David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I assume she has no intention of reintroducing it on Report Stage. It would be complete nonsense to exclude the Honorable Society of King's Inns and the Law Society, which are the two premier educational establishments for the legal profession. I was going to say I doubt the Senator read the amendment before she submitted it but I am sure she had. It is possible she did not realise the repercussions of it. It would be a nonsense and I am glad she will not move it.

Subsection (4) of the new section 45A, which will be inserted in the 1961 Act by section 33(4), on the definition of "legal academic", states:

Without prejudice to subsection (5), in this section ‘legal academic’ means a permanent member of the academic staff of an educational establishment who—

(a) teaches one or more subjects in the field of law, or

(b) carries out, or supervises the carrying out, of research in one or more such subjects,

whether or not in conjunction with the carrying on by him or her of administrative duties relevant to that teaching, research or supervision.

The lines (a) and (b) are separated by the word "or", which implies there is a natural division. It also implies one could carry out or supervise the carrying-out of research in one or more subjects without teaching. I have never come across this, and I taught in the University of Dublin, Trinity College, for 30 years. I never came across a situation where a permanent member of the academic staff simply carried out or supervised research. I put it to the Minister that the criteria are clearly separated, which suggests an academic could do nothing other than supervise research, but that is simply not the practical situation. I ask him, therefore, to reconsider that provision.

It also seems the final two lines are redundant because they state, "whether or not in conjunction with the carrying on by him or her of administrative duties relevant to that teaching, research or supervision". Who raised this? Why should it be there at all? Nobody is talking about it, and I do not see why the carrying-on of administrative duties should be referred to at all. It can just be left out. If it states "whether or not", that means we will ignore it and have nothing to do with this administrative stuff. Why then is it inserted at all? I do not see the reason for it.