Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and the Minister of State for her time. We have three amendments tabled in this section. They all relate to how a student union is defined in the legislation. In the new technological universities structure the development of the academic institutions is going to happen quickly. The early period following their creation will be crucial in setting the practices of how these universities are going to operate for decades to come. It is important the student voice is not only at the centre of these discussions and development but also has statutory protection in how it contributes to the governance of these universities.

These student unions will essentially be new and starting afresh. They will have to learn quickly how to best represent the interests of the student body in the management of their universities. They need to be protected and supported in this developmental process. They will not have the many years of experience present in our current student union cohorts in our universities and that is the spirit in which these amendments have been tabled.

It is crucially important to get the definition of "student union" right from the outset. In every part of the Bill where student representation is mentioned, it is through reference to the university's students union that a role and a voice is given in the governing structure. We have to strike the right balance and ensure a level of equality of status exists between university administrations and the representatives of the students they are educating.

I have said this to the Minister before, but I shall repeat the point. The current definition of student union does not strike this balance. The current definition completely ignores the democratic and representative mandate of student unions from which they derive their authority. Instead, student unions in this Bill are given legitimacy solely by virtue of their recognition by the university. Student unions do not derive their representative functions and authority from recognition by the university. They derive them from regular democratic elections of the student body.

The Bill, as currently drafted, completely ignores this. How can a student union be an equal partner in the governance of a technological university if the only reason it is allowed at the table is because the body which it is meant to be holding to account says it is allowed to be there. These are not solid grounds for a full and equal partnership. We are seeking to change this with amendments Nos. 1 to 3.

Amendment No. 1 is a redraft of the amendment we submitted on Committee Stage. It incorporates feedback we received from the Minister of State and Senators in that debate. It acknowledges the representative functions of the union and recognises the mandate the union receives from democratic elections. It clearly defines the union as a body that promotes the interests of students, as distinct from solely being a service provider of education and welfare services. It also allows for the university to play a part through recognition. The current definition would allow for either or both undergraduate or postgraduate unions to be recognised as long as they were elected and representative bodies. The Minister of State mentioned this issue on Committee Stage. It is a good strong definition of the union and a massive improvement over what is currently there. I hope the Minister of State can accept it.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are variations on the theme, if amendment No. 1 is not accepted or passed. Amendment No. 2 removes the ability of another representative student body to be treated as a student union by a university. This amendment simply seeks to guard against a worst case scenario. I refer to a situation where the relationship between the union and the university is starting to break down over a contentious issue and the university administration decides to treat another, nominally, representative body as its student partner and shut out the democratically mandated union from the process. I am not saying this situation is likely but just that it is possible under the current definition. Most student unions and their universities have a great relationship. I certainly did when I was the Trinity College student union president. However, we do not legislate solely for rosy scenarios. We make sure legislation is future-proofed against every possible development that could potentially occur.The conflict that emerged last summer between Dublin Institute of Technology and its student union over a threat to withdraw funding is exactly the sort of scenario we are trying to safeguard against. That is why we are proposing amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 3 is the mildest of the three in this section. It has been very deliberately phrased in response to the statements of the Minister of State on Committee Stage. The Minister of State said we cannot change the definition of "student union" in this legislation because it would then not be in line with the definition in the Universities Act 1997. I do not accept that this is the case. The section of the Bill to which the Minister of State referred was not even a definition of "student union" but actually referred to setting out student representation on university governing boards.

Even if we ignore that, the definition that the Minister of State read into the Seanad record was "students of the university who are elected officers of the Students Union or other student representative body in the university recognised by the governing authority". While that definition largely mirrors the definition in this Bill, a critical part is being excluded. There is a part in the Universities Act that refers to "elected officers" of the student union. At every single opportunity, the Minister of State has rejected calls to alter the definition in the Bill because of the definition set out in the Universities Act, yet she has not included any reference to an elected mandate of the student union in the current Bill.

Therefore, what we are trying to do in amendment No. 3 is agree with the Minister of State. If she says we cannot alter the definition beyond what is in the Universities Act, which I do not accept, we must include every aspect of the 1997 definition, a definition that refers clearly to the elected mandate of a student union. A student union does not derive its legitimacy from recognition by a university; it derives it from student democracy and regular elections. The Universities Act recognises this.

Since the Minister of State is so set on that legislation being the model we must follow, I cannot possibly see how she could not accept amendment No. 3 — the mildest option on the table. It would simply allow for a reference to this democratic mandate, as in the Universities Act, and allow for the correct balance of power to exist between a student union and the technological university. This is a small, but crucial, change the student unions around the country are clamouring for. The Government should show them that it is listening to their concerns. I really hope the amendment will be accepted. If not, it will illustrate that the Minister of State did not come into the Seanad ready to engage with us on this Bill and is willingly open to contradicting herself just so we do not have to send the Bill back to the Dáil. That is really not good enough. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.