Select Committee on Social Affairs díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Feb 1997

SECTION 12.

Ms Bhreathnach

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 10, subsection 2 (a), line 13, after "study" to insert ", conduct examinations".

Having set out the objectives of the university in section 11, section 12 provides the statutory basis for the powers necessary to implement the objectives. As in section 11, the provision is a consolidation and a modern restatement of the existing situation which obtains, to varying degrees, in the universities at present. The section provides for specific powers and functions including the awarding of degrees, provision of courses, engaging in research, establishing companies and collaboration with other relevant interests to further the objects of the university. On the advice of the universities and in the interest of completeness, I propose to amend the section by including a specific function of conducting examinations.

Mr. Martin

The amendment refers to the function of the universities as being to provide courses of study, award degrees and conduct examinations, is that right? Is there any provision in the Bill for an appeals mechanism for examinations? Would the Minister consider that for Report Stage?

Ms Bhreathnach

An appeals mechanism would be seen by the universities as gross interference in their internal affairs.

Mr. Martin

Not really.

Ms Bhreathnach

We have accommodated all the sections of the university.

Mr. Martin

I accept that but it is obvious that whoever drafted the original section failed to include in it the conduct of examinations. Clearly, it was put back in.

Ms Bhreathnach

It was put back in. I am very careful about the autonomy of the college. Each university shall have an academic council which, subject to the financial constraints discerned by the governing body to review by that authority, shall control the academic affairs of the university, including the curriculum, instruction and education provided by the university.

Mr. Martin

An appeals mechanism would not interfere with that.

Ms Bhreathnach

The academic council has control of the academic affairs of the university.

Mr. Martin

Some universities have appeals mechanisms. This is something we should consider because we are talking about the rights of the general body of students. I know the convocation of the NUI has made very informed contributions.

Ms Bhreathnach

Those are their charters, not our legislation. We will come to it in the charters; the academic freedom is very soundly guarded in that provision. The appeals are not coming from the outside but from within the university itself.

Mr. Martin

Perhaps somebody will look at this on Report Stage. I do not want to encroach on anybody's autonomy but I think it would be in the public interest that there would be an appeals mechanism.

Ms Bhreathnach

It might be interesting to see how the universities respond to the Deputy's suggestion. I do not feel the need to involve myself at this stage because I have confidence in the universities to run their academic affairs and it is for them to decide, within their own charters, how they will give a voice to people. I would be very wary of incorporating the Deputy's suggestion into legislation.

Mr. Martin

I think the Minister is playing a political game. We may as well delete the entire Bill if that is her philosophy.

Ms Bhreathnach

No, I am being very careful. The Deputy has made the point so let us see what will be the result.

Mr. Martin

I would not be dictated to by everybody. I listen to what people have to say, including heads of universities. However, the heads of universities do not have a veto on this legislation. There are graduates, students and other communities out there who have an interest and input into this. That is all I am saying. I met the heads of many universities and I found them to be very constructive individuals. However, I am a legislator and if I think something is in the public interest I will have no hesitation in putting it forward either of my own volition or with the support of my party. That is the function of a Committee Stage and of the Legislature. I think there is a lack in the Bill. We have already had two Price Waterhouse reports on the examination system at second level. Some universities have introduced an appeals mechanism and I wonder whether it could be considered in some area of the Bill.

Ms Keogh

I had intended to raise the issue of an appeals mechanism under my amendment in relation to convocation.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 10, subsection (2)(a), line 14, to delete "qualifications," and substitute "qualifications. In the case of the constituent universities of the National University of Ireland, the degrees and other qualifications will be the degrees and qualifications of the National University of Ireland, as provided for in section 43 (5) of this Act.".

There was doubt expressed whether the provisions in section 43(5) should be stipulated under the functions of a university. To a certain extent, this is a belt or braces issue. What is the Minister's view? I think it is apt to stipulate within the functions that the degrees awarded would be the degrees and qualifications of the NUI.

Ms Bhreathnach

I am satisfied that this amendment is not necessary and I refer the Deputy to section 43(5) of the Bill. It clearly states that the degrees and qualifications of the constituent universities will be degrees and qualifications of the NUI. It is unnecessary to restate the position here. Deputy Keogh's concern is met later in the Bill.

Ms Keogh

I take the Minister's point that this is a belt and braces job and appropriate to the functions of a university but I think it is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 51 and 52 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 10, subsection (2)(d), line 22, after "trade union," to insert "Irish language,".

Mr. Martin

Amendment No. 48 reads: "In page 10, subsection (2)(d), line 22, after "other interests" to insert "and community organisations". Subsection (2)(d) states that a university "may collaborate with educational, business, professional, trade union, cultural and other interests" and we want to insert "and community organisations". Some universities have historically strong links with community groups and organisations in their hinterlands: Maynooth is involved in community diploma work and UCC has in the pipeline an interesting and enterprising degree in youth social work which is near readiness and which will train people in the area of youth work who may not have had prior academic experience but are mature students who have been involved in community life and youth work for a long time. They will receive accreditation for their experience and pursue a degree programme in that area.

This amendment identifies and recognises the community dimension to life in Ireland today and suggests that, as part of their function, universities should consult community organisations. Trade unions, business, educational and professional interests have been mentioned, so why not community organisations and interests? By inserting this amendment, we are sending a signal to universities that we expect them to liaise with local community groups in their area. In a city, for example, they would deal with community organisations and associations, responding to their needs and facilitating their training programmes. This is an area rich with potential into which some universities are beginning to tap, although others may not be so fast.

In drafting legislation like this, people may not think of the community dimension. I do not mean that in a critical way but we tend to think of the traditional suspects, such as trade unions, etc. Society evolves and changes and different movements emerge. That is why we should recognise what has happened in terms of community development by including this amendment.

Mr. Kemmy

Deputy Martin's plea should be taken into account because it is important that the barriers between town and gown be broken down. For too long, never the twain would meet. In the past, unfortunately, we had too much of an ivory tower concept about third level university education. In Limerick, a pioneering effort has been made by Dr. Walsh in the university to reach out to Moyross and Southill, two large communities, one on the northside and the other on the south. Up to 75 per cent of the people there are unemployed, the number of houses is 1,200 and the population 7,000 to 8,000 in each area. The links between university and city are good. A friend had a saying that universities polish stones and dull diamonds. I would not agree with that. It is good to reach out to people and I would like to see a transformation in Dublin and Cork city life by greater co-operation between town and gown and between university students and lecturers and the city. Too often there are barriers between them.

I also deplore the fact that too many students today are too self-oriented and self-motivated. Thirty to 40 years ago students had a world concept, an idea about righting wrongs. They were far more idealistic. Now, there is too much motivation on careers and the concept of loving thy neighbour as thyself is lost. It would be a good thing if we could reach out to the community. This might be something the Minister would take on board, not necessarily to have community groups taking over the board but to make it more broadly based and democratic. If the Minister could accommodate that, I would support what Deputy Martin said.

Ms Bhreathnach

The Deputies on all sides will be pleased with my response. Universities should be in a position to collaborate with community and artistic interests as proposed in amendment No. 48. I propose to amend section 12(2)(d) accordingly by inserting amendment No. 47. I want to include a reference to the Irish language interests in subsection (2)(d) as proposed by Deputy Keogh in amendment No. 46. I am responding very positively. Deputies Martin and Coughlan tabled amendment No. 51, an interesting new function which would allow a university to collaborate with graduates in furthering its objectives. I consider this a positive suggestion and want to consider the issue further and I will return to it on Report Stage.

I will not agree, however, with the inclusion of a requirement that a university shall have and support a Branch of Convocation as proposed by Deputy Keogh in amendment No. 52. A university may well do this, and that is its choice, but far be it from me to prescribe it. To propose a statutory requirement to this effect would impose an excessive degree of prescriptiveness which is not the philosophy which guides my waking hours. An approach along the lines proposed by Deputies Martin and Coughlan is the better one to achieve the same end.

Mr. Martin

I had been dealing with amendment No. 48 but did not realise that amendment No. 51 was in the same group of amendments. There is a need for collaboration. Many universities are doing that to great effect at the moment.

Ms Bhreathnach

Interestingly different universities are doing it in different ways.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms Bhreathnach

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 10, subsection (2)(d), line 22, after "cultural" to insert ", artistic, community".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 48 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 50 is an alternative to amendment No. 49 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Ms Bhreathnach

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 10, subsection (2), line 27, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following:

"(f) may purchase or otherwise acquire, hold and dispose of land or other property, and".

I propose in this amendment to insert a reference to other property which will ensure that a function of a university is to purchase, hold and dispose of other property as well as land. This addresses the issues raised in amendment No. 50 by Deputies Martin and Coughlan and I am sure they will support the amendment.

Mr. Martin

I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved to meet our amendment. We tabled the amendment to give maximum flexibility to universities in the area of the purchase of assets and land, which is extremely important. I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted our amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 50 to 53, inclusive, not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 54. Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are alternatives to amendment No. 54, and amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 176 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 54 to 58, inclusive, and amendment No. 176 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Bhreathnach

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 10, lines 31 to 33, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) A university, in performing its functions, shall be entitled to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom, and in doing so it shall have regard to—

(a) the promotion and preservation of equality of opportunity and access,

(b) the effective and efficient use of its resources, and

(c) its obligations as to public accountability,

and if, in the interpretation of this Act, there is doubt regarding the meaning of any provision, a construction that would promote that ethos and those traditions and principles shall be preferred to a construction that would not so promote."

I propose to replace section 12(3) in amendment No. 54. I have, on a number of occasions, stated as one of the fundamental principles of this legislation that it would in no way diminish the academic freedom or institutional autonomy of the universities. To allay fears which, in my view, have been wrongly generated by some commentators on the Bill, I am tabling amendment No. 54 to put the matter beyond doubt.

The amended subsection (3) strikes a balance between the status of a university as an autonomous academic community and its obligations to society. It confirms that a university has a right to regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and the traditional principles of academic freedom, and in a manner which has regard to equality, the effective and efficient use of resources, and its accountability obligations.

Furthermore, the amendment underpins this affirmation by providing that should an issue arise as to the interpretation of a provision, then an interpretation which would promote the ethos and traditions and the traditional principles of academic freedom should be preferred over an interpretation which would not.

Deputy Keogh, Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Martin propose amendments — amendments Nos. 54 and 56 and within amendment No. 34 — which address the issue of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. I agree with the general thrust of those amendments and my amendment to subsection (3) provides for this. I consider that this wording would be more effective than the wording suggested by the Deputies even though, again, we appear to be addressing the same issue from the same side.

I have considered with interest amendment No. 176 in the names of Deputy Martin and Deputy Coughlan, that there be a specific provision that employees shall not be disadvantaged as a result of teaching or research, or as a result of other activities relevant to academic expression. I consider that my amendment to section 12(3) will provide enough reassurances in this regard. To go as far as the Deputies are proposing would, most likely, be misinterpreted in the university and wider community as an implication that universities would act to prevent freedom of expression: again, we are talking about balance. That could hardly have been the Deputies' intention but it could be the real danger and we should remain on the same side.

Mr. Martin

What is the danger?

Ms Bhreathnach

My amendment to section 12(3) will give enough reassurances to meet the concerns the Deputies expressed in their amendments. It has been suggested that the Deputies' amendments could be misinterpreted not, of course, by me but by the university and wider community, the implication being that the universities would act to prevent freedom of expression. I know that is not the Deputies' intention but it has given rise to that discussion. I would ask Deputies to look again at section 12(3) because I consider my amendment gives enough reassurance in that regard.

As regards amendment No. 57, proposed by Deputy Martin, Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Keogh, that a university should act at all times to support the academic freedom of its members, I am providing in the revised subsection (3) that a university will, inter alia, regulate its affairs in accordance with its independent ethos and traditions and the principles of academic freedom.

Furthermore, I consider that in the detail of the provisions in the Bill the right of academic freedom is effectively underpinned so, in that regard, I would particularly refer the Deputy's attention to the section dealing with the Academic Council. We already drifted forward earlier in the debate and it is probably worth having a look at it again.

Again, I consider that I have addressed the issue of the right of a university to regulate its own affairs — the concern in amendment No. 58 — through my amended section 12(3). Furthermore, the amendment underpins this affirmation by providing that should an issue arise as to the interpretation of a provision, then an interpretation — if there was a difference of opinion — which would promote the ethos and traditions of the universities and the traditional principles of academic freedom would be preferred over an interpretation which would not. There is protection in section 12(3) which will ensure that, where there is a balance of opinion on interpretation, the one which would be preferred is that which would promote the ethos and traditions of the universities and the principles of academic freedom.

Given that I proposed this amendment in response to concerns which Deputies and the wider debate have raised, I consider that the Deputies would be pleased to support my amendment.

Mr. Martin

I may need more time than is available as we are due to conclude at 7 p.m. Is that not so?

Chairman

That is the case.

Mr. Martin

I would probably need more than two or three minutes to elaborate on this weighty subject. What can tend to happen at a moment like this is that we could start for two or three minutes and then come back the next day and start all over again.

I do not necessarily accept that an amended section 12(3) covers amendment No. 176, and I want to elaborate and tease that out a little more. I accept that in amendment No. 54 the Minister is making a considerable move in the direction of underpinning the concept of academic freedom. There was a very strong debate about this prior to Committee Stage and it led to substantial changes and provision for academic freedom.

The Minister said that when I provided in amendment No. 176 that "Employees and officers of a university shall not be disadvantaged, or subjected to less favourable treatment, for opinions or findings advanced during the course of their teaching or research. . ." it might be open to misinterpretation. Nobody around this table can predict what will happen in the future. We should not necessarily be of the view that, in the years ahead, everything concerned with academic freedom will be wonderful. All universities are dynamic institutions which evolve and develop and, for example, the strength of an individual can often determine what happens within a university. If one looks at how universities have evolved, part of the anecdotal storytelling about universities is about who was the president in 1930 or 1950, who did what and so on. It is only recently that Queen Victoria surfaced in UCC. I do not think the entire community determined that Queen Victoria be buried in the dead of night and Professor John A. Murphy can give a very humorous anecdote on how she was buried.

Mr. Kemmy

The Labour Party had a long debate on this matter and the Minister was very accommodating. The Minister has gone a long way to meet the Deputy's earlier points, which we support. Senator O'Sullivan and I have spoken at length on this question. Nobody begrudges the time or effort spent discussing academic freedom and the rights and conditions of those who work in universities. We do not always devote the same amount of time to workers in other institutions. The Labour Party has devoted a lot of time to this question. We do not begrudge those people that right. The Minister has gone a long way and has spent a lot of time with her party on this issue.

Chairman

The Select Committee will meet on Thursday, 6 February 1997, at 2 p.m.

The Select Committee adjourned at 7 p.m.