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. This was agreed on the previous occasion.
Research and Innovation Bill 2024: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 40
Debate resumed on 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.”.
- (Senator Alice-Mary Higgins).
These are important amendments. The reasons for their importance have come very much into focus this year and in the current context.
Amendment No. 85a states:
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.
This relates to the very important principle of doing no harm, which should apply to the research that may be funded under the legislation. In a context whereby we hear a great deal about dual use and the potential areas of research and development that may have a civilian application but which may also - in some instances, this has been shown to be the case - be applied in ways that breach human rights or used for military purposes that may involve breaches of human rights. The amendment seeks to deal with instances where research that may have been funded in good faith by the agency has led to the development of technology that could, for example, be used to facilitate drones bombing civilian targets in Gaza. It also relates to rulings of the International Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights in circumstances where technology that may have been developed is being used either in partnership or is being purchased, co-funded or employed by those who would seek to use it in a manner which may breach human rights conventions within Europe. There have been situations where research relating to technology that was still in development has been used in ways that target the human rights of individuals, even within Europe.
I will briefly speak to each of the amendments and then return to the wider point. In that context, I have already outlined the intention behind amendment No. 85a.
Amendment No. 90a states:
When entering into an agreement under this section, the Agency shall ensure that such agreements are consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law and would not compromise the ability of researchers to participate in and receive funding from such schemes.
Again, this amendment refers to the agreements that the agency may make.
Amendment No. 90b also relates to the making of agreements. Amendment No. 90a is non-prescriptive, providing "...consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law..." in a wider sense, and leaves the determination of that to the agency, but amendment No. 90b is more prescriptive. It sets out some of the specific areas where the State's obligations should not be compromised, such as under the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention or the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, for example. Why am I listing off what sounds like a horrorscape of weaponry, with cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and various forms of weaponry that the Biological Weapons Convention and all of these conventions have found to be extraordinarily damaging to human life and to human rights? I do so because there is a danger currently under Horizon Europe funding. We are all very proud of Horizon Europe being directed towards the idea of a sustainable future for Europe. Horizon Europe funds all that important work in the sciences and social sciences that may help us to tackle the issues of climate change ahead. Horizon Europe has an explicitly civil function but recently there have been attempts to redirect Horizon Europe. There have been proposals from the European Commission to say that the European Union funding for research and innovation would be redirected or assigned to be linked with the European Defence Fund and suddenly billions of euro in research that we might have for tackling problems in climate change, in the social cohesion challenges we face and in areas of medical advancement that are needed could be redirected. That funding could be redirected into the military industrial complex, which we know has an absolutely bottomless appetite for absorbing all money and any money that it can. In that context there is a very real danger for Ireland as a neutral country that projects we may be funding through the agency, which may be also linked with Horizon Europe funding, could in fact end up being projects that are directed towards weapons development or indeed other military purposes that may then be applied in ways that are found to be in breach of international law or human rights. One clear example at the moment is where the UN Human Rights Council has been explicitly clear in its call for an arms embargo and that no country should be in any way implicated in the transfer of weapons to Israel at this time. Even the United States of America, which is the great exporter of weapons to Israel, has suggested that maybe 2,000 lb bombs might not be the best to use in one of the most densely populated parts of the world, where 600,000 children are currently sheltering in their last refuge.
These are real and serious questions that, unfortunately, arise because of the kinds of proposals being made by the EU Commission. I welcome that there were more than 100 submissions from Ireland. When we spoke about this previously the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, invited researchers to make their submissions and suggested that anyone was welcome to make a submission on this Horizon Europe proposal. More than 100 people have done so. Proposals and submissions have been made by those working in the universities, by those in research and by the leads on Horizon Europe-funded projects, and all of them made it explicitly clear that Horizon Europe and its civil purposes must stay completely separate from the European Defence Fund and the area of military research. Unfortunately this message has not yet come from the Government but it has come from the research sector in Ireland, from Ireland's universities and further education institutions and from civil society in Ireland and across Europe. I hope that this will be the end to this very dangerous proposal from the European Commission and this very dangerous attempt for the resources so badly needed for research and innovation and to serve the good and the common good of humanity to be rerouted towards its destruction.
In this legislation we need to prepare for a scenario in which the European Commission and member states go ahead with the militarisation of our future. We can look to how deeply irresponsible it has been for the climate crisis that we face. In the rearmament race we are seeing at the moment we know that military emissions are some of the great sources of carbon emissions. Military usage and the military industrial complex are some of the greatest producers of carbon emissions. When we talk about a race towards increasing the armaments industry and the idea of people getting in on some of the defence industry money that might be out there, we need to be clear on the implications for our planet and not just for the individuals who may be at the receiving end of weaponry. The implications for the planet as a whole are devastating. We would literally be taking money away from action on the sustainable development goals on climate and the European green deal and instead directing it towards something that will escalate and accelerate our climate crisis and thereby lead to more war and more conflict.
These proposals are very concerning and very real. They are on the table. The Government as yet has not indicated. I hope that today the Minister of State will indicate that Ireland will be clearly and robustly opposing any such proposals. If those changes do take place, that will open the very real scenario whereby projects funded by our research and innovation funding through this agency could be directed towards military purposes. This is why it is important. We are working with lots of countries and the nature of these Horizon Europe projects is collaboration. Israel is one of the largest recipients of Horizon Europe funding. To my mind, this is inexplicable when we look to its flagrant disregard for international law. A fundamental point at the moment is that Israel should be excluded from future Horizon Europe funding. I do not see why we should be working towards a future in partnership with a country that is seeking to literally obliterate the future of an entire people in Gaza. We are looking towards potential situations, however, and it is not acceptable that we would leave it to individual researchers to make those calls. We need to have guidance on this very important area from the Government or the Minister, or at a base point from the agency itself.
These amendments - amendment No. 85a in particular is extremely mild - are empowering amendments. Amendments Nos. 85a, 90a and 90b would empower the board of the agency to set out regulations and clear criteria, and to be clear that if the agency is giving funding to a project, part of the conditionality would be that the research project funded should not be directed to or applied towards the contravention of international law.
Amendment No. 90b would be really explicit, which is almost legally crucial because otherwise we will be dealing with it after the fact, where we see a project that may have been funded by the agency that is found to be contravening or compromising the State's obligations under the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention or the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
There was a real moment of great pride for Ireland when the cluster munitions ban was negotiated. I was there in Croke Park for that. Ireland, as a country which had clean hands, which was regarded as being free from the military industrial complex, which did not have a defence industry lobbying it and in its ear and which was regarded as neutral and credible, was perhaps one of the only places on the planet where we could have successfully negotiated a ban on the cluster munitions - land mines that fall from the sky - responsible for maiming people and giving rise to amputations right across the world. One of the greatest contributions we have made in the international sphere is that we hosted the negotiations relating to that ban.
Despite some of the conversations we have about Ireland needing to pull its weight and that we should be ashamed if we do not have 50 tanks, 100 tanks or whatever, we should be proud of the contribution we have made as the first signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We should be proud that we were the first country to say "Let's move in the other direction" when an arms race was under way and to say, irrespective of the conflict or war, that it is not acceptable to drop from the sky onto civilian populations what are, essentially, land mines, namely cluster bombs that may take decades to explode. Sadly, cluster munitions are being used again by both the Russian and the Ukrainian sides in the conflict. These bombs have come from the United States. Sadly, there are reports of chemical weapons and white phosphorus being used in Gaza. We are at a really key point when Ireland needs to be explicitly clear. Are we going to be a voice against the obscene use of obscene and very innovative tools of human suffering or are we going to rally in behind and see if there might be a little money coming downstream for it and try to hide ourselves in multi-country projects, with all the implications that would involve?
These amendments will allow the board and the agency to maintain clean hands in order that the research and innovation funding Ireland is giving will be used for what it should be used for, which is for a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive and sustainable future to ensure that Ireland will not be implicated in research and innovation into new ways to take or destroy human lives. These are serious amendments; they are really necessary. We are at a crunch point. I do not want us to fail to pass these amendments today and then in two or four years' time find that Irish research projects have been implicated in terrible actions and that we wash our hands and say that there was nothing we could have done because those were the decisions made by the people responsible for the projects in question. There is something that can be done, and it is covered in amendments Nos. 85a, 90a, 90b and 93a.
Amendments Nos. 90a and 90b would give the agency the power to ensure that it adds certain conditions to any agreement it might make. Amendment No. 93a would give the Minister power to terminate arrangements. I am quite open to whether the power will rest with the board, the agency or the Minister to terminate agreements that are inconsistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights, international law or may contribute to non-compliance by the State with rulings of the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights or relevant treaties or conventions. These are quite high bars. Amendment No. 93a would give the Minister the power to make that call if it is not felt to be an appropriate decision of the agency.
Amendment No. 102a states:
The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining if and how Ireland will oppose any attempt to remove or change the current separation of Horizon Europe, with its focus on civil research, and the European Defence Fund, and its focus on military research.
When I asked previously, I was informed that it was not the right time for the Government to make a submission but that a time would come later when Ireland would make its views clear on the matter. I would like a report outlining how and when Ireland will articulate its opposition. The missing piece is that we have not yet heard that Ireland will articulate opposition to the merging of Horizon Europe and the European Defence Fund. I hope the Minister of State might be able to give us that confirmation today and then indicate how to give that expression. That would make it easier. Failing that, I have an amendment calling for a report to provide that information. Perhaps the Minister of State can move matters forward in his reply.
Regarding amendments Nos. 85a and 90a, in accordance with Article 29.6 of the Constitution, it is a matter for the Oireachtas to determine the effects of any international agreement in the State. It would not be appropriate to delegate a power to the agency to make secondary legislation purporting to give effect to the decisions of the International Court of Justice or of the European Court of Human Rights. Regarding the International Court of Justice, Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states: "The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case." Accordingly, the decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding on a state except where the state is a party to that decision. The State cannot contravene such a decision except where it is a party to the decision.
Section 3(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 imposes obligations on all organs of the State to perform their functions in a manner compatible with the State's functions under the convention. The 2003 Act will apply to the agency in the performance of its functions. Compliance with the State's obligations under the various other conventions cited are a matter for the Executive. The determination of the effects of these agreements is a matter for the Oireachtas.
On amendment No. 90b, the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008 gives effect to the State's obligation under the convention on cluster munitions and gives further effect to the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction. The 2008 Act creates criminal offences regarding the use, development, production, acquisition, and retention of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, and prohibits the investment of public moneys under enactment so as to authorise any investment, direct or indirect in a munitions company. Insofar as requirements are relevant to the agency's activities, the 2008 Act will apply without further provisions needed in the Bill.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been implemented in a similar form within the State variously by the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Act 2003, the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Act 2003 regulations 2004, SI 123 of 2004, and the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Act 2019. The Biological Weapons Act 2011 gives similar effect to the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and on their destruction in particular by prohibiting stockpiling, acquisition, possession or retention of a microbial or biological agent or toxin.
In the context of amendment No. 93a, we need to adhere to natural justice. There are processes set down within the Bill for the determination of a funding award which gives the right of reply and provision for an independent internal review and external appeal which are legally required. The CEO may suspend a funding award where there is clear indication and evidence of wrongdoing. Researchers are required to adhere to the highest possible standards of research ethics and integrity. This is already contained in section 43 and due process must be afforded to the funding recipient here.
We cannot just terminate an award based on unproven speculation. I note that it would be somewhat contradictory, since the Senator wanted to remove the power of the Minister in section 11 to give directions to the agency, but now proposes to insert a new provision which would give carte blanche to the Minister to terminate funding awards, with no right of reply or appeal.
The provision already in the Bill is for research and innovation of the highest standards of research ethics and integrity which is within the scope of the Bill and the remit of the agency. The appropriate processes for terminating a funding award are described in the existing text. Therefore, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
Senator Higgins has every right to speak, but I would say to everybody that we have spent 25 minutes on this and have not even gone through one section. The Senator has every right to speak.
I think this is the largest and most significant section.
I will allow the Senator back in.
I will exercise my right in that regard. The Bill at the moment simply states, "The Chief Executive Officer may, with the approval of the Board". I want to indicate that I may table an amendment on Report Stage to address this. It allows for when they are not complying with the conditions of funding. The core matter is whether there will be a condition of funding which is that there should be compliance with international law. I know that sounds clear, but we need to be clear about the conditions of funding. It is not clear to me. Stating "ethics" in a general sense is very vague. Where are the ethics? Where is the mechanism to ensure it is done properly?
That is why I suggest there would be regulations. This relates to amendment No. 85a, which proposes that there would be regulations around the conditions of funding. The process is already there. The Minister of State pointed out that there is a process with regard to the chief executive officer. I have already indicated that I believe there should be a mechanism whereby the board, or a member of the board, could make a request. I have already indicated that I believe, rather than having termination of funding or even the review solely sit with the chief executive officer, it would be more appropriate if the board was able to request the chief executive officer to conduct a review, or indeed if the board was able to make a request to the chief executive officer to consider the termination of funding. The only way the funding can be taken away, with a whole mechanism and appeals, relates to conditions of funding. Will the Minister of State or the Government take some steps to ensure that those conditions of funding include compliance with international law? That would mean the mechanism in section 43 of the Bill could apply. At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill. Amendment No. 85a is very mild. I am simply saying that the Government would make regulations. I am not even asking that I would make them or that we would make them here today. I am simply saying that regulations would be made which may be related to that question of conditions of funding in ethical matters. It cannot just be an interpretive piece. I accept that it has to have some kind of basis.
I am concerned by some of the language about the International Court of Justice and how it is not binding. I do not think the State should be trying to emphasise that the International Court of Justice is not binding. It is a pretty poor message to send. To be clear, while the International Court of Justice is not binding and it is not going to send armies in to enforce it, a ruling from it is the highest legal decision that we have in the world. Simply saying that they are not binding sends a very poor message that is inconsistent with Ireland's general approach. It states that it is non-binding except on the parties to the various conventions. For example, at the moment, the International Court of Justice has given a provisional ruling and is looking to make a full ruling in respect of the Genocide Convention, which Ireland is a party to. The Genocide Convention requires that all parties to that convention, including Ireland, take whatever actions they can to prevent the conduct of genocide. Where a credible risk of genocide has been established, that is why the provisional measures proposed by the International Court of Justice are clear that everybody should be doing what they can to try to stop a genocide.
One thing that Ireland can do is an arms embargo. Next week, we will bring forward the Air Navigation and Transport (Arms Embargo) Bill 2024 to ensure that no weapons are passing through our State which may be implicated in a genocide. Another thing that we can do in general, if technology has been developed in Ireland and funded by the State, is to make the conditions of funding clear enough that the chief executive officer can say that since they now know that this project is being directly employed by the Israel Defence Forces in targeting civilian infrastructure, for example, the organisation would like to withdraw its funding. The mechanism and appeals under section 43 would then kick in. Unless the conditions are clear, then we do not have a mechanism which properly allows us to ensure that we are not complicit in those breaches of international law.
The Minister of State makes a fair point that in certain cases, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, there is an Act to address it. I may table an amendment where I address it as an Act.
Is amendment No. 102a separate? Maybe that is why it was not addressed.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State cannot support these amendments at this point. I urge him, to go back to look at this between now and Report Stage. I am open to any proposal which would ensure that the conditions of funding under this Bill empower the chief executive to terminate funding under section 43. I am quite open to section 43 being the mechanism rather than any other mechanism. Under section 43, which is about termination of funding where there is non-compliance with the conditions of funding, the conditions of funding should be such that the chief executive officer is able to act in the kinds of scenarios I have outlined today. That is maybe the easiest and simplest way to address it. I will not press all of these amendments now. I will press one or two but not all of them. I am genuinely hopeful that the Minister of State will find a way to assure me that the scenarios I have outlined will not happen. I have not had that assurance from him.
I restate that the standard for funding awards will be the highest standard of research ethics and integrity and that all of the relevant legal frameworks will apply. Ireland has favoured retaining the civilian focus of the framework programmes and maintaining a clear separation between civilian and defence research. As part of our Department's consultation on the next framework programme, we are consulting the national research and innovation community to inform Ireland's position on all aspects of the programme. EU programmes are agreed every seven years under the multi-annual financial framework, MFF. The current MFF covers the period from 2021 to 2027. The European Commission is expected to bring forward proposals for the next MFF and specific EU programmes during 2025. The appropriate time for member states to engage on this issue will be when the European Commission publishes its formal proposals for the next MFF and the individual EU programmes in 2025. These matters are outside the scope of the Bill and the remit of the agency.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Garvey, Róisín.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGreehan, Erin.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Frances Black; Níl, Senators Paul Daly and Joe O'Reilly..
Amendment declared lost.
Section 40 agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 36, line 24, after "determination" to insert ", following consultation with the Board,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 36, line 33, after “subsection” to insert “, following consultation with the Board,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 88 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are out of order because of a potential charge on Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.
Section 43 agreed to.
Sections 44 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 49
I move amendment No. 90a.
In page 41, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(2) When entering into an agreement under this section, the Agency shall ensure that such agreements are consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law and would not compromise the ability of researchers to participate in and receive funding from such schemes.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 90b:
In page 41, after line 38, to insert the following:
“(2) When entering into an agreement under this section, the Agency shall ensure that such agreements are consistent with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law and in particular would not compromise the State’s obligations under:
(a) the Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Mines Act 2008;
(b) the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;
(c) the Chemical Weapons Convention;
(d) the Biological Weapons Convention;
(e) the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 49 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 41, after line 38, to to insert the following:
“Public-public partnerships
50. The Agency may enter into, establish or support public-public partnerships for research between designated higher education institutions and public bodies both in Ireland and internationally.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 41, after line 38, to insert the following:
“Public-public partnerships
50. The Agency may enter into, establish or support public-public partnerships for research between designated higher education institutions and public bodies both in Ireland and internationally, in particular on areas including:
(a) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals;
(b) climate action;
(c) biodiversity protection and enhancement;
(d) social cohesion;
(e) gender equality
(f) poverty and social inclusion;
(g) disability, including implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons;
(h) arts and culture; and
(i) workers’ rights and the future of work.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 41, after line 38, to insert the following:
“Athena SWAN
50. The Board shall establish procedures regarding the disbursement of funding making such disbursement contingent on implementation of the Athena SWAN Charter.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 93a not moved.
SECTION 50
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 42, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(2) An agreement or arrangement under subsection (1) shall not impede the ability of the Agency to uphold its regular functions, as prescribed in section 9.”.
Does Senator Higgins wish to speak to amendment No. 94?
Yes. Amendment No. 94 addresses section 50 in terms of the arrangements between the agency and Ministers of Government regarding research and innovation. Amendment No. 94 will insert a new subsection which specifies that decisions regarding research and innovation agreements under the section should "not impede the ability of the Agency to uphold its regular [everyday] functions, as prescribed in section 9 [of the Bill]". While agreements of this nature are nonetheless important and worthwhile, it is imperative the agency is not negatively impacted in terms of the fulfilment of its regular functions by entering into such agreements.
Under this section, effectively a Minister of the Government - not necessarily the relevant Minister or line Minister for research and innovation but any Minister of the Government as it states "the Minister" - can request the entering of an agreement or arrangement on a research or innovation scheme, subject to the consent of the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research and Innovation and Science. While there are already sections on partnerships and co-operation the agency may engage in, section 50 is the one that explicitly allows any Minister of the Government to say he or she wants the agency to enter into a new agreement or arrangement. This is an amendment to ensure that should not be at the cost of the general.
If an agency has put in place its own five-year corporate strategy or agenda for research and innovation and then suddenly the Minister for enterprise says he or she wants it to administer a new scheme or enter into a new agreement or arrangement, there cannot be a situation in which that can just throw off all the planning and strategic work and the holistic picture of what the agency might be doing. At the moment, under this Bill, not only can a Minister of the Government require that an agreement be entered into, but the agency can be required to report directly back to that Minister. There are going to be schemes, opportunities and initiatives which may be beneficial; I understand that. However, we do not want a situation in which individual Ministers' agendas take priority over or in any way skew the wider research and innovation agenda and strategy set out by the agency.
This is simply an amendment. I am not trying to remove that power of request by a Minister, but I am trying to ensure it does not railroad or come at the cost of the other work of the agency.
For amendment No. 94, this provision is already tied into and limited by the functions of the agency. Therefore, there is no need to restate this as proposed. This is already how the section of the Bill will operate and, therefore, we do not propose to accept the amendment.
I would like clarity from the Minister of State as to how that is tied into the functions of the agency. To be clear, the language I have in my amendment is that it "[does] not impede the ability of the Agency to uphold its regular functions". We all know that we have come across things many times which need to be or should be done, or that are even in the functions to be done, but do not get done because the resources are not there. There will be a limited amount of financial and human resources the agency will have. This is to ensure, when a new project is effectively landed on the agency by a Minister of Government, that it does not draw resources away or impede its abilities. Of course, the regular functions still exist. I am not questioning that. The question is the ability of the agency to perform those functions.
I will address the funding partnerships briefly. There are some excellent partnerships in place already. For example, I mentioned previously the US-Ireland partnership. These are international level partnerships across the world. This one I am referencing is with the United States. It links with the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation as well as universities in Northern Ireland, which brings in the UK. It also brings in a lot of universities in the Republic of Ireland. It is important, going forward, that we see Taighde Éireann embracing new partnerships. We need to see that as part of what we are doing.
As for the implementation of the Athena SWAN charter, that is something a lot of Irish universities have put in place and it has been very welcome. I highlight again the importance of that funding coming from different countries across the world. They allocate funding either through their exchequers or funding agencies, but there can also be partnerships with other groups such as non-profit groups or charity and social enterprise groups. We must be conscious not to limit the scope of these partnerships within this new agency.
In conclusion, the functions define the role and remit of the agency within which it needs to operate and deliver on.
Senator Dolan may have been referring more to section 49 which is on funding partnerships. I agree with the Senator absolutely that here are significant funding opportunities and partnerships. I have emphasised the importance of that and I welcome that, within section 49 - it is actually a very positive aspect of the Bill - those arrangements may be with either a public or a private body. Public bodies may also be part of such arrangements for funding. I certainly have no opposition to that.
I have withdrawn amendment No. 93 which was explicitly in relation to the Athena SWAN charter but I will be bringing an amendment back on Report Stage.
I wish to apologise as Senator Higgins is correct-----
The point is still very relevant.
I thought amendment No. 93 was in question.
It is relevant to the wider debate. As I said, the Athena SWAN charter is important. One of the key things that I am concerned we may lose is that, previously, the Irish Research Council drove a lot of the take-up of the Athena SWAN charter by making compliance, or indeed engagement with the Athena SWAN process, a condition of research funding. That led to a massive step change in a lot of universities in that, suddenly, they started to actually take it seriously in terms of whether they were delivering on those standards of gender equity within their institutions.
It is another example of where there should be scope within the conditions of funding for something such as the Athena Swan Charter to be made a condition. That was done previously by the Irish Research Council, which set a very good template. I am concerned that this body should be empowered to apply that same standard and require engagement with the Athena Swan Charter, as the Irish Research Council did previously.
On this specifically, with respect to the Minister of State, I know that the functions exist but the question is on the ability to deliver them. The test will be seeing how this unfolds. If a body is being required to act as administrator for multiple Government schemes, or schemes of individual Ministers, and the body will have ten or 20 staff members, that will necessarily consume energy in terms of hours in the day. I have no problem with that as long as it does not compromise the delivery of those core functions. The test will come but I hope we do not have a situation in the future where we are told the agency was not able to deliver on its core functions because the Minister for enterprise, the Minister for agriculture or some other Minister had given it a task and it was required under section 50 to step to it immediately, in effect.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 43, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(iv) the Irish Federation of University Teachers,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 43, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(iv) the Irish Congress of Trade Unions,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 43, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(iv) the Heritage Council,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 43, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(iv) Coimisiún na Meán,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 99:
In page 43, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(iv) local authorities,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 100:
In page 43, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(v) the Climate Change Advisory Council,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 43, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(vii) the Arts Council,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 43, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(vii) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: “That section 51 stand part of the Bill.”
I wish to speak to the section. I am surprised that the Government has not accepted some of these suggested bodies because these are the bodies where there could be agreement, arrangements or co-operation. On some of them, I may not have been surprised, but some of the other ones I have been suggesting seem to be incredibly obvious. They are very much on the same line as bodies, such as the Heritage Council, with which the agency may partner. At the moment, the list in section 51 includes bodies such as the Health Research Board, Enterprise Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency. Why not include Coimisiún na Meán or the Heritage Council? Surely the Heritage Council is exactly the kind of body where there may be scope for research and innovation and there may be opportunities for partnerships for research and innovation. If we look at the Heritage Council and the important role it could play in research, that seems to be a body with which there should be the mechanism or capacity to make agreements.
We know Coimisiún na Meán is engaging in extensive research in that it has such huge responsibilities and one of the great areas is in digital regulation. This is an area that requires significant research because, in effect, the coimisiún is regulating bodies which themselves have huge capacity and resources for research and innovation, much of which is subsidised by the State through the knowledge development box. Coimisiún na Meán may wish to partner with the new agency to ensure that the public have research coming through which places that coimisiún on a basis to act.
The Arts Council is an area where research may be relevant. There is also the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. These are all areas where there could be very productive partnerships. There have been precedents where the IHREC has given research and administered research schemes which allowed and empowered people to engage on issues of human rights and equality. Similarly, the Arts Council is interesting in that it has areas of research and has disbursed funding for research and could be doing so in partnership with this agency. I acknowledge that the EPA is present on the list, but the Climate Change Advisory Council has another function.
Crucially, I wish to signal that I will be bringing an amendment on Report Stage in respect of local authorities. One of the areas in which we could see transformative research and innovation schemes led by the agency is with local authorities, which are the bodies operating closest to the ground. In many cases it is at local level that some of the challenges we face as a society are being experienced first and it is at local level that some of the solutions, often very innovative ones, can be developed. For example, partnerships between institutes of technology or universities and local authorities can be extraordinarily productive and drivers of innovative solutions to human problems, problems which come up when people live together. Solutions could be created which could be used in other cities, towns, villages or areas across Europe or across the world. Local authorities, as a space where ideas can actually happen and which can drive ideas and solutions, should not be neglected. I very much appeal for consideration to be given to this. Members, including Government Senators, may wish to look to this idea. I believe University College Cork has done some partnerships with the local authority in Cork around the SDGs. There are many precedents for the inclusion of local authorities as one of the potential areas where there could be an agreement or scheme in partnership with the agency. This is something which could very much make the work of the agency felt in different parts of the country, and not just in those parts of the country where there happens to be a higher education institution. I signal my intention to come back on that area.
As the Minister of State said, it is great to see that this new agency will open the possibility of engaging in more partnerships and funding with a number of different groups.
I highlight that section 51(7)(b) provides:
a reference to a body to which this section applies means [and it proceeds to list a number of bodies] or (xi) a body established by or under an enactment in which functions are vested by statute or otherwise relating to purposes connected with the promotion and undertaking of research and innovation and that is prescribed by order of the Minister for the purposes of this section.
It is clear that there is that opportunity for any group that is partaking in research and innovation. We already see that there are Irish Research Council, IRC, pathway programmes now with SFI for postdoctoral researchers. It is great to see that these partnerships are already happening and that they have very much expanded over the past ten or 15 years, but we need to see more. There is an opportunity here with this new agency, Taighde Éireann, to do that.
I cannot wait to see the agency eventually coming into place. It will be able to carry out even more engagement. There is engagement with organisations within Ireland but also internationally. The reason for this is that we are leveraging the excellence of research in Ireland and competing and working with excellence across the world. There is a real opportunity there for our PhD students, postdoctoral researchers and research assistants to grow, develop and build their careers due to the fact that we have these international partnerships and that Ireland is seen as excellent on the world stage.
Section 51 contains a clause which gives the Minister powers to prescribe bodies to be added to the list contained therein. That will provide a complete description of all agencies and bodies that the agency will be charged with co-operating with as part of a cohesive overall national research and innovation ecosystem. Work is under way to scope and map the additions. When this work is completed, an order will be drafted to add the appropriate bodies to the list. For the moment, however, we are simply including the most relevant funded agencies in the research and innovation space. There is appropriate clarity there in the context of the existing provision.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 102a:
In page 43, after line 35, to insert the following:
“Report on Horizon Europe
52. The Minister shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining if and how Ireland will oppose any attempt to remove or change the current separation of Horizon Europe, with its focus on civil research, and the European Defence Fund, and its focus on military research.”.
I spoke to this amendment previously.
It is not grouped with other amendments.
I mistakenly believed it was in a previous grouping. I will speak to it again briefly
. Amendment No. 102a makes provision for a report in respect of Horizon Europe. The Minister indicated that the Government opposes a change from the current civil application of Horizon Europe. I would disagree slightly in the context of waiting for the formal proposals to come through because we know there will be much discussion and back and forth in the interim. When the formal proposal comes from the Commission, we will already be further down the path. The point where the Commission produces a White Paper would have been an appropriate time for the Government to communicate clearly its perspective with it. It is always better to influence a proposal before it is made, rather than simply responding after it is made. I regret that the Government has not chosen to have an input in respect of or make a submission on the White Paper produced by the Commission. It is good to put on record that, as I understand it, the Minister of State is indicating that we do not believe that we should change Horizon Europe from a civil focus and blend it with the European Defence Fund, which has a military focus. I will not go through all of the details because we had that discussion earlier. I apologise that I came in on the amendment at the wrong point earlier.
I have nothing further to add.
The Minister of State mentioned 2025. I may introduce an amendment to the effect that a report be produced in 2025. Obviously-----
Can I take it the Senator is withdrawing the amendment with a view to reintroducing it at a later date?
Yes, exactly. I will seek further clarity at that point on 2025 and a report being provided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
Sections 53 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 103 not moved.
Sections 69 and 70 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Government amendment No. 104:
In page 51, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Confirmation of acts done or purporting to have been done
71.(1) All acts done, or purporting to have been done, by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science in performing the functions of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under sections 11 to 13 of the Industrial Development (Forfás Dissolution) Act 2014 during the period commencing on the 1st day of January 2021 and ending on the 15th day of April 2024 which would, but for this section, be invalid, shall be, and be deemed always to have been, as valid and effectual for all purposes as if those acts were done by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
(2) If subsection (1) would, but for this subsection, conflict with a constitutional right of any person, the operation of that subsection shall be subject to such limitation as is necessary to secure that it does not so conflict but shall otherwise be of full force and effect.”.
This is a minor technical amendment which, the Department has been advised, it would be prudent to make in order to ensure clarity and the continuity of the statute in advance of the enactment of the Research and Innovation Bill. There was a technical oversight within the transfer order of 2020. The operation of one of the amendments to the existing statute preceding the 2020 order was complex and somewhat obscure. This resulted in the omission of three provisions. We want to ensure that there is absolute clarity within the statute to the effect that these provisions were indeed transferred.
I am not going to oppose the amendment. I want to note, however, that, because there is an amendment, it would not delay the Bill to any great degree if further amendments were introduced on Report Stage. Given that the House, I assume, will be accommodating this amendment proposed by the Government, it would be good if there was genuine engagement between now and Report Stage regarding potential improvements to strengthen the Bill. To be clear, any amendment that might be made on Report Stage will not delay the Bill in any way because the Bill will have to go back to the Lower House for confirmation in any event as a result of the Government amendment. It will not delay the process. In fact, it could massively accelerate process if there were Government amendments. In that context, I would be very open to withdrawing my amendments in favour of Government amendments that address the same core policy issues and the concerns that exist.
In the context of the legislation relating to the Higher Education Authority, HEA, the Government made amendments in the Seanad that were widely welcomed by the academic community and the higher education community. There are simple amendments, particularly in areas such as parity of esteem, the environment, respect for workers rights and standards in research employment which could be made to this Bill and which would improve it and mark it as having been the subject of genuine engagement in the context of the legislative process.
I am open to engagement. Many stakeholders are open to and hoping for engagement between now and Report Stage. For the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, this is probably the most important and largest item of legislation that will go through during his tenure. It would be regrettable if there was no response to the observations, constructive proposals and suggestions that have been made, not only by myself but also others. I am hoping we will have constructive engagement. As I said, the amendments that were made to the legislation relating to the HEA improved it. What happened in that instance showed a willingness to engage that we need to see again.
This legislation is welcome. In Taighde Éireann, we are going to have a brand new agency for all research disciplines and for innovation. We have spent time debating the Bill, its strengths and the opportunities it is going to give to everyone working within the third level sector and in the area of research, including research assistants, postdoctoral researchers and PhD students. There is a wealth of talent in Ireland.
The funding that will be provided will support those involved in all research disciplines and in innovation. We are going to be bringing all of the results of this great research into society and the communities. It is important that the research does not sit on a shelf and where possible, we bring that impact as soon as possible.
I acknowledge the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy O'Donovan. This is a key piece of legislation that he is extremely supportive of. I thank the officials and the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, for all of their support in bringing this legislation before the House and passing it through Committee Stage in the Seanad.
I thank Senators for their engagement. The matters raised will be noted and I will flag them to the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 71 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 May 2024.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 2.12 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m. Déardaoin, an 16 Bealtaine 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 2.12 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 May 2024.