Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, to delete lines 33 and 34.

These amendments predominantly relate to the issues of the definition of "student union" and indeed, a large number of amendments throughout this Bill that relate to the important role of students' unions. We will later discuss my amendments with regard to ensuring that there is not an erosion of the role and representation of students' unions within specific institutions of higher education, where the lowering of numbers is lowering the level of representation of students' unions, including the very important roles played by different students' unions officers in specific institutions and an t-údarás. Simply having a USI representative on an t-údarás is not necessarily sufficient because there are universities, including UCD and UL, that are not represented by USI. The Bill is, in some cases, lowering the levels of students' unions representation on the boards of institutions.

However, all of those amendments will flow partly from us being very clear that we know what we are talking about when we talk about a students' union. I have to strongly disagree with the proposed definition put forward in the Bill. The Bill proposes that a students' union, "means the student union or other student representative body recognised" by a higher education provider or a Minister. Students' unions are very important because they represent the students' voice. One of the crucial points is that they are chosen and elected by the students. This effectively reverses the power in that regard, whereby the relevant body, which will have access to the limited representation under the Bill, is that which either the institution or the Minister chooses to recognise, and does not ensure that we have a proper representation. That is the reason for amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Amendment No. 6 deletes the current definition of a students' union, which is not appropriate, in that the union would need to be recognised by a governing authority or a Minister. I know the current Minister is engaging with students' unions. Future Ministers, Governments or individual institutions may have different points and points of conflict. They may indeed prefer to have a different representative body with a different power balance. If we look to places such as Hungary, where there has been a systematic dismantling and repression of the power and voices of students, it is very important that we future-proof this legislation.

Amendment No. 7 proposes a preferred alternative to deletion. It specifically defines that a students' union would be an independent body that is elected by the students. I know a couple of amendments have been put forward in that regard, but the fundamental point is that the students choose their union. A students' union must be independent and elected and chosen by the students, not awarded status by a higher education institution or a Minister. This is fundamental, because if we say that recognition downwards has more weight in the legal recognition of a union, rather than an electoral mandate, that undermines the democratic frameworks which are crucial to students' unions. I know many in these Houses have their own background within the students' union movements. We have a fundamental understanding of what unions are in terms of collective power, decision-making and representation of interests.

I note that there is a diversity of unions that need to be properly represented in terms of professional unions and academic institutions. I have included Fórsa. SIPTU and others have all been mentioned with regard to professional staff. Their lack of representation is an issue to which we will come later and which I will seek to amend. There is also a diversity of students' unions.

There is a danger this could lead to a level of cherry-picking. We are very aware of wider discussions on trade unions. We have seen employers in the State which set up employee representative groups, that they would prefer to have and discuss with, rather than speak to the trade unions that represent workers. We do not want to have an equivalent, parallel language and practice here. Whether the Minister accepts the amendment in terms of the language I have put forward, it is absolutely fundamental that this Bill recognises that students' unions are elected by students.

Amendment No. 211 specifies that in preparing an equality statement, the education institutions would consult with representative groups and organisations. I have not specified such groups, but it is the principle. Those would be students, in particular, in this context. I am not talking about NGOs as I did previously, but students' groups that represent. We talk about under-represented groups within the university. Those groups may need to have that specific voice put forward in terms of being consulted because, they may not be large enough in number that they will end up elected fully to the students' unions. I am thinking of groups such as Minceirs Whiden in NUIG and the UCD LGBTQ society. A number of under-represented groups with which this Bill specifies that it wants to engage have their own representative organisations and groups that they have put together within universities. It is important to engage with them with regard to the equality strategies.

Amendment No. 213 inserts a new paragraph in section 62(5) to provide that an equality statement would specify the policy of the institution with regard to the protection of mental health and well-being. This could be within the equality statement or it may be a separate measure. I reserve the right to bring it forward elsewhere. It is crucial that there would be policies specified with regard to protection of mental health and well-being of students and staff, and supports in place within the institution, around the promotion of positive health and well-being. We know from the ESRI disrupted transitions report last month that poor mental health during the pandemic and Covid has been extremely disruptive in terms of young adults' employment, education, day-to-day activities and, indeed, mental health.

I have lengthy provisions and discussions to make in the area of mental health, because the Minister will be aware that it is a matter of absolutely crucial importance to staff and students. However, given the time constraints, I will move on. I note the high numbers of young people, many of whom are students, who are at the threshold for depression and the ESRI research in that regard. That is of significant concern.

Amendment No. 217 is important. The Minister mentioned the issue of social class and social and economic deprivation being wider than equality. If we are looking at equality and wider than those simple categories currently named under the Equal Status Acts and so forth, a crucial issue is that we would make provisions in our equality statements with regard to the policy of the institutions in terms of ending academic precarity.Precarious employment in Irish colleges leaves many academic staff and PhD students who work unable to secure bank loans, afford healthcare, find accommodation, start families or get above the poverty line. The Irish Precarity Network, which is a group of academics, researchers and educators, has warned of the devastating impacts.

A few years ago I launched a report from TASC which looked at precarious employment. The Living with Uncertainty report looked at the extremely damaging effect of precarious employment on individuals and society, including issues like academic freedom. It highlighted universities as an area where there is an acceleration in the levels of such employment and that is having a negative impact in precisely the kinds of institutions that should be coming forward with proposals for a more equitable society. This is a loss for society as well as for the individuals.

We know there are a huge number of people on temporary contracts of between three and 12 months. For PhD students, the Irish Research Council is deeply inadequate. I have facts and figures on precarious employment and the devastating impact it is having on individuals and on the institutions, the quality thereof and the ability of those working in them to do challenging work, build momentum or explore or do blue-sky thinking of any kind because they are constantly moving from contract to contract. I will not discuss the figures because we have so many amendments to get through. I know the Minister is aware of them and believe we should in our equality statements include provisions on precarity.

The Athena SWAN system, an established measure on gender equality in universities, has named precarious employment as a gender equality issue and identified the number of staff on secure contracts with secure progression pathways and continuity of employment as one of the main factors in determining whether we move forward on equality. The equality and precarity link has been strongly made by Athena SWAN regarding academic institutions. One of the best ways to deal with this is to make sure we have trade union representation on an t-údarás and the boards of institutions.

Amendment No. 274 provides that in preparing a strategic plan the chief executive of a university should consult "representative organisations of students belonging to priority groups”.

Amendment No. 275 suggests that when preparing a strategic plan, the chief executive of a university should consult the "trade union representatives of both academic and professional staff”. I would like to also see these represented on the boards.