I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It gives me great pleasure to propose the Universities Bill, 1996, to this House. It is the first time in the history of the State that this House has had an opportunity to debate a universities Bill which applies to all the universities.
This Bill recognises the central role which the universities play in society. This role is part of a great European tradition stretching back to the establishment of Plato's Academy in 395 BC. This academy had as its motto "knowledge is a good and worth pursuing in all its forms". From the medieval tradition which built on the foundations laid by the academy, we have inherited the liberal ideal that education goes beyond the transmission of knowledge and concerns itself with development of the full potential of the human intellect. From this ideal comes the broad and vital mission of the university, to cultivate the mind, develop human worth and talent, better the individual and better society. This mission is more necessary than ever in today's world. Knowledge is the basis of progress to a richer culture, greater social justice and harmony and a better quality of life for all.
Universities have a wider and more diverse role in the development of society than ever before. This university legislation recognises the role of the university. It seeks to provide the framework to enable universities to develop the nation's knowledge, extend the nation's cultural heritage and expand the nation's intellectual development as effectively as possible.
The need for this framework of university legislation has been felt for many years. The Green Paper on Education published by the then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in June 1992 proposed legislation to restructure the National University of Ireland; to modernise the legislative framework for the universities and to rationalise the composition and functions of governing authorities.
The stated aim was to provide a framework of legislation which would be more compatible with the role, function and operation of universities in modern society. The White Paper on Education was based on extensive consultation after publication of the Green Paper with all the interests in education, including the university sector. This consultative process included the National Education Convention held in Dublin Castle in October 1993. The Bill derives from the principles and approaches set out in the White Paper which was published in April 1995.
This Bill has three main objectives: the restructuring of the National University of Ireland, provision of revised governance structures, provision of a framework for interaction between the universities and central Government and for accountability to society generally.
In addressing the first objective, the restructuring of the National University of Ireland, this Bill marks another milestone in the history of the National University. The campaign for a university which reflected and promoted the values and traditions of the majority of the Irish people was one of the great educational and political struggles of the last century and the earlier part of this century. The 1908 Act gave birth to the federal National University of Ireland which went on to forge a distinctive and distinguished role in the international arena. My proposals for organisational change are based on proposals made by the NUI itself. Almost 90 years since the NUI was established, each of the constituent colleges will now be placed on the same legal and constitutional basis as other independent, autonomous universities.
I am particularly pleased to be able to bring to this House my proposal to establish the present áecognised college of the NUI at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth as a university within the new NUI structure. The college has been one of the great recent successes of university education in the State. Lay students were first admitted to the faculties of the recognised college in 1966 and since then the student population has grown to more than 4,000. The trustees of St. Patrick's College have shown great foresight and commitment in developing the recognised college and making it a part of the university and third-level education sector. Their support for my proposals for the college has been of critical importance to the provisions now in the Bill.
An important objective of the Bill is to place all universities on a common footing in respect of their relationship with central Government. Under current legislation the State has much stronger regulatory and controlling powers in regard to Dublin City University and the University of Limerick than in the case of the older institutions. Dublin City University and the University of Limerick have now sought to be placed on a statutory basis similar to the older universities. Dublin City University and the University of Limerick have shown impressive growth. Their success has convinced me they should now be placed on an equivalent statutory basis to the other universities.
We are extremely fortunate to have such a diversity of university institutions — from the youngest of which I have just spoken, to the oldest, Trinity College, Dublin, the sole College of the University of Dublin. This university has, for more than 400 years, provided a home for academic endeavour which has attracted national and international recognition. The Universities Bill has been drafted to ensure that Trinity College can thrive and that its long tradition of institutional autonomy and independent academic achievement can continue and prosper. Because of the ancient tradition of the college, it is proposed that its charter will be amended not by this Bill but by a private Act sponsored by the college, in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Bill. I will bring forward the necessary amendments to the Universities Bill on Committee Stage.
This Bill gives practical expression to the principle of pluralism expressed in the White Paper. It provides a statutory framework which affords parity of esteem to all our universities which values their differing history and which has the flexibility to accommodate their differing traditions.
I now turn to the second objective of the Bill, to revise university governance structures. I draw the attention of the House to three aspects of this issue: the flexible framework for partnership on each governing authority; the extent of Ministerial involvement in each governing authority; and the issue of academic councils and academic freedom. In addressing the second objective, revised governance structures, the Bill sets out a framework which will allow each university to devise governing authorities which best suit their own interests.
For the first time, in the colleges of the National University of Ireland academic staff who are not professors, non-academic staff and students, including postgraduate students, will have a right of representation on the governing authority. In addition, the governing authorities will retain representation from the NUI and from local public representatives, thus reflecting the traditions of the NUI.
For the first time, the recognised NUI college at Maynooth will have a governing authority, which will be constituted on the NUI model, but will also include representation from the trustees of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, thus reflecting the traditions of the recognised college.
In Dublin City University and the University of Limerick graduates will have the potential for representation on the governing authority and students and staff, both academic and non-academic will have the potential for increased representation on the governing authority. In addition, the governing authorities will have representation from the Dublin City University Educational Trust and the University of Limerick Foundation, thus reflecting the importance of these bodies in the emerging traditions of these universities.
Under proposals at present being considered by the college, for the first time in Trinity College non-academic staff and students will have a right of representation on the governing authority and graduates will have the potential for representation on the governing authority. In addition, the governing authority will retain representation from the fellows of the university, thus reflecting the traditions of Trinity College.
The Bill allows for membership of the governing authority of each university by senior academics and administrative staff. It allows for between one and four ministerial nominees on each university governing authority and for outside representation on the governing authority. Most importantly, it allows each university great flexibility, within a broad framework, to choose the governing authority which best reflects its traditions and which will best enhance its governance.
This Bill embodies, in its governance proposals, the White Paper principle of partnership of all relevant interests so that our universities can build on their national and international reputation and success. This Bill has resulted from a process of consultation and dialogue. This dialogue continued after its publication and has been valuable, both in raising areas of valid concern, which I can address, and in allowing me to deal with other areas of concern which have no foundation in fact. In my dialogue with the universities, particularly with the university community at Trinity College, concern was expressed about section 15 (6) which confers on the Government the power to remove the chairperson of the governing authority of a university. This is a valid concern and I intend to amend this provision.
However, I assure the House that, as it stands it could not have extended to removing the Provost as chief officer of Trinity, nor was it ever intended to do so. I further assure the House that, far from limiting the autonomy of Trinity College in respect of its Provost, this Bill will return to the college a power it has not had since the Charter of King Charles I in 1637 — the power to appoint the Provost. At present, this power rests with the Government.
During my consultation with the university communities, a further concern was expressed that the Bill would hugely increase the number of ministerial nominees on university governing authorities. This is not true, as can be seen from consideration of section 14. I can assure the community of the NUI colleges that the number of ministerial nominees on the governing authorities of University College Cork, University College Dublin and University College Galway can be exactly the same under this Bill as at present. I can inform the community at Dublin City University and the University of Limerick that the number of ministerial nominees on each of the governing authorities of these universities will be five fewer than at present. For the community of Trinity College, I understand that, under proposals at present being considered by the college, the Minister for Education may nominate one member of the board and there would be one representative from the education board, when established.
I will dispel any impression that this Bill indicates the Minister intends to take control of the universities. It is my firm intention to ensure that the Bill will not involve one iota more of involvement in the day to day activities of the universities by the Government. I assure the House that I will give generous consideration, in consultation, where necessary, with my Government colleagues, to any amendments which may be necessary to ensure that universities retain their academic freedom in harmony with their accountability to the wider society. The issue of academic freedom is essential and central to the role of the university. Academic freedom lies at the heart of the concept of a university in this State. The Universities Bill respects academic freedom and contains nothing which would hinder the full expression of that freedom by and in our universities. The Bill also underpins institutional freedom — this is the capacity of the universities to conduct their own affairs. By underpinning these freedoms the provisions of this Bill will enhance the capacity of the universities to serve the cause of scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge and in so doing to advance the welfare of our society.
That is why I am convinced that sections 23 to 26 of the Bill, which provide statutory recognition of academic councils, are of key importance. The Bill does provide that every university should have an academic council which will control the academic affairs of the university — a situation which is already a central feature of university life here. Enshrining this in legislation provides an important, statutory guarantee of academic freedom. The Bill further states that the majority of the membership of the academic councils must be made up of the academic staff in the university. Students are also included, and the details will be determined by the governing authority.
I now turn to the third objective of this Bill, provision of a framework for interaction between the universities and central Government and for accountability to society generally. I also wish to address matters of specific importance in the areas of staffing, quality and equality issues.
In considering accountability, we must remember that in the past universities were the preserve of a privileged minority in society, their role and range of studies were limited and the financial support, if any, was modest. This situation has altered dramatically in recent decades. From 4,000 students when the Universities Act was enacted in 1908, student numbers grew to 10,000 in 1960 and to 50,000 in 1996.
Universities now play a crucial role in society as an integral and mainstream part of our education system and are acknowledged, nationally and internationally, as key contributors to social, economic and cultural development in modern society.
An independent university sector is also a guarantor of our freedom in our democratic society. Through their teaching, research and objective and informed criticism, the staff in our universities contribute in a vital way to maintaining a mature democratic society, a society confronted with increasingly complex social, scientific, medical, technological and political challenges.
This Bill will underpin these vital academic and institutional freedoms and will facilitate the universities to continue to serve individual and social needs in the very changed circumstances of contemporary and evolving society.
Section 22 and Chapters 7 and 8 of the Bill contain the provisions on staffing and budgets. The general scheme of these provisions is that the universities will agree a budget with the Higher Education Authority, as they do at present. Excesses over budget will not be permitted unless agreed with the Higher Education Authority and any unauthorised excess must be offset against the budget for the following year. These provisions are a reasonable and prudent mechanism to control the Exchequer expenditure, which is over £220 million this year alone for the university sector.
Section 22 confirms the present situation where the rates for pay, allowances, expenses and pensions of staff are in line with public sector norms. In the case of staffing, the legislation will state for the first time in section 22 that each university will have the right to make its own operational and management decisions relating to its staffing levels, numbers and structure. Each university will also decide under section 33 how it should allocate its budget within the institution. Neither the Minister nor the Higher Education Authority will be empowered to lay down detailed instructions and conditions.
Let me give a further example of how this Bill gives the universities enhanced freedom. Under section 12 (2) of the Higher Education Act, 1971, the Higher Education Authority has the power to make payments to universities in such manner and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit. This is a very sweeping provision, whereas sections 22 and 33 of the Bill set out provisions for non-binding guidelines prepared by the Higher Education Authority after consultation with a university or universities.
As drafted the Bill is already clear that the guidelines are non-binding, but to make it doubly so and to provide reassurance I intend to bring forward a Committee Stage amendment to confirm the position. The amendment will also make it clear that a departure from guidelines will not result in restrictions or conditions on the payment of moneys made to a university.
The keeping of accounts and records for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General is provided for in section 35. This does not change the current situation. Contrary to some comments, this does not give additional powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the universities, nor does it impose additional burdens on them.
I have been asked if private university trusts and funds will come under public scrutiny in this legislation. Will the Higher Education Authority require information on these funds? Will the Government dictate how they are to be spent? I assure the House and the university communities that my concern in this legislation is with public funds, State funds, funds which this year alone amount to more than £200 million in the university sector alone. Under this Bill the Higher Education Authority will not have access to information on the private trusts and funds of universities. The Higher Education Authority will have access only to information which is at present provided by the universities on a non-statutory basis — the accounts of their annual income and expenditure.
There appears to be a genuine fear, fuelled by rumour, among some university staff that this Bill will worsen their pay and conditions. I can assert with absolute conviction that there is nothing in this Bill which could conceivably have this effect. However, in response to the concerns which have been conveyed to me about this I now intend to specifically provide in the Bill a provision to the effect that, for the removal of doubt, it is declared that the tenure, pay, allowances and pensions of existing staff will be no less beneficial after the passing of the Act than before it.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Bill, providing for visitation and suspension, provides for a situation where there is a serious breakdown in the management and operation of a university. I have consulted members of the university communities whose views I respect and who see in these powers a risk to university autonomy, despite the safeguards which are built into this section. I accept their genuine concerns. I assure Deputies that I am giving further thought to this section and I am disposed to bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage which would deal with these concerns expressed to me.
The White Paper lays great emphasis on quality in education. There is general agreement that universities need to have an effective process for evaluating academic standards. These processes exist already. There is a long and honoured tradition of peer review among our universities. There is a tradition of promotion of quality in research and in student education. The approach in section 31 of this Bill is to recognise and support this tradition while specifically recognising certain features in the evaluation of the quality of teaching and research at the university. Those features include evaluation of all departments and facilities of the university by the university itself and by external experts not less than once every ten years.
Student assessment is also a reasonable requirement of an evaluation system. The universities will be required to implement the findings of evaluations where it is practical to do so. The role of the Higher Education Authority will not be to conduct the evaluation. That is a function of the university. Nor will the HEA's role be to implement the findings of the evaluations. That is a matter for the university. Rather, the role of the Higher Education Authority will be to review the procedures established by the universities. This section reflects my view that self assessment in quality assurance is the most sophisticated and appropriate way of promoting development within an institution and nowhere is this more appropriate than in the universities.
The fundamental White Paper principle of equality is reflected in section 32 which provides for the preparation and giving effect to a policy in each university relating to equality of access for under-represented sectors of society and to gender equality. Both these issues have been matters to which universities are already devoting attention and since the Bill was published, I have been advised by many within the university communities of their welcome for this measure.
The key objectives of this Bill are to restructure the National University of Ireland, to revise university governance structures and to provide a balance between autonomy and accountability. The key principles which underpin this Bill are those of the White Paper: pluralism, partnership, accountability, quality and equality.
Last Monday an editorial in a national newspaper stated:
Ms Bhreathnach should not lose sight of her original objective of greater accountability. The mechanism by which this is achieved may be a matter for debate, but the principle is not contested.
This Bill has been framed in the context of continuing dialogue with the university communities. The dialogue aimed to achieve the key objectives which I have just stated and was informed by the principles which I have just declared.
My Department has continued this dialogue, after the publication of the Bill. On the basis of continuing communications and dialogue, and other views expressed by concerned interests, and having consulted where necessary my colleagues in Government, I expect I will be in a position to introduce a number of amendments on Committee Stage. Before reaching a final decision on any amendments, I will listen carefully to the views of Members and give them full consideration. Members can be assured I will listen intently to their contributions and I look forward to responding on the issues raised at the end of the debate.
I commend the Bill to the House.