Senator Ross is in possession. He has 19 minutes left but, in the spirit of the Bill, if Senators want more time, they will be granted it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Universities Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am sure I will not need more time but, in the unlikely event that I do, I thank the House for its indulgence.
On the last occasion, I named two particular areas of difficulty not only in the universities but among the graduate bodies.
First, there is the problem of political appointees. I see no possible reason for a Minister of a Government of any complexion to make political appointments to the board of a university. That seems untenable. There are many ways in which the Government can control universities and there are many pressures which it may bring to bear on them through this Bill without the particularly penal measure of making political appointments to the board. One cannot justify that when a Government appoints people to the boards of State agencies or bodies. I will not go into the details of recent appointments although I saw yesterday that there had been appointments to a semi-State body which were so blatantly political that there can be no other reason for them except that one person had a loyalty to one party and the other had a loyalty to another. The people concerned are not here to defend themselves so I will not name them but we have seen people appointed by Governments time and again who have no qualifications for the positions except their loyalty to a political party. That is untenable in the case of State-sponsored bodies and agencies and it is unforgivable and unacceptable in the case of universities.
The other area where there is such blatant scope for political interference that it is impossible to accept is in admissions. In section 34(1), where the chief officer makes a report on admissions according to various criteria, with which many of us would agree, there is a phrase which betrays a thinking behind this Bill which is deadly dangerous. That subsection states "...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 unlimited scope for political interference in that phrase and it is not acceptable.
Nowhere in that section is there mention of academic ability or prowess. I have read it many times and it seems to me that people can be admitted to universities on criteria which are different from academic criteria or the passing of certain examinations, that the Minister of the day has the power to say certain minorities are under-represented, and he may direct the chief officer, therefore, to report with them in mind and, if he does not produce the right report, send him back to produce another one. That is not an exaggeration because we legislate for exceptions and not for the rule. The result could be that significant minorities without any academic abilities will be admitted to universities before people with academic qualifications simply because they are minorities. That is unacceptable and is open to political abuse.
Those are two specific problems with the Bill but it also contains rigid guidelines which are totally unnecessary. The power in section 8 to incorporate an educational establishment into a university is extraordinary and unnecessary. Again it gives a Minister power over academic standards. Two sections deal with this issue. One is the section which allows the Minister to consider that an educational institution or part of it should form part of a university. He or she may then make an order to provide that the institution shall become part of that university after what is called "consultation". That word appears time after time in this Bill but it means nothing. It is purely a political fig leaf for giving more ministerial power. When I see the word "consultation" in this Bill, I see red because it means that the Minister may consult, ignore the consultation and then decide. It is meaningless and it is wrong to put it into the Bill.
Section 9, provides that the Minister may set up an educational institution as a university where the Minister "may, at any time, appoint a body, the membership of which shall be recommended by An tÚdarás and shall include international educational experts and such employees of universities to which this Act applies... [and they can recommend]... an educational institution should be established as a university.". Why should a Minister, a politician, decide that an educational institution should be established as a university? It is no good saying that international experts will be involved. That is meaningless. Who will be these international experts, these people who we suddenly decide are experts? Is that the subjective decision of a politician who sets up a committee to decide that an educational institution will be a university and chooses those people to be on that panel? There is no place in legislation for so-called international educational experts. It means nothing. It is rhubarb and it is cosmetic. Wherever there is anything dangerous in the Bill, cosmetic fig leaves are inserted to make it look innocent.
The power of setting up a university is specifically with the Minister and that is open to abuse. I would not go so far as to say that there has been abuse but it is open to abuse. No number of so called international experts making so called recommendations will make any difference. The power here is in the hands of the Minister. It is no good saying, as it does in certain sections of the Bill, that there is no need to worry because an order must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas before various of these powers can be enacted. Everybody knows that is cosmetic. The provision for an order to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas or passed by the Oireachtas is a rubber stamp inserted into the Bill as some sort of phoney democratic protection.
Throughout its provisions this Bill is about ministerial power, which goes right up to the establishment of a university. Unscrupulous Ministers could if they felt like it, establish universities in favoured political places to curry favour with various people in their own party. That could easily be done regionally and it undoubtedly will be. I am not saying it has been done but it will be done. Places which do not deserve university status on academic merit alone will be granted it by politicians because it will benefit their careers as well as their political parties. This section, like others throughout the Bill, is open to appalling abuse and there is no doubt it will be abused in the future. It is in the nature of party politicians to favour their own and use patronage of this sort to benefit themselves. No one can blame them for that and much of politics is about that, but they should not be given those powers by this House if it can prevent it. We are here to protect people from being put in a position of deriving advantage from that type of abuse.
Opportunities for availing of this type of abuse are set out in many sections of this Bill. The three most blatant examples are admissions, political appointees and the fact that the Minister can create a university and thereby decide what is or is not a university. A little bit of rhubarb may cloud the decision but there is no preventative of any sort. Neither do I see why any Government should decide the objects of a university as defined in this Bill. They happen to be an ideology which nearly everybody in this House accepts and agrees with at the moment. We are, however, blatantly setting political ideas and ideology into legislation and that is not necessary.
I cannot understand why universities cannot define their objects within the law because academics know more about academia than politicians. People who work in universities know more about what a university should be and what they want it to be, than politicians. There is often a direct conflict between politicians and those who work in universities. That should be resolved in favour of the universities, not the party politicians but this Bill appears to resolve that particular problem in favour of politicians.
I salute the Opposition for opposing this Bill because it will inherit the Bill one day — maybe not this week or the week after, but sooner rather than later. I look forward to the day they amend it to take on the serious objections they have raised. I will, hopefully, be here to remind them of that when it comes to pass.
This exercise of ministerial power is unworthy of any Government. The governance of a university should not be included in the Bill. Nobody has answered the question why can universities not decide on their own governance structure. What have they done that is so wrong as to warrant this meddling which appears throughout the Bill? As far as I know, universities have behaved impeccably as regards their own self governance in the past. It is amazing that those who, with such enthusiasm and alacrity, champion semi-State bodies which have singularly failed to run themselves properly, now want to increase the power of Government to take over universities — which have done nothing improper or which is the cause of serious complaint — and treat them like semi-State bodies.
The Government ought to examine the semi-State bodies because there is hardly one in the country which is being run properly. Until recently they were just some sort of a job subsidy or blotting paper. Yet, now we apparently want universities, which have not had any scandals or controversies attached to them, treated in that way. Why? Because when politicians become too doctrinaire they think they know better than the people in the universities.
Trinity College, Dublin, has been there for over 400 years but the Labour Party knows more. It knows how to run it. It wants to send in a Labour Party police force of political appointees as well as having county councillors on the board. County councillors on the board of universities? County councillors have wonderful and magnificent talents, but to put them on the board of a university is the most absurd suggestion I ever came across.
I am sorry, I know that is a matter of sensitivity for Senator Fitzgerald.
I have been on the board of a university for 12 years and I am proud of it.
No doubt Senator Fitzgerald is a fine member of the board — the exception.
Ignore the snobbery. It is ignorant, baseless snobbery and nothing else.
Senator Ross without interruption, please.
I know Senator Manning has sensitivities about county councillors because he will be going to see them shortly and he is perfectly welcome to do that.
It is ignorant, baseless, uninformed snobbery, like everything else the Senator is saying.
However, here we have visitors of the most extraordinary sort being appointed to the board by the Minister. Why should the Minister appoint visitors to the board of a university? On top to this, we have a specific provision that it may be a High Court judge, apparently after consultation with a Supreme Court judge. Is there something so sacred about High Court judges that they should be visitors to universities? I would remind Senator Manning that High Court judges are politically appointed. High Court judges are not in any way impeccable people; they have stood for the Dáil and the Seanad. They are worthy people, of course, but they are no better or worse than anybody else, although they are good High Court judges. They are appointed by politicians — by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. They do not have any great insight into how universities work but sometimes they know a lot about politics.
Let us not window dress. Let the universities look after themselves. Let us trust them. Let us not use a veneer of respectability to cloak some of the political interference suggested in this Bill. That is not acceptable and it will not deceive anyone.
I welcome the fact that the Minister made 104 amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil. That shows how completely out of touch this Government is with the universities. This Bill is not perfect because it still contains an ideology which is not that of Fine Gael, regardless of whether its members march through the voting lobbies. It is not my ideology either. This Bill is unacceptable to those who believe in pushing the State out of academic life and people's lives, out of State bodies, industry and every conceivable place where it should not have its nose.
Members of Fine Gael, who believe in its philosophy, will not find it easy to accept this Bill. There is no point in being a member of Fine Gael and pretending it will be easy to accept. This Bill would not have been introduced if there were not a Labour Minister for Education. That is what is meant by political power. I have no personal or political problems with the Minister per se, but I have problems with the Bill and the thinking behind it and so will many members of the Fine Gael Party when they read and understand it. There is no point in pretending I do not.
Academic bodies should not be interfered with in this way. They have something special to offer but it is extremely dangerous to shove the jackboot of the State down their throats. I do not understand why the academic council is mentioned in this Bill or why the Government must decide its composition. Section 26(3) states that the "chief officer shall be, ex officio, a member of the academic council” and that he will also be the chairman of the board. The Minister will know that the code of conduct in public companies strongly disapproves of making the same person a chief executive and a chairman because it puts too much power in one person's hands. If a person has a loyalty to a political party, not only is he or she chairman and chief executive but that person is also, ex officio, a member of the academic council. Why?
The board and the academic council have different functions. A chief executive of a university could be someone with no academic qualifications and an officer could be an executive who has been appointed because of particular qualities. However, they should not be chairing the academic council because they know nothing about academics. They could be appointed because the university is in financial trouble or to get students in from a certain area. According to this Bill, they must chair the board and they must be on the academic council, ex officio,
This Bill states the proportion of people who should be on the board but it allows the academic council to decide its own procedure. Its composition is defined by the Bill. That is ludicrous. The Government seems to know more about the composition of the academic council than the academic council. This is not snobbery but common sense. One cannot have people who do not know much about it interfering as if they know better than those who do; they do not. Academic councils should be allowed to run their own affairs.
I do not understand the thinking behind the provision that if the chairperson of the board is not the chief officer somebody else must be elected by a two thirds majority. If they do not want the chief officer as chairperson of board, why not make a decision about someone else? Does the Government not trust the boards of universities to make majority decisions? Why does it have to be a two thirds majority? Is that because someone might be acceptable to a minority one third on whom the Government can exert pressure? It is an extraordinary requirement that these people cannot run their own affairs by a majority verdict. That is like saying the Leader of the Labour Party should be elected by two thirds of the members of the Labour Party at an annual conference. I do not know who needs protection but there is no reason for this.
I will find it difficult to vote for this Bill because of its real thrust which is manifest in its detail. If there is scope for amendments along the lines I have outlined, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in her reply. If there is no scope for such amendments, I will vote against the Bill.
It is now almost 16 months since the Seanad debated a Progressive Democrats motion in which we asked the House to 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. Many Senators contributed to the vigorous debate on that occasion. However, the motion was defeated by 27 votes to 22. It represented an effort by the Progressive Democrats to persuade the Minister to reconsider what we regarded as bad proposals in her position paper and an attempt to get her to radically change this legislation.
In her speech last week the Minister conceded that the debate had a considerable influence on the content of the Bill and that it was a far cry from the position paper. She also asserted that it was broadly acceptable to the university community and the wider society. I challenge that assertion and I repeat what I said here on 30 November 1995. Under a camouflage of liberal words the Minister proposes an unwarranted intrusion into an area in which the State has no business. We have an already over-centralised State and now we want to spread its tentacles even farther. There is control where there should be freedom, statism where there should be autonomy and we want a university to be treated as a semi-State company. So much for the liberalism and pluralism that are central to university life which I espouse and which I hope the Minister does also.
The Minister has constructed a bewitching framework of reasonableness and reassuring words with which no one could disagree — I do not. She said "legislating for the university sector calls for a particularly sensitive approach". Who could disagree with that? She said "an independent university sector is a guarantor of freedom in our democratic society". Who could disagree with that? I do not. She said "Universities in this State have rightly guarded their academic freedom and independence since their foundation." Amen, Amen to each of those statements but how can those statements be reconciled with the Bill before us? I do not see how. I do not understand how the Minister can claim the Bill will underpin vital academic and institutional freedoms because it does not represent, as she claims, "a measured and proportionate involvement of the State and its agencies".
What was it that led Dr. Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach, leading member of Fine Gael, distinguished academic and prominent citizen to claim that he thought this was quangoism and Thatcherite? This Bill is very different in content from that which was originally put before us but it is not different in substance — the control of a sector by the State which does not need it to the extent proposed in the Bill. University College Galway's statement on the Bill summarises very succinctly what the Bill should achieve. It stated:
There should be a balance between providing on the one hand an appropriate legislative embodiment of the need for accountability to the public in respect of the use of public funds and, on the other, an affirmation of the freedoms which are absolutely necessary if the university is to discharge its unique role in society.
It is also worth recalling that UCG does not believe the Bill strikes this balance and I agree with its analysis. UCG also said that the Bill is virtually exclusively concerned with elaborating a regulatory regime for universities which would utterly paralyse them from acting as creative, innovative or efficient institutions in respect of research, scholarship or teaching. That is a forceful criticism.
A letter sent recently to Senators by a group of people in the University of Limerick points to the failure of the Bill to provide adequately for academic freedom and to confer rights in regard to academic freedom on university employees and it asks that amendments would be made in respect of those matters, which we will attempt to do on Committee Stage. The Irish Federation of University Teachers noted that the Bill had defects and that they may be classified broadly into those which threaten the autonomy of universities and those which curtail drastically the academic freedom of university staff. Despite all the reassurances, fine words and changes, we are still left with a bad Bill. In spite of virtually redrafting the Bill, with 142 amendments on Report Stage in the Dáil, this Bill should not be before us because the central point of the debate is that political interference is anathema to the very idea of a university and academic freedom.
The Government would have us believe that having withdrawn from its original position and made such changes the Bill is acceptable. The Minister suggested this to us when she said it was acceptable to a large proportion of the university sector and to society as a whole. It would have been better and more acceptable to withdraw it and reintroduce it. The nature of this debate goes to the very heart of what we believe a democracy to be—the concept and a belief that within it, universities must be ever free to debate and bring forward ideas that challenge, provoke us and are even at times distasteful to us and challenge the established order. That is one of the central and key roles of universities and is one of the reasons for advancement in society.
There were suggestions when this was debated in November 1995 that universities had to change and, because of that, legislation was required. Of course universities have to change and in many respects the changes which originated within universities went through society. That is why, in some quarters, universities would be regarded as dangerous but it is central to intellectual and academic life and society that those freedoms be protected, preserved and enhanced. I have no illusions about dreaming spires and people living in ivory towers. That is not what universities are about, although it is legitimate for some people to do so. Nevertheless, a university in the heart of society does not have to be regulated by the State.
I was privileged to have come from a rural background in the 1960s and to have been given the benefit of university education when it was rare for somebody of my background. I was exposed to all aspects of university life—the unrest in France and throughout university society which pushed many people into Labour Party politics. I assure the Minister that the establishment of the day regarded us as extremely dangerous, subversive and probably even to be tinkering with the foundations of the State. Nevertheless, we had an improved society and I benefited from it. It exposed me to a world that I otherwise would never have been privileged to experience and opened up intellectual horizons to which I never would have been exposed.
We have to realise what is at stake and what it is possible to achieve through the university sector. I agree with the Minister there should be financial accountability of universities but this Bill is not required for that. It is already possible to do that through the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Office and the Higher Education Authority. Autonomous bodies can be accountable and transparent. It does not require rigid control to exercise accountability and transparency.
Parts of this Bill are desirable and unnecessary and many parts are both unnecessary and undesirable. The one necessary and desirable part is the constitution of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, as a constituent university within the National University of Ireland and the formalisation of the status of the University of Limerick and Dublin City University. I welcome that, but it could have been done by way of a short Bill without any of the further ramifications in this Bill for the entire university sector.
The question which then arises is why it was not possible to include the Dublin Institute of Technology as a university in the Bill. Deputy Keogh tabled an amendment in the other House which proposed that within three years of the commencement of the Bill the Minister would make an order providing that the Dublin Institute of Technology would be a university for the purposes of the Act.
I wonder what makes that impossible when one looks at the record of the colleges which make up the Dublin Institute of Technology. Many of our most distinguished architects were educated in Bolton Street which could legitimately claim to be the leading architecture school in the country. Many graduates of Cathal Brugha Street are at the top of their profession and it also has a reputation for excellence. Surely, that is part of what a university is about.
In today's Irish Independent the education editor, John Walshe, said in respect of the Dublin Institute of Technology that “the Government's view seems to be that there is a bit of opportunism involved and that the Dublin Institute of Technology, which is in the throes of being reorganised on a faculty basis, is not yet ready for university status”. It is an affront to say there is opportunism involved. The claims are quite legitimate and it is legitimate to seek to have the Bill amended in either House to give the Dublin Institute of Technology full university status.
Conferring degrees does not give a body the status of a university — the two matters should not be confused. There are colleges in England which confer degrees but are a long way from being universities. That must be attended to.
I am advised by the Dublin Institute of Technology that it underwent an international review in 1996. The international review team suggested "The relevant authorities should consider whether the key features of the proposed legislation should be extended to the Dublin Institute of Technology and its legislation amended in the light of such analysis". If we have done that, why do we have to go through the whole rigmarole again just to put off the day? If it is not such a problem, I do not see why it cannot be put in the Bill. If it is going to happen eventually, I do not see why it cannot be done now and why the Dublin Institute of Technology cannot be afforded university status.
In regard to the National University of Ireland, I welcome the creation of the individual universities in Cork, Galway, Dublin and St. Patrick's in Maynooth. However, I do not understand why it is necessary to retain the NUI as a layer above that. I do not see why the functions which are conferred on the NUI under the Bill could not be conferred on the individual universities. They are either universities or they are not; they are either universities with constituent colleges or independent universities. In those circumstances, I fail to see why it is necessary to retain the NUI as a sort of holding company for a group of universities. Each university can be responsible for its own academic affairs and they do not require the guiding hand of this other layer, particularly now that they are no longer colleges.
I do not understand why it is necessary to construct this bureaucratic and intrusive edifice around the few necessary and desirable provisions in the Bill. Regional boards are being set up under the Education Bill and I think a similar philosophy applies to this Bill. Layer upon layer is being introduced which makes one wonder who is accountable within those layers and how the chain of command is exercised. There are measures in the Bill which I consider desirable, but they could have been dealt with in a much briefer Bill which would have been much less contentious and would not have introduced an extra dimension of intrusion into the affairs of the universities.
I disagree with Senator Ross in regard to country councillors' positions on the governing body of University College, Dublin. County councillors are as legitimate a cross-section of society as any other group. If it is regarded as desirable to have external influences within the university structure, I do not see why county councillors are not as good a group of people as any other.
Over the course of the debate many references have been made to the excellence of our education system. We all agree it is an excellent system, that we produce third level graduates of the highest calibre who can hold their own internationally and are responsible for bringing investment into the country, and that there is a scarcity of graduates in some sectors. That begs the question that if the system is so excellent, why is it necessary to change it? I cannot find a satisfactory answer to that question.
Senator Lee stated during the previous debate:
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.
If the excellence is proven, why it is necessary to change it, other than in a short Bill which would confer university status on St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, and the other institutions of learning? The central question which keeps cropping up in the debate has not been answered at any stage — what is it that needs to be fixed? As the adage which has been used over and over during the debate says, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?".
One of the reasons we have such excellence is because the universities, especially Trinity College, Dublin, operate independently. The ultimate accountability is that people vote with their pockets and feet. If a university does not provide the type of education which is competitive and which allows its graduates to stand up internationally, people will go to other institutions and the institution will decline. Over the course of history educational institutions have closed or flourished because of the leadership provided, the ethos or, in the case of some very prominent secondary schools, who the headmaster was.
I do not want to reopen the debate on the interference in Trinity College, Dublin. However, sections of the Bill will only apply when the Minister makes an order. The explanatory memorandum states in relation to section 4:
... particular sections will not apply in relation to Trinity College, unless the Minister makes an Order applying them. The Minister shall not make an Order if a Private Act is enacted within three years of the commencement of Part III, which amends the Charter of the College in a manner consistent with this Act.
Why should the onus be placed on Trinity College, Dublin, to bring a private Bill into the Houses of the Oireachtas, other than to overcome some constitutional imperative about which we are worried? I do not see why it should be up to TCD, or anybody else, to introduce a private Bill to counter something put in an Act by the Oireachtas. That strikes me as totally undemocratic and must be resisted.
What about the assets of Trinity College, Dublin? There are provisions in the Bill about what happens to assets in certain circumstances. Does the State have its beady eyes fixed on this very valuable piece of real estate in College Green, and probably the even more valuable book in the college? Is that part of what we are talking about here? I would like it explicitly stated that it is not.
Trinity College is over 400 years old and has successfully survived rebellion, war, monarchies, changes of Government and the creation of the State. It is recognised internationally by authoritative independent assessment, yet the Government does not believe it can conduct its own affairs. I do not understand that. Its intrusion is incompatible with the attainment of academic excellence and standards. Is it suggested that there be academic cloning and a common standard across all institutions, with the State producing a standardised product? That would not survive in today's world.
These institutions should be allowed manage their own affairs and set their own academic standards. They are subject to verification by their peers and external examining systems where applicable. That should be adequate. No Government should be able to stamp its imprint on an educational institution. If we want academic cloning we should establish a State university, a Labour Party university or any other party's university.
Section 12 sets out the objects of a university while section 13 provides for their implementation. What do the objects of a university have to do with legislation? The objects of UCD, UCG or Trinity College are obvious and do not need to be included in legislation. To do so defies the 400 year history of Trinity College and the history of the National University.
We spent a long time trying to insert a clause in the Employment Equality Bill to protect the ethos of schools and hospitals while at the same time protecting the rights of employees, and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform introduced amendments. In the case of one Bill, therefore, we struggle to preserve ethos while this Bill prescribes what it is. That defies logic; we must have consistency.
Under section 19 the Minister may appoint a visitor to a university. The explanatory memorandum states:
Where there is prima facie evidence that there has been a breach by a university of the laws, ordinances or statutes governing it, the Minister, after giving a university an opportunity to make its case and with the agreement of the Government, may request that the Visitor to the university enquire into aspects of the operation of the university.
On section 20 it states:
Where ... the Minister, having considered the views of the university, is of the opinion that a governing authority is performing its functions in a manner which breaches the laws, statutes, or ordinances governing it and that the governing authority should be suspended, and the Visitor concurs, the Minister may recommend to the Government the suspension of the governing authority.
That gives undue latitude to act. If a Minister wished to be vindictive it would be easy to find circumstances to get rid of the governing authority. That goes too far. It has nothing to do with the State and should not be tolerated.
Will the 48 hour week, which is the subject of other legislation, be imposed on the universities? If so, many academics would be out of business because some of them appear to work morning, noon and night. It is this degree of commitment to their calling that produces excellence.
I am informed that we are at the bottom of the league in terms of State investment as a percentage of GDP in our universities. We need to focus on this area, yet we will rapidly get to the top of league in terms of State meddling if this Bill becomes law. The chief officer or whoever is in charge of the university will be tied up with administrative accounting and management procedures. This should not be the primary focus, rather it should be on the excellence of the institution and on ensuring that it competes at that level, both domestically and internationally.
I understand that the grant to Trinity College in 1995 was £31.6 million. VAT and other deductions produced a net figure of £13.6 million for 12,000 students. Since 1991 the State provided £14 million by way of capital funding and £8 million for the dental hospital. However, significantly, £20.4 million was invested by private finance and through fund raising. This exceeds what the State invested and it is certain that it would not have been forthcoming if the quality of the institution was not at its present high level.
Would the Bill have been changed were it not for the mathematical complexion of this House and the fact that the Government is in a minority? The Seanad can defeat or significantly alter the Bill. The university Senators have a primary role in this. Will the House return the Bill to the Government for further consideration? It would be no harm if there was a rethink.
While I accept the urgent need to have Maynooth and the other centres of learning constituted under the Bill, there would be no difficulty in doing this were it not for the other matters included in it. In view of this, any delay to the passage of the Bill would not be due to resistance on this side of the House; it would not have been there had the legislation been simpler and more straightforward.
The Bill is fundamentally wrong and must be opposed. How will it improve the quality and delivery of third level education? It will achieve neither of those objectives. The State should be rolled back. We got rid of the sugar and shipping industries and they are flourishing. Why is it necessary to impose these regulations on the universities when they are already flourishing? The connection between the State and the universities should be minimal. The only area where it is required is in the regulation of the disbursement of moneys to ensure that they are properly used. This can be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the HEA. Autonomy and academic freedom must be protected. The question of subsidiarity and the necessity to devolve decision making downwards is regularly debated in these Houses, yet this Bill now provides that the universities should not make their own decisions.
I am a liberal and because of this I cannot accept the Bill. My liberalism believes that there should be pluralism within our society, that people should be allowed make their own decisions, that the State should not intrude into areas that do not belong to it and that autonomous bodies can be accountable and transparent. The Latin phrase e pluribus unum means “one out of many” and that is how a state and a democracy develops. We gain our strength from diversity, which must be maintained. It is totally inappropriate to impose a universal system on a sector which should be diverse.
Senator Dardis said we got rid of the sugar industry and it is flourishing. He should visit his friends or neighbours in Carlow and see the reductions that have taken place in the industry.
The industry never made bigger profits.
The Senator said the industry is flourishing.
It is flourishing; farmers never made higher profits.
It is easy to understand the Senator's philosophy.
Any legislation is bound to attract division and different opinions. I do not have the advantage of a university education but I value the opinions of people I met over the years and with whom I discussed various issues. I intend to quote the views of such a person later.
I congratulate the Minister for introducing this necessary legislation. Times are changing and legislation must be introduced to keep up to date. I received many submissions on the Bill and I wish to quote a person who has been a great friend of mine over the years. I worked with him on several committees and I value his opinion highly. I intend to quote extracts from his submission because it is important. His name is Mr. Donal Nunan, a former College lecturer in economics at University College Cork from 1962 to 1994. He said:
My philosophy is that universities derive their distinctive ethos from the principle of academic freedom, which should permeate every aspect of their structures. It makes for a decentralised system, the driving force of which is the individual academic rather than the departmental head or the chief officer. Under this model, the administrative structures exist to support, rather than direct, the academic function in so far as resources of the university allow. This is the collegiate model of a university as distinct from the bureaucratic model which appears to have had a strong influence on the thinking behind the Universities Bill in its present formulation. This may not be too surprising, as I understand that the heads of the universities had a significant input into the consultation process.
Universities should also be regarded as international institutions, devoted to research and learning; when used to achieve narrow local (e.g. national) objectives prescribed for them, they are diminished as universities. For example, promoting the use of the Irish language would come into this category, whereas universities should only be involved in Irish as a subject for scholarship and learning.
The inherited models of our older universities are unfortunately elitist, which is inappropriate under our democratic egalitarian Constitution of today. In the 1970s, attempts were made (at UCC, at least, under the presidency of Donal McCarthy) to diminish their elitist character. Unfortunately, in recent years, probably arising from the time that resources available to the universities were curtailed (e.g. in the 1980s), their elitist character has been strengthened, as increasing power gravitated towards the administrative function.
I would see the proposed university legislation as an opportunity for this elitism to be confronted and eliminated once and for all, despite the existing strong academic interests vested in same. As a bold step, there was an opportunity for the Bill to impose the principle of equal status on all permanent academic staff, so as to sanitise our universities from their colonial past, as they face into the 21st century.
Finally, I would like to take issue with the now common practice of referring to the work of academic staff in relation to students as ‘teaching', and to university lecturers as ‘teachers'. This is misleading; universities are learning institutions; the lecturers/professors do not ‘teach' the students; the latter teach themselves. Academics can vary a lot in their ‘teaching' abilities. Universities tend to appoint staff on their scholarly record and promise, rather than on their ‘teaching' abilities. Admittedly, the term ‘university teacher' is frequently used, even by academics themselves. It is also mentioned in the Charters of the NUI and of its constituent colleges. My own theory is that this (misleading) terminology came to be used as a common denominator between the terms ‘lecturer' and ‘professor'.
I considered it worthwhile to quote that submission. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister's initiative in introducing the legislation.
Ní bheidh mé i bhfad leis an méid atá le rá agam. I am not sure whether I am fit to address the House because I was only a county councillor before I progressed. I only received a national school education but I do not blame my family or anybody else for that. Our circumstances at the time meant I did not have the opportunity to progress. I oppose the Bill but I also oppose the views of Senator Ross. He should apologise to me and other councillors for calling us political hacks. I was one of eight people elected to the governing body of UCD in 1985 by the General Council of County Councils and I was nominated again by successive Ministers for Education. When the current Minister appointed me to the governing body, I wrote to her and thanked her. I again thank her, although we disagree about this Bill.
The disgraceful remarks of Senator Ross should be struck from the record of the House. I am a fair person and I am not biased in favour of anybody or their political affiliations. However, according to Senator Ross, Members of this House are not fit to be in his company because he is far above us. I reject that view because it reflects attitudes in other parts of this country. If Senator Ross is voicing such attitudes, it will be difficult to live here.
I was honoured to travel with the Leas-Chathaoirleach to Poland and Lithuania last year on an important mission for Ireland. That was the first Irish delegation ever to visit Lithuania. We had an important mission as the Government had ratified Lithuania's accession to the EU. We went to the University of Vilnius and I was sorry at the time we did not have a message from the Irish universities or the Minister for Education. Through the years, the Lithuanians were persecuted because of their education. Many educated people disappeared. Because I was on the governing body of UCD, the Leas-Chathaoirleach asked me to address the Director of the university. I felt proud of that, as a common county councillor with no education from Dingle who is not fit for the governing body of UCD. Senator Manning and I have sat on that governing body for many years and I admire it. I have contributed to its discussions and represented the people of rural Ireland who are looking for education. Their problems need to be heard by the governing body, who listened to them and in 1985 and 1986 I was instrumental in getting dormitories built in UCD. Senator Manning headed the committee which dealt with that. Anyone would think I am speaking in favour of the Minister's Bill but I wish to put the record straight as far as Senator Ross's contribution is concerned. It hurt me deeply.
I will not go deal with the Bill section by section now. We will do so later if the Bill passes Second Stage this evening. However, some sections deserve comment and I return to the matter of county councillors. I will oppose that aspect of the Bill. I was one of eight councillors elected by the general council of county councils to the governing body of UCD. According to the Bill, there will be a reduction from eight members to not fewer than two or more than five. If an amendment to ensure eight members of a local authority stay on the governing body is proposed to that section, it will be very hard for all sides of the House to oppose it. The Minister should change this. With the exceptions of the Taoiseach's nominees and the university Senators, all Members here are elected by county councillors. The Minister would be asking Senators, including those on the Government side, to cut their own throats by agreeing to such a section and an amendment will be tabled on this section if the Minister is successful tonight. I am not putting a gun to her head but someone will do so.
I am more interested in the quality of our educational system than in the everyday running of colleges. From my years on the governing body, UCD appears to have been run properly. I have served under three great presidents of that university: Tom Murphy, Paddy Masterson and Art Cosgrove. Each worked diligently, as did all members of the governing body and I never saw anything wrong there. Disagreements between members rarely went to a vote as consensus was usually reached.
Why is there a need for this Bill? If the system works, it should continue. There may be other universities the Minister may want to legislate for, but that could be achieved under a smaller Bill. This Bill has caused much controversy. I would prefer to see no interference from the Minister for Education, and I am not referring to the present Minister specifically. I have seen the system work in UCD and am satisfied it will continue to work. This Bill implies that the universities are not competent to manage their business. How could they go wrong? There are 35 people on the governing body of UCD and the Higher Education Authority guides it. Its finances are audited once a year by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
We are almost in the position that obtained in the University of Vilnius, which was dictated to by a foreign power, communist Russia. The Russians imposed their culture on Lithuanian, not the native culture. The Minister is probably genuine in her wish to make changes but she has a lot of opposition in the Seanad. There was opposition also in the Dáil and there may be opposition on the Government side, minus Senator Ross. They may have worries about the Bill. If the Bill passes Second Stage, the Minister should listen to what Senators have said, especially on the matter of county councillors. The Minister would probably lose a vote on that section. I wish the Minister luck. The Bill may be passed but I hope it is not.
This Universities Bill is different from the one that started its journey through the legislative system some months ago. The Minister listened carefully and has been very responsive to many of the objections to the original proposal. I do not doubt that other objections will be met during the Bill's passage through the Seanad in the coming weeks. However, it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck that is broadly acceptable to the various voices that have been raised. I applaud the Minister for the great flexibility she has shown, but I am not convinced that the benefits of the measures outweigh the costs and the risks. My doubts have increased because the beneficial aspects are separate from the dubious ones and they are not contingent on each other. For example, the status of the NUI colleges and the new universities could be approved without our becoming involved with the concerns expressed about academic freedom and autonomy.
Does this legislation answer the most urgent needs of the universities? While the Minister fights her corner and everyone attempts to fend her off, it is easy to forget that basic question. The real issue confronting the third level sector involves the practical matter of resources which is not really dealt with under the Bill. We have systematically starved third level institutions of the resources they require if they are to become the world class centres of learning that will serve the nation's needs in the 21st century. To be brutally frank, this legislation is like planning a home extension when one's house is burning down. Nothing in the Bill will improve that basic issue one whit.
From the point of view of resources, the Bill is a gigantic red herring. It has focused an enormous amount of energy in the Department of Education and throughout the third level sector on precisely the wrong issues. International comparisons show that Irish people obtain their university education on the cheap. That we do so is a tribute to the people and the institutions at third level. However, we cannot expect to continue in this manner for much longer. Any sector which is systematically starved of adequate resources to carry out its job will eventually decline. Quality assurance and accountability are issues of concern where public funds are involved. However, no matter how efficient one is, one cannot obtain much more than one pays for.
The only yardstick in which the Department of Education appears interested is the number of undergraduates that can be churned out under the current system. In that context, research, which is the lifeblood of any university and which we neglect at our peril, is a crucial element. However, its role does not seem to be properly understood at administrative level. To state, as the Minister did, that we are interested in quality assurance while seeming to throttle the capability to carry out research is a contradiction in terms.
The Green Paper which began this process in 1992 was entitled "Educating for a Changing World". Do we realise how much the world is changing? Indeed, it has already changed during the five years since the publication of that document. In the world into which we are moving, knowledge will be a fundamental asset and I was glad the Minister referred to this when introducing the Bill. Ireland is perfectly geared to develop that asset and, for the first time in our history, we have the capability to be leaders rather than followers. What do we do? We decide it is time to squeeze the third level sector until the pips squeak, instead of recognising that this sector can be the country's most important engine of growth in the information age.
While the Department of Education has a view of the future the narrowness of which often shocks me, the universities are also far from blameless but perhaps they have been cowed by the constant squeeze on their resources. For example, neither the universities nor the Department have faced up to the potential of lifelong education. There is almost an unholy alliance to sweep that issue under the carpet. The Department does not want to tackle it because of the implications regarding resources and the universities are not interested because the model of lifelong education is too far from that with which they have comfortably dealt in the past. However, the future will not be denied and we must face reality. In a world of constant and accelerating change, people will require continuing education in a way never before witnessed in human history. If that education is not available to them they will become casualties at increasingly younger ages.
The general starvation of resources, recent downgrading of research functions of universities and reluctance to come to grips with lifelong education are the real challenges with which the third level sector is faced. To what extent are they addressed in the Bill? The answer to that should frighten everyone. I do not believe we have adequately considered the future. I am aware that the Minister intended to do so but is this the type of legislation required for the 21st century? It is clear that the world is in a state of accelerated change and I do not believe that we have discovered, learned about and grown with this fact. As I stated earlier, there seems to be an unholy alliance against doing so.
One of my heroes, Jean Monnet, the founder of modern Europe who made change his ally, once recounted a story about the years between the two world wars. He regarded the British as a people who did not see change as an ally and did not welcome it. I cannot remember the exact details but he referred to the British delegate to the League of Nations who had a tendency to doze off until a vote was called when he promptly jumped to his feet and stated "His Majesty's Government is opposed to that, whatever it is.".
There is a danger that we have failed to recognise the impact of, need for and ability to change. The Minister set out to make the universities capable of meeting the challenges of this changing world independently. I understand and welcome her efforts to encourage accountability. To the best of my knowledge the universities are satisfied with the recognition that they must account for all funding they receive, the amount of which is fundamentally greater than in the past.
The Bill before the House better addresses the issue of autonomy than it did when first published. Many people who expressed concern in this regard are now of the view that the autonomy advocated in the Bill will not only be healthy but will also act as a spur to universities to have responsibility for their actions.
A number of years ago I attended a conference where a guest speaker asked delegates to describe the term "management" in five words or less. Everyone attempted to give different terms such as "leadership", "delegation" and "responsibility". The speaker went further and asked us to define the word to someone who had never heard it before. In that context, we eventually hammered out the term "getting results through other people". With the changes that occurred in recent months and taking account of the concept of the Bill, the Minister has given the universities the autonomy they require. I no longer have a problem in this regard because the Minister has informed the universities that they have responsibility for their actions and they must account for the funding they receive. Therefore, I no longer harbour the same concern as others who expressed criticism about the provisions concerning autonomy.
I am concerned about resources, an issue which is not dealt with in the Bill. We will have to rely not just on this Minister but on other Ministers if we are to have the resources. We must invest far more money to provide the wherewithal needed by third level education. The universities will have to change dramatically in the next few years. The other night I had dinner in London with Baroness Blackstone, who is likely to be the British Secretary of State for Education if Labour wins the election. We touched on that subject during an interesting discussion and she mentioned her concepts for the future, which include those I mentioned.
The universities have not understood the changes they will face and have not geared themselves towards them. Is it wise for the universities, in which we have invested so much, to be limited to so few weeks per year? In 20 years, if not earlier, they will ask themselves why they should not have a 52 week year. I do not suggest that professors will have to give more lectures or do more research but I do not understand the logic of not fully using our assets. We will have to examine these questions if we are going to cater for life long education or, as Senator Sherlock put it, life long learning.
We do not discuss the detail of the Bill on Second Stage but I am delighted that in the list of functions of a university in section 12 the first objects of a university are "scholarly research and scientific investigation". There was a danger that these might not be regarded as the foremost functions but thankfully they have been. We must recognise the importance of research in the universities because it is the life blood of the future and we must concentrate heavily on it. It is mentioned in the Bill but it will be dependent on resources. Whether those resources will be available is not a matter for tonight but if we do not stitch that into the record we will have no chance or achieving the sort of universities, education and third level success which we need.
Is the Minister satisfied that we have addressed all the concerns regarding the governing authorities? Will what is provided in the Bill be the best practice for running these organisations? Some speakers have criticised its workings. We can make it work, but the Minister must listen carefully on Committee Stage and decide whether the Bill takes the correct steps. For instance, would a standing or permanent visitor be best practice in any organisation? Why have we arrived at this formula? I look forward to answers and explanations to these points. This provision has changed since the Bill was initiated and I hope the matter has been given serious consideration.
The Dublin Institute of Technology is dotted in many locations around the city and I have visited and spoken in many of them. The institute has designs on a building which would be a suitable centre if it becomes a university. Having listened to the Minister's words on the future of the Dublin Institute of Technology at the beginning of Second Stage, I am not content that we have taken the right steps. I look forward to her reply because we face a challenge in deciding whether Dublin Institute of Technology should become a university and how we determine university status in general. That is dealt with in section 9.
The objective of the Bill is quality assurance, a phrase used by the Minister almost every time she has spoken about it. This House has also set this objective in making sure the Bill provides our students — not just the young but those who engage in life long learning in years ahead — with the third level education they want. I will support Second Stage on the grounds that the Minister has listened carefully in the last few months at other Stages. I have confidence that she will continue to listen as the Bill passes through the House. If she does, she will achieve a great deal of what she and the nation wants and we will provide the third level education we want and require.
Whatever one feels about the detail of the Bill, this Minister has, ever since its publication, listened to the points of view and attempted to meet needs. I have many problems with the Bill, which I will mention, but it is grossly unfair to criticise Ministers on the one hand for being inflexible and on the other for listening and taking on board various viewpoints. There are issues of major concern and I have not fully made my mind up on some of them. Part of me wishes to take a dog in the manger attitude — I spent the whole day studying aspects of resources in primary education and I wonder why third level should have a better model. I am bigger than that, but I still get petty when it comes to walking through the lobbies.
I was trying to concentrate on first level education but, unfortunately, my attention was drawn by Senator Ross. I was not sure whether I was being informed, educated or distracted by what he was saying, but I certainly did not learn much from him — I am sorry he is not here. I could not find a copy of The Idea of a University by Cardinal Newman but I found an extract on the Internet and I wondered whether it related to Senator Ross's remarks. Newman wrote that a university—
is a place where a thousand schools make contributions, in which the intellect may safely range and speculate, sure to find its equal in some antagonist activity, and its judge in the tribunal of truth.
The Senator found his "judge in the tribunal of truth" when Senator Fitzgerald responded in the most elegant and informed of terms. I was proud to be a fellow Dingle person when he properly and correctly put Senator Ross in his place.
I looked at the wrong essay by Newman — I should have looked at The Idea of an Educated Man whose first quality, according to Newman, is tolerance. I respectfully — or disrespectfully — commend that to Senator Ross. No doubt he would say that Newman had changed sides by the time he wrote that essay — he can make of that what he will. Tolerance is one of the great qualities of education. I am no paragon of tolerance and am regularly described as the personification of intolerance and irritability. However, the idea that all education emanates from third level would not be shared by any academic for whom I have respect, nor would it be accepted by any teacher I know. I did not hear all Senator Sherlock's remarks about teachers and lecturers, but I have a great respect for those in third level who see their role as that of teachers. It is interesting that great communicators who work in third level, such as Senator Norris, always describe themselves as teachers because they see that as their role.
The idea that somebody must come through a college and accumulate letters after his or her name in order to be described as intelligent, successful or intellectual, which is what Senator Ross seemed to imply, is extraordinary. Perhaps Senator Fitzgerald found it equally ironic that on the one hand Senator Ross said he found it extraordinary that a Minister could decide who or what a university might be, yet on the other hand say that a virgin queen 300 years ago could have given the theory and model for universities for 21st century Ireland. I found that extraordinary and incomprehensible. Ministers do not decide what universities might be; universities evolve.
Senator Ross's comments about county councillors were objectionable. I found myself squirming with embarrassment. I found it embarrassing to be a graduate. I am sure my fellow university Senators would agree that we never heard such views advanced from the 100,000 or so NUI graduates on our electoral list. I would have no time or tolerance for such exclusivity. At a time when we are pushing for a pluralist, inclusive society, such views are extraordinary.
It is reassuring to hear that county councillors will retain representation in the future. I will support Senator Fitzgerald's amendment to retain the existing level of representation for county councillors. I am sure academics would agree that a balance of representation is important. The tension of different views is one from which progress can be made. It is crucial that we do not see ourselves as above and beyond ordinary people. It is important that universities are not academe behind high walls and out of touch with the rest of the world.
I do not care whether or not the county councillors involved have graduate qualifications. That is not important because they will have developed in other ways. Senator Fitzgerald rightly pointed out that he and I grew up in the same town. Some of us had opportunities to go to third level education while others did not. We were reared in a town where if that distinction were allowed to divide us in any way, none of us would be talking to each other today. We were reared differently and I hope our children are also reared differently. It is not the attitude of an educated person to look down on a person who may or may not have had a third level education. It goes against the ideas of a university or other education, and if anyone ever manages to arrive at a definition of education I am sure it would encompass that point.
Over the last few months the Minister has dealt with some of the issues that would have been of concern to me. However, they have not all been dealt with. In coming to a decision on how to vote on a Bill such as this there are always reasons for and against. I am certain, however, that I will support amendments to the Bill. I agree with Senator Quinn that the Minister should listen and be prepared to make changes on the basis of the arguments made on Committee Stage.
I will examine closely the Minister's comments on an issue that is closely related to what I have said about Senator Ross and tolerance and which relates to section 44. This section refers to the Irish Universities Act, 1908, from which it proposes to delete section 3(2) which states:
Every professor upon entering into office shall sign a declaration in a form approved by the Commissioners jointly under this Act, securing the respectful treatment of the religious opinions of any of his class.
I would need to be convinced of the need to delete this provision on the basis of arguments other than administrative concerns. There would have to be fundamental issues involved.
It is also proposed to delete section 3(3) which states:
Nothing in this section shall apply to any professor of or lecturer in theology or divinity; provided that no test of religious belief shall be imposed by the governing body of either of the two new universities or any constituent college on such professor or lecturer as a condition of his appointment or recognition by the governing body as such professor or lecturer.
Another change is proposed to section 4(7). This provision prevented the universities from funding religious institutions. Although they are not the precise terms in which that subsection is framed, they are close to the provision in the Constitution which does not allow the State to endow religious institutions as such. I wonder about the implications of deleting section 4(7) of the 1908 Act and I would like a detailed response on this point from the Minister.
In attempting to deal with the Bill I tried to write a definitive speech on it but I do not think that would do it justice. The Bill has changed many times and I think it will change again, because the real debate will take place on Committee Stage. I will support the Bill tonight because I think the Minister has made a great effort to meet various concerns expressed. She will be put under further pressure by myself and others to meet our concerns about the Bill.
There has been a huge lobby on this issue from many third level interests. The people involved are to be commended for their commitment. Representing university graduates, I sometimes feel isolated or at a remove because it seems like an exclusive group to represent. It was heartening to me to receive many views from the universities. They all had one thing in common — a great care for and a commitment to their institutions. I did not agree with all the views expressed, but there was a clear articulation of commitment to the institutions and seeking the best for them. Some institutions have slightly different perspectives because there may be different regimes in those institutions. It can be difficult to take that on board. One of the issues raised by Senator Ross was the chairperson and chief executive issue and I would not disagree completely with him on that point. However, knowing the reasons for the provision, we should show some tolerance.
I sought advice from various groups. I spoke to my colleagues in the Irish Federation of University Teachers, who outlined their reservations about the Bill, which they have also expressed to the Minister. I will be raising the issues of tenure, security of tenure and commitment to the protection of status and entitlements. IFUT's overall view was that it was supportive of the Bill subject to changes being made on Committee Stage.
A series of issues was raised strongly by staff from Limerick University, and a number of Senators have referred to those concerns. They are significant issues. The staff have suggested various amendments which should be examined on Committee Stage. The Minister should consider the amendments because they will not change the overall aims of the Bill but will help those people to accommodate themselves to her ideas. Senator Quinn's point about implementing change is important.
In education values are passed on from one generation to another. Although those of us involved in education like to think we are transformers of society we are barely such. We are lucky if we can open people to change never mind impose change. Anytime a teacher at any level, but particularly at first level, attempts to go outside the umbrella of consensus of the community they are rapped firmly and quickly on the knuckles. We are programmed to be careful about how we mould new generations. It is difficult, therefore, to introduce change. Opposition is the first reaction to any proposed change in education because it is safe, simple and understood by all parties. The initial responses to this legislation came from those who found difficulties with it.
I asked every lobby group I met to say what they felt was positive in the Bill as well as what they found wrong with it. I impose this approach in my own organisation. It forces people to balance their arguments. The people I met were willing to do this and I ask that this be taken on board when I raise issues on Report Stage as a result of having met different groups, particularly the group from Limerick. The academic staff and students in Limerick want those who elect them to represent them. They are recommending a minor change which is unnecessary but there are times when even unnecessary changes should be made. One of the ways of making change is through accommodating people within the security of the status quo and then moving beyond that point.
The Senate of the NUI has made it clear that it supports the general thrust of this legislation in that it gives discretion, authority and autonomy to the constituent colleges. I also welcome that positive evolution.
There will be significant debate on the structure of the governing bodies. Many different views will be aired. The Minister can take it that some changes will be made. We should discuss what changes are acceptable. It may be necessary to see how the different needs can be further accommodated. I will be supporting the retention of the representation of the county councillors on the governing bodies. I am one of the few Senators not dependent on the votes of county councillors for elections so I am independent on this issue. County councillors should be retained on the governing bodies. We spill blood if necessary.
Will I still get the Senator's vote?
Yes. The idea of quality assurance is important in every level of education. The Minister is aware of the importance I attach to this at first, second and third level. I am delighted with her initiative on a teaching council.
I agree with Senator Quinn's comments on the Dublin Institute of Technology. I have examined the legislation and appreciate there are difficulties including it in the Bill but I will be supporting its stance. It made a superb case and it is important that it be recognised. It should be brought within the scope of this Bill or a commitment should be given to introduce alternative legislation. I would like to see an addition being made to the Bill. We are constantly extending the parameters of third level education and I support the case made by the Dublin Institute of Technology.
The Minister and I have many differences but she has done as much to meet the needs of people as possible on this occasion. I am not happy with the final results but if we are to meet the needs of everybody, no one group is going to be totally satisfied. I will support the Bill on Second Stage but will be supporting amendment on Committee Stage and the Minister should be open to accepting them.
This debate has gone on for over a year. We heard a great deal about the history of this Bill, especially from Senator Ross. My revisionist view of its history is different from that of Senator Ross. The Bill has been in preparation for a long time and it has been changed. However, that change has been due to an unprecedented degree of consultation. No legislation during my 15 years as a Member of the Oireachtas has involved such a wide degree of open-ended consultation where every person or group who had a point of view was given many opportunities to express it. The Bill in its present form, and it may not be its final form, reflects that degree of consultation. This is very much to the credit of the Minister and the Bill.
It has been said that the Bill has been much amended on Committee Stage. What is the purpose of Parliament if it cannot amend legislation, if the Minister does not consider amendments or introduce the fruits of discussions she has had with those outside? It is difficult to understand the logic of people who speak of Parliament as a talking shop where nothing every happens, where legislation is never changed, where Ministers come to have their proposals rubber stamped while at the same time denigrate a Bill which has shown the benefit of widespread consultation and change. I am sure further changes will be accepted by the Minister in the same spirit of openness.
The main critic of the Bill has been Senator Ross. I found it difficult to find the central point of his objection in his speech which was full of sound and fury. He seemed to say that the State has no right to impose legislation on the universities. The impression was created of a Minister, blinded by ideology, who was riding rough shod over poor, defenceless creatures who had not been consulted about the shape they wanted for their universities. Senator Ross's description, which I have mercifully abbreviated, overlooks one central point. This legislation, as it now stands, has been discussed in every university forum over the past year.
I want to put on record where this Bill stands in the league table of university approval. It has won the approval of the academic councils and the governing bodies of University Colleges Cork and Dublin, Trinity College, the University of Limerick, Dublin City University and St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. The heads of these institutions who are members of the Conference of the Heads of Irish Universities publicly affirmed their support for the Bill. They were involved in widespread consultations with the Minister at all stages of this process and have come out strongly in favour of the Bill which they see as necessary, timely and providing a framework within which their universities can grow and serve the needs of this country over the coming years. They see it as a framework which provides more freedom for Irish universities than is available in most European countries.
The Irish Federation of University Teachers and the Union of Students in Ireland have endorsed the Bill's proposals. It is also on record that the Bill agrees in full with the original request of the Senate of the NUI for the restructuring of universities. The amendments which have been passed by the Dáil have met with the general endorsement of people who have taken a keen interest in this legislation.
When Senator Ross refers to the Minister as jackbooting—one of the many offensive terms he used — this legislation through over the bodies of the universities, he is talking arrant and utter nonsense. At this stage, the Bill has the approval of virtually every significant group involved in Irish university education. These people want the legislation and they want it soon because it will liberate them and will provide a framework within which the universities can develop. The notion of an arrogant and ideologically driven Minister keen to impose her personal blueprint on university education is nonsense and does not fit with the facts.
Senator Ross talked a great deal about statism and about the State moving in on education. Where did Trinity College get its charter but from the State? The charter of the National University of Ireland is based on an Act of Parliament where the State of the day decided on the best structure for Irish education. There was far less consultation in 1908 than there has been in relation to this Bill. It is Senator Ross, not the Minister, who is driven by ideology. It is Senator Ross who is blinded by free market ideology gone mad and unrestrained capitalism when he talks as he did here this evening. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support the points he made. The stakeholders, the people who will be affected by this legislation, have voted and are in favour of the proposals.
I am not going to indulge in a discussion of the details of the Bill as to who should or should not be represented on the governing bodies. I am certain the Minister will listen carefully to the points made by Senators Fitzgerald, O'Toole and others as to the composition of those. The Minister has shown great open-mindedness in her approach to this debate to date. I am certain that will not desert her when we move onto Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
I addressed this House on my proposals for university legislation some 16 months ago. I have now returned with a Bill which has been the subject of detailed consideration in Dáil Éireann and in this House and which Senators have recognised in their generous contributions tonight. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill in this House and I welcome the vigorous and open debate which has taken place so far.
In particular, I welcome the recognition of the need for legislation which will reflect the central role of the university in modern society and which has been evident in a large number of contributions here.
The debate on the Bill had a considerable influence on its content and the manner in which I considered that debate meant responding constructively to concerns and proposals. I give a commitment here that will continue to be my position on the Bill. Where amendments are tabled which improve the Bill either in technical drafting or in achieving its objectives, I will not be found wanting in supporting them.
A central theme running through most of the contributions in the Second Stage debate has been the need to guarantee the academic freedom and institutional autonomy of universities. I, too, consider that such freedom and autonomy lies at the heart of the concept of a university. In these concluding remarks I would like to concentrate centrally on the matters outlined in this House regarding academic freedom. I want to guarantee that the university, as an autonomous body dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge in an environment which values and protects academic freedom, is properly accountable for its actions.
The structure of this Bill is one in which academic freedom and respect for ethos and traditions is given a central place. Section 13 is of crucial importance to the Bill as a whole as it is this section which gives statutory backing to the exercise by governing authorities of their functions. Central to section 13 is subsection (3) which is a clear expression of the rights, entitlements, requirements — call it what you will — of a university to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom. The subsection goes further to safeguard this by providing that where there is a doubt about the interpretation of a provision then an interpretation which will promote academic freedom and the ethos of a university is to be preferred to one which would not do so.
The Bill could not contain a stronger or more assertive statement. I am prepared to consider how this statement of principle could be complemented by references in other parts of the Bill. It has been suggested that it should be an object of a university to support and sustain the principles of academic freedom. Although I believe that the Bill, as drafted, leads inevitably to this conclusion, it is reasonable that proposal, if there remains any doubt about it, could be taken on board on Committee Stage.
Related to this is the issue of the extent to which a university should be an agent for promoting academic freedom within its staff and student body. The Bill makes no specific reference to this because, in my view, it is comprehended within the general provisions relating to the academic freedom which are central to this Bill. I have been wary of legislating in too prescriptive a manner for matters which are primarily a concern for internal governance and institutional autonomy because the hand of the State seems to be seen where it was never intended to be. But if there is a genuine concern from people who know the university system intimately that such a protection is necessary, I am prepared to consider proposals to address that concern.
The issue of freedom of individual staff members raised a concern expressed by Senators O'Sullivan, Kelly and Henry that people who had been elected to a governing body by a particular group of people should be able to express the views of their electorate. The implication is that because the Third Schedule provides that members of governing authorities shall not act as representative of any special interest, then members are to be silenced from expressing dissenting views. That was never the intention of the Bill.
The central rationale to the broadening and democratising of governing authorities is that there would be available to a university a group of people drawn from a variety of experiences and backgrounds relevant to the work and mission of the university. I take on board the comments of Senator Fitzgerald as he responded to criticism. The breath of vision and wealth of experience of the different people who have been nominated make the governing bodies reflect the life of Ireland today. That is important to me and I could not put it better than Senator Fitzgerald did in his contribution. The value of this is that they can and should articulate the views from their particular perspective. What should not occur and what the Bill seeks to avoid is that any member, having so expressed his or her views, would then act on behalf of a special interest at the expense of the best interests of the university. This is a matter on which would benefit from further discussion on Committee Stage.
A much repeated theme running through the debate on accountability structures is that by legislating on this matter there is somehow an implication that something is seriously wrong in the universities. With respect to those who hold that view, I consider it to be a very short-sighted one which has never emanated from the institutions involved. Many of the accountability procedures in our university institutions are non-statutory ad hoc arrangements, which have nevertheless served the universities and the country well but times change and the needs of universities and society change. There is broad agreement in this House, as there was in the Dáil and, indeed, as there is in the universities, on the need for appropriate accountability structures. There is even broad agreement on the need to update and put on a legislative basis the accountability structures which already exist in the universities. There are few who would insist that the Oireachtas should wait for a breakdown in the system before addressing this important matter.
It is inevitable that any person who is concerned with the academic freedom and autonomy of universities would approach any provisions on accountability with caution. I, too, have been concerned to ensure that the provisions for accountability should be proportionate and mindful of the needs of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
I would like to outline the accountability structure as provided in the Bill and how it interacts with the central principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Each university will in each year agree its budget with the Higher Education Authority. This is already the practice in all the university institutions and it is proposed to now give it a specific statutory standing. Once that budget is agreed its disposition within the university will be a matter solely for the governing authority. Senator Quinn picked up in his reading of the Bill this is the first time that the universities will enjoy such freedom as a matter of statute law.
Universities will enjoy complete discretion as regards the people it employs. The Bill requires only that the universities ensure that their selection procedures attract the best possible candidates and that they are open and transparent through the publication of statutes and regulations. Indeed, there will now be increased autonomy for the constituent universities, as no longer will the appointment of senior academic staff in the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland need to be matters in which the Houses of the Oireachtas will have the opportunity to intervene.
In the case of the remuneration of staff, the Bill provides that in general the Ministers for Education and Finance will approve pay, allowances and pensions. This is a prudent and reasonable measure to ensure control of public finances, but there is scope in the Bill to address the concern that universities should have freedom to develop pay and conditions packages to attract particular staff. Sections 24(4) and 24(5) provide that a university and the Higher Education Authority will develop a framework to take account of that need. The development of this framework will ensure that universities will have the flexibility that is sought. The purpose of the framework will be to avoid the kind of delays which advance approval for action can create and which may have been created in the past. Once the framework is in place — and I have every confidence that one will be agreed — then the universities will have full autonomy to act within it.
Balancing this substantial autonomy of universities are a number of provisions aimed at ensuring accountability and transparency. These include the keeping of accounts, making reports, drawing up plans and developing policies and structures for equality and quality issues. Some Senators expressed unease at some aspects of these provisions and this can be teased out further on Committee Stage. I know Senator Fitzgerald wished me good luck. We might proceed to Committee Stage without his vote, but I am confident that we will have the wisdom of his contribution on Committee Stage. I am satisfied that a reasonable balance has been struck between the requirements of public accountability and transparency and those of institutional autonomy.
As I outlined in my opening speech, the principle underlying the provisions relating to governing authorities is that the major stakeholders in a university should be represented on its governing authority by statutory right. In this way the university can benefit from a range of experiences and perspectives while stakeholders can be confident that the actions and decisions of the governing authority are taken in the knowledge of their needs and concerns.
I consider it to be a fundamental objective of the Bill that the stakeholders should have a place as a statutory right on governing authorities. In general these provisions build on what is already in place in the universities and give to stakeholders, who are at present not included, a statutory right to be present in the highest policy and decision making body of each university.
Senator Lee raised concerns regarding gender balance on governing authorities. I consider that section 15(10) will provide the necessary flexibility in regard to gender balance, given that in the section the Minister has the power to determine or approve a gender balance. The present Government policy is that there should be a minimum of 40 per cent representation from each sex on a governing authority. The provision will allow a Minister to approve a different gender balance than this so as to provide flexibility which people expect of a Minister where a university has difficulties now in reaching a 40 per cent balance. If there is a proposal which would result in a more effective and practical manner in attaining gender balance on governing authorities, an aim which we all share, I would certainly be willing to look at this in further discussion.
Senator Lee also sees the potential for a link between the composition of a governing authority and the composition of academic councils. In particular, concern was expressed that it would be possible for an academic council to be "packed" in a manner which would be conducive to the interests of a particular president. In bringing forward proposals on this matter I have looked at the diversity of practices in the composition of academic councils in operation at present. I thought that the most important elements that would be included in the Bill would be that the membership of the academic council would have a majority of academics and that the governing authority would decide on the appropriate range of academic discipline and levels to be represented. Students will also have an appropriate representation.
I would expect that there would be a substantial number of senior academic staff on each council, but I consider that this matter is best left to the individual academic councils and governing authorities to decide. I consider that I have struck a fine balance but I am open to teasing out the details of concern on this issue in further discussion as soon as possible on Committee Stage.
Senator Norris raised an issue that Trinity College may wish to be funded other than by the State at some time in the future and that the Bill should provide for this possibility. I am aware that the college has relatively recently, in terms of its long history, begun to receive State funding. I must point out that the period during which the college has been in receipt of such funding has been a period of massive growth and expansion for the college and in many ways the college is very different now than when it was entirely privately funded. If any university was to decide to seek to be funded otherwise than through public funds this would raise a large number of issues, not least the protection of the interests of students and the public interest generally.
There are no simple solutions to these issues and, indeed, they are issues which may not need to be addressed at all. However, it may, as the Senator has indicated, be necessary to put a signal in the Bill for reasons of maintaining the autonomy of the institution. The Long Title already does this and a similar indication in the substance of the Bill is an issue which we could consider with further debate.
In conclusion, I have noted the contribution of Senator Ross and I also heard the points that Senator Sherlock made. I thank Senator Quinn, who answered Senator Dardis's question about the need to plan for the future of a changing world better than I might have done when he pointed out that the future will not be denied. This Bill seeks to provide a framework to enable universities to continue to grow and develop into the next millennium having regard to the traditional freedoms of the university.
Senator O'Toole said he might not always be known for his tolerance, but I would say he might be slightly impatient. He wishes to realise a vision about primary education which I share. Next week will give him plenty of opportunity to clap me on the back as I will be meeting him during the Easter recess.
Senator Manning, the Leader of the House, summed it up very well and put on record the support of the institutions and partners involved in the university sector for this Bill. He talked about the fruits of change and, if I may say so, on the way to the fruits we have met some thorns and brambles. Before we pick the harvest there may be some more, but I look forward to that.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cotter, Bill.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Henry, Mary.
- Howard, Michael.
- McAughtry, Sam.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lee, Joe.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Burke and Magner; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 10 April 1997.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 April 1997.