Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1997

SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 232:

In page 24, lines 31 to 35, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) Having regard to the resources available to the university, a governing authority shall either approve without modification the strategic development plan as prepared under subsection (1), or after consultation with the chief officer, it shall approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit, or it may reject that plan, and cause a plan of its own to be drawn up. In such circumstances, a governing authority may employ such expertise as it considers necessary to prepare such a plan.".

This amendment relates to the strategic development plan. Section 30 reads:

A governing authority shall, as soon as practicable after its appointment and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to prepare a plan which shall set out the aims of the governing authority for the operation and development of the university and its strategy for achieving those aims, and for carrying out the functions of the university, during the period, being not less than three years, to which the plan relates".

The proposal is to delete subsection (2) which states:

A governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, either approve a strategic development plan prepared under subsection (1) without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit.

We propose to strengthen the role of the governing authority. We state that the governing authority ". . .. shall either approve without modification the strategic development plan as prepared under subsection (1), or after consultation with the chief officer, it shall approve the plan with such modifications as it thinks fit, or it may reject that plan, and cause a plan of its own to be drawn up. In such circumstances, a governing authority may employ such expertise as it considers necessary to prepare such a plan".

I am open to correction on this, but it seems that, traditionally in Irish public bodies, when a chief officer is asked to prepare a plan there is not a brainstorming session by everyone on the board or the governing authority. A resolution is moved that the chief officer should prepare a plan. Often the officer prepares a draft plan which is more or less a fait accompli. Everyone receives copies and may amend it. It should be clear that the governing authority prepares the plan and this section should provide for proper input into the plan. It does not state here that the governing authority can reject the plan prepared by the chief officer. The right of the governing authority to reject the plan should be provided for. It should be the governing authority’s plan rather than the chief officer’s plan.

When this legislation is implemented, we do not want the chief officer saying the drawing up of the plan is his job. It should be a group effort from the beginning. Many authorities will do that but we should make the position clear. I am drawing from my experience in local government where there tended to be passive boards in the formulation of strategic development plans and the chief executive tends to drive them. We should try to get away from that practice which has led to a range of problems.

I welcome the three year provision as regards strategic development plans. Some might see this as short in terms of academic planning. I know one university where they still talk about the 1976 plan in terms of physical development. We had planning problems because of it, which shook me. Most local projects have five year development plans. Universities should have three or five year development plans. There is a provision of three years in the Bill, which may be too short in terms of academic planning.

The Deputy asked for clarification and made the point that universities should be actively engaged in planning for the medium and long term. The process is statutorily underpinned and the Deputy is concerned there might be a situation where a chief officer could overreact or could be undermined by allowing a governing authority to transfer an important function to someone else. I refer the Deputy to the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 2, which states:

In performing his or her functions the chief officer shall be subject to such policies as may be determined from time to time by the governing authority and shall be answerable to the governing authority for the efficient and effective management of the university and for the due performance of his or her functions.

The new composition of the governing body will bring a different emphasis and pace as universities plan their future. Governing bodies will be extremely active and the chief officer will not be given carte blanche to design a plan. They have to be subject to the policies laid down by the governing authority. If Deputy Martin’s concern that the governing authority will not have enough control in the planning process is covered by the Fourth Schedule. The chief officer must always be subject to the policies of the governing authority and be answerable to them.

That is a general provision relating to the position of the chief officer.

It describes what the chief officer is.

This section deals with the preparation of the strategic development plan and should emphasise the necessity of everybody being involved. The governing authority should, as soon as practicable after its appointment, prepare and draw up the plan. Obviously the chief officer has a role in this. In theory this is fine but I know what happens in practice.

The governing body will have the responsibility. According to the Fourth Schedule, the chief officer has responsibility to the authority of the governing body. It would be prescriptive to write the agenda of the governing body. I do not underestimate the effect of the changes in the composition of the governing body. This is well covered in the Fourth Schedule in the description of the chief officer and the responsibility of the governing body to direct that officer who should respond to it. I have also sat on committees where people have designed documentation.

I am inclined to agree with the Minister, although I do not disagree strongly with Deputy Martin. When one hears about something designed by committee, there is an impulse to back off a little. I do not have the same fears Deputy Martin expressed about the role of the chief officer vis-�-vis the governing authority. It is more simply put in section 30 (1). Someone has to take responsibility and the chief officer is the obvious person to do that. If he is not able to draw up a plan in line with the thinking and objectives of the governing authority, I do not think he should have the job.

I fundamentally disagree with that. It should not be the job of one person to prepare a strategic development plan. There should be more than consultation with the governing body. A strategic development plan is one of the more important plans of any university. We should urge the governing authority to be proactive in the production of a plan. The tradition has been in the other direction and that has caused immense difficulties in other areas. We do not want to return to the stage where people are passive in the process of a development plan.

I see change everywhere, even in local authorities, managers are more proactive, for example, in holding seminars or three or four hour meetings before pen is put to paper. There should be a genuine process where people say how they think the university should develop. After that process, someone has to draft the plan. It is similar to how we formulate legislation. The Executive formulates legislation in the political system. In theory, it goes through Committee Stage to be amended. This Bill was not only drafted by the executive but, in consultation with people outside the House, it was amended substantially by the time it reached Committee Stage.

I remember when Deputy Seán Barrett, as Chief Whip, introduced Dáil reforms two years ago. He argued that these committees would be proactive in the formulation of legislation, that the heads of Bill would be in committee and people would have an input. That has not happened. There seems to be a trend in society where someone produces a blueprint. We then read it and say we do not like a particular paragraph or whatever. I accept that there is a difference of opinion. Why is it not stipulated that the governing authority may have the power to reject the plan?

Section 32(2) states:

A governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, either approve the statement prepared under subsection (1) without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the statement with such modifications as it thinks fit.

The chief officer is a full-time official and I am confident that this provision will take effect if there are no full-time members serving on a governing authority. The plan is drawn up and the chief officer is accountable to the governing body. There is an onus to prepare the plan but there are different styles regarding the commencement of work. I do not believe I should proscribe styles but there are responsibilities involved which are made clear in the legislation.

Subsection (2) states that a governing authority may approve a strategic development plan "without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the statement with such modifications as it thinks fit". I take the Minister's point about rejection.

Does that represent the power to reject?

The governing authority has an obligation and a function to prepare a plan and it must do so. The chief officer is——

If the chief officer prepares a plan, the governing authority can either improve or change it but it cannot reject it.

The governing authority has no obligation to accept a plan from a chief officer.

That is not stated in subsection (2).

The chief officer is accountable to the governing authority and it must agree on any plan he or she draws up before it is accepted.

That is not what the subsection states.

It is the chief officer's function to draw up a plan but if it is rejected another plan must be developed. A chief officer is employed to service a governing authority. I am not aware of the experience in the university to which Deputy Martin may be referring but I cannot imagine this scenario occurring.

Evidently, and the Deputy's concerns seem quite real. However, under the Schedule and provisions relating to planning, the environment and the role and functions, the combination——

It is not provided for specifically. My interpretation of the wording is that a plan must be prepared.

Yes. However, if one is put forward and not accepted, a vacuum remains to be filled. We have entered cloud cuckooland rather than C. P. Snow land. The subsection makes provision for obligations and chief officers work for their governing bodies. If they do not, the governing body must fulfil its obligations in any event.

There are different practices and traditions in each of the seven universities. In some the role of chief executive officers is vastly different to others. That fact was communicated to me by staff in particular universities.

We now have new governing bodies with new propositions.

I would not under estimate them. I am aware the Minister does not agree with the amendment but we are not in cloud cuckooland; this is reality.

I do not agree with Deputy Martin's statement regarding the drawing up of a plan. However, the point he made about the governing body having the power to reject such a plan is interesting. Will the Minister reconsider subsection (2) because it is quite precise and the governing body is empowered to approve a plan either without modification or with such modifications as it thinks fit? It does not have the specific power to reject a plan.

A governing body could sack its chief officer. If such an officer must always be subject to the policies of a governing authority, how could he or she remain outside its authority, guidance and responsibility?

That is not my point. If a chief officer presents a strategic plan to a governing body, according to subsection (2) it can only accept the plan without modification or suggest changes.

The subsection states that a governing body can approve a plan "with such modifications as it thinks fit".

I am aware of that. However, if an authority does not agree with a plan can it reject it?

I apologise; I now understand the points being made by the Deputies. A governing body can only approve a plan with which it agrees, otherwise it will take responsibility for that which it should not. There is an adult working relationship between chief officers and governing bodies which will have statutory functions and responsibilities. If a chief officer prepares a plan which the university does not approve or, under subsection (2), does not approve of it "with such modifications as it thinks fit", the plan must be rewritten because a governing authority lays down the remit and role of the chief officer.

The picture painted by the Deputies is quite Machiavellian that a governing body with this responsibility would pay someone a fortune to draw up a plan and then not approve it. I do not believe that is a reality because a governing body has a responsibility and the chief officer is completely subject to its policies.

The Minister should relax, she is over-reacting.

I am trying to imagine——

A phrase could be included in the subsection to strengthen it. There is no point in becoming hysterical.

I am not becoming hysterical.

The Minister is becoming hysterical and somewhat insulting.

I am not, I merely worry about the experience to which the Deputy would like to draw our attention.

The Minister should never underestimate human nature. We cannot predict what will happen——

The Deputy has not yet surprised me.

I am not referring to myself because I do not aspire to being the chief officer of any university. We cannot predict what might happen in the future but the relationship between a chief officer and a governing authority must be clearly and properly defined in legislation. The amendment makes a suggestion in this regard and people are entitled to disagree with it. However, I would not become hysterical about it. The Bill is concerned with bringing together the seven institutions but in several universities chief officers play a more dominant role in affairs while others operate under different mechanisms. It is clear that the Minister will not accept the amendment.

I believe the Deputy's fears are groundless.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 233:

In page 24, lines 39 to 42, to delete subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 234:

In page 24, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

31. (1) A governing authority, in consultation with the academic council, shall, as soon as practicable after the governing authority is established under this Act and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to establish procedures for quality assurance aimed at improving the quality of education and related services provided by the university.

(2) The procedures shall include—

(a) the evaluation, at regular intervals and in any case not less than once in every 10 years or such longer period as may be determined by the university in agreement with An tÚdarás, of each department and faculty of the university and any service provided by the university, by employees of the university in the first instance and by persons, other than employees, who are competent to make national and international comparisons on the quality of teaching and research and the provisions of other services at university level, and

(b) assessment by those, including students, availing of the teaching, research and other services provided by the university,

and shall provide for the publication in such form and manner as the governing authority thinks fit of findings arising out of the application of those procedures.

(3) A governing authority shall implement any findings arising out of an evaluation carried out in accordance with procedures established under this section unless, having regard to the resources available to the university or for any other reason, it would, in the opinion of the governing authority, be impractical or unreasonable to do so.

(4) A governing authority shall, from time to time, and in any case at least every 15 years, having regard to the resources available to the university and having consulted with An tÚdarás, arrange for a review of the effectiveness of the procedures provided for by this section and the implementation of the findings arising out of the application of those procedures.

(5) A governing authority, in a report prepared in accordance with section 37, shall publish the results of a review conducted under subsection (4).".

There is an agreement in the university community on the need for quality assurance and appropriate procedures to measure and enforce quality. Therefore, I do not accept the proposal by Deputies Martin and Coughlan that the section be deleted. There is a growing public demand for approved accountability of publicly funded universities of which quality assurance is a central part. It derives from the large investment of public funds and the pervasive social and economic impact of third level education. However, the need for accountability must be balanced by a recognition of the legitimate autonomy of institutions -particularly with regard to determining the educational aims, content and assessment of programmes.

The approach in the Bill is to allow the universities, through their academic councils, the academic freedom to control academic affairs while governing authorities, under this section, will establish the procedures for evaluating the quality of teaching and research in universities. We are placing the primary responsibility on universities for putting procedures in place. The procedures must include evaluation of all departments and faculties of the university and must be carried out not less than once every ten years. This must be enhanced through evaluation by people outside the university, including people who are competent to make national and international comparisons on quality issues at university and, in addition, assessment by those, including students, availing of the teaching, research and services provided by universities. Universities will be expected to implement the findings of the evaluation where practicable. This is nothing new as much of this practice already takes place in the institutions.

The amendments which I propose to this section ensure quality assurance will concern all university activities rather than just teaching and research. The procedures will not have to address cost effectiveness directly. The role of the governing authority is further strengthened and it will now review the effectiveness of the procedures in place and publish a report on such a review. The role of the Higher Education Authority is set out in new section 45. It will be asked to review the procedures drawn up by the universities and publish reports. In placing the responsibility for the procedures on the universities within a broad framework of minimum requirement in the section, it acknowledges the autonomy of universities in this crucial aspect of their affairs but accountability and transparency are provided through the universities own reviews and the reporting role and that of the HEA.

What is the fundamental difference between section 45 and new section 45?

The amendment ensures quality assurance will concern all activities, not just teaching and research. The procedures will not have to address cost effectiveness directly. The role of the governing body will be strengthened but it will be asked to review the effectiveness of the procedures and publish a report. Most of this is not new.

I have no difficulty with quality assurance. Many people felt originally that there were implications of a lack of quality. In any educational sphere evaluation is essential. Increasingly, self-evaluation is extremely important. For example, I thought the Department would have the capacity to externally ensure quality assurance in third level but it does not have the personnel to do that.

Our universities will succeed in the market-place. The yardstick in terms of their performance will be the degree to which they compete with universities abroad. The litmus test over the past ten or 15 years has been the degree to which our graduates have been able to secure employment and perform competitively on a world stage. Some of the more objective quality assurance tests in terms of the quality of our output have shown that the universities have been extremely successful and that there is a high degree of quality in terms of teaching, research and graduates.

One conclusion of the CIRCA report, for example, is that, notwithstanding the poor level of State investment in higher education research, the performance of our universities has been spectacular in the past ten years in their range of research publications, their success in securing European Union funding in research contracts and in attracting private sector investment. It is felt that by putting in these provisions the Department is implying that we were not producing quality or there was not proper quality assurance in universities. I had consultations with people in Trinity College, not on the governing body, who were offended by this. They felt that they compared with the best in any league table on a world stage in terms of research, etc. Otherwise they would not survive. Certain people in universities felt they were being insulted to some degree. Perhaps, that was not intended.

Undoubtedly there is an ongoing need for proper quality assurance, reviews, etc. If we are serious about quality, we must provide more resources to universities and they must be given a greater role in the overall scheme of things. That, ultimately, will determine quality. Today's newspapers refer to the Government inviting EU universities to tender for places to provide additional graduates in the computer industry and telemarketing. That is not a great vote of confidence in our institutions. One wonders about the position of the third level sector in the Government's priorities. The State will have to do much more in assisting universities with quality assurance. The ultimate test of quality for any university will be external assessment. Multinational investors and employers will make up their minds on that.

Undoubtedly the section on evaluation of academic standards as it stood in the original Bill caused a great deal of concern. Nobody should ever be concerned about evaluation but it was couched in such negative terms that there was much concern. What is the status of the co-operative quality pilot project by universities? Quality assurance is very important. We must have some method of bench marking what happens in terms of excellence of academia or business. At present, Irish companies go for the Q mark or ISO 9000. Currently, Irish industry is competitive because it has ensured proper bench mark procedures are adopted. That kind of self-regulatory approach is one I welcome. However, I am not too sure the way the quality assurance evaluation of academic standards here is delineated even in the new section is the right approach.

As I said, it is very important that there is an evaluation procedure. I welcome the fact that the Minister will answer the query about the quality pilot project because, if such a project was seen to be successful that would be an interesting way to proceed.

I said in my opening remarks that most of this is not new because there are initiatives in each institution already or they are being put in place. Seven of the universities have been involved with two of their departments or faculties in this quality control. The night I spoke to Convocation, a very good description was given by somebody from the Institute of Engineers who went through the quality procedures and the involvement of students. This is in use in most of the universities but not all the faculties. We have built on the pilot project and the practice, and it is self-regulatory. Deputy Martin was right when he said the world market will be the judge. We do not need to wait for the world market to judge.

Deputy Keogh is right. Nobody needs to fear quality procedures. This section has got the balance right. There was never any suggestion that the Department of Education would enter into the halls of universities and put in place quality measures. The emphasis here is on the institutions which want to preserve and build on their quality. We have built these procedures on the two pilot department exercises in each of the seven universities. The onus is given to the universities who wish rightly not only to preserve the existing quality standard but to build on it. We will see how best practice is developed in the seven different institutions. That, in itself, is interesting.

When does the Minister expect that pilot project between the Higher Education Authority and the universities will be completed?

I will come back on that point.

Some people thought it might form the basis for——

The experience is here. In one sense we are moving away from the pilot project because quality assurance is a part of the functioning of the universities. I will come back to the Deputy on the detail.

If the resources are not available, will the quality assurance system collapse?

Each university has a budget. If there was quality testing of our facilities here,——

That occurs every five years.

Would the Minister agree that, since we are placing such primacy on quality assurance, we should not include a phrase about having regard to resources?

It must be a realistic appraisal of the realities of the universities in which the students are being educated today.

We can paint pictures——

I am painting nothing. I am just talking about the phrase "having regard to the resources". Will the Minister listen to what I am saying?

I note what the Deputy said. I thought we all agreed on this section. It is now 3.35 p.m.

If that is the problem and the Minister is going to be that intolerant of what we are saying, we should pack up.

I have no problem. I have answered the Deputy's questions.

No, she has not.

The Deputy has not convinced me.

I was asking about a phrase in a section and the Minister went off on another point.

I gave the Deputy my answer. He did not like it.

What answer?

I told him that I wanted a very realistic appraisal of the practical applications to the delivery of that faculty. That is what I call an appraisal of what is going on.

I am talking about amendment No. 234, section 31(4):

A governing authority shall, from time to time, and in any case at least every 15 years, having regard to the resources available to the university. . .

All I am saying is that "having regard to the resources" suggests that, if the resources are not there, the quality assurance does not go ahead.

Quality assurance must be based on reality. Any institution which wants to measure quality bases it on the reality of how the section or department functions.

That, if the institution wants to do it, is exactly the problem. Many of us went to university.

Not all of us.

Many of us did. There were good, bad and indifferent lectures and tutorials; that is always the way. The students, in particular, had no great role——

They have a role in this.

That is what I am saying. Their inclusion is welcome. If one evaluates a particular department and it is decided that something must be done and if the governing body, in consultation with the academic council, etc., decides it would be great to do it but there is no money to implement it, that is the bottom line. Would there be enough clout on a governing body to ensure that something is done to rectify, improve, augment or support if they are told they must pick their priorities and they decide something else has a greater priority? Maybe they will not pick what should be the real priority. Can that be copperfastened within the phraseology?

That phrase could be removed.

That is a matter of opinion. I have noted it. Do not forget we have already had a long discussion about the Higher Education Authority and the budgets, how they are used and the decisions they take. If the governing body decides that its priorities are different than the guidelines laid down, it has the autonomy to make those choices. If there is a real evaluation of the situation as it involves the partners and it emerges that the university is not prioritising its spending priorities, why are we having an evaluation? We are having an evaluation to ensure the quality assurance of the departments' work and that the planning decisions are responsive to needs. Given this mechanism and the experience to date in the schemes in which the seven universities are involved, this is a realistic appraisal. It is not taking away from the fact that decisions on budgeting, spending and investment are autonomous and made by the universities; that relates to an earlier section.

There must be consistency. The Minister introduced this section with a fanfare and said that this was one of the most important matters. If one reads further now, she is basically saying that if they have the money, they can do it. If not, it is not really that important.

What I have been saying is, come back and tell me there are such problems and give me a wish list. There are the realities of a budget in a sector which is holding its own in the overall budget.

But the Minister is not really serious about it. She is just paying lipservice to it.

I am very serious but perhaps the Deputy is not. I note his concerns. He believes my sincerity.

In amendment No. 234, section 31 (1), "aimed at improving the quality of education and related services", there is a different emphasis here than in the original Bill. Will the Minister outline how wide that is now?

Universities offer services which are separate from the student/teaching aspect. For example, access for people with disabilities is part of the service offered and it should not be excluded in the measurement of the pupil/teaching relationship. Another aspect is the effect of eternal administration on students in the delivery of educational services, such as the library services, books in Braille, etc. There is more to a university than chalk and talk. It offers services aside from students sitting in lecture halls and the teaching ability of teachers. I do not wish to exclude those aspects.

It is intended to be very wide ranging?

One of the greatest criticisms of the administration of many third level institutions has been delays in admission and grant payments procedures. We have all had arguments with people on such matters. There will be trouble if quality assurance assessment with regard to that aspect of many institutions is not prioritised by governing authorities. This matter has been raised on many occasions.

We are discussing related services provided by the university and I do not doubt that that will be one of the first issues.

The universities are not getting control over local authorities.

I do not want the local authorities to take over the universities.

They will not have control over the payment of grants; that is the function of local authorities.

It is almost the first matter which springs to mind in relation to quality assurances. I am sure every Deputy and Senator has been deafened with these types of problems.

Never mind the Minister.

The Minister will tell us she has no role in the matter.

Deafened by the Deputies.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31 deleted.
Top
Share