Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There is quite a bit to mull over in this series of amendments. I will start with Senator Mullen’s acknowledgment that the placing of the Bill is not the substantive issue. I see what he is trying to do here and he eloquently outlined it.

To add to Senator’s Craughwell’s point, we had a discussion in the Dáil on the need for greater transparency around funding sources, etc.That is probably something we can all agree on; I certainly hope so. How we achieve this is the interesting part of the discussion in many ways. One element of the Bill that has been somewhat criticised in this House is the ability of the HSE to set codes, guidelines and the like. This is a useful area in which such guidelines and codes could be drawn up in respect of interactions with others abroad, transparency around that, and respecting freedom and autonomy. It is possible to respect freedom and autonomy and still have full transparency. I am not unsympathetic to the argument. I still have an open mind on whether that is enunciated in the legislation, or in the provisions for codes and guidelines in that legislation.

I will make two other points. It is not to be argumentative but I am not sure the equality statement is the right place to put this. That could have an unintended effect. The equality statement should stand alone. I am not suggesting this is anyone's motive at all, but the suggestion there can be a dissent from equality because of academic freedom for students is not the right place to insert this, to take the broader point the Senator made. The other point, which is more of an observation, is the amendment as drafted very much refers to academic freedom of students. In the legislation generally - and my colleague, Senator Dolan, referenced academic freedom - we are referring to academic freedom of staff. That is a different point but I will highlight it.

I am happy to engage with the Senator on this. I am not giving an assurance in the House that I will bring forward an amendment or support an amendment on Report Stage, but important issues have been raised about how our institutions are fully independent, autonomous and free. How there is transparency regarding sources of funding and relationships that come from outside the Exchequer is an area worth exploring.

On Senator Higgins's amendment and Senator Ruane's discussion of it, this is an area I am genuinely happy to discuss with them. I am not in a position to accept the amendments but not for what I hope they will not see as bad motives. I am teasing these issues through with the drafters of the legislation, and with my officials and team. Taking the amendments in order, amendment No. 3 references the Equal Status Act. I fully subscribe to supporting the Act. The Equal Status Act, by its very nature, can and must be applicable to all citizens at various stages. Any one of us can find ourselves discriminated against on any one of the grounds outlined in the Equal Status Act. What we are trying to do in this section, and perhaps the Senators think we are not doing it right, is call out particular under-represented groups and particular priority groups. That is what we are trying to achieve. Not every ground under the Equal Status Act is necessarily under-represented in higher education whereas there are some quite specific groups that are under-represented but might not be explicitly covered by the Equal Status Act. I am happy to engage further with Senators regarding that.

On the issue of "and social classes" in amendment No. 4, again, I see what the Senator is trying to do. I am struggling to work out how we even define social classes. If we put this into the legislation, what is the added benefit of the wording?