Private Business The Trinity College, Dublin and the University of Dublin (Charters and Letters Patent Amendment) Bill, 1997: Report Stage. 18th April, 2000 An Cathaoirleach: As private Bills are not a very frequent occurrence in the House, before we commence Report Stage I would like to point out a procedural matter to Members. In accordance with Standing Order 117 of the Standing Orders relative to private business, the Leas-Chathaoirleach has a supervisory role in relation to the proceedings on the Bill and he is not in charge of the Bill in the accepted sense of, say, a Minister in respect of a public Bill. I would also like to remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded. Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Senator Dardis. Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.   Mr. Dardis: I move amendment No. 1:   In page 3, lines 8 and 9, to delete "AND THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN ARE" and substitute "IS".   I note the Cathaoirleach's comments regarding the Leas-Chathaoirleach in this matter. I do not expect the Leas-Chathaoirleach to have to respond to the points I intend to raise.   Mr. Manning: On a point of order, is there any way we can put a stop to the noise coming from the building site next door?   An Cathaoirleach: We will send a message to the effect that the noise should cease.   Mr. Dardis: As a farmer, I am prepared to endure this type of intrusion.   Mr. Mooney: Is the Senator a rich farmer?   Mr. Dardis: No, I am a Kildare farmer. At the outset I wish to commend the work of the relevant committee under the chairmanship of Senator Manning. I am aware that the committee had a difficult and onerous task and that it fulfilled its responsibilities extremely well. The committee met for 17 hours in total and produced a report when its deliberations had concluded. That fact indicates the contrast between this legislation and the previous private Bill brought before us, the Altamont Bill, which dealt with matters involving the family of Jeremy Altamont. The latter was straightforward legislation with cross-party support in the House which was passed in a short period. However, the Trinity College, Dublin and the University of Dublin (Charters and Letters Patent Amendment) Bill, 1997, is far more contentious and it is for this reason that amendments have been tabled. I will comment on the reasoning behind those amendments later. My record and that of my party in respect of this matter stands up to scrutiny. In 1995 my party tabled a motion to the following effect: "That Seanad Éireann rejects any attempt by the Government and the Minister for Education to interfere with the governance and charter of Trinity College, Dublin, or to weaken the autonomy of the colleges of the National University of Ireland." The motion was supported by the Fianna Fáil Party which was then in Opposition. The genesis of this matter dates back to an attempt by the then Labour Minister for Education to intrude in an area in which, in my view, it was improper to intrude, namely, to impose a certain structure upon Trinity College and the University of Dublin. In my opinion that should not have been done and the college should have been allowed to continue to operate autonomously.   Mr. Norris: Has the Senator inquired about the college's views on this matter?   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will have an opportunity to make a contribution later.   Mr. Dardis: The college was asked to give its views in the form of a ballot and I will deal with that matter presently.   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Dardis should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Dardis: The genesis of this matter lies with the Universities Bill introduced by the former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, which my party opposed. It is worth noting that the committee has a quasi-judicial role - a fact highlighted by Senator Manning in his opening remarks to the committee - and that it took evidence under oath. At the time Senator Manning, by virtue of his chairmanship of the committee, was constrained in what he might say. He is now less constrained and I look forward to hearing his comments on this matter. It is also worthy of note that when the joint committee reported on 1 March 2000 it stated:   The Committee further reports that it would however caution that the references to the University of Dublin in the Bill be examined further.   An examination of the record of committee meetings shows that this point was made on several occasions, particularly by Deputy Roche. He said that certain issues which were causing difficulty could be discussed in more detail when the Bill came before the House. That is what we will do today. We must keep that caution in mind. It is interesting that Mr. O'Reilly, who presented the Bill on behalf of Trinity College, said in his opening remarks that the preamble to the Bill must be in accordance with Standing Orders. It is our contention that the Bill is not in accordance with Standing Orders and that the references to the University of Dublin should be deleted. The role of the visitors has been discussed in much detail. The promoters of the Bill contended that the visitors thought that the first ballot on this issue - two took place - had been conducted fairly but that it had to be conducted again, or words to that effect. A second ballot was held. The relevant issue is the Standing Order of the House, not the opinion of the visitors, by virtue of the fact that the Bill is before the House. In the first ballot there was a 67% majority in favour and in the second there was a 73% majority. That falls short of the requirement for a 75% majority under the Standing Orders. Not voting was equivalent to a no vote. Judge Hardiman, who was then a barrister, when making a point on the Bill on behalf of the petitioner, said that it could best be dealt with by a public or hybrid Bill rather than a private Bill. The other relevant issue is the relationship between Trinity College and the University of Dublin. In evidence to the committee on Tuesday, 6 July 1999, Dr. Mitchell, when asked if the University of Dublin was the same as Trinity College, said, "It is a separate entity." If that statement is true, references to the University of Dublin need to be deleted from the Bill. They do not fulfil the requirement imposed upon us. There is also the issue of how these ballots were conducted and the conduct of the returning officer with regard to the ballots. I understand that ballots were opened before the due date and that contacts were made with people to encourage them to vote in a particular way.   Mr. Ross: Politicians would never do that.   Mr. Dardis: One would expect that standards in a university would be sufficiently high-----   Mr. Ross: No canvassing and no opinions allowed?   Mr. Dardis: -----not to raise questions of this nature. The college secured a waiver of the 75% rule without reference to the opponents of the Bill. The details of how this was accomplished are unclear. The 75% rule applied when the Bill was launched and reducing that requirement to suit the promoters of the Bill was a blow to the objectors. As I understand it, the returning officer e-mailed some of the scholar non-respondents seeking their support for the Bill and this showed the true state of college opinion on the Bill. He stated: "At the moment we are a good few short of a majority of the body corporate assenting." This poses several questions. Why did the college, at approximately the same time it published in a document circulated to non-assenting voters that it did not have a majority, inform Members of the Oireachtas that it had a majority? Why did it allow parliamentary notices to be placed in Iris Oifigiúil and the national press which contradicted its knowledge of the state of the ballot and which were based on opening ballot papers before the close of polling? I am not aware of any apology or explanation in relation to the issue. As the 75% requirement was not met and the University of Dublin was not consulted about this matter, therefore it could not be a promoter of the Bill. It is significant that at the end of its proceedings the committee decided to award costs to the petitioner. I cannot recall a case similar to this. The committee said that the conduct of this whole exercise was outrageous. That was the effect of the awarding of costs. I referred to the publication in Iris Oifigiúil and the fact that the university never met. How could it make a decision on the Bill if it was not consulted? This is an example of malpractice, arrogance, ineptitude and incompetence. I submit that if this were an Oireachtas Bill it would be withdrawn. I cannot imagine an Oireachtas Bill being allowed through if it were conducted in this nature. There is the question of what has changed since 1995 When speaking during a committee meeting on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 Deputy O'Malley stated:   Amendments had to be made because of the defects, to use a neutral word, in the Bill put forward by the promoter. In particular, the fact that the University of Dublin was not consulted about this matter and that this was known to the promoter and witnesses but it was only very late in the day that it became apparent to the committee is something that should be taken into account.   The committee did take it into account. He further states:   The malpractices include the returning officer in a ballot improperly opening ballots and examining them before the close of the poll and then improperly making representations to voters to vote in a particular way. That would be anathema to the conduct of a normal election in any democratic society [referring to Senator Ross's point] and would cause an election held under those circumstances to be declared invalid. If the petitioner objects to that, I do not see why he should be penalised [this comes to the question of costs].   He also stated:   Going back to the ballot which clearly did not comply with Standing Orders, it did not comply with natural justice or normal democratic rules. The Visitors found against Trinity in spite of the way attempts were made to put a spin on that. They told Trinity to have a second ballot, which it did. It still was not able to comply with the requirements in that ballot but it pressed on.   The Bill falls short of that particular standard under the relevant Standing Order. One committee member described it as similar to 17 hours of pulling teeth. It is obvious that evidence changed during the course of the 17 hours. Senator Manning could speak about this because he chaired the meetings. It is also significant that Deputy Roche, in the minutes of the meeting of Wednesday, 1 March 2000, said: "Any further amendment on the University of Dublin Bill would be more comprehensively made when the Bill comes before the Seanad and the Dáil and then comes back formally to this committee." The contention is that this is the forum where these amendments should be made. There are a number of different issues which are related and relevant, but I suspect, Sir, if I elaborate on them you will pull me up and tell me to behave. The question is who wants to end the autonomy of the universities? I, for one, do not. If this were an Oireachtas Bill it would not have got to the floor of this House because it would have been seen to be defective and would have been sent back to be redrafted or reconsidered. The whole question is scandalous. There is every possibility that some of these issues will wind up in the courts. It would be prudent for us to ensure that the standards required of Bills are maintained, whether they be private or public. For those reasons I will press the amendments. We are seeking to amend the Bill, not to defeat it, because we realise the necessity for it. The Fianna Fáil Party supported us on this issue in 1995.   Mr. Manning: It is a different issue.   Mr. Dardis: This is a private Bill and it is open to people to vote on a private Bill as they wish.   Mr. Manning: What the Senator has done is disgraceful.   Mr. Dardis: The party standard does not apply.   Mr. Manning: The Senator knows it is disgraceful.   Mr. Dardis: Senator Manning should note that his colleague, Senator Coogan, supported Deputy O'Malley in the divisions on Committee Stage.   Mr. Manning: Of course he did. It was a free vote. There was no whip.   Mr. Dardis: There is no whip within the Progressive Democrats.   Mr. Manning: That is not true.   Mr. Dardis: It is true.   Mr. Manning: Is the Senator saying there is a free vote?   Mr. Dardis: Yes. I have told everybody - it can be confirmed by Senator Ormonde - that it is for each Member to decide how to vote. If the standards applied to this House were applied to this Bill it would not pass, let alone be amended. It would have to be reconsidered.   Ms Keogh: I second the amendment. I was involved in the debate on the Universities Bill when it was presented to the other House and I support the initiation of this private Bill. I support my colleague's concerns about the propriety of the Bill and the need to ensure that standards are maintained. I also confirm what Senator Dardis said. He is a truthful man. There is a free vote and it is unworthy of any Member on the opposite benches to question the veracity of the Senator's statement in that regard.   Mr. Manning: If Senator Dardis says that there is no whip and that Deputy O'Malley did not approach the Chief Whip, Deputy Séamus Brennan, to seek support from Fianna Fáil and if Fianna Fáil has been told there is a free vote, I withdraw everything. However, my information is different. It is to the effect that Fianna Fáil Senators were told to vote today with the Progressive Democrats-----   Mr. Norris: Hear, hear.   Mr. Manning: -----and that this was part of partnership Government. If Senator Dardis says that is not true, I withdraw it.   Mr. Dardis: On a point of order-----   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Dardis on a point of order.   Mr. Dardis: I am saying what I have knowledge of with regard to my own position on this matter. My position is that the members of both my party and Fianna Fáil have a free vote on this issue. I said that yesterday to Senator Ormonde.   Mr. Manning: I will not spend too long on this because we will see what happens when the time comes, but I am strongly and reliably informed that Fianna Fáil Senators were instructed today to vote with the Progressive Democrats, that this was a done deal and that Deputy O'Malley had approached the Chief Whip, Deputy Séamus Brennan. Perhaps Senator Dardis was not told. If so, that is very unworthy.   Mr. Norris: Some Fianna Fáil Senators are nodding so it appears that there was an agreement between the Chief Whip, the Progressive Democrats and other Fianna Fáil Party members.   An Cathaoirleach: We must proceed without interruption.   Mr. Manning: I am told there will not be a whipped vote. The idea of a whipped vote on a private Bill is outrageous. We deliberated on this Bill for 17 hours and people voted according to their best lights. They voted across party lines and party considerations did not feature. If Senator Dardis says he has not asked for or has no awareness of any instructions and Fianna Fáil Members have not been asked to vote in a certain way, I accept his word without reservation. I have always known him to be a truthful person and I accept what he has to say. However, it was not the information I was given.   Mr. Norris: Let the record show that Fianna Fáil Members are nodding their heads.   Mr. Dardis: I am telling the Senator what I did.   Mr. Manning: There is a difference. Mr. Norris: What about Senator Dardis's party?   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris must cease interrupting.   Mr. Manning: I will leave it at that. I chaired this committee and it was a long and bruising experience. I thank my colleagues on the committee, especially my three colleagues in this House, Senators Ormonde, Coogan and Liam Fitzgerald. The committee required total and full attendance. It was judicial and members could not miss meetings. They had to listen to a great deal of learned and sometimes obscure argument from the various senior counsel, all of whom had meters running while they were speaking, while the rest of us were forgoing time for other public work in which we could have been better involved. It was a great sacrifice on the part of all concerned. I thank them for the care and attention they gave. We did our best, although none of us had any interest going into the Bill. Much has been said by Deputy O'Malley and Senator Dardis about Trinity College's approach to the Bill. Words such as "arrogance" have been flung around and that is one of the milder words used about Trinity in this regard. My experience of Trinity people in the course of this Bill is that they were at all times courteous. They did their best to observe the protocols and to do all that was required of them in processing the Bill. The private Bill procedure is outdated and the Trinity people and those opposed to them, such as Dr. Seán Barrett, scrambled through 19th century and 17th century ordinances to try to find out what should be done. It is an outdated procedure and we should urgently examine it. If there were misunderstandings and if things were not done properly, that was not the fault of the parliamentary agent or of the lawyers on either side. It was simply the result of people having to deal for the first time with procedures which were arcane. The Clerk to the Committee, Ms Jody Blake, was outstanding in the role she played. Her mastery of the detail of the procedures was something I had not seen before and it is important to record the contribution she made. I reject the charges which have been made, and which have become part of the official folklore, that Trinity was in some way arrogant. It was defective in some of its procedures and it was certainly defective in the manner in which the votes were carried out internally. I understand this matter was referred to the visitors of Trinity. Internal governing structures exist to examine these matters. The visitors were satisfied in their reports and perhaps more easily than some of us might have been. Deputy O'Malley might have been more forthcoming with us about his ongoing private battle with Trinity.   Mr. Norris: Hear hear.   Mr. Manning: It was never mentioned during the course of the debate that he was involved in a major objection to a planning proposal from Trinity.   An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant to the Bill.   Mr. Norris: It is highly relevant. He should have declared his interest.   Mr. Manning: I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling. Trinity had to absorb a great deal of rough criticism for its motives, procedures, and so forth, and we on the committee might have been more upfront in declaring our interests. I will say no more than that.   Mr. Dardis: To suggest that Deputy O'Malley, of all the people in either House, would do anything improper is outrageous.   An Cathaoirleach: I have ruled that the matter raised by Senator Manning is not relevant to the debate on the Bill.   Mr. Norris: He did not declare his interest.   Mr. Manning: I share Senator Dardis's high opinion of Deputy O'Malley. I have always shared it and am on record as sharing it. It was a defect that something that was widely known was not put on record by the Deputy and I say no more than that. I accept it did not affect his judgment, but if we are upfront and support the spirit of glasnost with the same standards applying to everyone, then the same standards should apply to everyone. That is all I say. Senator Dardis is not correct when he equates his Private Members' motion in 1995 with what we are asked to do today. We are on Report Stage of a Bill. If I recall correctly, Senator Dardis's motion opposed any interference with the internal governance of Trinity College.   Mr. Ross: Correct.   Mr. Manning: It was aimed at stopping proposals being made at the time by the then Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach. Today, on Report Stage of this Bill, we are engaged in semantics and history in considering how the entity founded by good Queen Elizabeth in 1594 should be referred to in the legal document, namely, whether it should be called the University of Dublin or Trinity College Dublin. Personally, I do not think it matters a damn. We are into what my late first father-in-law, a French man, referred to as the pédérastie des moustiques, the homosexuality of flies.   Mr. Norris: What? I have not heard about that.   An Cathaoirleach: Can we have an orderly debate, please?   Mr. Manning: I will do my best to ensure the debate is orderly. Other Senators from that college of the most holy and undivided Trinity will speak on the issue of whether the college should be called Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin or simply Trinity College. Having sat through hours of debate as the meters were ticking for our learned friends in a manner which ensured that they earned more during those sittings than most of us would earn in a year as Senators, I became mystified as to whether this matter was at all relevant. These amendments will not make much difference one way or another. However, it is nonsensical of Senator Dardis to equate them with a debate which he initiated five years ago in regard to the governance of the University of Dublin. Today's debate concerns titles and words and what the college should be called. As far as I can judge - the late report, to which some of my colleagues may refer, bears this out - Trinity College proved fairly conclusively that the University of Dublin and Trinity College are one and the same entity. If the college wishes to view itself in that manner and if history shows that is what it is, I do not believe it is appropriate for us to say what it should be called in the legislation. I will oppose these amendments but I do not believe we should vote on matters such as these.   Ms Ormonde: This Bill represents the most tedious, meticulous and difficult documentation with which I have dealt since becoming a Senator. Many hours were spent, both within committee and outside it, trying to understand and assimilate the information which we heard at the previous meeting. That certainly took up a great deal of my time. At the end of the day, the nub of the argument concerned the amendment of the charters as a result of the Universities Act, 1997, and whether the University of Dublin should form part of Trinity College. That is the crux of the matter. On Committee Stage, I voted with Deputy O'Malley to maintain the term "university" in the Bill. I have no difficulty with Trinity College maintaining its autonomy. It really does not matter to me if, in order to comply with the Universities Act, 1997, it is necessary to include or omit the term "university". As far as I know, Trinity College favours the deletion of the term "university". I voted against that. Having said that, I do not have a hang-up about it. It is important that we reflect the meaning of the Universities Act.   Mr. Ross: I am puzzled by the tone of this debate because, like some others who have spoken, I really do not give two hoots whether the institution is referred to as the University of Dublin or Trinity College, Dublin. I find this matter to be particularly academic. What I resent enormously, however, is the fact that this particular amendment, which we have to believe has been tabled in a spirit of constructive goodwill, has been used to abuse the university. I would ask Senator Dardis to withdraw the word "malpractice" which he used about the activities of the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin. I pause to give him the opportunity to do that.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Dardis will have the right of reply when all contributions on Report Stage have been made.   Mr. Ross: I am aware of that. There is no doubt whatsoever that mistakes were made by the authorities in Trinity College, Dublin, about the detail of implementing this vote. That is acknowledged and that is why they had another vote and actually had a decision made on it in their favour. This particular amendment, however, is being used to abuse a great university and it is not worthy of those who propose it to do so. Malpractice is a word which means something very different from making mistakes. It is a word which should not have been bandied around without evidence and justification. It is not worthy of the Progressive Democrats or Senator Dardis to exploit a debate of this sort to bring in utterly irrelevant charges which have absolutely no substance. Senator Dardis referred with great triumph to his motion in 1995 which called for non-interference in the autonomy of Dublin University. It was a very pure motion and there was a great deal of merit in it. If he is to be consistent, however, why is he not moving an amendment for the repeal of the Bill and the removal of political nominees to the board of Dublin University? Maybe Senator Dardis is so encapsulated with the private Bill, in which very few showed any interest at the time, that he does not realise now he is on the Government benches that he is presiding over the fact that at least one political nominee will be put on the board of Dublin University. It seems that is all right when it is the political nominee of a coalition Government of Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil, but not when they are in Opposition. This debate is dirty and stinks of rank hypocrisy. I do not believe that anybody's heart is in it and I do not understand where it came from. Is it a coincidence that I and others who opposed the Bill on Second Stage are now, with the best will in the world, trying to hasten this private Bill through without malice and without muddying the waters? I opposed the Bill not just on Second Stage but on every stage. I realise fully, however, that this is the best bet Dublin University has for preserving its autonomy. The only chance of ruining the Bill is by obstructing this private Bill today and that is what the so-called champions of Dublin University's autonomy are doing. They are doing exactly the opposite of what they proclaimed in 1995 and the opposite of what the authorities of Dublin University want. They are also doing exactly the opposite of what the three Members for Dublin University want. The board is unanimously behind the Bill. I recognise this is not a perfect Bill. Senator Dardis no doubt will be silent on this but while I would prefer if it was not in its original form, chapter and verse, I also recognise it is the best bet we have. It is the best possible result for preserving the autonomy of Dublin University. It is not purist, but it does have a political nominee on the board and that is why I have posted a Fifth Stage. It is the best deal we could get. I congratulate the authorities there for doing that. I also congratulate all the universities for the way they stuck together on this Bill and had it amended. I also thank particularly Senator Manning, who is on the staff of another university, for steering this through with such painstaking trouble. It was a thundering nuisance for Senator Manning and Senator Ormonde and for everybody else who had to sit on this committee although they had no particular interest in it. I would have loved to sit on that committee - my constituency is involved. I could not but there were people from outside who sat on it and who spent many hours discussing the most tedious, legalistic, technically problems. Under instructions from somewhere else, Members who were not even on that committee are coming to the House, amending the Bill and saying they know better. This is absolutely shameful. I want to see and hear the real truth about why, this time last week, Fianna Fáil was voting one way and this week it is voting another way. This is most extraordinary. The Fianna Fáil Whip is here and perhaps he will make a contribution. Perhaps it will be a free vote. Perhaps there will be just a coincidence, one of those extraordinary political coincidences, where every member of Fianna Fáil and every member of the Progressive Democrats will vote the same way in a free vote. This occasionally happens. They all vote the same way-----   Mr. Dardis: As they will on the university benches.   Mr. Ross: ---against the interests of those who represent that university, against the views of those who represent the university and against the authorities. What is happening with this Bill is incomprehensible to me. I deeply resent any suggestion of arrogance or malpractice on the part of anybody involved in this.   Ms Keogh: The Senator himself, maybe.   Mr. Ross: That is quite possible but no one has made that charge yet. No doubt the Senator will be able to speak herself, having formally seconded the amendment but having hesitated in saying anything more. No doubt she will have a larger contribution to make than just to sit there with her colleagues and say very little but vote in the lobbies. It is not a great day for this House when forces outside those involved, those who do not have a great knowledge, should take it into their heads to propose amendments on subjects on which they are not experts and about which they care very little.   Mr. Dardis: Leave it to the experts. Do not let the peasants have a look in.   Mr. Norris: The PD inferiority complex coming out again.   An Cathaoirleach: We must have an orderly debate. Senator Ross to continue without interruption.   Mr. Ross: They choose for political ends to use the debate to abuse those who do not deserve that abuse. I ask Senator Dardis, if he is not withdrawing his amendment, to withdraw the utterly unjustified charge of malpractice which he brought against the authorities in Dublin University.   Mr. Costello: This is a lively debate. When I entered the House I did not expect to find so many Members so passionate about this matter. In many ways, I am the only neutral person in the House in the sense that no member of my party was enabled to sit on the committee and I have not been a party to the debates there. It is not a good format for debating legislation when one of the party groups is not enabled to be represented. I heartily concur with the comment that the introduction of private Bills is an outdated procedure. All legislation should be debated in full public view and according to the normal procedure that applies to other legislation. It is not a healthy procedure to debate private Bills such as this and I hope this is the last time we debate a Bill in these circumstances. I strongly defend the former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, regarding the Universities Act, 1997, and her policy that all third level institutions, like all other educational institutions in receipt of public funds, should not be a total law unto themselves. There is autonomy and non-interference, but there must also be structures and confidence that institutions are responsible to those who pay their wages, in many cases, and the public. Public responsibility is the essence of democracy and I am sure Trinity would not argue against that principle. It does not interfere with Trinity's autonomy to do things, to develop policy and to run the college in accordance with its fine traditions. My concern with the amendments relates to the serious allegations that have been made. There have been allegations of malpractice - that Standing Orders have been disregarded or abused and that the required percentage was not achieved. There have been suggestions of improper lobbying, that the University of Dublin was not consulted and that it is a separate entity from Trinity College. The most serious allegation is that there was an abuse of procedures. I do not know if that is true or false. I was not there, though I have heard the arguments put forward and they are serious. However, I would have thought that if allegations of this nature could be substantially founded the place to deal with them was not here on Report Stage. >  Mr. Norris: Hear, hear.   Mr. Costello: Also, if there was a question of dealing with the matter on this Stage, then the proper procedure was to oppose the legislation. That would have been the proper procedure if malpractice was the charge. For those reasons I find it puzzling that the Progressive Democrats have tabled what I would term minimalist amendments. Regarding whether or not Trinity College and the University of Dublin are one, the Provost has been quoted as saying they are probably two separate entities, but as there is no other college except Trinity, then in practice they operate as one. I do not regard that as a major concern. Those matters Senator Dardis referred to in the context of his amendments are matters of concern, but he has not dealt with them in his amendments. If he was serious, the only position to adopt would be to oppose this legislation, which he has not done.   Mr. Norris: Senator Costello is right. If there was an issue of principle, that is precisely the line that would have been taken. However, this is mischief and nothing other than that. It is mischief of the nastiest kind. Dangerous allegations and charges of malpractice were thrown around here today and I ask that they be withdrawn. If those making these charges believe them to be true, I invite them to make them in a public arena and I expect they will receive their answer in the courts. If they do not feel they are justified, they should not make them under the privilege of this House. It is a dangerous abuse of a particular kind of parliamentary privilege and is greatly resented, as is the intrusion of certain interests in this area. The three elected representatives of the University of Dublin have one view on the matter - they are supporting the Bill. Senator Ross and I felt strongly about it. We argued and opposed the Bill in its original form. We spent a great deal of time in this House and eventually succeeded in getting every amendment which the Provost, fellows, scholars and the board of Trinity College sought. Eventually we accepted this was the best we could do and it was a fortunate outcome. Of course I would prefer if there was no outside representation on the board of Trinity College. However, we must live in the real world and I invite the Progressive Democrats to consider their position. Are they saying there is no accountability to the taxpayer in this day and age, when the university receives such massive subventions? This was the argument made at the time and I think they still hold water. I suppose it is still appropriate in the 21st century to refer to a question of courtesy. It is regarded widely as courteous to allow individuals the privilege of naming themselves and their group. This is why we have moved from "tinkers" to "itinerants" to Travellers. However, the Progressive Democrats, for their mischievous reasons, still wish to have the power to decide what the University of Dublin or Trinity College should call itself. This is mischief. In terms of democracy, apparently there was a flawed ballot. I regret this, but these things happen. It went to the visitors who are legally the highest authority and their views hold sway in the university. A second ballot was held and 73% of the electorate voted in favour. To the three representatives elected by the graduates of the college was added Senator Manning, a distinguished academic from University College, Dublin, and 73% of the university body voted in favour. Yet the Progressive Democrats, in the interest of democracy, decide we are not entitled-----   Mr. Dardis: It is a Standing Order.   Mr. Norris: So now we are impugning the staff of the House. Mr. Dardis: No, I beg the Senator's pardon.   Mr. Norris: That is what it looks like.   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should address the Chair. Senator Dardis will have the right to reply.   Mr. Norris: I will address the Chair if the other chair over there stops addressing me. I do not mind being interrupted-----   Mr. Dardis: Nor do I.   Mr. Norris: -----but I will reply if I am. Since I am invited by Senator Dardis, what a pity it is that he still has an inferiority complex. Who raised the question of peasants? Who is treating the Progressive Democrats as peasants? I do not know how peasants are treated. Apparently Senator Dardis does and he feels stung by it. I have no idea about these matters, I do not deal with them. However, that kind of silly comment is irrelevant in this debate. What is relevant is that I have the greatest admiration and respect for Deputy O'Malley but if we are getting on our high horse and advancing ourselves onto the plateau of moral rectitude, the point made by Senator Manning is a very telling one. Deputy O'Malley is in dispute with the University of Dublin. This is an interest which was not declared and it most definitely should have been before all this mischief making. Senator Dardis, who is certainly an honourable man, has placed it on the record of this House that this is a free vote-----   Mr. Dardis: On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, you are well aware that Deputy O'Malley is not here to defend himself and, therefore, references of that nature should not be made.   An Cathaoirleach: I have already ruled that matter is not relevant to the debate and should not be referred to.   Mr. Norris: What an interesting point, a technicality, but the principle remains and the Senator knows that.   Mr. Dardis: This House has Standing Orders too.   Mr. Norris: I observe them as the Senator does, but the question of morality is an important and interesting one which I will leave the House to decide. I reiterate this point, especially for members of Fianna Fáil and I hope it will be communicated to them - Senator Dardis said that Fianna Fáil has not been whipped and that this is a free vote.   Mr. Dardis: That is not what I said. I said I have not asked them.   Mr. Norris: I see - a little backtracking. The Senator said it was not a free vote. That is very interesting.   Mr. Dardis: I am not backtracking in the least. Fianna Fáil speaks for Fianna Fáil and I speak for the Progressive Democrats.   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Dardis will have a right of reply at the end of the Report Stage debate.   Mr. Norris: Now it is not a free vote. Perhaps Fianna Fáil will discover a conscience and permit the University of Dublin to call itself what it likes. Perhaps it will see through this charade for what it is, a piece of naked spite. I say this because I have information here on the legal position. Some 73% voted in favour which seems a fairly large majority, unless we are going to be academic about it. Under the standing orders, rules, statutes etc. of Trinity College, 70% is what is required and the visitors who are a significant legal authority held that. I will leave that as a fact on the record of the House.   An Cathaoirleach: For the information of all Senators, by agreeing to the report of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders to dispense with Standing Order 46 of the Private Standing Orders, this House waived the requirement on Trinity College to get 75% approval for presentation of the Bill. The other House also agreed unanimously to this measure. Those are the facts.   Mr. Norris: I am most grateful to the Cathaoirleach who has made the point towards which I was advancing. There is no necessity to make it since it has been made. On a point of order, are the Progressive Democrats prepared to accept the ruling of the Cathaoirleach?   An Cathaoirleach: That report was agreed unanimously by the House last year.   Mr. Norris: So I take it that this is persuasive, even to the Progressive Democrats, unless that party is developing a revolutionary cadre of its own. On the authority of the House, those who deal with Standing Orders and the Cathaoirleach, it has been placed firmly and clearly on the record of the House that the Standing Orders on this matter were waived and the requirements on Trinity College agreed. The Provost, board, fellows and scholars, 73% of the electorate plus all the elected representatives voted in favour, yet the Progressive Democrats knows better. It is confusing. I wish to address the question addressed in these amendments of the relationship between the University of Dublin and Trinity College. There is persuasive legal authority which would make it surprising in the extreme if, independently, Fianna Fáil Members of this House voted with the Progressive Democrats. Trinity College and the University of Dublin are both incorporated under the foundations charter and Trinity College can speak for the University of Dublin. That is the legal position. The misunderstanding that arose, of which such mischief has been made, concerns the Senate of the University of Dublin and the contention that the senate of the university is the appropriate corporate body to speak on behalf of the University of Dublin. On reconsideration of the college's records, this would appear to be wholly inaccurate. Senator Dardis quoted Provost Mitchell making a certain point about this question of separation and so on, and he said "if true", when referring to the provost's statement, because he would like to bind him into it.

Mr. Dardis: Sorry, it is on the record.   Mr. Norris: Yes, truth continues to be revealed, in case the Senator was not aware of it, and when precedents are found-----   Mr. Dardis: I would like to thank Senator Norris for his lecture in theology.   Mr. Norris: -----in the legal record, note should be taken of them. We have a greater knowledge now and persuasive decisions by, for example, the Master of the Rolls, in a specific case to which I intend to refer. It was a judgment of the Master of the Rolls delivered in the High Court of Judicature in Ireland on 2 June 1888 and resolves all the contentions, in the opinion of senior legal advisers to the college. The case concerned a dispute between Trinity College Dublin and the Senate of the University of Dublin concerning a request by the late Richard Reid, a law graduate of Trinity College, who had left a substantial bequest to "The Corporation of the University of Dublin", a rather ham-fisted concoction. This bequest eventually funded the Reid Professorship of Law in Trinity, of whom two Presidents of Ireland have been the holders, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, our current President. It also funded sizarships for the special benefit of students from County Kerry, the county of birth of the late Mr. Reid, and among the beneficiaries of those was Brendan Kennelly, one of my teachers. The judgment was delivered by Sir Andrew Maxwell Porter on 2 June 1888 in legal proceedings between Trinity College Dublin and the Senate of the University of Dublin, that a bequest to the Corporation of the University of Dublin was a bequest to Trinity College Dublin and not to the Senate of the University of Dublin. The Master of the Rolls determined that Trinity College Dublin and the University of Dublin were inseparable and founded under the same charters and letters patent. That could not possibly be clearer. This is the leading, established and persuasive judgment in the matter, and there is nothing to challenge it. If the Progressive Democrats are honourably seeking a clarification, they now have it. Trinity College Dublin and the University of Dublin are both incorporated under the foundation charter and Trinity College Dublin can speak for the University of Dublin. The joint committee said it wanted further information and research. It now has it and one element of it is blaming the messenger for producing the persuasive argument which I have placed on the record of the House. Counsel's researchers have unearthed the only reserved judgment of the Irish Superior Courts dealing with the relationship between Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin and the Senate of the University of Dublin. The case concerned, as I have already said, a substantial bequest by a Mr. Richard Touhill Reid. The Master of the Rolls, in a judgment given on 2 June 1888 determined the issue conclusively in favour of Trinity College. There was no appeal to the Court of Appeal. The full title of the proceedings was The Provost, Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College Dublin v. the Attorney General, the Chancellors, Doctors and Masters of the University of Dublin and the Trustees and Executors of the Will of the late Richard Touhill Reid. The judgment was never reported in any series of law reports, nor is it referred to in the many histories of the college. I apologise if this causes confusion but it was an unrecorded judgment, a little forgotten nugget. Thank God it has been found, and I congratulate those who found it because there is no question whatever that it is the determining authority in this case. We have heard truth invoked, we have heard the legal precedent and now I have placed it on the record. My Fianna Fáil colleagues have been told that this is a free vote. They have been told that no arrangements have been made. They have now been placed in possession of the truth and I am asking them, as one of the three representatives of the University of Dublin and with the full sanction and authority of the Provost of Trinity College, Dr. Thomas Mitchell, who is here in the Chamber, and of the Secretary of the College, Michael Gleeson, who is also here, what are we at if we are going to contradict legal authority, legal precedent and the overwhelming body of the university with the support of our distinguished colleagues from University College, Dublin? The High Court held that a bequest to the Corporation of the University of Dublin be vested in Trinity College Dublin and not in the Senate of the University of Dublin. The plaintiffs were the provost, fellows and scholars of Trinity College Dublin. The first named defendant was joined as the proceedings concerned a charitable trust and the Attorney General has an ancient jurisdiction concerning charitable trusts which require his joinder to any such proceedings. The second defendant was the Senate of the University of Dublin, sued under the title contained in the supplemental letters patent of 1857, and the third defendant was the trustees of the estate of Richard Touhill Reid which had left a substantial bequest to found a professorship of law and also sizarships. The Master of the Rolls, in considering the charters down to the supplemental letters patent of 1857, determined that there was no difference or distinction between the University of Dublin and Trinity College Dublin. The Master of the Rolls cited the charter in Latin, including a series of sentences that refer to the foundation of the college-----   Mr. Dardis: I hope it was more successfully translated than some of the things that were in the Bill.   Mr. Norris: That is just sniping, and more power to you. I enjoy a bit of sniping and I give as good as I get, and I will still do my Joyce show for you down in your locality. There will be no hard feelings.   Mr. Dardis: That is a huge relief.   Mr. Norris: I enjoy a few jibes.   An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, in the interests of good order, please address your remarks to the Chair.   Mr. Dardis: I am very grateful to Senator Norris.   Mr. Norris: I beg your pardon, but there is a little buzz happening on the other side of the House. It might be hammering. It is an attempt to hammer Trinity for nasty, spiteful reasons. The charter was granted in 1592 and no other charter or letters patent were granted during Elizabeth's reign. In 1613, further letters patent were granted by King James I. I apologise to the House if this is a little tedious but it may be referred to later and it is important that we have all the material. An interval of 21 years had, therefore, elapsed between them and the charter of Elizabeth. That degrees must, during that interval, have been conferred on students of the college appears to be beyond doubt. Therefore, it must have been considered that the charter of Elizabeth, proprio vigore, conferred upon the college power to grant degrees. The chancellor, vice-chancellor and proctors were not incorporated. The provost, fellows and scholars were and it follows that they must have conferred the degrees in the interval between the charters of Elizabeth and that of James I, although, no doubt, in this college, acting through the vice-chancellor. Thereafter, the Master of the Rolls quoted from the charter of James I and stated that the quotations to which he referred - I emphasise this point - show that the framework of the charter considered Trinity College and the University of Dublin as so inseparably connected that their titles are used throughout as synonymous terms. If one combs through the evidence of the committee one will find that Deputy Desmond O'Malley engages in the same practice. There was no separate incorporation of the University of Dublin. If there had been, it must have been by royal charter by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, and nothing has been found. The college was supreme, and the university was a branch or department of it. The Master of the Rolls went on to hold that the bequest was to Trinity College, not to the Senate of the University of Dublin. This is not an accidental circumstance. The advisers of Queen Victoria knew how to incorporate a university when they meant to do so. That is as much as need be said by me on the legal side, and I apologise if I have been tedious, but it is important that the legal foundation be known because my colleague, Senator Costello, for example, said he found it very confusing. We all have found it confusing, but for that reason if the college had managed to find a precedent that is persuasive, that answers the questions and resolves the problem, we have an obligation to place it before the House. I will not be personal. I was very much inclined to be personal because this matter, which originated from a minor source within the university, arose during the last election and was the subject of the initiation of libel proceedings as a result of the scurrility of the campaign involved. However, I will not descend to the depths plumbed by the members of the small clique to which I refer who have enmeshed themselves in this matter. I wish to make one point which I hope will be conciliatory and which might leave the way open to arrive at a resolution and allowing everyone to save face. There are a number of amendments, some of which are more inimical than others to the welfare of the university. The one on which I could, perhaps, abstain or which we could allow to pass - perhaps we could take a sos to discuss the matter - is amendment No. 2. If that amendment alone was accepted, everyone would win and the Bill would be left sufficiently intact to proceed to do what the House intended it to do. The theoretical content of the Bill was passed by this House. Therefore, in the name of democracy could we not show some sense and practice pragmatic politics? If it is felt, from a macho point of view, that an amendment must be accepted, let us accept amendment No. 2 and let the Bill pass without incorporating further changes.   Dr. Henry: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for bringing the Bill before the House. I particularly thank Senators Manning, Ormonde, Liam Fitzgerald and Coogan and Deputies Richard Bruton, Roche and O'Malley for the enormous amount of time they invested in debating the Bill in Special Committee. I ask Senator Liam Fitzgerald to forgive me for underestimating the length of time it would take to debate the Bill in Special Committee. When he was put forward for membership of the committee, the Senator asked me how long I thought it would take and I replied, "Liam, it will not take three hours out of your life." A considerable amount of time later we have reached Report Stage. I welcome the changes which form the general substance of the Bill. The membership of the board of Trinity College is being changed to allow for the de jure representation of what has been de facto for approximately 30 years, namely, the representation by students and non-academic staff. In the 1960s I campaigned for the representation of students and, as a woman, I had strong feelings about the fact that we had virtually no representation on the board, despite the fact that the number of women entering third level education was increasing greatly. At that stage, women could not be foundation scholars or fellows. Therefore, unless they were non-fellow professors, as were Professors Moran and Othway-Ruthven, they were not in a position to be represented on the board. Mary Robinson, the first scholar in law, was a non-foundation scholar and, as the first scholar in medicine, I was also a non-foundation scholar. While there has been great discussion about pluralism in Trinity College, I assure Members that gender pluralism is a recent development. In that context, I am quite satisfied with the changes which are being made. The Progressive Democrats have put forward a number of amendments to the Bill. In 1995, on foot of a motion tabled by that party, the House debated the need for non-interference by the Government in the affairs of Trinity College. I assure Members there are ways, other than electing one person to the board, which would cause far greater interference in the affairs of the university. I respectfully suggest Members read the letter by Dr. Huxley published today in The Irish Times which refers to interference in the affairs of Queen's University, Belfast, which has led to the diminution of various schools there because of the research assessment initiative taking place in the United Kingdom. This initiative has had a major impact on the schools within universities and has led to the closure of a number in Queen's, a matter I bitterly regret. The Bill's proposals are quite minor in comparison to what has occurred in other countries. That is why we have been on our guard in respect of such legislation. Senator Costello and others highlighted the huge public investment in third level education and I accept that those who are paying the piper expect to be in a position to call part of the tune. I cannot understand why the Progressive Democrats want to humiliate Trinity College. The only way I can describe their amendments is in terms of their humiliating the college. That party's leader is a distinguished graduate of the college, but these amendments are nothing less than a humiliation. I feel humiliated. As stated earlier, I could not serve as a member of the board of Trinity when I attended the college - I will refer to my membership of the senate in a moment - and, in that light, I cannot understand the reasoning behind the amendments. Senator Dardis, for whom I have always had the greatest respect, spoke about preserving the autonomy of Trinity College but he questioned the rulings of the visitors. I had thought the visitors gave the college its autonomy by virtue of the fact that they were in charge of its statutes and letters patent. In the various legislative documents which govern the affairs of Trinity College - the Queen Elizabeth Charter, the King Charles l Charter, the Letters Patent of Queen Victoria and the Letters Patent of George V - the University of Dublin and Trinity College are both named. I understand that this private Bill is the continuation of how, in this State, one brings forward letters patent. However, the college is to be humiliated by virtue of the fact that the University of Dublin will not be included either in the Title of the Bill or in its provisions. I cannot understand why the Progressive Democrats want to humiliate the college in this way. Until the end of last week I had understood - I accept that I was given no binding commitment - that Fianna Fáil was not going to support the amendments. I accept that a change of heart took place but I cannot understand the desire of the Progressive Democrats to humiliate the college. Mr. Dardis: There is no desire to humiliate anybody.   Dr. Henry: It is humiliating, no more and no less. If the University of Dublin is included in the college's charters and letters patent, what is the purpose of excluding it from this legislation except for the purposes of humiliation?   Mr. Dardis: It is merely dealing with the deficiencies in the Bill.   Dr. Henry: It is not. The exclusion of the University of Dublin was raised very late on in the petitioner's complaint. That exclusion was not referred to at the outset, it was raised very late in the day. I wish to briefly deal with the subject of the ballot. I was a scholar. One normally becomes a scholar at an examination after two years in college. The petitioner was extremely flattering about the academic brilliance of those who became scholars. Most degree courses in Trinity College are of four years' duration while scholarships run for five years. Therefore, most scholars will have left Trinity College when there are three years of their scholarships remaining and they could be anywhere in the world pursuing, as is frequently the case, other academic degrees. The difficulty with the ballot arose in tracing a considerable number of the scholars to whom I refer in the short span of time before the vote took place. No one has pointed out that 83% of the fellows of the college voted in favour or rather submitted their assents. I accept that the method whereby these ballots are carried out is antiquated - one cannot vote in favour or against but must indicate assent or dissent. The complaint has been made that the senate of the university should have been asked for its position as well. However, we have not been given many details about what it consists of so I wish to read that into the record. It appears to be a problem.   An Cathaoirleach: I remind the Senator that this is Report Stage, not Second Stage.   Dr. Henry: I know, but the amendments were put down because the Progressive Democrats claim that the University of Dublin should be withdrawn from the Bill. Their reason for that claim is their contention that the Senate of Dublin University should have been consulted. It is important that we know what the Senate of Dublin University is.   Mr. Dardis: On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, I concede that this is relevant to the argument at hand.   Dr. Henry: May I continue?   An Cathaoirleach: Yes.   Dr. Henry: The university senate, which it is argued should have been consulted, consists of the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellors, the Provost, the Vice-Provost, the Senior Master Non-Regent, the Proctors and the Registrar, together with the following:   The undermentioned persons shall be members of the senate, provided that in each case they are doctors or masters of the University:   1. Resident doctors or masters of the University, that is, doctors or masters who are not members of the College or University staff, but who hold rooms in College or are in attendance on lectures in arts or in the professional schools.   2. Doctors and masters of the University who have held a studentship of the University, or are moderators who have obtained a large gold medal, or moderators who have obtained a gold medal in or after 1935, or moderators who have obtained two moderatorships of a class higher than class III, and who have applied to the Registrar of the senate to have their names entered permanently on the College books, as members of the senate, without payment of fee.   3. Former Fellows of the College.   4. Representatives and former representatives of the University in Seanad Éireann. [This is how I am eligible but first because of my doctorate which I obtained 30 years ago]   5. Members of the staff of the College or University, during their tenure of office.   6. Doctors or masters of the University who have applied to the Registrar of the senate to have their names placed permanently on the College books, as members of the senate, on payment of a fee of £5.   I will now turn to the functions of the senate.