Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 121 and 309 are related, amendments Nos. 119 and 120 are alternatives to amendment No. 118, and may be discussed together.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 14, lines 28 to 32, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) A chairperson shall be appointed only where at least two-thirds of the members of the relevant governing authority, present at the relevant meeting, has formally voted for that appointment.".
This section deals with the chairperson of the governing authority. Amendment No. 117 proposes to delete lines 28 to 32 and to delete subsection (3) and substitute that "A chairperson shall be appointed only where at least two-thirds of the members of the relevant governing authority, present at the relevant meeting, has formally voted for that appointment.". It is unclear in the Bill whether the chairperson will be elected or not in the immediate aftermath of the passing of this Act.
Section 15 (1) (2) and (3) state:
(1) The first meeting of a governing authority of a university shall be chaired by the chief officer and, subject to this section, at that meeting and from time to time as the governing authority determines, the governing authority shall decide whether—
(a) the holder of the office of chief officer should be or continue to be the chairperson, or
(b) a person other than the holder of the office of chief officer should be appointed as chairperson.
(2) Where the governing authority decides that the holder of the office of chief officer should be the chairperson then, subject to this section, the chief officer shall, ex officio, be the chairperson on and from the passing of the resolution to that effect.
(3) Where the governing authority decides at a meeting that person other than the chief officer should be the chairperson, it shall, as soon as practicable at that or a subsequent meeting, appoint a person who is not an employee of the university or a member of the governing authority to be the chairperson.
We propose to delete subsection (3). The person should be elected and there should be a strong consensus on the governing body behind the chairperson. This section has gone through many phases in the discussions prior to the publication of the Bill. Traditionally in universities, presidents were elected. They were not just seen as chairpersons, which is a problem I have with the terminology. They were seen as people who came forward with a mandate in terms of the university. They had ideas and a sense of mission in the university. When they were subsequently elected as presidents of the university it was almost automatic that they chaired meetings of the governing body. They also led the university, not in a dictatorial sense but with the agreement of the governing body. There was a sense of leadership emanating from the position. The phraseology here and the original intention was more along the semi-State model — that such people should chair the board. It is a fundamental cultural shift away from where we are. I have not heard any convincing argument against the position as we have known it in the NUI colleges at any rate.
We have been served by some tremendous people who acted as presidents of various universities from time to time. They gave great leadership and, because of the nature of their positions, their achievements were considerable. I would hate to see a situation emerging where somebody simply chairs the governing body and thus becomes a chairperson as opposed to a leader of the university. I know it is hard for legislation to define a leadership role. As things stand there is a compromise in the Bill to facilitate the existing colleges. Nonetheless, I favour the existing procedure whereby a president is elected, chairs the meetings and leads the college. I have grave reservations about an outsider coming in from the cold to chair meetings of the governing body.
Section 15(3) states:
Where the governing body decides at a meeeting that a person other than the chief officer should be the chairperson, it shall, as soon as practicable at that or a subsequent meeting, appoint a person who is not an employee of the university or a member of the governing authority to be the chairperson.
That essentially means someone who does not have direct experience of the university's life. It is similar to what currently happens in semi-State bodies where somebody from outside is brought in to chair. We have had some disastrous examples and successive Governments have had to take the blame. That is how the system evolved in the semi-State sector but I am not sure it has worked. In some cases it has and in others it has not. I would be slow to tinker with a system that, broadly speaking, has worked. It is not a positive move to bring somebody in from the cold and put them in a senior position in a university body where they will try to reconcile various interest groups as well as attempting to lead the college.
The existing president is full-time. It is their job, they have come from the college and have been part of its evolution. They want to lead that college; they have a mission to do so. If you bring somebody from outside to be chairperson they will not necessarily have either the same mission or, in some instances, the time to devote to the position. Very often people from the outside would not be able to fulfil such a position on a full-time basis because they may have other considerations.
I want to put my reservations about that on the record. That is why amendment No. 117 seeks the deletion of subsection (3) to substitute the following:
(3) A chairperson shall be appointed only where at least two-thirds of the members of the relevant governing authority, present at the relevant meeting, has formally voted for that appointment.
That is to ensure a strong consensus for the person who will lead the university.
Amendment No. 118 seeks to delete subsection (6) which states that:
A person holding office as chairperson of a governing authority (including a chief officer) may, at any time for stated reasons, be removed from the office of chairperson by the Government or the governing authority and where the chief officer was the chairperson,
The Minister has tabled amendment No. 120 which would delete "the Government". I agree with that. As it stands, the subsection was an unwarranted intrusion in the affairs of the governing body by the Minister of the day. I do not think the Minister should remove the chief executive or president of any college. In the first instance, the governing body itself should do that, and that is the case as it stands.
When I saw the list of amendments, I was glad the Minister had decided to delete these two offending phrases: in page 14, subsection (6), line 41, to delete "the Government or", and, in page 14, subsection (7), lines 45 and 46, to delete "other than The National University of Ireland, Maynooth". These phrases were unwarranted and I know the Minister received a great deal of lobbying on them. I am glad we are now at one on them.
I am in a quandary about amendment No. 117. It is desirable that the chairperson should be the chief officer of the university but I am not 100 per cent sure it should specifically be enshrined in the legislation. I will wait to hear the Minister's reply.
It is apparent from the contributions that Deputies have listened to many of the same concerns that have been expressed to me. Looking at the Bill, we have sought to address many of these concerns in similar fashion. As I understand it, amendment No. 117 would mean a governing authority could decide that it should be chaired by a person other than the chief officer, but only if two-thirds of the governing authority agree. The agreement comes from within and nothing is being imposed. That is how it should be. This is being looked at. I will consider the amendment further with a view to coming back with a proposal on Report Stage.
In my discussion with the universities concern was expressed about section 15(6) which gives the Government the power to remove the chairperson of the governing authority. I have been persuaded by the arguments of the universities that, in the interests of institutional autonomy, power would reside with the university itself. Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 will ensure that only the governing authority itself has this power and it can only apply this power where it has appointed a chairperson other than the chief officer.
I do not support the deletion of the subsections proposed in amendment No. 118. In excluding the chief officer from the removal power, my aim is to ensure that the Bill does not in any way undermine the position of the chief officer of the university. We recognise that removal of a chairperson from office would be such a serious step it is unlikely that any governing authority could contemplate it unless they also proposed to remove the chief officer.
The amendments I am proposing to section 15(6) are consistent, in part, with those proposed by Deputy Keogh. I also hope all Deputies will be able to support my amendments.
In five of the university institutions at present, the president, provost or master chairs the body which has the functions of the governing authority. I am also proposing that amendment No. 121 will ensure that in each of these cases, including Maynooth, there will be no alteration in conditions of employment and that will continue to be the case while the present incumbents remain in office.
Deputy Keogh also proposed this amendment. A further technical amendment No. 309 is necessary to ensure that this will be the case. I am looking for the Deputies' support for amendments Nos. 119, 120, 121 and 309.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 14, lines 39 to 43, to delete subsection (6).
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 14, subsection (6), line 40, to delete "(including a chief officer)" and substitute "in accordance with subsection (3)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 14, subsection (6), line 41, to delete "the Government or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 14, subsection (7), lines 45 and 46, to delete "other than The National University of Ireland, Maynooth".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 123 is related to amendment No. 122. Both amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 15, subsection (9), lines 11 to 13, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 11 down to and including line 13.
Subsection (9) states: "An appointment under subsection (3) shall not be on a full-time basis and the person appointed shall exercise no function in respect of the control and management of the university other than the functions of chairperson of the governing authority". It is envisaged in this subsection that the chairperson will have no function other than to chair the governing authority. I have difficulty with the concept of somebody essentially chairing meetings of a university governing body and nothing else. I am aware this affects the relationship with the chief executive officer and I am unhappy with that. I prefer the existing position where the president is elected and leads the university with the consensus of the governing authority. This provision offers a semi-State model and that might not be the ideal mould to offer the universities.
This amendment is consistent with earlier amendments. Essentially, we are seeking the deletion of subsection (9).
Deputies Martin and Coughlan propose the deletion of part of section 15(9). I do not support the amendment. It is important that where a chairperson is not a chief officer, he or she should not have a role in the executive functions of the university. I want to separate the responsibilities of the chairperson from the chief officer.
I do not support amendment No. 123 which requires that the chairperson, where other than a chief officer, be given responsibility for monitoring the expenses and emoluments of the chief officer. The chief officer is, under the Fourth Schedule, answerable to the governing authority. This is the appropriate chain of accountability in the university. It is unnecessary and probably divisive to confer on a chairperson the role of monitoring the expenses and emoluments of the chief officer. For the first time the chief officer of a university will become an Accounting Officer for the university and will be required to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts, if asked, and account for expenditure.
The option of appointing an outside chairperson will exist in the future and nothing will change for existing chairpersons. However, if there is a wish to appoint an eminent chairperson, giving that person day to day responsibility for functions or expenses would probably prevent anybody accepting such an invitation. I am satisfied with the proposals in the Bill regarding the new role for the chief officer.
I am not pressing amendment No. 123. Amendment No. 122 envisages a model of a chairperson coming from outside——
Only at their wish.
I accept it has been diluted considerably since last year following the submission of position papers and so forth. It is probably more relevant to the newer universities which have a chairperson/chief executive structure. I have heard that disputes arise now and again so we should be careful before we go down that road.
I accepted the Deputy's earlier amendment in which he imposed a safety valve on the governing body by providing for a quota of two-thirds. That will achieve the balance required.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 123 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.