Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): Last week I welcomed the change of status for St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, in this legislation. It is a recognised college. One change which is particularly welcome is in section 42 of this Bill which will amend the 1908 Act which restricts the use of public funding for teaching religion or theology in a constituent college of the NUI.

That provision has been particularly unfortunate in the case of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. In addition to the faculties of the NUI side of the college, there is the largest faculty of theology of any college in the country in the Pontifical University. It is literally at the side of the road as well as being at the side of the college. It has been a matter of regret to many people that students who went there to study arts or science in the NUI side could not take short or longer courses in religion or theological studies as part of their university degree. This anomaly is shared by other NUI colleges. It is particularly hard to understand when one considers that as part of one's studies for a BA in Trinity College one could combine Biblical or theological studies with other arts subjects. In Mary Immaculate College, part of the University of Limerick, one can do religious studies as part of a BA.

In this era of encouraging those studying at third level to broaden their horizons and in a college like Maynooth which has a particular strength in philosophy, it is to be welcomed that if that college now wishes to offer courses in religious or theological studies to NUI students, that facility will be available to them. The Pontifical University took an initiative in that area many years ago, combining theological and arts studies in the BA course in theology and arts. The NUI will now be able to do that and I am very happy that Maynooth will be the institution most affected by the proposed legislation. I understand the academic council, the college executive council and the trustees supported the Minister's proposals for the future development of the college. I understand further amendments which have been agreed with the college will be tabled during the passage of the Bill.

This legislation was requested many years ago by Maynooth College, UCC, UCD and UCG, through the Senate of the National University of Ireland. It delivers the reforms sought by the NUI Senate in 1992. In addition, Dublin City University and the University of Limerick have requested legislation to update their operations. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the appearance of such a Bill should be a matter of surprise for anyone. I am confident it will be improved during its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas and I am happy to support it.

Mr. B. Ahern

While masquerading as a Bill which will give our universities the scope, structures and potential to face new challenges, the Universities Bill, 1996, will restrict, confine and constrain their freedom to do so. This Bill represents an unacceptable onslaught on academic freedom, which is precious in any free society. Many people in the universities were afraid that when the Minister announced free third level fees with a fanfare, this benefit would come with strings attached. Their fears are now being realised.

Most of the universities predate the foundation of the State. The exceptions are the University of Limerick and Dublin City University established by Fianna Fáil in 1989 on the basis of the NIHEs. The universities, like the more recent regional technical colleges and other third level colleges, have served this country well. All third level institutions have responded to social change and have been willing to have due regard to the needs of citizens and the State.

There has been a huge expansion initiated by Charles Haughey and Deputy O'Rourke with the heads of universities. I have never found any of the universities wanting in civic and social responsibility. Like other educational institutions, they manage extremely well on a shoestring budget in overstretched facilities. They are as committed as the State to greater equality of opportunity.

Leaders such as Eamon de Valera, valued and cherished academic freedom. He established the Institute for Advanced Studies, in part as a home for extremely gifted refugees from war-torn Europe. The great universities around the globe are not run by bureaucrats from Departments of Education or Higher Education Authorities. People working in places of higher education are the source of many of the ideas that form the basis of political, economic and social progress which we debate in this House. However, one cannot apply a measuring tape to the universities' contribution to society. One cannot apply time and motion studies or carry out efficiency audits on that contribution. Universities are a magnet for much of the high technology investment which we have attracted over the past decades. Many of our colleges and researchers enjoy international reputations of which we are proud. Those who work in that area are highly motivated, want to see the country prosper and to be at the cutting edge of advanced knowledge and to ensure we benefit from it.

Universities thrive on freedom. Many have successfully attracted large scale private research funds, particularly in recent years. I do not see the need for tighter State interference or control, which seems to come from the Labour Party's love of bureaucracy, and perhaps a desire to increase its political patronage. I am satisfied we are, by and large, getting value for money from our universities and third level colleges. They have to meet the challenges of the market place, despite the large element of State funding, which will never be sufficient for all they want to do. They are best placed to judge what is required without further State involvement. They do not need civil servants trying to second guess them at every step.

There is no doubt that this Bill which proposes powers to suspend university charters and statutes greatly compromises the precious independence which all our colleges prize so highly. To have their historic independence replaced by arbitrary ministerial powers, policies or diktat, is to remove something essential and fundamental. They will not have it. To accept such would be to play a key role in their destruction. Let me recall for the benefit of the Minister and her colleagues what the former chairman of the Labour Party, Deputy Kemmy, said on the University of Limerick Bill on 25 May 1989. "The new university must have no Government or Ministerial intervention. It must be internally democratic." He went on to argue for staff and student input into decisions. Deputy Kemmy was right; the Minister is wrong.

The cavalier attitude of the Minister in putting forward these proposals which will hamper academic freedom and restrict managerial independence is extraordinary. We expect third level graduates to finish courses not only with an academic qualification, but also with the confidence and assurance which comes from independent decision-making. It is surely ironic that the Minister wants to hog-tie the decision-makers of our universities by giving the Higher Education Authority a more intrusive role in their planning processes. The universities have already evolved structures and processes to deal constructively and effectively with every aspect of their responsibilities. The Minister's aim should be to support, consolidate, properly fund and help co-ordinate their work in finding their way forward.

Financial autonomy is an integral part of the universities independence. Structures already in place play a strict supervisory role in ensuring that public moneys are spent to best advantage and are properly accounted for. The Comptroller and Auditor General Bill, 1993, which I introduced, and the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971, are tried and tested instruments of financial accountability. To propose that our university colleges would not have the right to determine, order and raise fees is to greatly restrict their financial autonomy and impose tight political control.

The colleges have excelled in devising and implementing financial packages which have brought sizeable contracts to campus as well as private funding for new buildings and facilities. They deserve our praise for their fine efforts in that regard, and Government should support those independent efforts and the independent ethos, as Fianna Fáil has always done. Rather than tying them in unnecessary bureaucracy and political interference, the Minister should persuade her colleague, the Minister for Finance, to give tax concessions to benefactors who want to donate major sums to our colleges. Many fine organisations, multinationals and individuals have been benefactors for which we should be grateful. We should encourage them to do more.

Why, when there are so many positive things the Minister could and should do to assist the university sector, she has decided to alter terms and conditions of employment, raise serious questions about pension schemes and pension rights, filter out democratic electoral practices and try to stifle the spirit of innovation and individual responsibility, is beyond me. This is not just busybody politics at its best; it is political interference at its worst because it seems to come from some indefinable ideological well. The former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, has remarked that this Bill is Thatcherite in its lack of a basic understanding of what universities are about. That is the reason we in Fianna Fáil have decided to repeal it on our return to Government if the Government and this Minister are so unwise as to proceed with enacting these draconian powers.

Many worthwhile issues are raised and many reasonable and sensible proposals are included in the Bill but they are peripheral because the core is fatally flawed. Fianna Fáil is not simply suggesting a redrafting of the Bill, we demand a rethink of the entire basis on which it is constructed. That is the reason I am anxious to contribute to this debate.

Some Bills can be introduced in this House and fundamentally changed by way of Schedules or amendments to sections, but it is our combined view that this is not one of those Bills. Many Fianna Fáil Ministers found that Bills they introduced were fundamentally flawed and that they should be redrafted and reintroduced as new legislation. This Bill falls into that category.

I understand the reason the Minister wants to see this Bill through to the end of Second Stage, where we will oppose it. A number of her colleagues have said it will be changed but that is not good enough. The Minister is a sensible, intelligent and competent person but this Bill is not one of the brightest ideas she has brought forward in the four years she has been at the Department. She should forget about it once Second Stage is concluded, put it in the miscellaneous file of bad ideas and start again.

The diversity of approach developed by our university colleges, old and new, is a uniquely Irish approach to third level education and all the richer for that diversity. What they all have in common is a unity of purpose to give our students a quality education and a sophisticated skill base. Anything which would diminish that commitment or interfere with its natural development cannot be said to be in the national interest. This Bill is not in the national interest.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation. This is the first significant legislation dealing with our universities since the Irish Universities Act, 1908 and the first time we have had an opportunity in this House to discuss the relationship between universities and Government and where the line should be drawn in regard to accountability and autonomy. This debate is important because 50 per cent of 17 and 18 year olds go on to third level education. Hopefully that number will continue to grow so that all our children can aspire to third level education.

There are aspects of the Bill which many people will welcome and the structural changes to the university sector proposed have been requested for many years. They include effective independent university status for the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland, a status long merited by their achievement of internationally recognised high academic standards and their constant growth in student numbers. The Bill also recognises Maynooth as an independent university — denied in 1908 — and gives recognition to the legitimate aspirations of various groups to be represented on the governing bodies and authorities of the various institutions. It also allows for funding for the teaching of theology in the universities.

This is an important Bill for the Minister to have brought forward and the debate on it raises many interesting issues. There is no doubt also that it has evoked much concern, but before dealing with the areas of concern I want to comment on the challenges currently facing third level institutions.

There has been a major increase in participation, from 4,000 students when the Irish Universities Act was enacted in 1908, to 10,000 in 1960 and 50,000 in 1996. There has been enormous diversity and a need for higher standards as well as effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. Universities throughout the world are having to meet similar challenges and we have seen different reactions in various countries, an aspect I will refer to shortly.

I went to university in the 1960s when they were just beginning to open up; thankfully they have opened up even more. There is no doubt that universities originally were the preserve of an elite but they are now central to the progress of societies where knowledge, not natural resources, geographic size or military power, is the key to national strength. In universities people are given the opportunity to think, to learn and to understand the process of decision-making.

Public expenditure on universities is enormous. Millions of pounds are being poured into them in a variety of ways and in that regard a new legislative framework is needed. It is important that this legislation does not damage the essential autonomy of universities. It must not curtail academic freedom or create an unnecessary level of interference in the business of universities. We must ensure that any changes we make are sensitive to the development of this sector and that we respect and encourage the competence of the institutions and the importance of academic freedom. That is what the Minister wants to achieve in this legislation and I look forward to Committee Stage when some of the changes that are necessary to achieve this are debated. It is important that we get the balance right.

We must support the discretion of universities in managing their affairs while demanding accountability and development in the context of national educational needs. We cannot have a situation where universities are not connected to the needs of society. I do not believe that is the case because major changes have taken place in our universities. We must also have effective use of resources. Universities must continue to ensure that more people have the opportunity to attend them. They should be more innovative in reaching out to communities. Universities should be places where people who have the experience of life but who may not have achieved academic qualifications in their first attempt at schooling can return. They must be places where lifelong learning is accessible to those who did not have the opportunity when they first attended school.

I ask the Minister to seriously consider the concerns raised by the NUI, TCD and the IFUT because some interesting and reasonable points are being made by these groups. I say that while recognising the merits of this legislation and the need for a structure that addresses the changing role of the university, the need for new governing structures and clear definitions of the relationship between Government and the universities, particularly in the area of financial accountability.

I pay tribute to our university heritage and its contribution to society of which we can be justifiably proud. Our literary tradition, unique by any standards, is very strong. Graduates from all the universities have served Ireland at home and abroad with distinction. Universities serve the local and international community by being the cradle of critical thought. A society without independent critical thinking is an impoverished one. Let us make no mistake about that, because mind control has been a characteristic of all totalitarian and fascist regimes. The destruction of books is the symbolic expression of such an attitude. It is very important that we maintain independent critical thinking and develop opportunities for research within universities.

Research does not sufficiently inform policy here, and we need to develop a much more vibrant and creative relationship between the universities and public policy. I have no doubt there will be tensions in that relationship, but we must ensure that research informs policy and the thinking that goes on in universities is more widely disseminated throughout society. The marvellous research that goes on in universities and the development of thinking, whether in relation to business development or social issues, sociology, research on the family etc., does not get the wide coverage and discussion it deserves. We should encourage a greater creative relationship between policy makers and universities.

Universities should not give in to the pressure to merely train people for jobs. It is incredibly important that there be a link between what happens in universities and the economic demands of our society at any one time. It is certainly part of what happens in universities, but it does not have to be the raison d'être. The raison d'être of a university has to be the search for truth, critical thinking, research and training to help people to get a place in society. The economic dimension is important, and it is one that has been ignored. We should not move towards too narrow an interpretation of the economic role of the universities. We have to demand that our universities operate in the real world, the real economy, and contribute to our economic development, but we must keep a careful balance. It should not be for the Government to decide on grades or the numbers in a particular department. Universities should decide that for themselves. In responding to the debate I would like the Minister to say more about the framework being set by the Bill in relation to this.

It is important that universities should have the right to raise and use additional funding. From the taxpayer's point of view we have to be confident that the university centre is run efficiently and that its work adds value to the life of the nation in a wide range of ways. There must be transparency in the way money is spent, but there must also be discretion for the universities and structures of accountability. We must be sure the Bill supports such development with accountability but no undue interference in the life or work of the university. The role of the universities has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Although there has been a huge opening up, we still have a long way to go. I outlined some of the areas where improvement is needed, namely, accessibility and the creation of a more developed relationship between the universities and other sectors. In modern times universities impact in all sorts of ways on social, cultural, political and economic life, and the existing framework needs to be updated.

The Bill has three main strands, restructuring of the National University of Ireland, provision of revised governance structures and a framework for interaction between the universities and central Government. It also provides for accountability generally. Each has to be welcomed as necessary, but there must be a balance. We need to continue to discuss this Bill in committee to ensure that we get the balance right. Many countries have grappled with this, and mistakes have been made where there has been undue interference. This has had disastrous results in that research has been inhibited, morale in the universities has sunk low, and they do not now deliver what they were set up to do because the structure around their development has not been right. This has happened in some American universities. We must be careful not to do that here.

The record of the universities and their contribution has been very good. They have given many people an opportunity to develop their potential and have contributed to society in a unique way. We must create a framework that does not unduly interfere with the work of the universities, that builds in accountability and supports their development into the next century. The universities should reach out to those who have not had access to them and their research should be linked to the real needs of society.

Mr. Lenihan

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.

Kathleen Lynch

I was enthralled listening to Deputy Lenihan arguing, on the one hand, for innovation and a broadening of the whole intellect and, on the other hand, for no change. I find both sides of that argument intriguing. I must tease it out with him some time because I do not quite understand how he can marry the two. I am sure it is an ability which comes with being a lecturer. I must try to find it some day.

Mr. Lenihan

It might be something to do with being a politician.

Kathleen Lynch

Probably. A universities Bill has been long sought by the universities. Initially I did not understand the need for the Bill but it received a broad welcome from many people. This is one of the reasons I am amazed at some of the remarks now being made by university commentators. It is probably another part of the debate I find difficult to comprehend.

The Bill will give individual NUI colleges and Maynooth University a legal standing which is more in line with reality by making them independent and autonomous. It will also bring the University of Limerick and DCU, which were previously national institutions for higher education and regulated by the State in a different way from other colleges, more into line with other universities and colleges and put them on the same statutory footing. More importantly, it will set the relationship between the State and universities on a proper footing. It is questions about what the proper footing should be and the appropriate balance between institutional autonomy and accountability to the citizen who pays the bill which have generated the heat about this matter. While this heat may come as a surprise to some people it is no surprise to politicians who have received many representations on this matter. However, this heat has thrown very little light on the argument.

A high proportion of university funding comes from the State. This involves a significant public interest dimension which must be protected in any new legislation. The Opposition's argument in this respect is flawed. There is huge public interest in how universities operate in terms of the students who are accepted and how they are treated and also how the staff, particularly female staff, are treated. This interest is shared by all the groups concerned with universities — students, staff, the State, taxpayers and the public generally. The interests of all these groups must be acknowledged and protected. There were some genuine concerns about the Bill but most of these should have been allayed at this stage.

Opposition to the Bill has come in the main from a narrow focus of opinion within the university sector. It may well be that the leaders of universities do not subscribe to all that has been written on their behalf. I have not heard them deny what has been written and maybe it is time they made their positions clearer. A particularly offensive element within the chorus of opposition has been the implication that universities are somehow being penalised for the financial misdemeanours of other sectors. Universities are not lily-white in this area. Some weeks ago a newspaper report referred to a funding body which found it necessary to apply a financial penalty to a university in order to bring it into line with acceptable practice. I assume I will never get the full information but I would like to know what happened, where it happened, how often it has happened and why a body which is regarded as conservative deemed it necessary to impose this penalty. It is very difficult to obtain this information when dealing with a sector which has been autonomous for 400 years. This is one of the reasons I do not understand the Opposition's argument about the need for openness and transparency but no need for change. This worries me. The Bill does not provide any greater financial controls of universities than those which already exist in the Higher Education Authority legislation. It is widely acknowledged that those powers have been used in a fair manner and with restraint. I am not aware of a call by any college for those powers to be diluted.

There has been a self-congratulatory note in some of the comments made. Universities have done an extremely good job since their establishment and they have served the country very well. They may not have served the people I represent very well but they have done a good job and given us eminent historians, politicians, accountants and doctors who have contributed to society and ensured that Ireland has been recognised internationally. They have provided a third level education for a huge number of students and have dealt with the many changes in society, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. Having said that, they have been very slow to introduce changes in many areas. It is only in recent years that they have started to develop serious initiatives to combat inequality and improve access for groups which were not previously represented. The older universities in particular have been loath to modernise structures and introduce aspects of course design which offer greater flexibility to students. If courses were offered in modular form this would be of benefit to workers and those who cannot attend university on a full time basis and greatly increase the number of part-time students. Distance learning has been available in other countries for many years but it is still at an experimental stage here.

Universities will gladly seek co-operative links with universities in the USA, Europe and outer Mongolia but they are notoriously slow to co-operate with one another. It is very difficult to get co-operation between UCD and TCD or between the universities and regional technical colleges where there is a natural link. I do not understand how giving universities more autonomy will improve the position.

A good deal of the opposition to the Bill has come from TCD sources. There is no outsider on the governing body of TCD, which was extremely reluctant to accept any change. It is an insult to our intelligence for any university to claim that a 400-year-old charter is perfectly adequate as a basis for running a complex institution into the 21st century. Even under the new legislation, external representation on the board will be minimal and much too small to make any meaningful difference. This matter can be teased out further on Committee Stage.

The universities are arguing for as much autonomy as possible. This is perfectly understandable, but they are mixing up two distinct concepts — academic freedom and institutional autonomy. While the two concepts are related they are not the same and it is intellectually sloppy to argue as if they were. There is not, and never has been, any suggestion that academic freedom is being in any way affected by the legislation. The best protection for academic freedom is a robust, transparent system of accountability. Dangers to such freedom arise when accountability is seen to break down and public trust is undermined.

Concern has been expressed that conditions and entitlements of staff will be arbitrarily changed by the Bill. The Minister made it clear that this is not the case. The claim was made by Deputy Martin and assurances of this kind, whether written or verbal, have never stopped the Deputy from such scare tactics.

The key issues which need to be grappled with were set out fairly and clearly in the recent statement from the Higher Education Authority which points out that there have been major changes in higher education — and in the social and economic environment within which it operates — over the past 30 years. It also states that the transition from elite to mass, higher education and the very high level of public subvention to the universities are key transformations in our society. Nobody disagrees with this.

The Higher Education Authority statement goes on to make clear that the critical relationship between higher education and economic and social development is also achieving wider recognition, as is the necessity for provocative innovation to increase levels of participation from those groups which, heretofore, were under-represented. Major issues of public policy in these and other areas, and a very substantial investment of public money, require a recognition of the public interest in new diversities and the appropriate mechanisms to ensure responsiveness and accountability. This is the approach we are all taking to the Bill.

The Higher Education Authority statement stresses the importance of a certain critical distance between universities and the State. Nobody would argue with this. However, it makes the crucial point that this autonomy does not exist in a vacuum, nor can it. Universities do not exist in a vacuum. They are not isolated from society and they cannot behave as if they were.

The Bill seeks to establish the proper balance between institutional autonomy and public accountability. Universities are not State bodies and their governing authorities are not appointed by Government. The primary relationship between universities and the State is expressed through State funding and it is here that the appropriate accounting mechanism must be focused. For this reason the provision in the Bill to allow the sacking of a chairperson of a governing authority by the Minister of the day was not appropriate and I welcome the Minister's indication of her willingness to drop it. This is right because there is a balance to be struck here.

The Minister also indicated her willingness to review the section dealing with the suspension of a governing authority. However, it is vitally important that the power of financial sanction should be retained. In this regard I ask the Minister to clarify remarks made in her opening speech where she appeared to indicate that this power might be reduced. The power of financial sanction is for a funding body acting on behalf of the State and its citizens. It would an abdication of responsibility to the taxpayers to weaken it in any way.

I wish to see some changes as certain sections have too much detail for general legislation. The Bill provides that a university may have a charter. This should be strengthened so that all universities shall have one. If this is done, much of the detail can be incorporated in the charter for each college rather than have it cluttering up the Bill. This would also strengthen the concept of diversity of institutions, which is an important dimension of our third level system, and make clearer the principles which the Bill seeks to assert.

However, if the details remain, a number of issues must be addressed. These include the provision for election, and not merely the appointment, to governing bodies. This must be retained. In addition, the level of student representation is too low and gender equality provisions, not just for attenders but also and especially for the staff, need to be strengthened. I know of several cases in universities where women are finding it extremely difficult to get permanent appointment and are losing out to their male colleagues who may not be as well qualified.

There is much work to be done on the Bill. However, we are going in the right direction and suggestions for change will be made on Committee Stage. The fundamentals of the Bill are sound but there are areas which need to be changed.

Miss Coughlan

I welcome the Bill, if only because it gives the House a chance to look at the contribution of our universities, not just to education but to the broader, economic and cultural life of the country. However, I regret that the Bill has occasioned so much controversy and opposition, which could have been avoided by the Minister if she had been consistent between what she proposed in her position paper of last November and what she is now proposing in the Bill. In addition, she should have consulted more widely with those involved, given that the Bill proposes sweeping changes that affect not only the terms and conditions of employment of university staff, but also seeks to impose a more authoritarian regime on the universities.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 6 Nov 1996

Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1996