My position on this Bill and the position of my party on it is that the Bill, in principle, is welcome because, contrary to Deputy O'Donovan, we believe in the desirability of a buffer between Government Departments, whether Finance or Education, and institutes of higher education. However, it would be wrong to suggest that we are happy with the Bill as it stands. We can only hope that in the other House more persuasive voices will be heard and that these will succeed in persuading the Minister to make the changes necessary to turn what is in some respects a patchy and even dangerous piece of legislation into good legislation.
I shall summarise those features of the Bill as it now exists that seem to me to be objectionable. There are four principle ways in which the Bill diminishes in a manner that is undesirable and unacceptable the autonomy of An tÚdarás. An tÚdarás are not given any power over the designation of additional bodies or institutes of higher education to be brought within the scope of their authority. The Dáil has been given some power by way of an amendment passed a short while ago but An tÚdarás have not been given any such power. On Committee Stage the Minister thought it inconceivable for any Minister to designate such power without the agreement of An tÚdarás.
Secondly, the provision under which money is earmarked to institutions by Government Departments is something which is going against the whole concept of this Bill. Its publication in an appendix to the Book of Estimates is an objectionable precedent. It takes away from An tÚdarás the clearcut role of distributing the sums allotted by the Government to higher education.
Thirdly, there is undesirable interference in the appointment of An tÚdarás staff. They are not free to appoint their own staff but, on the contrary, require the approval of the Government Department concerned for staff appointments, dismissals, conditions of service, rates of pay and so on. Again, this is something that is very unusual, although a precedent can be cited for it. This precedent, however, is one which also originated in this particular Department. This shows how, for quite a long period of time, the Department have desired to maintain control of any subordinate bodies to a degree that is not marked to the same extent in other Departments.
Finally, in respect of the autonomy of An tÚdarás there is the fact that the chairman is appointed or removed by the Government. The body are not permitted to elect their own chairman. In these circumstances their autonomy is being interfered with in a manner that will limit their value and acceptability to the academic community. In addition, the autonomy of the universities themselves is interfered with seriously by the provision, on which the Minister has insisted, of giving to An tÚdarás the power to impose conditions as to the manner in which non-capital funds are used. Again, this is objectionable. It is a new principle, one that we have done without up to now and that it would have been better for us to have continued without. I regret that the Minister has insisted on including it in the Bill.
Another matter that is objectionable is the refusal to agree that the staffing as well as the accommodation should be taken into account when assessing financial matters for institutes of higher education. The idea that, so long as there is the accommodation, students should be packed in regardless of staffing is one that does not augur well for the future of higher education in this country. Also, there is the absence of any protection for the staff of An tÚdarás in so far as they can be dismissed without the cause being stated. The Minister's insistence on refusing my amendment, even when I agreed to meet him on the points, suggests an attitude of mind in relation to the appointment of staff which I find profoundly objectionable. Finally, there is the fact that, while there is provision for academic members on this authority, there is no equivalent provision for representation of students. As I argued on Committee Stage and also on Second Stage, there is a strong case to be made for having a relatively small proportion of students on a body of this kind. There is a case for student representation when one remembers the role that students are now playing in the whole field of research and policy formulation in the field of higher education. That is something that cannot be denied. I regret that the Minister did not agree to this.
There are a number of serious defects in the Bill. There was no necessity for these because the Bill could have been drafted differently. If it had been drafted in another way we could have been in the position at this stage of congratulating the Minister on a good piece of work done during the past few months. I hope the Minister will see fit to change his mind when these defects are put to him in the other House, as I hope they will be. If the Minister is prepared to accept the proposals that I expect will be made in the Seanad, we could yet have a good Bill. Should it happen, however, that there are no amendments in the Seanad to the points I have raised, I can only hope that An tÚdarás will operate having regard to the points made in this House; that they will try to avoid the dangers implicit in some of the power given to them; that they will try to mitigate the ill effects of some provisions of the Bill and will insist on maintaining their autonomy in so far as possible even where autonomy is circumscribed in an objectionable way in the provisions I have mentioned.
