of Ireland, will continue to subsist following the enactment of this legislation. Are we leaving ourselves open to ridicule in providing that there are four universities which are one university at the same time. This is somewhat redolent of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in theology where there are three in one and one in three, a matter on which theologians have argued for centuries. As a matter of legislation and as a matter of our own repute is it in order for us to provide that a university can be a component part of a university? I will not tax the Minister with that aspect of the Bill because I accept she is following the counsel she received from the persons concerned.
On the matter of the governing authorities and the attempt, in effect, to provide a standardised legislative framework for the universities, while there was a demand from the universities for clarification of their status, there was no public demand for the clarification of the status of Trinity College, Dublin, or Dublin University which is the degree granting body. As a matter of common courtesy — perhaps the Minister will deal with this in her reply — I do not understand why the measures refers to Trinity College as Trinity College rather than as Dublin University. After all the Constitution refers to that body as Dublin University, so too the legislation providing for the election of Members to Seanad Éireann. As a matter of courtesy a body should be called by the name it calls itself, though it has lent itself to some confusion in this area in the past.
There is substantial opposition to the Bill not only in Trinity College but throughout the component colleges of the National University of Ireland. It is clear the staff in all the constituent colleges and the Fellows of Trinity College, other than St. Patrick's College, Maynooth and the National University of Ireland, are most unhappy with the measure.
I am amazed at the Minister bringing in this Bill which provides for all this interference and detailed regulation where none was sought or asked for when she could have introduced a short simple Bill providing for the establishment of the constituent colleges of the NUI on an independent basis as there was a demand for that. If the Minister had taken that course of action rather than all these detailed provisions she would be treated in the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland much the same as Queen Elizabeth is treated in Trinity College and would be remembered for a long time in those entities. Instead of taking that course of action the Minister — I accuse her of ideological influence in this regard — has gone down the road of attempting to provide in great legislative detail for many matters which were best left to the universities. These matters were left to the universities when the Higher Education Authority was established. I am not aware of any demand to change that arrangement. After Queen Elizabeth the person who most endowed Trinity College was the founder of my party, Éamon de Valera. When a decision was made after the last world war to provide a public subvention towards Trinity College he met the leading authorities in the college and agreed that the intellectual freedom of the institution should be respected, that it should be allowed to evolve in its own way and that State funds would be accounted for in the proper and normal way, as they have been ever since. There was no demand for a revision of the governing body of the college. Since then the governing body has changed dramatically in that it now has student representation. However, that student representation will be reduced as a result of this measure. There is a democratic election of the chief governing officer in Trinity, the Provost is elected by the staff of five years' standing. On one reading of the Bill, that position will be eroded. There is a greater collegiate control, if I can draw a comparison between Trinity College and the Vatican, by the Fellows over the affairs of the college. The chief officer, the Provost, will be given more powers so that the Bill is a drift towards a presidential system of Government. There has been no demand for any of this. I fail to see why this is required as it has generated a great deal of unease in the universities. There are suspicions of a 1984 type agenda on the part of Labour who are trying to control the universities and ensure they are good nurseries of their own ideas. From what I have heard to date, if that was the objective it has failed. If anything, the Minister is doing enormous damage to her own party's support in these institutions.
Despite the assumptions in the Bill, the international standing of Irish universities and graduates is high. We should be careful about enacting any measure that interferes with that standing or the repute that our degrees carry throughout the world. The National University of Ireland, Dublin University and the other new Irish universities, in a short time, have established themselves as major innovators in the educational world. This Bill sends out all the wrong signals.
The unit cost of our universities is about half those of universities in the United Kingdom. Standards are monitored by external examiners from different countries. Staff publications are constantly refereed by international experts and research funds are raised in the face of international competition. Accounts are prepared by eminent firms of accountants with the highest certification to prevent theft, fraud and the misapplication of funds. The Comptroller and Auditor General is also involved. Entry to our universities is determined by the CAO.
Given that universities have this high standing, where is the requirement for this single measure applying to all Irish universities? The Bill assumes there are problems of accountability and transparency which require drastic Government intervention, the dismissal of provosts and presidents, the suspension of governing bodies and the suspension or removal of staff. There has been no public concern about any of those issues. However, this measure has been brought here as a matter of urgency on the eve of a general election, when we in this House have been pressing the Government about a range of vital and urgent legislation. I will not trespass into those other items of legislation and I accept many of them are not part of the Minister's area of responsibility. Nevertheless, Government time is being wasted on a measure for which there is no substantial public demand.
Provost Mitchell of Trinity College, Dublin, stated "Universities must stand as centres of independent thought, free without fear or hindrance to pursue truth, to question and criticise established orthodoxies, to create and express ideas and to communicate knowledge". The controls and interventions in this Bill are seen as an attack on the principle of university autonomy.
I know the Minister will very fairly say that she who pays the piper must call the tune. However, that is the whole reason for the existence of the Higher Education Authority. It has done a good job and there is no need to change it. Is the Minister satisfied the Higher Education Authority has done a good job? If she is, it is a very short leap of faith for her to say there is no real requirement for this Bill. The Higher Education Authority is saying it has done a good job, although I accept that has to be subject to an external check, and does not need any new legislation. If the Minister accepts it has done a good job we should respect its wishes on the matter for once. It has experience of dealing with these institutions and trying to accommodate their requirements within an overall financial requirement.
For all those reasons, I ask the Minister to look at the Bill again in relation to the governing authorities of universities. Of course, there is a need to look again and again at the governing body of any institution as important as a university. The governing bodies of our universities evolved in different ways. The governing bodies of the NUI colleges and their overall structure were devised in the 1908 legislation, which might need to be revised or changed. However, that should be looked at on its own merits. The same principle should apply to Trinity College, Dublin, and the new universities in Dublin City and Limerick. If changes are required to ensure greater student participation in the governing bodies of those institutions and a greater gender balance on their boards, that should be done. However, there is no reason the Minister cannot do that in consultation with those universities and ensure the necessary changes take place on an individual basis in those universities.
The whole idea of trying to devise an ideal administrative type for all the universities is fallacious. The constitutions of those bodies have evolved in different ways. What staff and students are comfortable with and what is required in the public interest — I accept there is public interest in this matter — has to evolve over time. The Minister could negotiable with the different bodies.
It has been suggested that in tandem with this legislation a private Bill should be promoted by Trinity College, Dublin, to provide for the necessary changes which the Minister is seeking. However, I gather there is a great deal of unease in the college about a private Bill because of the manner in which the debate on the Universities Bill has proceeded to date.
I am open to the idea of change in governing bodies. However, it is a great mistake to try, as the measure does, to impose a new form of government on each university. I do not agree that is the right way to proceed in this matter. The Minister should look again at what is appropriate in terms of each individual university. Given the reputation of those institutions, the least they deserve is to be considered on their individual merits and if the Minister has reservations about some aspect of their government she should communicate with them so that an appropriate formula can be worked out.
The government of Trinity College, Dublin, with which I am familiar, has evolved over hundreds of years. Originally, the power was vested in the provost and the senior fellows. It was then democratised to include the fellows and eventually to include staff of five years standing in the election of a provost. It is not unlike the evolution of the parliamentary system of government in that it took place over many years.
There is always room for improvement in any system of government. However, it is not fair for the Minister to say to any institution that she has gone back to first principles and decided the best form of government for each university.
I also have reservations about another aspect of the Bill, which the Minister might think is a rather curious objection. I am unhappy with section 11 which states "The objects of a university shall be...". The whole point of the universities in the intellectual life of our nation is the idea of intellectual freedom, the staff engaging in research and giving the benefit of that research to students in the form of advanced teaching and the idea of scholarship. That cannot be encapsulated in one section of a Bill.
It is almost presumptuous for this House to state the objects of a university. In the old days before the Iron Curtain fell, governments in those lands dreamt up such sections for their legislative instruments as appropriate for the satellite states of their collectivist empire. However, in order to see the modern thinking and approach one only has to look at the studies conducted for the National Economic and Social Council on the central importance of innovation in developing our social and economic life. A section in this Bill outlining the function of a university is not very innovative. It is an attempt to put the universities into an intellectual framework, a straitjacket, which nobody has requested.
These institutions have developed a high standard of which we are all proud. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to look again at this Bill and to consider whether the university colleges in Cork, Maynooth, Dublin and Galway could be put on an independent foundation, as they wish to be. The Minister might make her name in history on that basis.