David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I greatly welcome the inadequacy of the Minister of State's response. I found it immensely flattering that she referred to me as the Minister. If I were, the amendment would be instantly accepted. I will not delay the House on this matter, although I will call a vote on the amendment. A number of matters arise. The Minister of State said the Bill did not purport to establish the ethos of a technological university. Of course, it does not purport to do so. That is the reason I am seeking to do so in my amendment. It is very important to understand the principles on which universities work. This should be the foundation of any legislation governing technological universities or universities of any description. Members of the public are entitled to know the ethos of the institution their children will attend.

The Minister of State argued that each technological university should be autonomous. Of course, they should be and we all respect academic freedom, but I remind her that I had an amendment to universities legislation passed which underpinned academic freedom. It inserted a large new section in legislation and was so successful it was adopted word for word by several Scandinavian countries in their universities legislation. There is no conflict between allowing autonomy, academic freedom and intellectual licence for a university, while also establishing an ethos.

In addition, I cannot imagine a technological university that would turn its face against an ethos that included entrepreneurial elements, education and research and acknowledged, as a fundamental moral and intellectual foundation for the teaching and research practice, an ethos that supported creativity, autonomy, intellectual inquiry, innovation and engaged citizenship. I note the letter "d" is missing from the end of the word "engage" in the text. That is a spelling mistake. Is the Minister of State aware of any technological university that would not adhere to these principles in practice? If this were to be provided for in legislation and a divergence from these principles were to occur, it would be necessary to resolve the matter.

I take as granted the independent status of a technological university. The Minister of State indicated that the ethos was not to be set out but was to be established independently. What technological university would wish to dissociate itself from the principles I have set out in the amendment? Would a technological university be against creativity? I cannot imagine any university setting its face against creativity. Autonomy, the very issue of which the Minister spoke, is provided for in the amendment. I taught for 30 years in Trinity College Dublin and intellectual inquiry, as provided for in the amendment, was what the university was all about, particularly on the research side. Innovation, also provided for in the amendment, is what we want from universities and the reason they are part of the intellectual lifeblood of the country. Likewise, surely we all want engaged citizenship.

As I stated, I am grateful to the Minister of State for the complete inadequacy of her reply. Having accepted her words and altered the amendment we tabled on Committee Stage, including by providing for the suggestions she had made, her continued rejection of the amendment will make perfectly obvious that she has received instructions not to accept any amendment in the Seanad. That is an abrogation of the responsibility and role of Seanad Éireann in the world of parliamentary politics. That is all I have to say on the amendment which I will press to a vote and I hope I will receive the support of my colleagues.