Rose Conway-Walsh on staff reps, value for money and regional campuses

Thank you, Cathaoirleach and thank you for the presentations. I think this is a really important session here today. So I suppose the first question is will there be trade union representation on any governing authority, either the HEA or the department? Could you maybe answer that? Yeah, I can answer that. Yes, there will be staff representation. While the language of trade union movement isn't used in the general scheme, staff representative bodies is used and there will be representation on the governing bodies. So why is the trade union mentioned on it? Is there a reason for that? In the devising of the general scheme, the language we were advised to use was staff representative bodies, which would cover that. Yeah. Why? Is there a reason for that? I would have to see clarity on that from the drafters, but in the general scheme, it was advised to capture it that way. Yeah. Unions will be represented? Absolutely. Staff representative bodies is the term used. Yeah. I think it's important to make that clear because I know that's causing concern. And I think with this bill, if we can take as many of those things off the table as we can, I think then we're likely to end up with a better bill. Now, one of the general functions of the bill is to secure and evidence value for money from the exchequer investment in higher education. Now, deciding on what is and what's not value for money is often difficult to discern. So, for example, in the 80s, when we were spending scarce exchequer resources on higher education, only for many graduates to immigrate, to immigrate, it could have been argued that this didn't represent value for money, yet it laid the groundwork for attracting inward investment. Essentially, these can be quite complex and highly political decisions. Now, while we all want full accountability, I think there's a huge difference between mismanagement of funds and deciding what is and what is not worthwhile investment. So, my question, I suppose, is are you comfortable that the bill provides enough clarity on what constitutes value for money? And are you clear on who makes the judgment between the HEA and the department on this? Maybe if I could just get an answer to that before I put my next question. Do you want me to comment on that, Tanya? Yes. Thanks, Deputy Conor Walsh. That's a very interesting question. I think from a HEA perspective, something of that balance between the national policy agenda and, as I mentioned before, what's important locally, regionally and nationally. And you will particularly have that experience on the Western Seaboard, for example, where we have an emerging technological university looking at what is the broader region and how can that region be empowered and lifted and attract the kind of FDI that you've mentioned. And also keep people, rather than having them immigrate, will there be resources and opportunity within a region? And I think that perhaps the best people to judge that are those who are in the region and on the ground, and that is the institutions themselves. So, when setting out their strategy, they need to show how they are responding to national priorities, but also they're most aware of what the requirement is locally, what's happening locally. And so, it's that balance in the accountability and the autonomy that will allow them to be free enough to respond to local needs that they understand far better than someone sitting in Dublin, for want of a better expression. But that's why, Tim, and it's not just to come in there, that's why I have great concerns that the Mayo campus of the GMIT won't be represented. Is that right? I wouldn't have thought that. I would have thought this is a significant opportunity, that we have a diversity of small institutions in Irish higher education. In terms of forward-looking and forward-thinking, to be internationally competitive, I mean, we've seen the online thing through the COVID pandemic, for example. Higher education has now been delivered in a multitude of different ways and in different means. And for a small campus or a small institution to remain internationally relevant and competitive in what's going to be a very challenging future environment is one of the big challenges. So, to be part of a larger, more diverse institution with a lot more resources available to it across multiple campuses, I think that's an opportunity rather than a challenge, Deputy. Well, for sure it's an opportunity. But at the same time, I'd be concerned that there wouldn't be representation after this, that there wouldn't be representation from the Mayo campus who would really understand the uniqueness and the challenges and the opportunities for the county, say, in that. I think Tanya wants to come in there, but Tanya, please go ahead. Yes, yeah, definitely. I could commit on that. So, you see in the general scheme that the guiding principles for the membership of the governing bodies are captured there. The final position has not been agreed yet, hence why there's just the guiding principles there. And we'd be looking to the outcome of this process as well on that. So, it's not finally agreed exactly on that. And it's just the guiding principles of the membership that are there. So, we've noted that, as I know you've mentioned previously on that as well. You can take it that it's really important that we have representation from the Mayo campus of the GMIT. Now, just in your opening statement as well, Tanya, you mentioned that one of the reasons for the legislation is needed is the increasing number of private colleges. So, what oversight and governance with the department and the HEA now have over private colleges? And will you be able to apply quotas, say, on places as they do in some of the public colleges, say, particularly for primary teachers, as we see at the moment? And now we see more moves as well in terms of private places for nurses. Perhaps I could take the first aspect of that, just in terms of the legislation. The vision for the legislation is the designation of all higher education institutions, and that would include those that are private institutions. So, that's bringing them under the legislative framework for that governance and oversight. And the overall aim is to protect the integrity of the higher education system of the country and to protect the student as well. So, it's bringing them into the fold for that oversight with regard to various governance elements that are captured in that. And so, they would be different to those that are in receipt of exchequer funding, but that they would have elements around the plans that are required and the oversight. But maybe I could ask Tim to come in on certain aspects of that as well. Yeah, or Brian. Yeah. Might defer to Brian. Brian, if you're happy to. Yeah, sure. I mean, the private higher education system is already subject to academic quality assurance through the awarding function of QQI awards and HEATAC and the DEMCDA before that. So, we actually have quite a robust floor, if you like, on our academic standards across the board. And that's the role, key role of QQI, and that is a role that was strengthened in the legislation that I referred to as passed last year, whereby the Lerner Protection Fund, for example, is available for those providers if they happen to go out of business. On the other hand, they are private institutions at the moment. They are not in receipt of public funds. And so, except in certain limited cases, like under Human Capital Initiative Fund and Springboard and the like, where the capacity of these providers to, or flexibility of these providers to offer extra places, has actually been very helpful in terms of the responsiveness of the system to short-term needs for particular courses of study. As far as the question of general quotas and so on, that will also then be available as a tool, if you like, to the HEA in terms of its strategic direction of the system. If these institutions get funded by the higher education, by the HEA, then the HEA gets to say what it is that it's going to fund. If, on the other hand, they remain as privately funded, then they offer the programmes that are in demand by the students, because the students directly are the ones who will be paying the fees. I wouldn't at all agree with you, and I'll tell you why. It's just, I can't quite understand why. Deputy, Deputy Rose Comer-Welch, Deputy, Deputy, I'm going to allow you a further six minutes, right, because I know you're taking the slot for Doneke. Yeah, so, but I'm going to allow you, if that's agreeable with Deputy O'Kaddezee, is that okay? Deputy O'Kaddezee? Okay. Continue, continue, Deputy Welch. Okay, thank you. You see, no, I think this is a very interesting scenario, if you like, and I've been tracking, obviously, the nursing places and the need, because of the pandemic and all that, for additional medicine places and nursing places across the board. And then I see places in private colleges, and then I look at the accessibility to that, and I see that they are charging way more. So why are we not investing in the public places rather than allowing them to be privatised and to charge multiples of what it would be if a student was to access privately? You see, we've always been told that there was challenges around the numbers of, say, nursing places, because then they couldn't get a placement in, whether it be Mayo University Hospital or whatever other hospital. So that belies in a sense that, obviously, these private colleges have to have a place for the placements for them as well. So why are we going down that route rather than publicly funding them? Are we not concerned about the accessibility and that only people with money will end up even being able to train as nurses, never mind as it is at the moment in terms of medicine and the cost of getting into medicine? Well, as I say, QQI's concern is with the academic standards of these programmes. And in this instance, in the case of private nursing programmes, the placements are also secured in private sector hospitals. So there's a question there about the structures of public and private sector institutions on the health side as well as on the education side. But the question about the funding or determining the number of places in the public sector nursing provision is, whether it's educationally or in terms of the hospitals, is subject to the constraint that you talked about there. But the number of placements in the public sector hospitals and clinics and so on in the HSE. Yeah, I mean, Tim, I don't know if you want to speak to that, because I just, is there anything in this bill that will stop that from happening or will help that not to happen for us to have a public system rather than privatising these places? Because I get it in terms of what you're saying around the governance around them. But at the end of the day, when you privatise something, then they can charge whatever they like. But in a way, it's not that there's existing provision that's been privatised. It is that there's new provision coming on stream, which is private, rather than taking existing public provision and privatising it. I mean, I disagree with that again, but I don't want to get, maybe we'll have a conversation on that on another day. I think it's the wrong way to go. But just in terms of, can you explain why and how drastically reducing the size of the governing bodies will increase competency and effectiveness of the operation of the boards? Now, it's my understanding that the workload on board members, as they currently are, is quite substantial. So how will having the same workload and more spread across less people increase competency and effectiveness and effectiveness if there's already an overload there? Maybe anybody? Yeah, I can put it there. The general scheme, as I said, sets out the principles for the composition. It hasn't definitively come down on that number yet. But you will see that the most latest legislation in terms of the technological university has a smaller governing body. Some of the governing bodies at the moment can have up to 40 members and in consultation with the institutions, the feedback is they're not as effectiveness with large numbers to that effect. And aligned with the national strategy for higher education 2030, which recommended more streamlined governing bodies with the competencies as well. But it should be said that they will be coupled with other stakeholder structures that are there. There will be subcommittees where voices can be represented via the subcommittees for the higher education institutions. And there will also be provisions for consultation into institutions, state development of strategy as well for that. So there will be other, it's complemented by other structures that allows key stakeholder voices to come through to the more streamlined governing body that will be based on competency. But as I said, we'll have staff and student representation as well. Yeah, and I do very much welcome that in terms of the staff and the student representation. Now, the Higher Education Authority Act, 71, said that this bill sets out to replace one of the five general functions of the HEA, and that's promoting the democratization of the structure of higher education. So why is this role not included in the 16 general functions in the bill? Would it be fair to say that the new legislation will make institutions of higher education less representative and democratic in their governance? I can come in there again, if wish. Just, Deputy, just to say that one of the objects of the general scheme is to advance equality, diversity and inclusion for higher education. And one of the general functions then of the scheme is to support equality, diversity and inclusion in higher education, including the participation in the success of underrepresented sections as well as society. And there is also provision for the HEA to prepare an equity of access and participation plan for approval by the minister. And then the plan will be published in the designation institutions will be required to have regard to that plan when preparing their own strategic development plan and equality statement as well in that. Thank you. Thank you.