We are resuming on section 15. Amendment No. 57 is in the names of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Senator Higgins has the floor.
Research and Innovation Bill 2024: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 15
Debate resumed on amendment No. 57:
In page 14, to delete lines 33 to 35, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2.
(Senator Alice Mary Higgins)
I will continue on amendments Nos. 57 to 60, inclusive. Amendment No. 69 has now been included in that grouping if I am correct because it is technical.
I had outlined many of my main concerns, which were with section 11 and the rather excessive powers given to the Minister to "give a direction in writing to the Agency" on "any matter ... referred to in this Act" or any other Act and, indeed, "the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government." That is the context, in that I would not be as concerned about the language in section 15 except that it is kind of complemented by those very overreaching powers under section 11.
In section 15, the board has to have the systems, procedures and practices in place to ensure "compliance with the policies (whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them) of the Government or a Minister of the Government". It comes from that concern that there is not clarity. Normally, I would read that and assume that because it states that these "policies may affect or relate to the functions of the Agency", the intention here is around health and safety codes, guidelines on best practices and so forth. However, the phrase "other documents" is a little unclear. I would like if that was clearer in terms of what is meant by that specifically. Some of my amendments seek to address that.
This also sits into the wider concern of the fact that these seem like they could be any policy of any Department. I would not normally jump to that assumption except that section 11 is really clear that it could be any policy of the Minister or Government. Therefore, if a Minister of Defence decides we want to focus a lot on defence research, which is one of the topics we will be discussing later and which is a real danger at the moment, that might become a memo that would then go to the border agency with which it would then be complying. That is the kind of concern I have. I do not have a concern about guidelines that are clear or that are policy where there is something like, for example, best practice, employment regulations and so forth. My amendments try to fix that.
Amendment no. 58 proposes to delete the phrase “(whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents ... )” Amendment No. 59 tries to put a very reasonable limit, which is to replace "guidelines, codes or other documents" with “(which are provided for by legislation or statutory instrument)”. It says that of course the agency should be ready and able to comply with any policies that are provided for by legislation or statutory instrument. That would cover all the very reasonable scenarios, for example, where the Minister for Health or Minister for Transport may have legislation with which they need the agency to comply. There may be many other Departments that for very good reason have guidelines or codes that touch upon the work of the agency. However, all of those guidelines or codes should be at least underpinned or provided for by legislation or statutory instrument. Bear in mind that in some cases, it may simply be that there is a statutory instrument to state that the Minister for Health may make regulations. Therefore, we are not saying that every detail of the specific proposal has to be there, but there is a traceability to why people are being asked to comply with this policy and on what authority. Crucially, it is only on the authority given to a Minister from the Oireachtas through legislation or statutory instrument. That is the important point. When we talk about the balance of powers and the Executive and the Legislature, we do not normally give completely blank cheques that say someone can tell people to do anything. We simply say they can be told what to do according to what is provided for by law. That is a reasonable caveat and limitation to place.
Amendment No. 60 seeks to have a limitation whereby the compliance is only in respect of the Minister or relevant Minister. Basically, they have to be ready to comply with Ministers or the relevant Minister for the purposes of this Act. To be honest; I believe amendment No. 59 is the best of these options because it sets out a clear limit around legislation or statutory instrument. I can see reasons whereby it may be necessary for the agency to comply with regulations from another Minister who is not the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I can envisage those scenarios. I would like the Minister of State to look at those amendments and at amendment No. 59 in particular. I believe it is a very reasonable caveat to add.
I thank the Senator. Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 deal with section 15 on the board of the agency. These are standard provisions based on existing legislation establishing agencies.
For amendment No. 60, the phrase “or a Minister of the Government” refers to the Minister for Public Expenditure NDP Delivery and Reform. This is a standard provision implementing governance and accountability guidelines. To discard these provisions would seem to imply that the Senators wish to remove the agency from the standard accountability and governance processes applicable to all State bodies.
The new agency will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and, as such, will need to be in compliance with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform code of practice for the governance of State bodies, for example. The CEO will be subject to appearance at hearings of the Committee of Public Accounts and will need to be able to rely on these provisions to ensure the agency operates in line with the public spending code. I am entirely unclear as to why it is considered appropriate for this one agency to be instructed to operate outside the normal governance channels that apply across the rest of the public service, particularly as it will be distributing significant amounts of taxpayers' money. For these reasons, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
Much of the language in the Bill does not reflect standard practice. The language in section 11, which affects the approach we have to take in section 15, is not standard. I have examined a lot of legislation coming through these Houses and have very rarely seen such discretionary power given to a Minister to give directions to an agency. There is not that breadth of discretionary power in most legislation, so the language is not standard. The Minister of State says the language is in other legislation. It is in the HEA Act but it was a problem when it was put into that Act. It was signalled as being out of step and a problem. It is in this Bill, too, and it is not standard practice.
The Minister of State mentioned the code of practice. I have no problem with that. Of course there should be accountability through the code on public expenditure and so forth but we have not limited the provision to codes or guidelines. The problem is the phrase "other documents". What are the other documents? In this regard, let me refer to an approach we could take on Report Stage with a view to being constructive. With regard to guidelines, codes, statutory instruments or other legislation, it is desirable to have reasons and state what the agency is being asked to do, who is asking for it to be done and the authority on which the request is being made. It is the reference to "other documents" that is vague. This is not the norm and I do not recall that language being used elsewhere. Even if it is elsewhere, it gives rise to additional concern because of the sweeping powers given in section 11.
Is amendment No. 69 in the group?
It has already been grouped with amendment No. 6.
Perfect. I thought it was but I have the old grouping to hand. I just wanted clarification.
With respect, the Minister of State's explanation does not really satisfy me. I am not suggesting the agency should be free-form and not respond to anything, but we need to be really clear about what it is being asked to do.
The Minister of State and the Senator have acknowledged the importance of governance. Governance is crucial. I hope we will see an increase in the Exchequer funding that goes to the agency but governance is of the utmost importance. The Minister, Department and chair of Tailte Éireann will need to be able to speak to this. It is important that the relevant Minister be the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. The titles of Ministers may change but the role and remit remains the same. It is about ensuring that the agency will abide by the same governance code and rules as every other statutory agency. It is important to highlight that in light of what has been outlined.
On directions of Ministers, the powers of the Minister under section 3, relating to regulations and orders, are standard, as evidenced in the Consumer Protection Act 2014 and the Freedom of Information Act 2014. Section 11 is also a standard provision, modelled on the provisions in existing legislation establishing agencies, including Tailte Éireann and the Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence Agency.
On Report Stage, I might propose a measure to ensure transparency where the Minister is giving directions and where there are policies that the board has to comply with, such that we would be able to know which policies. Of course, I am in favour of strong governance measures, but policies do not necessarily equate to those measures. In fact, sometimes policies go against good governance, and that is why I want to make sure there is a proper chain of accountability, not just for the agency but also in the policy directions given to it. It is so we will not have circumstances in which the agency might be asked to comply with a policy in a way that is at odds with good governance and other measures. Transparency may be a way of finding a useful compromise on this. I may introduce measures in this respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 14, lines 34 and 35, to delete "(whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them)".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 14, lines 34 and 35, to delete "(whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them)" and substitute "(which are provided for by legislation or statutory instrument)".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 15, line 1, to delete "or a Minister of the Government".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16
Amendment No. 61 not moved.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 15, line 20, to delete "the chairperson and".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 15, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(3) Not less than six ordinary members of the Board shall be active researchers and innovators, from a broad range of disciplines.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(4) In making appointments to the Board under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that there is a diversity of disciplinary experience and expertise on the Board and that there are persons appointed with expertise and experience in both the arts, humanities and social sciences and in science, engineering, mathematics and technology.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(4) In making appointments to the Board under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that persons from groups which are underrepresented in research and innovation are represented on the Board.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(4 One member to be appointed to the Board under subsection (2) shall be a worker representative of researchers and shall be nominated for appointment by a researchers’representative group.”.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Hackett, Pippa.
- Kyne, Seán.
- McGahon, John.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Eileen Flynn; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(4) One member to be appointed to the Board under subsection (2) shall have experience and expertise in workers’ rights in the sector and shall be nominated for appointment by the Irish Federation of University Teachers.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 15, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(5) The Minister shall nominate a suitably qualified person for appointment as chairperson and such a nomination shall require approval by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 16, line 15, after “Board” to insert “, excluding the chairperson,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I welcome Professor Daniel Carey from the University of Galway who is in the Gallery here today. He is very welcome to the House for this discussion.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23
Amendments Nos. 70 to 73, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 21, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(iii) the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,".
In the Bill, there is an anomaly in the corporate plan of the agency. The Bill sets out that the corporate plan shall include the objectives, outputs and other strategies, and that, in preparing it, the agency consults with a number of key actors. On the key actors who are mentioned here, I believe there is a slight concern that the Bill may skew the shaping of that corporate plan in terms of those issues that we have talked about such as parity of esteem, recognising the need for public research for the public good and the diverse outputs that we need from our universities and the crucial role they play in solving many of the collective challenges we face. When it comes to the corporate plan of the agency, the preparation and the consultation is with the Minister, which is appropriate, with An tÚdarás, which is appropriate, and then with Enterprise Ireland and the Industrial Development Agency and such other bodies as it considers appropriate. They will definitely be speaking to Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland whereas other groups - that may have a really important contribution and that the corporate plan should perhaps be checked by to ensure that it is serving all of society and not, for example, merely certain business interests, not that they are not important but that it is not overly focused on serving enterprise and business goals - are there as an option only.
This set of amendments seeks to slightly widen the list of bodies which the agency would consult with. I am not removing Enterprise Ireland or IDA Ireland, but seeking to ensure that we have something that approaches a wider balance when the agency is developing its corporate plan by ensuring that they would, for example, also consult with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which represents a huge swathe of Irish society and has much to contribute. For example, in the area of just transition, it is trade unions that have led the way in terms of the ideas and the solutions that may work in ensuring that we can as a society take action in respect of climate change in a way that also is sustainable for society.
Amendment No. 71 adds the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science as a body with which the agency would consult in developing its corporate plan. Amendment No. 72 suggests another approach to ensuring that the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science would be consulted with.
I wanted to indicate now also my intention to amend a section later in the Bill where we discuss the question of some of the bodies with which there may be administrative co-operation. Enterprise Ireland is there. I believe that the Health Research Board and the EPA should be reflected. I do not have it in this but I am indicating my intention to table an amendment that the Health Research Board and the Environmental Protection Agency are bodies the agency should perhaps consult with.
In terms of the bodies the agency may co-operate with, which arises later, there are a number of really important bodies I will suggest we might add in, including, for example, local authorities, Coimisiúm na Meán and the Heritage Council. There is a variety of important bodies in Irish society that may provide appropriate partnerships. I am not putting all of them in the must-consult-with section, but to simply have Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland creates a real danger of a corporate plan which is effectively skewed towards channelling our research and innovation primarily towards corporate interests rather than towards the other areas of public good, as set out, for example, by the Health Research Board or the Environmental Protection Agency. I refer to goals which may not be profit-making for individuals but are of extraordinarily important value for society and which may not be to the foreground in the room when the corporate plan is being made unless they are consulted with. These are my concerns around section 23 in general. Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 reflect that concern.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 relate to the annual plan of the agency. The first two of the amendments were amendments on the corporate plan but in terms of the annual plan, I also suggest that there may be engagement with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I have one amendment seeking that there would be consultation and another amendment which might be around the preparation of the annual plan and approval of that committee. I realise the latter amendment is possibly a bar too far. The consultation amendment, No. 72, represents a reasonable compromise. I hope the Minister of State might be able to accept that.
We have spoken previously on this as well with Senator Higgins. This agency is for research and innovation. Innovation is about bringing the fruits of research out into our communities and out into society to ensure that it has an impact and that it does not sit on a dusty shelf somewhere. That is what is really crucial about this.
Much of this knowledge transfer and technology transfer is across all research disciplines. It is important that we see so much multidisciplinary research that is bringing in all types of colleges within universities, as well as the innovation aspects working together, because that creates real impact in our society and communities. It is crucial that we see that innovation and development of research and bring it on that pathway so that it will have impact immediately or as soon as possible.
As has been mentioned previously, this is a brand new agency under the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I cannot wait until this new Taighde Éireann is before the education committee, of which I am a member, and the members are able to state the targets and the funding and ask what are we doing for our researchers, how much innovation are we seeing come out and what is the impact on our society. I cannot wait until that happens. I know they will be because, already, on the education committee, Ministers, Departments, chairpersons and statutory agencies come and present before us. I very much look forward to that opportunity when they do.
It is important to see that Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, for example, could potentially be co-funding partnerships already in the universities. Enterprise Ireland has technology transfer officers, TTOs. They work within the university system with our research offices and with our researchers at present and it is crucial they are part of this.
In terms of other agencies, as has been mentioned there are partnerships existing currently, for example, with the Health Research Board, HRB. That was created specifically and gets funding under the Department of Health because it is focused on medical research. Already there are partnerships in place, as the Minister of State will be aware, with the existing funding agencies and that will continue into Taighde Éireann.
To be clear, there are agencies that sit under different Departments. Then there are agencies, I guess, that will be co-funding and will be engaging in partnerships as well.
In terms of amendment Nos. 70 and 71 which deal with section 23, the corporate plan of agency, the Senators wish to require consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the joint committee in preparing the corporate plan. This would be highly unusual. Where there is a specific consultation requirement in previous legislation, it is as laid out as in the existing provision and it is usual only where there is an alignment of funding and planning requirements. For example, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 requires consultation between the Minister for Health and the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. The proposed amendment does not fit with this approach.
I also recall that Research Ireland will not be the employer of the researchers that receive funding from it. I am somewhat puzzled, therefore, as to the benefits of consulting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as any industrial relations issues that are arising would be pursued with the employers, that is, the higher education institutions.
The provisions as worded in the Bill are in line with provisions in comparable legislation and the requirement is included at subsection (8) that the plan be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
There is also provision in section 31 under "Accountability of Chief Executive Officer to other Oireachtas committees" for the committee to request the chief executive officer to attend before it to account for the general administration of the agency. The existing provision also enables the agency to consult with other persons and bodies as it considers appropriate, which gives scope for such additional consultations as may be necessary. The provision is in the interest of ensuring clarity of purpose and connected planning in the research and innovation system as a whole, which is the reason for including the requirement to consult with the bodies specified. We need to ensure co-ordination and the best possible use of public funding for research and innovation, which is the basis for these consultations being required. For these reasons, we are not accepting these two amendments.
On amendments Nos. 72 and 73, the provision as worded in the Bill is in line with provisions in comparable legislation and the requirement is included in subsection (8) that the plan be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The existing provision also includes that the agency may consult with such other persons or bodies as are considered appropriate. There is no analogous provision in any Act whereby a Minister is required to seek approval of an Oireachtas committee before exercising statutory power to give a direction to a statutory body. To give an Oireachtas committee this power would appear to trespass upon the role of the Executive, which is accountable to the whole of the Oireachtas in the management of statutory bodies. The Oireachtas legislates but it is not responsible for the management and supervision of the statutory bodies under legislation. For the Oireachtas to legislate to give a committee such a function in the management of a statutory body could potentially be a breach of the separation of powers. For these reasons, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
There is also provision in section 31 under "Accountability of Chief Executive Officer to other Oireachtas committees" for the committee to request the chief executive officer to attend before it to give account of the general administration of the agency. Consultation in the normal process is in the Bill already.
I will come back on the question of who the agency consults and the corporate plan. I will probably bring further amendments to that section on Report Stage. I urge that the Department consider or review this because the logic does not stand up. In emphasising the word "innovation", it is as if it is against innovation to mention there are other things besides the corporate or private sector. Innovation has often been public innovation. Public funding drove much of the innovation in respect of vaccines and led to the foundation of most of the computing advances we have seen. Public innovation and innovation for the public good are crucial. With respect to Enterprise Ireland and the IDA, while they do important work, they have a remit and mandate. That is fine, but that remit and mandate is industrial development and cultivation of enterprise.
The argument is that the Health Research Board sits underneath a different Department; however, Enterprise Ireland and the IDA also sit under a different Department. The Health Research Board may well be co-funding important research that comes through. It is not enough to have the Health Research Board, Environmental Protection Agency and so forth downstream in the partnerships while the IDA and Enterprise Ireland are upfront in the five-year plan. That is the important bit. If they are in the room, through no fault of their own they will focus on their remit and ask where is the potential for enterprise, which is not analogous with innovation. One of the most enterprising things people often do is buy up innovation that is taking place and put it on a dusty shelf so it is not used and a monopoly is maintained. That is one of the major things we have seen from the corporate sector. That is a form of enterprise but it is not conducive to innovation. They do not necessarily map onto each other. Sometimes enterprise and innovation are used as if they are interchangeable but they can be at cross-purposes.
I will introduce more amendments on that and it would be useful if the Minister of State were to look at it. I could suggest loads of people. I suggest ICTU but I understand the Minister of State is not accepting that amendment. Looking at the partnerships outlined in the Bill and the further partnerships I have proposed, maybe some of them should also be named as having an input in the preparation of the five-year corporate plan. There would be consistency in that and it would go some way towards signalling the parity of esteem we have heard about. It would be an important gesture.
The cogent points made by Senator Dolan have, if anything, underscored the importance of having wider consultation at the point of corporate plan preparation.
We fully understand the Senators' intentions with these amendments but we argue the existing provisions contain the capacity for the kind of consultation and communication the agency will need in terms of planning. The proposed amendment would not be usual and the provision is already in the Bill for the CEO to communicate with committees as requested.
We agree public funding is crucial. Enterprise Ireland and the IDA are major research funders. That proves to us the need to ensure co-ordination with those organisations.
I have indicated my intention to discuss this further on Report Stage. I note the difference between "shall" and "may". It is "shall" in respect of Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. I have not sought to remove those, though that is an option that could be considered. I am not objecting to consultation with those agencies but if there was consultation with them and not others, then we have an imbalance that is inappropriate. We will try to address that on Report Stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 21, between lines 10 and 10, to insert the following:
“(iii) the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 22, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(4) In preparing the annual plan, the Agency shall consult with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 22, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(8) A direction given under subsection (5) shall be laid before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and shall require the approval of that Joint Oireachtas Committee.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."
I may bring an amendment on transparency in respect of gifts. This is the section whereby gifts may be given to the agency, and that is fine. The agency has to get the Minister's consent to accept a gift but I may also look for transparency and a public record of any such gifts.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28
Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(4) A person designated as the first Chief Executive Officer under subsection (3) shall hold office for a period not exceeding 30 months.”.
This amendment seeks to amend section 28 by requiring that the person designated as the first chief executive officer under subsection (3) should hold office for a period not exceeding 30 months. Currently, the Minister has the power to unilaterally appoint the first CEO before the establishment day and the individual appointed may not go through the public appointments process. This is to suggest that there is a public appointments process attached to subsequent appointments but the first person appointed will effectively predate the establishment of that process. As this person is not going through the public appointments process, it would be appropriate that he or she would be appointed for a term of two and a half years. It is a bit of a cart and horse situation, whereby the executive will be appointed and the process will then be put in place for the appointment. That may be necessary for a transition period but the person should certainly not be appointed for a five-year term without having gone through any kind of process, other than a ministerial appointment. A term of two and a half years would allow for the establishment of the agency and the establishment of appropriate Public Appointment Service processes for the finding of a replacement or indeed if the same candidate were to apply again.
Amendment No. 75 seeks the deletion of section 31(9), which currently provides that in the performance of his or her duties under the section, the chief executive officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy. Again, this is part of a really worrying and general tone of overreach that we see. This is a kind of muddying of the line between what is an independent agency, operating independently and bringing separate expertise, and what is basically a Government puppet character to be created, somebody who cannot question the Government or say one word questioning any Government policy. We want to have somebody of an exceptional standard in this role of chief executive officer of this incredibly important agency. As was pointed out, this agency has a crucial role in the disbursement of funds and in driving the areas of research and innovation that will be crucial for setting the agenda for the future. If that person is gagged and unable to speak in any way that criticises any policy, it will effectively undermine confidence, nationally and internationally, in the agency and undermine our credibility as a State. Imagine attaching such a gagging order to prevent he head of the Climate Change Advisory Council prevent from criticising or commenting on any Government policy. We would have a Climate Change Advisory Council that could not speak about any issues or policies that might relate to climate change. That role would become effectively meaningless. It would be a purely administrative role and would no longer be giving guidance. The same would apply if we were to have a gagging order attached to this CEO role.
I refer to the exact language proposed in section 30 because it is quite significant. It states:
In the performance of his or her duties under this section, the Chief Executive Officer shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy.
That is extraordinary. Separately, in section 11, the agency is required to implement any government policy on "any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other enactment". That is literally the language used. It is then proposed to have a chief executive officer who is not allowed to question or express an opinion on the merits of a policy. An Oireachtas committee may question a chief executive officer but he or she will not be allowed to speak about any Government policy or even speak about the objectives of a Government policy. This measure creates a gagging order on the future chief executive officer as regards important questions, such as how things are going in research innovation in the State, what are the areas of priority or focus, are they the right areas and are they delivering, all of which are likely to count as an opinion on the policy of a Government or a Minister of the State. Not only does it gag that individual and limit the agency in its independence, but it also represents an overreach in that it limits the power of an Oireachtas committee to do its job of holding the chief executive officer to account and of asking the CEO to give full and frank statements and answers to questions from committee members. We would have a chief executive officer who will have to decline to answer probably half the questions of any committee. This is overreach by the Government in that it tries to curtail the voice of an independent agency. It is overreach by the Executive into the Legislature in that it seeks to curtail the powers, transparency and accountability tools of the Oireachtas. It is not for the public good to have such a restrictive measure. I ask that consideration be given to shifting the language here in order that we can have a CEO who can perform the job effectively and a committee that can get effective answers, opinions and input from the CEO.
I will deal with amendment No. 76 separately.
Yes, amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are related.
Amendment No. 74 deals with section 28. The chief executive officer will be appointed for an ordinary term. This was proposed in the heads of the Bill and the appointment is in place. Appointments to public bodies are well understood and operate according to established principles, which I do not see merit in altering. We also need clarity of purpose and continuity of leadership in the establishment phase of the agency. This will be crucial in laying the foundations for success. Disrupting the term will not be supportive of these efforts. I also note that the proposed 30-month term is a mere two and a half years and would seem unhelpfully short for the process of establishing a new agency.
With regard to amendment No. 75, the provision as already worded in the Bill is in line with similar provisions in comparable legislation. It would place the officeholder in an invidious position were he or she to be required to attend a committee and be asked to comment on Government policy, which, as impartial public servants, officeholders are charged with implementing. The existing provision already contains the capacity for requiring the CEO to communicate with the committee in an appropriate manner and for limiting the term of office of the CEO. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the two amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 28 agreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 26, to delete lines 39 to 42.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 26, after line 42, to insert the following:
“(10) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the compellability powers of an Oireachtas Committee, save for where the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Dáil Éireann and the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Seanad Éireann have otherwise provided.”.
The amendment seeks to insert a new subsection in section 31, which would explicitly provide that, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the compellability powers of an Oireachtas Committee, save for where the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Dáil Éireann and the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of Seanad Éireann have otherwise provided.”. I am concerned that certain aspects of the section, particularly section 31(2) to 31(5), could seek to limit the power of Oireachtas committees. It is appropriate, in the context of the separation of power, that Oireachtas committees would not debate live legal cases but some of these exclusions seems to be very much reliant on the discretion of the CEO and the board rather than the Oireachtas itself.
I have a particular concern about the provision in section 31(2), "the Chief Executive Officer shall not be required to give account before an Oireachtas committee for any matter that is or has been or may be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal of inquiry". Again, the use of the past tense is a real concern. It is to be understood that it would not be appropriate that an Oireachtas committee would be engage in respect of live proceeding but something that may have, in the past, been the subject of a court case or a tribunal of inquiry before the State may well prove to be of interest subsequently to an Oireachtas committee. The Oireachtas is regularly required to respond to court proceedings where legislation may have been overturned or tribunals of inquiry where a legislative or policy change is required to address the findings of such a tribunal, for example, the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes or other bodies. Tribunals and bodies very often produce a set of recommendations that may well require action by the State and those recommendations require consideration. I am concerned with the wording used here. If, for example, there was a concerning issue or a scandal in respect of an area of research and innovation and there was a tribunal of inquiry or court cases in respect of that and, subsequently, it became clear that new policies, ideas or approaches are needed,, the CEO of the research innovation body could effectively decline to engage with an Oireachtas committee because the topic at hand had previously been the subject of a tribunal. Again, it is the use of the past tense. The future tense is a little concerning because the words "may be" is somewhat ambiguous but I know that this is standard language and is used often.
I may come back to this matter on Report Stage. I am concerned about the language used and hope that the Minister of State can address my concerns.
The section has been drafted as a standard provision and primarily relates to situations that may arise involving ongoing legal cases where the integrity of the case is paramount and to ensure respect for the separation of powers, as provided for under the Constitution. This does not interfere with any functions or powers of any aspect of the Oireachtas as the provision is already completely limited and discrete. We, therefore, do not propose to accept the amendment.
Section 31(2) refers to "any matter that is or has been or may be the subject of proceedings". The Minister of State mentioned "ongoing" legal proceedings. Which is it? Is it something that "has been"? Is it the case that if a matter "has been" dealt with and that proceedings are now finished and not ongoing that the subject matter is eligible? What I understand is standard is "ongoing", as the Minister of State said, but what I see written down in front of me are the words "or has been", which is a wider piece, and that is why I seek clarification.
The section gives detailed guidance on how to deal with these matters, should they arise, with the High Court being the ultimate arbiter. The use of the words "has been" covers matters that may be the subject of an appeal, for example.
This matter needs clarity. Maybe a "'without prejudice to" clause could be added. I totally agree in respect of live, imminent or ongoing legal proceedings even where they are in a gap, for example, between a case and an appeal. However, historic matters, for example, should not end up being closed off. Later I will discuss amendments that deal with ethical issues that may arise during research and innovation. Because those same ethical conflicts may have led to court proceedings of some kind and we should not then see a situation where the body could not be taken to court. We should not have a situation, for example, where people feel they have to choose between seeking justice in a court and transparency in respect of the operation of a public body.
I am happy to debate this matter on Report Stage as it needs further thought.
Does the Minister of State wish to respond?
I have no more to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
I may table amendments on confidential information where there is an issue in respect of representation. There may be caveats in situations where information is obtained by a member of a board. To make it clear, it is notwithstanding areas where there is a public good that may be required in respect of a disclosure. I will come to that on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 30, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(2) Research and Innovation Ireland, shall, in so far as it is consistent with the proper performance of its functions under Head 9, and only to extent that these collaborations further support and fund competitive research and innovation, endeavour to secure administrative co-operation.”.
I withdraw my amendment and reserve the right to speak to it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 78 is in the names of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 83 to 85, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 31, line 19, after “appropriate” to insert “and in a manner which is accessible”.
The amendment is relatively simple and requires that the agency when it promotes and disseminates "information concerning funding schemes" would do so "in a manner which is accessible". It has been emphasised that the Bill does not deal exclusively with research and funding. I hope higher and further education institutions will play a key role in this but they are not the only area. Research and innovation can come from many sources and take many forms, including from members of civil society, civil society organisations, representative bodies and self-advocates of different kinds. The amendment wants to make sure that information is accessible. We want the dissemination and promotion of information on funding schemes to be accessible for those who may not be in conventional higher education institutions. We want it to be accessible in the sense of, for example, compatibility with the web accessibility directive. We also want appropriate language to be used, including plain English or, indeed, ISL.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 35 of the Bill that would mandate the agency to have due regard to put in place a diverse range of schemes under this Part, including schemes of different scales and purposes. I will mention accessibility as well because it will be important that we do not have a situation where only those who already have large resources are in a position to apply for funding, which is sometimes the case. That is a measure to be looked at so that we would have transparency. That goes to the concern about a little bit of a risk of corporate capture in some of how the agency is being set up.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to insert a new subsection that would mandate the agency to have due regard to a diverse range of schemes, including schemes of different scales and purposes. The level of detail in the grant-making process that is provided in Part 3 of the Bill may inadvertently result in the agency's hands being tied in terms of how it can design schemes in a way that ends up disadvantaging and creating obstacles for smaller schemes, as opposed to bigger and more financially lucrative schemes. This amendment specifically refers to the excellent outreach research, networking and education programmes that are often provided by smaller schemes for which the requirements as currently set out are not particularly well aligned. Scale matters. If we have this body creating giant amalgamated schemes that only work with, for example, large partners or large or well-established institutions, we are going to lose out on some of what comes from smaller actors. Much innovation can come from small, nimble actors or those who may have first-hand experience of an issue which is proposed to be tackled by a research and innovation programme. We know that innovation may happen in a scheme that is targeted on the western seaboard and is looking at particular areas of just transition, to mention one example. In public procurement we had a situation whereby some just transition schemes, such as a cycleway in the midlands, were only given to those who already had experience of running large-scale schemes. In that case it was an enterprise initiative from local actors in the local area and it was effectively ruled out. Such small-scale targeted schemes look to the minutiae of the topics and are open to geographically smaller schemes. Maybe this is something that needs to be looked at. There are many different ways of describing it. I am thinking of some of the schemes that have been really transformative in Ireland. The Irish Research Council, for example, had a scheme in respect of the sustainable development goals which was very important but did not involve huge financing. The council gave small but significant grants to a large number of actors to perform small but important projects to further the achievement of the sustainable development goals. I am worried we will not have that same kind of diversity in terms of participants, creativity and output if we do not have a diversity in terms of schemes.
Moving on to the other amendments in this group, I will check the grouping. Is it amendment No. 82 and amendments Nos. 86 to 88, inclusive?
The grouping is amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 83 to 85, inclusive.
Amendment No. 83 would impose an additional duty on the CEO when considering how decisions made by the agencies in respect of their assessment of applications would receive the appropriate balance in terms of disbursement of funding. The amendment provides that the CEO, in making a consideration, would have due regard to the need to uphold and advance the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines. Parity of esteem has come up repeatedly and is probably the most pressing issue, along with the conditions of work for researchers and staff. It comes up throughout the country from all those in the sector. The concern we have is that social sciences and the humanities will end up in a lesser position in respect of the funding, the action and the vision that comes out of this new research and innovation agency. Currently, parity of esteem is nowhere in the text. All we have in the text are occasional phrases which say that there may be a variety of kinds of research and innovation. However, we do not have any language that gives assurance.
I assure the Minister of State that many individual people have contacted me to highlight this issue. They are very concerned that we will see a huge focus on STEM and enterprise, and far less given to the humanities and the social sciences, which are vital at a time when social cohesion is crumbling across Europe. When we look at the importance of having inclusive societies, we see how fundamental this area is. Indeed some areas of biodiversity may not be covered by STEM. All of these areas - our culture, our history and our understanding of it - are important. I have given the Minister of State four or five opportunities to insert parity of esteem into the Bill. This is probably one of the most important issues. This amendment would insert parity of esteem into the funding process and say that when designing schemes and allocating resources - this is about the money and where it often matters - the CEO would bear in mind the issue of parity of esteem and seek to ensure it is reflected in the design of funding schemes and in the allocation of resources. This is an opportunity to address a core issue in a really solid way when the resources are being handed out. If the Minister of State were to accept this amendment or provide his own version of it, it would give a huge assurance. This is probably one of the most effective locations where parity of esteem could be addressed.
There are two more amendments in this section. Amendment No. 84 seeks to impose an additional duty on the CEO in terms of the consideration for applications for funding to have due regard to the employment conditions for researchers at the applicant body. It proposes that when the CEO is considering applications for funding, one of the matters to be considered is whether the people who are going to be employed in the proposal will be properly employed. Are there decent conditions for the researchers? It is a legitimate and appropriate issue because if the overall goals are meant to be around building a national environment that is conducive to research and innovation, in having that wider goal in mind the CEO would add a question about the conditions for researchers when determining which projects should get which resource. We do not want a situation where the project that is favoured is one that underpays its researchers, has insecure contracts, is going to rely entirely on underpaid and unrecognised postgraduate workers, and is not actually going to give back in terms of the people within research and innovation in Ireland. Such projects may be able to come in with a proposal that looks to offer slightly better value. Indeed, they may be favoured for research over a project that tries to apply ethical standards and in a holistic way gives better value in terms of research and innovation in the long term. I see this not as a way of penalising the bad project but as a way of ensuring there are rewards for those who seek to attach good terms and conditions, build and contribute to career pathways that are viable in research and innovation in this country, and thereby also contribute to the retention of skilled researchers in our country who we are at high risk of losing due to the constant precarity of their situation.
Amendment No. 85 seeks to make the awarding of funding conditional on the requirement that a recipient would ensure that persons carrying out research within the applicant body would be in receipt of attendant employment rights and protections in line with the Salzburg principles, the ten basic principles agreed to in the 2005 Bologna seminar which underpinned further consideration of the key role of doctoral programmes and research training.
Amendment No. 84 has a wider question around employment conditions. Amendment No. 85 specifies some of the ways we could do that. One is a bit more prescriptive while the other is a general point in terms of consideration. I hope the Minister of State might be able to take on board one of those.
Before I call Senator Dolan, I welcome Professor Daniel Carey of NUIG, who is the guest of Senator Clonan, to the Public Gallery. I hope Professor Carey enjoys his experience.
I welcome Professor Carey. We should have this debate as Gaeilge as well. I worked specifically on promoting funding programmes within SFI so I know a lot about the accessibility of some of these programmes, how we promote them, how we engaged researchers from a broad background and how we were one of the first agencies many years ago to do online Teams-type events and activities to ensure we could reach the maximum number of people in all ways either in person where research offices would be delivering information to researchers or the agency itself taking on that role and delivering that information. This will only continue. I can only imagine the types of ways it is engaging with researchers across the country, particularly in our new technological universities.
Regarding just transition, as has been mentioned by Senator Higgins, if I could be in two places at once, a very good meeting on just transition and the funding available for communities with regard to developing their local areas is happening now in Ballinasloe. I know of a cycleway plan where more than €1 million was received. Again, it was a community group that got that funding so I would argue that particular point.
This Government has put the arts, humanities and social sciences on a statutory footing that did not exist before through this new agency so I welcome this. I welcome the fact that this agency will put this on a secure footing. It shows that there is very much a balance across the type of areas and all research areas that we will be looking to fund under Taighde Éireann. Above all, we will be funding excellence. Excellence across these areas is what we want to see. We want to see this with our researchers and we are seeing it already.
When it comes to our researchers and the type of research that is done, it is about accessing international funding as well. This is thanks to funding partnerships that are done across a lot of these agencies. Those type of funding mechanisms are for potentially three, four or five years. Many researchers in Ireland come from abroad and we are very lucky to have them. We are very fortunate to have that excellence. They might stay. They stay and become principal investigators and may run centres. We are very fortunate to have that. Taighde Éireann is about making sure that we go into the future having all of our areas of research on a statutory footing, which is what this agency sets out to do. I acknowledge the goal and vision of the Taoiseach in his former role as Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and officials within the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and Government as a whole, which is what we want to see here.
Amendment No. 78 relates to section 35 and making the information concerning funding schemes accessible. Again, the requirements for transparency and open competition already capture this. In terms of equality, diversity and inclusion considerations, this is captured in the objects of the agency under section 8(f), where it is required to "advance the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion with regard to opportunities to undertake research and innovation and in the undertaking of that research and innovation". Inclusive practices will be a consideration of every aspect of the work of the agency.
In respect of amendment No. 81, prescriptive lists again risk limiting the provision in unintended ways and omissions being read as intentional in some way. The agency will be continuing the IRC's critical work of supporting researchers at all career stages. There will be no sudden shocks at the establishment phase and Taighde Éireann will continue to make competitive funding awards across all disciplines and of varying sizes in a way that complements the Higher Education Authority’s core investment in higher education institutions. The outreach and education considerations are captured in the broader provision in the functions under section 9(m). I do not propose to accept this amendment for these reasons.
With regard to amendment No. 83, as previously discussed, parity of esteem is a core and vital principle and underpins all of the provisions within the Bill and the planning for the new agency. However, including this phrase, from a drafting perspective, was ultimately a question of whether it is appropriate for legislation. The Statute Book has a requirement for clear, concise and actionable language. There is a requirement for domestic legislation to maintain the clarity and integrity of the statute. The advice was that there is no precedent in statute and that the phrase itself does not give us the necessary clarity of provision. Ultimately, we need to ensure that parity of esteem is woven in a meaningful way throughout the provisions of the Bill. It is included here in a much more practical fashion under section 37 in requiring the CEO to ensure that the agency is delivering on the objects and functions; the objectives, outputs and related strategies in the corporate plan; and the proposed activities and performance targets related to those activities in the annual plan. In terms of assessment, section 37(2) provides that the assessment of proposals:
The assessment of proposals for research and innovation contained in applications—
(a) shall be undertaken by an assessor or assessors, with the required expertise to do so having regard to the purpose of the funding scheme concerned, who are nominated by the Chief Executive Officer for that purpose,
(b) shall be conducted in an independent and transparent manner in accordance with the terms of that funding scheme and this Part, and
(c) shall include an assessment and evaluation of the standard and quality of the proposals by the assessor or assessors so nominated for that purpose by peer review on an international basis, by reference to an international standard or by any other review process that is equivalent to international good practice
The existing provision in the definitions, objects and functions and in this section ensures the real capacity to support the requirement for the agency to ensure parity of esteem in a practical sense. This is much more functional and practical than including the words with no requirement for action. I cannot accept these amendments for this reason.
Amendment No. 84 relates to the employment conditions of researchers at the applicant body and for this reason, cannot be included as this is outside the remit of the agency and the scope of the Bill. Regarding amendment No. 85, as previously discussed, the Salzburg principles are not mandatory. They are something the higher education institutions themselves make a decision on and in terms of ensuring academic freedom, that decision is with the higher education institutions themselves and it would not be appropriate to include in this Bill. I, therefore, do not propose to accept this amendment.
To be clear, we have heard it multiple times that parity of esteem is woven throughout and underpins the Bill but it is not anywhere in the Bill because it is very vague and I do not believe it is clear enough. There is a significant contradiction. We are constantly told that parity of esteem is here but it is nowhere to be seen. Not only is the phrase "parity of esteem" not found anywhere in this Bill, there is nothing that gives the effect. The Minister of State said there is language there that gives effect but there is nothing I can see that gives a guarantee of parity of esteem or the effect of parity of esteem. He mentioned the objects and functions.
I am looking at the objects, however, and they are very clear. They refer to "the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines by researchers [of] different levels". While the Bill states there will be research in all areas, stating that everything will be covered is not the same as state there will be parity of esteem. The Bill does not state that 10% or 20% might be given to one area and 70% or 80% to another. There is nothing that addresses the very reasonable fear of an imbalance. Senator Dolan referred to the word "balance". If there is a concern about the language of "parity of esteem", maybe language around ensuring a balance between the different sectors could be used. At the moment, however, there is nothing that indicates balance, nothing that indicates there will be equity and nothing that states practical effect will be given to parity of esteem. There is literally no guarantee at all. The Government is setting a lot of cogs and instruments in motion here. It is setting out objects, functions, a corporate plan and guidelines for funding. It is setting in place a lot of processes and none of them have built into them any mechanism that is designed to ensure anything like an equitable or balanced outcome or parity of esteem for the humanities, social sciences and so forth and STEM. With respect to the Minister of State, simply stating one is guided by a principle of parity of esteem, which one does not believe means anything, and that is why one does not want to put it in the Bill is not enough of an assurance. The people I have spoken to think parity of esteem is a meaningful phrase, and they would feel a lot better if it were in the Bill. If, however, the Government is not putting it in the Bill, it needs to put in something else. The measure I have proposed here is about ensuring that when funding and courses are being designed, thought is given to parity of esteem or maybe to the language Senator Dolan used. As I heard her contribution, I thought that perhaps something like "balance" could be used. That may be a way around this. However, the Government needs to have something that does not simply state both the humanities and sciences will be there and that interdisciplinary stuff might be there. It needs to indicate that there will be some fairness in how those are addressed, allocated and prioritised.
When the Minister of State recited the ways in which things will be considered, he again mentioned the corporate plan. Under the objects, the Bill simply says others will be there. Under the functions, co-operation and collaboration with Enterprise Ireland and other bodies are explicitly mentioned, but Enterprise Ireland is taken into the section whereas other bodies are not. As regards the corporate plan, we know there is the issue with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. There is therefore a real danger that we lose out on areas of research and innovation that may not be of direct interest to Enterprise Ireland or the IDA.
Lastly, I find a little hard to accept the language that we do not want to interfere in any way in the employment practices of universities, higher education institutions or research institutions. This is in a Bill which is reaching to a huge extent in respect of certain powers, following the HEA Bill. That Bill gave the Minister all kinds of powers, just the same as this Bill, to give direction and to say the Minister can tell you to do anything when he or she wants to. The exact same language is in the HEA Bill as is in this Bill. The Government therefore has absolutely no problem with the Minister and the Government making policy requirements and giving policy direction to this agency or to individual higher education institutions or through the Higher Education Authority, yet, somehow, giving an opinion on whether there should be decent working conditions would be too much of an overreach. Is it or is it not the policy of the Government that there should be decent working conditions, fair remuneration and career progression opportunities for researchers? If it is not Government policy, why not? If it is, why is the Government holding back on giving direction on it? It is not holding back on any other Government policy. It is like saying we want to wash our hands of the employment contracts but we also want to make sure our thumb is firmly on any other area of policy or compliance. It does not wash. The Government does not get to step away while also stepping in. I would like the Minister of State to clarify that. Is it the policy of the Government that there should be career opportunities that are fair, career progression that is fair, remuneration that is fair, recognition in respect of employment standards and, if not long-term contracts, at least security of contracts and a lack of reliance on precarious practices for those working in research in Ireland? Is that the Government's policy or not or does the Government have a policy on that?
The Minister of State might speak to this point a little. The corporate plan, from my understanding of it, is an organisational structure, so the structure of Taighde Éireann is about how it will operate. That is what the corporate plan, to my understanding, is about. It is more the organisational structure because it will be an agency bringing together two entities. What is spoken about in the corporate plan is how it develops its strategy going out from that. My understanding, however, is that the corporate plan is not about any of the engagements outside the agency; it is internal to the agency and its operational development.
To comment again on the parity of esteem point, Senators will recall that the agency, under section 8, will be charged with supporting "the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines by researchers with different levels of knowledge, experience and specialist skills in such fields or disciplines". The Bill states "all fields" of research.
I quoted the same section.
The agency will also be required "to promote and support the contribution made by research and innovation to economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability in the State". Yes, this is about economic development but it is also about social, cultural and environmental progress. No one concept is elevated above another here. In fact, they all have parity.
I read out the same section exactly to emphasise the point. Yes, it says all areas are included. What it does not say, however, is that they will all be treated equally or, if not equally, close to equally, or that there will be a balance in how they are treated. I acknowledge that no one thing is elevated in the Bill, but the concern is that one or two may be elevated in practice, and there is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening. The concern is that we will see an imbalance between those. I gave the example of the possibility of there being €100 million for one area of research and innovation and €1 billion for another. That is the question. We know that everything is covered in the Bill because the Bill amalgamates the Irish Research Council and Science Foundation Ireland. All the areas will be brought together under this new body. That is not in question, and we know that the body has a responsibility to support all these areas. The question is whether there is equity in the approach. There is a concern - I believe it is a fair and reasonable one - that there may be an imbalance in how these areas are addressed.
Again, I am genuinely looking to see how it is possible to give or to signal an assurance to people that they do not have to worry about that aspect. The language to be used could be something to the effect that all these areas will all be there and there will be a balance in terms of how they are all addressed, in how the agency approaches them and, indeed, in how the agency allocates resources to them. Maybe the word "balance" is a compromise one that could be brought in here. It is not the same as "parity" because this word means equity, but at least having the word "balance" would give us something that would allow us to highlight a situation were an obvious imbalance were to arise. As I said, it is less than parity but it might represent a compromise that could work on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 31, line 20, after “independent” to insert “, impartial”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 31, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(7) The Agency shall ensure that in the allocation of resources and the design, disbursal and administration of schemes that the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines is upheld.”.
I will withdraw the amendment and bring it back on Report Stage for further discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 31, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(7) The Agency shall have due regard to the need to ensure that the range of schemes put in place under this Part includes schemes of differing scales and purposes, including smaller schemes and targeted schemes which facilitate good quality outreach, research networking and education programming.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35 agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37
Amendments Nos. 82 and 86 to 88, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 32, line 26, after “independent” to insert “, impartial”.
I am moving this amendment but the Minister of State previously made strong points on a similar amendment around the language of “impartial” versus “independent”, so I signal that I will withdraw it. The argument the Minister made was strong in the debate on a previous amendment. I believe I must move it, however, because it is the first in the grouping.
Amendment No. 86 seeks to amend section 42 to provide that where the CEO is making a determination in respect of compliance with conditions for funding for research and innovation they would be required to consult with the board.
Amendment No. 87 seeks to amend section 43(1) that where a determination was being made in respect of mitigating measures to address non-compliance with conditions for research and innovation there would be a requirement to consult with the board.
Amendment No. 88 is an alternative to amendment No. 87 and will provide for an alternative point at which the CEO would consult with the board regarding amending funding arrangements in light of non-compliance.
These amendments are just trying to ensure what will happen when significant decisions may be being made. I do believe there are, in fact, circumstances where they will need to be made. I indicate that I will be bringing forward amendments later that will look at certain situations whereby, for example, questions arise of incompatibility with international law, breaches of international law and human rights standards. There may well be circumstances in which it may, unfortunately, be necessary that questions would be asked concerning compliance or even a scenario where an amendment may need to be made to funding applications. It is important, however, that this type of provision is as transparent as possible.
This is why I am suggesting that when applying powers under section 42 it would be appropriate that the CEO would engage with the board of the agency. It is a significant undertaking to decide whether there must be a review of funding or a potential withdrawal of funding. This is a situation where there may be within the board, if it is appointed in the balanced way I hope it will be, a balance of expertise and skills that could be relevant. We cannot expect the CEO to have expertise in every area and on every issue. There is also a concern regarding any situation where too much power is being consolidated in the hands of any one person. In this case, a great amount of power is being placed in the hands of the Minister and below that level of responsibility a great deal of power is also being placed in the hands of the chief executive officer. It is always important that there be checks and balances in terms of how such powers are exercised. Perhaps the Minister of State might indicate his perspective regarding whether the powers bestowed by section 42, concerning the review of compliance, might be something the board could be part of.
Equally, regarding the chief executive officer initiating a review in certain situations, I signal that there should also perhaps be a mechanism whereby the board could request the chief executive officer would initiate such a review. I say this because there may be circumstances where the board, either as individuals or collectively, may identify a problem or issue that the chief executive officer might not have spotted or identified because they are across such a huge breadth of research projects. In this context, it would be important that there would be some system to allow the board to flag a concern or suggest a review to the chief executive officer. I may bring in an amendment in this regard on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 82, 86, 87 and 88 relate to section 37 regarding the assessment of applications and awards of funding for research and innovation and section 43 concerning non-compliance with conditions of funding for research and innovation. We cannot accept amendment No. 82 for the same reasons as stated regarding amendment No. 79. Funding award processes will be independent and adhere to international good practice, and the word "impartial" is not quite at home here because the agency will be bearing other considerations in mind, such as parity of esteem, equality, diversity and inclusion and inclusive practices and a balance of distributions.
Moving to amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 88, where there is very strong, credible evidence that a research programme is not operating or using funding as intended, the CEO may need to act quickly to ensure the situation does not continue. In terms of ensuring oversight and fairness, the roles of the board and the CEO in these sections must be carefully considered. Provisions are in place for the recipient to request an independent review, for an independent assessor to review the decision and for an external appeals process. These provisions are precisely as intended. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: I move amendment No. 83:
In page 33, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(iv) the need to uphold and advance the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 33, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(iv) the employment conditions of researchers at the applicant body,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 33, after line 41, to insert the following:
“(g) to ensure that persons carrying out research funded under this Part are in receipt of attendant employment rights and protections, in line with the Salzburg Principles,”.
I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to introduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40
Amendments Nos. 85a, 90a, 90b and 93a are related. Amendment No. 90b is a logical alternative to amendment No. 90a. Amendments Nos. 85a, 90a, 90b, 93a are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 85a:
In page 35, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(6) The Board shall make regulations regarding conditions of funding and a process for withdrawal of funding from research projects which may contribute to contravention of international law, including contraventions of rulings of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.”.
As it is now 7.30 p.m., the debate must be adjourned in accordance with the order of the Seanad today. I ask Senator Higgins to report progress.
I report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.31 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m. Déardaoin, an 9 Bealtaine 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.31 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9 May 2024.