Dr. Brian Gormley:

The concept of what is mandatory is challenging from the perspective of a manager in a university when considering things such as orientation. Mandatory means that a student will not graduate unless he or she completes this programme. I do not think that is what we are seeking. We can put it into orientation, which we say is required, but if a student misses orientation, as happens, he or she can still progress. If it becomes a cultural norm within the institution, then it can reach more than 90% or 95% of students. The most effective way to ensure that we get the vast majority of the students is to incorporate it into an orientation programme. If we try and insert it in the academic programme, there are significant challenges because our first year engineering students, and our apprenticeship students, are timetabled for 35 hours a week. If we get it into the orientation, we can reach the vast majority of students. There is real value in the voluntary programmes like the SMART consent programmes. There is an element of preaching to the converted, because people who go to a voluntary programme are people who are supportive of these ideas, but they are also generally the student leaders, the opinion formers on campus and the people who can call out behaviour that they see and highlight inappropriate behaviour and bring it to our attention. "Mandatory" is an unusual word in higher education. Much as one would think we can set it down, sometimes we cannot.

I thank the committee for its support of Technological University Dublin. We are working with our colleagues in Blanchardstown and Tallaght and everyone is supportive of incorporating consent classes into orientation next year.

Senator Gallagher asked if there will be a drop in reported sexual assaults. I think there will be an increase in reported sexual assaults due to the increased awareness and willingness of students to call out unacceptable behaviour. Students are more likely to recognise that something that happened to them should not have happened. They will be more willing to report it. According to our counselling service, over a five-year period, there were five or six reported rapes or attempted rapes each year, some on campus and some off campus. We are not aware that any of those have been reported. They were dealt with by the counselling service and it supported the students but they did not progress to the gardaí or the university authorities. The feedback from the students was that alcohol was involved and they were not aware if consent was given. I could go on about alcohol. The students in question were also conscious that if they reported it, they were not comfortable that they would be treated fairly and the process of reporting it may be more challenging for them and would make the situation worse. That is an area we must work seriously on.

Deputy Catherine Martin asked about the standardised approach to dealing with complaints. That would be valuable.

Speaking on behalf of all my colleagues in student affairs across the higher education sector, because we are all struggling with this and trying to deal with it, it would be quite challenging for some of the smaller institutions to get legal advice on a framework that would assist in dealing with these complaints. The sector has previously dealt with alcohol sponsorship on campus, etc., through a sectoral approach, and this framework has been very helpful. Even though it may not be stipulated that one must go down that route, the fact that it is recommended as good practice means that, very quickly, one must implement such practice and it then becomes the norm. Such a framework would be very helpful to us.

As to whether consent should be taught earlier or at secondary level, it absolutely should be incorporated in that regard. However, this would not remove the onus from third-level institutions to continue with consent classes because we must set the culture, ethos and values in higher education.

I have probably spoken enough so I will give colleagues a chance.