There appears to be a consensus among members that this session should conclude at approximately 4 o'clock. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives to amendment No. 4; amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 4 and amendments Nos. 9, 126, 171, 173, 183, 186, 187, 191, 192, 194, and 196 are consequential on amendment No. 6. This group of amendments refers to the realignment of definitions of "employee" and "officer". Deputy Keogh was in possession.
SECTION 3.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 21 to 25, to delete the definition of "employee" and substitute the following:
"‘employee', in relation to a university, means a person employed by the university in any capacity, and includes an officer of the university;".
—(Minister for Education.)
We are dealing with a multiplicity of amendments. The Minister recognised the argument regarding the unique way in which those employed in universities consider their situation. They find the terms originally used in the context of the Bill offensive. Deputy Martin outlined the way in which university teachers lobbied us on this aspect. I am pleased the Minister has included an amendment which I am happy to accept.
The autonomy of universities is central to the Bill. It is also central to those who work in universities. The word "vocation" is often denigrated and used in terms of a worthy job that is often badly paid. However, those working within universities look on their employment as a vocation by way of recognising their dedication to the education of our young people and the role played by universities in developing their minds. It is not just an institution where people learn by rote. It develops and broadens the minds of students and allows them to embark on that process. From that perspective, the drafting of the Bill should have been more sensitive and I am glad that has at last been recognised. I am not hung up on my amendment because the point has been accepted.
Section 22(5) is to a certain degree related to this matter. It is concerned with the concept of academic freedom and the ability of an officer of the college to have freedom of expression and to take on convention if necessary without fear. Section 22(5) gives the university the right to suspend or dismiss an employee. While I welcome the amendments, that section qualifies our actions. I understand the current legal position is that an officer of a university can only be dismissed by the Minister for Education.
That issue will be discussed separately in a later amendment.
I endorse the points made by Deputies Keogh and Martin. Unions representing university staff want to preserve academic freedom in the universities to ensure freedom of thought or conscience is not stifled and that traditional democratic values are maintained. The other point is the change in the status of employees. Traditionally, lecturers could only be dismissed by the Minister. The change envisaged is that universities would have autonomy in that area. Some members of staff are afraid an authoritarian president of the university could use those powers in an undemocratic and unfair manner. This would be contrary to academic freedom which everybody wants to preserve. I am sure the Minister has taken these points on board. Some of the unions met her and her advisers on these two issues and she is aware of the fears in those areas. I hope the fears are groundless.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 254 are related, while amendment No. 255 is an alternative to amendment No. 254. All the amendments may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "January" and substitute "October".
The financial year is defined in the Bill as a 12 month period commencing on 1 January each year. At present the financial year of all universities ends on 30 September while funding is provided by the Government on a calendar year basis. The view of the universities in the representations we received is that the financial year ending on 30 September should be retained, while accepting that funding would continue. It is a technical point which the universities raised. Is the change necessary because the current arrangement is causing major problems?
I received representations from UCG on this matter. As Deputy Martin said, it is a technical realignment to accord with the academic year. It is a reasonable request and I am sure the Minister does not have a difficulty with it.
The Deputies suggest the redefinition of the financial year which would require the universities to budget for the academic year rather than the calendar year. Discussions were held with the universities and they are satisfied with the Government's proposal. The budgeting arrangement for the universities is through the HEA. I am not in a position to support the amendment concerning the dates of keeping the accounts but I will amend the section to simplify the dates on which accounts are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. This will allow flexibility as changes in procedure may occur in the future.
Amendment No. 7 would result in university accounts being on an academic year basis only and would give them no time to finalise their accounts after the academic year. It would alter the accounting year of the universities. I am satisfied that would place an impossible pressure on the universities to comply with the legislation. The concerns expressed to the Deputies is that the universities should be allowed to account on a calendar year basis. If that is the case, they will note my amendment No. 254 to section 35(2). This will ensure that the Bill does not require that the accounts will apply to either a calendar or an academic year. My amendment will simplify the dates on which accounts will be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It will respond to concerns expressed by allowing flexibility as changes in procedure may occur in the future.
I hope the Minister is satisfied and that the universities are happy with it. There is no great difficulty about it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 was discussed with amendment No. 4.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"‘officer', in relation to a university, includes—
(a) a permanent, full-time member of the academic staff of the university,
(b) the chief officer,
(c) a person who immediately before the commencement of this Part is an officer of a university, constituent college or recognised college, and
(d) such other employees as the governing authority may from time to time determine;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 12, after "Students Union" to insert "or a full-time sabbatical officer of the Students Union".
The amendment seeks the inclusion of a full-time sabbatical officer of the students union. The definition of student in the section includes a full-time officer of the students union. This could include an administrator who is not a registered student and who is not elected by the student body. In keeping with the idea of ring fencing the matter for democratically elected people in the union, the amendment seeks the inclusion of a full-time sabbatical officer of the students union. It tidies up this area.
Amendment No. 10 addresses the concerns I seek to address in amendment No. 11 regarding the definition of a student in the Bill. Concern was expressed that the definition of a student could, for example, include a person who had never been a student in the university concerned. To refine the definition of student, I propose to add the requirement that in the case of an officer of the students union or another student representative body, a person must have been a registered student when elected or appointed to the position. Deputy Keogh's proposal in amendment No. 12 is to define the term "students union". I am advised by the office of the parliamentary draftsman in preparing the Bill that it is not necessary to define the term as it is in common usage and its meaning is well understood and accepted. The student body involved has indicated it accepts that the concerns expressed are being met in the way this is presented today.
There are two separate issues. One deals with the definition of students' unions and the other deals with full-time officers and staff. The Minister's amendment No. 11 seeks to insert: "who is elected or appointed to his or her office while he or she was a registered.."
In the case of an officer of the students' union or other student representative body that person must be a registered student when elected or appointed to that position.
That is fair enough but the person might continue in office while no longer being a registered student. Someone could be appointed to an office while a registered student but could continue in that office for two to three years afterwards, ending up as a full-time administrative officer of the union. Perhaps we could come back to this on Report Stage.
There is no difficulty about it and we know from discussions that this is an acceptable way forward to ensure people do not move from college to college, which I witnessed in my day with interest.
We have the phenomenon of the lifelong student. Often a person gets very involved in the students' union as a student and is then appointed to a job there.
We share a common concern and the Deputy has outlined something I had not identified. I will return to this on Report Stage.
I tabled amendment No. 12 in response to a request from the students' union. The Minister says the parliamentary draftsman feels it unnecessary to have this definition. I do not know if the Minister has an objection to the format of this definition but it would be useful to have it defined in the legislation. This particular definition is one the students' unions recognise as proper. The Minister says there is an understanding of what a students' union is but it is not defined within the legislative framework. If it were defined we would know exactly what it would mean.
I have taken the parliamentary draftsman's advice on the definition of students' unions and I am satisfied with that advice. We were asked to bring this forward because of fears expressed which, according to my advice, are groundless. There is no necessity to define a students' union in specific terms; it is one which I am advised is well understood and accepted. I would prefer to take that advice.
I support Deputy Keogh's amendment. There may be a need for a definition of students' unions. This morning I had a telephone call from the students' union of the University of Limerick. It was trying to ascertain whether the university governing body or the students' union was responsible for dividing the £150 capitation grant. USI have raised this matter, as have we in the Dáil. It sees it as an attempt by the university authorities to erode its autonomy and power. A new body has emerged through student services committees who tend to have greater responsibility for allocating funds for clubs, guilds and societies. We should define students' unions because it would safeguard them for the future as they feel under threat financially. Under the old fees structure, money went to the union directly but that is no longer the case. Because of that their financial autonomy is at risk and they are dependent on the authorities for their share of the £150 capitation grants. That is not a healthy position. At times they could be superimposed by another body. Societies, guilds and student services bodies are playing a bigger role in student life but the fundamental view of the students' union has been that it is elected by the students and it is there to protect the rights of students. We should cherish that as part of students being full partners in university life. The White Paper talks about student councils at second level. It would be in keeping with the White Paper and the concept of partnership if we defined "students' union".
This is a definition section and it is important from the point of view of recognising in legislation the role of students and their union. We have recognition of the election of students to governing bodies but what is important to the students is that they and their union are specifically recognised, the latter by a definition in the Bill. I know the Minister has been advised that it is understood but often we make assumptions that something is not strictly necessary. I have mentioned it on other legislation and much of it is the perception of those who are affected by the legislation and the message that sends. It is not that the Minister is sending a negative message on the students' union but it would be a more positive recognition of their role and the importance of that body within the university. It is not fundamental to the Bill but to the students' perception of how they are being recognised.
I am proud of my record in recognising the USI as the national body for students but not all colleges are affiliated and on reflection I am satisfied. I do not wish to put this to a vote; I am proud of giving the student body its vote. I have taken the advice that it is a term that is understood and allows the flexibility and autonomy that we seek to give the institutions. I can come back to define it but definitions tend to exclude rather than include. In reflecting student bodies in the many institutions we are talking about. I am satisfied with the draftsman's advice that "students union" was an acceptable concept which would not cause concern. We are sharing the same concerns but our approaches are different.
Does the Minister fear a definition would be too restrictive?
Deputy Martin referred to college organisations having different relationships. I am speaking about the students' union as recognised in the college. The spirit of this legislation is to guarantee the voice of students. Not all students' unions are organised under the Union of Students in Ireland. I deal with the USI but the term "students union" is acceptable on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman without specific definition. What we want is the students organised and their voices heard.
Will the representatives of the students on the governing body come from the students' union?
We have put down amendments that they be the elected, full-time officers of the union.
I am only giving the advice I have from the draftsman who has said a definition along these lines is not necessary to meet the concerns being expressed.
As legislators we express what we want. The job of the parliamentary draftsman is to draft the legislation in accordance with our desires. Almost everything else is defined in this Bill. Whether all unions belong to USI is not the critical question. USI is not even mentioned. The defining criteria for a students' union is that it is democratically elected by the students. The non inclusion of a definition safeguarding that concept is an unacceptable omission. We cannot talk about the concept being generally understood. That would not stand up in court. The amendment is valid and the Minister should indicate that she accepts it in principal.
I will return to it.
To specify Union of Students in Ireland means that body would be recognised as the official body, but in a college where that body was not organised, the term "Students union" would cover everybody.
It would cover every union. It t is not intended that the USI should be locked into the legislation. The union representative of students in each institution would be the one referred to.
What is the status of amendment No. 10?
I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 14, after "authority" to insert "who was elected or appointed to his or her office while he or she was a registered student of the university".
Amendment agreed to.
Does Deputy Keogh wish to move amendment No. 12?
I would be happy if the Minister would return at Report Stage having considered a definition of "students union".
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I propose taking amendments Nos. 13, 14, and 15 together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 15, to delete "Trinity College" and substitute "University of Dublin".
Trinity College is officially known as the University of Dublin. The Bill in its original format did not correctly describe the institution.
The institutions are separate and legal entities and are not interchangeable. To replace "Trinity College" with "University of Dublin" would be to impose on the latter obligations which are not appropriate to it and which it could not carry out. I am sympathetic to the Deputy's motivation that there should be an appropriate reference to the University of Dublin in the Bill. I sought the views of the college who have discussed it with their legal advisers. The outcome of these discussions is the amendment which I propose.
In proposing a definition of "University of Dublin" and to amend the definition of Trinity College, I put down amendment Nos. 14 and 15.
The Bill concerns Trinity College as the body described in their charter as the mother of the university which carries out most of the functions of the University of Dublin, Trinity College, which will be affected by the Bill. Gladstone and I shared a problem. In 1873 Gladstone stated in a reference to a doomed Bill that the relationship between the University of Dublin, Trinity College was that the University of Dublin is in absolute servitude to the College of Dublin. In the same way we have had the University and the College of Dublin coextensive as to the persons of whom they are composed. I am happy that the reference to the two institutions in this Bill are correct even if the two institutions are composed of the same persons. I ask that my amendment be accepted. With regard to the concerns expressed by Deputies, we are satisfied that the legal bodies involved accept this definition.
I thank the Minister for her enlightening reply. With regard to the reference to a doomed Bill, I hope the Minister is not pessimistic about the passage of this Bill before the election.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 17, after "1592" to insert ", and shall be held to include the University of Dublin save where the context otherwise requires in accordance with the charters and letters patent relating to Trinity College".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following:
"‘the University of Dublin' means the university established by the charters and letters patent incorporating Trinity College and which said university is further provided for by the letters patent of the 24th day of July, 1857;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 138 are consequential on amendment No. 134. Amendment No. 17 is an alternative to amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are alternatives to amendment No. 134. Amendments Nos. 137, 175 and 218 are related. Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 134 to 138, inclusive, and 218 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 20 and 21, to delete the definition of "Visitor" and substitute the following:
"‘Visitor' means the Visitor to a university or a person appointed under section 17 to be a Visitor for any purpose under this Act."
The role of the visitor has a long tradition in our chartered university institutions. It is a role which the universities appreciate and in which they have great confidence. For that reason, in seeking mechanisms which would guarantee the autonomy of the universities while ensuring accountability, I propose to enhance the role of the visitor in several respects. I will discuss the details of the amendments when we reach the relevant sections.
Amendment No. 16 in respect of the term "visitor" is a technical one and arises largely because of the enhanced role which I am proposing for the university. Deputies Martin and Coughlan proposed a technical amendment No. 17 to the definition of "visitor". This amendment is not necessary for two reasons: first, the singular always includes the plural in legislation and, second, I am proposing an amendment that there will only be a single visitor.
In view of the enhanced role of the visitor I propose to provide a more comprehensive provision in relation to the appointment of a visitor. This is dealt with in amendments Nos. 134 and 138. In drafting the provision I consulted with the President of the High Court. This amendment gives the Government power to appoint a visitor to a university. The visitor must be a judge of the High Court or a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge. Before appointing a judge as a visitor the Government must consult with the President of the High Court. This new section will also provide for circumstances where a visitor resigns or otherwise becomes incapable of performing his or her functions.
The provisions in this section are modelled on the NUI visitor and I consider the concept of "visitor" with the functions outlined in the Bill is one which can be useful and, in some respects, be extended to the universities that do not have one. Deputies Martin, Coughlan and Keogh in amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137 and 218 propose a wider role for the visitor, in line with the Trinity model, to allow for a standing board of visitors with the right of appeal laid down in universities statutes. I do not support that proposal. A great deal of employment legislation has been passed in recent years which protects the rights of employees and gives them channels through which to vindicate those rights. To introduce a standing visitorial system would create another layer of protection which is not necessary.
With regard to amendment No. 134, Trinity College has expressed concern that the provision for the replacement of a visitor could be interpreted as to refer to a Trinity visitor were one to leave office. This was not the intention. The intention is that the provision relating to the replacement would only concern visitors appointed under the section. I do not intend to alter the arrangements that Trinity College has in place for the replacement of a visitor. The Department sought the advice of the parliamentary draftsman and I was advised to propose an amendment. I can give the committee the text of the amendment although it will be proposed later. I am signalling to the committee that we are taking on board concerns expressed by Trinity College about an interpretation of the legislation. I will introduce an amendment which will read: "Where a visitor appointed under subsection (1) resigns or otherwise——
Have we a copy of the amendment?
No. I am giving the committee a verbal indication and it will be submitted on paper to the committee.
That is not acceptable. This is a complex issue. Could we adjourn for a short time so the amendment can be circulated?
Can the amendment be circulated?
The amendment we are discussing at present relates to the visitor appointed under the legislation.
This is a relatively complex area and to get an overall picture we need a copy of the amendment the Minister has announced.
It is not the amendment we are discussing now.
It is related.
I am indicating that if concerns have been expressed to members of the committee by Trinity College, I will be able to reassure the committee regarding those concerns in a further amendment to the definition of this visitor provision. It will be given to the members in written form before we discuss it.
Does the new amendment relate to section 17?
It relates to amendment No. 134.
Does the amendment the Minister mentioned relate to section 17?
Yes.
Amendment No. 134 also relates to section 17 and it is being discussed now with amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 134 to 138, inclusive.
I am suggesting that I will put forward an amendment as a replacement amendment before amendment No. 134 is voted on.
We need to see that amendment before we discuss these amendments.
Will the Minister give a verbal outline of the amendment? Obviously the committee will not reach the amendment today.
The problem is we are discussing amendment No. 134 and the Minister's new amendment affects amendment No. 134. Is that correct?
Yes.
It is a substitute for amendment No. 134.
Is it an addition to or a substitution for amendment No. 134?
It is an addition.
Is it part of amendment No. 134?
The amendment is to insert a provision so it is part of amendment No. 134.
We need to see the amendment.
Usually we would be given such an amendment beforehand. A week has gone by since the last meeting.
I accept that. Can I give it to the committee?
Can the committee adjourn for ten minutes so the Minister can have it typed?
Yes.
I propose that the committee adjourns.
We can deal with it on Report Stage.
I propose the committee adjourns for ten minutes so somebody can type the amendment. This is Dáil Éireann, the Legislature of the State. It is not good practice to deal with an amendment in this manner. I am not trying to be awkward but we are discussing substituting an amendment. This is an important issue and many people are concerned about it. I would like to see the amendment in writing. If Ministers develop a practice of telling committees the amendment before them is changed——
We will adjourn for as long as it takes to have the amendment typed.
Thank you.
Sitting suspended at 2.50 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.
The amendment has now been circulated and can be discussed with this group of amendments but it will not be for decision until we reach section 17.
The Minister indicates that she wants one visitor. This is an important issue because Trinity College already has a standing board of visitors and what applies to Trinity should apply to the other universities. It is my understanding that the heads of the other universities were not in favour of this but that does not mean that it is not a good idea. We need a broader consultative approach to a Bill such as this and, while the heads have been very constructive and helpful in amending quite a lot of the Bill, we should acknowledge and recognise that they have vested interests. Perhaps they do not like the idea of a standing board of visitors which would hear complaints from students, graduates and staff.
In amendment No. 137 we propose that the standing board should have the role of visitor and ombudsman. There is a need for such a board in every university because complaints could come from students on a whole range of issues, including examination results, and there is no adequate appeal system at present. In addition, staff who do not have NUI degrees would not necessarily have access to the visitor.
Why is the Minister insisting on one visitor as opposed to a standing board of visitors? Why will she not accept that what is in operation in Trinity College and Queen's University should be applied to the other NUI colleges? This system has been an acknowledged success in Trinity College and people have articulated their enthusiasm for it. Such a system would be very useful in the other universities because all has not been as well as some would have us believe.
Before Christmas most Members received correspondence from a student who felt that she was getting nowhere in appealing her examination results. I do not want to name the college but it did not make for comfortable reading. Here was a student in a university not having any proper mechanism available to her to have her grievances redressed. On a prima facie level she appeared to have a case but kept meeting one stone wall after another.
The same could apply to staff. Notwithstanding labour laws, universities could save themselves a lot of expense and trouble if they agreed to a standing board of visitors. This could be a useful mechanism for resolving disputes involving staff or students rather than going to the courts. It is something which university heads should reflect on more because we are prone to using the courts as a means for resolving disputes. People are appealing dismissals from universities through the courts. If a proper mechanism were in place, disputes could be resolved in a less stressful and expensive fashion than is currently the case.
I do not understand why the Minister does not accept our amendments as being legitimate means by which to put in place a proper system for facilitating the hearing of grievances within a university. It would lead to a community spirit. If there is a perception within a university that disputes are resolved through an independent mechanism, that adds to the concept of justice and fair play and helps promote the idea of a community rather than a "them and us" situation. For these reasons, I ask the Minister to accept our amendments.
I reassure the committee that this Bill, when enacted, will ensure that students have a voice and rights on academic councils and governing bodies. I refer the Deputy to section 27(1)(e) which deals with "the arrangements for review of, or appeals against, decisions of the governing authority or the academic council which affect employees or students;". I know Trinity College and Queen's University have standing boards of visitors. However, I am satisfied, given section 27, the broadening of the composition of governing bodies and the role of academic councils, that all other universities do not need such boards. These institutions should be autonomous in the matters they deal with. While the Deputy may express concerns, when this Bill is enacted those people dealing with appeals will have not only the range of employment legislation about which I have spoken but also the changed structures within the individual institutions. Students will be on academic councils and governing bodies and Chapter VI, section 27(1)(e) allows for the putting in place of "arrangements for the review of, or appeals against, decisions of the governing authority or the academic council which affect employees or students". I am satisfied adequate protection has been provided and am not prepared to accept this amendment.
The Minister accepts in principle in her amendment the idea of having a visitor. The thrust of my amendment and those of Deputies Martin and Coughlan is that there should be a standing board of visitors which would be open and available to people without their having to undergo the more convoluted approach the Minister's amendment suggests. It states: ". . . . .the Government shall from time to time as the occasion requires, following consultation with the President of the High Court, appoint a Judge of the High Court, or a retired Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court, to be the Visitor for the purposes of this Act.". In practical terms, if the visitor is the last recourse for the appellant, a lengthy initial process must be undergone rather than the appellant having the facility of immediate or almost immediate access to the standing board of visitors. There is a practical difficulty with what the Minister proposes.
The Minister referred to section 27 dealing with the charters and statutes of universities and said that representatives of students would be on the governing bodies and so on and that labour law is now in place. She is right to state that, but I draw her attention to a point she was making concerning section 27(1)(e), "the arrangements for the review of, or appeals against, decisions of the governing authority or the academic council which affect employees or students;". This is only an enabling section which states that a university may have a charter.
Although I accept what the Minister says about various mechanisms being in place, this type of independent body has been successfully operated by Trinity College and the role of visitor has worked well in other colleges but only as a standing board, for example, in Queen's University in Belfast. Can the Minister see the practical difficulty in accepting the principle of a visitor but making it a much more difficult process? She states that there will be a visitor and our amendments are similar except that ours seek a standing board of visitors which shall have not less than two present or former judges of the High Court. I accept the Minister's arguments as regards the numbers involved and perhaps three is too cumbersome. However, if she accepts the principle of a visitor, it must be put in place. I suspect that this would not be a full-time job. If she accepts the principle of it, she must go a step further and make it practicable and easily implementable.
I repeat that, in enacting this legislation, the mechanisms available to universities will include the role of academic councils and the statutory right of representation on governing bodies for employees and students. Two institutions, which supersede the establishment of the State by centuries, have a visiting board. I have agreed that the standing of the person to be appointed as a visitor should be that of a judge of the High Court or a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge. It is only when and if all mechanisms fail that a visitor is appointed. While two institutions would have a standing board, more than that number of universities would be involved with the single visitor system. It is impractical to have three people on standby for these standing boards of visitors. The Government will only appoint a visitor to a university when all other mechanisms, including modern employment legislation, have failed. The visitor will be one of the judges of the High Court or one of the retired judges of the Supreme Court and they will be appointed only in consultation with the President of the High Court. It is sufficient for the visitor to act as the final appeal mechanism for the universities.
Is amendment No. 134 a new section?
Amendment No. 134 states: "Where a university does not have a visitor, the Government shall from time to time as the occasion requires, following consultation with the President of the High Court. . . . . . .". It also states that where a Visitor appointed under subsection (1) "resigns or otherwise becomes incapable of performing his or her functions the Government may appoint another person to replace that Visitor". If someone on the board of visitors in Trinity College dies or retires, the Government will be able to appoint another person to replace the visitor appointed under subsection (1). That person must be a judge. It is a technical amendment.
Does the original section 17(1) still stand which states: "Where the Minister is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for contending that the functions of a university are being performed in a manner which prima facieconstitutes a breach of the laws,. . . . . . .”?
Yes.
The Minister is suggesting that if something goes wrong in a university, she will bring in a visitor, in this case a judge, to sort it out. This means one person will be responsible for resolving fundamental matters. The amendment, on the other hand, is from a different school of thought. The Minister is anxious to push this to a vote, but Committee Stage is about teasing out ideas and trying to reach a consensus. We should not try to guillotine it by calling a vote. There should be a standing board of visitors to hear grievances from staff, students and the university community generally. We are adopting a reasonable position in this regard. We should establish a board of visitors, which already exists in Trinity College and Queen's University.
I have listened to the discussion but I do not accept the Deputy's arguments.
I do not think the Minister has listened to the discussion.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 9.
|
Tá |
|
|
Bhreathnach, Niamh. |
Kenny, Seán. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Lynch, Kathleen. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Fitzgerald, Frances. |
Pattison, Séamus. |
|
Flaherty, Mary. |
Sheehan, P. J. |
|
Kemmy, Jim. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Brennan, Matt. Coughlan, Mary. Doherty, Seán. Flood, Chris. Hughes, Séamus. |
Keogh, Helen. Martin, Mícheál. Moffatt, Tom. Woods, Michael. |
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.