David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I did mention my colleague.
Designated activity companies, DACs, are important. There should be safeguards in this regard. There must be a degree of supervision, irrespective of whether the money comes from outside. I am thinking, in particular, of Trinity College Dublin where there are projects undertaken in concert with the Israeli military. This is of assistance to the Israeli military in progressing an aggressive war against a defenceless people of Palestine, but it should be restrained and discontinued quickly.
On the issue of pay, it amuses me because my middle-ranking colleagues among the academic staff and in administration receive considerably more than we do in Seanad Éireann, despite the fact that the Government continues to want to pull us down. Some of my colleagues have suggested we receive something like half or one third of what we are receiving. That is what I regard as very academic.
The Bill defines the roles and actions of the university and, in particular, the ongoing support of the humanities, which I welcome. I taught in the humanities in Trinity College Dublin and we were not under any great threat, but those involved in the teaching of the classics and music certainly were. Some schools in these areas have been closed in the United Kingdom; therefore, we do not need to go as far as the United States.
I refer to academic freedom and academic tenure. This is an excellent Bill which follows on and develops the sections included by Professor Joe Lee and me in the 1997 Act guaranteeing academic freedom and integrity. They were taken on by the Swedish Government in full. In a briefing note Senator Sean D. Barrett indicates what universities are not. They are not institutes of technology or technological universities, an area into which the Minister strayed. They are not medical universities like the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, distinguished as these places are. They are not business or language only schools.
The Bill includes definitions and I compliment Senator Sean D. Barrett on their clarity and precision. Legislation has been lacking in definitions, particularly of education and innovation. A definition of education is provided, meaning education, examination, instruction, lectures, research, scholarship, study, teaching or training undertaken or provided in a university or by any person acting under the authority of a university. It also includes the award of degrees and other qualifications and all activities necessary or expedient for or ancillary to such purposes. It is an excellent definition which has been crystallised. Innovation is defined as including creativity, ingenuity, novelty, renewal and transformation in all of their forms - artistic, cultural, economic, educational and social. It includes, in particular, the development of new business methods, models or practices, or new businesses, products, services, structures, technologies, intellectual property or work practices. Our understanding of the education sector is enhanced by these clear lapidary definitions.
The question of pensions is a troubled one because the universities were cavalier in this regard. They paid people off in cases of early retirement - gratuitously in some circumstances - and the continuing staff were expected to pay for the pensions of retired staff. It is welcome that Senator Sean D. Barrett is looking for some machinery from the Minister, a statutory instrument or other such thing, to ensure pension fund trustees are held responsible, as they should be held liable. If they make injudicious decisions on pensions or drive a pension fund into bankruptcy, they should be held accountable and have to explain how it happened.
Senator Sean D. Barrett talked about the attempt to ensure the unique identity of the seven universities by defining their educational mission and said they should be noted for their global orientation and conservation of the liberal arts. When I was an undergraduate, those who took an arts subject had to take a science subsidiary subject for one year. Those who were studying science had to take an arts subject. Many studied English literature or fine arts which broadened them as human beings. Rigid compartmentalisation in universities is a mistake.
The question of tenure is important because, as Senator Sean D. Barrett said, there is a clear link between tenure - knowledge of security in a job - and allowing people to explore unfashionable ideas. This is absolutely essential. Tenure is a complex issue and the Bill addresses the results of two law cases, Fanning v. UCC in 2005 and Cahill v. DCU in 2007. The idea is to prevent academics from being arbitrarily dismissed, thereby allowing them to conduct research into unfashionable ideas. The principle of security against arbitrary dismissal does not preclude proper and appropriate dismissal, which must be borne in mind. In the High Court Mr. Justice Clarke decided dismissal had not occurred in accordance with procedures; therefore, he avoided the question of defining tenure, but he did provide some valuable words on the question of tenure, saying the term brought with it an obligation to have a greater degree of permanency for the status of officers of universities than would be the case in circumstances where, as a matter of contract, such officers could have their contracts terminated with three month's notice. In the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Geoghegan declined to engage on the term "tenure" and decided the case on the basis of general principles. As there has been no decision, it is very important that these matters be clearly and succinctly addressed in legislation. An interesting aspect that I did not anticipate is that funding from central sources has diminished to the extent that it will be shortly under 50%. This should give universities a greater degree of freedom.