Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

Deputy O'Sullivan raises interesting questions on tenure and academic freedom. The issues relating to tenure which are the subject of the amendments tabled by the Deputy were discussed on Committee Stage. It is not entirely clear what is meant by the expression "tenure" in this particular context. I will declare an interest in that I was once a lecturer in a university and my understanding is that tenure relates to the degree of permanence a person has in his or her position, and to the famous chair on which members of staff can prop themselves up on occasion. The amendments tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan relate to rights of appeal and those on tenure relate to academic freedom. However, section 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 5A(1) which specifically deals with the question of academic freedom, providing as it does that a college, in performing its functions, shall have the right and responsibility to preserve and promote the traditional principles of academic freedom in the conduct of its internal and external affairs. That has been formulated not just as a right of a college but as a responsibility.

Section 5A provides that a member of the academic staff of a college, irrespective of what tenure they have, be it occasional or permanent, shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and other activities either in or outside the college, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions and shall not be disadvantaged or subject to less favourable treatment by the college for the exercise of that freedom. That is an attempt to translate the principle of academic freedom into a legislative statement.

The founding charters of many of our universities did not contain these principles but a similar provision exists in the universities legislation and they are an attempt to express in legislation the spirit of academic freedom. However, this spirit can only be built up over generations and through good practice and cannot necessarily be legislated for. There are many parts of the world where such expressions are put into charters and legislation relating to higher institutes of education but where the virtue of academic freedom does not obtain in the institutions themselves. The attempt to translate the principle into legislative form accords the same rights to college academic staff as those enjoyed by university academic staff, under section 14(2) of the Universities Act 1997.

The other aspect of tenure is the degree of permanence, or impermanence, of a particular staff member. Ireland has among the most progressive employment protection legislation in the world so security of employment is not the same issue as it can be in other jurisdictions where tenure, as a concept of isolated existence in the context of university or higher education, is considered very important. For that reason the Minister does not regard these amendments as necessary or desirable. However, I will go through some of the amendments Deputy O'Sullivan tabled in detail.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 58 relate to the right of appeal. However, the Bill provides that an institute of technology will have power to draw up procedures for suspension and dismissal of new members of staff. The institutes must act in accordance with these procedures, which can only be made following consultation with the relevant stakeholders, and these procedures can provide for a right of appeal. Given that these matters relate very much to the internal workings of an institute, the Minister is of the view that it is better to leave this discretion to each body. She does not propose to accept these amendments.

Deputy O'Sullivan has also tabled an amendment on normal industrial relations structures. That phrase was examined at the time the Bill was drafted. There is a precedent in the universities legislation along the lines suggested by the Deputy and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel was consulted. The view it took was that the reference in the Bill to the recognition of staff associations and trade unions is a clearer and more definitive expression than the reference to normal industrial relations structures. Recognised staff associations exist in the institutes so the Minister does not propose to change the reference as proposed by the Deputy.

Deputy O'Sullivan also tabled amendments Nos. 21 and 60 to remove the power to delegate to the director the ability to suspend or dismiss staff, which is based on a provision of the Universities Act 1997. It is appropriate that this power be vested in the director as the monitoring and supervision of staff is an executive function. The director must take responsibility in such matters. Sometimes an institute will have to act very quickly in response to a given circumstance. Requiring the governing body to convene to make such a decision will not make this possible. It should also be remembered that the normal employment protection mechanisms will be available to new members of staff. In addition, as the Minister stated on Committee Stage, the Department is committed to developing a protocol between it and the relevant unions on disciplinary matters. Once finalised, it has been agreed with the teachers' unions that it will be registered with the Labour Court.

Amendment No. 22 again relates to the presidency issue.

See this speech in context