David Norris (Independent)

I thank Senator O'Toole for allowing me to share his time. I welcome the Minister of State and the Bill.

I have spoken previously on these issues and remember being briefed some years ago by the Dublin Institute of Technology. I have a certain selfish interest because Trinity College, Dublin, conferred degrees for a number of years so I still have a residue of voters from that background. In addition, despite my family's long connection, my nephew and nieces did not attend Trinity College, Dublin. My nephew gained a very good degree in electronic engineering, the conferring of which I attended just a few months ago. It was a very happy occasion for all the family.

I was briefed by people in Waterford about Waterford Institute of Technology's attempts to achieve university status. I believe it would be a good idea, though I am aware there are various views on the issue. Some people said it represented a type of intellectual snobbery, which I do not believe to be the case.

There has been considerable growth in this area, which is very important for the continuing strength of our economy. Some 50% of all students entering higher education now attend an institute of technology, which is an astonishingly high figure. In addition, more than 20,000 study part-time each year and gain credit towards internationally recognised qualifications. The range of subjects available has broadened significantly in professional areas in the institutes of technology, which is welcome.

The Minister of State indicated that the Bill had two principle aims. It will give greater autonomy to the institutes of technology and will also bring them under the HEA. I welcome that because it will give them a closer association with the intellectual ethos and administration of universities. It is a mark of ministerial generosity that there appears to be no territorial or proprietary motivation to the proposals. The Minister of State appears pleased that the institutes of technology will achieve this objective.

Senator O'Toole's last point was on security of tenure and academic freedom. I have discussed it with him and have also been approached on the issue. The Minister referred to the request that the notion of tenure be introduced with regard to the academic staff of the institutes. She talked about the historical place of tenure in academic circles, particularly with regard to academic freedom. If I am correct, she expanded from her text by referring to protections provided by other forms of legislation, particularly employment law, and appeared to give a clear guarantee that there would be no threat to the jobs of people in this area. I received a number of submissions from people, all of which were similar. I will put on record three paragraphs which were contained in almost every letter:

Section 7 of the Bill enshrines the principle of academic freedom, a fundamental principle essential for healthy debate and independent expression in a civilised, democratic society. However, this very principle is completely undermined through the removal of job security for future institute of technology academic staff by section 13 of the Bill.

To separate the concept of academic freedom and security of tenure is entirely wrong. They are intrinsically linked, since it is through security of tenure that academic staff may exercise their academic freedom of expression, without fear of being disadvantaged or subject to less favourable treatment by the institute for the exercise of that freedom.

The removal of job security is in contrast to the situation of academic staff in universities, where they are rightly provided with both academic freedom and tenure.

In other words they make the distinction between academic freedom on the one hand and the capacity to retain tenure on the other. The Minister seems to have made a good case that they are, in fact, secure. However, I have some questions in this regard. I am grateful that section 7(2) states:

A member of the academic staff of a college shall have the freedom, within the law, in his or her teaching, research and any 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.

Hear, hear. That reads very like the amendment concerning academic freedom which former Senator Joe Lee and I put down on the Universities Bill some years ago, which was the subject of a positive editorial in the Irish Federation of University Teachers' magazine and was adopted by the Swedish Government in its educational proposals.

Section 13 states:

A college may appoint such and so many persons to be members . . . subject to the approval of . . . [they are] employed on such terms and conditions as the college (subject to the approval of the Minister . . . ) from time to time determines.

Section 13 also states that a college may suspend or dismiss a staff member, but that is controlled. However, section 14 states, "A college shall not remove any of its officers to whom this subsection applies from office without the consent of the Minister". Will the Minister of State explain what is meant by "officers"? Does it refer to particular persons within the university administration or does it cover all academic staff? It is important for the peace of mind of academics in these institutions that they are given reassurance that by the expression of unpopular views, which is guaranteed in section 7, they are not subsequently undermined by being subject to the threat of dismissal.