Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1997

SECTION 35.

I move amendment No. 250:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 32, to delete all" where it secondly occurs.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 251:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "moneys" and substitute "income".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 252:

In page 27, subsection (1), lines 33 and 34, to delete "and such other accounts and records as An tÚdarás may from time to time direct".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 253 not moved.

I move amendment No 254:

In page 27, subsection (2), lines 38 to 40, to delete "on a date not later than the 30th day of April in the financial year following the financial year to which they relate or on such other date" and substitute "by such date".

Amendment agreed to
Amendment No. 255 not moved.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 are alternatives to amendment No. 256. We will take amendments Nos. 256, 257 and 258 by agreement.

I move amendment No. 256:

In page 27, before section 36, to insert the following new section:

"36.—(1) A university may determine and charge fees of such amounts for student registration, courses, lectures, examinations, exhibitions or any other event, service or publication held or provided at or by, or produced by, the university.

(2) An tÚdarás may review with the universities the fees charged or proposed to be charged by the universities for student registration and courses, and for lectures and examinations relating to those courses.

(3) Arising from a review under subsection (2), An tÚarás may, without prejudice to subsection (1) and after consultation with the Minister, advise the universities on the fees which in its opinion should be charged.".

Concern has been expressed by universities and Deputies that this Bill might interfere with the functions of the universities in determining fees. Amendment No. 256 clarifies the respective roles of the universities and the Higher Education Authority and states the autonomy of the universities in this area.

This section provides statutory underpinning for the colleges to determine the charges for their services. It is legitimate for the State to have an interest in the level of fees set at undergraduate level because the State in now paying the bulk of the fees.

The interest of the State in the level of post-graduate fees is that postgraduate education should not be so expensive as only to be available to better off students. This section provides that the Higher Education Authority may review the fee levels and, following consultation with the Minister, advise the universities concerning these fees. Ultimately, the universities will determine the fees.

In amendment No. 257, Deputy Keogh has proposed that the Minister may determine the post-graduate fees and Deputies Martin and Coughlan have proposed the deletion of section 36 (4) in amendment No. 258. I have amended the section to clarify the roles of the universities and the Higher Education Authority and to clearly state the autonomy of the universities in determining fees. Consequently, the Deputies' amendments are not necessary.

This is an important section. It is interesting that the Minister has seen the need to amend the provisions in the Bill. Under her amendment An tÚdarás would review university fees and, after consultation with the Minister they will advise the universities on the fees.

I agree with this flexibility. Some might argue that in ten years time——

If we are still around.

——universities may wish to reintroduce fees for some courses. That will probably not happen in terms of undergraduate fees, although we must wait and see what happens with registration fees.

Flexibility is necessary because we are unsure about the post-1999 scenario in terms of funding for third level education. It is extremely important that there is a solid revenue base for the colleges. The Exchequer will not always meet that requirement no matter what is said today or next year. The experience of local authorities has been that when one is dependent on Government for block grants, a day will come, particularly during an economic recession, when the Government might leave one waiting and not provide the funding that is required.

There are conflicting opinions about how Ireland will be affected by entry into European Monetary Union. According to Paul Tansey, whatever Government is in power after 1999 will face horrendous decisions. I attended a lecture he gave politicians on European Monetary Union. The picture he outlined was so horrifying from an electoral and political point of view that I asked him if he was suggesting that we should lose the next election by one or two seats so we would be well poised to take over four years after the implementation of European Monetary Union. We do not know what amount of Structural Funds will be available for third level education after 1999 or to what degree the European Social Fund will continue to fund the student grant scheme and support systems. It is an issue that requires proactive treatment.

A system in which universities have flexibility in determining fees is required. They are still an important revenue base. Universities can charge fees for post-graduate courses, foreign students, adult education activities, activities with industry, courses for industry and so forth, which are distinct from those generated by the undergraduate sector. I am glad the Minister is taking a step back from the process. If the Minister were involved in setting the fees — I am speaking apolitically because one cannot know who will be the Minister over the next ten or 20 years — he or she would be vulnerable to the whim of any movement or campaign. Six months before an election decisions could be taken which, in the long term, could undermine the capacity of an institution to survive. That is why it is important that the Minister is distanced from that process.

I am aware of the row in UCD at present about the fees being charged for late entries for repeat examinations. If somebody is late in applying they are faced with an exorbitant charge. This provision might improve such a situation in so far as An tÚarás can deal directly with the universities to resolve it. The row between the students' union and the UCD authorities has been ongoing for a number of months and relates to examination deferral fees, late applications fees and registration fees. The college appeared to indicate in a letter to the students' union that it did not see itself accountable to the students for how registration fees are spent. The letter contained an unfortunate choice of words. Students are entitled to know how registration fees are allocated.

We still do not appear to have resolved the problem of the capitation grant. Prior to the abolition of fees, the students' unions received a capitation grant from the fees and they were guaranteed an annual income. It is now up to the college authorities to allocate money to the students' unions and to college societies from the £150 service charge. This has undermined the autonomy of the unions in the colleges and is a cause of ongoing concern.

The Deputy is correct in saying there is a role for the HEA. A committee is examining the last point the Deputy made in conjunction with the Higher Education Authority and the students involved. There is no uniformity of practice. As Minister I deal with the Union of Students in Ireland but there is not uniformity of membership in the national body. However, there is a new role for the Higher Education Authority in achieving a balance of autonomy and flexibility. There is now a mechanism by which matters must be examined.

I am glad the Minister changed her mind about this section. A balance must be reached, and what she said about the practice regarding registration fees and so forth is correct. This is causing much dissension. This is where An tÚdarás is welcome. There has to be a means of reviewing what is happening. The students are concerned about what happens to the registration fees and their role in how money is used and so forth. I welcome the amendments. I hope these difficulties will be resolved soon because they are causing much contention.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 not moved.
Section 36 deleted.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 260 to 263, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 259. Amendments Nos. 259 to 263, inclusive, will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 259:

In page 28, before section 37, to insert the following new section:

"37.—(1) The chief officer shall, with the approval of the governing authority and having regard to the strategic development plan under Bsection 30B, as soon as practicable after the end of each period, not exceeding three years commencing on the commencement of this Part or at the end of the previous such period, whichever is the later, as the governing authority thinks fit, prepare a report on the operations and the performance of the university during that period.

(2) The governing authority shall publish the report in such form as it thinks fit and shall provide the Minister with a copy and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after it is received by him or her.".

This section concerns the publication of reports by a university. The universities should, without the involvement of other parties, be able to go about their business. However, there is a public interest in the universities and they receive massive public funding. In delivering on the principles of transparency and accountability, this is the mechanism by which reasonable information can easily be available on the activities of the colleges.

While a statutory requirement on the institutions with regard to reporting can give reasonable access to appropriate information, it cannot become too onerous on the institutions. Deputies and universities have represented to me that the provisions on reporting in the original Bill had the capacity to go beyond what was necessary to meet this balance of transparency. I propose this amendment to avoid that consequence without diminishing the value of information.

Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan proposed a simplification of section 37 by amendment of the first paragraph through amendment No. 260 and the deletion of the rest of the section through amendments Nos. 261, 262 and 263. I do not support the amendments although I support their intention. My proposed amendment to simplify the section meets the Deputies' requirement.

The preparation of a periodic report is acceptable. The report will be a mechanism by which the governing authority can point out progress made from a previous period. In the case of publicly funded bodies, it will give the providers of the funds, the taxpayer, access to information and an insight into the activities of the universities. By seeking that the report be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, it will be a public document and there will be an opportunity for all sides of the House to consider it.

I do not support amendment No. 262 that there should not be a requirement that the report would be publicly available in this way. It is best done in this way. Without being too onerous, the provision expects that information would be available to the public through the right mechanism, the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Our amendments related to section 37 as published which we believed was far too prescriptive. It envisaged the chief officer preparing and submitting at the end of each year to the Minister and An tÚdarás a report of the operations of the university in a form determined by An tÚdarás. The amendment effectively means that the report may be submitted every three years. I have no difficulty with the reports being laid before the Oireachtas.

We could have a recycling plant in Leinster House to recycle all the annual reports we receive. I am not great at filing but I wish somebody would take away all the reports. I am becoming very intolerant of annual reports. Cork Corporation pays about £25,000 to a consultant to prepare the annual report. I can see the heads of universities hiring PR consultants to prepare their reports. It will become an industry in itself. Education is about teaching and evaluation and I am not against that. However, it can get out of hand. I accept the amendment but we must be careful not to place too many burdens on the bodies; we must let them get on with the job.

I agree. The original section was far too demanding. Requiring detailed evaluative material on the performance of the university was unnecessary. Sombody once remarked to me that I had a typical TD's car because it had reports in the boot and on the floor. However, they asked me how many of them I had read. Of course, one only reads what one has to. It is important to have reports and information in the interests of transparency. Many of the annual reports we receive are necessary and we should read more of them.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 260 to 263, inclusive, not moved.
Section 37 deleted.
Section 38 agreed to.
Top
Share