Amendments Nos. 201 to 204, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 201:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 13, to delete "are" and substitute "shall include".
While section 23 provides for functions of an academic council, this amendment ensures it is acknowledged that these councils are already in existence and have — in some cases, over centuries —developed practices and functions which it is not now proposed to disturb. Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 202 appears to be a rephrasing of what is in the Bill already and for that reason I will not accept it. Surely "to design and develop programmes" is the same as "to determine the academic content of existing and future programmes".
Amendment No. 203 ensures that every academic council will now have the power to determine examination results. This function, which in the case of constituent colleges has rested with the NUI, will now rest with the constituent colleges themselves. As such it is a further copperfastening of their status as autonomous universities.
I cannot accept or support Deputy Keogh's amendment No. 204. It may be that an academic council would advise the governing authority on issues relating to academic posts but this is a matter for internal university governance which should properly be left to the university authorities. I would not wish to prescribe this in legislation as I believe it is a level of detail and intrusion into university affairs which is neither necessary nor called for in this Bill.
I commend amendments Nos. 201 and 203. I wish to signal to the committee that I am considering bringing forward on Report Stage an amendment to section 23(2) to provide that an academic council will have as a function that it must propose the form and contents of statutes to be made relating to procedures governing examination appeals. We had discussion on that point earlier.
Amendment No. 202 is a more precise definition of the functions of the academic council as regards programmes of study and a better drafting than is in the Bill. However, this is not a major point and I will not fall out with the Minister if she is happy with the current wording.
I do not agree with her about amendment No. 204. We are defining the functions of the academic council and when one examines the various parts of the section, a provision that it should "consider and advise on all matters relating to academic posts" is not particularly prescriptive. Since the academic council would have an important role in these matters, so considering and advising should be among its functions and it should be laid down in the Bill. An advisory and consultative function is appropriate to an academic council of a university.
I do not have great problems with section 23 and I welcome the Minister's intention to amend and improve it further by laying down statutes relating to examination appeals. It is appropriate to the academic staff that there be a continuum covering the conducting of examinations, the determining of examination results and the appeals mechanisms. This is an important section. Initially, there were fears that the traditional importance of the academic council in universities would not be retained in the new legislative framework but the Bill as amended achieves that. My amendments to section 24 also deal with this matter but overall I am happy with the format as laid out.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 202 not moved.
I move amendment No. 203:
In page 21, subsection (2)(e), line 24, after "examinations" to insert ", the determination of examination results".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 204 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendments Nos. 205 to 209, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 205:
In page 21, subsection (1), to delete lines 43 and 44.
This relates to the statute on members of the academic council. The subsection currently provides that the statute—
shall contain provisions for the inclusion on the academic council of members from what, in the opinion of the governing authority, is an appropriate range of academic disciplines in the university and an appropriate range levels of academic staff, and an appropriate number of students.
We propose to delete all the words after "academic disciplines in the university". Our amendment No. 206 proposes the insertion of a new subsection which reads:
(2) Not less than 40 per cent of the members of the academic council shall be elected from all the members of the permanent academic staff of the universities as listed in section 4.
The aims of these amendments are to ensure that the permanent academic staff of the universities are still the major stakeholders, as it were, in the academic council and have the major say in its composition. There were fears that the governing authority would unbalance the composition of the academic council because of the provision in the last two lines of section 24(1). We want to ensure that a minimum number is elected from the academic staff. This relates to my earlier remarks about the importance of the academic staff in any university to the maintenance of its standards, ethos, etc.
The amendments are sufficiently minor so as not to be unduly intrusive or restrictive in terms of the composition of an academic council. I am only asking that no fewer than 40 per cent of the members would be elected from the permanent academic staff. Amendment No. 208 is a minor one.
There seems to be some difficulty in relation to the position of professors who may be deprived membership on the academic authority where there are ex officio members at present. The fear was expressed to me that this would conflict with their conditions of employment; that is the reason for amendment No. 209. Perhaps the Minister could return to that on Fourth Stage.
On those amendments, I do not support the proposed deletion of lines 43 and 44 in section 24(1) as proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan. The aim of the provision was to ensure that academic councils are composed from a reasonable cross-section of the university community. That would encompass staff and students. At present, only senior academic staff are currently represented on the academic councils. Students are a vital part of the academic community and the Bill, for the first time, gives them a statutory entitlement to be represented on the academic councils. The proposal from Deputies Martin and Coughlan would leave the involvement of junior staff and students in academic councils entirely at the discretion of the governing authorities. I think their importance should not be left to anybody's discretion. The issue of representation of these crucial sectors of the universities' communities is worthy of a specific statutory provision and this is something which has already been welcomed in the public arena.
Deputies Martin and Coughlan have also proposed in amendment No. 206 that the academic staff would elect 40 per cent of the academic council. I think this amendment is overly prescriptive. The manner in which members of the academic council become members is something we could reasonably leave to the universities themselves to decide. In most cases elections are already employed. I have no doubt that the groups who, for the first time, are to be given a statutory right to participate in the councils will vigorously protect that right and will challenge the manner in which this can be effected unless detailed provisions are included in the Bill.
It should be noted that the outgoing academic councils must be consulted on the composition and the terms of office of the incoming council as proposed in amendment No. 207. I do not support the proposed amendment No. 208 that the governing authority would also have to consult with the academic staff of the university. If such consultation was required, it would seem appropriate that the students would also be consulted. I think the amendment is excessively cumbersome and to include it in a legislative scheme is overly prescriptive and is a matter best left to the universities and their internal regulations.
Deputy Keogh commented on amendment No. 209 that, where an office holder is a member of an academic council as a result of such office, the office holder would continue as a member until leaving office. This amendment is not necessary. Where the membership of the academic council is a condition of service to an office legislation cannot alter this condition unless there is an agreement with the office holder.
It appears that section 24(1) still gives a discretion to the governing authority in relation to what levels of academic staff will be on the academic council and what the appropriate number of students would be. It does not actually place an obligation on the governing authority to ensure that students are represented on the academic council.
It must be arranged. It is the statutory responsibility of the universities themselves.
The membership of the academic council depends on what the governing authority considers to be an appropriate number of students.
There is no difficulty with that. The governing authority cannot decide that no students would be on the council. This is legislation we are talking about, it is not aspirational.
It is quite aspirational.
Legislation is never aspirational. We have waited a long time for this.
It should put a greater obligation on the governing authority to include students. I am only talking about the wording of the section.
I am confident that the wording is sufficient; I have no doubt about that.
Normally in other sections of the Bill we have put in that "there shall be a minimum number of. . ." and so on.
The governing authorities have a lot to do. They will have no problem defining what would be an appropriate number of students.
In relation to amendment No. 206 the Minister commented that some of the academic councils already elect members. What other options does the Minister envisage could be used to form academic councils?
There could be ex officioappointments.
Is there a danger that governing authorities could hand pick people?
There might be a danger that the governing authorities would like all the members of the council to look the same.
The Minister could put in a guarantee that 40 per cent of the membership be elected to ensure some kind of balance. I am just seeking to address the fear that people may be hand picked.
Some people are better at winning elections than others.
As the Minister well knows.
Having elections may provide more of a guarantee to some than to others.
I do not want to discuss the virtues of democracy.
Nor do I. I am consistently trying not to be overly prescriptive on the matter of academic councils. In my opening remarks I stated that I do not intend to disturb current practices, some of which are older than the State itself. The framework is there to ensure that the community of the universities is reflected in the academic council of each.
The one thing about elections is that they create competition and people tend to be more responsive when they are elected to positions. I realise there are deficiencies with elections and democracies too.
I have fought elections all my life Deputy and I would not be here if I had not.
I am just making a point. I cannot see why amendment No. 206 could not be accepted. I do not think it is overly prescriptive, it is not saying that the entire academic council must be elected. It would allow for 60 per cent of members to be appointed by other means. I know there is a view abroad that democracy is a necessary evil. Some people are of the view that if we could reduce democracy in certain areas we might achieve better results in terms of administration.
There is nothing to stop the governing authorities holding elections. The people who make the decisions will themselves have come through an election process and I think they are more than capable of deciding on the best composition of their membership. I am standing back and allowing them to do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 206:
In page 21, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Not less than 40 per cent of the members of the academic council shall be elected from all the members of the permanent academic staff of the universities as listed in section 4.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 207:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 45, after The to insert "composition and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No.208:
In page 22, subsection (2), line 3, after "Recognised College" to insert "as well as the other permanent academic staff of the relevant university".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 209 not moved.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.