Vol. 151 No. 4
A Senator may only speak once on Report Stage except the proposer to an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded. Due to a printing error, the asterisk denoting Government amendments was omitted from amendments Nos. 2, 3, and 7.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 are related to Government amendment No. 1 and all may be discussed together.
These amendments deal with the suspension of the governing authority and address concerns expressed on Committee Stage. The effects of these amendments are twofold. First, the visitor will now consult persons within the university as well as the Minister on the person or persons to act as the governing authority until the new governing authority is appointed. Second, the visitor will ensure that a new governing authority is put in place as soon as is practicable after a suspension. The period of suspension, however, cannot exceed one year. Following the period of suspension the visitor will perform the functions of the commission in determining the composition of the new governing authority and will consult within the university while acting in this capacity.
We agree with these amendments. They go some way to meet our concerns, which we welcome. We hope the Bill will pass today.
Government amendment No. 2 is also in the name of Senator Norris.
This amendment proposes that the definition of "Trinity College" be amended to include reference to Queen Elizabeth who founded the college. The amendment is in response to amendments proposed by Senators representing Trinity College on Committee Stage.
I hope that in making this concession the Minister is not about to become a Castle Catholic.
We will permit the Minister the little glory of the asterisk; the more queens the merrier.
I was anxious that the Minister move this amendment because it should be recognised that it was a woman who started third level education in this country.
Government amendment No. 3 is also in the name of Senator Norris.
This amendment to the definition of "Visitor" provides that it includes both a single visitor and a number of visitors. The amendment is in response to concerns expressed and amendments proposed by Senators representing Trinity College on Committee Stage.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives to amendments No. 4 and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, line 15, after "apply" to insert "except in the case of Universities which are not in receipt of monies provided by An tÚdarás".
This amendment uses the form of words proposed by the university. Government amendment No. 6 appears to meet the case in the same manner so I am happy to withdraw this amendment and agree to the Government one.
I second the amendment. Government amendment No. 6 covers the substance of what the college wanted so I am also happy not to move amendment No. 5 and agree to the Government one.
There is a correction to Government amendment No. 6. The word "money" should be changed to "moneys".
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 7 is also in the name of Senator Norris.
This amendment proposes that the Private Act to be put forward by Trinity College would be consistent with the purpose and substance of the provisions in the Universities Bill. The amendment is in response to concerns expressed and an amendment proposed by Senators representing Trinity College on Committee Stage.
Government amendments Nos. 9 and 41 are related to Government amendment No. 8 and all may be discussed together.
Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to section 4 are in response to concerns expressed by Senators on Committee Stage. The first amendment provides that the Higher Education Authority would take the initiative in recommending that an educational institution be incorporated into a university. The second provides that employees of educational institutions incorporated into a university under section 8 can have no less favourable conditions of service than before that incorporation. This addresses the concern raised in amendment No. 41.
This amendment provides that the Higher Education Authority will be the body advised by the expert group. The Government can act only on the advice of the Higher Education Authority and the expert group on establishing a new university but it is not compelled to do so.
Senators will greatly improve as a result.
This amendment is in response to concerns expressed with regard to the object relating to the Irish language on Committee Stage.
Cuirim fíor fáilte roimh sin.
Amendment Nos. 15 is an alternative to amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 16 is related. They may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(k) to protect and promote academic freedom.".
Academic freedom must be preserved as carefully within the university as is the university within the State. That is why I am anxious that this amendment be made.
Amendment No. 15 is in response to concerns expressed and amendments proposed by a number of Senators to include a separate section after section 13 to deal with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It states that a university in performing its functions shall have the right and responsibility to preserve and promote the traditional principles of academic freedom in the conduct of its internal and external affairs.
I consider that the explicit statements in my amendment address the concerns raised in amendments Nos. 13 and 16 and the new section is a much reinforced statement of academic freedom, particularly of university staff, and it is given a prominent position in a separate section of the Bill.
It would ill behove me to say I prefer the Minister's amendment to Senator Henry's but I prefer it to my own because it is clear, specific, explicit and it considerably strengthens the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the fineness and clarity of thought put into this amendment. I have no problem withdrawing mine in favour of hers.
I interpret Senator Norris' tribute to the Minister, which I share, as partly attributed to me in light of my original amendment. It does not go as far as I wish but it is a fair attempt to meet the anxieties expressed. It is a distinct improvement.
I wish to express my thanks for these amendments.
I thank the Minister for taking our concerns on board.
The Minister's amendment fulfils all that I wanted and is more clear and firm.
I propose to include individual graduates and convocation in the function relating to collaboration with graduates in response to concerns expressed by Senator O'Toole.
I appreciate the Minister taking my concerns on board. It will be welcomed by the NUI.
I also appreciate the Minister doing so.
This amendment is in response to concerns expressed relating to the number of members of the governing authority. I am increasing the maximum number on a governing authority to 40. I thank all Members for their contribution to that debate.
This is good and I thank the Minister.
I thank the Minister.
I am delighted to hear Senators thanking the Minister.
We are on her side this time.
The Minister is going well.
There was a worthwhile debate on the amendment and there is greater flexibility, which was necessary.
Amendment No. 19 is an alternative to amendment No. 18 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following:
"(c) at least one but not more than two senior officers of the university, one of whom shall be the senior officer having responsibility to the chief officer for academic affairs, appointed by the governing authority, and".
This is a modification of my proposal on Committee Stage, which was to take on board some of the anxieties expressed on behalf of UCD. That is why I picked this format. I wish to hear the Minister speak on her format, as she is no doubt aware of considerations that may require Ministerial wisdom and of which I may be unaware.
I have consulted the universities on the issue of the registrar, finance officer and secretary of the governing authority. Arising from those discussions, I have proposed that the registrar be on the governing authority as of right and that the senior officer having responsibility for financial or administrative affairs may also be a member.
I appreciate where Professor Lee is coming from on this amendment, but, from my consultations, the Minister's amendment is better. It recognises the academic primacy of the registrar or the person who holds the equivalent position. It also allows the universities, where necessary, to have other senior officers on the governing body as it feels may be appropriate. It recognises academic primacy and leaves flexibility to be exercised in the best judgment of the governing body. I support the Minister's amendment.
I also agree with the Minister's amendment. She has come a long way on academic freedom and acknowledges that there are other areas to be dealt with.
I agree with Senator Manning, who put it well. There is now a choice.
I know where Senator Manning is coming from, just as he knows where I am coming from. There is far more weight in the place he is coming from.
He is coming from UCD and Professor Lee is coming from UCC.
I recognise that a valiant attempt is being made. It is the same attempt I am making, and it is an effort to reconcile different interests. It is unfortunate, but understandable, as I am driven by the same impulses in different sectors, that the intimate concerns of a particular institution have to exercise, as they may, a significant influence on phraseology that affects all institutions. However, we encounter that problem in a variety of the sections. I recognise the integrity of the Minister's attempt.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 are related and may be discussed together.
This amendment is in response to Irish language and Gaeltacht organisations and those representing the wider community in section 15(3)(a), in addition to responses to proposals on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 23 implies that the only cultural interest that might be included would be those relating to the language traditions in Ireland. I consider that culture should be considered more widely. Therefore I cannot support amendment No. 23.
I am pleased with amendment No. 20, which does exactly as I asked. The Minister has a valid point on amendment No. 23.
I welcome what the Minister has done in amendment No. 20. I tables the amendment without intending it to be restrictive and I take her point. Perhaps I should have included the words "in both official languages". The reason I tabled this amendment is that the section as it stands is chock-a-block with interests. As the Minister must ensure that business interests will feature among those interests, that reduces further the likelihood, in almost a lottery situation, of the Irish language and Gaeltacht organisations emerging on the boards. They may — and one could imagine that they have a better chance in one particular institution than in others — but I thought that because they might not have emerged along the line, if section 15(4)(a) was to be activated, including "in both official languages", it would provide a nudge that one keeps the two languages in mind when one is thinking of "artistic and cultural interests". The amendment was not meant to be exclusive in any way but to keep another possibility open. It is not contrary to the spirit of anything the Minister has taken on board in the course of what we are doing and, unless it would delay the Bill, I ask her to accept it as a well intentioned and perhaps useful additional reference to the Irish tradition. It is a way of ensuring that it is not lost sight of when we are talking about these matters.
Having threaded through the proposals which have come from this House on the Irish language, I am advised that I should leave the flexibility in the Bill as it is.
Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 21 is consequential on amendment No. 22. Therefore, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 14, line 3, to delete "and".
This is simply an attempt on my part to meet the argument I made that I felt it was much better in the case of universities that acceptance of somebody on the board should be volitional. There should be a choice. If the Minister can recommend somebody, no doubt in almost all cases the board will accept it, but they should be left the dignity of choice.
I framed this only in the case of Trinity College because the other universities did not seem to worry about it. Trinity College should be left with the option of accepting the Minister's nominees. It removes the element of coercion. For that reason I strongly urge the Minister to take this on board. It does not offend the other universities.
I will not make any further arguments because we went at it hammer and tongs at a late hour the other evening. The Minister knows my thinking and the strong feeling in the university. I would welcome the acceptance of the amendments. I noticed there is no asterisk beside the amendment on the list of amendments. Perhaps that was another accident, a Chathaoirligh. Where is the asterisk for this amendment? I am sure it is a Government amendment. You said there were no asterisks on some amendments in error. Is this one of them?
It is not one of the three.
The issue of the presence of nominees of the Minister for Education on the board of Trinity College was fully, not to say passionately, debated here the other evening. I then indicated my strong view that it was appropriate that the Minister, representing the State as one of the major stakeholders in the universities, should be represented on each governing authority and this House agreed overwhelmingly. Therefore, I do not recommend acceptance of this amendment.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 14, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(c) in the case of University of Dublin Trinity College subject to subsections (8) and (9), the same number of persons as chosen in accordance with paragraph (a), who may be appointed by the governing authority on the nomination of the Minister, after consultation by the Minister with the chief officer, and".
I want to point out to Senator Norris that I could easily end up on the board of Trinity College.
They would be very lucky if he did.
Senator Fitzgerald would be an adornment in Trinity College and I have no doubt that he would talk more sense than a considerable number of the present members.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed together.
The amendment is welcome.
I am ensuring that the present number of councillors on the governing authorities of the National Universities of Ireland at Cork and Galway will remain the same as at present in the constituent colleges, as will the number of nominees of the General Council of County Councils in the National University of Ireland at Dublin.
After all the discussion we had the other evening it is instructive, for those of us who are students of what is called the decision making process, to see how decisions are taken. It is a sensible amendment. All's well that ends well, but much unnecessary delay would have been avoided if something like that had been tabled in the first place.
I thank the Minister for a sensible, reasonable and good decision. We owe a certain debt to Senator Ross who, by polarising the issues and expressing them in such stark language, did more to win support for this amendment than any other Senator. I thank him.
I echo those sentiments; it was a great decision. There is nothing like a good fight to clear the air and get things on side. I thank the Minister.
I was not here for that part of the debate but I read it. I understand Senator Ross's argument was that if local councillors were put on university boards they would act in a political capacity. However, Trevor West was a Member of this House and of Fianna Fáil and took the party whip. Yet, I do not remember him ever acting on the board of Trinity College in a party political way. I am quite sure that councillors on such boards would not do so either. I have great confidence in those I will suggest for inclusion on the board of Trinity. I do not think we will be able to snatch Senator Fitzgerald from the firmament of the NUI. It will not be possible.
He is open to offers.
I am in demand.
There is another councillor in the front row that we might be able to do something about.
This is a great moment for the Seanad because it demonstrates our relevance and how we respond to the requests of our electorate. I thank the Minister.
Senator Ross was largely right. I cannot see that the presence of eight councillors, simply by virtue of their office — they will be rotating all the time — will make a difference. If Senators want them, however, and if it suits their electorate, fine.
Senator Henry is scoring points off my esteemed colleague, Senator Ross. Of the three university Senators, I am the only one to retain my political virginity. I am not even a member of a party, let alone taking a whip.
I do not want the particulars recorded.
May I assure you——
Unfortunately, the Senator has already spoken.
This is an important amendment. It is important to record the fact that as public representatives, we have shown that this is a matter of trust in another level of public representation. At a time when county councillors are getting much bad press it is important that they should be recognised here. I congratulate the Minister on moving this amendment, it is time it was done.
The musty academic halls of third level institutions might learn a lot from the——
The other lot.
I did not say that — from the common sense which will be infused with enthusiasm by those local councillors. Of the councillors I have known over the years who have been involved in third level institutions, they take their responsibilities very seriously indeed. They have an element of practically and other worldliness to bring to bear, which is important.
I am grateful to the Minister, other Senators and to may colleague, Senator Ormonde, for pointing out that these amendments are necessary. Anybody who thinks there is political favouritism on these boards is definitely living in the past. It may have happened 25 or 30 years ago but we no longer make judgments based on political criteria. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing it in time for the Seanad election.
The universities have become more national than local and this is likely to continue in the future. These changes recognise changes which have been and will be made in the future. The appointment of representatives of county councillors to the boards of universities was welcomed in 1904. Until then, the only outside representatives were from Westminister. There is an ongoing debate about how many county councillors should be appointed, but it is a good step forward.
Amendment No. 28 is an alternative to amendment No. 27 and both may be discussed together.
The appropriate reference should be Trinity College. I am confident of the support of the Senators from Trinity College on this issue.
The Minister will have our support but our amendment, which is also found in the college statute, is grammatically, stylistically and syntactically better. The Minister referred to Trinity College; the usage then is to refer to the college. The effect will be the same, but if she wishes to blemish the Bill with small inadequacies, who am I to stand in her way?
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 46, and substitute the following:
"(6) A governing authority shall include among its members academic employees and students of educational institutions, which are associated with the university in accordance with an agreement between those institutions and the university, and any such employee or student of such institution shall be elected by the academic staff of that institution.".
I support the general thrust of the amendment. However, I consider that section 15(6), as amended by Dáil Éireann, addresses the Senator's concern. Where an educational institution is formally associated by agreement with a university, the governing authority of the university will have as members employees and students of the institution as the agreement provides. This means there will be a requirement for all agreements which universities might have with other institutions to be implemented under this new subsection. It has the advantage of not setting in stone any present arrangements specifically in the legislation and will allow the universities and institutions involved the freedom to enter into new arrangements. I will not, therefore, accept the amendment.
Is this amendment in order as it is seconded by someone who is not a Member of the House, Senator O'Lee?
While I second the amendment, I hope nobody dropped the "O" in return for £5 in the 18th century.
I understand Senator O'Lee is on leave from a musical on Broadway.
This amendment is in response to concerns expressed in an amendment proposed by Senator Lee. A committee of the governing authority must consist either wholly or partly of members of that governing authority.
This amendment is in response to concerns expressed in an amendment proposed by Senator O'Toole concerning the responsibility of the governing authority as regards the Irish language.
I welcome the inclusion of this provision. A number of teachers are concerned that there should be a carry through into third level education.
This amendment is in response to concerns expressed in an amendment proposed by Senator Ross concerning the responsibility of a governing authority in respecting the "diversity of values, beliefs and traditions in Irish society". I am grateful to the House for the debate on this issue on Committee Stage. I am glad I could response in a positive way.
I am proposing this amendment in response to concerns expressed in an amendment proposed by Senators Norris and Henry regarding the Chancellor of the University of Dublin and the role of the holder of that office in a commission for Trinity College.
I am grateful to the Minister. I thought I had resubmitted the amendment but that does not matter. I understand that the provision is not likely to come into play unless the board fails in its responsibility to produce the Private Act. The chancellor will be pleased that his name is historically present in the legislation.
I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment because to include the chancellor of one university while excluding the other would have been invidious. The chancellor will be extremely pleased that the Minister has recognised this.
I am proposing this amendment in response to concerns expressed in amendments proposed by Senator Lee regarding the membership of the commission for a new university established under section 9.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 22, to delete line 21.
This is an important amendment which I resubmitted as a result of the Minister's reply on Committee Stage. Concerns have been expressed about the implications of her reply. The amendment refers to section 48 and the deletion of the reference therein. It is fair to state that this section is crucial to the willingness of the universities to accept many other provisions in the Bill about which they might have raised further queries.
On Second Stage, the Minister referred to the guidelines and her comments were additional to what was understood previously. She stated that, while they are not mandatory, universities will have to have regard to such guidelines when deciding appointments by statute and may be challenged if it is felt they did not pay due regard to them. As I understand it, this is the first occasion on which the concept of the universities being challenged has been introduced. Challenged by whom? How will the result of such a challenge be determined?
The Minister also stated that the dissemination of good practice should not be limited and guidelines should be universal. I referred to this matter on Committee Stage and I speak as someone who worked in several university institutions. There is great diversity among universities and it is ironic that a Bill which proclaims the advantages of diversity should suggest a narrowing of focus. The term "universal" can be easily mistaken for that of "uniformity".
How can guidelines be identical for institutions with varying capital-labour ratios? For example, institutions can be more or less technologically oriented and the percentages to be spent on staff or equipment ought to vary between those institutions. The concept that guidelines would not take into account the diversity of the type of institutions in which the legislation rejoices seems to run contrary to one of the core values of the legislation. Unity in diversity is a concept on which I hope we agree.
Perhaps, and I hope it is the case, I am imputing an intention which is not present. What do "universal" and "challenge" mean in the provisions? This is an important issue in terms of the extent to which universities will welcome the legislation.
I second the amendment.
When we had this debate on Committee Stage it was late in the evening. When one looks back over one's own words one thinks it might have been easier to remain silent. The Senator proposes that the requirement that a university must have regard to guidelines issued under section 4 be deleted. Section 48 deals with non-binding guidelines which may be issued by the Higher Education Authority related to the number or grades of employees of the university or the proportion of the budget of the university to be applied to the different activities of the university. These guidelines are non-binding and universities are not required to follow them. Nevertheless, it is necessary that a university must have regard to them in performing its important functions in appointing staff. The guidelines will provide a university with an easy mechanism for comparison with practice in the sector generally. This would be without prejudice to the right of an institution to act contrary to guidelines having regard to its particular circumstances.
Should the Higher Education Authority seek to review issues relating to the guidelines it may do so under section 47. Following consultation with the universities it may publish a report on the outcome of such a review. However, the Bill, in making the guidelines non-binding, implies clearly that the Higher Education Authority cannot require the universities to follow the guidelines.
I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. May I take it that whatever "may be challenged" means, it does not allow the Higher Education Authority to override the decision of a university? It may complain, criticise and remonstrate, but it cannot override or reject the university's decision. It can publish its reasons as to why it is unhappy with the decision — the Minister will recall our exchange about Latin tags which was not meant to be facetious but as a positive contribution to enhancing the quality of public debate on these issues. However, "challenge" does not mean that the Higher Education Authority can direct a university to do something about guidelines which are not mandatory. The worst case scenario interpretation of the words the Minister used might have interpreted the guidelines as binding, whatever the difference between "mandatory" and "binding" might be.
In my opinion the heads of the universities were foolish to buy into this, so to speak. I foresee quite an amount of potential aggravation in the future. From a tactical point of view, it may be better to have that aggravation within the framework of the legislation than otherwise. However, I see difficulties in the implementation of this provision. I do not know what the HEA's attitude is on this matter. The Higher Education Authority officials I know do not have a selfimage of omniscience, infallibility or superiority. They realise we are all on a learning curve.
The paragraph in the Minister's otherwise excellent contribution to which I referred, had the Higher Education Authority presiding over and drawing on the unlimited horizons of their comparative wisdom to tell individual institutions what it meant to behave like a university. That is a counterproductive way to approach the improvement of the university system. Such improvement should take place on a discussion and exchange basis.
As long as that counterproductive mindset exists it is contrary to improving the quality of higher education, which is an aim we share. It is a most unfortunate mindset. If "challenge" cannot be implemented as an expression of that mindset, the Minister's clarification is welcome. I foresee difficulties in due course but I imagine neither the Minister nor I will be involved in them.
We cannot have a Committee Stage debate on the amendment but I will allow the Minister to reply briefly.
The section indicates that the university must have regard to the guidelines, but they are not binding. There can be no fine. However, they must make their decisions having regard to the guidelines. They may decide that they will not accept the guidelines and that is quite in order. This is where the term "challenge" arose. It would involve a consideration of whether the university had looked at the guidelines and it could show that it had arrived at its decision having done so. The term "challenge" was used in the sense of being critical in a positive way. A university can reach a decision having had regard to the guidelines. If that decision is contrary to the guidelines there can be no penalties. The early hour of the morning on the last occasion may have led to my not being as eloquent as I might have been.
The Minister was very eloquent. I am grateful for the clarification.
Amendment No. 40 is an alternative to amendment No. 39 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 22, line 50, after "officer" to insert:
", and which statute should provide for tenure of officers".
Government amendment No. 40 seems to meet the case. It is important that we establish the principle of tenure for officers of a university. It seems that the Minister has met that point.
I second the amendment.
I propose that statutes under section 24(6) should provide for the tenure of officers. The thrust of this addresses the Senator's concerns.
Amendment No. 41 has already been discussed with amendment No. 8.
I was not aware it was discussed with amendment No. 8.
I am advised that is the case but I will allow the Senator to make a brief comment.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 23, line 23, after "university" to insert ", and
(c) no person who is a member of the staff of an educational institution which is incorporated into a university pursuant to section 8 of this Act, shall, while in the service of the university, receive less remuneration or be subject to less favourable conditions of service than those to which they were entitled immedately prior to such incorporation".
This amendment seems to me to be rather different to amendment No. 8. The rationale behind it was that if there was a change in the operations of the Bill, people should not be disadvantaged or re-employed at less favourable rates. If the Minister can assure me that this would not happen I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I second amendment No. 41.
Amendment No. 9 provides that employees of educational institutions incorporated into a university, under section 8, can receive no less favourable conditions of service than they had prior to that incorporation. This addresses the concern raised in amendment No. 41.
Amendment No. 42 is a Government amendment. There is a correction to the amendment; subsection (1) should be italicised. There are four amendments to amendment No. 42 and these are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Due to the line difference between the original and printed versions of amendment No. 42, the line references in the four amendments to it are incorrect. The line reference in amendment (i) should read "in line 8"; amendment (ii) should read "in line 10"; amendment (iii) should read "in line 11" and amendment (iv) should read in "line 13". We must decide on the four amendments to the amendment before we decide on the amendment itself. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Perhaps the reference to literacy in the Bill was appropriate after all.
This issue was discussed in detail on Committee Stage. Given the concerns expressed at that stage, I have proposed that a governing authority shall establish procedures for the resolution of disputes other than industrial relations disputes or exam appeals. I consider that this process would be utilised only in exceptional circumstances. Trivial matters should not be dealt with in this way, nor should matters which could be dealt with through a properly functioning personnel or human resources department. Such a department should continue to have the primary role in resolving most issues which would arise.
Furthermore, there are established industrial relations practices in place and these should not be affected by this proposal. The dispute resolution procedures provided for shall be specified in a statute and shall be established following consultation with trade unions and staff associations representing employees of the university and with the students' union or other student representative body. In addition, the procedures will provide for consideration of issues in dispute by an independent person or persons, one of whom, in the case of a constituent university, shall be a nominee of the Chancellor of the National University of Ireland.
The Senators have proposed that "only" be deleted in line 8. I inserted "only" to emphasise the requirement of consultation. However, if the Senators seek its deletion, I will not oppose that. I do not consider that faculties need to be consulted, given that the employees' representatives will be consulted. The final amendment to amendment No. 42 proposes that the independent person would not be a member of the university. The main category of persons excluded by this provision would be graduates of the university. It seems to me that to make this amendment could unnecessarily restrict the pool of people which could be drawn from in setting up procedures. I would, therefore, ask the Senators to reconsider this issue.
I move amendment No. (i) to amendment No. 42:
In line 8, to delete "only".
I thank the Minister for taking on board our concerns on this matter. I do not disagree with anything she said. Her contribution was admirably drafted and articulated and constitutes a major step forward for those of us who had anxieties about this matter. I agree with the Minister that this kind of procedure should only be invoked on rare occasions. It would be a sad reflection on the quality of personnel management and human relations within institutions if this procedure had to be invoked regularly. I agree totally with the Minister's concept of how this kind of procedure should operate.
I thought the inclusion of the word "only" might imply that if the governing authority did not choose to implement consultation, consultation might not occur at all. Perhaps that is an extreme interpretation. Saying "after consultation" does not weaken the prospect of consultation but rather obliges it to take place. We rarely use the word "only" before the phrase "after consultation". The phrase "after consultation" appears in many places in the Bill. I would be grateful if this could be removed as I think it introduces a scintilla of doubt that consultation will take place.
In relation to amendment (ii) the proposed deletion of the word "and" is merely a grammatical consequence of adding in "faculties" in amendment (iii). The reason I propose the insertion of "faculties" is that, as I envisage it, this procedure, in so far as it would be activated at all, would be activated mainly in the resolution of academic disputes and personnel problems in university departments which cannot be resolved through the normal channels or where those are inappropriate. It is important that knowledge of the procedure, the mechanisms of its implementation, its potential and limitations should be as widely diffused as possible. This refers to faculty discussion rather than an industrial relations tribunal atmosphere. It may be possible to tease out issues through faculty discussion. People who may be involved in disputes can learn about this procedure in an atmosphere which would make them receptive to the message. I am not saying that staff associations should be excluded. As I see it, the diffusion of information is simply a practical matter in terms of the operational efficiency of a university. There is no ideology involved in this proposal. The sooner information about this procedure is diffused, the sooner it will become part of peoples' thought processes.
With regard to "members" in amendment (iii), the Minister is correct in saying that its use would prove restrictive. That was a drafting error on my part; I should have used the word "employees". My reasoning in proposing this amendment was very simple. The type of problem which may arise is likely to be one where friends of both parties in the dispute may be scattered among the employees of the institution. I want to ensure that there is no possibility, on the basis of random association within an institution, of parties to a dispute beginning to feel a further grievance because of somebody with whom they may have a gripe, being invoked as an arbitrator in this process. I should have used the word "employees" rather than "members". I suspect it would be extremely difficult to find a visitor who would not be a graduate of the constituent university or of the university system as a whole. I have tabled these amendments from an operational point of view and I am entirely in agreement with, and appreciative of, the Ministerial amendment.
I formally second Senator Lee's amendment to amendment No. 42.
I attempted to have Trinity excluded from the provision regarding the introduction of members of the board. However, the Minister did not accept this. Now she is excluding Trinity College from something that seems to be positive. I have not been briefed by the university on this matter so I do not know their position. However, the mechanism proposed seems useful. Is Trinity College being excluded on the basis that something of this nature may form part of the Private Bill when introduced? A dispute resolution mechanism is very useful and in framing the Private Bill Trinity College should consider the inclusion of such a mechanism. Perhaps it is because of the Private Bill that the Minister is not seeking to apply this valuable machinery to the University of Dublin.
I thank the Minister for coming a long way in meeting the concerns expressed on Tuesday night. It is a big step forward. Trivial matters should be handled within individual departments, something universities, graduates and students will acknowledge.
I accept the deletion of "only". Consultation with faculties is too cumbersome. Regarding the independence of the person, namely, that they not be a member of the university, the word "independent" suggests independence of the institution.
The reason for excluding Trinity College was because of the work of the board of visitors.
I am not sure it performs the full range of functions. The college would be well advised to examine this valuable mechanism when they are framing the Private Bill.
Of course faculties are cumbersome. If the problem was about how cumbersome they are, they would not exist. It would be helpful to achieving the Minister's objective if provision was made for faculties.
I am happy with the Minister's clarification regarding independence. I interpret "independent" to mean independent of the employees of the university. However, that is not clearly stated and others may interpret it differently. It could, for example, be defined as independent of a department in which a problem has arisen. I hope those making decisions will heed the Minister's interpretation of "independent".
Amendment No. 44 is an alternative to No. 43 and both may be discussed together, by agreement.
The provisions for a revised composition of academic councils should address Senator Lee's concerns.
I am finding it difficult, in the context of the large number of amendments I have tabled, to leave the Chamber as the Bill was progressing satisfactorily and rapidly. However, I received a note from my secretary saying the Provost of Trinity College objects strongly to the Minister's amendment to section 26 concerning the academic council. It seems to mean that senior members of staff have responsibility to the chief officer for each academic discipline. Trinity College objects to this provision since it appears to relate to heads of departments. I am not entirely clear on this matter.
In view of what has been said by Senator Norris, it might be judicious to suspend the House for ten minutes as this is an important matter.
That would be very useful.
I have just spoken with the Provost and the difficulty is that section 43(1)(a), if part of the Bill, would mean that because of the inclusion of the word "discipline" Trinity would have 80 heads of department entitled to sit on the academic council. The problem would be solved if the Minister amended the amendment to read "for each academic faculty, or if the governing body so decides, discipline". This would allow governing bodies in other universities to include all disciplines if they so wished. The Minister will appreciate the problems which an academic council of more than 80 members, including ex officio and elected members, would cause. Even Trinity College would find it difficult to cope if every discipline was included.
I would appreciate a suspension of the sitting as there is a further matter on which I wish to consult.
I have an amendment down using the phrase "academic departments" rather than disciplines and I was going to leave debate on the difference between department and discipline until then. This issue raises a chief concern of mine. I do not object to Trinity College looking for whatever suits it. Special provision is made for Trinity College in a variety of ways in the Bill. It is unacceptable that the conventions of a single institution should be used to override what is desirable in the case of other institutions. I hope a phraseology can be arrived at which will allow Trinity whatever it wants but which will not impinge on decisions regarding the requirements of other institutions. Otherwise we will enter a serious situation of potential conflict.
A serious matter has arisen but a resolution is possible. We should adjourn for ten minutes.
There is another matter on which I need to contact the college. It would have been helpful if one of the college officers had attended the debate. A number of others took the opportunity to listen to the debate from the public gallery. Perhaps the college might bear this in mind when matters of this seriousness come before the House in future.
I understand the Minister wishes to withdraw amendment No. 43 and substitute it with amendment No. 43a.
I am grateful for the co-operation of the Minister, her advisers and my distinguished colleague, Senator Henry, who made a telephone call while I was speaking. We managed this by the skin of our teeth but on matters of this seriousness it would be good if the university sent a liaison officer because it is not always possible for us to contact them. If this had not been changed it would have grossly swollen that august body, the board, to about 120 members. Up to 70 or 80 people would have been entitled to be on the board as well as the heads of faculties. At the moment the six deans sit on the board ex officio and we are retaining that position. I am extremely grateful to the Minister, to the Leader of the House for having a sos and to the advisers for helping us to cope with this situation. It was nearly a nasty accident.
I am sure the Minister feels somewhat like the Ceann Comhairle yesterday who said he had to kick himself during the tributes which were being paid to him to check he was still alive. The Minister is getting great praise today because she is being most co-operative, particularly in regard to this amendment. I am extremely grateful to the advisers and the Leader of the House. I went out to telephone about a different amendment to find the one we were about to deal with was the one which was going to cause trouble. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to the Minister and her advisers for their co-operation.
I am also grateful for the flexibility the Minister has shown, although I am approaching it from a different angle. I am withdrawing amendment No. 44 because it now subsumed de facto into the revised phraseology. I had intended to suggest, as a compromise, “discipline or department”. The importance of this issue was clearly signalled early in the Second Stage debate a couple of weeks ago and on Committee Stage. I was under the impression that senior members of the universities were doing nothing but perusing the reports of the debate. I am glad the matter attracted Senator Henry's attention but ample notice was given that something like this would arise during the course of the debate. Those of us who tabled the original amendment cannot accept responsibility for the belated perception of others.
To address Senator Lee's concerns on Committee Stage, I have proposed an amendment which would have the effect of the registrar, as well as the chief officer, having automatic membership of the academic council.
I propose this amendment to address issues raised in relation to Irish in Senator O'Toole's amendment on Committee Stage.
I welcome the insertion of the word "use", the reason for which is clear from this debate. Labhróidh mé as Gaeilge mar níl ach fíor bheagán Gaeilge labhartha againn i rith na díospóireachta cé go bhfuil beagnach gach éinne sa Teach seo brodúil don teanga. Ní bhainim féin leath an úsáid is cóir dom a bhaint as. Ní aithreóidh sé aon rud go bunúsach ach tabhairfidh sé leid go bhfuil fúinn an "use of" a chuir i bhfeidhm chomh fada agus is féidir. Cuirim fáilte roimh an leasú seo.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an leasú seo. Tá sé ag tabhairt cothram na féine do gach éinne. Caithimíd cuimhneamh i gcónaí ar ár dteanga agus ár gcultúr. It is always nice, without ramming it down people's throats, to put our culture and language to the forefront.
Amendment No. 48 is related to amendment No. 47 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
These are drafting amendments, one of which was proposed by Senator Lee on Committee Stage.
This amendment will ensure that vacancies on a governing authority will be filled as soon as possible.
This amendment addresses a number of concerns which were raised on Committee Stage. It ensures there will be no restriction on a member of a governing authority representing at meetings of the governing authority the views of those by whom he or she has been elected. Furthermore, the freedom of expression of members is underpinned.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 37, line 36, to delete "the Chairperson" and substitute "it".
I tabled this amendment on Committee Stage. The Minister will recall that she did not feel able to accept it then because of what she saw as operational difficulties if a meeting needed to be called quickly. I did not envisage my proposal as intruding in any way on the operational efficiency of the governing authority. Any sensible governing authority would delegate to the chairperson the right to call meetings on urgent matters as part of standing orders.
However, the principle of where the authority resides is an important one. In the course of this debate it has become quite clear that, despite the authority which is specifically allocated to presidents, provosts and chief officers, almost all of these operate on the authority of the governing authority. It seems incongruous that the authority to call the governing authority into operation should not reside with the governing authority.
Most of the time that does not matter. However, this can become a tactical or political matter in a case of potential tension or dispute rather than simply an operational one. It should be clearly spelled out in the Bill that the governing authority is the authority, and that anybody else who calls the governing authority is doing so on its authority.
I second the amendment.
Senators Lee and O'Toole are proposing in this amendment that the governing authority rather than the chairperson would decide when governing authority meetings are to be held. I ask them to look at the section in detail. It clearly states the chairperson must convene a meeting when asked to do so by a quorum of governing authority members. Accordingly, the Bill already provides that a governing authority may call meetings. I expect this is what will happen in practice, as the governing authority determines at each meeting when it will next meet.
There is merit in leaving the provision as it stands as it gives flexibility. Should an issue arise three weeks before the next scheduled meeting, for example, there would be no mechanism for arranging a meeting at short notice, except by way of getting a quorum of the governing authority together. By leaving the provision as it stands there is greater flexibility.
What I am proposing does not interfere with the flexibility, de facto. Almost invariably, a governing authority will determine the dates of a meeting at the start of an academic year because 40 very busy people with varying schedules cannot be expected to decide on the date of the next meeting at each meeting. It would be impossible to do that because the entire meeting would be taken up trying to co-ordinate dates.
The governing authority can delegate to the chairperson the right to call a meeting if a matter of urgency, of the type to which the Minister referred, arises. That is different from a number of members of the governing authority requesting a special meeting. They are framed to cover different eventualities. Paragraph 10(2) does not meet the case I have in mind, which is where ultimately the locus of authority resides. While everything the Minister says is correct as far as it goes, it is not excluded in the context of my proposal, which has potential in other directions which the way things stand at present does not allow.
I support Senator Lee.
Senator Quinn, under Standing Orders, as you have already spoken, you cannot speak again. Is the amendment being pressed?
I do not wish to press it but I will do so because the argument is strongly on the side of the proposal.
This amendment provides that should it be subsequently discovered that a member or members of a governing authority are appointed or elected in an incorrect manner, the decisions made by the governing authority while they were members do not become invalid. The purpose of the provision is to safeguard the decisions and deliberations of a governing authority from a challenge of illegality which is technical only.
I welcome the amendment. It is a sensible and prudent provision. We are moving into a new appointments arena with a series of mechanisms to be invoked for constituencies, some of which have never existed previously. It is not inconceivable that something could happen, however inadvertently and especially in the early stages of implementation, which was technically in breach of the elaborate and complex provisions spelt out. Once experience is gained in this area the requirement will not need to invoked. It is wise, therefore, to have it included, because otherwise the entire work of a governing body or authority could be invalidated as a result of an inadvertent oversight.
I support the amendment. It is solely there as a far sighted precaution in case anything goes wrong. It is very worthy.
I am sure Members of the House will wish to join with me in welcoming a delegation of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee of the Finnish Parliament. On behalf of the Members of Seanad Éireann I bid you welcome and hope you enjoy your visit to our shores.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 39, line 31, after "Finance" to insert "except in the case of a university or universities which have a funded pension with appointed trustees, in accordance with existing pension legislation".
I join in the welcome to the distinguished delegation from Finland. They may be interested to know that at the conclusion of business we will be discussing the question of the introduction of genetically engineered material into the agricultural landscape in Ireland, something about which a number of us have concerns and which I know is shared by members of the Finnish Parliament.
That is not relevant to this debate.
It was just a little flourish.
Relevant to pensions for Trinity College?
It could well be, especially since the genetically engineered Higher Education Authority has tried to stick its genetically engineered nose into our pension scheme. I feel strongly about this issue because I am in receipt of a pension.
The Minister indicated on an earlier Stage that the existing arrangements would be untouched and that this would only affect things afterwards. However, I feel strongly that it is important to respect the integrity of the pension scheme. The pension scheme in Trinity College is funded from moneys taken from salaries. I pay into that scheme. The university also pays into the scheme and I suppose it will be argued that the Government at a second remove pays because it may come from the block grant.
However, that is a decision of Trinity College and it is one which the university is autonomously entitled to arrive at. It is always possible that it may decide to fund it exclusively from its investments. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a situation almost impossible to imagine where the Higher Education Authority would intervene and overturn a decision received by the trustees of a pension fund. It seems to me that it is the Department of Finance and the Higher Education Authority wanting to have their little names in print and wanting the power to interfere, which they will never use and where it would be scandalous if they attempted to use it. They just want to flex their muscles.
The purpose of the amendment is to exempt such interference. What expertise has the HEA? Is it composed of actuaries? Are they particularly mathematically qualified? Have they risen through the ranks of the insurance industry in Ireland that they should so presume to interfere? I cannot imagine what expertise they have. Perhaps we are lucky that we do not have a panel of eight county councillors empowered to intervene, but perhaps it is unwise for me to make this suggestion.
The Senator would get a far better picture.
Yes. I am sorry I did not frame the amendment to provide that eight county councillors should have the opportunity. Perhaps I am being slightly light hearted at this point since we seem to be achieving a successful conclusion to the Bill. It is appropriate that the pension fund should be left intact and immune from interference from the HEA, of whose qualifications in this area I am sceptical, and the Department of Finance, which is a notoriously cheese paring and penny pinching arm of Government. As a recipient of a pension I would not like the Department to have too much say over it.
In seconding the amendment, I am thinking of the Minister's mental and physical health, because to draw disputes on oneself is unwise. It would be far better that, rather than have matters capable of going to ministerial level, disputes regarding pensions, many of which arise, should be solved at the level of the trustees of the pension fund. The present proposal could result in a great deal of time being wasted on referring minor disputes which take place within pension funds.
The Fifth Schedule will apply to the superannuation of arrangements of people who are employed by the universities after the passing of the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to provide that where a university has a funded pensions scheme with appointed trustees, the provision of subsection (5) relating to the resolution of disputes would not apply.
It is normal practice that for schemes largely funded by public funds the determination of disputes would be submitted to the relevant State agency, subject to the approval of the Department of Finance. In practice it would be hoped that there would be very few such disputes, given the duties of trustees to comply with the relevant pensions legislation in any case.
I would not favour an option whereby the resolution of disputes for all such schemes would not be subject to the agreement of Minister of Finance or the Minister for Education. The involvement of the Minister for Finance ensures a coordinated approach to the resolution of disputes for all pensions schemes that are funded largely from the public purse. It is of note that over £20 million per annum is provided by the State for superannuation payments in the case of the universities and the total of accumulated funds is over £400 million.
I have been informed by the Higher Education Authority that, for the academic year 1995-6 State expenditure on pension payments to the relevant schemes and pension superannuation, which ensures that those in receipt of pensions get pension increases when pay is increased for employees, was £6.6 million in respect of Trinity College. No private funds were paid by the college for these purposes. This accounts for nearly 15 per cent of State investment in the college for that year.
Despite the extraordinary consensus that the Bill has been improved, there is still principled opposition to it, not because of the "improvements" but because it is a fundamentally retrograde step in the seizure of State control over one of the great facets of Irish life. I do not accept that amendments made on Committee and Report Stages are necessarily an improvement because one cannot improve something that is inherently bad.
The Bill is flawed because of the principles behind it. On balance it gives more control to the Minister and political parties than they had previously. I acknowledge fully that it is better than it was last July when it was published. At that time it was so horrific that it would not have received a safe passage through the House. We should recognise the intention of those who drafted the Bill initially — that the State should have greater control over third level education. They have not got their way because of the numbers in the House. It is a great tribute to the House that it can have such influence and is an example of the Seanad working effectively. I pay tribute to the university Senators who have taken a great deal of trouble and time to improve the Bill immeasurably but at the end of the day it is bad for education and the State. It was initially called Thatcherite by Dr. Garret Fitzgerald who has been quoted so often here and I agree. I always regard Thatcherite as a term of insult.
It always is.
Some of the independence of universities has been removed. The boards of the universities have settled for it. We should not pretend that this Bill is what they wanted or that they drafted or initiated it, an impression being created by certain people. They said that this package is as good as they could hope for. There is a fear that they might get a worse package from a future Government.
There is a threat to academic freedom; of political appointments to boards; of party and ministerial control in university life. I do not regard the improvements as adequate and regard the Bill as flawed.
I do not intend to reopen a Second Stage debate but I cannot allow Senator Ross's comments to go on record without challenge. He, as is his wont in his claim to occupy the high moral ground, referred to his principled opposition to the Bill. Nobody questioned his commitment to principle but those of us who support the Bill are also doing so from a principled position and a position of knowledge of what universities are about, what they might be about, what they should be about and on the basis of great experience of how universities operate. Our support for the Bill, even where we disagree with the Senator, has been equally principled in all aspects. I do not like people selectively choosing to regard their position as principled while casting doubts on the good faith of others. Those who support the Bill feel as passionately about the good of the universities as anybody else.
Senator Ross referred to the Bill as a matter of the State taking over universities. The State has less control. It has given back to universities a great deal more power to manage their affairs than was the case before. The Bill is good for education. The provisions relating to academic freedom are strengthened, not that there has been any great threat to it over the past number of years. Part of the problem in universities is getting people to publish a paper that might excite opposition or to say something that is worthy of controversy. From within, there is little evidence of a threat to freedom and there is no evidence that the Minister sought to threaten this.
The idea of party control of universities is ludicrous. The governing bodies of some colleges in the national universities have been changed in a certain direction, which the House welcomed. The notion that issues within the university are discussed along party lines is a nonsense. Senator Ross did us a great service by setting out many of the issues with a starkness that at least allowed a certain reality when we debated them. His opposition is not based on electoral considerations as he is far too high minded to allow anything like that to enter his thinking. It is based on what he believes is good for universities. However, he is caught in a time warp. He is thinking of universities in the 1920s and he would not have been out of place in this Chamber then when some of his colleagues on the Opposition benches would have been the Earl of Mayo and Sir John Keane.
In a debate in 1925 Labour Senators wanted increased wages for those working on the Shannon scheme. The Earl of Mayo said that he did not know what these chaps were about. He passed by them frequently and saw "happy navvies frying their beef steaks on a shovel". In the same debate, Sir John Keane, Governor of the Bank of Ireland said that he had sympathy for them "but there are inexorable laws of economics that you cannot get away from without ruin to the State". This 1920s mindset was a feature of Senator Ross' contributions. Perhaps the 1920s were a good time to be alive if one was the Earl of Mayo or Governor of the Bank of Ireland. The Bill is honestly trying to meet the needs of universities as we enter a new century. I warmly welcome this fine Bill which will stand the test of time. I compliment the Minister.
Members should refrain from repeating their Second Stage speeches.
I would never have suspected there was an election in the offing, either from the contributions of Senator Ross or the enthusiastic supporters of the county councillors who are members of the electorate of most Members.
Senator Manning is right. The 1920s were a wonderful time although I am shocked to hear of the dietary habits of the labouring classes. I hope that beef steaks are no longer being fried on shovels without at least ascertaining its origin and that it is free of contaminants, BSE or antibiotics.
I am glad that the Bill has passed, though I had been anxious it would not. I took this Bill extremely seriously, as it deserved to be taken. I came home a week early from the US in order to participate in the debate and did everything I could to make sure the debate finished today. Now I can reveal I leave for the Far East on a human rights mission tomorrow, and I would have hated not being able to claim seven or eight amendments that were included in the Bill with the support of my colleagues. Those amendments include all the matters that the Provost, Fellows and board of Trinity College indicated that they required to make the Bill satisfactory. I thank the Minister and her advisers for including those amendments, as we now have everything that Trinity informed us it required. That is important, and it happened in this House. The Dáil failed to have the amendments the universities required accepted, but we have had a considerable number of amendments accepted. If they had not been accepted, Trinity had advised us to pull the Bill down.
We have behaved responsibly, although some sharp things were said. We fought hard and produced a better Bill. Some of us were worried about academic freedom, but this morning the Minister has gone a huge way towards copper-fastening that. Government amendment No. 15 took some of the language of my amendment and strengthened it, though Senator Lee, who seconded it, may not agree. Academic freedom is now protected.
I regret the introduction of members to the board of Trinity College, as it would have been better had this been volitional rather than coerced. However, I am sure that that board will absorb a small number of outside representatives, whom I hope will be of a very high calibre and without a political tinge.
I did not mention one side effect of this Bill as I did not want to arouse any suspicions. The growing power of the Higher Education Authority has been cut back by this Bill. That body was showing a nasty habit of trying to regulate everything. It is now a statutory provision that it cannot go beyond certain powers, and the universities are now freer in practice. I did not say this in the debate as I did not want anyone to say: "That is a pity, let us stick the Higher Education Authority all over the Bill and copperfasten its powers."
A fair amount of hysteria was whipped up, some of which expressed justified concern. I received a small volume of intemperate mail which I ignored. I am glad I saved thousands of envelopes and did not use them to communicate my fears to my constituents. I can now use them to communicate my sense of triumph and achievement on this Bill during the election. I am happy to have won as much as could have been conceded, and the Bill is better for the changes that have been made to it.
There was another matter I intended to raise, which I have forgotten.
Perhaps we should have a sos.
This is what happens when one gets elderly. I was asked yesterday in the bank if I was a senior citizen, and now I understand why.
Nowadays, very large sums of money are contributed to universities by taxpayers, and the universities have to accept a degree of accountability. We feel that accountability is already there, but it has not been increased too dangerously. The Minister accepted an amendment she felt was hypothetical, though I fought hard for it, which shows goodwill on her part. It related to the possibility of the universities becoming self-financing. If that happened, they could float away from the shackles of this Bill.
I welcome the passage of the Bill and the goodwill of the Minister and her advisers. A small number of us were here until 3 a.m. on Wednesday. There was an unattributed remark from a colleague in the newspapers that the Seanad was bored by the waffling of the university Senators, which I doubt. Most of those who would have been bored were not here and the small hard core left here worked extremely hard. The Seanad does not often get credit for the work it does because it is not, as journalists say, "sexy" enough for the newspapers.
Speak for yourself.
Sexy or not, very important work was done here.
I thank the Minister for her patience, endurance and willingness to take the concerns of various universities on board. I also thank her for listening to my contribution. The Bill has been strengthened and I thank fellow Senators for their diligence, hard work and ability to see other points of view.
A very good summing up.
I also thank the Minister. I did not think we would see this day at 3 a.m. on Wednesday. The Minister has come a long way from the original Bill. I was worried about the Dublin Institute of Technology becoming a university, and the Minister took that concern on board. In relation to section 12, which referred to academic freedom, the Minister listened carefully to concerns and I welcome her views.
I was also concerned about visitation, but the Minister considered those areas also. I do not want to go over old ground, but she recognised the role of councillors within the governing body. I am delighted to sit at table any day of the week with councillors because I know their worth. The fact that the Minister increased the number from 38 to 40 to create a balance shows her concern to reflect the views of all of us. It is a good Bill and it will be an excellent Act. I feel very comfortable with it now.
I appreciate all the listening by the Minister's staff engaged during those long, tiring hours last Wednesday morning. My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, who is unable to be with us, also wishes to be associated with the points I have made.
I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
As the only Dublin University Senator to have voted in favour of the Bill on Second Stage, I am delighted everybody is so pleased with it.
The Senator voted in favour of a flawed edition of the Bill. It has since been improved.
Senator Henry without interruption.
Were it not for the votes of Senator Quinn, Senator O'Toole and myself, we would not now be discussing this flawed Bill. I felt it could be improved and I am extremely pleased with the improvements the Minister has made.
I am glad the Minister recognised clearly the diversity between the universities because one of the great assets of our universities is that they are so different and the Bill has gone as far as possible in trying to ensure the recognition of the mission, ethos and tradition of these universities.
Like Senator Ormonde, I am glad that the Dublin Institute of Technology is now in a better position to be recognised as a university through the proper procedures. I took to heart her point that one sees universities of this, that and the other in foreign cities while Irish universities have a special status. I was not anxious that the Dublin Institute of Technology, which deserves to become a university, should become one by amendment.
The Senator is supporting another of my amendments.
It would not have been good enough. I am glad the directors of the institution felt that this was the proper way to proceed.
I look forward to sending the Minister suggestions for nominees to the board of Trinity who are, or are not, tainted by politics. That is obviously why I am wearing my red jacket. If the President does not go abroad, she is a possibility.
The Senator is going for the Presidency now.
Mrs. Justice McGuinness, who put such effort into the forum, is another possibility, as is Senator Ormonde because she has a distinguished academic career. One thing we, within the universities, know is that more emphasis must be put on encouraging children to get into the right discipline in the first place. I am a little anxious about Senator Fitzgerald because, first, one could not snatch him from the NUI and, second, a reading of the history of Trinity College would reveal terrible trouble with a Kerryman called Foley at one stage. Specific parts of the history of Trinity College state "watch Kerrymen" so I might have to be careful about putting him forward.
Trinity College has many distinguished graduates: Christopher Haskins has done so much for Irish industry by promoting the buying of Irish products, Mike Bogdanov is trying to encourage the performing arts in Trinity College and Michael Colgan, who is present. Then there are honorary graduates, such as Hugh Leonard. There are vast numbers of people who would be assets to the board.
As I said on Second Stage, the only thing I worried about was the member of the board who spoke about what the academic minds could do to those from outside. I sincerely hope they will treat gently the first member who is put on the board.
Finally, I have another woman in my sights, the Clerk of the Seanad, Ms Lane, because she is the one who will have to deal with the Private Bill which the Minister so kindly said Trinity College can bring forward to make the changes which will not disrupt the university's charter or statutes. I am most grateful for that. The Minister will be relieved to know that she will not be hearing from me any more; it is, unfortunately, Ms Lane who will be hearing from me from now on.
As I suspect I am the only born Kerryman present, I am not sure I am entitled to speak——
That is a very strong statement.
——in the presence of the Trinity College Senators. Not being yet a pensioner or a tourist from the Far East, I am challenged compared with Senator Norris.
I am glad of the tribute to the Clerk of the Seanad because I would like to thank the officials of the House, not just for what they will do but for what they have done on this Bill, which must have been one of the most traumatic Bills they have had to deal with for a long time. I express my sincere thanks to the staff of the House for the way they have dealt with all the problems and challenges.
I also thank the officials of the Department. I have come to know them better during the passage of this Bill. We are not in a position to relate the full history of the Bill but the original Bill was flawed philosophically. I share Senator Ross's disdain for much of what was before us originally. I do not sustain that degree of disdain because I think the Bill has been improved greatly. It has been improved in this House and it is a better Bill as a result. I thank the Minister for the manner in which she met the legitimate concerns. It is at least partly due to her willingness to consider the proposals from this House that it is a better Bill. I would go so far as to say — I did not think I would ever hear myself saying this — that the fundamental principles of university freedom may have stronger defenders in some parts of the Department of Education than in some parts of universities. My respect for the Department has risen greatly in the course of this debate.
I am a gardener and I have been successful over the years with many plants but I was never able to grow celery.
The Senator should try genetically engineered beet.
Then I was advised to plant the celery seed in ground prepared two years previously. The Minister has prepared the fertile ground to empower the universities of the future. When I discussed this Bill with Senator Henry seven or eight months ago we both wondered why the Minister would grab hold of this nettle. I congratulate her for doing so because it would have been an easy one to avoid and there may have been times in the past few months when it was tempting not to push ahead with it.
On Second Stage I spoke about the need for change. The universities do not recognise the opportunities or challenges which exist or the great need for change in the years ahead. This Bill has given them the opportunity to change.
I take credit on behalf of Seanad Éireann, which is challenged by claims that it is not relevant, that this Bill has been changed and improved since it came into this House and, in spite of what Senator Ross says, this Bill is now welcomed as far as I can see by every university and institute, including the Dublin Institute of Technology.
The Bill has also protected the future of universities which do not yet exist. Senator Kelly spoke of institutions in parts of Europe which were not worthy of being called universities and which had become universities almost be freak chance. This Bill includes a safeguard for the whole university system.
I congratulate the Minister and her team and we, in Seanad Éireann, must also accept congratulations.
I congratulate the Seanad. As the only piece of legislation passed to date, the relevance of what happened in this House has made the content of the Bill all the better. My commitment to move forward in a spirit of consultation and partnership has benefited the education system, but particularly the university sector. That is because Senators were willing to be consulted and to speak as well as allowing me to listen.
I thank the Cathaoirleach and his officials who have worked with us through thick and thin. I particularly thank the Leader of the House and Members of the Government parties, the Leader of the Opposition and the spokespersons on Education for their contributions at different stages of this journey. I did wonder, as Senator Quinn mentioned, why I ever started it but when I start I am not short of breath on the straight. We have galloped in with extraordinary rapidity this morning to conclude a journey that started a long time ago.
Charting our Education Future was the title I gave to the White Paper that I brought to Government. I gave quite a lot of thought to the title. As regards the development of the university and regional technical college sectors, the role of third education and the Higher Education Authority itself, there were indications in the White Paper that we would put in place a structure that would open up any cul-de-sac that existed in the past. That framework for development indicated the need for legislation. We have charted the education future of our young people well. To the university Senators I say it is particularly noteworthy that the Government has worked together with elected politicians who are proud of their political affiliations. We referred to Senator Ross earlier, in his absence, and agreed that his at times strident opposition allowed us to put on the record our differing points of view in a way and in a language that would not antagonise even Senator Ross.
University institutions now have a fine framework for development and their contribution is acknowledged. They have not just accepted the Bill because it is the best they can get; they have conveyed to Senators that they strongly welcome it. I am glad they have been able to do so. It goes back to the work they put in.
I was a gardener but I do not have time to garden now. I am not planning to make the time to do so either, but I will try celery at some stage. I acknowledge the work of the officials of the Department of Education. I say that because some people accused the Bill of coming from Marxist theses. The Bill began with core principles which we laid down. We were then prepared to move on and take on board the recommendations of the NUI to have governing bodies reflect a society that now expects universities to be centre stage in our economic and intellectual development. We will be able to balance the huge investment of the State by allowing universities to retain some autonomy while getting transparency. That is how we started out when the officials went about their business.
I will conclude where the Bill started — with the acceptance of those core principles, the acknowledgement of the officials' work, the work of the universities and of those who remained in the Public Gallery. We have contributed more than a little to education history. We have made an important contribution to the future of Irish education.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.
