This section deals with a visitor and we have received some comments on this recently from University College Galway. They feel that the section is fundamentally flawed in that although the term "visitor" is being used, in essence what we are talking about is an inspector. The role of the inspector is not in line with the traditional understanding of a visitor's jurisdiction or with the operation of a visitor system within our universities since their foundation. For example, they have made the point that the jurisdiction of the visitor in a university is never extended to persons who are not members of the university corporation. Consequently, a Minister prosecuting a complaint of illegal behaviour against a university has no standing in relation to availing of a domestic tribunal within a university. Are we looking at a situation similar to that which obtained in Letterkenny Regional Technical College? Is section 17 really about creating a mechanism whereby the Government can appoint an inspector to deal with a governing authority of a university which the Government of the day believes may have been guilty of unbecoming conduct or which may be in breach of laws, statutes or ordinances applicable to the university? The Government will take the initiative in section 17(1) and I quote:
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 facie constitutes a breach of the laws, statutes or ordinances applicable to the university, the Minister may, after first advising the governing authority of his or her opinion and considering any explanation given in response, and with the concurrence of the Government, request the Visitor to the university to inquire into any matter giving rise to the Minister’s opinion.
If we are talking about appointing an inspector similar to what happened in Letterkenny regional technical college, it represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the State and universities.
Essentially, we are creating a legal mechanism whereby the Minister for Education of the day can intervene in the internal affairs of a university, albeit in the context of certain issues that would give the Minister cause for concern. The Minister has spoken about the need for autonomy and academic freedom but what tends to happen when legislative mechanisms such as this are put in place is that future Governments and Ministers, irrespective of party political affiliations, may use those mechanisms with increasing regularity. The critical space between a university and the State should be preserved. Deputy Keogh's and Deputy Coughlan's amendments, as well as my own, sought to copperfasten the existing concept of the visitor's jurisdiction within a university. In other words, it has been a facility in Trinity College, for example, where members of the university be they academic staff, students or employees had access to an independent body, a body that would listen to their complaints and concerns. It was a matter of internal university governance. In many respects the visitors adopted the role of ombudsman and that role could be played in the future. There is a necessity for such a body and for such a function.
Section 17 has used the term "visitor" and its traditional concept to mask and camouflage what is, in essence, a mechanism to facilitate Government inspection of universities. That is a view which is strongly held by University College Galway and one which it has articulated cogently. I sympathise with that view. This entire area has not been adequately clarified. There should be a clear framework within a university whereby the members of the university have a mechanism through which to appeal or complain to the authorities and to have disputes reconciled or resolved. That should be made clear within the university system and it should be within the internal system of governance in a university.
Governments should stand back and refrain from unduly interfering in the situation. We must remember that when we draw up legislation, it may not be interpreted in the way in which we intended it to be. The way in which this legislation may be interpreted might be very different ten years from now. We must remember that we are putting in place legislation which will govern universities for the next 20 to 30 years. The Minister may not intend this section to be used extensively but, though we cannot predict the future, once the mechanism is in place, it can be invoked by future Ministers. That has the potential to create problems and the Bill invokes an incorrect use of the term "visitor" as it has been traditionally understood within the universities.
