Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will also endeavour to be co-operative. I will provide the House with a note on the issue of students' unions. I believe we all accept each other's bona fides on this matter. The intention is not to be exclusionary but to be inclusive and to provide for students to be consulted regardless of the scenario. I will provide a note on that in advance of Report Stage in the interests of being brief on the matter.

I will work my way through the amendments because there is quite a lot in this grouping. In fairness, Senator Hoey asked a valid question as to why the hell we do not just define "students' union". It is a question I have asked myself. We have worked with the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, on this matter and have had lots of discussions about it. On the face of it, it seemed terribly straightforward to me that we should put a definition of "students' union" into the Bill. Of course, it was not as straightforward as I thought. I will share with the House the rationale behind not defining "students' union" and what we propose to do as an alternative. We discussed this in the Dáil as well and I have engaged with the USI on it.

We also sought legal advice from the Attorney General's office as to how to set about this. While legal advice is always privileged, I will share the thrust of the advice with the House. We were advised that, in this legislation, the role of the students' union is limited to a consultative role. That consultative role is set out in sections 34(2), 61(4), 62(4) and 126(2). The references to students' unions all relate to circumstances in which the HEA or others must consult with them. The legal view is that, if we defined "students' union" in the context of that consultative role in the legislation, we could inadvertently reduce the scope of what is intended by a students' union. We were also advised that there is a great degree of variation between students' unions and bodies across the higher education sector and that a prescriptive provision could lead to an inadvertent exclusion of some students' unions or bodies from the right to be consulted. We were also told that, as has previously been pointed out, there is a definition of "student union” in the Universities Act 1997 and in the Technological Universities Act 2018. As I made the point earlier, the sectoral legislation carries forward with this legislation. Sections 94 and 105 of the Bill also insert mirror definitions of the section 2(1) definition of “student union” into the Institutes of Technology Acts 1992 to 2006 and the National College of Art and Design Act 1971. Any change to the definition of "student union" could result in a different scope from that of the broader definition in the Universities Act 1997 and in the Technological Universities Act 2018. I am sorry if that is a bit technical but at least it will now be on the record for all of us to consume and look over between now and Report Stage.

I encourage Senators to scrutinise and engage on this matter before Report Stage but I have written to the USI on it. I believe it has published the letter I sent, which I am very happy for it to do. I have talked about how we can use section 143 of this Bill, which relates to the powers of the HEA in respect of policies, codes and guidelines, with regard to student partnerships. That is badly needed. I am, quite frankly, not happy with how students' unions have been treated in certain universities. I have heard from the presidents of students' unions on that in recent weeks. I am sure this is an issue that will be returned to. Students' unions are democratically elected by students. They are autonomous and independent. Their funding needs to be protected. I believe we have a shared view on that. It is just a question of how best to go about doing it in this legislation. That is my response to amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

On amendment No. 47, in the first instance, I do not believe this is the right place to put it. That is a technical point but I do not intend to revisit this issue. I already made a decision, after consultation with the USI and compelling arguments from students' unions, to increase the number of student representatives on governing boards in comparison with what was previously envisaged in this legislation. That was the right thing to do and will mean that, in most cases, the proportion of the total membership of governing bodies who are student representatives will increase under this legislation. You have to be big enough to admit when you were wrong and I believe the idea of having two such representatives was wrong. Increasing that number was the right thing to do.

I just cannot accept amendments Nos. 184 and 185 in the name of Senators Norris and Boyhan. It is again slightly technical. It is proposed to remove the word “Notwithstanding” from section 43(1) and to put in “In support of” or “Building on”. This section relates to the HEA engaging with students' unions. The word "Notwithstanding” is a reference to something we all talk a lot about in this House, that is, recognising the autonomy of the institution. The primary point of engagement should be between the students' union and the institution.We are saying that, notwithstanding that being the main engagement point, there will be other occasions where the HEA should engage with student unions. The word "notwithstanding", read in isolation, can look like we are trying to exclude something, but it is almost like trying to say "in addition to".