Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are hoping for an honest response from the Minister of State in which she engages with our proposals. I imagine how any of us is dressed has little to do with that.

I will not reiterate the points Senator Ruane made; they are very detailed arguments. It is clear that we have been listening to the Minister of State. We are not interested in coming in here simply to score political points or to create difficulty. This House has a legislative remit. All legislation passes through two Houses and all legislation should be responsive to amendments from both Houses. We are trying to ensure that this legalisation is fit for purpose and is a collective project.

We have listened to the Minister of State. The amendments we have proposed today are not the original amendments we put forward. They may have been what we wanted, but we have listened to the Minister of State's words, "elected by". That is what we are putting into it. What she said was in the Bill is not in the Bill. It is in the Universities Act. The third amendment, in particular, is literally an echoing of the Minister of State's own wording on the record as well as what is in the Universities Act. We could not be clearer or more reasonable in the phrasing that we have proposed.

Of course, we would like to do other things. There is a key point in terms of the interpretation of whether we move forwards or backwards. I do not accept that we cannot move forward from the Universities Act because, of course, that Act - we will come to this later - was introduced before the Bologna Process, which is a pan-European process on the improvement of standards and student participation in university life, a process Ireland has signed up to. There is an entire subsequent process that we engaged with after the Universities Act was passed, which was meant to be about increasing and strengthening student participation.

We should be moving forward, but if we are not moving forward, we certainly cannot afford to move backwards. As currently worded, it would be a backwards move whereas we propose that basic provision of "elected by". We are no longer attempting to remove the recognition of the university. Of course they have their governance constraints and they need to recognise that. We are trying to ensure there is also a clear electoral mandate. I think it is very straightforward. It would send an extremely poor signal if we not only roll back from the Universities Act, but also roll back from the Minister of State's own statements on the record when we last debated the Bill in this House.

We have talked about legislating for the best-case or worst-case scenario. Amendment No. 2 deals with scenarios where there is a dispute and tension may arise. This is not to say that there is tension. Most of us recognise that there are in many cases a compatibility of interest and a benefit to good governance from engagement between students and a university authority. However, amendment No. 2 seeks to provide for a worst-case scenario. Will the Minister of State support amendment No. 2? If not, how does she envisage the worst-case scenario playing out? Does she envisage herself or others, who would be in the role of Minister, engaging or intervening if a governing authority sought to put in place a substitute representative body and no longer recognised a students union? What might we expect? Of course, we need to anticipate those scenarios. I believe we should anticipate them in a protective and constructive way through good legislation and good governance. However, if that is not to be our approach, what will the approach be?

We can move through these amendments. Ideally we would like to be able to finish it today. The Bill returning to the Dáil is not a disaster; it would take half an hour or three quarters of an hour for the Dáil to formally accept the Seanad amendments. When there is a good-faith amendment that is carefully worded and accurate, and reflects the Minister of State's own argument, she should have the grace to accept it so that we can move forwards and get the Bill fully implemented, which is what most of us want.