Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn for tabling amendments Nos. 32 and 33 and I thank Senator Byrne for his contribution. The amendments seek to amend section 24, which provides for the advisory committee to be in place to advise the chief registration officer on the performance of his or her functions under the Act, as outlined by Senator Byrne. The matter of appointing the ordinary members of the advisory committee is covered by section 24(5). Two persons shall be nominated by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall nominate two others and four members shall be appointed from those nominated by designated institutions of higher education.

Amendment No. 32 proposes to include a requirement for one of the members to be nominated by the student unions of each designated institution. Amendment No. 33 proposes to include a requirement that one member be nominated by student unions of each designated institution and that one member be nominated by trade unions representing staff employed by each designated institution. Under the provisions of the Bill, nominations will be put forward by the designated institutions as they deem appropriate. That is the right way to do it, and Senator Byrne articulated it well. As such, there is scope for the inclusion of persons nominated by student unions and trade unions among those put forward by designated institutions. It might be for each of them to look at what skill set they want, what viewpoint they want and what advocacy group they want in order to ensure that the bases are covered and that they have the required expertise, knowledge and experience.

I understand the Senators’ intent. No one would be opposed to a student or graduate being nominated, as Senator Byrne said, but it is best not to impose limitations on the process. It is important that designated institutions have autonomy in deciding which candidates are best suited for nomination as ordinary members of the advisory committee. I would imagine many will draw from the existing community, whether that is students or staff employed in the university. As I said, I appreciate the motivation behind the proposed amendments. However, I am genuinely satisfied that there is sufficient scope and flexibility in the provisions of the Bill to allow the relevant institutions to nominate the most suitable candidates for membership of the advisory committee. In addition, it will be open to both relevant Ministers - the Minister for housing and the Minister for further education - to make appointments. The provisions of the Bill in this regard are not in any way restrictive. As a result, I do not propose to accept either of the amendments.