Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Níl a fhios agam go gcuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille, ach gheobhaimid amach de réir a chéile. There are many things in the Minister's speech and in the Bill which I agree with but there are some assertions which are highly aspirational and which should not be allowed pass without comment.
In her speech the Minister said that in contrast to an earlier situation where universities were bastions of privilege, "Today, they are open to all on the basis of ability". I am sure the Minister does not need me to point out to her that the inequity and inequality of access makes that a very aspirational statement rather than a reflection of reality. There has been some small improvement in access among the poorer sectors of society, but we still have a very heavily stratified admission and access route and we are nowhere near achieving the objective of universities being open to all on the basis of ability. While I endorse the aspiration, we must not cod ourselves that we are remotely near achieving it. We are simply not at the stage of having a university system accessible to all who have the necessary intellectual capacity. We are nowhere near there. We have a huge distance to go and I know the Minister accepts that. There is no justification for having that in the Minister's speech.
The Bill and the speech speak of universities as being obliged to devise policies to ensure greater access for the disadvantaged sectors of society. That is rhetorical unless resources are provided. Resources are a key factor in achieving the admirable aspirations expressed in the speech. The gap between the aspirations and resources is one of the more depressing aspects of the Bill.
The relationship between the Higher Education Authority and the universities as presented in the Minister's speech requires considerable clarification. The Minister said that: "The Higher Education Authority will now have a statutory requirement to assist the universities in achieving the objectives of Chapters IV, VII and VIII of the Bill." If I wished to be adversarial, which I do not, I would say that "assist" is used almost in the sense of assisting the police with their inquiries. The context in which it occurs leaves it open to the suspicion that universities are the suspect or potentially guilty parties in some way. I know that thought was as far from the Minister's mind as it is from reality, but that is the way in which it comes across. I do not wish to emulate Senator Norris excavating the number of layers of potential meaning of a word, but words are part of the lifestyle of those of us who have nothing better to concern ourselves with.
The Minister said: "They also allow the HEA, in a formal and statutory way, and from their sector wide perspective to inform a university of best practice nationally and internationally". What impression does that convey of the image the Minister has of a university's capacity to understand what is going on in the university world both nationally and internationally? Saying that the Higher Education Authority "will inform a university of best practice" implies that universities, which we are told elsewhere are excellent institutions which have made wonderful contributions, are apparently so ignorant of what is happening in the wider university world that they have to be informed of it. If this choice of words was intentional, then it is unfortunate, and if it was unintentional it is even more revealing.
I have very high regard for the current officers of the HEA. They are gentlemen and alert to and concerned with achieving the highest possible educational standards. However, this Bill does not simply concern the people there now. This is long-term legislation and we have to keep in mind how the Bill might be used or misused later on. The impression of the relationship between the Higher Education Authority and universities in terms of their alertness to, knowledge of and understanding of activities in the wider university world is most unfortunate and most misleading. Words do matter.
The Minister spoke of "evaluation of all departments and faculties of the university". What is a faculty except a collection of departments? How can the faculty be evaluated independently of the departments within them? There can be different relationships between faculties and departments. The terms are only used towards the end of the Bill. If it is intentional, it is a most unfortunate choice and, if it is unintentional, it is even more revealing. I have very high regard for the current officers of the Higher Education Authority whom I have found gentlemanly, alert to and concerned about achieving the highest possible educational standards. With regard to this Bill, we must bear in mind that we are not dealing simply with the people who are there at the moment; this is long-term legislation and we must bear in mind how the Bill might be used or misused by later generations. The impression of the relationship between the Higher Education Authority and universities, in terms of their alertness to and their knowledge and understanding of activities in the wider university world as intimated by that choice of language is unfortunate and misleading. Words do matter.
In the Minister's speech, she refers to the evaluation of all departments and faculties of the university. What is a faculty but a collection of departments and how does one evaluate faculties independently from their constituent departments? There can be different relationships between faculties and departments but the words "departments and faculties" are used for the first time well into the Bill. The bulk of real university life, as distinct from structures and so on, occurs in departments. That is where most people spend much of their active university life. To use the word "department", undefined, at such a late stage in the Bill seems to suggest a certain distance from the reality of day to day life in universities.
The core of any legislation on universities is objects and functions. There is relatively little in this Bill about education although there is a great deal about power in education. I do not think one can have any quarrel with the list of objects and functions listed in the Bill; they seem to be very sensible and, though I may table some amendments on Committee Stage, I do not question their substance. I want to stress two things. First, the phrase "having regard to the resources available" is used very late in the Bill. This is something which might well be considered in connection with the objectives and functions also. One can have any list of aspirations but their achievement will be determined, in large measure, by having regard to the available resources. I will linger longer on the phrase in due course. There is one point which I would regard as crucial to objects and which I would wish to see added. I do not think the Minister should have any difficulty in adding it, given the strength of the excellent paragraph on academic freedom in her speech which is admirably conceived and expressed. In the Bill, academic freedom is referred to in section 13(3) which states that a university shall be entitled to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom. That is well intentioned. However, I do not like the use of the word "entitled"; it is a permissive word which gives the impression that this is a benevolent State which is permitting a university to behave in this way even though there is no obligation on it to do so. The word "required" should have been used.
The principle of academic freedom should be included among the objects of a university. It is not simply a means to an end, it is an end in itself. It should be a function of a university to preserve, support and sustain the principles of academic freedom. I ask the Minister to give her explicit commitment that the preservation and support of academic freedom should be included among the objects of a university. It is entirely compatible with, and in the spirit of, the excellent paragraph in the Minister's speech and I would like to see it incorporated into the objects. One may well preserve section 13 (3) but the commitment to the principle of academic freedom should be an integral part of university life and the relationship between a university and society. That would be a major concern of mine in terms of determining my final position on the Bill.
One might query much of the phraseology in the Bill but I will not linger on that at the moment. When we move on to the issue of governance, it seems we are moving away from what should be the core of a university Bill which only takes up a page and a half compared with 10-12 pages on governance, most of which leaves me singularly cold. There should be a reasonably wide representation of "stakholders" on governing bodies. However, the precise way in which these pages were drafted must have taken considerable time and consultation.
I am looking at the implications of this Bill for the time budgets of those responsible for its implementation, not least those of university presidents, provosts or whatever they are known as. "Chief officer" seems to be the current phrase —in a different context, I might query the hierarchical implications of "officer". The assumption that time seems to be virtually infinite in universities is one which I know is popularly shared. For those of us who actually do something, time is the most scarce resource of all. It is not often factored in as a resource in the thought processes when education is being considered in this country.
With reference to the composition of governing authorities in section 15(1) they are to consist of no fewer than 20 or no more than 38 members. What is sacrosanct about these figures? If a governing authority were to have 19 members, could it not be a university? If there were 39 members, would that transgress the definition of "university"? I appreciate the pressures to have various interests represented but I would prefer to see a more emphatic emphasis on the purpose of a university and what these interests can contribute towards achieving the qualities of excellence in teaching and research that universities and the public service are supposed to embody, as opposed to this calibrated, infinitely complex and elaborate structure.
With regard to the terms of appointment or election to the governing bodies, those of us who are familiar with the way universities currently operate and with the personalities involved, might see no particular problem here. However, we have to bear in mind that the people in office now will not be there forever and there may be a potential misuse of these possible constituencies in the hands of somebody who was not as committed to university values as are current presidents are.
In the worst case scenario, the degree of academic representation on governing authorities could be sharply reduced in practice from what it is currently. According to section 26, the majority of members of the academic council shall be members of the academic staff of the university. This is appropriate as it is difficult to have an academic council if the majority of members are not academic staff. Apparently, this academic council is no longer to contain representatives of all departments or even heads of all departments, but is to consist of an appropriate range of academic disciplines as determined by the governing authority, whose composition could be heavily non-academic.
I have no hang-ups about the superiority of academic thinking. This legislation offers the potential of significantly greater presidential authority. I am not saying this will happen in practice, but the potential is there. I can envisage situations in which under the driving of a determined president, an academic council could be packed in a manner which is more conducive to the political interests of a president rather than concerned with the criteria of adequate representation or academic values.
Those of us who live in these systems can see a worst case scenario, which may never happen. However, the legislation should not permit the possibility of it happening. The thinking has been so concerned with accommodating various interests that it may have overlooked possible implications for relatively arbitrary activity in the internal organisation of universities as well as the potential for divisiveness, factionism and a whole range of qualities which would act against the interests the Bill is intended to promote. This is from the perspective of the real world of academe as distinct from academic concepts of academe.
I ask the Minister to look at the provision which potentially restricts membership of the academic council to a smaller number of people. Professors and associate professors, whatever one may think of one's dearly beloved colleagues, ought to be in principle members of the academic council. It is a strange definition of an academic council of a university if those who are presumed to be the leading academics in the institution— which is what professors and associate professors are supposed to be, although the choice may not be infallible—are not ex officio members of the academic council, which is the main representative of academic interest and values in universities. I ask the Minister to look at the implications of this because they may not have been thought through from this perspective.
The details of the composition of various bodies have knock-on effects in terms of the quality of governance of universities that have not been adequately taken care of in this Bill. The question of gender balance is an important one which the Minister is committed to. Section 15 (10) states:
In performing its functions under this section a governing authority shall ensure that each sex is represented on the governing authority in accordance with such gender balance as may from time to time be determined or approved by the Minister.
There is a genuine problem as to how gender balance is achieved in as optimum and rapid a manner as possible. I ask the Minister to look at this again. I am opposed in principle to ministerial involvement except where it is absolutely necessary in the general function of universities. A clause such as "as may from time to time be determined or approved by the Minister" is a potential temptation to the Minister and a potential threat to others. It conveys the idea of an axe hovering all the time, which creates the wrong atmosphere for the proper relationship between universities, the Department of Education and the State in general.
I would prefer to see a simple statement to the effect that the normal gender balance provisions which now apply to membership of every public body shall apply and be achieved over a particular period. I would prefer a shorter rather than longer period. Much of this issue is about will. Many of the arguments advanced against gender balance are opportunistic, short term and self-serving. I would prefer a relatively short deadline where gender balance would be achieved on pain of whatever — I am not opposed to that. I do not want hovering for an undefined period with Ministers of different dispositions and different ideological impulses fouling the relationship between the university sector and the Department of Education. It is better to have a clean cut time limit which seems reasonable and realistic in the circumstances rather than it dragging on. The potential for ill will and irritation on both sides does not do service to either at the end of the day.
There is a huge amount of negative undergone, which I hoped was not necessary, in much of the phraseology in this Bill. The Minister's attention has been drawn to the question of a visitor. There is a strong case for a standing visitorial arrangement with the National University and other universities, perhaps similar to that of Trinity and Queens. Universities are huge and complex institutions and matters cannot be conducted on a personal basis, as was done until relatively recently. There is potential for the paralysing of institutions when serious conflict breaks out between senior officers. The Minister knows as well as I that we do not have to go outside my own institution to see a recent example of that.
The visitorial principle should not be implemented retrospectively to try to resolve problems which have exploded but should head off problems. A visitor should keep tabs on what is happening and be alert to the potential for internal conflict which does serious damage to institutions, the consequences of which can linger for a long time even when they are no longer visible to the wider public. Visitation should be a constructive managerial component of universities rather than an emergency retrospective measure which tries to sort out a serious situation which may not have arisen if provisions had existed for taking action at an earlier stage.
I was involved in the latter stages of trying to find a resolution to problems in my own institution. I know the problems involved. and the damage that can be done to institutions. I know the Minister has the good of the institutions at heart. I am not threatening to vote against the Minister on this matter. It is a question of trying to work out the problems. There are no simple solutions. However, I am convinced it will add greatly to the quality of this Bill if the Minister and here officials are able to find a way which can conceive of the visitation functions as a normal part of the total structure of management rather than as an emergency provision to be activated once in the blue moon when things have become so impossible that it is beyond reason for them to be resolved internally. That is not the way universities ought to operate ideally and this is one place where the State can make a positive contribution by thinking through those implications.
On sections 24 (5) (a) and 24 (5) (b), which relate to remuneration, there is a basic contradiction between the approach of two mindsets to universities. One is that universities ought to be engines of dynamic change, centres of innovation, taking risks or inculcating enterprise culture in society, while the other still involves a mentality of control over universities, that is, they shall not be permitted to diverge from guidelines or principles. Section 24 (5) (a) states:
A university may depart from levels of remuneration, fees, allowances and expenses ... where the governing authority is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the objects of the university, but may do so only in accordance with a framework which shall be agreed between the universities and An tÚdarás.
Section 24 (5) (b) states:
A corporation referred to in ... may pay to employees of a university remuneration, ... only in accordance with the framework which shall be agreed between the universities and An tÚdarás.
We are entering an age where there will, and ought to, be more competition between Irish universities and between Irish universities and other universities. An uncompetitive situation has existed in Irish universities. I am not suggesting that it will reach the American stage, but it will go in the direction of some competition. It is essential that university managements have the authority to recruit the best people for a particular job if they are convinced that this is a top policy priority. Suppose one wants to bring back a first class Irish mind from America who is already in a good position and who is willing to return to Ireland but is not in a position to accept a sharply reducted standard of living. Are universities to be trapped within the rigid, fixed salary scales which pertain to the generality?
If we want universities to be at the cutting edge of change in a number of areas and be able to recruit competitively internationally—this Bill is full of references to the international context and I am, like the Minister is, a great believe in that —we must be able to offer competitive rates to the highest calibre recruits. How long will mechanisms or frameworks of agreement take in practice? It is often the case that such decisions must be made rapidly? It can be a matter of a telephone call. The mindest behind this is utterly incompatible with the idea of a cutting, thrusting, competitive institution trying to get the best people in a specific situation and being able to offer a package which will make it worth a person's while not just to come back for one year but which will give the person an idea of what he or she is being let in for over the medium to long-term period.
There is no point talking, however sincerely, about the need to make universities more competitive, quality assured and all these wonderful phrases which trip off our tongues if we are not prepared to put our money where our mouth is and make sure we are in a position to get the best when they are available and we want them. That is high quality management. I find it incongruous that there should be the intimation running through the Bill that university management is somehow defective unless all these various bits and pieces are added and at the same time its freedom of manoeuvre shall be contained and confined within frameworks agreed in a bureaucratic manner over time.
The State must be clear about what it wants from its universities. If it wants the sort of universities it is talking about in a new millennium, it must adapt its concept of university management accordingly. I believe in strong universities. I do not believe in arbitrary leadership but in strong leadership. One of the essentials for strong leadership is the availability of resources to make one's mark, and there is little evidence of that here. In fact, in so far as there is express reference, it is going entirely in the opposite direction, as in the clauses which I quoted.
I am baffled at what is envisaged with regard to planning and evaluation in the Bill. I should say that I am generalising widely from my experience of universities. I have taught in nine universities in five countries, I have examined in 14 universities in several countries in 11 subjects and I have sat on governing bodies in various universities in various countries. That is not an ego trip, or at least it is not only an ego trip; it is simply that I come with some experience of which I speak. I find that much of what is contained in the Bill on planning and evaluation is academic, in the most derogatory sense possible. It bears little relation to how decisions are made. Section 32 (1) states:
A governing authority shall, ... require the chief officer to prepare a plan which shall set out the aims of the governing authority for the operation ... and its strategy for achieving those aims, and for carrying out the functions ... during the period, being not less than three years, to which the plan relates.
Who could be against a three year plan as it is a pretty good strategy? However, one cannot plan without some idea of budget. Section 32 (2) states that "A governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, either approve a strategic development plan... "or approve it with modifications. Therefore, as the Bill is phrased, the chief officer has no regard to resources available to the university. The governing authority is the first to be charged with "having regard to the resources available to the university" and that is the first hint of realism in much of what is contained in the Bill because the previous 27 pages do not contain a solitary reference to resources available to universities. The implication is that a chief officer will draw up a three year strategic plan without reference and the governing authority will note it, taking account of the available resources. That is not the way it operates. Why is it only in section 32 (2) that the first reference to resources appears?
The same thing occurs with quality assurance procedures, and this sticks in an academic's craws —we have craws; some may even have claws, but that is a different matter. We all want quality assurance. Did the strategic management initiative say something about quality assurance in Departments, the HEA, agencies, etc? I would like to see some of its results carried out by international experts. Section 33 (1) states that there will be quality assurance "aimed at improving the quality of education... "every ten years. These seem to be permissive in many respects, but let us leave that aside. Section 33 (2) goes on to state that quality of teaching will be assessed by people "who are competent to make national and international comparisons" and these will be published. Section 33 (2) states that the governing authority will implement the findings "having regard to the resources available to the university". Is the evaluation to be carried out without reference to the resources available?
To take a simple example, the quality of teaching nowadays depends at least partly on information technology. We are all talking about information technology until it comes out of our ears. Senator O'Toole very properly spoke about computers in primary schools but I know university departments, although I will not mention the institutions, whose entire annual equipment budget would not purchase one PC. We are in cloud cuckoo land when we speak of evaluating independently of resources. It is as if the interrogation is to be conducted against some abstract perfect criteria by the best international standards without reference to the resources available to the people doing the job. Then when it comes to the governing authority it says "Yes, that is not very good but the poor devil had nothing to start with in the first place". We cannot plan or evaluate seriously unless resources are at the centre. Everything must be evaluated in the light of the resources and opportunities that are available.
There are exceptions but by and large when one looks at the research or teaching resources available to Irish universities it is remarkable what has been achieved in terms of university performance, however we choose to evaluate it.
There is something missing from the Bill but it would have been difficult to include it, so I am not being unduly querulous about it. There is a sweeping reference to excellent universities, but how good are they? If you want to argue that they are excellent or awful, what criterion is used?
We ask our young people to enter third level education at the youngest age in Europe. The Minister is well aware of this. We give them the shortest degree courses in many areas. We produce the youngest graduates, in many cases by several years, compared to any other EU country. We expect them to be internationally competitive on the basis of that education. While it is not a scientific observation, I suggest the number of them that is internationally competitive is remarkable. From that crude but not irrelevant observation, universities must be doing something right despite all the criticisms that may be made of them.
The section on planning and evaluation refers to annual budgets under the heading of finance, property and reporting. The Minister for Finance has begun introducing three year rolling budgets, so why are universities to have three year plans and one year budgets? You cannot effectively plan or budget for an institution such as a university, which is concerned with the medium and longer term, simply on a one year basis. The lack of compatibility in the planning and evaluation section as well as in the finance, property and reporting section again points up one of the internal contradictions of the Bill which is that one wants to be expansive and at the same time one does not want to let go of control.
Whatever we might say, when we look at the detailed provisions there is an internal contradiction between many of these conditions that badly needs to be teased out on Committee Stage. This is not contrary to the principle of the Bill, but as it is, many of these provisions hamstring ones that could be changed without subverting the principles at all and in a way which would lead to much more potentially effective management.
I could linger over many other aspects of the Bill but I will not do so because some of them will arise on Committee Stage. I will return to the central inadequacy — I am not using the word "inadequacy" in too querulous a manner — which is the disjunction between aspirations and resources. That was the point I began with.
I am emphatically committed to equality policy as I know the Minister is also. On this issue, section 34 (1) states:
A governing authority shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 12 months after it is established under this Act and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to prepare a statement of the policies of the university in respect of—
(a) access to the university and to university education by economically or socially disadvantaged people, by people who have a disability and by people who have a society significantly under represented in the student body, and
(b) equality, including gender equality, in all activities of the university,
and the chief officer, in preparing the statement, shall have regard to such policies on those matters as may from time to time be determined by the Minister.
There is a potential cause of tension there but that is not my main concern. After that has all been done in exactly the same way as planning the strategy, what happens? Section 34 (2) states that "A governing authority may... either approve the statement prepared under subsection (1) without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the statement with such modifications as it thinks fit". How? "Having regard to the resources available to the university". So, the chief officer is required to prepare a plan of access for people who have a disability, etc. I am emphatically in favour of improving access, as we all are, but the universities' own resources will not make much difference there because those resources come ultimately from the State in large measure.
I have given consistent examples of the way the words "having regard to resources" occur in the Bill, but why are those words only used after the chief officer has submitted the plan without any reference to resources at all? Loath though I am to criticise, it seems there is much in this Bill which can and ought to be refined in terms of having a managerially effective Bill as distinct from one which is still far stronger on the aspirational side. For all the criticisms that can legitimately be made of them, our universities have an enormous amount to contribute.
I reject with the same contumely with which others have done, the implication that universities have somehow been evading some sort of responsibility and accountability. On the accountability side there is scope for requiring the plans to be not simply aspirational statements but specific plans about developments in every area, sectors and department of the university, and that budgets allocated are for the achievement of those plans. We are talking about openness and transparency, but as regards accountability at present is very unclear to many people within universities how precisely resources are allocated. It seems to me that is a right which people within and outside universities ought to have. In other words, part of the problem with interventionism is that it is much too restrictive where it need not be and it is not precise enough in those areas where precision would be in the interests of the institution and of the State.
Perhaps I have given too negative an impression of the Bill because I have had to concentrate on aspects of it that I find inadequate. There is much of value in the Bill but it would be much better, without subverting the principles upon which it is based, if some of the concerns I have expressed can be attended to between now and the later stages, if there are later stages.
