Professor Brigid Laffan:

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide the committee with a brief statement in addition to that provided by the acting president. I was one of the first students of NIHE, and UL matters a great deal to me. During my time as an undergraduate, I grew up there and UL quite literally grew up around me. I accepted the invitation to become chancellor because of the opportunities, academic career and life experience UL gave me. It was transformative in my life and I wanted to give something back. The chancellor’s role has been nothing like I expected it to be. At just my second meeting as chair, Rhebogue was placed on our meeting agenda and it has not left the agenda since, nor, I have accepted, is it unlikely to for the foreseeable future.

Since we last appeared before the committee, the president has resigned, providing stability and certainty to the university and allowing us an opportunity to commence the process of resetting the executive committee. We have also greatly strengthened, with external expertise, the committees that support the governing authority, in particular audit and risk, finance, people and culture. As the committee knows, we are now subject to a section 64 review.

When I last addressed the university community in March, I said the institution would be subject to extreme oversight. Although that description was perhaps a little too strong, it is clear that the HEA will have direct involvement in UL’s institutional governance for at least the next few years. Although I am a strong advocate of independence and university autonomy, UL could not have expected any other outcome given the governance failures, one after another, which characterised the Honan’s Quay and Rhebogue purchases.

Where are we at? The governing authority has submitted the section 64 review to the HEA. The review was conducted by Deloitte at arm’s length from both the executive committee and the governing authority. The obligation to report to the HEA under section 64, however, rests with the authority. In the feedback provided to us, the HEA challenged us to think critically about the findings and recommendations and what they would mean for UL. We were also asked to consider and prioritise the changes that would be most impactful. The governing authority has done what the HEA has asked, outlining what we think these impactful changes might be. It is now a matter for the HEA to consider the next steps and to chart a way forward in partnership with us and in accordance with its statutory oversight powers.

Let me to give the authority’s views. I am conscious the HEA is currently deliberating on an appropriate course of action for the next phase, but I want to give the committee a brief outline of the authority’s reflections. Honan’s Quay and Rhebogue did not occur in a vacuum. Throughout this process we have been asking ourselves how it could be that, despite the change in leadership, so many of the shortcomings were repeated. This is not an easy question but the reports conducted provide us with insight. Certainly, there are structural deficiencies in our systems of governance but culture also played an important part. The governing authority is of the view that approaching reform solely through addressing findings and recommendations, which we will do, will not of itself bring about the change of the scale required. There is a need for deep-rooted cultural change, starting at the top. We are addressing this so that poor governance, similar to Honan’s Quay and Rhebogue, will not arise in the future. Any further lapses in governance would be utterly disastrous for UL’s recovery, and on my watch it will not happen.

Turning to the future, we have four key recommendations. First, we need to establish a transformation programme with a dedicated change management support. There is a large body of recommendations that needs to be worked through diligently and systematically while also thinking about the bigger picture. Given the scale, UL will need to create a dedicated change programme. This will ensure the affairs of the university on a day-to-day basis will also continue. The governing authority will maintain direct oversight of its progress, supported by the audit and risk committee.

Second, the governing authority must model the behaviours that it wishes others to follow. It must be an exemplar of good governance and accountability and must set what I call “tone from the top”. The executive committee is also crucially important here. It will need to lead the cultural change programme on a day-to-day basis, and its members must be instigators, agents, and champions of institutional transformation.

Third is structures, processes and policies of governance. Working closely in partnership with the HEA, the governing authority will lead in the development of the implementation plan, addressing structures, processes and policies of governance with clear action owners, timelines and independent evaluation of progress. Fourth is the prioritisation of internal control, risk management and accountability.

Based on discussions with the newly reconstituted audit and risk committee, I am aware there is a need to greatly strengthen the university’s second and third lines of defence. Risk and compliance require particular attention, and although much has already been done in respect of the former, the latter needs more time and investment. We now have a strong audit and risk committee, but internal audit will need to be significantly strengthened relative to the size and budget of the university.

The governing authority will drive a strong approach to accountability, both individual and collective. There will be zero tolerance for policy deviation and actions that cause the university reputational damage.

This concludes my opening statement. I am happy to assist the members and to address their questions.