Vol. 156 No. 19
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The proposed private Bill has four main objectives: to define a new structure of the board, to define the mechanism for appointing the external members, to allow for further amendments to the structure of the board without the need for legislation and to allow for the appointment of Provost by the college.
This is my first experience of dealing with such a Bill. It goes back to the Universities Bill which was debated in this House. It was debated at length whether we should allow external members to become members of the governing body, the Charter of Trinity College. There were many views at that time and it was agreed under that Bill that we would introduce a private Bill which would facilitate member appointees by the Government to sit on the college's equivalent of the governing body. We are here to initiate that Bill which is now a new structure.
While many would argue that Trinity College has served this country well and does not need transparency and accountability to the same extent as other universities — its charter dates back to the 16th century — we did, however, agree to introduce a facility to allow for an external member to be included in the charter. We are here to initiate that Bill. I agree that we should set the structure in motion and let it develop as in the 1997 legislation. This will be a new structure with external membership. There will be facilities for a further member should that be necessary, and the Bill also refers to the Provost of Trinity College.
This is an important and historic day and the Bill is generally welcomed. There were some battles on the Bill but those battles are over. To a large extent, the representatives of Trinity College won those battles. Senator Ross and I voted against the Bill at a certain Stage to serve a warning that where we held the balance of power, we were not prepared to accept anything other than full respect and guarantees of intellectual independence and academic freedom. Those concessions were generously made by the Government. Every amendment I put down after consultation with the board, the Provost, the fellows and scholars was accepted.
There were some difficulties about the adoption of one or two extra people onto the board but that principle has, in a small way, been yielded by the college. This Bill is a classic example of a good accommodation. There is no doubt that this is the best we could get and the Bill has the generous support of the Department of Education and Science and the Government. It is unusual to introduce such private legislation and the college is extremely grateful. The Provost has assured me that the overwhelming mass of opinion within the college — fellows, board, scholars, staff and students — are in favour of the Bill. The best way forward is to pass the Bill as quickly as possible and tidy up this business.
The composition of the board is one of the major points and the Seanad played an important role on this issue. There was a drafting glitch. Had Members on this side not discovered this problem at the last minute and secured a sos so that we could consult with the college authorities, we might have had a permanent board of about 180 members. The higher the concentration of academics the less amount of work usually done. This is an important Bill which is welcomed by the college. I am happy with the Bill. It is an unusual measure and discloses a good degree of co-operation between Government and the university.
I am delighted to see references to her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. She is very late — she is gone for 400 years — but it is charming that her title should be rehearsed. The Bill also refers to some of her successors, such as Charles I. These references add atmosphere to the Bill, as does the Latin text of the college which I and my colleagues were happy to attend. There was some question as to whether rehearsing Latin was appropriate as it is not one of the official languages of the country but we are simply rehearsing a section of the charter.
It has been pointed out to me by senior legal experts that, technically, her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I's successor, Queen Elizabeth II, is the reigning monarch of this country. With the abdication of her great uncle, Edward VIII, uncrowned, instruments were passed at Westminster and sent to all the dominion and imperial parliaments for passing. When it arrived in Dublin, Mr. de Valera, for his own reasons, shoved it in the waste paper basket. The instrument of abdication was never ratified by an Irish Parliament. As a result, the abdication process is incomplete and I am glad to tell the House that
Elizabeth II is monarch of Ireland. This will come as pleasant news to many people.
The composition of the board is the most important issue. There has been some movement and two members from outside the college have been accepted. This is a reasonable measure given the contribution made by the taxpayer to the college. The machinery adopted in the Bill for the establishment of this person is reasonable, fair and just. There is no overloading. For technical reasons, the second member is unlikely to be chosen because of the lack of machinery in terms of local boards required to select such a person.
Some Members thought of trying to amend the Bill but felt that that would be a redundant step, might hold up the Bill and be academic, in the worst sense of the word. I do not propose to hold up the Bill any longer. We look forward to a rapid passing of this important instrument which has the overwhelming support of the students and staff of the University of Dublin, Trinity College, and which will be welcomed by all who are interested in education. The more Trinity College can copperfasten its position as an important part of the university structure, the better for the education of everyone in Ireland.
I find it a little ironic standing in the House today. I am not opposing this Bill but I remember the grave contention surrounding the then Universities Bill. As Education spokesperson in the other House, I recall the fight we had to put up against the then Minister to change the initial Bill. We were not completely happy with the outcome forwarded to this House.
Committee Stage of that Bill involved 20 hours of debate. This indicates the amount of contention that existed and there were over 200 amendments. I was glad the universities were content with the Bill as passed by this House. There is a history to this legislation and a degree of contention.
The University Senators played an important part in that Bill. However, Opposition parties in both Houses also played their part in improving the legislation. The principle we argued at all Stages was for the freedom and academic integrity of universities and that they should be free from restraint by Government. That principle is essential and at the core of university and academic life. It is also required for the development of all who attend colleges.
I disagree slightly with Senator Norris's comments. The Standing Orders requirement for this Bill states that 75 per cent of a body corporate is required to assent to the Bill, but that is not the case. That percentage was not achieved and the Joint Committee on Standing Orders put forward an order to suspend the Standing Order. If even one person opposes this Bill it will be referred back but that would only delay it.
I am aware the Bill will be referred to a special Joint Committee for consideration. Those who are still unhappy with its provisions will have the facility to petition the committee. I congratulate the officials for their excellent work; they have been very helpful in producing the Bill and I am happy to support it.
I congratulate the Members of the House on the unanimity with which the Bill is going to go through and I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for introducing it. In his summing up, will he give us a literal translation of the Latin on page 7 as I do not fully understand it?
Shame on the Senator, having gone to Rugby School.
I have forgotten some of the words and I know the Leas-Chathaoirleach will be able to enlighten me.
It is translated in the explanatory memorandum.
That is only a summary; I require a literal translation.
Into Irish, the first official language of the State?
Senator Ross, without interruption, please.
The Latin content on page 7 is the only part of the Bill on which I require clarification.
Senator Norris has rightly pointed out that the Bill is a culmination of a long battle which was fought moderately successfully by many people, including the Independent Senators and the Provost, board and secretary of Trinity College. The original Bill was so draconian and unacceptable that it is staggering to think anyone could have expected it to be passed. The ideology therein was unacceptable to those who are not normally identified as opposing State interference.
The original Bill sought to impose a State stranglehold on the universities which would have resulted in some kind of academic turmoil at a later stage. It should be noted that although this Bill only relates to Trinity College Dublin, there was a unity of purpose among all universities in their approach to the Universities Bill and they were all kept in line in regard to the principles of academic freedom and lack of State interference.
I, like Senator Norris, voted against this Bill on Second Stage because of the threat it posed to the independence of universities. I also opposed it at a later stage and I still have serious reservations about it. However, as an old saying from Hilaire Belloc runs "always keep a hold of nurse, for fear of getting something worse". The reality is that if this Bill were defeated, neither the University of Dublin nor any other university would receive as generous a final outcome. The Bill was changed radically and the ideology behind it was defeated and diluted. During my time in this House, I have not seen a Bill so emasculated as the Universities Bill through the combined forces of the Opposition and Independents when the Government was in a minority position. There are certain aspects of the Bill I would still like to see amended but realistically I doubt they will be. I suspect that even though the Progressive Democrats were so opposed to certain elements of this Bill originally, they would no longer be allies of those who might seek to amend it as they are now in Government.
I still feel a wedge has been driven into the independence of the University of Dublin in regard to the composition of the board. There is still a provision for the nomination of one Government appointee, in consultation with the Provost. The words "in consultation with the Provost" are a fig leaf because, at the end of the day, the Minister will decide the identity of that nominee. Although the number of nominees has been whittled down from four to one, one is still one too many. The record of Governments of all hues in this country of appointing people to any university or other institution has been deplorable. There should not be any scope for political nominees on university boards or on the boards of other State institutions. Unfortunately, the primary loyalty of such nominees inevitably lies with the political party which nominated them; that is where their career is built and it is to the party they report following board meetings.
It is a pity we must include provisions for the structure of the board of the University of Dublin or any other university in legislation. I would prefer to allow the board or university itself to decide how it would be composed. The current procedure for the board's composition is a super-structure imposed from the top by the State which is not democratic. I will be watching closely — as will others — the identity of the person nominated to this board and of those nominated to the boards of other universities. I have received many assurances from Ministers in the past that appointments will be made on merit but the nominees almost inevitably turn out to be fund raisers for the party in power. That is something we should guard against.
I have serious doubts about section 3(2)(g) in regard to the composition of the board which states:
Two members not being employees or students of the College chosen by a Committee of the Board which shall comprise the Provost and two Members of the Board:
(i) one such member shall be chosen from among nominations made by such organisations as are representative of such business or professional interest as the Board considers appropriate;
I do not understand why such a provision is necessary. I believe it is merely part of the current vogue of social partnership. For some reason, we must all have business, trade union or farmer interests sitting on our boards. These are very powerful groups in society, far more powerful than Dáil or Seanad Éireann. I see no reason representatives of those groups should sit on university boards as I do not believe they really have anything to offer. It is merely part of the social partner consensus philosophy where more power is given to those who are already powerful and taken from those who are powerless. That kind of consensus politics dictates that the social partners should be the powerful people in our society rather than those who are democratically elected. I have reservations about the Bill but I also feel it is easily the best we could have expected.
I congratulate all those involved in amending it so dramatically and I look forward to the Leas-Cathaoirleach's translation of the Latin.
I welcome the Bill. It is particularly important for Trinity College that it is passed as soon as possible as its board is an executive one, unlike those in other universities. Changes in the composition of the board have occurred before. Until 1870, all members of the board were fellows, male Church of Ireland clergy. The Fawcett Act in 1873 allowed dissenters and Roman Catholics to become fellows of the college. However, there was not a great deal of change in the composition of the board for another 50 years. In the early 1970s women were allowed become fellows and members of the board, although two non-fellow professors had been previously on the board. The changes, therefore, are quite dramatic. The emergence of two or maybe three outside members on the board will make a difference. Prior to this all appointees and those elected have been internal. This is an innovation but I have found no fear among our academic colleagues in the college that they would be swamped by whatever members are put on the board with the agreement of the Provost.
It is consultation, not agreement. It is very forthright.
That is correct.
If one person out of 27 can swamp the university then it deserves to be swamped.
I agree. People should beware of taking up these positions. One academic said to me "Mary, you have no idea what the academic mind can do".
I have and I am glad the Senator is protected from it.
Senator Keogh raised a very important point when she spoke of the need for universities to be free from restraint by Government. Of course accountability is essential given the huge amount of money which is put into universities by the State. However, we have a terrible example in Queens University, Belfast, of what happens when there is excessive interference by Government in universities. Queen's is dismissing over 100 staff and closing departments because of what the British Government describes as a research assessment exercise. This is where people in departments are graded on the number of papers they produce in scientific journals. Books or presentations at international academic meetings do not count. It is a matter of just numbering how many papers are published by individuals in academic journals. A grade scale of one to five is used, and anyone with a grading under four is in very serious trouble. Naturally, departments with a grading under four are finding it impossible to get anybody to work in them as people know they are most unlikely to upgrade the rating. It is interesting that a graduate of Trinity College, Professor Edna Longley, is leading the opposition to this extraordinary method of assessing departments. No account is given to teaching or pastoral care of students.
It is very hard to understand why the department of clinical medicine in Queen's is to be downgraded when one thinks of the work it must have done in the past 30 years in the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is in the most run down condition imaginable, and the city hospital. It is hard to understand that people in these hospitals, after all they have been through, will only be assessed on the number of research papers they have published. It does not matter if the papers are on the thymus of the mouse.
I think and hope the amount of interference will be minimal. It has very often been said that people appointed to such boards go native and become far more in support of the board and the institution than the organisation which put them on the board. It is interesting that there is no method of removing people from the board.
I welcome the Bill and hope it has a speedy passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I congratulate those involved in taking the Bill through the House. As Senator Ormonde and the University Senators said, many hours were spent preparing the Bill. The Clerk of the Seanad spent many long hours working hard with all those involved in bringing the Bill before the House.
I disagree with Senator Ross and welcome the fact that somebody from outside the university can be a member of the board. It is healthy and I welcome the provision. I accept the Senator's view in relation to political appointments. It is not the first time we have disagreed on this point.
I wish the Bill a safe passage through the House and am pleased to endorse it.
I thank Senators Ormonde, Norris, Keogh, Henry and Cassidy for their contributions, their generous tributes to the Bill and for ensuring its speedy passage. We hope the Bill will progress from here.
I have noted the contribution of Senator Ross and his interest concerning the supplemental charter of 1637 and how it should be read. It is some time since I studied Latin, but I will furnish him with an appropriate translation at the conclusion of the debate.
In Irish.
I wish to thank those involved in the passage of the Bill, particularly the Members of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders and the Clerk Assistant, Jody Blake, for her unstinting work.
I again thank Members for their contributions.
