Before we begin, I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, and his guests to the Gallery.
I remind Senators they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Moreover, on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, to delete lines 15 to 19 and substitute the following:
“(3) In this Act, references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to developments and actions which comply with actions under the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes actions in respect of social, economic, cultural and environmental development, climate and biodiversity.”.
I second the amendment.
The amendment seeks to clarify the definition of "environmental development and sustainability". To be clear, the climate crisis is here already and is having a disproportionate impact on the world's most vulnerable people. At the climate action committee, we recently discussed Ireland's climate change assessment report, which was starkly clear that the climate emergency is already having impacts and that those impacts are projected to deepen significantly in the very near future. What is more, temperatures in Ireland will continue to rise. I have to hand excessive statistics on this, which I will not read, but the facts are stark. Crucially, as well as the sea rises we will see in Cork and Dublin, the temperature impacts in Ireland and the loss of native species that will happen, we are internationally seeing incredible impacts from the climate crisis right now. In particular, we are seeing disproportionate impacts from the climate crisis on those in the global south, who have done least to cause the crisis.
The problem with the Bill as drafted, which I have spoken about previously, is that it uses language from before Rio and before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, process had even started. It uses language from the 1980s, when there was no deep understanding of what the climate crisis could be. It refers to taking what we need for this generation and leaving enough for future generations but does not refer to the fact that, in the context of environmental development and sustainability, we live on an interconnected planet and we cannot take more than the rest of the world needs. We need to be looking at what our fair share is now. It is not simply about this generation and the next generation. The climate crisis is happening right now and it is about what we do in Ireland in the context of what is happening in the rest of the world. In the context of those principles of the UNFCCC, which I mentioned, and the Paris Agreement, we have common but differentiated responsibilities, and that is a really important principle.
In the amendment, I have referred only to agreements we have signed up to, namely, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and, crucially, the UN sustainable development goals. If we are talking about sustainable development, it would seem to make sense we would try to align ourselves with the definition of "sustainable development" that relates to economic, social and environmental development, as we see in the SDGs, which Ireland helped to negotiate, pushed over the line and reaffirmed last September as the chair of the review of the SDGs coming towards their 2030 deadline.
In this context, I do not see why this dated language is still coming through. There is dated language, a dated concept and a dated version of sustainability when there are much better models out there, on which Ireland is deeply imprinted. These are not ideas I invented; they are ones Ireland has signed up to and, in some cases, led on. Why are we throwing aside all of that and going back to language from the 1980s? I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment, but I would like in any event to hear an explanation of why this language was chosen, because it is not commonplace in other Bills and legislation. It has been in only the Higher Education Authority Bill and this, so it has come from only the Department of Education. In a Bill relating to research and innovation that is supposedly focused on and preparing us for the future, it seems bizarre that a dated and, in fact, dangerous interpretation of what environmental development and sustainability might be is being inserted. It is a definition from the 1980s, as I said, and previous to even the Rio conference in 1990, when the world collectively came to understand the real impact of climate change. Where is this coming from whereby it is coming through in legislation only from the Department of Education, whereas other legislation that has come from the same Government has reflected the language of the Paris Agreement, the sustainable development goals and, while it has not been referred to previously in legislation, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which Ireland supports?
The definition in the Bill as drafted is aligned with EU policy and Irish national policy and strategy. The Bill does not exist in isolation but within an existing statutory framework with regard to climate action. There is already a legal obligation on public bodies to comply with Ireland's climate law.
Section 15 (1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act of 2021 states that:
“(1) A relevant body shall, in so far as practicable, perform its functions in a manner consistent with—
(a) the most recent approved climate action plan,
(b) the most recent approved national long term climate action strategy,
(c) the most recent approved national adaptation framework and approved sectoral adaptation plans,
(d) the furtherance of the national climate objective, and
(e) the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.”.
All of these requirements include planning for climate remediation and a just transition and are, therefore, already obligations upon all public bodies and do not need to be specified within the Bill. The agency will also be subject to any additional legislation made for the purpose of enabling the State to pursue the national 2050 climate objectives. Not referencing specific agreements or legislation simplifies the process in that it eliminates the necessity for repeated, rolling amendments to the legislation as new policy and legislation is brought forward within the existing centralised statutory framework.
In relation to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, these only run to 2030, meaning that amendments would be required on a rolling basis. The principles underlying the sustainable development goals are already captured in the definitions and impact considerations. Environmental and sustainability impacts are to be considerations in every aspect of the work of the agency and maintaining this broader provision allows scope for the agency to keep aligned with emerging national and international policy and priorities. This potentially limits longevity and the future focus of the Bill, meaning amendments would be required on a running basis to keep up with each new agreement. This is a rapidly evolving field and we have already seen recognition and resolve in terms of the need for rapid climate action progress in recent years. We can anticipate that there will be further fairly rapid developments in this regard. These principles are already captured in the definitions and the impact considerations and maintaining this broader provision allows scope for the agency to keep aligned with emerging national policy and priorities and international developments. The existing statutory framework is more agile and responsive. Not referencing specific agreements or legislation in the Bill eliminates the necessity for repeated rolling amendments as new policy and legislation is brought forward in the centralised, whole-of-government approach. It is for these reasons that we are not accepting the amendment.
It is true that things are moving rapidly in areas such as climate and biodiversity but the fact that they may be moving rapidly goes against the idea that we would roll back to a position before things were moving rapidly and before the problem was even understood at all; that we would roll back to the 1980s. That is what is happening here. There is a tension being created needlessly in this legislation. As the Minister of State said, there is language and there is an obligation to consider the provisions of the climate Act, and within that, the ultimate goal of the Act which is 1.5 degrees and compliance with the Paris Agreement. Article 2 of that agreement includes common but differentiated responsibilities and the idea that the countries which have done the most to cause climate change should, right now, be leading in terms of trying to mitigate it. There is a tension here. It is not simply the case, as the Minister of State says, that we refer to the climate Act and the climate legislation that already exists and cross-reference with this legislation. Instead, we are introducing a brand new element which means something different.
Our climate legislation talks about our responsibilities now in terms of climate action and our responsibilities up until 2030 whereas what the Government is putting into this Bill talks about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It basically says we can take what we like as long as we leave enough for the next generation but that is not what the Paris Agreement says, what the climate Act says or what EU climate legislation says. We have outdated, extractive, 1980s language in an education Bill that is at odds with all of that wider context. It would have been better if there was no definition of environmental development and sustainability included and we would go with the common interpretations of sustainability or sustainable development. I am sure most courts would say we should look to the sustainable development goals or other aspects to sustainable development that might be relevant. Instead, the Government has not simply said that we will lean on this wider sphere or this whole-of-government legislation but has put something in that contradicts it. There is something in here that contradicts it and is at odds with it. It is only in the HEA Bill and this Bill that I have seen this phraseology. It is a really poor phraseology to be going into something that is meant to be progressive. It looks poor for the State. Most of the young people coming through who will be our researchers and innovators - although it is not just young people who are researchers and innovators - will look at this and say it is not really about future generations but about now and will ask why this is so focused on future generations. Why is that the only caveat rather than climate justice, which says that our responsibility is now, both to Ireland and to the rest of the world? It is not really okay that we leave enough for people in Ireland if we are literally taking food from the mouths of the people experiencing desertification now in north Africa. It is not really adequate or acceptable that we do not acknowledge that very important core principle of common but differentiated responsibilities now that is in the Paris Agreement.
The Minister of State is missing my point. Perhaps he will come in again but I do not know why the choice was made to use this phraseology. Why was that choice made? Why was this phraseology used? Maybe it is used somewhere else. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that. As I have said, these are the only places I have seen it and regardless of where it has been used in the past, it is certainly not equipped to take us towards the future.
The new agency will play a critical role in driving change and finding innovative solutions to enable us to thrive, integrating climate action and sustainability into all of its functions. The new agency will be following on from the excellent ongoing work of both agencies in that regard, with a mandate to foster co-operation across the research and innovation ecosystem, to protect and restore our biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and minimise waste and pollution. Looking towards a circular economy and a zero carbon future, the agency will support the accessibility of new knowledge-generated research talent development and improved research practices to accelerate Ireland's transition to sustainability.
In the period 2020 to 2022, Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, committed €35 million to new competitive research awards for climate-related research, including co-funded partnerships with the Geological Survey of Ireland, the SEAI, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Irish Aid. In addition to these new awards, SFI launched the national challenge fund in 2022, providing €65 million in funding under the EU's recovery and resilience fund. Teams of researchers are being funded to work towards addressing the green and digital transitions. SFI and Irish Aid have also collaborated in partnerships between Irish researchers and researchers in Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda, Vietnam, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone. The work of Irish Aid in this regard is outstanding and the new agency will continue to support these efforts. The shared island initiative supports a €74 million co-centred research collaboration between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is focused on climate research, sustainability and resilient food systems, biodiversity and water. The response to the climate crisis requires clear, joined-up thinking and policy to be informed by evidence gathered through research. The climate crisis is a global challenge that requires broad collaboration and a transdisciplinary approach.
Taighde Éireann will be committed to supporting and investing further in vital research and innovation that supports the decarbonisation agenda, a just transition and a sustainable future for all. By aligning the new agency's efforts with national and international policies, we will ensure it plays its part in contributing to the achievement of Ireland's climate targets and our transition to a sustainable future.
How stands the amendment?
I will press it.
Amendment No. 2 arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(4) In this Act, nothing should violate and instead seek to uphold the principles of parity of esteem (between disciples) and of academic freedom cited in Impact 2030, Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy and European standards of good practice.”.
I second the amendment.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials. I am not confident that my amendment will be accepted, but I would like to put on the record that the principle of parity of esteem should form part of the Bill. There is a typo in the amendment. It should not state "between disciples"; rather it should state "between disciplines".
Having been an academic for 22 years and a researcher before I was elected to Seanad Éireann, I know there is a hierarchy of knowledge in the Irish third level environment. That is reinforced and buttressed in the allocation of funding, and in the manner, distribution and pattern of funding that is awarded. There is a huge bias towards the natural sciences. The human sciences, arts and literature are very much the underdog. There has even been a suggestion that some subjects such as, for example, history, be taken out of the second level curriculum.
A lot of that flows from the intellectual and ethical failures of the Celtic tiger that brought this country to the precipice of financial destruction and forced us to lose our financial and economic sovereignty for quite a period of time, and everything that flowed from that. In the aftermath, the Government commissioned the Hunt report, a strategy statement for higher education out to 2030. The report stated repeatedly that research and innovation in third level education should be the engine of Ireland's economic recovery. While it is the case that universities should be the engine of our economic recovery, they should also very much be the engine of our ethical recovery.
The Universities Act refers to academic freedom and gives it legal protection. The Act states that researchers and academics should have the right to hold provocative and challenging opinions and views. That is important. I have brought forward doctoral research around a much-loved institution in this State, Óglaigh na hÉireann, which revealed shockingly high levels of sexual assault and rape within the organisation. That contribution to knowledge, which involved a disruptive and provocative set of findings, led immediately to a sustained and robust campaign of reprisal and character assassination, including threats of criminal prosecution for breaches of the Official Secrets Act, which destroyed my reputation and left me in fear of losing my job and being imprisoned. Yet, 25 years later we have a judge-led inquiry that is still investigating what happened.
There is a resistance in Irish culture to new and provocative ideas. It is important that the legislation underpinning this new agency clearly states that we protect parity of esteem. I would even go so far as to say that a certain amount of funding should be ring-fenced for certain disciplines. For example, the head of a research agency, though not quite a bully, might have been found to have repeatedly engaged in inappropriate behaviour. That is the realpolitik of how funding is dispersed in this country and the type of people who gravitate towards leadership roles in our third level sector.
We have to be really careful and put insurance in the Bill to protect parity of esteem and freedom of expression. The strategy statements for universities all contain a commitment to a provocative professoriate. That should be reflected in such an important Bill as this, which governs the disbursement of funds that will bring our research further into the 21st century. As I said, I am not confident that my amendment will be accepted but it is a lost opportunity. I thank the Minister of State for his patience in hearing me out.
I remind all Members when making contributions that they be careful about the use of language and do not identify people who are not here to defend themselves.
I can appreciate some of the principles that have informed Senator Clonan's amendment. I noted the typo. He previously proposed what we called the Homer amendments, but now seems to seek biblical influence.
I understand where he is coming from and one of the challenges is understanding the role of this agency. I am speaking specifically to the amendment. A lot of the focus of the debate has been on funding schemes in higher education institutions. We need to be careful about being overly prescriptive. The agency is not just about the funding of certain schemes in our higher education institutions; it is also about a new research agency designed to make us a research-centred and innovative society and economy. That is broader than our higher education institutions.
Our universities will be very much the driving force for a lot of this. I agree with the Senator that research and innovation is not all found in one particular area or another. In fact, it is increasingly about interdisciplinarity and disciplines co-operating. I do not like the idea of ring-fencing funding for particular areas or disciplines. The function should be much more about meeting global challenges. It should be about saying to the new agency that some of the major global challenges we face are climate change and the biodiversity crisis and asking what the research and innovation community more widely is doing to address that. Those solutions will come as much from environmental scientists as from lawyers and architects. Solutions will require such an approach.
I am conscious about ring-fencing funding. I have seen what has happened with research agencies when this happens. One of the difficulties in the past with Science Foundation Ireland was that when it engaged in a research prioritisation exercise and picked 14 areas on which Irish research should focus, from a variety of disciplines, that came at the expense of other areas. We need to support applied research, but at the same time there has to be an emphasis on blue sky research and support for interdisciplinarity. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from, but I am worried that he thinks parity of esteem means we have to have parity of funding between various disciplines. I am not necessarily in favour of that.
There is no reason, if there is a particularly solid proposal from the humanities or a humanities background, that it cannot receive the bulk of funding ahead of something coming from what might be regarded as a STEM background. Increasingly, the barriers between disciplines are breaking down, especially when we are considering how we are going to try to solve some of our global problems.
It is critical that we have academic freedom for those who are engaged in research and innovation. It has to be evidence-based. I am particularly glad to see the president of UCD, Professor Orla Feely, make it very clear that when it comes to academic freedom that is non-negotiable. It is important that the work of the new agency is free from political interference or lobbying, whether that comes from a Minister or any other external interests, including those connected to a geopolitical conflict. There should always be the right and ability of those engaged in the research community to be able to co-operate more closely.
This legislation allows for a lot of that to happen. I accept that a lot of this is going to be in the schemes as they are developed and operate. However, I am very concerned about the idea that parity of esteem is interpreted to mean that if we give X amount to one discipline, we have to give Y amount to another discipline. This is about being as innovative and research-centred as possible and letting the best proposals, from wherever they come, come forward and be recognised.
I am glad the Chair referred to people who cannot defend themselves in this House. There are allegations that have been made. I think it is wrong to attempt in some way to traduce particular individuals when we do not know the full circumstances.
I was speaking generally.
I appreciate that, although it was sort of identifiable who it was. I think that was very unfair. A lot of good work has been done by the research agencies up to now but we have to think bigger about this. Why was the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science set up in the first place? It was not to be an administrative Department. It was about looking at some of the big-picture challenges that we face as a society and how we are going to respond to them. This is why I am respectfully opposing this amendment. How we will judge that agency, and, as a society, how the wider citizenry will judge it, is on whether it is coming up with great ideas on products and services that will transform all of our lives for the better and solve some of the big global challenges that we face.
That does not mean we will be doing that by measuring whether we have allocated funding into distinctive and particular pots to make sure that everybody gets their necessary piece. That said, it is important that we take proposals from as wide a variety of backgrounds as possible. I recall initiatives in Trinity College a number of years ago where to solve global heart problems, they used to bring those who were engaged in heart surgery together with philosophers and people who specialise in romantic poetry. That kind of thinking should certainly be encouraged.
These are the objectives around the research agency. We have to think big. We have to look not at how it allocates funding but at whether it solves global problems. This is particularly the case in the context of some of the criticisms that are often levelled against public services in Ireland, namely, that we too often measure by inputs and how much money we put into particular pots. It makes far more sense that we look at the outcomes and how it is making our lives better. That is why I respectfully oppose this amendment.
We know this new agency is going to be ground-breaking and transformative. It is about research and innovation across all disciplines. What is phenomenal is that it now places research, particularly in the arts, social sciences and humanities, on a statutory footing which previously did not exist. We are going to see that this new agency has a statutory footing for funding in those areas.
My colleague mentioned multidisciplinarity across the many areas of research. Senator Clonan mentioned Impact 2030 and its goals and objectives, which are about using and working with all areas of research to fight the challenges that we have across the board, whether social, economic or environmental. This agency has competitive funding. At its crux, it is competitive. It is based on excellence in each and every area. Ireland will stand tall. It will stand head and shoulders above so many others because it bases that on excellence. We have the talent in Ireland across many areas. We have the talent in every single section and area of research. What we will see is that all of those areas will be looking at funding coming through this agency and they will also be able to compete for international competitive funding.
The Impact 2030 proposal of research and innovation strategy is about how we engage with research and innovation within third level. It is not just that, however. It is also about creating our future. It is literally about doing the roadshow that went around all of the towns of Ireland last year and the year before, engaging with people on the ground. They had it in Roscommon and Ballinasloe, they talked to people on the street, they brought in researchers to talk to people on the street, they went into the primary and secondary schools, they talked to parents and they literally engaged with everybody about what it means to have research in Ireland. That is the important thing. Impact 2030 is about ensuring that we use research for policy-making that is evidence-based, so when our agencies, Ministers and Departments are making decisions, there is an evidence base and they are basing it on the excellence that is coming out of the research that will be done by researchers across every institution in Ireland.
I support the sentiment in amendment No. 2 from Senator Clonan and I also have a number of amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 10 seeks to insert a new object in the Bill to require that the agency support and promote parity of esteem between disciplines. Parity of esteem does matter and it has consistently been one of the concerns that have been raised.
I will go through the amendments and then go to the wider point. Amendment No. 11 is an alternative to amendment No. 10 and proposes that the agency support and promote balance between fields and disciplines in the receipt of funding and support. Amendment No. 16 proposes to insert a new subsection into section 35 to require that the agency ensure that in the allocation of resources and the design, disbursal and administration of schemes, the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines be upheld.
Amendment No. 17 is an alternative to amendment No. 16 and is based on language used by Senator Dolan in the previous debate. I understand there have been concerns around the use of the phrase “parity of esteem” and while I do not necessarily agree with those concerns, I have heard them expressed by the Minister. Again, we hear "parity of esteem" referenced all of the time yet we are told that, for some reason, it cannot be put into the Bill. While I do not accept that is the case, if it is the case, another way that issue could be addressed is through amendment No. 17, which proposes that the agency ensure that in the allocation of resources and the design, disbursal and administration of schemes, there be an appropriate balance between fields and disciplines.
I will elaborate on that. This is not about ring-fencing in a narrow sense. What it is about is saying that there genuinely is a balance in how things are funded. In fact, the absence of any provision marking either parity of esteem or balance leads us to exactly those situations where, as we saw at Science Foundation Ireland, a few key topics are picked and that is where the money goes, with maybe a few crumbs from the table for the other disciplines and areas. Therefore, if the idea is that we want to ensure that the best ideas, wherever they are coming from, are getting funded, it is through putting a provision of parity of esteem in the Bill that we make sure there genuinely is an opportunity for good and important ideas. It is not just for immediate contemporary challenges but also for our understanding of ourselves, as humanity, that there is research in the sciences but also research in the humanities and social sciences. It is to ensure there is scope for the most important areas of research that are most meaningful and most potentially impactful, wherever they are coming from, that that balance is there.
The danger, otherwise, is that a few areas get 90% of the pie and we end up with a lopsided research infrastructure in Ireland. To be honest, the funding is already lopsided between the funding that goes to the STEM areas versus the much lesser funding that goes to the humanities and social sciences. That is why people are concerned and have looked for parity of esteem. It is because they know there is a huge danger of not having a balance in how funding and resources are allocated. There are very small schemes with very small budgets for huge areas of human thought, research and endeavour and then very large budgets going to a few very narrow, potentially more commercial areas of research.
This is one of the problems that comes through. The idea has been mentioned of the consolidation of authority in one individual in this Bill. I raised on Committee Stage concerns around the consolidation of power with the chief executive or, indeed, the Minister and the fact that there is so much. We may well have somebody who leads the agency and he or she has a particular specialism, and that person may not be either as expert or as interested in other areas of research. Therefore, it is really important that there would be an impetus. There would be something that requires people to ask whether we are really being balanced here and whether we have the right diversity of schemes be they small, large, medium or interdisciplinary schemes. I agree; I think they are really important. Are they all really reflected in the kinds of resource and funding? Yes, the money does matter. Frankly, the money does matter and how it is allocated matters, and where the resources go really makes a difference. Sometimes, it is not the best ideas that predominate. It is the ideas that have had huge resources and appropriate staffing levels behind them that get the profile and the impetus. Sometimes, the better or more important idea does not get seen, which is the one that, for example, might reframe a social question rather than simply produce a new product.
This is really a last appeal. I am conscious that this is the last time I will be able to speak on this issue as it will be Senator Clonan replying. However, I really would urge some engagement with any of these amendments. As I said, I think amendment No. 17 is very reasonable. It simply talks about "appropriate balance". It does not say it has to be exactly even, but it says that the question of "balance between fields and disciplines" would need to be considered when designing schemes and when allocating resources. That is a very reasonable request. Right now, to be very clear, there is nothing in the Bill that requires that balance. Simply saying there are resources that cover all kinds of different areas is not the same as having an appropriate balance between how those disciplines are approached and were supported. Again, being in the room is not the same as a balanced representation or balanced support. I am really appealing to the Minister of State to engage with this. If he is not going to accept any of these amendments, I would ask him how he expects that issue of balance to be reflected. What part of the Bill does he believe will exercise that? Will it be through his own engagement through the very large ministerial powers that are given, which, again, are problematic? Is it going to be through the strategy and planning? Where does he see parity of esteem coming through if it is not coming through in the legislation?
I would like to address amendment No. 2, which relates to the interpretation section of the Bill., amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which address the objects of the agency, and amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which relate to section 35 of the Bill on schemes for funding of research and innovation.
As for amendment No. 2, submitted by Senators Clonan and Craughwell, parity of esteem is not just between disciplines or between discipline groupings like science, technology, engineering and mathematics and arts, humanities and social sciences. We need parity of esteem across all types of research from frontier and basic research to applied research. These are interdependent and complementary. We need to be funding high-quality frontier and basic research now to ensure a pipeline of applied research for the next ten or 20 years. We also need to have parity of esteem for all career stages from PhD and post-doctoral early career research to established researchers who have the experience and expertise to lead on larger-scale projects. We need to support mutually respectful and supportive engagements, with senior researchers being encouraged to support the skills development of the junior researchers on teams they are leading.
For amendments Nos. 10 and 11, parity of esteem is a core and vital principle and was a key consideration throughout the drafting process. Parity of esteem underpins all the provisions within the Bill itself and the planning of the new agency. The Irish 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 proposed amendments are less inclusive than the broad enabling provision already at section 8(b) "to support 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", which captures the policy intention of all disciplines, all areas, all types and all career stages of researchers and innovation. The proposed amendments omit this vital distinction that parity of esteem and balance need to be across career stages, as well as disciplines or research areas, which the existing provision includes more fully. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
For amendments Nos. 16 and 17, the funding section of the Bill has been precisely engineered to require that the funding decisions are attached to the high-level principles in section 8 and to the remit of the agency in the functions at section 9. The policy intention is broader than what is proposed here by the Senators and the balance we are seeking is more finessed. Parity of esteem has been a core principle throughout the drafting process and underpins all provisions within the Bill. For the first time, arts, humanities and social sciences funding will be on a statutory basis, meaning that should Senators pass this legislation, arts, humanities and social sciences researchers will be able to lead projects as principal investigators, which they are currently unable to do under existing Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, legislation. I highlight the significance of this provision to Senators. The Department has an absolute commitment to parity of esteem under the Impact 2030 strategy. We need all disciplines, all types of research and all career stages working collaboratively together across a cohesive national research and innovation ecosystem to enable effective engagement, optimise resources and avoid duplication and get the best possible outcomes for Ireland. The agency is also required to "promote and support the contribution made by research and innovation to economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability in the State" through economic development but also social and cultural and environmental progress. There is no one concept here being elevated above the others. That is, in fact, parity. Section 37 also requires a CEO to ensure the agency is delivering on its objectives and functions and on 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. As such, there is a clear and existing requirement on the agency to ensure that it is supporting researchers across all disciplines. We do not, therefore, propose to accept that amendment either.
With regard to ring-fenced funding and quotas, the idea for an arts, humanities and social sciences council had been included in the heads of the Bill. However, when we went out to the stakeholders, they were opposed to the idea of being hived off or separate. They viewed it as being put on a junior table and not being included in the real business of the agency proper or being where the real decisions get made. There has been similar feedback around funding. We do not want to hive off any amount of money and say that is the pot for arts, humanities and social sciences. We will not be introducing ring-fencing or quotas. Competitive funding decisions will be based on the standard and quality of the research and how the proposals intend to have an economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability impact. This is clearly defined in the Bill. All principles and research areas can compete for funding calls when the agency will be running. If the top five best applications are arts, humanities and social sciences, we do not want it to be in a position where the agency can only take one or two because it can only allocate a small pot of ring-fenced funding to these disciplines. This would be further complicated by how these programmes operate where we can often have multidisciplinary teams.
Are we going to say an arts, humanity and social science principal investigator leading a team means funding will come from a limited arts, humanity and social science quota, even if the rest of the team are STEM researchers? We are not accepting the amendments.
At no point do any of the amendments refer to ring-fencing funding or setting aside a pot of money. I want to clarify that. The amendments, as written, notwithstanding the typo in No. 2, make no reference to ring-fencing funding.
The recurring phrase in the amendments is "to insert the following"; at no point do they say "to replace" or "to remove". None of the amendments undermine any provisions around parity of esteem contained in the draft document.
I accept everything Senators Byrne and Dolan have said, very eloquently as is always the case. Everything they said corroborates the intent of my amendment. We are on precisely the same page. I gave a hostage to fortune in the previous debate when I said I would prefer to be led by a poet than an engineer. Senator Byrne responded deftly that they could work together very well. We are all on the same page and this was purely an attempt to have that stated explicitly in the legislation.
I reject the assertion that I intended to traduce anybody. My intention was simply to make an observation about the political economy of leadership, not just in the third level sector but in all areas of Irish public life. It is about when all power is vested in one individual. The comment was about political economy generally in that space, particularly where funding is involved. It was not an attempt to traduce anybody.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive have been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 6, 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) to support measures to bring an end to precarious work in the research sector and promote quality and sustainable employment for all researchers;”.
I second the amendment.
This amendment seeks to insert a new object into the Bill which would require the agency "to support measures to bring an end to precarious work in the research sector and promote quality and sustainable employment for all researchers". The issue of workers' rights in higher education and the research section more broadly is one I have been raising for a long time. In 2018, I launched TASC's Living with Uncertainty report and highlighted how prevalent insecure contracts had become in the very spaces we need to analyse and examine the employment landscape. I expressed the worry that if such practices continue they could chill the intellectual challenge and critique we rely on as policymakers.
I have emphasised again and again the issue with precarious and insecure contracts, not just short-term contracts but short-hour contracts, nine-month contracts and hour-by-hour contracts. We are not talking about a three-year or five-year contract but about the use of hour-by-hour contracts in the academic context, and nine-month contracts as well. There has been a prevalence of these. We need to ensure the research landscape is one where people can thrive and bring critical and long-form thought, and where they have the security to think critically, challenge, experiment and try things out, rather than a climate of deep insecurity for those working in higher education institutions or research. That is not just bad for them and does not just mean it is hard for them to get mortgages, have a life and plan their lives. It means we lose out as a society because we will have less diversity in the research space, people leaving because they feel they cannot afford to work in research and increased danger of groupthink, which is one of the greatest dangers for research and innovation. We will also lose out on deep, challenging thinking when people have to think about their contract next year or next month and are not in a position to indulge in longer form thought processes, experimentation and research.
This is the big changer Bill. The HEA Bill radically reformed the structures of our universities and higher education institutions. Now the Research and Innovation Bill is supposedly setting up almost a whole new landscape in which research and innovation will take place. In both of those large and significant Bills, which are making massive changes to the research landscape, the important, thorny and essential underlying issue of the conditions, terms, security and career progression of those doing this work has not been adequately addressed. Bringing a significant Bill like this through is an opportunity to also make sure it is significant for those working in research and to send a signal to them.
I will go through a number of approaches. One concerns the objects of the agency and is under amendment No.6. Amendment No. 13 seeks to amend section 9(1)(e) by specifying that the functions of the agency "promote the engagement, retention and development of the skills and capacity [and careers] of researchers of an excellent standard in the national system of research and innovation". This is a small amendment. This is taking the language already in the Bill and stating that, as well as promoting "the engagement, retention and development of the skills and capacity of researchers", we will also support their careers. Amendment No. 14 inserts a new function into the Bill, requiring that the agency, "in co-operation with An tÚdarás, promote, support and develop tangible plans to end precarious work in the higher education sector”.
We are approaching crisis in the higher education sector. We have practices brought in by an employment control framework in the past, which continues to this day and which limits the amount of talent, the security of contract and the amount of permanent and secure employees across our higher education institutions. That was compounded by practices that became embedded of shorter and shorter term contracts, including nine-month contracts and hour-by-hour contracts. Insecurity has become the norm for many in our higher education institutions. It has been layered with a cost-of-living crisis and lack of affordability in housing. Something unfair in itself, now compounded with the cost of living, is becoming impossible for many talented individuals, people with the potential to achieve extraordinary results for society if they could afford to stay in our higher education institutions and develop research within those institutions.
The precarity has become extraordinarily impactful in that we are seeing less diversity than five or ten years ago in some areas of research. People are being driven out of it, women in particular, because they feel they cannot afford to be in such an insecure sector and support their family.
This is a chance. People will be looking to this Bill. The Irish Federation of University Teachers, the PhD workers organisations, the postgraduate workers organisations and many others have all been very vocal and have highlighted these issues again and again, and I know they will continue to highlight them. However, this is a chance to send a signal that not everything will be solved in this Bill. We want the Department to empower the agency it is setting up in this Bill by giving it a mandate to engage on that issue of employment security to address the problem - it is a problem - of precarious work in our higher education institutions.
Regarding amendments Nos. 6 and 13, as outlined repeatedly during the Committee Stage debate, the agency has no remit regarding researcher careers. This Bill is not the appropriate place for this and we are therefore not proposing to accept these amendments. The Government is committed to implementing Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy. A dedicated talent pilar highlights the crucial importance of people and talent to the Irish research and innovation ecosystem. It commits to ensuring researchers will be supported with the right skills, development and career opportunities so that they can make their maximum contribution to research and innovation efforts. HR policy in respect of researchers was formalised through the researcher career development and employment framework. This framework addressed the terms and conditions and need for a defined career path for researchers who applied across the research ecosystem. The framework has delivered significant benefits for researchers including a clear and uniform salary structure and salary policy, including incremental progression and general round increases; open and transparent recruitment; clarity around career progression and professional and career development; and clear exit provisions. The higher education institutions are committed to providing stable and fulfilling employment and career opportunities, and the significant majority of university employment is through full-time and permanent contracts of employment at around 83%.
The Department published the first report of the independent national review of State supports for PhD researchers last summer which focused on the issue of stipend levels and recommended an increase towards an optimum level of €25,000 subject to funding availability, on which our Department is working. Funding was secured under budget 2024 to increase the stipends awarded by the two competitive research funders, namely, the Irish Research Council and Science Foundation Ireland, from €19,000 to €22,000 per annum, a 15.8% increase, and building on the additional funding secured in budget 2023. The Department will continue to engage within the budgetary process in order to continue progress on this issue. The final report of the co-chairs will be published shortly and includes their consideration of PhD status. As with all other elements of their work, they must take into account the perspectives of the 35 stakeholder organisations within which they met, as well as the variety of international practices in operation across Europe. The report will provide a basis for ongoing policy development. I recognise there is further work to do here and we need to be working with researchers on these issues to ensure we are retaining our research talent into the future.
Amendment No. 14 relates once again to employment conditions of researchers at the applicant body and for this reason it cannot be included. It is outside the remit of the agency and the scope of the Bill. The Department is engaging in ongoing work and consultation to improve conditions for researchers, including engaging with the relevant bodies associated with this work. We have already discussed this work in detail during the previous debate.
There is almost a contradiction there. The Minister of State has spoken about the pillar impact and recognising how important the people working on the careers are in that, but then he says that the agency does not have a remit. However, the Minister of State is setting up the agency. He cannot simply say the agency does not have a remit because he is establishing it. He can give the agency the remit and he has the opportunity to do this. These amendments are amendments to the objects and the functions of the agency, which is the remit of the agency. These are the actual tools by which one gives an agency remit. I hope I am not in this position but if I am raising again the issue of precarity in our higher education institutions two months, six months or a year from now, the Minister of State can perhaps say then it is not in the remit of the agency. However, this is the moment here and now when he is choosing not to make it part of the remit of the agency. To be really clear, that is a choice and an option and it will not be an adequate answer for any future Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to say the agency does not have a remit in this regard. That was a choice. It is a choice being made right now.
To be clear, the Minister of State outlined a scenario whereby everybody is getting the same deal and the same contracts, but that does not match up with what is happening on the ground. In seeing the impact of precarity on research, you need to look a little bit wider than merely at those working in research. There are 11,200 lecturers who have been employed by universities and higher education institutions in Ireland on a temporary or casual basis in recent years. This means that over 11,000 people are employed on a temporary or casual basis. When you are employing somebody on a temporary or casual basis, perhaps as a lecturer, that is going to impact on their capacity to do research. I know research is wider than academia but specifically focusing on the academic world and higher education institutions, some of those same individuals who are teaching - indeed, some of those same postgraduate students who are teaching - are also those who have reached a level of education and expertise whereby they have the capacity to do important research, to innovate and to come up with new ideas, but they do not have the space or security to engage in research when they are on an hour-by-hour contract for giving lectures.
As I said, precarity within the research world is not simply for those who are employed under research contracts. Precarity, and precarity in higher education institutions and how it impacts on research, is also revealed in those who end up not working or continuing in research even though they have the expertise, the understanding, and in many cases, the insight that has the potential to contribute in an extraordinary or an important way to the addressing of those common challenges. The impact of precarious contracts is not just visible in who is there and in their conditions. It is also visible in who is not there. I have mentioned previously the fact that the diversity is not going to be there in the area of research. There can end up being a two-tier system where there are those who never get to a point of security. The Minister of State mentioned a number of things at which he was looking. One thing he did not mention, and which he may be able to mention or address, is the employment control framework whereby there is a limit left over from the austerity period. There is still a constraint on our higher education institutions that is blocking them from giving permanent contracts. In fact, it is requiring them to give temporary or casual contracts in areas which are core to the functioning of their departments. Again, there is more the Government can do on this. I will be following through in each of the other areas where the Minister of State says he hopes to address it. A huge opportunity is being missed by not addressing it in this Bill. If he did have comments regarding the employment control framework, that would be welcome.
Does the Minister of State wish to respond?
Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote the development of public research for the public good which addresses social and environmental needs;”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 7 seeks "to promote the development of public research for the public good which addresses social and environmental needs". There is an error in the location in which it is proposed to insert amendment No. 8. I will speak to the general point of that amendment but might not move it. Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 7, which also inserts a new object into the Bill, requiring "frontier and basic research" which might serve the public good.
I am conscious that some elements of the Bill lead to a concern that our research and innovation landscape may become too focused on serving the commercial interests or the business interests that operate within our State. We mention that Enterprise Ireland is involved in the development of the five-year strategy, which is a privilege not given to many of the other key bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency or any of the other bodies with which the agency may partner. Enterprise Ireland, I think, at two points in the Bill is given a special and privileged role to play. It may have much to contribute, but there is a concern about imbalance in those regards. It is really important that the public good - not simply the public good in terms of tax receipts from large multinational corporations but the public good in its wider sense - is at the forefront of the purposes of research and innovation and the designing of research and innovation. To ensure that research and innovation which specifically addresses our social and environmental needs be to the forefront and that they be designed to serve the public good is really important. I mentioned the most innovative idea or the most important piece of research. For example, some of the actions we can take in respect of climate are not ones that will necessarily be profitable for anybody but they will be immensely important for the public good. Some of the policies and some of the research on social cohesion may not generate receipts for the State in terms of money but are absolutely priceless when one can support community development or find new ways or new approaches to bring society and community closer together. These are some of the areas that are really important for the public good. It is really important and it has been deeply illustrated by the Covid crisis that we need to have more medical research that is focused on and has the goal of the public good at its centre, rather than solely or predominantly having profit as its centre point and chief arbiter. We saw that in the appalling failure to share research and innovations in respect of the Covid vaccine with the global south. There was a lack of focus and a lack of mandate in respect of the public good, even though so much of the research that developed the vaccines came from public money.
Amendment No. 9 is about supporting and promoting "frontier and basic research for the public good". I will not elaborate too much on that, but something that was put very eloquently by Senator Malcolm Byrne and others is that we need to support frontier and basic research because that is what creates the next level of applied research. You give and support space for people to explore and to look at ideas. This reaches back to the question of stipends and funding. There is and has been an over-reliance in Ireland, particularly in the space of PhD workers and PhD stipends, on those who can get commercial subsidy or commercial supplements or who can be funded by industry. It is not always about what can be applied or monetised but it is about frontier and basic research that pushes forth not just our knowledge but also our understanding in ways that may prove to be of great benefit at a later point.
There is a misplacing as regards amendment No. 8. It is an important point. It had been intended to insert the amendment after the line "to promote and develop the reputation of the State internationally as a location that is favourable for undertaking research and innovation". The problem with the language that is there at the moment - and I know we cannot change it at this point - is that it refers to the reputation of the State being based on being "a location that is favourable for undertaking research and innovation". That is not the same as the reputation of the State for doing research and innovation, producing important research and producing innovation. Being favourable as a location for doing it directly sends a signal that Ireland may be a favourable location from a tax perspective, and we know that Ireland is a very favourable location from a tax perspective for undertaking research and innovation. However, we should not rest our international reputation solely on that and not seeking or having the ambition in this new agency and in its objects that Ireland would have a reputation internationally for research and innovation, not simply for being tax-favourable for those who may wish to undertake it. That message about the reputation reflects a paucity of imagination and a paucity of ambition as to what we should look for from this new agency. I hope that, regardless of this wording, the agency will seek to promote and support Ireland's reputation internationally for actually delivering research and innovation. I referred to the placing of this amendment. I know we will not have an opportunity to address it again. The phrase is placed in the wrong point of the Bill, so I will not be able to move amendment No. 8, but I wanted to signal the issue.
I will pass over to the Minister of State or anybody else who wishes to speak.
The proposed amendment No. 7 is in keeping with the policy intentions of the Bill, and we were minded to include a very similar amendment which came up on Committee Stage in the other House. The Department sought legal advice to ensure that the proposed wording did not create any unintended consequences. The advice was that the insertion of this wording may, taken at its highest, impose an additional limiting restriction, which I know is not the intention. The research performed by the agency has already been assessed in terms of economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability impacts which are all in the interests of the public good, so the intention of the amendment is already covered by the existing provision. The proposed amendments bring in a less tangible or defined limiting provision as to how this public good would be determined or measured. The existing intention of examining impact in the functions of the agency at section 9(1)(l) is far more quantifiable and defined, and this intention is already captured in the existing provision.
Including this text could potentially create an unworkable level of complexity in the provision whereby additional reporting requirements would have to be introduced as an added layer of assessment with an extra layer of administrative burden attached. The role of the agency in contributing to the public good is set out be reference to its objectives in sections 8(c) and 8(d) and by reference to the economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability impact of the research as the assessment and success criteria. It is, therefore, not necessary to reference this concept as worded in the proposed amendment, which could potentially have unintended consequences. For that reason, we do not propose to take the amendment.
For amendment No. 8., the provision already in the text of section 8(e) aims "to promote and develop the reputation of the State internationally as a location that is favourable for undertaking research and innovation". Promoting the reputation of Ireland internationally for upholding an excellent standard of quality of research and innovation is already contained in the objects at section 8(a). The provision as already written here already supports this intention and aligns with the provision in the functions at section 9(f). The intention of the amendment is, therefore, fully captured already in the existing provision. We do not propose to accept the amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 9, as explained during the Committee Stage debate, we ran into issues with listing in the heads of the Bill. There is a risk that lists will be read as being some kind of priority order. That is not the intention. There is also a risk of imposing unintended limitations of falling behind the often rapid developments in the field. Our approach is to use the broad enabling provisions in the objects rather than listing factors to give scope for all disciplines, all types of research, all career stages and for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. We recognise the interdependence and mutually reinforcing roles of frontier and basic research and applied research. The frontier and basic research we fund today provides the foundation for the applied research of the next couple of decades to come. The existing text achieves this balance more effectively. The agency will be funding all types of research and listing these two types separately does not add anything or enhance the existing provision. For that reason, we are not proposing to accept the amendment.
I thank the Minister of State for engaging at least and giving consideration to those amendments. With regard to amendments No. 7 and 9, some of the language is there. I had expressed concern around the way environmental development is referred to and about how I believe it is environmental development from a very narrow perspective within the Bill. Nonetheless, perhaps it would have been a good opportunity because there is, of course, an amendment already that goes back to the Dáil debate. It is a pity the opportunity was not taken to insert the core phrase both of those amendments put forward, which is "for the public good". Therefore, even if the Minister of State did not want to include explicit reference to "social and environmental" or "frontier and basic", there would have been the potential to maybe insert and add the phrase "for the public good" to some of the language that was already in the Bill. I think that is an opportunity missed.
As I said, it is important that we do not just have research in these areas but that we have a clear mandate of the public good because we know that social, environmental or even cultural research is not necessarily and intrinsically for the public good. There are many different purposes to which cultural, social and environmental research may be applied. As I said, having a clear mandate in respect of the public good would have strengthened and improved the vision for this new research and innovation agency. I thank the Minister of State for his consideration. However, I regret that he was not able to accept the amendments.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(f) to support and promote frontier and basic research for the public good;”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(f) to support and promote parity of esteem between disciplines;”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(f) to support and promote balance between fields and disciplines in the receipt of funding and support;”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(g) to preserve and promote the principles of academic freedom.”.
I second the amendment.
I rehearsed all the arguments in the earlier amendments, so I do not choose to say anything further on it.
Would the Minister of State like to respond?
I have spoken to it already.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, line 37, after “capacity” to insert “and careers”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(h) in co-operation with An tÚdarás, promote, support and develop tangible plans to end precarious work in the higher education sector;”.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 15:
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 outlined in guidelines, codes, legislation or statutory instrument)”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 15 is really about section 11, which I previously opposed as an entire section. Again, it is an attempt to reflect the debate and discussion we had around the very concern that, effectively, there is a requirement that still feels so extraordinary. As I said, section 11, which I opposed, is one area in which the Minister has extraordinary powers in terms of giving directions to the agency. Section 11(1) provides for the Minister giving direction on "any matter or any thing referred in this Act or any other enactment, and ... the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government". This is extraordinary power, under section 11, for the Minister to effectively give direction the agency on anything, and that direction should be complied with in a period of time set out by the Minister.
Layered on top of that then is section 15 on the board and what it does. There is an obligation that the board would make sure there are procedures 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 [that is, any Minister of the Government] to the extent that those policies may affect or relate to the functions of the Agency".
Again, this is another huge overreach whereby the agency is to be almost standing ready to comply with any policy of any Government Minister. That is fine if it is clear what mandate and power that Government Minister has in bringing forward that policy. However, the Oireachtas is the only body that can legislate and we do not have a practice here, and nor should we, of giving blank cheques to Government Ministers to say they can go ahead and impose any policy on what is supposed to be an independent agency without any clear process which that policy has to move through. It could be the policy of an individual Minister and the text refers to “the Government or a Minister of the Government”. To be clear, when there is a policy and it is put into action, that has real-world effects and, therefore, the Government can have this real-world impact through its policies without any reference back to legislation.
That is fine and the agency can be asked to be ready to comply with the policy where that policy is, first, either underpinned by legislation or statutory instrument or, alternatively, at least outlined in guidelines or codes. Right now, the Bill refers to “any document”. A Minister can literally produce a memo that says, “Here is your new policy. Please implement it right away”, without needing to have a mandate from the Oireachtas, without guidelines having been published that people can see and without even a code. For example, there are cases where safety codes or regulations may be made under statutory instrument where it is appropriate that the agency would implement them. However, in all of those, we can trace back where the authority and mandate come from, and there is a level of oversight of any code, guidelines or regulations under statutory instrument, or, indeed, primary legislation. There is traceability, rather than simply saying that for any document that lands on your desk from any Minister - it could be the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment - you have to be standing ready to comply with that new policy.
It also brings a real risk of contradictory policies coming through from different Ministers of Government. Again, this is part of the messy architecture of overreach that I hope we will not regret in the future. I addressed section 11 previously so I am just focusing here on this one issue with section 15.
Amendment No. 15 is an ordinary provision that is completely in line with existing legislation, including the HEA Act. The document specified here could be any communication between the Minister and the board in the ordinary way of ministerial instructions being communicated. There is nothing extraordinary here. The board complying with an instruction of the Minister is mitigated in the Bill by the requirement to deliver on the remit of the agency and the principles guiding the agency, as laid out in the objects and functions. There is also a provision in section 31 which refers to the accountability of the chief executive officer to other Oireachtas committees and the ability of the committee to request the chief executive officer to attend before it to give an account of the general administration of the agency, including delivering on its remit, as detailed in the functions of the agency. Therefore, we do not propose to accept amendment No. 15 as this is an ordinary provision which does not afford the Minister any powers which could alter the functions of the agency in any real sense. There are rigorous reporting requirements in place to ensure that the agency delivers on its statutory remit.
First, it is not “the Minister”; it is “a Minister of the Government”. As I said, this refers to any Minister and perhaps multiple Ministers who have instructions that they would like to send down to the agency and see implemented. Hopefully, how the agency deals with those will be appropriate. However, while the agency has a wider remit, this does not give it the right to decline to engage with a Minister’s instruction because of its remit or given the balance. The Minister of State may recall that I had an explicit amendment on Committee Stage to propose that the agency should not have to engage with schemes which will compromise its ability to deliver on its remit. That amendment was not accepted so there is no curtailment here.
To be clear, it is not standard and it was not standard when these provisions went into the HEA Act. The HEA Bill was an extraordinarily dangerously drafted Bill in terms of ministerial overreach. That was not equivalent. I have been looking at a lot of Bills in a lot of detail for close to a decade and, to be clear, the provisions that are in the HEA Act and in this Bill are not standard. The language is wider and looser, in particular in section 11.
In terms of that question of accountability to the Oireachtas committee, we may recall there is also a provision in this Bill – effectively, a gagging order provision - that says that when the CEO presents to an Oireachtas committee, they are not allowed to comment on any ministerial policy or even the potential intentions of such a policy, so they are not going to be accountable when it comes to a Minister’s or multiple Ministers’ policies that they have to implement. They are not allowed to comment on the policy or the reasons for the policy. As I said, we already have this totally inappropriate limitation of the Oireachtas committees’ powers to engage with the chief executive officer, so we do not have a check and balance here or, rather, we have a blank cheque and we do not have balance.
My greater frustration is with regard to section 11 but this is part of the whole piece. I need to mark it so that if we have issues down the line, we are clear where the problems are and that they should have been addressed.
I move amendment No. 16:
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 second the amendment.
I move amendment 17:
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 there is an appropriate balance between fields and disciplines.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 35, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(6) Such conditions of funding expected by the Agency shall include a requirement for research projects to comply with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 40. In our parliamentary work, I have long advocated for increased public investment in public research for the public good and for targeted scientific, environmental and humanities research which responds to the challenges of our time. The proposal here will not only allow for positive measures in terms of positive ethical goals and human rights goals within research, and encourage and support that, but it will also make sure that we do not see crucial resources directed away from the research areas which serve us in our common humanity.
I will go through amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 22 one by one. Amendment No. 19 is separate, is it? All these amendments are attempts to ensure that Ireland is not compromised in respect of international law in terms of relevant ethical standards and human rights. As we know, and as we have discussed, there is a real danger and a concern about proposals that were being made in respect of the Horizon fund. We could have seen schemes funded by this fund, which has an explicitly civil focus, redirected. There was a proposal by the European Commission that it might be redirected towards some of the work undertaken by the European defence fund and that there would be a blurring of the lines between military research and civilian research.
I outlined in great detail on Committee Stage why this is a concern. We have to look to Ireland's crucial record on the cluster munitions conventions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, and the fact Ireland has a huge and important record on disarmament and that so much of our international credibility rests on our neutrality. This neutrality is an active thing, which means respect for international law and international principles and applying those principles equally to all, rather than selectively, on a basis of interest, or making our foreign policy and defence decisions on the basis of interest. We only make our defence and military decisions on the basis of principles of international law applied equally to all. The fact that Ireland has that neutrality and credibility has been invaluable to us. It has been invaluable to the partnerships and connections Ireland has made all over the world, because we are respected for the fact that we do not have blood on our hands from wars of interest or conflicts that have breached human rights law or that have led to the kinds of obscene civilian casualties we are seeing in conflicts around the world right now. As a neutral country and a champion for disarmament, Ireland has a lot to lose if we see a new era of the arms industry and if we see the bottomless greed of the military-industrial complex seeking to suck up and take research funding which should be directed towards the common human challenges we face to make a better world and to ensure we have real social cohesion across societies and that we face the existential crisis that is climate change. However, there is a danger that sense will not prevail and that we may see a blurring of lines within some of the research funding. In that context, Ireland needs to be equipped to act and to ensure that if there are projects which Ireland is funding or has funded and they engage in actions or they direct their research towards goals which will breach international law or human rights, then Ireland needs to be in a position whereby we pull our funding.
I listened very carefully to the debate on Committee Stage. The Minister of State will be aware that on Committee Stage I suggested a separate process in respect of this. I have now listened very carefully to the Minister of State pointing out that there is a process under section 43 which allows for the termination of funding when the conditions of funding are not met. That explicitly gives power to the chief executive to terminate funding when the conditions of funding are not met. What I am now trying to do is to ensure that we are explicitly clear that the conditions of funding shall include a requirement for research projects to comply with relevant ethical standards, human rights and international law. That then makes it easier in terms of the kinds of things we see with amendment No. 22. This amendment outlines where the Minister may be able to terminate such agreements, where agreements have been made between the agency and other bodies. Amendment No. 18 would insert it very naturally into the powers of the chief executive and it would allow that when they are exercising their powers under section 43 and they state they do not want to fund a project anymore because of non-compliance with the conditions of funding, they are able to point to non-compliance with ethical standards, international law or the basic principles of human rights, as a basis for terminating funding. This would actually strengthen the hand of the chief executive and it would give them a proper mandate and a very useful tool. It would ensure that we do not have situations - as we have at present - of joint projects between Irish institutions and Israel that are potentially complicit in relation to technologies and other areas of research and development that may be employed in the breaching of human rights in Gaza. This is a significant concern and is being talked about in the encampments and universities right across Ireland. Right across the world we hear students saying that they do not want their universities or higher education institutions to be in partnership with or engaging in projects or producing research and innovation that will be utilised in a way that is going to breach human rights or that will go against the International Court of Justice, ICJ, the highest court in the world.
The ICJ made a very explicit reminder under the Genocide Convention, which Ireland is a party to, that provisional measures are needed to ensure that we do not see a genocide take place in Gaza. That is happening right now and what we do not want is a situation whereby a future agency can say that its hands are tied and it has no way of terminating its funding and extricating itself from a project because it never included in the conditions that the project partner had to not breach human rights law and not contribute to genocide. This is the chance right now to insert that into the conditions of funding, so that if these situations arise in the future, there is a clear, appropriate and legally mandated mechanism that can be used to ensure Irish institutions and researchers are not implicated in projects that breach international law in this way.
These amendments are an opportunity. Amendment No. 22 relates to partnership arrangements and agreements but the most important amendment in this group is probably amendment No. 18. I hope the Minister of State will consider its inclusion.
Amendment No. 18 deals with section 40 which addresses compliance with the conditions of funding for research and innovation. The agency is already limited by the objects in section 8 and the functions in section 9 and these guide every aspect of its operation. The objects and functions will support and guide all the co-operation it undertakes and this is already captured in section 35(1).
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 relate to section 49 of the Bill which deals with funding partnerships. 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 ICJ or of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR.
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 and a 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 every organ of the State to "perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State's obligations 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.
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. Ethics and integrity requirements are guided by principle-specific codes and guidelines. Ethics and integrity related to research and innovation are national strengths in this regard. We have very high standards of principles of good practice in which our research community has a proud history and a deservedly positive reputation of upholding.
The Irish Universities Association recently updated a national policy on research integrity which has developed through the national research integrity forum and which the Irish Research Council and Science Foundation Ireland have contributed to substantially. Where there are ethics concerns, approval is secured from the appropriate ethics committee and other appropriate regulatory bodies. The institutional duty of care is fully considered and acted upon.
We are requiring the higher standards. We do not wish to obscure or diminish the ambition we have for this agency by inserting what is already a legal requirement in existing statutory framework and which is a much lower bar than the one we are setting for research funded by the agency in the existing text. Inserting these provisions would possibly, by inference, have the unintended consequence of implying that the agency can only desist from an existing funding relationship at the discretion of the Minister and-or in the event of a breach of human rights or international law, which is not the intention of the provision here. We will be requiring the highest standard of research ethics integrity regarding all funding arrangements in which the agency engages, and this is supported by the principles laid out in the objectives and the remit laid out in the functions in the Bill. There are rigorous reporting requirements and requirements for openness and transparency. Therefore, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
The Minister of State may correct me but scanning the objects and functions of the agency, I do not see the word "ethics" or that the highest standard of ethics will be applied. I do not see that reflected at any point. “Excellence” is referenced and that is appropriate but I do not see language that makes explicit reference to ethics or ethical standards. In the descriptions of this Bill, we have seen language used multiple times that is not in the text, for example, the term "parity of esteem". I am hoping ethics is addressed in a different section but it is not in the sections on the objects of the agency.
The reputation of Ireland internationally, as I said, seems to focus on its reputation as a location that is favourable for undertaking research and innovation. That is not a location that is ethical or that is to be held to a higher standard. Again, the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion are referenced but that reference relates to opportunities to undertake research and innovation. I am hoping ethics are mentioned somewhere. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that because I do not see it. There is language around the excellence of standards and on the undertaking of research and innovation by an international or European Union body, institution, organisation, and promoting the success of such research innovation. A situation could arise where the output of Horizon-funded projects is being redirected into military purposes and there is almost an obligation under section 9(1)(j) to promote the success of that research and innovation, even if its success might be unethical. There is a tension there.
We know that many things will go into the conditions of funding. There is nothing that would stop the Minister, even today, from coming forward with some parameter to which there may be ethical standards attached. As we are seeing from our higher education institutions right now, many of them do not understand that they need to apply or be concerned about any particular ethical standards in relation to the conflict in Gaza. They do not feel an obligation. They regard what they are doing as being so intrinsically separate from the outcomes of their projects and partnerships that they do not have any responsibility in that regard. This is not solely about geopolitics. It is about international law, which is very clear, international human rights principles and how the common principles of humanity to which we signed up with the United Nations are being applied by everybody. It is not simply geopolitics. Geopolitics suggests it is about power, but this is recognising the kinds of actions that are taking place militarily and their impact on civilians. It is about principles, not about powers and taking sides. It is about being clear on our principles. Unfortunately, I cannot see anything in the Bill that makes very clear that Ireland will be able to apply its principles, including the principles of neutrality and human rights and those core ethical principles which are important to us as a State, and that they will necessarily be reflected. I hope they may be reflected in the conditions of funding but I do not see anything in the Bill that guarantees they will be. I do not believe we cannot simply rely on institutions or individual researchers to determine case by case whether they want to apply different ethical standards. We need to have a proper mechanism within the State funding tool for research that allows for conditions to be set and that empowers the agency to terminate funding when those conditions are not being met.
With respect to the Minister of State, I am not confident. I regret that for two days in a row we have heard language around the International Court of Justice. To be clear, when the International Court of Justice, to which Ireland subscribes, gives provisional undertakings, that is the court's interpretation of the convention on genocide, to which Ireland has signed up. We and all state parties to that convention should be doing all we can when the International Court of Justice signals, as it has done, that there is a credible threat of genocide, which it will go on to determine in detail. We must bear in mind, this convention is meant to be preventative of genocide, not simply something we use after the fact to reflect on the genocide we have allowed to happen on our watch. What is happening in universities around the world right now points to the need for real, robust, effective and systemic tools, not ad hoc or one-by-one tools. The State should give leadership in respect of that. This is an opportunity for the State to give leadership and send a strong signal about the ethical standards it will expect from the projects it funds and also that it intends to enforce those standards.
The Senator mentioned ethics and integrity. In section 8(a), the first object to which the agency shall have regard is "to promote the attainment and maintenance of excellence in the standard and quality of research and innovation undertaken".
When we flip back to the definitions, "standard and quality", in respect of research and innovation, is defined as "the standard and quality of the research and innovation assessed and evaluated by reference to international good practices in the relevant field of activity or discipline of research and innovation, including adherence to policies and good practices regarding ethics, integrity and the conduct of research and innovation in that field or discipline
I am hopeful that this will be interpreted.
Is the Senator pressing the amendment?
Yes, but I thank the Minister of State for the clarification on the definition.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 35, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(6) Such conditions of funding expected by the Agency shall include the advancement of gender equality and the implementation of the Athena SWAN Charter.”.
I second the amendment.
The amendment will insert a new subsection to section 40, which again looks at the conditions of funding aspect. It will be important to see how the ethics aspect is interpreted and I will look to that with interest, but one thing that made a huge impact was the interpretation made by the Irish Research Council, which decided on an ethical basis that it needed to support gender equality within our higher education institutions. It made the important decision to insert a conditionality into its funding for research whereby it would give research grants only to institutions that had engaged in advance on the Athena SWAN charter, that is, the charter on gender equality and the crucial importance of having better gender parity within our institutions.
It is important to have guidance within the conditions of funding. I am delighted excellence will be interpreted in the way it will be, but it is important that follow through all the way to the conditions of funding. We still do not have a guarantee that that will be reflected in the conditions of funding, but what should be reflected in the conditions of funding is that same provision - we have a useful precedent for this from the Irish Research Council - relating to the Athena SWAN charter and the meeting of basic standards for the advancement of gender equality. Unfortunately, a lot of institutions started taking serious action only when they were required to do so by the conditions of funding. The advances that have been made since that decision to insert a condition of funding relating to gender equality are far more significant than those made-----
I apologise but the time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment No. 19 is hereby negatived, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed, that the Bill is hereby received for final consideration and that the Bill is hereby passed."
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
