Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 1995

Vol. 145 No. 9

Legislative Proposals for the Universities Motion.

Mr. Dardis

I move:

That Seanad Éireann rejects any attempt by the Government and the Minister for Education to interfere with the governance and charter of Trinity College, Dublin, or to weaken the autonomy of the Colleges of the National University of Ireland.

I thank the Leader for making time available for this debate. I am sorry I only have ten minutes but I understand a number of people are contributing.

Last Friday the people voted by a narrow majority to amend the Constitution to give their fellow citizens the right to remarry. The result was an affirmation that the Irish people wish our society to be open, non-coercive and pluralist. The Minister for Education left nobody in any doubt of her commitment to those values. How can it be, therefore, that the pluralism and liberalism espoused by the Minister and her colleagues last week is glaringly absent in the proposals for university legislation published this week? There is control where there should be freedom and there is statism where there should be autonomy.

There are many references and fine words in the document, such as openness, dialogue, autonomy and independence, the universities making decisions themselves and strengthening academic freedom, etc. It all looks and sounds good, even convincing, but we should not be taken in. Under the camouflage of these liberal words, the Minister is proposing an unwarranted intrusion into areas where the State has no business. An already over-centralised State now proposes to spread its all ensnaring tentacles even further.

The Minister stated the position paper sets out her own thinking and that the advice of the heads of the universities does not imply their agreement with the proposals in the document. I am sure they will be most relieved to hear that. Does the Minister believe they would agree with the following statement: "The White Paper indicates there would be statutory provision for ministerial nominees on all governing bodies"? Does she think the heads would agree with her assertions that "It is accepted that this institutional framework cannot be totally unconstrained" or "Where the governing body opts to be chaired by a person other than the president or provost, that person would be appointed by the Government from three nominees, at least one of whom would be a woman, selected by the governing body itself"?

The coup de grâce is the following statement: “The Government would have the power to dissolve the governing body for stated reasons and for a temporary period no longer than one year.” Would this be before or after the provost and the president had given “evidence to the Committee of public Accounts of the Dáil when required by the committee to do so”? We have now reached the point of the university as a semi-State company; so much for liberalism and pluralism.

The merit I see in the Minister's approach is the creation of autonomous universities to replace the constituent colleges of the NUI, the designation of NUI degrees and the proposals in respect of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, and the University of Limerick. Political interference is anathema to the idea of a university. The tired cliché of elitism will be used as an excuse to interfere, but there is a huge difference between social elitism and the intellectual elitism of our universities. The more people can enjoy that elitism by participating in it and the more diversity of thought and learning is protected, the better it will be for our society.

Tomorrow President Clinton will look across College Green at the facade of Trinity College, Dublin. He will see Burke and Goldsmith and 400 years of history. Would this powerful Rhodes Scholar do to Harvard or his English alma mater what the Minister has in mind for Trinity College, Dublin? I do not think so. I am not a graduate of Trinity College but I regard it as one of the most outstanding places of learning on this island and my view is confirmed by independent assessment. What is it about Trinity College, Dublin, that makes the Minister believe it has failed as an autonomous body? What needs fixing? I ask the Minister to reply to these questions.

What is the legal justification for her proposals for Trinity College, Dublin? Is she confident she is on firm constitutional ground? Some lawyers suggest otherwise. In the week when the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have advanced the cause of peace, surely the Minister must know she is sending entirely the wrong signal to many people in Northern Ireland, particularly the many whose principal exposure to life in the Republic was education at Trinity College, Dublin. The one institution in the South to which Unionists have strong loyalties is entitled to parity of esteem. Are the proposals for Trinity College, Dublin, consistent with the spirit of the Downing Street Declaration?

There has been much consultation since the Progressive Democrats motion was tabled in the Seanad. There have been reports in the press of "watering down", "concessions", "modifications" and the Minister "learning her lesson". This is all part of a softening up process. Execution becomes almost desirable in these circumstances. A 400 year uninterrupted history is over.

It appears the much vaunted consultation goes just so far. When was the last time the Minister had contact with the Irish Federation of University Teachers? Is it possible the Labour Party could omit the trade unions from the consultation process on which the Minister congratulates herself in the proposals document? The general secretary of the union told a meeting in Trinity College, Dublin, that he will seek a meeting with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste if the Minister continues to ignore him.

The Minister has had a four month media campaign to soften up the universities. Does she really want us to believe she knows more about the running of the college of Beckett, Swift, Burke, Grattan, Davis, Berkeley and Tone than those who have run the place down the centuries and seen off monarchs, war and rebellion? Is the Fine Gael Party's silence on Trinity College, Dublin, a sign of consent to the Minister's proposals or one of embarrassment? Is Senator Ross the only one person prepared to dissent? Will the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, send officials from the Department to attend IFA council meetings? How would the Taoiseach react to people being placed on the board of Clongowes Wood College? This is the logical extension of the argument.

There is an accountability in Trinity College, Dublin, and elsewhere and it involves the following: if degrees are substandard and the education and management are defective, it will not be long before the students stay away, the employers will ignore the graduates, the best academics will leave and the endowments will dry up. The O'Reilly building or Smurfit school will find other homes. This is real accountability in action. The Minister may by all means introduce legislation on Maynooth and the new universities, but why impose unwanted and unnecessary red tape and political control on areas of university life that should be left alone?

UCC's budget last year was £55 million — I presume the University Panel Senators will deal with this aspect in more detail. It has 1,500 staff, making it one of the biggest and most secure employers in the south. Less than half of the £55 million came as a grant from the State and the no fee régime means the college will rely on the State for nearly 80 per cent of its total budget. The vice-president of UCC says this runs counter to the declared intentions of our European partners and we are swimming against the tide. Delivering the 1995 John Marcus O'Sullivan memorial lecture, the vice-president, Professor Brendan O'Mahony, said the following:

The greatest threat to the university's academic freedom comes from the intrusion of the State in the affairs of the university ... one can detect a market tendency on the part of the Department of Education toward centralised control and to model new university legislation on the more recently introduced regional technical college system. [He went on to say:] Any proposed changes which reflect increased policing by the Government Departments beg such questions as: who are the experts? Are all the "responsible" ones in Government Departments? What has become of the much vaunted principle of subsidiarity? What have the universities been doing wrong to warrant an intrusion on their hitherto autonomous state? Why introduce another layer of bureaucratic/ administrative control? Is the university to become a semi-State body, an arm of the State, under the control of successive Ministers for Education?

These questions require answers. The comments of Professor Vincent McBriarty of Trinity College, Dublin, delivering the R.M. Jones Memorial Lecture in Queen's University, Belfast, are also worth noting: "The universities have been subjected to a mandatory culture of compliance". He also stated:

Because of the strategic role of higher education in today's society, governments have exercised a vested interest in shaping the future direction of universities. Their arm's length approach has generally been tailored to meet the immediate needs of society as they see them. The net effect is that not alone is the ethos of the university ignored, but the policies adopted have threatened to destroy it altogether, with a slow but sustained drift towards "supermarket" education.

I have a salutary warning for the Minister:

After one or two sessions, after strong speeches in Parliament from Secretaries of State and experimentalists in education, and committees, gatherings, and manifestos on the part of members of the Colleges, it was owned by friends of the Government, that its attempt upon them was a mistake and a failure and the sooner Government gave it up, the better for the Government.

The Minister should reflect on those words of John Henry Cardinal Newman, which were written in 1856, when she is preparing the final draft of the Bill on the universities. I hope the Bill will be introduced in the Seanad. I commend the motion to the House and I ask it to adopt it.

Ms Honan

I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak later in the debate.

Mr. Ross

I disagree with very few of Senator Dardis's points. I wish to make my personal position clear. Up to an hour ago I was still in something of a dilemma about which way to vote on the motion. However, I spoke at some length to the Taoiseach approximately an hour ago and he assured me any representations we make on this issue are subject to his personal attention and that these particular demands in the position paper are not written in stone. In the period before the legislation appears I intend to make those representations on the issues which I shall now address.

I regard this document produced by the Minister as totally and utterly unacceptable if it is transferred into legislation. I will break the party whip without hesitation if certain items in this document are in the legislation when it comes before the Seanad. There must be no ambiguity about it. There is plenty of scope for the Minister to give way on many of the most draconian and unacceptable proposals in this document between now and then. The Minister has given a great deal of ground already.

The first unacceptable item is a principle or a philosophy behind this document that somehow the State has a right and a duty to meddle in the affairs of a university. There is absolutely no justification for that assumption; there is no justification for assuming it will do any good. The State has an appalling record in its interference in the affairs of any body here, commercial or non-commercial. The Minister has only to look to see this. What happened when State appointees were on the board of Telecom Éireann? Did they spot what was going on? Were they aware that something untoward was taking place? Were these guardians of the public purse doing something for the taxpayer? They were asleep.

A similar situation prevailed at Greencore where matters were going on under their noses which they did not know about. For some reason we are expected to believe that putting ministerial appointees on boards will prevent such events happening. It will not. Such activities may have been rampant in the State sector but there is no evidence they have ever happened in the university sector. What have the State nominees done for Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna or all the State agencies which spent Government money like confetti and are almost completely unaccountable? Yet suddenly a virtue is made of putting one or two ministerial nominees on the board of Trinity College, Dublin.

The Labour Party has a shameless record of putting political appointees and hacks on the boards of semi-State bodies. That is not acceptable. There is no evidence to suggest this will not happen to the universities if the Minister is given the necessary power. The record is there for all to see; hacks will be put on the boards of universities and that is not acceptable to me or to Trinity College, Dublin.

Furthermore, it is not acceptable that the governing bodies of these institutions should be dissolved at the whim of a Minister as appears in this document. Let not any member of the Government come to tell us that is not proposed in the document. It is there, although well dressed up like a lot of dictatorial elements in the document. It says that if the Minister of the day does not like what is happening in the universities the Minister can dissolve the governing bodies for a year. It does not say what would happen at the end of the year but, presumably, the Minister could reappoint somebody else and dissolve it again and so on ad infinitum. That is not acceptable. Why is it deemed necessary?

Apparently the Minister can also appoint an investigator for any university the Minister may choose? Why is this necessary? This is an attempt to introduce State control of the universities by the back door. Apart from the numbers involved other new powers are also proposed. The numbers are to an extent just window dressing. To say there will only be one to four ministerial appointees on the governing body of Trinity College is a clever trick, but taken together with all the other powers it will give control of the university to the State. That is not acceptable.

I will not vote for this Bill when it comes before the House if it is not acceptable to the university itself. The Provost of Trinity College, who has been involved in consultations with the Minister, is quoted in the newspapers today as saying that the proposals about the dissolution of governing bodies are unacceptable. I do not know who the Minister has been talking to in Trinity College but the loud and clear message I am getting is that these proposals will be rejected. If they are rejected the Minister must make it clear whether she is prepared to impose her proposals on the universities. Does the Minister and the Government know better what is good for the universities than the universities themselves? I would not mind this being raised if there had been some disgraceful behaviour on the part of the academics, if self-government in the universities had been in some way deplorable and mismanaged. It has not. They should be accountable.

There are good features in the document although not too many. The Provost should certainly be allowed come before the relevant Dáil committee and we should certainly be allowed to see where the money has been spent. It is public money and its spending should be transparent. However, let us not give control to the Government in anything to do with the government of these universities.

It is no excuse to say there will only be one or two members appointed as they may hold the balance of power on crucial issues. They will not be acting as agents of Government but as agents of political parties, which is exactly how political appointees of all parties always behave. That is what they will do and what will be expected of them.

It is not right, as this document suggests, that the Government should dictate the form of the governing bodies, the numbers that come from among the academics and the non-academics. That should be a matter for the universities to decide and not the State. This document proposes that the State set up the structures, numbers and ideology which will dictate universities. It threatens the autonomy of Trinity College and other universities.

As Senator Dardis rightly said, there is a hidden agenda. There is an implication that university education and Trinity College, Dublin, in particular, represent elitism and has to be brought into what the Minister continuously calls the "modern world". This is absolute nonsense. There was a time in the 1960s and just into the 1970s when Trinity College, Dublin may have represented the views of a bygone age. Perhaps it was to some extent an anachronism through no fault of its own. That is no longer true. It is open to everybody. Rather than giving free fees in her earlier decision the Minister should have made it more open to people from all areas of Irish society. The implication that there is an elitist ethos there is absolute nonsense. There may be a different tradition of which it is truly proud and which should be defended and promoted. However, there is no suggestion of elitism there.

I resent the suggestion that the social partners should be on boards of universities. Why should there be a sacred place for those whom the Government has chosen to dictate what happens in our society outside the Government itself? Why should farmers, businessmen, industrialists and trade unionists be on the board? Is there not a great wealth within the academic world of people who represent all areas of society?

If the legislation is opposed by the board and fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, I shall oppose it. If the autonomy of Trinity College, Dublin, is threatened by the legislation I shall oppose it. If the Minister insists on her right to dissolve the governing bodies I shall oppose the legislation.

An Cathaoirleach

Is Senator Ross moving the amendment?

Mr. Ross

Yes, with reluctance.

Mr. Manning

He had better.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann welcomes the intention of the Minister for Education to bring forward legislative proposals for the universities and calls on the Minister to ensure that these proposals:

preserve the academic freedom and ethos of individual universities and university colleges;

give university status to the individual colleges of the National University of Ireland, including the recognised college at Maynooth;

broaden the composition of the governing bodies of universities to make them more representative of the university communities and to involve the wider community which they serve, and do so in a way which best allows the universities achieve their particular mission; and

ensure accountability and transparency in the use of State funds.".

Miss Ormonde

I support Senator Dardis's motion. I may bring some calmness to the debate because it is quite clear from listening to the previous speaker that the Minister is being undermined by the Taoiseach.

Mr. Manning

The Senator will have to try again; that will not work.

Miss Ormonde

That is what I have picked up.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ormonde, without interruption.

Miss Ormonde

From listening to the debate so far, it is quite clear that the Minister has pulled back. Perhaps the views of the Seanad forced her into publishing three or four position papers — I became confused about the Minister's stand in relation to her role in the universities.

The main area of contention is the composition of the governing bodies. What is the hidden agenda in relation to this? Why does she want to take over? What is wrong with the performance of the universities? She began by making changes at second level and the vocational education committees were dismantled. Now, it seems that the control of the universities is also being dismantled. There is a perception and fear that everything was done behind closed doors and that academic heads did not know what was going on. It is no wonder that the question arose as to why the Minister is doing this and why she wants this accountability in relation to everything done by academics in the universities.

The Minister said that she is changing the composition of the board. As Senator Ross said, it is the numbers game which is worrying. She said she wants to place a number of representatives from the senior, middle and junior staff of the universities and that there will also be representatives from the student and graduate bodies. Who will these people be? Who will make the appointments? There will also be a number of outsiders. She then spoke about the regional education boards which have not yet been set up. Who will these people be? Such a composition of the governing board is worrying because the board decides staff appointments and promotions in the universities. These boards will have a major impact on the administration and running of universities.

There is great concern about this, particularly in Trinity College, Dublin, which conducted its business very well and did not need outside control. The Minister should look at its international standing and the number of its graduates who align themselves with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Minister is saying that these people are not worthy or capable of handling their own affairs. Why has she decided she must take them under her wing? Why is it necessary to have State control? Who is putting political pressure on her to do this? Is this her own concept or is it coming from somewhere else? These are the questions which I am asked. Is it because she wants to put key people in every area so that she will have a network throughout the universities on whom she can call at a certain stage of any political development to highlight her philosophy? I do not know the answer but that is the very worrying perception.

The Minister was not clear about this. She did this work throughout the summer and confusion set in. The heads of the universities did not know about it. Suddenly, pressure was put on her because the six Independent Senators told her up front that they would not support her unless she pulled back. It seems that she has pulled back but two areas of concern remain, the composition of the governing bodies and the role of the Higher Education Authority, which had a role in regulating and keeping a watchful eye on the administration of the universities. What will its role be now? Has she increased its role? Secondly, what role will the State have in university appointments and promotions?

Mr. Manning

Absolutely none.

Miss Ormonde

The perception is that there is a doubt about that, which is why we must ensure that the universities are self regulating without interference. The suggestion of interference is the reason we are debating this topic. We are not here to make nice sentences and congratulate the Minister. She has created this fear and made me question the academics in Trinity College, Dublin, and the NUI colleges. The Minister said that she will do this but she did not give a reason. The Minister has a hidden agenda which I have — I want everything to be up front. She spoke about transparency but I do not see any transparency in this.

Our third level institutions have done very well and contributed a great deal to this country. They have behaved impeccably in relation to their standards and their financial and academic administration. Stating that we now need transparency in the universities and that their accounts have to be scrutinised suggests that the Minister has doubted them in the past and that it is now time to question their whole approach to running their business.

We have three questions for the Minister. What will be the role of the Higher Education Authority in the new arrangements? Will it interfere on an operational basis? What will be the role of the new governing bodies in relation to staffing and budgetary matters? If the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, is unhappy with the arrangements, perhaps the Minister will sit down again and discuss the areas of contention in order to qualify the hidden agenda behind this.

Ms Kelly

I welcome the Minister. The last universities Act was enacted in 1908 and legislation dealing with universities needs to be looked at and modernised. Who can say that legislation enacted in 1908 is capable of dealing with the realities of life today? The reality is that this State contributes in the region of £470 million of taxpayers' money each year to the universities, a large sum of money. Because that money comes not only from the pockets of university graduates but from working people, they have a right as citizens to be assured that what they contribute to third level education is spent in a right and proper manner. An article in last Tuesday's "Education and Living" section of The Irish Times asked:

Should Trinity which, like any other university, gets the vast majority of its funding from the State, be exempted from change or from the proposal that the taxpayer who foots the bill for an institution should have a direct say in its running?

That point should be strongly stressed. Taxpayers do have a right — they contribute and the State must ensure on their behalf that all matters relating to the university are administered in accordance with the State's wishes. There is much flexibility in the Minister's proposal which will enable the universities to operate to their present high standards. However, few could argue that accountability is not of vital importance in this age.

The Minister has been accused of not consulting and, when she did consult, of not being open or transparent. She has spent many valuable months discussing this proposal with the various strands in third level. As is well known, when one negotiates one cannot do so under the glare of a television camera. When one tries to bring together bodies as diverse as Trinity College and the new University of Limerick there must be compromise. Each university cannot get everything it wants; there is room for manoeuvre and negotiation. The Opposition wants to box the Minister in and force her to make definite proposals before the legislation comes to the House. That is unfair and does not allow opportunity for discussion. There is plenty of room for compromise on the various issues.

The colleges of the National University of Ireland have always had outside representations and councillors on their governing bodies. Those councillors did a good job down the years, because they come from such a wide variety of Irish life — the farming sector, workers, tradespeople, merchants and businessman. Their expertise has been vital to the universities in understanding how they relate to the outside world. I disagree with The Irish Times editorial on Tuesday, which stated:

... the worst features of the old system for the NUI colleges are being retained. Thus UCD, UCC, and UCG are still to be lumbered with mayors, lord mayors and county councillors.

As a county councillor and as a person elected to this House by county councillors, I categorically state that they are not burdens on the governing bodies and their role should be protected because they are elected directly by the people. Senator Ormonde should agree with me that this should continue.

Miss Ormonde

I was talking about Trinity.

Ms Kelly

If it is good enough for UCD, UCC and UCG to have county councillors on their boards, I do not see why it is not good enough for Trinity College. If that university claims to offer equality to its graduates it should not see itself as being better or more elite that the NUI colleges.

I do not understand the panic in Trinity about people coming in from outside to provide a cross-fertilisation of ideas. Academics say their life is a closed shop — once one is in the university system there is little movement back and forth. In other countries there is much more interaction between industry and the academic world or between legislators and university law faculties. I was in Sweden recently where this is encouraged. Many of the legislators were lecturers and professors who are obliged to spend time outside the universities, seeing how what they teach is put into practice. They return enriched by this experience. One has only to follow the debate in UCC last year to realise what a closed shop it was and how bitter infighting can be in universities. Any outside influence which could be brought to bear which might bring a bit of sense into the shenanigans in our universities would be welcome.

Mr. Norris

What shenanigans? Can we have details?

Ms Kelly

It was most unedifying to read in the newspaper——

Mr. Norris

Is that about the——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Norris will have an opportunity to make his contribution later. Senator Kelly without interruption.

Mr. Manning

If Senator Norris reads Professor Murphy's history of UCC he will find out about shenanigans.

Ms Kelly

I thank Senator Manning. Such shenanigans are not unknown. Those in the halls of academe are not immune from human frailty and anything which would bring common sense into that arena would be most welcome.

There is much concern among junior academic staff about the power which can be given to the university presidents. If the power is confined to one person it could be open to abuse. I ask the Minister and her officials to speak to the middle-ranking and junior staff because their concerns are valid.

As a member of the Labour Party I reject the notion that we should not put our members on State boards, as if our people are third cousins of the devil, whereas it is all right to appoint members of other parties. No party is innocent of placing its members on State boards but to single out the Labour Party as more demonic than the rest is unfair. Senator Ross should ensure his own house is in order first.

Mr. Norris

Let us not be hysterical about this. The Minister has properly consulted people, not least this House, and that should be acknowledged. However, the Minister is quite capable of paying compliments to herself. Her introduction to the position paper on proposals for university legislation states: "My period in office as Minister for Education has been characterised by an openness and a willingness to engage in dialogue and consultation". Long may this continue but these compliments are sometimes more effective if they are generated from outside their subject. However, I am happy to endorse them and I hope the consultation process will continue.

The universities, particularly Trinity College, feel strongly about a number of points. The first is the question of appointments to the board. In response to Senator Kelly, this system can vitiate universities and I am sure she and Senator Manning are aware of this as well. I will not quote instances because they might be identifiable but I am certainly aware of where these kinds of external appointments vitiate a situation. I know of one where a very distinguished colleague of mine said he would never again act as external assessor because his views on an appointment were completely overruled by lobbying among these kinds of people inside the university structures.

Then there is the question of the control of funds which is extremely important. Of course, when the taxpayer is providing money out of Exchequer revenue, he is entitled to a degree of accountability for it. Nobody disagrees with that. The principal problem would be where, for example, Trinity is already out there in the marketplace already generating substantial revenues. The Minister knows and accepts this. This was indicated to us at the meeting which we had yesterday in her office. Out of a budget of about £60 million, £12.5 million is directly generated by Trinity for its own research purposes. The kind of worry which is abroad is that the Higher Education Authority may set parameters so tightly and may seek to control or produce guidelines not only for the money which is sourced from Exchequer funds but also for the money which is provided from outside the university at the university's initiative for specific targeted research projects. That would be quite unacceptable.

I know the Minister and her advisers, who were very courteous yesterday, said these guidelines were not mandatory. Nowhere in any of the material which has been provided to me is that made clear. I would advise the Minister to make it clear. She should make it absolutely clear and binding that these guidelines are guidelines, that they are not mandatory and that the university will not be shackled in this regard.

This also has some small bearing on the question of the constitutionality or otherwise of an attempt to interfere with the body established by charter in which there are bursaries and scholarships which date back many hundreds of years, the provisions of which have already been laid down in law and are probably immutable and not subject to ministerial direction and so on.

Some of the language worries me and this worry may be dissipated by the Minister's statement. For example, the White Paper on Education, "Charting Our Education Future", states that "The policy approach will seek to balance institutional autonomy with the needs of public policy and accountability, having due regard for the respect of rights and responsibilities of the institutions and the State." What I am concerned about there is the question of the needs of public policy. Certainly "public policy" in terms of providing a good education but I would like to quote the Provost of Trinity College, Mr. Thomas Mitchell, who, in Studies of Education, wrote that “universities are not, never have been, and cannot be allowed to become an arm of government, or another branch of the public service, or an instrument for the achievement of particular political or social agendas”. I would like that to be spelled out very clearly. Whatever the needs of public policy, they must not and cannot ever constitute an attempt by government to turn the universities into yet another arm of government. Here we have a situation analogous to that in which the Conservative Party in Britain found itself in relation to the BBC and the awkwardness and difficulties which flowed from that. The Minister should bear this in mind.

Then there is the question of unit costs which is really, in a way, underlying much of this and we are always hearing about level playing fields. I do not wish to see Trinity retreat into a siege position thinking everybody is against it. I do not actually believe that. I think the Minister is well intentioned and some of the material in this document is wrong but it is still arguable and up for negotiation. When we think of unit costs, is there really a level playing field? With its four year degree system and a high loading of upper grade academics which were deliberately bought in to provide the kind of research expertise for which Trinity is remarkable, is it possible to compare these with, for example, an regional technical college? I am not denigrating regional technical colleges. It is just a different standard, a different level of excellence. There is a danger of creating a bland, homogenised third level product. I do not believe that is what the Minister is about but it could be a consequence of the implementation of these policies if they are put into place undiluted.

One of the most worrying aspects of this position paper is the power which the Minister seeks to take to herself to dissolve the boards of universities. I notice the Minister, in one of the preliminary papers, uses language such as "It is not proposed therefore to sweep away the old structures overnight but to allow the universities to adapt their governance structures...". Implicit in that is almost a kind of threat that she will not sweep away all the old structures overnight although she could. I do not believe she could, either legally or politically, and if this were ever attempted it would certainly be strongly challenged.

I am very worried be the notion of the Minister being allow to dissolve the board. It occurs in paragraph 57 (vi) of the Position Paper on Proposals for University Legislation where it says:

The Government would have the power to dissolve a governing body for stated reasons and for a temporary period not longer than one year. This latter provision would be an exceptional measure to be adopted only when the Government is satisfied, based upon a report from visitor or board of visitors, that a governing body is discharging its functions in a seriously ineffective and improper manner and that the interests of the university and of the wider community are being damaged...

That is a swingeing power which is absolutely and totally unacceptable. What on earth can have occurred in the Minister's mind to suggest that a state of affairs so disastrous would occur in a university that an entire board had to be dissolved? I cannot image what she is thinking of and it seems to me that it is a completely unnecessary, undemocratic and a totally wrong power for her to take to herself. That certainly will be resisted to the very end as far as I am concerned. That does not mean the Minister cannot inquire.

She has taken to herself another power: the power of imposing a visitation. I cannot agree with there being an inspector who should be the visitor to the college because the visitor to the college is a particular and special institution with a particular and special function. Its principle function is to protect the students. It is the last court of appeal for students. I would have no difficulty, however, with an independent inspector appointed by the Minister. That is fine as far as I am concerned. I have not consulted the university and it may have some objection to it but I have none. However, the Minister should not have the power to dissolve the board. She should not be able to make the visitor inquire into the doings of the universities but she should have the power to appoint an inspector. The question of dissolving the board would be one on which the universities would mount considerable resistance.

Trinity has a record of excellence. It has 403 years of tradition. It has autonomy and has demonstrated its independence, which is the hallmark of all great universities. It has a charter which established it and I indicated to the Minister the possibility of a constitutional challenge there. Funding has been provided by the State since the 1940's but there has not been a suggestion that the university should come into public ownership. Trinity has changed with the times. It has been more far sighted than governments in its acquisition of perimeter properties. It has developed campus companies and has associated itself with the NCEA, Dublin Institute of Technology and DCU and has helped them develop and this, for example, would be regarded as quality assurance in action.

I want to list some of the positive issues at which the Minister might look, among them the question of funding. Indeed, the arts building, which opened in 1973, is the last building to be fully funded by the State as a capital building.

There is the question of Trinity as a copyright library. We get about one third of what the sister copyright libraries, like Oxford, get and that is something which could be examined and we need additional space in Santry for the book repository.

Trinity was regarded in an article in The Irish Times recently as one of three or four world-ranking universities in these islands yet Trinity is funded at 60 per cent of the level of United Kingdom universities.

For the first time in its history, there is no staff member for TCD on the Higher Education Authority. Why is this? Can we have an answer to this question from the Minister? It is suggested we have ministerial nominees which would bring us under the control of the Higher Education Authority but we have no representation on that body. When will we get a representative from Trinity on the HEA?

There is inadequate support for research facilities not just, of course, in TCD. This is problem which marks the universities particularly. It is not acceptable for the Minister to attempt to use the argument about the abolition of fees as a reason for claiming greater rights of control. It is not correct simply to say that 90 per cent of Trinity's funds come from the State. It is equally valid to say that the State funds 10,000 students to attend TCD and they ought to go there because of its excellence. The college, in fact, is in the business of providing 10,000 world class university places of which the State properly avails.

Mr. Sherlock

I welcome the publication of the position paper on the proposals for university legislation which I hope will focus debate on the role of our universities in the third level education system and society as a whole. I am aware the Minister's proposals have aroused some controversy. Much of the opposition was to be expected given that the proposals challenge many of the vested interests in our universities. However, some of the points made by representatives of the universities are valid and I hope the Minister will take them into consideration when preparing the legislation.

I particularly share the concern at the proposed power to be vested in the Minister to dissolve the board of a university for up to a year. However, I understand there will be legislative constraints on these powers. Such powers could be open to abuse in the future and I hope they will be greatly restricted. The Minister's powers in this regard are augmented by the ministerial appointees to university boards provided for in the proposals. In the past, universities have perhaps enjoyed too great a measure of independence. It could be argued however that the proposed legislation goes too far in the other direction and severely curtails universities' administrative and academic independence.

A section of the proposals provides for the publication by universities of factual and statistical annual performance reports. The universities would provide such reports with the best will in the world but they seem to represent something like the dreaded league tables which caused havoc in the UK educational system. Being just a national school boy I do not know much about the area but one learns much from the discussion of education at primary, secondary and third levels. A university is not a factory and its academic performance cannot be measured in terms of output or throughput.

I welcome the proposal to include student representatives on the boards of universities. After all, students are what universities are all about and student representatives will provide a valuable input into university policy. Unfortunately, students are often little more than footnotes when it comes to policy development. Despite the introduction of free fees, many students are still living in poverty. Unless maintenance grants are drastically increased and students become eligible for rent and other subsidies, student poverty will continue to increase.

It is almost December and there are students in our colleges who have not yet received maintenance grants. Cork County Council is a culprit in this regard. It says it has paid out £3 million in grants and also argues that the Department is slow to reimburse the council. It refers at estimate meetings to an outstanding figure of £9 million. The maintenance grant level is too low and there are delays in making those payments. There are families on the borderline which must pay or borrow to keep their sons and daughters in third level education at this time and it is not good enough. I must admit that I do not find the same problem with regional technical colleges. I have been inundated with inquiries in the last three weeks. I hope the Minister will round off her package of third level reforms by taking these considerations into account in the near future.

Mr. Mullooly

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. Some weeks ago we had a debate in this House on third level fees for evening and part-time students. I seconded that motion and at the outset paid tribute to the Minister for the many positive things she has achieved since her appointment as Minister for Education. The fact that from time to time we disagree with the Minister on aspects of education policy does not mean we do not recognise and give due credit to her for all the good work she is doing.

I have been a Member of this House for over 14 years and during that period there have been several Ministers for Education. The education service has benefited greatly from the vision and enlightened approach of Ministers from all sides of the political divide. That does not mean we agreed with everything they did or endeavoured to do or that it was right because they certainly were not all infallible. I have contributed to almost every education debate in this House in the past 14 years and have always made a point of acknowledging the positive things the Minister of the day had achieved or was pursuing.

Today I welcome the recent publication of the Minister's position paper on proposals for university legislation. I also welcome her decision not to confine its circulation to the universities and the higher education authority but to circulate it widely to all who are interested and concerned about this important topic. In her foreword to the position paper the Minister states that her period of office has been characterised by a commitment to openness, dialogue and consultation. She goes on to say that reforms in our education structures and systems will be most effectively achieved by this approach. I agree with both these points and I hope, in that spirit, the Minister will take on board the genuine concerns being expressed in this House and elsewhere regarding the fundamental changes proposed in the governance of Trinity College.

It is a little unfortunate for the Minister that in a debate such as this we tend to focus on the areas of disagreement rather than on areas of agreement. We tend to overlook the many positive and welcome features of the policy or legislative proposals. In that context, I welcome much of what is being proposed in the area of third level education. Criticism of certain aspects of the Minister's proposals does not imply she is doing nothing right.

There are only two major issues across the education spectrum where I disagree with the Minister. The first, which is a matter for another day, is her proposal to establish regional education boards. The other is the issue with which we are concerned today, namely, the proposals that will put at risk the traditional and historical autonomy and independence of Trinity College. This is a classic example of a situation where heed should be taken of the basic principle that if it is not broken, do not fix it. Trinity College has flourished under its present system of governance for over 400 years. It is recognised and acknowledged internationally as an outstanding centre of learning and research. All over the world its graduates are held in the highest esteem.

The arguments advanced in support of change are not convincing. The sort of change being proposed would interfere with the college's distinctive educational traditions and ethos and that would be a tragedy. The argument that, because Trinity College is in receipt of public funding its self-governing status should be ended, does not stand up. The position is that Trinity College, like every other third level institution, receives some of its State funding through the Higher Education Authority, and this is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the UK, for example, Oxford and Cambridge Universities, which are publicly funded in the same way as other British universities, remain wholly self governing.

The self governing status of Trinity College underlines, and is a symbol of, the independence and the autonomy that the college has enjoyed since its establishment. The ending of this self governing status would diminish its international standing, and would damage its image as one of Europe's leading ancient independent universities. It would cause serious internal upheaval. It would, in short, be a huge price to exact in the interests of achieving bureaucratic uniformity. The benefits of diversity among the State's educational institutions should be recognised, as should the futility of change, which would benefit neither the public nor the Irish education system.

The continuation of self governance for Trinity College, and the responsibility of the State to ensure that there is full accountability for the use of public funds, are not mutually exclusive. Of course there is an onus on the State with regard to accountability for the spending of public money. This accountability can be achieved through the application to Trinity College of all the procedures which apply, or will apply to the rest of the university sector. As regards measures and procedures relating to quality improvement and quality assurance, the same approach would seem to be logical.

Whatever system with regard to these matters is devised and agreed for the university sector as a whole, should apply to Trinity College. This should also be the case with regard to the budgetary procedures and controls in relation to the use of public funds. In addition, whatever is agreed for the university sector as a whole should also apply to Trinity College.

This accountability and transparency can be achieved without interfering with the traditional autonomy and independence which must be retained if the unique position of Trinity College on the educational landscape is not to be diluted. I support the proposition that there should be no interference with the charter and self governing status of Trinity College.

Mr. Manning

I compliment the last speaker and those before him for bringing back to the debate a level of calm and sanity, because the first two contributions this morning were both emotional and alarmist. The Senators involved used language that was, in some ways, offensive, attributing to the Minister and the Government motives to which I do not subscribe. This debate on the future of university education is not well served by people taking up positions which, from the outset, undermine the motives of the Minister and those who are trying to bring about certain changes. Very little positive is served by these contributions. I will return to them later.

I support what the Minister is attempting to do. She is one of the best Minister for Education of modern times. Her record of reform to date is impressive. I have no doubt that her motivation is based upon a desire to get for this country the most responsive, effective, participative and, in terms of excellence, the highest standard of university education possible, and upon which the future of the country, to a great extent, depends. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister is driven by any ideological concerns. Her concern is to make our universities as effective, responsive and as excellent as possible.

I speak this morning as a university person. This does not mean I know more, or am better qualified than anybody else. However, I have spent all my working life in University College Dublin. I am very proud to be a member of the college staff and am the longest serving member of its governing body, so I know something about universities. I love and respect my university, but I have no illusions about universities or about academics. We are as imperfect, unpredictable and diverse as the next body of people. We belong to large, cumbersome institutions, which, in many cases, have grown up in ad hoc ways, where there are many outdated procedures and ways of doing things, and where the structures have not been able to accommodate the rate or the pace of change.

This is not something which protects the universities; it is something which causes enormous frustration to people within the universities who are trying to change and move ahead but find themselves frustrated by procedures that are archaic or no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended. I find it extraordinary and ironic that some of the people who are loudest in their attacks on the Minister, and loudest in the vehement protestations that there must be no change in the universities are the same people who, on a weekly basis, excoriate every other section of society, especially those in the State sector, for their refusal to face up to change. We have a very bad case of "not in my back yard" in all of this. Those that shout loudest are not doing themselves or their cause any great favours.

Why are we talking about reform here today? One of the reasons which nobody has mentioned is that two of our most important universities have asked for reforming legislation. The University of Limerick and Dublin City University have both said that their governing body structures hinder them and do not allow them develop as they should. I know they are very happy with the general thrust of what the Minister is doing.

In University College Dublin, under the presidency of Dr. Paddy Masterson, we set up a committee, chaired by Dr. Paddy Hillery, to look at every aspect of the structures of the university. I know that Senator Lee is going to say this, and I do not wish to pre-empt him, but part of the problem with the Minister's proposals is that they seem to come from a starting position that universities have not hitherto been interested and involved in reforming themselves. I did not mean to steal this point, but the university to which I belong has, and I know others have, been looking very hard at their own structures, seeing how they can best fulfil their duties in the modern world and how they can best do their core business of teaching and research. Everything else should take second place to doing our core business. We have come up with many ones, including ones for the restructuring of the governing body, which are little different to what the Minister is now proposing. There is a sense, therefore, in which the universities want to reform themselves.

Universities should lead change; they should not be resisting it, standing out as bastions against any kind of change in the modern world. We are part of the wider society. We have responsibilities which we are proud and happy to meet in fulfilling our functions. However, we have a job to be part of the leadership function in any modern society. The truth is that most university people want to do this and want to get rid of structures which inhibit them in this regard.

We are talking about a discussion document. It is not Armageddon. The Minister and I agree with the Taoiseach's advise to Senator Ross this morning that the proposals are not written in stone. It is a discussion document. We are part of the consultative process, where the Minister is listening to what we are saying.

However, we should bear in mind that the universities want to be freed to do their job much better. We are part of the wider community. One Senator appeared to think unconsciously that university Senators should have a bigger input into this debate than other Senators. However, nobody owns the universities. The State does not own them. Those of us who hold positions in them are trustees for those who brought them to the present position, for those who are there now and for those who will come after us. That is our role, but we do not have any ownership or propriety of universities.

We must be judged on what we think is best. We must offer our advice to the wider community, which foots the bill for the work done in the universities. If one talks to university people quietly, including those that are the best teachers and the best researchers, one will probably find that they welcome change, not necessarily these changes, but changes which allow them do their own job better. The changes proposed are going in this direction.

I wish to hone in on two or three facts. There has been a great deal of offensive talk this morning about political hacks. There are four ministerial nominees on the governing body of University College Dublin — the president of the students' union, a member of administration who was elected by the administration staff who are totally disenfranchised and a member of the junior staff who was elected by the junior staff. The fourth nominee is Senator Tom Fitzgerald who is an excellent member of the governing body. He certainly is not a political hack and he brings a great deal of expertise and common sense to bear on the workings of University College, Dublin. That is the track record.

I have never in my 20 years on the governing body of UCD seen an issue become a party political issue. I have never seen a Minister of any party seek to direct the nominees to vote or behave in a particular way; it has never happened. I am offended by this talk of political hacks and county councillors. People who have run the hazard of being in public life are in daily communication with the people they represent and have a real contribution to make.

This brings me to a further point. For the life of me I cannot understand the fear of outside representation on governing bodies. I was the first director of development at UCD. My job was to go out and raise money for the university. In the course of that work I talked to people across the community. We brought onto various bodies in UCD some of the top people in Ireland who were prepared to give their time and expertise free to the university. It was enormously beneficial to us. People of the calibre of Jim Culliton, Gerry Scanlan, Dr. Michael Somers of the National Treasury Management Agency, people from the horse racing industry, trade unionists and others have come voluntarily to help us. We use them on every committee we can. Academics by their nature can be inward looking. They tend to be very focused in their particular area of research and inquiry and can be quite divorced from the wider world. However, the interaction of outside people is beneficial. Trinity College, Dublin, has nothing to fear from having outsiders on its governing body. It is an enriching experience and a great help to universities to have that type of expertise made freely available to them.

Senator Ross and others spoke about the ideology. The Minister's proposals give enormous flexibility; they allow the governing bodies of each of the universities to decide, by and large, on the emphasis they want to give to the mix of people they want on their governing bodies. Senator Ormonde asked who would nominate these people. If it is a student body the students will elect them and if it is junior staff, they will elect the people. The ministerial nominees, who will be small in number, will be nominated by the Minister. What are we afraid of in all this? The proposals are modest. They are aimed at enfranchising certain areas which are scandalously disfranchised at present.

People say there is no consultation. This Minister has consulted widely and in a fruitful way with the heads of the universities. Every governing body will be asked to discuss this document. We are discussing it today. There is a wider range of debate and I think the Senator for his motion as it gives us the opportunity to have this discussion which is part of the consultative process. However, I deprecate the approach of certain Senators who have come to speak here as if this is the final word and as if there is nothing good in the Minister's proposals. There is a great deal that is good and by the time this debate is over and the process is finished our universities will be in a stronger and better position.

Dr. Henry

I am glad, as the Leader said, that a sense of calm has returned to the debate. There is probably no body to which the independence of the universities is more important than the Government. This country is extraordinarily short of independent academic institutions or think tanks. Anybody who watches committee debates will notice how often the Government and the various committees have to call members of university departments before the committees to get expert advice. It would be quite ridiculous for the Government to try to impose control on departments and introduce sycophancy there when there is absolutely no hope of it getting independent advice elsewhere so it is in the Government's interest more than anybody else's to maintain the independence of the universities. It has been pointed out several times that this is a position paper on university legislation and, as far as I can see, the universities in the past have been well able to rise to the challenge of any reforms which may have been suggested.

I will not go through the concerns other Senators mentioned, although some of them reflect my own, for example, the idea of an inspector coming in and the possibility of the governing body being dismissed by the Minister. I will try to focus on concerns that have not already been brought up. For instance, what will happen with regard to the Dublin Institute of Technology which, at present, can only award diplomas and certificates; the degrees are awarded by Dublin University. I am aware that the colleges are seeking degree conferring status and I think the Minister has just started an audit of the colleges which it is hoped will be completed within the first six months of next year. If that is done, will the Minister take into account the situation regarding the Dublin Institute of Technology although I realise it would take about ten years even if it was decided to give the institute university status?

Much of the public discussion on the proposals has been about the governing bodies. While alarming despondency has been expressed by some of the fellows of Trinity College, it is not being expressed by all. In fact, terrible rumblings about what the academic mind could do to those of the apparently nonacademic mind who would be on the board, especially if we had chosen the person ourselves, made me fear more for the unfortunate person who would be put on the board rather than what they could do there.

Another area I wish to question is the proposal from the Minister that somebody from the education board would be nominated. We have plenty of graduates there so will we be allowed to choose that person? The governing bodies are extraordinarily important in the changes the Minister is proposing. However, I believe the funding side must be looked at carefully because if one has no money one has no hope. The Higher Education Authority features very heavily in many of the paragraphs, as Senator Ormonde also pointed out. While I agree that the Minister is right to insist on transparency regarding the financing of universities, the Higher Education Authority is being given a considerable amount of power.

In paragraph 54, for example, the Minister discusses the grading of staff. How detailed will this grading have to be? Universities vary about whether they have lecturers who are class 1, 2 or 3 and so forth. Will we all have to have the same uniformity? Why should the Higher Education Authority be involved in assessing what staffing is necessary in various departments? Why do we need guidelines? Variations between departments are enormous depending on what discipline they are and what profession is being pursued. Even the personalities within departments may make necessary changes from time to time. Some people, for example, may be heavily involved in teaching and give little time to research but then one might find others who are involved, particularly with research, and junior staff have to be brought in to back up the important research work. I am not happy about this proposal. Why should the universities not be in a position to decide individually regarding this?

Another intrusion I dislike is in paragraph 42 where the approval of the Higher Education Authority must be sought annually by the governing body. What happens if the Higher Education Authority does not approve? Academic freedom does not mean just being able to stand up and say what one thinks; it means having the funds to do what one wishes. If the Higher Education Authority decides it does not approve of the way one is spending money, what does one do then? I would prefer if the Minister would use words like "consult" in the legislation. The university has a good idea itself of what areas need to be concentrated on in various departments.

It is important to remember as well that they are not incestuous institutions. Staff are drawn into each university on a national and international basis and, to use Senator Kelly's phrase, there is cross fertilization between us.

The ivory tower myth has gone on too long. We are not totally isolated and we know what is happening in other universities, not only in Ireland but throughout the world.

Section 54 of the position paper should be removed. This states that in setting guidelines the objectives would be to ensure that a university would be aware of the views of the Higher Education Authority on best practice nationally and internationally in relation to the staffing of universities. I think this paragraph goes over the top.

Section 57, which deals with the payment of staff, also causes me concern. A university would have to pay well over the odds to pay somebody to accept an ad hominem or an ad femina professorship or lectureship. However, rates which universities should pay have been set down. Will the Minister be in a position to refuse to allow a university to employ such a person even though it may have raised the funds itself because it has decided the rate of pay for a professor? Why should the Higher Education Authority be involved in deciding rates of pay for professors? Such pay must vary between university departments. More must be paid to an engineer than to a classicist or a historian.

Professor Lee

There is no justice in the world.

Dr. Henry

While they are all of equal value to a university, the outside world places far more value on the engineer than on the others. Universities have to pay a great deal to get good people to take such jobs.

Professor Lee

Universities have to pay historians

Dr. Henry

I am not enthusiastic about the section in the position paper on this issue. I do not like the idea of the proposed inspector. Like Senator Sherlock, I am not enthusiastic about a league performance table. It would be insulting to universities because they are all doing their utmost and it would take up a great deal of time for little gain.

I support the Minister's efforts to achieve a better gender balance. This is not just because I like to see more women on boards, although the Commission on the Status of Women, of which Senator Honan was a member, strongly recommended that all bodies, including educational ones, should have a better representation of women. I work in a maternity hospital, the entire board of which consisted of 40 men for most of its 250 year history. It was considered that improvements were made when women were appointed to the board over the last 15 years. Some men now refuse to become members and say that women of child bearing age should be appointed.

Charters of universities needed to be changed previously. This was necessary to enable women to enter universities. This required a great deal of outside pressure. I regret that Trinity was the last university in these islands to admit women to lectures; this was in 1904. The President, the leader of the Progressive Democrats and its spokesperson on law in the Dáil, the leader of the Labour Party in this House and its spokesperson on law here, and myself are graduates of Trinity. None of us could have gone there if this change had not occurred.

Because people within universities are to be appointed to governing bodies, I hope more women will be elected. Until 1968 it was virtually impossible for women to be members of the governing body of Trinity. Prior to that women could not be professors and only two women had been elected from among the non-fellow professors. Over the 403 year history of the university, there have only been six women on the governing body. It is a pity to exclude 50 per cent of the brain power of the university.

Tradition is wonderful and I am a great believer in it. JK Galbraith said that social change is brought about by the slow conversion of the human heart. As a physician I know that sometimes the heart needs a pacemaker. This debate may help provide a pacemaker for this issue.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

I am grateful for the opportunity to come before the House to engage in this debate and to listen to the many contributions on the important topic of proposed legislation for universities.

As promised in the White Paper, Charting Our Education Future, this week I published a position paper outlining my thinking and approach to future university legislation. I am confident this provides a solid foundation of fact on which to base reasoned debate on this topic before legislation is introduced in both House of the Oireachtas. Publication of such a position paper is a process that no previous Minister has ever engaged in prior to the introduction of specific legislation.

I trust that the position paper will reassure Senators and the wider public that my intentions bear little relation to some extreme claims which have been given currency in recent times from a variety of quarters. I am confident that Senators will express support for my approach to date to this vitally important question, which I believe is reasoned and rational.

The present legislation which relates to our seven universities dates from a far different age. The National University of Ireland legislation dates from 1908. The charter of Trinity College, Dublin, dates from 1592 and its governance structures largely from 1911. Even the most recent legislation governing Dublin City University and the University of Limerick which dates form 1989 is, according to the university authorities themselves, in need of amendment and was seen at the time as an interim measure only.

The White Paper promised new legislation in three main areas in relation to the universities: governing bodies, the National University of Ireland and accountability and transparency.

There is a commitment to a broadening of the composition of governing bodies of universities in order to provide wider representation from society and the economy. In addition, academic staff, non-academic staff and students would have statutory representation on all governing bodies, coupled with appropriate provisions to ensure gender balance.

How will this be implemented? The universities themselves will decide how to incorporate these broad principles in their governing bodies. A commission of each university, consisting of its president or provost, another senior officer of the university, the Chairman of the Higher Education Authority and, in the case of the NUI colleges, the Chancellor of the NUI, will decide the structure of the governing body within the broad framework set out in Appendix 1 of the position paper.

The diversity of the universities is further recognised by provision for inclusion of the fellows in the case of Trinity College, nominees of fund raising bodies in the case of the University of Limerick and Dublin City University and local public representatives in the case of the NUI colleges. The university commission will decide on the precise numbers within an agreed framework.

With regard to outside nominees, the university itself would decide which bodies would be represented and the precise number of representatives and the president or provost would choose the individuals. The Minister would be required to consult with the president or provost of a university before appointing any ministerial nominee. When these members are appointed, they will automatically constitute the governing body rather than depending for their appointment on the Government or the Minister. The composition of future governing bodies will be determined within the framework of the legislation by the outgoing governing body of the university.

I believe these proposals strengthen the autonomy, academic freedom and ethos of our seven universities. These proposals have been particularly influenced by the valuable advice which I have received from the heads of the universities in their personal capacities.

The White Paper also contained a commitment that the legislation governing the National University of Ireland would be amended on the basis of proposals put forward by the Senate of the National University. The existing constituent colleges at Dublin, Cork and Galway, as well as the recognised college at Maynooth, would become constituent universities of the National University of Ireland. The constituent universities would have greater freedom in matters such as staff appointments, establishment of programmes, marking standards and examinations. The National University would continue to appoint external examiners and award qualifications. The proposals also include giving statutory recognition to St. Patrick's College, Maynooth as a constituent university of the National University of Ireland. These proposals do not weaken the autonomy of the colleges of the National University of Ireland. Instead, they strengthen its autonomy at the specific request of the Senate of the National University and of the colleges.

The third main area in university legislation which is signalled in the White Paper deals with provisions in relation to accountability and transparency. This is an area where I have sought to strike a delicate and sensitive balance between the requirements of public policy and accountability on the one hand, and the proper autonomy of the institutions on the other.

I would like to summarise a number of important considerations. As regards the disbursement of public funds, the Higher Education Authority will allocate an overall budget limit to each institution on the basis of proposals put forward by it. The universities will be statutorily required to conduct their operations within this overall budget limit. I do not believe that there is any issue or difference of principle with the universities on this matter. The Higher Education Authority budget limit to a university would not extend to the detail of the universities' spending plans. However, the position paper proposes that the Higher Education Authority in deciding the overall budget limit for the universities would issue broad guidelines to the universities as to the appropriate distribution of funds. These guidelines will be determined in consultation with the universities. The universities will be required to have regard to these guidelines. However, the guidelines are not mandatory.

In the event of the universities departing in a significant way from the guidelines, I have provided for a mechanism by which the universities and the Higher Education Authority may enter into dialogue. If there is failure to reach agreement on an appropriate distribution of funds, there is the possibility of a published report, which would include a full statement of the universities' views, by the Higher Education Authority on the matter. This is transparency. It allows for a public awareness of this matter if, in the view of the Higher Education Authority, the matter is of sufficient importance to merit the preparation and publication of a report.

Let us take, for example, the division of a university budget between pay and non-pay elements. Suppose that the Higher Education Authority advised a university to spend 70 per cent of its funding on pay. Suppose the university wanted to spend 75 per cent of its funding on pay and further suppose that the Higher Education Authority and the university, after discussions, failed to agree. What happens then? The Higher Education Authority may formally present its case to the university. The university may formally respond. The Higher Education Authority may decide to notify the Minister who would publish the report setting out the Higher Education Authority arguments and a statement of the university's position. However, the university has the freedom to spend the 75 per cent of its budget on pay as it wishes.

This is how autonomy, transparency and accountability would be balanced. Autonomy is safeguarded because the university has the final say in how the money is spent. Transparency is safeguarded because the reasons for the Higher Education Authority and the university positions can be set out in the report. Accountability is safeguarded since the university through the report will provide the reasons for its decision.

An important feature of the budget relates to the numbers of staff employed by each institution and staffing structures in the universities. The universities would decide on their staffing structures, with due regard to the impact of their decisions on their budgets within which they are required to operate. The Higher Education Authority would have an enabling power to issue guidelines in relation to staffing within the universities. The universities would have to have regard to such guidelines. In the event of a substantive disagreement between the Higher Education Authority and a university on their staffing structures and numbers, the authority may prepare and present a report to the Minister which would also be required to reflect the university's view.

How does this change the current position? It recognises that external controls which require advance approval for detailed decisions are not appropriate because of the importance of autonomy for the universities. It recognises that it is doubtful if such controls, given the complex range of activities engaged in by universities, would produce effective or desirable outcomes. It, therefore, provides a balance between autonomy, transparency and accountability.

The Government has the right and the duty to determine the allocation of public resources to the universities and to be satisfied that public funds are used appropriately and effectively. The position paper contains proposals which balance academic freedom and institutional autonomy with meaningful and effective accountability and transparency. This applies only to public funds. Concern has been expressed that the legislation now being considered will introduce new and intrusive powers for the Higher Education Authority or the Minister in respect of private income of the universities. There is no basis for this concern. At present, universities in their accounts and budgets provide information relating to income from trusts or other private sources. This is done in accordance with normal accounting practice in the universities. The proposed legislation will have no impact on these arrangements and there is no proposal to enable the Higher Education Authority or the Minister to seek further detailed information, such as the identity of donors.

There are no surprises in this position paper. It follows a lengthy and detailed consultative process. This process was marked by significant progress and evident goodwill from the heads of the universities in their personal capacities. That is why it is a mistake to represent this process as one of conflict. The university communities, the Members of this House and myself share a common objective — to provide the best possible legislative framework which will support our diverse universities in their missions in the world today.

The position paper represents my current thinking. I hope it is useful to Members of this House. I hope it makes it evident that neither the Government nor myself have any intention of interfering with or weakening the autonomy of our universities. On the contrary, it is evident that the position paper proposals strengthen and enhance this autonomy.

Discussion on this topic stretches back as far as the 1992 Green Paper on Education which was published by the then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. It stated:

The developing role of the universities raises the question of rationalising the composition and functions of governing bodies. It is proposed to bring forward legislation, in consultation with the Higher Education Authority and the universities, that would be more compatible with the role, function and operation of universities in modern society.

The debate has advanced. It has led to this position paper. This paper and the subsequent debate arising from it will form a basis for legislation which I will bring to Government.

I ask Seanad Éireann to welcome my intention to bring forward legislative proposals for universities. The universities have extended a welcome to this intention and I am confident this House will support the universities as they seek a secure legislative provision for the future.

Mr. Manning

There are slightly more Senators who want to speak than there is time available. If the House agrees, Senators can reduce their contributions to eight minutes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this important legislation for a number of reasons. There is nothing inconsistent here with what the previous Government said on this issue. However, my concern stems from the fact that I perceived Trinity College as being an all-Ireland college, even in difficult times. It is important the Minister gets it right on this occasion. The majority of the northern population sending students to Dublin send its students to Trinity College. Any reshuffle of the management structure of Trinity College would be a matter of concern for them.

I accused the Minister of focusing more on Dublin city than on rural Ireland. However, there seems to be even less concern for our minority population, whether it be in primary, secondary or third level. Therefore, it is important that this legislation is not only correct but that it is seen to be so and is accepted by people in the college.

The twin track approach seems to be the new cliché. However, there is currently an inconsistency in the Government. Every structure seems to be filled with Government hacks and supporters from the bottom up. Nearly 70 of these organisations have been restructured and the Government is appointing more people than is necessary. If that practice is to be continued in Trinity College, the Minister has failed to achieve the necessary national support. We all want to be proud of our universities. Trinity College has an important role in national development, harmonisation and common understanding between North and South.

I was disappointed that Senator Norris was not enthusiastic about these type of structures. Somebody told me he has been persuaded to support the Government, but I do not want to go into that. The Minister must get it right on this occasion, not for the sake of any Senator but for the nation. The Minister must recognise the sensitivity of people and act accordingly.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am obliged to Senator McGowan for sharing his time with me. The Minister said she intends to strengthen the autonomy and academic freedom of the universities. I support that intention and look forward to its implementation. The Progressive Democrats Senators proposing the motion want this to be guaranteed. The motion says we should reject "any attempt by the Government and the Minister for Education to interfere with the governance and charter of Trinity College, Dublin, or to weaken the autonomy of the Colleges of the National University of Ireland." From what the Minister said this morning, one would have to take her promise on trust.

I do not see any evidence that it is the Minister's intention to interfere with the governance and charter of Trinity College or to weaken the autonomy of the colleges of the National University of Ireland. The Minister has emphatically stated that she proposes to enhance the autonomy of the colleges. Far from weakening their governance and charter, the thrust of what she said — I also read her position paper — suggests those fears, which may be genuine, are not the reality.

Trinity College was established in 1592. In such a period of time, there is an ongoing need to readjust, change structures, introduce new elements of management or a new relationship that will ensure our universities will be more dynamically involved in the development of this country and be more responsive to the needs of the young people coming through their portals.

I was privileged to be a university student in the 1950s because I had a scholarship, which was exceptional in those days. The numbers attending universities have increased five fold since then. In tribute to our universities, they have proved to be more responsive to the needs and potential, more involved with development and better supported by business in our society, than when I was a student in a privileged enclave in University College Dublin. I would like to encourage the continuation of that.

As a junior Minister for Education, which was my first responsibility in Government, we wanted to ensure that the new institutes — I am glad at the way the University of Limerick has evolved — were sensitive to the potential and needs of the community, in particular young people, and would be dynamically involved in the future of the economy. They have proved to be such which was not done by interfering with their autonomy or management.

If I thought for a moment that the Department of Education, the Minister or those who advise her were attempting to interfere with the autonomy, management and structures of any university, I would fiercely resist it. However, I have been reasonably encouraged by what the Minister said. I hope the fears expressed in the motion will not be realised.

There is an anomaly in respect of Trinity College which the Government should look at as soon as possible. A small number of graduates have a discriminatory role in electing Members to the Seanad. There is no justification for that and I will vigorously support the Minister when she brings legislation before us to amend the Constitution so there will be no discrimination at any level as regards those who go through the portals of universities. Limerick University, Dublin City University and Maynooth, which I understand positively supports the Minister's approach, will stand alongside the other universities.

Ms Honan

The Minister's proposals for governance of the universities represent an unwarranted extension of State control into third level education. Her plans, if implemented, will leave third level institutions open to an increasing degree of political interference. Our universities are not semi-State companies and plans to politicise them must now be halted before the governing body of every college is subjected to the same games of political musical chairs which we recently witnessed in CIE.

The Minister seems determined to impose centralised State control over all aspects of education. She already has plans for regional educational boards which would introduce another layer of unwanted bureaucracy to the administration of our educational affairs. If the Minister believes that our existing vocational education committees are not functioning effectively and efficiently, surely she should change them rather than create a new collection of quangos.

The Minister's proposals for the universities represent the extension of this principle of State centralism to the third level sector. We have already seen an increasing degree of intrusion by the State into several areas of Irish life. County enterprise partnership boards, for example, are supposed to be responsible for industrial promotion initiatives at local level. Yet the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, a member of central Government, has the right to appoint some 500 directors to these bodies. This ideological agenda must be resisted, otherwise virtually every walk of life will be dominated by political appointments by central Government.

Our universities must be autonomous institutions and free from political interference. It is not acceptable that politicians should have the power to nominate individuals to the governing bodies. In this respect, the Minister's plans represent another mechanism to extend the already wide powers of patronage enjoyed by members of the Government.

We are all in favour of greater accountability in the management of our universities which absorb huge amounts of public money each year and play a vital role in our cultural and economic life. However, I do not believe appointing Government placed men or women to university boards will do anything to improve accountability — to which the taxpayer is certainly entitled — which would best be served by strengthening the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the administration of the universities.

As other speakers said, the nomination of government appointees to State boards did little to protect the interests of taxpayers in many high profile cases of semi-State financial skulduggery in recent years. Equally, in the case of universities, putting State appointees on governing bodies is not an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that the taxpayer is getting value for money.

As far as the National University of Ireland is concerned, I welcome the plans to give each of the constituent colleges independent status. The National University of Ireland has been in existence for 150 years and this move is long overdue. If they are to become independent, they must be fully independent. The constituent colleges of the NUI, DCU, the University of Limerick and Maynooth should become autonomous bodies outside State control.

Trinity College has shown us what can be achieved by an independent university. It is the only fully autonomous university in this country and has a developed an international reputation in several fields of academic endeavour. Trinity College should be the model for university governance. Instead of going further down the road of setting up quangos, we should seek to establish vibrant autonomous institutions capable of fostering a spirit of academic independence.

The Minister's plans for Trinity College are on the wrong track. It has been an autonomous institution since 1592 and that autonomy has survived in the intervening four centuries under a number of régimes, English and Irish. Are we now to accept that this long tradition of independence will be brought to an inglorious end by the bureaucratic centralism of the Labour Party? Trinity College has a highly successful track record and a distinguished international reputation. As Senator Mullooly said, there is an old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Trinity College is not broken or in need of political fixing.

I am not aware that Trinity College's present structures have been examined or reviewed at the Minister's behest and found wanting in some way. If no fault has been found with the college's existing administrative arrangements, then why is the Minister so determined to change them? Does she not have more pressing problems on her plate? Is she not aware of the urgent need to improve provision at primary level, for instance? The Minister should clarify the legal justification for her proposals to change the Charter of Trinity College which predates the foundation of this State by more than 300 years. She cannot take for granted her right to interfere with it.

This Government has already fallen foul of the courts in relation to funding the "Yes" campaign in the divorce referendum. It should be careful in this instance to do its legal homework properly before taking any precipitate action as regards Trinity College. It is essential that any proposals should seek to ensure the appropriate balance between institutional autonomy and public accountability. I believe the Minister's plans do not strike the right balance and will have the effect of seriously eroding the independence of our universities.

Changes in society have been put forward as a reason for these proposed changes. If Trinity College was not responsive to the needs of society, it would not have survived for over 400 years. On the basis of Senator Ross's contribution, it seems the Taoiseach may already be undermining the Minister's position in apparently agreeing to amend her amended proposals.

Mr. Manning

That is totally untrue.

Ms Honan

It was stated by the Senator.

Mr. Manning

It was not stated. Senator Honan should not be mischievous.

Ms Honan

The Minister has already engaged in a significant watering down of her original proposals in response to widespread opposition which they provoked. I advise the Minister to continue the process of consultation and to listen to the concerns of those involved in the administration of our universities. Her proposals in their present form are still unacceptable and must be opposed.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the fact that this motion was put down by the Progressive Democrats on 1 November and brought about a position paper from the Minister on her thinking on 27 November. I congratulate the Minister because she has drawn attention to the fact that it is a process which no previous Minister has engaged in prior to the introduction of legislation. It is a great idea and a marvellous opportunity for us to debate something before the legislation is put in place. I am delighted the Minister presented this paper and that the House has an opportunity to debate it. It will be most useful and I congratulate her.

University education is a vast subject. I intend to make only three points as time is limited. The debate highlights the totally unsatisfactory nature of the current university representation in the Seanad. Senator O'Kennedy raised this point earlier. We are discussing the future of all the universities but some Members are directly elected by the graduates of only some of the institutions. I do not mean all the universities should be represented in the Seanad. They all deserve lobbyists in the Legislature and it is rare we have occasion to raise a matter of direct concern to the universities.

However, the university Senators play a most useful role across the entire spectrum of legislation on a weekly basis. As many of us have consistently maintained, it makes a nonsense of the entire matter if the graduates of some universities are represented and others are excluded. This anomaly cannot be allowed to continue particularly since it could be easily changed by legislation. Senator O'Kennedy was not exactly correct when he said he thought a constitutional amendment was necessary. This has already taken place. A constitutional amendment is not required and the position can be changed by a simple short Bill. I urge the Minister to commit herself to champion such a Bill so that the graduates of the University of Limerick and Dublin City University may be enfranchised. This should have been the case in 1989 when they received their charters.

There is a critical need to search for balance between autonomy for the universities and accountability to the public purse. The Minister's position paper, starting at section 50 and continuing for a number of points, covers this area. If accountability is sacrificed in the interest of autonomy, the taxpayer is short changed. If autonomy is sacrificed in the interest of accountability, the essence of what a university involves will quickly go out the window. Nowadays, when the universities receive almost £0.5 billion from the public purse each year, nobody can sensibly argue there should not be accountability. The Minister's proposals, in their latest form, do not threaten the autonomy of the universities. Indeed, the autonomy of the new universities will be greatly enhanced. The proposals are modest and are the result of careful consultation with the heads of the universities. I understand the consultation process is ongoing.

I wish to highlight a significant fact. In practice, the amount of State control of universities will not be determined by how many ministerial appointees sit on a governing body but by how much hands on control of the civil servants they exert in the day to day operation of those bodies. In this respect, the universities have much in common with semi-State bodies; this comparison was made earlier. The State has a crucial role at funding and strategic levels but it should leave the day to day management to the board. Universities should be fully answerable to the public for what they set out to achieve and the extent of their success in achieving their targets. Budget control in the global sense is properly a State function. The Minister described this aspect well earlier.

Representation of the State at board level is appropriate. Proper financial auditing and quality control systems are suitable means for the State to use in its overseeing role. However, these are not hands on controls, rather controls at arm's length. This is as it should be, whether we are discussing a university or a semi-State body. When the State becomes involved in the micro managing business, it usually does a bad job. We should follow that principle in education as we do elsewhere.

There is a need to look at universities from the perspective of the future and not the past. Much of the debate in recent months may have given the public the impression that universities are mainly in the business of preserving some ancient and unchangeable tradition of learning. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The challenge now facing the universities is how best to serve the needs of a world that is changing radically. It has already radically changed and will change even more in the years immediately ahead.

The skills and competencies universities need are changing. The ways in which they teach are being transformed by technology. The direct role university research can play in the economy is becoming more important daily and if we are to maintain the type of jobs which will exist in the future, the whole area of research will be even more important than in the past. When we legislate for universities we are really legislating for the future and not for today. We must ensure the legislation we put in place is flexible enough for the massive changes which are taking place in education at this stage. We must be prepared to revisit the legislation as often as necessary.

In the dynamic environment of education today there is no place for carving things in stone. I was delighted Senator Ross was in a position to confirm, from his conversation with the Taoiseach today, that this legislation is not yet carved in stone. The legislation which will be put in place in the coming months — the Minister intends to achieve a tight deadline in that regard — will need to be repeatedly revisited. I am happy to support the Minister's steps in the form in which she placed them. I am also happy to support the House's opportunity to influence the Minister on this matter. She will listen to the views because they are made in an ideal form for that type of presentation. I am even more content that we received the position paper before the legislation was put in place.

Professor Lee

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh maitheas as ár ndíospóireacht inniú.

Before turning to the substance of the debate, I wish to echo Senator O'Kennedy's and Senator Quinn's aspiration that the graduates of the other universities will be represented in the Seanad soon. If that is done, it will make a mockery of the proposals to significantly reduce the role of graduates on the governing bodies since, according to the phraseology of the document, they will be appointed rather than elected. I hope that is only a slip of nomenclature and is not intended to change the manner in which graduates join governing bodies at present. In my experience, they play a most valuable role. I am not a member of a governing body on a graduate panel so I can speak objectively in that regard.

The document circulated by the Minister is curate's egg. On a first reading, I jotted down 57 amendments I would make immediately if it were a piece of legislation. There are some good points in it and others with which I personally disagree or at least regard as debatable. The Minister has four objectives: equality, quality, transparency and accountability. The Minister's proposals with regard to equality appear well judged and I have no problem with them. However, problems arise when equality is in a position to damage quality, as can happen from time to time. This may arise with regard to a couple of the proposals, but some of the equality proposals seem to reinforce quality. On balance, I do not have any significant problem in that regard.

I welcome the moves in terms of gender balance. I have tried to promote this in my institution but without the success at governing body level for which one would wish. I do not have a major philosophical or practical problem with regard to this aspect. However, quality is a different matter. The document contains a lacuna because the implication throughout is that we must restructure governing bodies in order to ensure quality. There is a perfunctory reference to the effective or successful performance of universities as they stand but there are no criteria as to what constitutes that point.

The tone used throughout implies that quality is not being achieved at present. Where is this the case? I do not pose that question in an adversarial manner because I believe in debate, discussion, criticism and exchange. I have not just austere but ruthless criteria for quality in Irish universities. As far as the areas with which I am familiar are concerned, we are highly competitive and I have taught in nine universities in five countries. I wish to know where quality can be obviously improved. Which graduates are failing to meet decent international standards or the top 10 per cent of those standards in terms of our doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and teachers who are graduates of arts and science faculties? Where are we falling down significantly and conspicuously at present so that we will know where we can improve?

It has been argued that Irish business has not performed as effectively as it should because of some defects in university education. If Irish business has failed to perform as it should the fault must be sought a lot closer to home in terms of business and not primarily in terms of universities. Universities should, of course, respond to coherent demands for new courses. I am a critic of universities internally but I would argue that university products, that is to say our graduates, have been among the most competitive products of Irish society, at home or abroad, since the foundation of the State. If our goods were nearly as competitive as our graduates in international markets we would not have had many of the economic problems we have had and still have in the indigenous sector. That is not to say we cannot improve.

I remind the Minister that we take in the youngest undergraduates and have, in many respects, the shortest degree programmes and we are expected to produce graduates at the age of 20 or 21 to compete with 24 and 25 year old French and German graduates. It is amazing that to a remarkable extent we succeed. I do not know how we do it. I will not say it is because of us — indeed, it may be despite us — but the universities are highly competitive by the criteria normally employed for international competitiveness. I do not believe that by and large many of the proposals in detail here will improve that.

The proposals for governing bodies for UL, DCU and Maynooth are a big improvement. Trinity College is a special case and its case has been argued passionately and eloquently in the House. I am prepared to see the Trinity viewpoint if it is presented in a manner which to me as an academic is more academically oriented and focused. I believe in the special status of Trinity; even in changed circumstances it is important in our society where diversity is extremely important.

I know the NUI much better from inside knowledge. I am prepared to take the Minister's motives on trust but there is a lot of fiddling over minor matters which will not make a significant difference to quality. How are these new governing bodies going to improve the quality in the way in which the Minister wants? We have huge problems at undergraduate, teaching, resource and graduate level. We need far more focused attention on our research students and programmes and their place in the university system. There is almost no policy on research at this stage and it is badly needed. There is no way in which these governing bodies will be in any better position to contribute than the present governing bodies.

I will accept the Minister does not mean it but there is language in the document which is quite misleading; I am not bothered that it is offensive. It says that governing bodies would have responsibility for planning. What do they have at present? It says they would be "required to set up procedures for evaluating academic standards". Academic standards are crucial. Do the universities which are supposed to be successful at present not evaluate academic standards now? Is there no effective evaluation? We are the most over examined and have the most elaborate external examining system I know of in any country. Perhaps we should revise procedures but to imply that there are none in place at present is simply wrong.

The proposals says the governing bodies "would have a duty to prepare a statement of policy relating to access to universities, including access by people with disabilities". We are all trying to do that as far as disabilities are concerned. The Minister knows perfectly well that access to universities depends on Government funding. The places depend on the number of places that become available as a result of funding, now more than ever. In that sense governing bodies can make only marginal changes in policy. A lot of what is envisaged in these proposals is either happening already or is not going to happen any better as a result of changes.

The proposals indicate that universities would be obliged to keep accounts and records. We are up to our necks in accounts and records at present. The document says "in a forum prescribed by the HEA" which may be different than that which it is at present — different but not necessarily better. The document proposes that they would submit their accounts annually to the Higher Education Authority and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am told that happens already.

The implications in this document which have been taken up by correspondents and the public are that somehow universities are in dereliction of responsibility at present and have to be pulled by the scruff of the neck by a Minister who finally has the courage to face up to them. That is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. I do not say it is deliberate but it is the implication of this phraseology. It is followed by what I find a dangerous proposal that the Minister, with the agreement of the Government, would be empowered to appoint a person to report on any matter relating to the operation of the university — any matter. At the very least it should refer to stated matters. This provision would apply only where "the Minister is of the opinion that a university has acted improperly". It relates to a case where the Minister is "of the opinion", not even "has good reason for believing", and where a university "has acted" and not "may have acted"; even the word "improperly" is a lose term.

The total university budget from the State comes to about £170 million; Senator Kelly had another figure and I have heard others. In 1993-4 the universities raised nearly £50 million from external research funding — TCD raised £12.3 million; UCC £12.1 million; UCD £8.2 million; UCG £6.8 million; UL £5.4 million; DCU £3.7 million and St. Patrick's Maynooth £1.1 million. I cite that as an example of the activities in various areas but also as a warning. This is not a proxy for performance. We have no effective criteria at present for university performance. It is not a league table because much of that depends on the size of the institution and their faculty distribution. If one has an engineering faculty and a medical faculty one pulls in external funding far more that in arts or straight science faculties, although one may be teaching and researching well in those faculties. When one compares those figures one has to look closely at the mix of faculties.

With regard to transparency and accountability, there is no conflict between autonomy, transparency and accountability. An autonomous institution ought to be accountable and transparent. What is in this document on transparency and accountability is far less than I would regard as proper transparency and accountability. It is almost a clerking procedure. I am sure universities would be more than happy to go a lot further in terms of making information available which allows effective public debate.

The Minister's contribution to the debate has somewhat modified what I was going to say. It was one of the most constructive contributions I have ever heard from a Minister in this House. It gives me great hope that between now and the legislation being presented it will be possible to work on the details here to arrive at a better Bill. In the light of what the Minister said yesterday I recognise a genuine willingness to achieve the best possible reconciliation of the various ideals which we all have in mind.

Mr. Lanigan

I will not detain the House on this matter. I am of an age in which parents decided to send their children to second level education and many people did not or could not aspire to third level education. I was in the happy position that I got offers of scholarships to two universities, one in the US and one here and I did not take up either one. There have been times when I wondered whether the universities or I suffered as a result. I went to work in a bank and decided to take a night course in UCD. I found the athletic courses and other elements of university education were excellent. However, I did not continue my studies beyond the second year.

The proposals for legislation before us are a nonsense. The transfer of power from the autonomy of TCD to the Department of Education is a nonsense. Over the years, there has been an excellence in TCD which has transcended education standards throughout the world. There are people in every country who have been educated under the autonomous system in Trinity College. It would be detrimental to education standards and what Ireland is about if that autonomy was taken away.

The National University of Ireland is equal to Trinity College in terms of excellence.

Mr. O'Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

They are complimentary although they are organised in different ways. For hundreds of years, Trinity College has produced graduates who have excelled in their careers and passed on to the world the knowledge they received there. TCD's autonomy should be maintained because we would not gain anything by bringing it into a broad spectrum such as the NUI or the Department of Education but we would lose a great deal. The legislation suggests that the Provost of TCD would be the governor for the first term and that there might be a change after that with the Provost no longer running TCD. That is a nonsense.

TCD has contributed to those taking degrees through the Dublin Institute of Technology system. My daughter attended the Dublin Institute of Technology and was able to study in TCD for her fourth year and received a B.Sc. in marketing. She then received an MA from TCD. It is important to remember that Trinity College plays a very important part in the Irish education system and is recognised as a place of excellence all over the world. Its autonomy has worked up to now so why try to take that away?

Trinity College is unique and is run by an autonomous group. The students, trade unions, teachers, professors and former professors make an input into that system which I do not think we should take from them. If the Minister has any sense of what education is about, she would not meddle with what is possibly the best university, apart from UCD — Senator Manning is looking at me.

Acting Chairman (Ms Kelly)

What about UCC?

(Interruptions).

Mr. Lanigan

Five of my children attended certain university establishments and I would not say that one was better than the other. However, tampering with the situation in Trinity College would not serve education. Third level education establishments in Ireland are on a par with any in the world. I ask the Minister not to tamper with the excellence of Trinity College.

Mr. O'Toole

I recoil with extraordinary abhorrence from descriptions of education establishments as the best in the world. Regardless of whether it is TCD, UCD or elsewhere, I do not accept that such statements can be anything other than an exaggerated response to emotional feelings at a given time. Trinity College is a perfectly good third level college — to my knowledge, it is as good as the rest of the university sector on this island, which is a very high standard. If the Minister or anybody else sought to interfere with the inner workings of any of the other universities, I hope that the support which TCD has received would be available to them. I support Senator Lanigan in that.

When the story broke a few weeks ago about the dealings between the Minister and Trinity College the way it was reported caused me a great deal of concern, and I have raised those concerns. The debate which followed has been nothing short of extraordinary. I find the views expressed by my colleague, Senator Ross, and the well known journalist and lecturer, Seán Barrett, amazing, incredible and incompatible with anything they have ever said. These people have made demands of other public servants and other groups paid by out of the public purse for years and years. They have written in the most unacceptable tones about people paid by out of the public purse and have demanded accountability, transparency and every other buzzword.

In the main, they were right to make those demands but the difficulty for those of us on the other side was that they always used a good reason for advancing the wrong argument. That reason was accountability and transparency, to which nobody can object. However, Senator Ross and Dr. Barrett totally oppose transparency and accountability in their own institutions. This smacks of the old superiority of an older establishment which is long gone.

The approach to some of the debate this morning has been that if it is not broken it should not be fixed. I have written on my desk in my office a note to the effect to never say to me that if it is not broken do not fix it because if it is not broken it could certainly do with a good service. Academics have been brought down a cul-de-sac by the idea that if it worked well last year it might work well next year. The idea that a British monarch 400 years ago might have the level of prescience to anticipate the needs of third level education in the 21st century is beyond my comprehension. The idea that we should all be fighting a rearguard action to oppose any changes in what she laid out at that time goes completely against the need for an inquiring mind and a challenging generation of people who will assess situations as they are, retain the best of the old and put in place the best of the new.

It is good that the Minister looked at the third level sector. When the Green Paper was mooted, in my first presentation to her predecessor I said that I hoped the approach to education would not begin and end with first and second level but would include early childhood, third level, adult and continuing education. That has been done and our differences on those issues will be thrashed out as they should be.

There can be no absolutes and therefore we must place a philosophical yardstick against what we expect in the running of our colleges, what levels of freedom they have and the balance between the right to academic freedom and the responsibility for public accountability. Those issues are clear and we should demand and insist that third level and all other educational institutions have academic autonomy and administrative freedom to carry out their business and deliver their services within the constraints of their charter.

Added or related to that must be accountability to the taxpayer. I see no contradiction in that — if the taxpayer is providing the money the State not only should but must ensure accountability in its spending. As in any other semi-State operation it is important that the taxpayer and the State be represented. Also, as in the running of any institution, the stakeholders — I do not like the word but it is the one used in the Minister's document — should have a say. The different interest groups should have a voice.

I have often defended members of our county councils and local authorities, although I am not often heard by those on the non-Independent benches. I resent and reject the dismissive comments made about those who give much time, energy and commitment for the public good to help run local communities. I do not agree that our universities are too good to allow our county councillors on their boards. They would be a leavening and modifying influence on anyone involved on an intellectual level in the running of a university. I held that view in the submissions made 10 years ago by the INTO to the New Ireland Forum and more recently to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. We said we would always be prepared to look at a fourth level of representation, even in primary schools, which would be public representation in some shape or form. I do not know exactly how it will work but I accept the principle.

I have some concerns about the Minister's document. I welcome its openness and comprehensiveness — it shows a way forward and is a good beginning to the legislative process. However, I am worried about the reduction in the level of representation for graduates in NUI colleges — no argument is made in the position paper as to why the number should be reduced — and this is a point to which I shall return.

On the question of the Government's right to dissolve a governing body, there can be no doubt that it must have the right, just as a Minister must have a right to dissolve the board of management of a primary or second level school or an regional technical college. The courts have taken clear views on those matters at various times and the Government has a responsibility to be discharged in these case. Our job as legislators is to ensure that the use of that right and power should be severely restrained and constrained by legislation. The Minister's document indicates that the Government could do this for a period of a year, following a presentation by the Minister to Cabinet, approval by the Cabinet and a vote by both Houses of Parliament. I can think of no fuller or clearer constraint but the legislation should also state that this power could not be extended beyond a year, at the end of which a new governing body would have to be elected through the process agreed in the previous method. It would be a subversion of what the Minister said if one of her successors could continue to act without a governing body more than a year after its dissolution.

The document is a fair attempt to meet the demands that people like myself have made in this area to ensure academic accountability and freedom, proper representation for the broader educational partnership and that each of those has its say. It is good that students are now on the boards by right instead of by grace and favour and that academic staff will also be represented as of right rather than through an accepted form of co-option.

I have often criticised educational institutions, from first level to third level, as being out of touch with the local community they appear to serve. Colleges of high renown deal with a class of people situated in a different socio-economic area. I therefore support the representation from local authorities through mayors and county councillors. I also support the Government position on this motion.

Mr. Lanigan

Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Dardis

On a point of order, I waived my right to reply but given that there are a few minutes available could I take up that right?

Mr. Manning

I am sure Senator Dardis now realises how wrong his arguments were and if he wants a minute or two to tell us that I am sure the House would not object.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dardis

I am sorry to disappoint the Leader and the Minister but it will come as no surprise to them. I support what Senator O'Toole said in one respect — he will find no dismissive comments from this quarter in respect of people from local authorities who are already serving on boards. The motion has had a good effect and I am glad it has been debated. I thank all Senators who contributed to a lively discussion. I wonder if the consultative process would have extended as far as this House at this stage were it not for the motion? It has had that desired effect and also brought a significant degree of movement to the Minister's position, so from that viewpoint it has been worthwhile.

There are various layers of accountability. The financial accountability of the academic institutions should be dealt with through the Comptroller and Auditor General. As to educational and quality accountability, I am not sure the exercise of that accountability should be through the Government, which is at the nub of this issue. I agree with many of Senator Manning's remarks about the universities. They must be part of society. There should be no dreaming spires and ivory towers but how do we regulate this? In my view the State should regulate to the minimum degree and in the case of one absolutely unique institution it should be reluctant to intervene at all. That is the basis of the motion. I welcome aspects of the Minister's proposals, in respect of DCU, Maynooth and the University of Limerick. The de facto and de jure position of Maynooth are different and I accept the de jure position must be updated — I have spoken to people in Maynooth on this point.

It was suggested that one university Senator and perhaps others had been "bought off" and that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I was surprised the Acting Chair did not intervene — the current Chairman was not there at the time. I must reject that statement. I do not accept that any Independent Senator could be or would be——

Mr. Manning

They are beyond price.

Professor Lee

You could try.

Mr. O'Toole

We will get nothing out of this one.

Professor Lee

Everything is on the table.

Mr. Dardis

They may not be beyond price but they are certainly beyond reproach.

Senator Lanigan raised the question of access. My university discipline was agriculture and in Northern Ireland it is now possible to start at the lowest level, below second level, and progress to a university degree in that subject. That is how the system should operate and everyone should have that opportunity but that is not as available here as in the North.

I thank all the Senators who contributed and I hope the motion will be adopted. I think it has the desired effect and I hope the Minister will dwell on the points which have been raised here today as part of the consultative process.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 22.

Tá

• Belton, Louis J.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Cashin, Bill.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Gallagher, Ann.
• Henry, Mary.
• Kelly, Mary.
• Lee, Joe.
• Magner, Pat.
• Maloney, Seán.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Townsend, Jim.
• Wall, Jack.

Níl

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dardis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Honan, Cathy.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGennis, Marian.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mulcahy, Michael.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Dardis and Fitzgerald.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.