THE Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, looked remarkably relaxed as she announced the publication of the Universities Bill at a press conference in Government buildings during the summer.
It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the Bill was overshadowed by a potentially nasty dispute with the INTO and, even worse, the escape, the previous day, of a youth accused of aggravated sexual assault from the custody of Trinity House in Lusk, Co Dublin - an escape, which concerned many members of the media more than the Bill itself.
Yet, the Minister was not to be denied her brief moment of pleasure as the Bill was presented to the nation after its long and sometimes controversial gestation to become the first significant piece of university legislation since 1908.
Individual institutions have had their own concerns about the Bill. UL's staff governors described it as a "manipulator's charter" which would give excessive powers to the university's president, Dr Ed Walsh, while undermining the current protection given to university employees under the old NIHE legislation.
TCD was apparently happy that the threatened 10 outside representatives on its board had shrunk to three at most. A spokesman took the view that the composition of the board would probably not be an issue of concern from now on. TCD was to be allowed to put forward its own Private Bill to alter the college charter, effectively allowing it a degree of self determination while simultaneously ensuring that it accepted the Minister's demands.
It was made clear in the Bill that should TCD prove reluctant or tardy in putting forward its Private Bill, it would become subject to the main Bill itself and that, in essence, would be that.
It now appears that there is grave unhappiness with aspects of the Bill among many of the university's academic staff and the university's senators also seem likely to kick against its pricks, leaving the way open for a string of amendments as it tries to make its way gingerly through the houses of the Oireachtas from next month.
According to TCD senator Shane, Ross the Bill will be defeated in the Senate in its present form and, while his concerns apply in particular to his own university constituency, he believes that they are matters of concern for all the universities.
He is concerned at the proposal to elect political appointees to university boards, arguing that their loyalty will not be to the institution but "to their political masters".
TCD had made representations on both these issues to the Minister and believed that its proposals to modify them were going to be accepted. That the Minister did not choose to accept them is a matter of considerable disappointment to the university.
The concerns of UL's staff and student representatives, the other, most vociferous group of Bill critics, are diametrically opposed to, those of their colleagues in TCD, since the UL staff would be quite content if the Minister maintained more control over the running of the college. This can be traced back to the relatively poor staff relations in UL and the influence of UL's president, Dr Ed Walsh.
UNDER the Bill, the university now has the power to hire and fire staff, a power previously designated to the Minister under the old National Institute of Higher Education legislation. The governing body in turn can devolve this power to the chief executive of the college, so the president can have the sole power to hire or fire an individual. This is one aspect of the Bill that concerns the UL staff.
The others include the provision, that the determination of UL's first governing body will be decided by a commission which will include the chief officer, the registrar, a nominee of An tUdaras, and a fourth person nominated by the old governing body. The staff argue that such a commission would be dominated by the interests of the college executive and that staff appointments to the governing body could be undermined as a result.
Finally, while the Bill makes provision for the disposal of land and property in the event of privatisation, it contains no such safeguards for staff. Since Dr Walsh is probably the only university head in the country who can mention privatisation of his college without feeling queasy, the staff argue that if privatisation ever comes to pass they will have no protection according to the current Bill.
Opposition to the Bill has been fare from unanimous, though. The four NUI colleges in particular have reason to be pleased with many of the provisions. They become autonomous universities for the first time under the umbrella of the NUI with an accompanying change of title: they will now be known as NUI Dublin, NUI Cork, NUI Galway and NUI Maynooth.
Maynooth becomes a full university of the NUI for the first time; it is currently a recognised college of the NUI.
MAYNOOTH is one of a number of universities where local provisions are included in the Bill to assuage fears. The trustees of Maynooth, who are the Catholic Church, were worried about a possible loss of influence on the governing body of the college. The Bill allows for three nominees of the trustees to sit on the governing body in Maynooth.
UCD appears to be reasonably happy with the Bill, although some senior staff members are unhappy because they feel their influence will be diminished by it. The university's women's graduate association is particularly unhappy because the Bill would have the effect of reducing graduate representation on the governing body, one of the main ways in which women are elected to the governing body.
UCC has also generally welcomed the Bill although there is growing opposition to the name change to the NUI institutions it proposes. Cork has apparently been very happy with UCC for 150 years and sees no reason to change the name of one of its oldest institutions to NUI Cork at this point. UCG may also take a similar view.
The Bill also distinctly alters the nature of the relationship between the universities and the Higher Education Authority. Previously, disputes between the NUI and the universities were conducted behind closed doors, a situation which suited the universities more than the HEA. Under the provisions of the Bill, an ongoing dispute between the HEA and a university over how that university wishes to spend part of its allocation would be passed on to the Minister for Education, who can then publish details of the dispute and the correspondence between the parties. In effect this would introduce the element of public opinion into the equation.
The Department of Education's view is that this will encourage both parties to behave in a civilised and flexible manner in the event of a dispute.
This tension between autonomy and accountability is evident throughout the Bill and is likely to cause the Minister considerable grief. "Universities have a great responsibility to remain autonomous, says Senator Mary Henry of TCD, who stresses that individual universities should not get caught up with those sections of the Bill that refer specifically to themselves at the expense of its larger implications.
"We really need to look at creating a situation where the universities are seriously autonomous and if you don't have financial autonomy that's very difficult," said Henry.
The Council of Heads of Irish Universities welcomed the Bill's publication when it first appeared but has yet to give a comprehensive response to its recommendations.
For example, TCD's board has not yet met to discuss the Bill while the committee formed by UCD to examine the Bill has yet to make its report to the governing body.
Early indications, though, are ominous. There are hints that the council may reject the Bill as it stands, forcing a series of amendments or a confrontation with the Minister. She desperately needs the support of the university heads, since it will be extremely difficult to introduce legislation which none of them wants in its present form.
Without the support of the university heads and, by extension, the university senators, the Bill could be defeated in the Seanad, where the Government is in the minority and where a number of its own senators could break whip and vote against it.
