Amendments Nos. 235 and 237 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 235:
In page 25, subsection (1), line 27, after "as soon as practicable" to insert "but not later than 12 months".
The section deals with equality policy and we broadly welcome it. Subsection (1) states:
A governing authority shall, as soon as practicable after it is established under this Act and at such other times as it thinks fit, require the chief officer to prepare a statement of the policies of the university. . .
The amendment seeks to insert the words "but not later than 12 months" after "as soon as practicable" to ensure this aspect receives urgent attention and is dealt with expeditiously.
Amendment No. 237 seeks to delete the words "having regard to the resources available to the university" in subsection (2). There was a row about this under the previous section but it is an important phrase because it is an escape clause for the university in terms of implementing the provisions.
That is ridiculous.
I am not finished. In accordance with democratic practice, I will articulate my views and try to keep the Minister's blood pressure down.
I propose we opt for an adjournment.
Subsection (2) states:
A governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, either approve the statement prepared under subsection (1) without modification or, after consultation with the chief officer, approve the statement with such modifications as it thinks fit.
The problem with the phrase "having regard to the resources available to the university" is that it is said equality and quality assurance are desirable but they cannot be achieved if the funding is not available. It is a way out for the universities. They can say there is a lovely equality policy plan but they do not have the resources to implement it. It may be realistic for universities to make submissions in that regard but equality should exist as of right and not by virtue of the availability of resources. This is the purpose of the amendments.
The section requires the university to prepare policies in respect of access to the university and to university education by economically and socially disadvantaged people and by people from sections of society significantly under-represented in the student body — I agree with that requirement — and in respect of equality, including gender equality, in all activities of the university. It states the chief officer, in preparing the statement, shall have regard to such policies on those matters as may from time to time be determined. Subsection (2) states a governing authority may, having regard to the resources available to the university, approve the statement, etc. Is equality for people with disabilities included? A number of universities have been proactive in terms of improving access to the institutions.
They have been well funded to do it.
That is debatable. They have been proactive in terms of improving physical access and access generally to people with disabilities. However, this aspect is not included in the section. Equality of access and treatment for people with disabilities should be part of any equality policy. It could be argued that still does not exist throughout society, but everybody is endeavouring to include equality of treatment in their programmes and annual plans. For example, Bus Éireann is only now providing user friendly buses for people with disabilities. Universities still have much to do to provide genuine equality to people with disabilities in terms of access, physical infrastructure and courses. Perhaps the section could be strengthened on Report Stage to include people with disabilities to ensure universities have an obligation under the legislation in that regard.
I am not being tiresome about the phrase "having regard to the resources available to the university". It is the greatest cop out used by most institutions to avoid doing things. I recall city hall in Cork refused for years to install a lift to facilitate access for people with disabilities to the council chamber on the grounds of cost. It took the appointment of a lord mayor with a specific disability to force them to include funding for a lift in the estimates. When a body does not want to do something, it can put something else at the top of the agenda. The only way there will be genuine equality in many areas is if an obligation is included. Otherwise, the universities will only pay lip service. They will say they agree something should happen but say they do not have the resources to do it.
I agree with Deputy Martin. It is always used as a cop out by institutions and we have all seen too many examples, particularly with regard to equality. The Minister should consider the section in relation to equality of access for people with disabilities. The original Bill was published before the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities were available. Would it be possible to re-examine the section in the light of those recommendations? A task force has been established by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform which will prioritise the commission's recommendations. Some people say we should wait and see what are those priorities. Many recommendations have been made, not all of which would cost a huge amount of money. Institutions will move slowly in terms of providing access for the disabled. Perhaps the Minister could look at the report to see how access to third level education can be improved for people with disabilities.
I thought this matter was already covered in the Bill. We are asking the governing authorities to draw up a statement of their policies on access to university education for economically and socially disadvantaged groups and for sections of society who are significantly under-represented on the student body. I am delighted to have been associated with the invitation from the Department of Education to the universities to apply for funding to improve access for students with disabilities. We talked about the provision of ramps, but we also need to consider the use of Braille. I welcome the commitment of those on the committee who have made recommendations. The universities and the regional technical colleges have acknowledged my attempts to meet those needs. It is only right that the universities, which have large budgets, should draw up a statement of their policies.
It is disappointing to note that the education statistics show an absence of senior female personnel in universities, although women represent more than half of the population. It has not been suggested that we are talking about funding; we are talking about perceptions, roles, attitudes, difficulties and encouragement. We know that girls do better than boys at school and that they get better points for university. However, I do not under-estimate the attitudinal or aspirational problems involved. Why is there an absence of senior female personnel in the third level sector?
No one on this side of the House is arguing with the Minister.
The Deputy is making a point about funding. I am talking about how money is spent under the budget allocations.
As the Minister is proving my point she should delete the phrase "having regard to"; she has said it is not a matter of funding.
Much can happen with the existing funding. There is a huge dichotomy in the figures, but that is no reason to say it is a budgetary matter. There is an onus on the governing authority to prepare a statement of policy which should be published.
I support the timetable in amendment No. 235. I have already indicated I will not support amendment No. 237 which seeks to look at the statement of policies drawn up by the chief officer. However, much can be achieved, and not just in terms of spending money. Given the budget, the students' profile and the change in the governing bodies, it is practical that a governing authority should be able to do this.
We have made few party political statements so far but the Minister's arguments are classic Labour Party claptrap. She said that statements should be prepared telling people how to live and everyone should aspire to equality and many other things, yet she will not provide additional resources to achieve it. It means nothing to tell the universities they must prepare a statement of equality if they can only implement it "having regard to the resources available". If the Minister is serious about this, she should place a legal obligation on them to prepare a genuine equality policy. This is empty rhetoric; it sounds nice and reads well but it means little in practice.
Gender equality can be achieved without funding but we will not improve access to the universities for economically or socially disadvantaged people by making a statement about it. The evidence to date in terms of the Department's funding is not encouraging. I am tired of these statements which were included in the White Paper, yet we have not been provided with the costings which were prepared by the Department of Finance.
The key mission statement of any university in the next ten years is section 32(1)(a). The major goal of Irish society, not just universities, should be to increase access to university for economically and socially disadvantaged people. If we include the phrase, "having regard to the resources available", we will constantly get the reply that we would love to do it but we cannot. It then becomes a statement of intent with little to back it up.
Section 32(1)(a) does not cover people with disabilities. I do not understand why we cannot include the phrase "people with disabilities". People with disabilities would not like to be described as economically or socially disadvantaged. It is often wise to consult those with disabilities to find the right terminology and language to describe them in a Bill. We should not presuppose that a general phrase, such as "economically and socially disadvantaged", includes people with disabilities. The Minister might get a negative response from such people. Perhaps it was a genuine omission but if the Minister does not table an amendment to include them on Report Stage, I will do so.
I did not say I would not do it.
The Minister did not say she would do it. She said she was happy with the terminology used. However, we should agree to include people with disabilities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 236:
In page 25, subsection (1)(b), line 35, after "gender" to insert "and linguistic".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 237:
In page 25, subsection (2), lines 40 and 41, to delete ", having regard to the resources available to the university,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 238:
In page 26, lines 1 to 7, to delete subsections (4) and (5).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
It was suggested that we meet next Wednesday from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.
I have to make a presentation next Wednesday morning.
I propose we meet next Wednesday, 26 February, from 6 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. We have already agreed to meet next Thursday, 27 February, to consider the National Cultural Institutions Bill. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.5 p.m.