Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Apr 1997

Vol. 150 No. 16

Universities Bill, 1996: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 32, after "made" to insert ", after consultation with the existing governing bodies of the universities referred to in section 4,".

My amendment relates to the consultation which should take place before the Bill comes into effect. A similar amendment was tabled in the Dáil by Deputy Keogh. Such consultation would be consistent with the Minister's remarks and the spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward.

I support this amendment. My amendment also highlights the need for consultation with the governing authorities of the universities. This process is part of the exercise of partnership in Government. We should not exclude these authorities from the decision making process.

Is it normal to have this kind of consultation? Once the Bill is passed by the Oireachtas the universities will be aware that it will come into effect within a certain period. Whatever about giving advance notice, consultation would be awkward and unnecessary at that stage.

I have not tabled specific ministerial amendments to the Bill. Given the direct representation of the universities in this House it is important that we debate this issue carefully as happened on Second Stage. I am willing to consider the issues as they arise. The Oireachtas and the universities are committed to producing a balanced Bill. Those institutions would welcome the enactment of the Bill in this session as it would prepare them for the next millennium.

Section 2 allows flexibility. This amendment calls for consultations with the universities before the Minister makes an order providing for the commencement of the Bill. I do not support this. Having enacted a Bill, it would be inappropriate for the Oireachtas to depend on consultations with other bodies before effect could be given to its will. For example, the next meeting of a governing body may be in February. This could lead to uncertainty and litigation if we started defining who and what should be included in the consultative process. This would not be in the best interests of the universities.

We are ensuring that the universities are ready to implement the provisions of the Bill and contacts will continue between the Minister, the Department and the universities. However, the will of the Oireachtas that this Bill should pass must supersede any need to reopen consultations.

Nothing in amendments Nos. 1 or 2 would subvert the Bill. Neither amendment intends to subvert the will of the Oireachtas. There has been a long process of consultation and this is a matter of courtesy. I do not wish to make an issue of this but this amendment does not diminish the Bill. The opposite is the case — it would be of considerable assistance.

I support this amendment. I understand the Minister's point that the will of the Oireachtas should remain supreme. However, this is not lessened by including consultation. It does not give a veto to the universities but it will ensure that the Bill is enacted in consultation with them. This is a matter of courtesy.

However, this is not sufficiently significant to delay the House. We should not force this to a vote but that is a matter for Senator Dardis. I am certain of the Minister's good intentions and I would prefer to progress to the more substantial sections so that the Bill can pass as rapidly as possible. It will be necessary to amend it in this House and I hope this can be done efficiently and quickly and in a spirit of good humour. The amended Bill will then be enacted. It would be a pity of it was delayed too long and fell as a result. We should not give any party an excuse to ensure the Bill is not enacted. It is our duty to amend it in those areas we are concerned about and then pass it into law.

I do not think implementing a consultation process would prevent the enactment of the legislation or stymie it going through the Houses. There should be openness in relation to any changes to the governing body before or after this legislation is enacted. The universities feel they are part of the process.

I agree with Senator Dardis and Senator Norris that this Bill should pass in amended form as rapidly as possible. There will be no vexatious procrastination on my part on any of the issues arising. There are principles still to be resolved as well as matters of practical implementation towards which this House may have some contribution to make.

I hope that in co-operation with the Minister — and we will hold her to her word about being anxious to co-operate — we pass this Bill as quickly as possible in the confidence that it is the best Bill possible at this stage.

On consultation it would be a matter of courtesy if there was a phraseology which indicated it would not simply be a decree. It is not a matter I would want to see pushed to a vote. There have been reservations expressed on this and other Bills about the substance of the word "consultation". I dislike seeing it used in a way which might be regarded as the equivalent of a courtesy. Consultation should mean that. Once the Bill becomes law, I do not see why the Minister should be obliged to engage in real consultation. From that point of view, I hesitate about pressing this further.

I cannot guarantee that all this discussion will be good humoured but we will try. The wording of the amendments impose a timescale on the introduction of this legislation. Senator Dardis' amendment states "after consultation with the existing governing bodies of the universities referred to..." This applies to at least seven universities. Senator Ormonde's amendment states ""Any such order or orders shall be made by the Minister only after consultation with the existing governing authorities, boards or bodies of the universities cited in section 4.". I am not accepting these amendments because once this Bill is enacted, we have expressed our intention to introduce the legislation. I ask that this be accepted by the House.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I am almost always guided by Senator Norris's prudent advice and in the light of that I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 3, 12, 14, 20, 48, 64, 98 and 172 and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:—

"‘Dublin Institute of Technology' means the Institute established by Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992;".

These related amendments cover the Dublin Institute of Technology. If one amendment is accepted, the related amendments must also be accepted. The Dublin Institute of Technology must be incorporated into this Bill. It is a fine institution which covers a large number of colleges and has 25,000 students. It is a degree awarding institution which does ongoing postgraduate work. The report of the international review team suggested the legislation should be broadened to incorporate the Dublin Institute of Technology into the framework of this Bill. The White Paper, Charting our Education Future, also stated that the Dublin Institute of Technology should be included in the Bill and funding should be brought under the HEA.

The Dublin Institute of Technology is the largest third level institution in the country. I worked there before I decided to follow a different route. There is a fine body of people working there. It has a good record, a well thought through curriculum and the courses are well researched. It has all the ingredients to be part of the university framework. This should be done now rather than later. I do not see why we should have to wait until the next millennium to amend this legislation. We should do it now so that at the appropriate time it will be easy to implement it.

I support the widening of this Bill and the inclusion of the Dublin Institute of Technology in the university framework. I will oppose this section if this is not done.

I support these amendments the intention of which is to confer university status on the Dublin Institute of Technology. We gave some of the reasons for that on Second Stage. The fundamental point is that academically and functionally, the Dublin Institute of Technology fulfils the criteria required of a university in every respect. If this is so, it seems to be eminently sensible that it should join the University of Limerick and St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. I do not see any qualitative difference between the Dublin Institute of Technology and those other august bodies of learning.

The colleges within the Dublin Institute of Technology — which are now faculties within the institute — have a very distinguished history and go back for over a century. The school of architecture in Bolton Street is internationally regarded as one of the premier schools of architecture in these islands. Cathal Brugha Street has a very distinguished history in its area. I cannot think of any coherent argument why the institute should not be included in this Bill.

Degree awarding status is not the same as being a university. There are plenty of places of learning which are not universities where degrees are awarded by a variety of bodies. The international review team's report stated that "the relevant authorities should consider whether the key features of the proposed legislation should be extended to the Dublin Institute of Technology and its legislation amended in the light of such analysis". There is a degree of support across the international spectrum which accepts the Dublin Institute of Technology is a university in everything but name. If that is the case, it is perfectly sensible to include it now rather than having to amend the Bill at a later stage.

We are taking eight amendments together but I propose to concentrate on the one which I tabled. I am flattered that my colleagues also chose to concentrate on that one, which suggests we have all decided it is the most significant. Some of the ancillary amendments propose details and flourishes which are consequent upon a decision to create a university.

We are all anxious to have the best possible legislation. It should not come down to a battle between the Minister and the House. We want to be co-operative. As I said earlier, the other side of that is that we should not get into a situation where the Government does not want to lose face by being made to do something — the sense of which it eventually acknowledges itself — by a vote of the Oireachtas. A vote should not be seen as a confrontational issue. I will press this amendment unless I hear something very solid, clear, convincing and tangible from the Minister which will persuade me not to. Of course, other Members can also call a vote on this amendment.

Most of the arguments have already been made here and on Second Stage. It is clear the Dublin Institute of Technology has achieved the intellectual status of a university. We are looking for the recognition in law of something which is nationally and internationally recognised. My colleague, Senator Dardis, quoted, as I had intended doing, from the international review, which makes it quite clear the Dublin Institute of Technology has achieved that status.

The University of Dublin has been the conferring body for the degrees of Dublin Institute of Technology graduates for years. As a former employee of the University of Dublin, which is, as are the other universities, a very fine university — we can be proud of the university tradition in this country — my attitude is that if it is prepared to stand over the academic standards of the Dublin Institute of Technology and award it degrees over a significant period of years, coupled with the belief of international bodies charged with the monitoring of the development of third level institutions that the Dublin Institute of Technology has arrived at a position where it should be recognised as a university, it is time we, as legislators, took on board and acted on those recommendations.

I am slightly saddened by the fact that this represents a kind of separation of the University of Dublin and the Dublin Institute of Technology. When I began to examine this issue I thought the most appropriate solution would be to fulfil, after 400 years, the original intentions of her gracious majesty, Queen Elizabeth I, of establishing a University of Dublin with several constituent colleges, and that the Dublin Institute of Technology might be happy to be a college within the University of Dublin with a sister college called Trinity College, Dublin. Apparently, this is not the wish of either body, although there are no feelings of difficulty or awkwardness between them. Having ironed out that hesitation, I can see no reason for not accepting this amendment.

It might be a matter of timing. However, unless I hear something very convincing to the contrary, it seems to me that this legislation is the appropriate place to make this move. I look forward to a positive answer from the Minister.

People might be made to hesitate by the thought that if this amendment is included the Bill might fall, due to the parliamentary scheduling and the looming election. I do not believe that; it is not beyond the capacity of the Government managers of business to ensure this does not happen. In any case, some amendments will have to be accepted for technical legal reasons. Therefore, the objection that inserting any amendments at this stage will ensure the collapse of the Bill has no validity. We have been threatened with that in this House before, which seems an unwarrantable intrusion into the authority of the Seanad. We are charged with and paid for the review and amendment of legislation. If the Government orders its business in such a way that it is incapable of securing the passage of a Bill if this House lives up to its responsibility, that is a problem for the Government.

As Senator Norris pointed out, at present students of the Dublin Institute of Technology obtain their degrees from Dublin University. It must dearly desire to be a university if it is prepared to give up that privilege, so one must take its wishes very seriously. The timing might be a difficulty. It is important to point out that Senators Norris and Dardis are quite right in saying that becoming a degree awarding authority is not the same as becoming a university. It was pointed out on Second Stage that while there are many degree awarding institutes in Dublin, a university is a totally different legal entity.

I hope the Minister addresses this issue in a sensible manner. The fact that Dublin University has guaranteed the academic prowess of the Dublin Institute of Technology is very strong evidence of the fact that its courses, degrees and postgraduate work are held in very high esteem internationally. I hope to see it develop as a different kind of university. Senator Norris said that he had thought the wishes of Queen Elizabeth I could be fulfilled by instituting another college of Dublin University. When I began discussions with the Dublin Institute of Technology I pointed out that the French polytechnics take great pride in their different role within France. I thought it might consider having a similar role in Ireland, but that is not its wish.

We know from the imprimatur given to the Dublin Institute of Technology by Dublin University, and the investigation by the international body, that it is worthy of being given degree awarding and university status. That would make it totally autonomous rather than having to constantly revert to the Minister for basic decisions regarding the employment of clerical staff. I feel very strongly about this amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister.

I accept many of the points which have been made on amendment No. 3. The majority of people accept the Dublin Institute of Technology is a fine institution with an excellent reputation. However, it might be somewhat presumptuous to imply that we accept the Dublin Institute of Technology should be given university status today. Section 9 makes provision for the establishment of additional universities. Section 9(1) provides that the Government may appoint a body the membership of which will include international educational experts and such employees of universities to which the Bill applies to advise the Government on whether an educational institution should be established as a university. This subsection is very important and, as from today, it should be adhered to with regard to the promotion of institutions.

There was a recent misunderstanding regarding the upgrading of a third level institution to the effect that a political decision could be made. This is not the case. If the House decided that the Dublin Institute of Technology was to be included under the terms of the Bill there would be a presumption that, in our view, it qualifies as a university. However, in this instance our view is superfluous. The issue must be examined by a body using the proper academic criteria. While we could forecast the advice of the body, we should await it.

In the circumstances, section 9 covers what everybody seeks to be included. I hope, therefore, that amendment No. 3 will not be pressed. It will take a simple amendment to this legislation if and when the Dublin Institute of Technology becomes a university. This will provide Members of this House and the other House with a further opportunity to consider the operation of the universities legislation and perhaps make amendments.

This issue was raised on Second Stage when it was pointed out that there is a need for due recognition of the work of the Dublin Institute of Technology and to grant it the status it deserves. The amendments in our names indicate our view of the best way forward to ensure that the institution gets due control over its destiny and all that goes with that. We are committed to them unless another course of action is indicated.

We are aware of ongoing talks between the Department and the colleges. Any results from these talks must have a legislative basis. What is the Minister's position on this issue? We appear to be approaching it from different points of view. There is a need for clarity.

Individual colleges of the Dublin Institute of Technology have rendered an indispensable service, in many cases for over a century. This debate is very important, both for the Dublin Institute of Technology and other institutions. We are now advised that degree awarding is not a defining mark of a university and the University of Dublin and the Dublin Institute of Technology do not wish to constitute a single university.

What is the Minister's understanding of the criteria that constitute a university? Her reply will be influential in determining my attitude on this. This is an important question not only for the Dublin Institute of Technology but this House, the country and any other institutions which may have legitimate university aspirations and may need to know how to set about fulfilling the criteria.

On Second Stage I indicated that, for the first time, a mechanism was included in section 9 for the recognition of a third level institution as a university. I envisage that it will be used following applications.

The discussion on the Dublin Institute of Technology raised awareness, including those in and outside the different interest groups concerned about the development of third level education. The matter was raised in the White Paper. A university does not have to resemble the oldest or the newest.

With regard to the criteria to be used for the establishment of a university, the international review committee made a number of recommendations in its report. I established the review group and asked it to look at the status of the Dublin Institute of Technology which was seeking to grant its own degrees. The model we used to decide on degree awarding status was derived from the group which contained national and international opinion and expertise.

I presume we had the Dublin Institute of Technology in mind when considering how an institution may become a university under section 9. The review group was asked to consider the future of Dublin Institute of Technology and recommended that it be granted authority to award its own degrees for its undergraduates with effect from the academic year 1998-9. I have accepted this recommendation and have indicated that we will prepare the necessary order.

The review group also recommended that the funding and oversight of the Dublin Institute of Technology be transferred from the Department to the Higher Education Authority as soon as possible. That will entail amending the Higher Education Authority legislation and I have signalled my intention to introduce legislation which will bring the Dublin Institute of Technology and the regional technical college sectors under the aegis of a reconstituted HEA. This was indicated in the White Paper.

The relevant authorities were asked to consider whether the key features of the university legislation should be extended to the Dublin Institute of Technology and its legislation be amended in the light of such an analysis. This was not a recommendation for university status but a request for an analysis of the criteria.

The review group also referred to a system of quality assurance and recommended that the institute should be subject to periodic review. The institute and the Department have been in close contact about the mechanisms and the review group's proposals to ensure that can happen. The review group recommended that the Dublin Institute of Technology should ensure that its organisational structures and processes are firmly in place and operating effectively. Progress on this recommendation is being made by the Department and the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The process was detailed and time consuming. Some of the group's recommendations were taken on board and the Department indicated that others are acceptable. These will be considered during the analysis of the universities legislation. Given the recommendation of the group, it was appropriate to include a statutory mechanism in section 9 which will allow this institution and others to seek university status. However, I cannot answer Senator Lee's query about the criteria which will be set down.

I listened carefully to the case made by the institution for inclusion in the Bill. I have its interests at heart and I can give the House chapter and verse about investments and developments there. Its arguments were cogently made but, following the enactment of the Bill, there will be a mechanism under which I can respond in a measured way. Senator Norris raised a solemn, clear, convincing and tangible case but it is up to him to decide whether that is sufficient. That is the Senator's prerogative. I was careful not to mention time limits but I will make myself available for dialogue with the Senator. However, the Dublin Institute of Technology will welcome this move today.

Following the enactment of the Bill, I will immediately request the Government to appoint a body pursuant to section 9 to advise it on whether, having regard to the objects and functions of a university, the Dublin Institute of Technology should be established as a university. This will be the practical outcome of section 9 for the institution which was subject to a favourable review by an international body. However, it is necessary to put in place a mechanism to establish the criteria. This will allow the Dublin Institute of Technology to seek establishment as a university.

I do not intend to accept the amendments and my reply was lengthy because this is a most important area. I listened carefully to the debate and I quoted the recommendations of the international review group. I undertake to request the Government to appoint a body following the enactment of the Bill with regard to the statutory mechanism in section 9 and the Dublin Institute of Technology. This move will be welcomed.

I have great difficulty with the Minister's response. She had plenty of time to draw conclusions before this debate commenced. For example, Senator Lee asked her to define a university. The Minister granted degree awarding status to the Dublin Institute of Technology and she should give it university status. If it has degree awarding status, the Minister should go the whole way and call it a university. It cannot have degree awarding status without some recognition of that aspect.

The Minister intends to establish another body to decide whether it should be called a university. I do not accept that proposal because it has not been fully thought out. The Minister is introducing legislation to transfer funding to the Higher Education Authority and she gave the Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status. She also introduced section 9 to deal with this matter. However, these moves point to doubts in this area. The provision has not been fully thought out. Unless a decision is made now to give the Dublin Institute of Technology university status, it will be put on the long finger. The Minister said the Dublin Institute of Technology will have independent degree awarding status in the 1998 academic year. If that is the case, it should have full university status.

The Minister has shown movement but I am not sure it is sufficient. It appears that, immediately following the passage of the Bill, she will establish a mechanism which will allow the Dublin Institute of Technology to make an application to become a university. Could I tease the Minister into a more advanced position? The Minister is recommending a mechanism but I am not sure from her comments that she will recommend the recognition of the Dublin Institute of Technology as a university.

The Dublin Institute of Technology is already a university in everything but name. However, the lack of that status affects students in terms of their desirability in the jobs market and it impedes the ability of the Dublin Institute of Technology to be recognised and compete internationally, particularly at research level. It also affects its capacity to attract visiting professors. In that context it is important that the Dublin Institute of Technology is recognised as a university.

I wish to outline some technical reasons that is important. At present it operates under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act. If one compares the legislation, the differences between the current position and what would occur if the Minister had a change of heart during the debate and decided to accept the amendments are obvious. Under section 12(1)(a) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, the appointment of staff is subject to the approval of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. Under section 24 of the Universities Bill, a university may appoint staff as it thinks fit, provided it is within the budget and future budgets and within guidelines issued by the Higher Education Authority following consultation with the chief officers of the university. Under section 12(1)(b) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act, selection procedures are determined by the Minister. However, there is no comparable restriction under the Universities Bill.

Section 12(4) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act states that the appointment of research fellows, research assistants and other support staff, even part-timers, is subject to conditions laid down by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. However, there is no comparable restriction under the Universities Bill. Section 18 of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act states that the institute may charge fees for courses, lectures, examinations, exhibitions, research, consultancy and development subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Minister. Section 38 of the Universities Bill leaves universities free to determine these except in relation to undergraduate programmes.

Section 5(1)(j) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act states that the institute may acquire land subject to approval by the Minister. This aspect is most important in view of the desire and the opportunities which exist at present for the Dublin Institute of Technology to acquire land. However, the Universities Bill states that a university may purchase or otherwise acquire and dispose of land. The approval of the Minister must be sought and obtained under the current arrangements for the Dublin Institute of Technology. Section 3 of that Act states that if the office of president becomes vacant, the Minister may appoint a person to be president temporarily. However, there is no comparable provision in the Universities Bill as it stands.

Section 2 of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act states that the Minister may by order appoint a commission to carry out the functions of the governing body, the chairman and president if the Minister is satisfied following a report by an inspector that the affairs of the institute are not being managed effectively. Section 20 of the Universities Bill states that the Government may suspend the governing body by having an appropriate order passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That provision will have a tough passage through the House in terms of the difference between the Dublin Institute of Technology Act and the Bill. It may be substantially different by the time the Bill is passed.

There are other examples of the differences between the legislation, such as section 5(2)(a) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act which states that the permission of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance is required before the institute can begin to confer honorary awards. Universities have reserved this power to themselves. Those specific instances clarify the practical differences and disadvantages of the Dublin Institute of Technology compared to a university. It might be indiscreet for the Minister to indicate if her formula is satisfactory to the Dublin Institute of Technology but I would like her to be as indiscreet as possible. Can she tell us if this is what they want and can I hold her to that? I am reluctant to push this issue because it may not entirely be in accordance with the wishes of the governing body.

The Minister said she will put a mechanism in place under which the Dublin Institute of Technology may apply for university status. That by no means guarantees such status will be accorded to it and there is no indication that her Department supports this view. It would be political idiocy from us to be fobbed off, and we are not idiots.

The Senator should speak for himself.

I am, but I am attempting to be generous. It would be foolish to be fobbed off with permission to apply — a cat may look at a king — but it does not guarantee much to allow someone to apply. The Minister might also put the substance of her discussions with Dublin Institute of Technology on the record to show what they want. She can then say that my proposals are against the wishes of the Dublin Institute of Technology if that is the case. Perhaps there is more support and commitment for the proposal to establish the Dublin Institute of Technology as a university in the Department of Education. If so, and this is a political face saving gesture so that the Department is not being forced to do something it is going to do anyway, then I would be far less aggressive in pursuing the case. I do not wish to push amendments for political appearance but I would like to know if this process is seriously under way.

I considered opposing this amendment until the Minister spoke. We need to cut through the camouflage. The Minister appears to be saying that when the Bill is passed, the Dublin Institute of Technology can apply under section 9 in what will then be the normal way. Section 9 is totally unsatisfactory and needs radical amendment. It leaves the setting up and establishment of a university in the power of the Government, and to the Minister for Education in particular. The Minister can correct me, but she seems to be suggesting that the Dublin Institute of Technology may apply as a compromise. If the Minister sets up these bodies, which have no statutory powers but have consultative powers, considers their reports and then decides whether to make the Dublin Institute of Technology a university, we are back to square one.

I oppose section 9 so I cannot support the Minister in her opposition to this amendment. However, I reiterate what Senator Lee said. It might help if the Minister defined the key criteria for university status here. It is not good enough to set up a politically chosen group of so-called international experts and to make a recommendation which will be decided upon politically. This is not what Senator Norris termed it, a political compromise. It is a political fudge and I cannot see how we can accept the Minister's explanation unless she tells us her attitude to section 9 and the procedures that will be used.

The Minister has made a small movement but all she is proposing is that a body will be established pursuant to section 9 of the Bill. That is nothing new. Section 9 does not say the Minister, but the Government. It will not be a matter just for the Minister to decide, although the Government will act on her recommendation. Section 9(3) says that the Government shall not make an order under subsection (2) unless it has first caused to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a draft of the proposed order and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by both Houses.

I would not anticipate any difficulty in the Houses approving the matter but it is my experience with orders laid before the Oireachtas that it takes a considerable length of time to get them through the system. They may go through without debate but it can take time to get them on the floor.

The central issue here is that if, on the basis of what has already been studied, the Dublin Institute of Technology fulfils the criteria, as it appears to do, why is it necessary to constitute another body to establish something already established? Why is that procedure necessary? In the Bill, St. Patrick's College, the University of Limerick and the colleges of the National University of Ireland are all constituted as universities. If one other institute of learning is similar in every respect to those bodies, why is it necessary to leave that institute out of the Bill? Far be it from me to suggest the reality is that the degree of movement in the Seanad relative to the immovability in the Dáil relates to the mathematics in the Upper House, which is reflected by the full Independent benches.

Another matter is quality assurance. If the Dublin Institute of Technology is included under the ambit of the Bill, I would take it as read that the quality assurance aspect referred to by the Minister would be dealt with without difficulty.

What we have here is something Eric Elwood would be very proud of on a good day in Lansdowne Road: a kick from well inside his own 22 that found touch on the opposing 22. I want to see more movement and there is no reason the amendments before the House should not be voted on.

The theme running through the Opposition contributions seems to be that the Minister should recommend the recognition of the Dublin Institute of Technology as a university today. I worry about that because it should not be for politicians to decide whether the Dublin Institute of Technology achieves university status. Senator Norris asked whether the Minister was willing to recommend that it be so recognised. I do not think the Minister should do that. There should be a clear division. A university as an institution is created on the basis of clinical criteria which should be examined, not by politicians but by those qualified to do so. If section 9 is imperfect let us examine it in detail and change it if necessary, but let us not create the spurious position that a politician's recommendation is satisfactory. The Minister should run a mile from that proposal. Regardless of how the debate stands between her Department and the Dublin Institute of Technology, she should not recommend the institute's recognition. The position should be reversed; she should grant the status on the basis of advice that the institute is capable of gaining international recognition as a university. It would be wrong if politicians were allowed recommend the recognition of an institution regardless of its status, because different agendas applying at different times would dictate certain recommendations. It is superfluous to include Dublin Institute of Technology among the definitions in section 3 because it is not a university now.

Once again the natives cannot be trusted.

It has nothing to do with trust. It is concerned with laying down proper procedures for the future and ensuring our universities are not tampered with——

——by Government.

I will rephrase: that our institutions are not tampered with.

Senator Ross was on the Government side last week.

If Senator Cotter continues in that vein he will be over here next week.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Cotter without interruption, please.

Unlike Senator Norris, Senator Ross did not ask the Minister to recommend the recognition of any institution; he was speaking about section 9, which is entirely different. I take issue with those who want the Minister to recommend that the Dublin Institute of Technology be changed from what it is today, because politicians should be kept out of it. Changing the Dublin Institute of Technology to another form should be done on a clinical basis in a similar manner to that suggested in section 9. When we come to that section we can discuss whether that is appropriate or if it should be changed, but it keeps politicians out of the discussion as much as possible. The body which will be set up will advise the Government whether, based on current circumstances, the Dublin Institute of Technology deserves that status. The Government would be foolish not to accept such a recommendation. I am not in favour of amendment No. 3 and the Opposition should consider that it might be dangerous for the future.

Senator Norris mentioned that he was an employee of Dublin University and I must declare an interest in that I lectured in both Dublin University and the Dublin Institute of Technology. It is because of my great appreciation of Dublin Institute of Technology Kevin Street, where I had the privilege of working, that I am not happy to see the Dublin Institute of Technology become a university by way of amendment. I would much prefer it to happen through an examination by the type of body suggested in section 9. It will readily stand up to scrutiny by the experts suggested in section 9(1) whom the Government will appoint to the body which will determine whether an institution is worthy of becoming a university.

The Minister has promised that on the enactment of the Bill she will propose to the Government that a body should immediately be set up under section 9 to examine whether Dublin Institute of Technology should be granted university status. The Dublin Institute of Technology has in the past been made promises which were not honoured and people are naturally anxious that the same might happen again. The Department has been in consultation with the institute and perhaps she could inform us about that. The feelings of those within the Dublin Institute of Technology make a big difference to both Senator Norris and me in regard to how we should pursue this amendment. I do not share Senator Dardis's worries about placing an order before the House, because such Orders do not seem to be debated, they simply are accepted. In the period beginning from the passage of the Act or the establishment of the institute as a degree awarding body, is there a faint chance that it will be under the aegis of Teastas or will it be kept under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act on its own while waiting to come under the auspices of the Higher Education Authority when it acquires university status?

The discussion has become complicated and it is hard to see how to progress it. The thinking behind the amendments is that this institution, which has operated at degree level for some time, is not getting a fair deal in the Bill. At the same time, Senator Henry is correct; no one would want a university to come into being by way of an amendment. I agree with Senator Ross about section 9. The Minister has proposed that under that provision she would set in train the procedure by which the body would get recognition and receive the appropriate status. The problem is that we have many reservations about the section as it stands. I do not feel competent to decide what is or is not a university — even I feel inadequate sometimes.

Is that Senator O'Toole speaking?

He is in confessional mood.

A flash of self-revelation.

It is a rare feeling and it only happens where there is no one in the Press Gallery and no photographers are around. I agree with Senator Ross and others that it is not the business of politicians to decide what is a university and to determine university status, and that is one reason I share his and Senator Lee's reservations about section 9. Having listened to the Minister, I feel this matter needs to be developed further. We need to know whether this is the policy of the Department of Education and the Government. If the Minister is prepared to put in train a certain course of events with the agreement of the college authorities, then that can be sorted out for Report Stage.

The final content of section 9 following Committee Stage will also be important. If the proper commitments are given, if the college authorities are reassured and if confidence can be placed in section 9, the most appropriate way of giving the Dublin Institute of Technology what it is seeking would be through the procedures established under section 9. This should not happen at the wish of politicians, even Independents, but through the proper and preferred procedure. The Minister should state that this is the position of the Government, the Department and her own, and that it is not simply something to get us through today's debate. Will the Minister give an indication of her thinking on section 9 and whether the Dublin Institute of Technology is in agreement with what she is suggesting? It should be possible to deal with this matter on Report Stage if we are not completely satisfied with the present content of section 9.

I support the call by the Dublin Institute of Technology for university status. Festina lente should be our motto. In Britain there was a move to give university status to similar institutions without the type of indepth study recommended in section 9 with the result that employers lost faith in some of the so-called universities and did not recognise some of their degrees. I would not like to see a fine institution such as the Dublin Institute of Technology to suffer the same fate. We should take time, even a month or two, to ensure we proceed properly.

A month or two is a very modest period for making the type of decisions Senator Kelly spoke of. If there is real anxiety about the status of the university more than a month would be appropriate. Senator O'Toole has acknowledged his inadequacy in establishing what is a university. One will not proceed far within a month if one is to seriously examine the status of the university. Let us not fudge the issue.

I agree with much of what Senator O'Toole said. He raised the principal questions which need to be asked of the Minister and for which we have not received a reply.

Senator Cotter seemed either very naive or very sophisticated, or perhaps a combination of both. He managed to get away with making an extremely fine speech on Second Stage which constituted a devastating critique of the ethos of the Bill. He should have been speaking from this side of the House. He spoke about political and ministerial interference, the core reasons for the trouble with the Bill. Perhaps he was unaware of this. We object to the Minister taking swingeing powers to abolish boards, get rid of provosts, place people on boards, etc. The Minister is taking these powers.

The House.

The House is giving her the powers. Interference is one of the areas of argument and disagreement.

We should not be completely naive. The Dublin Institute of Technology has already gone a long way in getting international accreditation and validation as a result of a series of processes which acknowledge the quality of its degrees. What is lacking is a political decision. We must be frank and realistic. A change in status will require a political decision. International review groups can report and make recommendations until they are blue in the face, but a political decision will have to be made. I am interested in the Minister's and the Department's attitude to this process and whether the change in status will be supported. This is a perfectly legitimate political interest. I am not inviting Government or political interference; it is already present. I want to find out what the quality of response by the Government will be to the request for university status.

Senator O'Toole gave expression to many of the issues I wished to raise. I congratulate Senator Cotter on making a speech which would have graced the Independent benches. He made the point that concerns some of us, namely, how one can most effectively keep politicians out of decision making about the quality of educational services while at the same time ensuring decisions are taken. This is why section 9 is of considerable concern and I am anxious to know the Minister's response before making up my mind on how to vote.

At least one amendment on section 9 is geared towards introducing due educational process by establishing An tÚdarás as the body to progress inquiries rather than the Government. It may amount to the same thing but in terms of the self-esteem of universities and of national and international reputation, there is a fundamental difference between the present content of section 9 and what is suggested in the amendment. I would prefer not to have a vote on the issues regarding the Dublin Institute of Technology until Report Stage until the Minister lets us know her attitude to section 9.

Section 9 says "the Government may, at any time, appoint a body, the membership of which shall be recommended by An tÚdarás and shall include international educational experts". What will be the composition of the international review team and of the suggested body in section 9? What were the criteria in deciding to grant it a degree status institution? What would be the criteria for making it a university? I do not see why we cannot go the whole way — all the arguments put forward suggest we have already gone two thirds of the way. The legislation should be expanded to include the concept of university status which the institution already has in terms of degrees. Students will not know whether they are attending an institution or a university. A bad image is created by saying it is not a university, that another body needs to be established to decide whether it can rise to university status, but that it is an institution that can award degrees. That is crazy. I do not know what the thinking behind it is or why the Minister could not go the whole way. Does the Minister want to keep the Dublin Institute of Technology under the control of the Department of Education? Everything about the Dublin Institute of Technology seems to suggest that it is completely under the control of the Department. Section 9 is irrelevant in my view when we already have information coming through. I would like to know what would be different about what that review body would say as against the body of knowledge we have had until now?

I do not intend to involve myself with the substance of section 9. It is very difficult to sit here and listen to some of the statements which are emanating from the independent benches. The independent Senators mention the words "politics" and "politicians" with dripping derision in almost everything they say.

That is incorrect.

I am very proud to be a politician and I am proud of the contributions made by political parties to this democratic State. The best politicians in this House and the other one are assembled on the independent benches. They are the people who can use the system to its maximum. I am not saying that politics and politicians are devoid of badness but it was a political decision which put me in this House and it was also a political decision which put the independent Senators here. On reflection then, there must be some merit in being a politician.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Norris would be welcome on any bench in this House. He would certainly be welcome on ours.

I want to refer to the incredible contradiction which I see among the independent Members. On the one hand they do not want any interference from the Minister in university business and on the other they have for the last half an hour been demanding that the Minister interfere by saying that she supports Dublin Institute of Technology and the case it is making to be elevated to university status. I cannot understand this. The contradiction is so clearly visible that it is derisory. On the one hand interference is unacceptable and on the other the Minister should declare that Dublin Institute of Technology will become a university on some appointed date in the future.

I shall try to answer the queries raised. I repeat what I said in the opening debate on this amendment. I will immediately request the Government to appoint a body, pursuant to section 9, to advise the Government on whether, having regard to the objects and functions of a university, the Dublin Institute of Technology should be established as a university. This move has been welcomed by the Dublin Institute of Technology today. It might be useful if I remind the House what section 9 proposes. If Members will bear with me, we could wait to have a debate on section 9 until we reach that section, we are still on section 3.

We are considering an amendment which is relevant to section 9.

Section 9(1) states:

The Government may, at any time, appoint a body, the membership of which shall be recommended by An tÚdarás and shall include international educational experts and such employees of universities to which this Act applies as it thinks fit, to advise the Government on whether, having regard to the objects and functions of a university under sections 12 and 13, an educational institution should be established as a university.

That is a statutory mechanism which has been put in place for two reasons. I was aware of the outcome of the review committee which was set up in response to a request from Dublin Institute of Technology to award its own degrees. Dublin Institute of Technology had been receiving its degrees from Trinity College. I did not think it was prudent to respond overnight or in a pressurised way to this request irrespective of how reasonable, solemn, clear, convincing or tangible it was. There was an onus on the Government to ensure that in developing this exciting sector of third level education we proceeded slowly and carefully, as Senator Kelly advised.

The review body was put in place and at the same time as it made its recommendations, among them recommendations about Dublin Institute of Technology, doors were being knocked on in this city and people on other continents were being approached about opening universities there. If one visits the capital cities of continental Europe one will see the words "University of..." even in the shadiest areas. These universities are up and running and are awarding degrees. Though some are highly reputable, others are totally questionable. There was much discussion about the effects of this in Greece where there was no monitoring carried out. I participated in some of that discussion at the Council of Ministers.

We had two things — a venerable institution which had a very good, though not very long, tradition seeking to obtain university status, then we have this international interest in opening third level institutions which could award degrees in Europe and other countries. In view of the recognition which we in this country give to third level qualifications, I thought it very important that the Department of Education should work towards a situation where we would be conscious of the development of third level education. The White Paper signposted development in the Dublin Institute of Technology, regional technical colleges, new universities and changes in the HEA. How would we proceed with this development in a way that would add to the reputation of the institution and would never call into question that the changing of a name was just change for form's sake but followed a tangible examination of the institution? The experience of the review body of degree awarding status was very helpful in drafting section 9.

I have never failed in my time as Minister to deliver on a promise to the Dublin Institute of Technology. The statement I have made has, I believe, been welcomed today by them. The wording of that statement is available. Section 9 is a mechanism which seeks to ensure that people would not respond with a knee-jerk reaction to change but that there would be a mechanism in place for the setting up of a review body which would ensure that the quality of the forthcoming opinion was one to which a Government could respond confidently.

I think it was Senator Lee who spoke about the difference between the Dublin Institute of Technology and university legislation, that there was not a great difference between the new universities in 1981. What happened in 1989 came about as a result of a change of name but a change of name which followed a similar type of review as that which has taken place about the awarding of degrees. None of this happened overnight. It was examined to the satisfaction of the institutions and those institutions will now come under the same family of rules and regulations which pertain to all universities under this legislation. There has been progression. The mechanism which is in place in section 9 is one that is not particularly new but which is now being put on a statutory basis to ensure further development. We are all concerned with the development of the Dublin Institute of Technology. I have shown real commitment to Dublin Institute of Technology, particularly in terms of investment, since becoming Minister. I am also conscious of the need for quality controls and that questions are not asked about the quality of degrees awarded.

Senator Ross amazed me because he suggested it was disgusting for a Government to set up an institution. I am sorry I am not Queen Elizabeth I, but even she represented a state; at times I feel as old as Queen Elizabeth I. All universities were set up by the State. The Oireachtas passed legislation in this regard and before the foundation of the State, the Universities Act, 1908, was by Royal Charter. Trinity College was established by a sovereign by charter as was the custom at the time. The State, as the body setting up institutions, has served us well. Given the quality of debate in the House, the State will not be found wanting. Senator O'Toole, who has not been found wanting today, asked about the best way forward. The best way forward is to use and include the statutory mechanism in section 9. I, as somebody from the university of life, was asked to define a university. The Bill sets out the functions and objectives of a university.

The review body was not asked to recommend university status for the Dublin Institute of Technology and comprised five members — two international members, two national members and an independent chair. It was set up by the Higher Education Authority and made recommendations. I put on record my Department's and the Government's positive response to the recommendations. The words I used were carefully chosen and my speech was made available to the Dublin Institute of Technology. The Government's willingness to move forward and my commitment to the mechanism in section 9 has been welcomed.

I found the Minister's reply unsatisfactory. She outlined the functions and purposes of a university but I asked for a definition. There is a considerable difference between those words. We need a definition and the criteria for a university. The Minister did not tell us her attitude to section 9. I must assume from what she said she is not prepared to accept an amendment to section 9, which is relevant to the Dublin Institute of Technology. If she is prepared to amend section 9, it will make much difference to the purpose and the course of this amendment.

I wonder if the Dublin Institute of Technology welcomes so fulsomely the assurances given about the Minister's statement. What is happening is that it is being referred to a future political control, whether we like it or not. The decision will be made by Government, by politicians who have different agendas to academics. They do not have academic criteria as their primary objectives when setting up universities.

Some of the best politicians are academics.

Senator Magner rightly said he had no intention of addressing the Bill when he spoke and he fulfilled his promise as a politician. Politicians have a different agenda and when they set up a university, they have a political rather than an academic agenda and set it up for different criteria. It is unfair to ask the Dublin Institute of Technology to accept its subjection to political control and party political decisions in the future. I do not accept the Minister's assurances on this and I want to hear a definite response to the amendments to section 9. If she wants to adopt a rigid stance on the section, then her attitude is totally unacceptable.

I was astounded by Senator Magner's comments. I was not sure from which political party he came. I thought he would have found a sense of resonance in points made on this side of the House. They were not about any politician but about the competency of people to do certain things. I remind the Senator of a recent strong and vehement debate which took place in his party about the recognition of membership of particular courts. His party determined it was beyond the competence of politicians to take on that onerous duty and that a new structure should set up between the Government and the decision making process. Nothing other than that is being proposed in the amendments to section 9.

The Minister gave a comprehensive reply to questions raised and I was heartened by her comments. Points she made about the process of recognition for a university are important and I agree with them in the context of an amended section 9. I will not press my amendments to a vote today but if section 9 is not duly amended, I will press them on Report Stage. A balance has been struck between the points the Minister made and commitments she gave and its operation under an amended section 9. I refer to amendments in the names of Senator Ross and Senator Lee which do not take the authority away from the Government. I agree the Government, which is responsible for taxpayers' money, makes the decision and must reach the final conclusion.

Does Senator Ross agree with that?

Senator Lee's amendment gives discretion to the Government on the advice and recommendation of An tÚdarás, which is crucial. After it goes through the process, it is on its advice the Government acts and it is not a political gift. It is done on the basis of a proper procedure in which we can have confidence. If the Dublin Institute of Technology is content to do business with the Government and if section 9 is tightened up in the manner I described, I will put my amendments on hold until Report Stage.

I also have a problem with section 9 but will hold my fire until we deal with this section which does not make sense. The Minister has already granted the Dublin Institute of Technology degree awarding status and I do not understand why cannot go all the way as has been suggested. It is hard to believe Dublin Institute of Technology representatives are happy with the Minister's proposals because I spoke to them a short time ago and did not receive that message. However, I will wait until we reach section 9 when we will have another full discussion. We have discussed this at length but we appear to be going around in circles. It should be a straightforward formula for putting forward a new concept.

Senator O'Toole has expressed my views. It pains me to differ from Senator Ross, but the Minister has dealt with this fairly. Had she been political, in the derogatory sense of the term, she would have taken the soft option and conceded this without the conditions she is striving to apply. I will wait until we discuss section 9. My proposed amendment to that section is meant to be constructive.

It would be better to arrive at a resolution of this matter by consensus rather than by vote. It should be possible for the Minister to go further than she has thus far. I support Senator Ormonde's observation that the Dublin Institute of Technology is a university in all but name. The issue is formalising that and the method and speed with which it can be done. We will need concrete answers on Report Stage. Otherwise the matter will require a vote.

The Minister has been most constructive. If the institute had sought a review in order to become a university rather than a degree awarding body, it might have achieved that. We have the interests of the institute at heart and we are anxious that it is seen to go forward in a proper manner and not just by amendment. The examination of the institute was so good that perhaps there could be a timeframe within which one could hope it would progress.

Incidentally, I did not mean to infer that the Minister had broken promises to the institute. Its representatives told me they had had minor problems in the past and perhaps they were promises that could not be kept. I accept what we appear to be deciding today.

With regard to section 9, two types of amendment are proposed. I refrained from tabling amendments because I thought it would be useful to listen to the debate since all amendments do not emanate from the same fountain of opinion.

My history has shown that I have moved forward. Sometimes I wonder why I did not take the easier option. It is probably due to my respect for the education system. I wish to ensure that nothing I do questions the respect my generation holds for our educational institutions. I am confident that, in accepting Senator Lee's amendment to section 9, we will be able to move forward. People should be confident that a review body would be independent but clear in its recommendations. This will not be our last time to debate this matter and I have taken on board the aspiration that we can move forward without resorting to a vote on it.

Two amendments have been proposed to section 9. Senator Ross's amendment seeks to delete the section but Senators who are concerned about the section have been discussing my amendment. Is that the amendment to which the Minister refers?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 72, 105, 108, 112 and 113 are consequential on amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4, 72, 105, 108, 112 and 113 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, subsection (1), lines 22 to 24, to delete the definition of "employee", and substitute the following:—

"‘employees' in relation to a University include any person employed by the university who is not an officer,".

The Bill provides that an employee, in relation to a university, means "a person employed by the university in any capacity" and includes an officer of the university. There is a significant difference between employees, which include everybody in the university, and an officer. An officer is a statutory professor and is distinct from an employee. Perhaps the Minister would outline her views on the distinction between an employee and an officer. I have reservations about the term "employee" being applied to all employees of the university including the officers.

I have received representations, particularly from the University of Limerick, about the division between officers and employees of a university. Like Senator Ormonde, I seek clarification.

I do not know if this is a serious amendment. It appears to relate to status and the feeling that somebody's status might be upset by being called an "employee". Senator Norris is a stalwart of this House and he said earlier that he was proud to be a former employee of the University of Dublin. On hearing that I thought Senator Ormonde would withdraw this amendment. If Senator Norris is of that view, it must reflect everybody's view of their status. It is superfluous to split hairs.

The Senator said an officer would be a professor of the university. That is not true. An officer would include any member of the full-time academic staff. The amendment would create complications and I cannot see any point in it.

I was also approached by members of the staff of the University of Limerick who are concerned about the definition of "officer" and "employee". Up to now there were only employees in that university. Creating an officer rank suggests a division will be created among the employees. This goes against the ethos of the university where all members of staff are treated as equals.

Senator Ormonde's amendment would copperfasten a division which is not appropriate at a time when society treats its members as equals. Introducing two classes of employee reminds me of the signs one saw at one time in railway stations which referred to "the board and its servants". At local authority level employees are still divided into categories of officers and servants. In this day and age harking back to a more hierarchical time is anachronistic.

I too have received such representations which arise out of a concern that a two tier system of definition of employees could be created. My approach would be the opposite of Senator Ormonde's, which would create greater division between academic and other permanent staff. The definition of an officer contained later in the section was not in the Bill as originally published. It was added by Dáil amendment, of which there were two — the Minister's and that of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. Hence, it was an objective of both sides.

However, it has created problems, especially in the University of Limerick and DCU, where there is no definition of an officer. They feel strongly that a distinction should not be created between academic and other permanent staff of the university. The definition of an officer includes other staff, such as the chief officer, and allows colleges to designate other people as officers. However, I ask the Minister to examine this again before Report Stage to see if a solution can be found to the problem which will not create a distinction between two kinds of staff in a university. If Senator Ormonde's amendment were accepted it would further exacerbate a difference between academic and non-academic staff, something which is undesirable.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this. Some universities state that all staff should be employees, something with which I have no difficulty as everyone is an employee. However, there is nothing wrong with the old status quo where it was felt in some universities that the position of lecturers and professors had status. They should be allowed to retain their title. It is a question of one school of thought against another. It should be left as it was where the title of “employee” included all staff and the title of “officer” was for lecturers. That is what I am trying to achieve in my amendment, but it seems I will not receive any support for it. While many who made representations to me expressed my view, it seems others expressed a different one.

In the Bill as published the term "employee" was used to refer to academic and other staff in universities. I received representations from university staff that the term and status of "officer" be retained. Those who are officers consider this status to confer greater protection on them in the exercise of their functions. Recognising the case they put forward, I tabled amendments to the Bill in Dáil Éireann so that the definition of "employee" included an officer. The term "officer" now includes all permanent and full-time academic staff, the chief officer, whoever is an officer at present and whatever other employees the governing authority determines should be officers.

Senator Ormonde proposes in amendment No. 4 to amend the definition of "employee" in the Bill so that it no longer includes an officer and to add a reference to officers in all subsequent references to employees in the Bill. This is the purpose of amendments Nos. 72, 105, 108, 112 and 113. I do not support these amendments as they would have the effect of officers not being defined as employees of a university when they should be included within the term "employee". Furthermore, acceptance of amendment No. 4 would mean a significant number of further amendments would be necessary to ensure that all the references referred to officers.

Senator O'Sullivan spoke about tenure. I understand amendments may be motivated by a concern to maintain academic tenure. Senators have tabled amendments dealing specifically with this issue which we will discuss later and we will address the concerns about tenure then. I do not accept Senator Ormonde's amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, to delete lines 25 to 28, and substitute the following definition:

"‘students' union' is a representative body, the majority of the officers of which are elected and which promotes the general interests of its members as students and represents the students, in general and individually, in academic, disciplinary and other matters relating to the governance of the university;".

The Minister is familiar with the argument in favour of this amendment, which is that there should be an inclusion to the effect that officers of students' unions are elected people because no such provision is made in the Bill. If it is to be consistent with the definition of student in the Bill, which refers to people being elected or appointed, it is reasonable to indicate the fact that these bodies are representative. It would mean a system exists whereby officers are elected and it would remove any ambiguity about their being appointed rather than elected.

Senator Dardis proposes that the definition of students' union in section 3 be replaced. Not all such unions are set up and operate under the same rules and I am aware of that through interaction with the student body. I have sought to be flexible with existing practices. While the Senator's definition would not exclude any existing students' unions or lead to excessive inflexibility, I have at all times defended my position on this.

The amendment could result in inflexibility, and the best example is one outside the student movement where a residents' association committee is elected by a community at an annual general meeting. Different residents' associations have different constitutions. Some associations may elect a group of people to elect officers. Others may allow all members of the body to elect officers. These two examples are reflected in the student body.

There has been no approach or pressure from students to change this, so I am still satisfied that the flexibility of my wording will not straitjacket existing students' union bodies which operate in universities and are very lively. I do not accept the amendment because it would be inflexible or would show slight ministerial interference, which I am not aware the student body has sought from the Minister in this Bill.

I agree with the Minister in terms of the flexibility required and there is no question of interference. It is up to student bodies as to how they regulate themselves and conduct their affairs. Surely the Minister agrees it is preferable that people are elected rather than alternative systems whereby representation is acquired? Whether the officers are elected by the union body or by an elected group is irrelevant, but there must be some democratic system whereby the students' unions are representative, as are other bodies. I accept the Minister's point about flexibility. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Nevertheless, I would prefer if representation was decided by election.

This is not a new idea. We had a long debate on this point on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I favour the Bill in its present form and the student bodies have not called for any change. I wish to ensure that the legislation does not exclude student unions. It may be the case that fewer than half the student union officers are elected. The remainder are chosen by the elected representatives of the students.

We need to give each institution the flexibility to elect its own body. As an elected politician I do not have to voice my support for the principle of electing representatives. There are different models under which student unions represent their student bodies. This Bill should not interfere with the structures which have served students well. I acknowledge the interest that student bodies have shown in student affairs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 30, after "Trinity" to insert "of Queen Elizabeth".

This is a drafting amendment. I am advised that the name is not completely correct. There has been some amusement at the long title of the university — the College of the Sacred and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin. I have no doubt that I will be corrected if that is wrong. The words "of Queen Elizabeth" are omitted from the Bill. It is reasonable, legally valuable and essential to include the correct name of the university as established under charter.

Senator Norris thinks that sacred and holy are the same but what harm. I am keen on including the words "Queen Elizabeth". Only single women have been successful in founding educational institutions in this country. I would also like to include the names of those wonderful women who founded other schools but that will have to wait until the Education Bill. I hope the Minister accepts that Trinity College should be referred to by its proper name.

The title used in the Bill is legally correct. I am seeking to ensure that the reference to Trinity is legally correct and clearly identifies the college. The Dáil has already agreed the amendment to ensure that this is the case. Any further amendments should be in the proper legal form and in accordance with the charter and letters of patent.

There are potential problems with the Senators' amendment which need to be resolved. Trinity College received legal advice on this matter. I asked the college for clarification on a number of issues concerning the precise title to be given to its founder. Officials of my Department received advice and a copy of counsel's opinion on this matter. I would like an opportunity to consider this advice and to give the parliamentary draftsman an opportunity to review this before Report Stage.

That is a satisfactory reply. I take it that there is the likelihood of an amendment on Report Stage?

If there is an amendment the Senator will receive it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 103, 104 and 128 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 40, after "Visitor" where it secondly occurs, to insert "or Visitors".

This is a technical matter relating to numbers. There are provisions for visitors in the University of Dublin. This amendment seeks to prevent the Bill restricting the number to a single visitor. This will ensure the continuance of the current situation. It is important to reassure the college that the function of the visitor will continue. This may be expanded but we would like to see it continue.

The institution of visitor is important. It constitutes an appeal mechanism between an under graduate and a staff member relating to examination results or similar serious matters which may be of legal consequence. This is an uncontentious amendment and I would welcome its acceptance. It is important to stress the function of the visitor. There is a feeling that the introduction of a departmental visitor or visitors may be seen as similar to an inspector. This is not the role occupied by the visitor in Trinity.

I support Senator Norris's comments. It would be foolish if, by default, we allowed it appear that there was only one visitor in Trinity. We have two visitors.

This amendment proposes that the definition of visitor be amended to ensure that it includes both the single visitor and a number of visitors. Amendment No. 8 in the name of Senator Ormonde is similar.

I endorse the points made by Senators Norris and Henry. My amendment seeks to replace the word "person" with "persons". This provides more openness. There needs to be more than one visitor. This reflects the extension of this concept at a later stage in this discussion and is relevant to other related amendments.

I agree with Senator Norris and Senator Ormonde. However, the change to plural in amendment No. 8 is not purely stylistic. As the Minister will be aware, the implications of boards of visitors arise in subsequent amendments. It is a pre-condition for the discussion of these.

A number of Senators have tabled amendments Nos. 9, 81 to 89, inclusive, 103, 104 and 128 which propose a standing board of visitors in universities where there is none at present and that there should be three members on this board, including at least one senior present or retired judge.

The Government can appoint a visitor under section 18 of this Bill, as the occasion requires. However, it can only do so where the university does not have a visitor. I reassure Senator Norris and Senator Henry that in the case of Trinity College where there is a standing board of visitors in place, it will not be necessary for the Government to appoint a visitor.

The role of the visitor has a long tradition in our chartered university institutions, who appreciate and have confidence in it. The provisions in the Bill are modelled on the NUI visitor. The concept of visitor, with the functions outlined in this Bill, can be usefully be extended to those universities which do not have one. The visitor of the NUI is provided for under clause four of the charter of the NUI, is appointed by the Government and has the following functions acting through a board of visitors. He or she can inspect buildings, laboratories, the equipment of the NUI and its constituent colleges, examinations, teaching and other work of the NUI and its constituent colleges. He or she can also hear an appeal from any president, professor or lecturer who is removed from office. His or her functions are not interfered with under this legislation.

Some Senators have proposed a widened role for the visitor to allow for a standing board of visitors with right of appeal laid down in university statutes. I do not support the proposed amendments. There has been a great deal of employment legislation in recent years which has protected the rights of employees and given them channels to ensure them. To introduce a standing visitorial system would create another layer of protection which is not necessary in a modern world.

The visitorial system has operated well in Trinity College and this has been used as an example of how it could be official in other institutions. However, in the case of that college, the system has a long history dating from its foundation. It is therefore deeply embedded in and part of the operational fabric and life of the college. It would be a mistake that such a system could be easily transplanted to other universities who have no such tradition. This view is supported by the Senate of the NUI, which in a submission of July last year stated that "it is the unanimous view of the NUI Senate and the NUI colleges that the legislative provisions for visitation in relation to the NUI constituent universities should be similar to the existing provisions for visitation in the NUI constituent colleges".

I do not support the amendments but I assure Senators that the board of visitors which has existed in Trinity College for many centuries will not be interfered with through the passing of this legislation.

I said on Second Stage that the matter of the visitor was not one of principle and I would not be pushing it to a vote on Second Stage. The more I have thought about the matter, the more concerned I have become. I do not want to cast this matter in an adversarial way. I look at it purely from the point of view of operational efficiency of the universities, particularly of those I am most familiar with.

The Minister referred to the charter of the NUI providing protection of presidents, professors or lecturers. This still excludes the vast majority of teaching staff in universities, many of whom are part-time or temporary. As I understand it, there is no provision where the type of personal relationship that can damage the functioning of a department, the quality of service provided to students and fester for years can be dealt with in a procedurally normal manner.

As our universities grow in size and as it becomes more difficult to manage them as before, the main impediments to the effective functioning of universities at grass roots level are poor personal relationships and the sense of harassment. I am not talking about sexual harassment, which is covered by legislation, but daily psychological harassment in circumstances where appointments have been made, people do not get on and are in authority over others. These cases cannot be remedied by industrial tribunals and is not a labour legislation case. This happens daily and can seriously affect the job satisfaction and effectiveness of many people.

Sometimes these cases surge to the surface and there are rows and crises. These can be damaging, especially if they are at senior level, to the institution as a whole. As matters stand, there is virtually no way for the institution to deal with them internally. One can call for a visitor and there will often be a threat of this from an early stage. Inevitably, even if a visitor is appointed, it becomes a retrospective attempt to sort out an issue which ought never to have developed to that level and should have been dealt with at an early stage of conflict. Whether at senior or junior level, this can only be dealt with by a standing board which is familiar with the normal workings of a university, not by a legal authority who comes in from outside on a one-off basis and tries to do his or her best to catch up with an ad hoc problem.

I do not want to linger on this matter but it is far more serious in terms of operational effectiveness, to say nothing about ordinary fairness, than many matters which appear to have a higher public profile. I know the Minister's position but I urge her to reconsider this on Report Stage. I do not say this lightly but on the basis of personal observation of situations. If we are to have the most effective functioning of our institutions possible in both managerial and human senses, it is important to devise a mechanism for this. Perhaps there are better mechanisms than boards of visitors, but this is the traditional manner in which universities sort out internal problems. We need to find ways of dealing at an early stage with situations which, once they begin to fester, corrode the effectiveness of the institution and result in individuals and students suffering.

On the composition of membership of the NUI constituent universities, the new Senate of the NUI is shorn of many of its existing responsibilities; the chancellor is shorn of many existing responsibilities de facto. The chancellor would be the ideal person to have an overview of the functioning of the universities. I am completely in the Minister's hands in regard to whether there should be one board for all the constituent universities or whether each university should have its own board. However, the chancellor would have an overview of the functioning of them all. Without lingering unduly over the composition at this moment, I hope the Minister's position on the principle is not written in stone. There is scope here to significantly improve the Bill.

I support Senator Lee's observations on this matter, particularly in regard to amendments Nos. 82 and 83 which relate to section 18, to which the Minister referred. Section 18 states that the Government "shall from time to time as the occasion requires" appoint a visitor. This is, as was discussed on Second Stage, a very cumbersome procedure requiring a Government decision. The nature of some of the difficulties require a much more expeditious approach than that which is possible under the Bill.

I strongly support the view expressed by Senator Lee that it would be far preferable to deal with many of these matters internally rather than having to go to the Government or have recourse under the statute. I take the point made by the Minister that there is an increasing body of legislation, such as the Employment Equality Bill, to which individuals can have recourse. However, that is a very adversarial and confrontational system. A more user friendly system would lead to less acrimony. What is required is a university ombudsman — although one must be politically correct now and call them an ombudsperson — or referee.

The Minister referred to the visitor to the National University of Ireland and the question of the constituent colleges. However, because there are now separate universities within the NUI, I am not clear on whether the NUI visitor would look after all the new universities constituted under the Bill. Should there not be a visitor for each university?

The Minister made an extraordinary statement where she alluded to the long history of Trinity College, Dublin, and the fact there was no need to change the system. The fundamental argument on Second Stage was that because the college had operated successfully for 400 years there was no need to interfere with it. The statement which the Minister has just made seems to contradict her argument on Second Stage, which I find surprising.

I am interested in hearing the Minister's response. I may have been badly advised; if so, I have been badly advised by the university itself. The fear was probably that by neglecting to include the words "visitor or visitors", the function and number of visitors in the University of Dublin might be restricted. The Minister has very interestingly said the situation will remain exactly as it is with regard to Trinity College, Dublin. Does that mean the Minister will not take to herself — or her successors — the power to impose a visitation under section 19 in the case of the University of Dublin? If that is what she means, that is fine and I would greatly welcome it.

I do not care for the kind of visitation included under section 19. Under section 19(3) such a visitation would be no less than a departmental snoop, which is a classic case of intrusion. Perhaps my distinguished colleague, Senator Cotter, could advise us of his opinion in this regard. It states:

A visitor shall, for the purposes of this section, be entitled at all reasonable times to enter a university to inquire into the academic or other affairs of the university or to conduct an inspection of the university and its buildings, equipment and records where the inspection is, in the opinion of the Visitor, relevant to his or her inquiries.

That has never been the function of the visitor in the University of Dublin. The function has always been to assist in the resolution of a conflict, often between an undergraduate and a department or a member of the professorial staff, such as a very serious conflict about the conduct of examinations or examination results, or the employment of personnel. I cannot recall an instance in which the powers of the visitor were invoked to conduct an inspection of the university or its buildings, equipment and records.

Will the Minister confirm her very interesting observation, which I am happy to accept, that section 18 is intended to institute this kind of process only in universities where there is not a visitor, that section 19 is a consequence of that, and that the existing situation in the University of Dublin, where there is provision for not just one visitor and where the functions of that visitor are already laid down, will be left intact?

I also found it quite interesting that the Minister seemed to be saying she is acceding to the wishes of the different universities in her differing response to the notion of what a visitor is. She quoted from the convocation of the National University of Ireland and said what it wanted, although I would not be terribly happy with what it wants.

Senator Lee has made a very fine critique of the reasons that a board of visitors would be a most desirable step, whatever the convocation of the National University of Ireland has to say about it. If I were an employee or undergraduate of the National University of Ireland I would feel that Senator Lee was speaking for me and clearly articulating the most democratic and decent principles. I am amazed the convocation of the National University of Ireland should take this rather hard line attitude. However, I do not want to intrude other than to strongly support what a distinguished member of the professorial staff of the National University of Ireland has said. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the views of the convocation of the National University of Ireland, which might be regarded as an intrusion and an impertinence.

I am most interested in the Minister's response to the situation in the University of Dublin. She seems to have clearly said that, in regard to the question of the visitor, she is responding to what is perceived as the different ethos of the different universities and that in the case of the University of Dublin she is leaving intact the function, role and establishment of the visitor or visitors. I assure her that if an attempt is made to impose such a snoop on the University of Dublin, it will meet with a very vigorous response from me.

I wish to support my colleagues. I have proposed in amendment No. 81 that there should be a standing board of visitors established in each of the constituent universities of the NUI, Dublin City University and the University of Limerick. Such a board could be used as an appeal mechanism for complaints by students on examination results or where a breakdown in communication occurs between a student and a lecturer. There is no such mechanism at present. I was approached before Christmas by a student who was not happy with examination results. This student got no satisfaction on an appeal to the hierarchy of the university because there appeared to be no formal system for discussing an examination result.

A board of visitors would create a mechanism for students and lecturers to discuss problems as they arise. It is not concerned with labour law but only with aspects of courses, or problems such as breakdowns in communications. It would facilitate the resolution of disputes, especially if an ombudsman was part of the board. It would also mean that many staff problems could be resolved by the board of visitors rather than having recourse to labour law. It is important therefore that there be a board of visitors rather than one visitor.

Many would agree with Senator Lee's comments on the difficulties that can arise from internal conflicts within departments, including personality clashes, which could significantly disrupt the life of a university. How are these matters handled at present? Would it be a function of the chief executive officer? If this failed could they be addressed by the board? If the board failed would it be appropriate to refer it to the Minister, who could appoint a visitor to investigate? Senator Lee may envisage that some conflicts could not be resolved in the ordinary course of events. What are the Minister's views on this important issue?

Senator Norris appears to have read section 19(3) without reference to the remainder of the section. Reading it thus, one could construe the activities prescribed as snooping. However subsection (1) provides that the Minister may "... request the Visitor to inquire into any matter giving rise to the Minister's opinion.". Subsection (2) provides that the visitor must satisfy him or herself that there are reasonable grounds for the Minister's opinion and, if so, shall make relevant inquiries. Subsection (3) provides that, in the execution of that duty, the visitor would be able to inquire into a range of matters. I do not see this as snooping, but rather that the Bill gives power to the visitor to gather as much information as possible to finalise his or her opinion on the Minister's concerns.

I thank Senator Norris for his kind comments. There is a body within the NUI called convocation, which is the graduates body and which, I understand, supports the concept of the visitor.

Senator Cotter raised valid points. Where cases of unreasonable behaviour by superiors occur, which can come down to psychological intimidation in a sustained way, there is no legal mechanism by which it can be addressed at present. Powerful internal figures may engage in such behaviour; it is open to anybody in big institutions to so behave because probably none of us is entirely reasonable in the way we deal with all matters.

It becomes very difficult within the internal politics of an institution for the chief officer or a governing authority to deal with cases of that kind in a way that is possible for an outside body which is not involved in internal politics and does not have to confront on a daily basis that same person, and who will preserve his or her rights in the institution. The knowledge of the existence of a standing board of visitors would go some way towards reducing this type of behaviour, or the intensity that it can reach.

I am a strong believer in academic freedom, as I hope we all are. However, this does not entail the freedom to behave in an unreasonable manner towards colleagues or subordinates. This can, and does, happen at any level. It does not have to occur at university — Senator Cotter spoke from his knowledge as a teacher.

Educational institutions are peculiarly inappropriate for applying a full legal approach to such problems. I feel strongly about this matter on the basis of personal observation and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider her thinking on it.

Under the amendments in my name, the board of visitors is linked with the role of governing authorities, etc. There may be power implications in terms of the role of the Minister in that context. Irrespective of the conclusion we may make about the role of the board of visitors vis-á-vis governing authorities, the role of standing boards of visitors vis-á-vis the harmonious, internal functioning of the institution, and therefore its fairer and more efficient functioning, is something we should take on board in this legislation.

I am confused about what a board of visitors would do. The vision of the board as outlined by Senator Lee is different from that outlined by Senator Ormonde. Although universities have been in existence for many years, they have not developed good internal mechanisms for resolving conflict between peers, professors and other academic staff. It appears that academic bullying occasionally occurs. Surely it is incumbent on the universities themselves to put mechanisms in place to resolve such difficulties.

I have two daughters at university and they are following my example in that they are both class representatives. They occasionally tell me about the problems they are asked to solve. A mechanism appears to exist in University College Cork to deal with student and staff relations and problems which arise over the content of courses and whether lecturers are going too fast or too slow.

Or not going at all.

There would have been an outcry if the Minister had included such a provision in the Bill initially. She would have been lambasted for being heavy handed. I can imagine the Sunday Independent article which would have been written as a result. Since universities have failed to put mechanisms in place themselves, they want the legislation to establish a super inspector who will be half many and half ombudsman to sort out problems between staff. I thought the universities would prefer the Minister's minimalist approach in having just one visitor who will be called on to intervene in major problems. This would allow them to sort out their own problems rather than having a permanent board of visitors on stand by to intervene at any sign of conflict.

I do not understand how a board of visitors, which would be familiar with the problems, could not be influenced by the difficulties as they arise. It would not have the same impartial view as a person who comes in and examines the case. That person would be in a much better position to cut through the woods and see the trees. I do not understand how a board of visitors would assist the universities; rather it would be counterproductive.

I remind the Minister that I want some answers with regard to the continuation of the existing position in Trinity College, Dublin. I hope she will be in a position to reassure me that it will continue and I anticipate that she may be able to do so. If that is the case, I will heartily welcome it.

I wish to amplify the points I made about the role of the visitors in the University of Dublin as I experienced it. This machinery is not called into operation frequently but it is in existence. The Hon. Mr. Justice Kingsmill-Moore operated as one of the visitors for TCD for a long time. He was a man of great seniority and he was regarded with immense respect by the university body and the public generally.

He also wrote the best book on fishing ever written.

He was a good egg. I consulted with my colleague, Senator Ross, to confirm the identity of the current visitors. They include the Chancellor, Dr. Frank O'Reilly, and Mr. Justice Henry Barron. In the context of the earlier debate, it is interesting that a former Member of the other House was appointed. We are not as suspicious of politicians as Senator Magner thought we might have been.

The reason such people are chosen is that they are able to take a dispassionate and disinterested view. In the case of the University of Dublin, the visitors constitute a last court of appeal, which is similar to the entitlement of a Roman citizen to appeal over the heads of a local governor to the central authority in Rome. If a decision is taken by a departmental head which is viewed as disadvantageous to a student, the individual, having exhausted all other remedies, has the opportunity to appeal to the visitor.

Regarding the points made by Senator Kelly, it is not the case that the University of Dublin has failed to establish this machinery. That may be true of certain other universities but I am not being narrowly chauvinistic is saying that Trinity College, Dublin, added this element to the university system. It is good and it should be retained. It is valuable to have a standing body rather than it being necessary to call it into operation through some cumbersome machinery when an emergency arises. The body may be inert for several years but it can be called on if necessary. This is a good and efficient method.

Regarding Senator Cotter's points, I did not misinterpret the Bill. I read it as a whole and that is precisely what worries me. Phraseology such as where the Minister is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for contending contains much conditionality. There may be a Minister who is so opinionated that his or her opinions come close to whimsy. If a Minister was subject to whimsy, he or she might persuade himself or herself that there were reasonable grounds for contending certain matters. On the basis of that type of miasma of suspicion, the Minister could send an intrusive beast into the university. Senator Kelly said the provision was minimalist because it only involved one visitor. However, one could do huge damage with the swingeing powers contained in the measure.

We have radically different perspectives on this issue in terms of the tradition of the university from which I come and the intention of the Minister. The purpose of the visitor is to facilitate the resolution of disputes, personal conflict which might arise in universities and cases involving oppression. However, the section as it stands envisages that the visitor will be somebody who snoops and who has very wide powers to invade universities and conduct inspections of buildings, equipment and records on the basis of the opinion of a Minister. I do not accuse the Minister of being subject to whimsy but that could happen under the legislation. I do not regard that as minimalist but rather as Stalinist.

I hope the Minister can reassure me that the situation regarding the visitor will remain as it is in Trinity College. Trinity appears to have been excluded from the malign operation of the other type of visitor, which is not a visitor in any terminology with which I am familiar. Their functions traditionally operate, as I have specified, to the great benefit of the undergraduates, graduates and staff of the university.

Senator Kelly mentioned my own institution. University College Cork has a very good ombudsman system and the two ombudsmen there have worked extremely well. Because I have seen the potential and limits of that system, I am very concerned about the potential role of a board of visitors.

As envisaged in the Bill, the visitor will be called into existence as the Government decides from time to time following consultation with the President of the High Court. It is obviously envisaged as a very rare development and Governments have been notoriously reluctant to become involved. On one hand it might be said that Governments should become involved more often and, on the other, that they should become involved less, but that is not the point.

There is a class of relationships in universities which are crucial to the effective functioning of universities. These cannot be coped with by the existing visitor system because it has broken down completely and they are not dealt with by ombudsmen, who deal very well with student problems and lower level issues but cannot deal with sustained difficulty in a department arising out of the behaviour of particular individuals in authority. A visitor would not be called in to deal with that problem and the Government will not set up a visitor to deal with a local departmental problem, though that may be of crucial importance to that department and its students.

I have explained that, within the authority and political structures of an institution, it is very difficult to get decisions to address this problem. If there was a standing board of visitors, many of these problems would be dealt with early. That is not being intrusive or showing a heavy hand, and if there is a heavy hand it is not the Minister's. Furthermore, it cannot be called into operation unless there is an appeal from a member of staff. The mechanism is not intrusive; it is waiting for appeals. The mechanism I propose may not be the most effective, but there is an urgent need for the establishment of a standing board of visitors.

In my amendments the visitors would play a buffer role between the Minister and the university. Section 19 states that the Minister is to be of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds, which was the point Senator Norris made. My amendment proposes that where the board of visitors is of the view that there are reasonable grounds, it shall so advise the Minister. As matters stand, where does the Minister get her opinion? If there is a board of visitors in place that has a reasonable knowledge of the functioning of the institution the Minister can be informed of various matters but she may not be informed by responsible people. While there is a board of visitors which is familiar with the functioning of that institution, its views would have to be taken very seriously by the Minister and it could not be accused of vexatious rumour mongering. I propose that the board would deal with potential internal difficulties. This would mean there would be a much more structured and less adversarial relationship between the universities and the Minister if the type of doomsday situations envisaged in sections 19 and 20 were to arise.

I advise Members that at 5 p.m. we are to move to other business.

Will the Minister be able to reply?

Acting Chairman

According to the Order of Business, I have no choice but to adjourn the debate at 5 p.m.

I hold the same opinion as Senator Lee on the role of the board of visitors. It should be an independent body linking the universities and the Minister and should not be seen as being intrusive. It should be a board that can accommodate the points made by Senator Lee and me.

I find the language in this section particularly difficult to understand. It is the language of the visitors and implies that they are welcomed and invited by the university. The university is not inviting the visitors but the Minister is dispatching them to the university. If we changed the language and called these people "ministerial envoys" or "inspectors" it would be more accurate. If we call them inspectors they would not be so welcome. Calling them visitors suggests that the university wants them to come in and do a job. If the Minister forms an opinion that something is going on in a university which he or she does not like, he or she can then dispatch an inspector to that university to inquire about something that, in the Minister's subjective opinion, should not be going on under the terms of the Bill. This is a particularly objectionable and insidious form of pressure which the Minister can unjustifiably bring to bear against the wishes of a university.

We are dealing with the amendment relating to visitors. I reassured the Senators from Trinity College that what has been in existence in their college will stay. I repeat that I am not trying to have every university look the same. We will fashion legislation that will reflect the traditions, young or old, of all institutions. Senator Norris's concerns arise out of section 19 where the visitor is sent on visitation. He mentioned two people on the board of visitors — Chancellor O'Reilly and Mr. Justice Barron of the High Court.

Things are bad when the Minister has to send in visitors, but if such a catastrophe were to happen at Trinity College, then the visitor would have to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to do so. Then the two gentlemen mentioned by the Senator would be party to agreeing that the visitor is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for this inspection. Rushing through this legislation is not a reflection on the seriousness of questions that were raised.

The Minister's advice is incorrect because she indicated it was not necessary to change this from "visitor" to "visitors" because Trinity was excluded. It now seems that the Minister is saying that existing visitors can be sent in as part of an inspection team, which worries me.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

This morning I informed colleagues that the Bill would resume on Tuesday week; that has now been changed to next Wednesday afternoon.

Top
Share