Vol. 1051 No. 1
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(12) The Minister will report back, within one year of the passing of this Act, on whether the principle of parity of esteem should be made more explicit in the legislation.".
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 16, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(12) The Minister will report back, within one year of the passing of this Act, on whether the composition of the board should be comprised of a majority of people who are active researchers from a broad range of fields.”.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 17, between lines 20 and 21 to insert the following:
“(3) Such councils, as referred to in subsection (2)(b), shall be designated or dissolved with due regard for representation of the widest reasonable representation of academic disciplines, fields of research and innovation, or groupings thereof”.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 18, line 20, after “chairperson” to insert “and researchers’ representative groups”.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 have been ruled out of order.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 21, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(v) researchers’ representative groups,”.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 22, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
“(f) specify the proposed allocation of total resources (both financial and persons) of the Agency between particular academic disciplines, fields of research or groupings thereof,".
I will speak briefly to this. This is in the annual plan of the new research agency as well as the existing requirements that should be included in the plan such as performance targets, reporting arrangements, the allocation of resources and so on. I will not list them all. The Minister has already included all that. We are proposing to include a requirement to specify the proposed allocation of total resources, both financial and persons, of the agency between particular academic disciplines, fields of research or groupings thereof.
The purpose of this is in line with the discussion we had on the previous grouping, namely to try to ensure a diversity of focus when it comes to what research we are funding so that it does not all get skewed in particular directions that governments or that industry or business might want. These are legitimate concerns. I was just flicking through the Bill again and noticed that in preparing the corporate plan, for example, in one of the earlier sections, there is a requirement to consult with the Minister, an tÚdarás, Enterprise Ireland, the Industrial Development Authority Ireland and such other bodies or persons as it considers appropriate. It is indicative of something I was saying earlier. Certain organisations are specified - IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. They have to be specified but that is not so with other disciplines. They are not specified. Why the hierarchy? It is a very legitimate concern that research could become a slave of a particularly narrow idea of economic success or efficiency or of benefiting some narrow notion of economy. Thinking about the very big picture, that has worrying implications. Let us consider the amount that goes into researching weapons, for example. It is enormous and if that money was not going into weapons, could be used to develop cures for diseases or into the arts, humanities or making children’s theatre, as Deputy Farrell said. Somehow making money for arms companies sucks up a huge amount more of global research than it should. That is not completely alien in this country either. We are trying to dig up the connections between our higher education institutions and Israel and its arms industry. Our student boycott, divestment and sanctions groups are uncovering the connections that exist between our third level institutions and a state that, in my opinion and the opinion of many people, is currently committing genocide. It has a very developed arms industry and does its absolute best to develop connections with higher education institutions all over the world to further its military and political agenda with horrific consequences for the Palestinian people. It is a legitimate concern to wish ensure this sort of thing does not happen and that our research priorities and what we fund do not become skewed in particular directions and that we would at least have transparency in respect of what we are funding and where the agency is deploying its financial and human resources to ensure that sort of diversity and spread of research priorities to make sure that it is not being skewed in particular directions.
I agree with the spirit of what Deputy Boyd Barrett is suggesting by way of his amendment. He raised the point about increased militarisation that funding at a European Commission level could start to tilt towards funding for militarisation. I was glad that earlier the Deputy gave recognition to the Commission. He quoted from a Commission document. With tongue in cheek do I take it that the Deputy now recognises the European Commission and all that sails on that ship?
I am concerned by something that has been pointed out to me by an eminent researcher, namely that the funding line of the ERC could become compromised if the Commission decides that it will pile into investments in militarisation. We see the language relating to the development of a hegemonic framework around a European defence policy, whatever the rights and wrongs of that. At the end of the day, governments will be called on to give to that effort. I am concerned that where the ERC is trying to buttress its resources so that it can continue with its remit from the point of view of funding basic and fundamental science, that might become compromised down the line. It might be argued that is not pertinent to this legislation but it is something Taighde Éireann has to have regard to. It will be a matter for the Minister of the day to ensure that where funding is going into higher education institutions, it is at that level downwards that issues such as collective bargaining and adherence to labour law should be applied. That should not be a matter for this new entity. It should have regard to these matters but it should not have as part of its remit a function. That function should be kept as it is but the Minister of the day has a role to play in ensuring that where the taxpayer is funding these institutions, we have a certain call and leverage in respect of ensuring the terms and conditions of employment of people who work within these institutions are adhered to in respect of the law, particularly in regard to collective bargaining, which we see coming down the line..
I note the correspondence from IFUT. For the record, I have been a paid-up member of SIPTU all my adult life and I say respectfully that I am not entirely sure IFUT's attempt to seek to establish a remit for this entity in respect of terms and conditions in the legislation is the right way to go. I would rather that IFUT used whatever leverage it has with the Minister to ensure that the Minister of the day is policing the terms and conditions of employment to ensure the funding agencies, through the HEA and other such entities, are adhering to labour law and good practice and principles in things such as collective bargaining and that postdoctoral researchers in particular see their terms and conditions being met. Furthermore, as I said on Committee Stage, it needs to be ensured that notwithstanding academic independence, where HEIs are running deficits and there is a downward pressure on funding lines in an institution, it is not the people on the bottom rung of the ladder who get squeezed when they have to make savings. We have evidence of presidential offices within universities and other HEIs in this State buttressing out the presidential role and office and expending large swathes of money to create silos while the people on the bottom rung of the ladder barely earn minimum wage.
I am conscious of time. Notwithstanding the spirit of what Deputy Boyd Barrett is saying, which I agree with, I want this research funding body to be hyper-focused on ensuring that we can concentrate on basic, fundamental and applied research. That should be its remit.
I thank the Deputies for their assistance. I should have thanked Bills Office staff for the huge amount of work they have done in preparing for tonight's session and for the turnaround times.
I take the point Deputy Sherlock made about the ERC seriously. I am very happy to engage with eminent people such as Professor Luke O'Neill and others in the ERC, who serve Ireland well not just in Ireland but internationally. I am very happy to do that on foot of this conversation.
I am also very happy to take up the other point made. I do not see me, the Department, the Government or the Oireachtas as bystanders to the conversation around terms and conditions and precarity in higher education. My comments on the record, including those made at the IFUT conference in recent years, show that. As we invest more as a people in higher education, we have every right, while 100% respecting academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions, to want to know what that investment will achieve in reducing precarious employment, and securing decent full-time employment and terms and conditions. That is very much the conversation my Department and the HEA has on an active basis.
When it comes to issues such as deficits and the like, these Houses passed the HEA Act relatively recently, which gives the HEA an important role in working with institutions and getting to the bottom of issues, in addition to working to make sure that any implementation plan about how people restore themselves to financial stability is grounded in the principles and objectives the State wishes to see in terms of what we prioritise in education. I will very much continue to monitor that.
Deputy Boyd Barrett listed the various agencies that have to be consulted, including the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. He also initially referenced an tÚdarás um Ard-Oideachas, the Higher Education Authority, which is the body that funds higher education institutions in Ireland. He mentioned me as the current officeholder and those who will come after me as well. We have a slightly different take on the wording of this, but I very much see this new agency as one that will be based in, or under the remit of, an education and research department, having to consult with a Minister who comes at things from an education and research perspective, and also having to consult with the HEA. It is important, however, that we continue to build on the very excellent links SFI has established with IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, which have served Ireland well. I have seen that internationally. We need to continue to appreciate that.
I also see this, and I will very briefly go back to a point I made earlier, that what we are doing by putting arts and humanities on a statutory footing will open up programmes that perhaps people in those areas might have felt excluded from applying for in the past. I see greater opportunities for arts and humanities, in some of the examples the Deputy gave, to start applying for funding programmes. That is the genuinely exciting opportunity here for arts and the humanities. I see the logic of the amendment, but the existing provision in the section is a fairly standard requirement in legislation for an agency of this type, relating to performance, resource allocation and the like. The board composition matters. It will be the board making these decisions. I outlined the criteria for board membership.
To Deputy Sherlock's points and the way he put it, there is already a provision, quite rightly, for ensuring that the agency's planning accords with guidelines and policies. We are very proud that in this country we do not have political interference in who is awarded research funding. No one wants me deciding that, or any of my successors. It is, however, right and proper that the Oireachtas, and Ministers and governments of the day, can set priority areas for how we want to see our citizens' investment made, without getting into individual projects or individual funding decisions. The provision, as already worded in the Bill, is in line with similar provisions in comparable legislation. In addition, there is provision in section 31 for accountability of the chief executive officer to other Oireachtas committees in allowing a committee to request the chief executive to attend to tease through these issues, and for that person to give account of the general administration of the agency.
I understand the intention of the amendment, but I believe the existing provision already contains the capacity for the agency to be transparent and accountable in upholding its policy intentions. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
To Deputy Sherlock's point, I respectfully disagree that this is not the place. I was not aware of IFUT's representations. I was aware of those of the Postgraduate Workers Association, but it is interesting IFUT is making that representation. It is in line with the earlier amendments, although that comment was more proper to the earlier group of amendments.
When we look at the other objectives of the agency, the idea that conditions of employment, and the well-being and career opportunities of researchers, would not be included as part of the objects of the agency does not make sense. The objectives are quite wide-ranging. Surely, the critical component in all of it are the human beings who do the research. It is just obvious, in a way, that it should be a priority for the agency to look after the well-being and welfare of researchers.
The amendment itself is very reasonable. All it is asking, as part of the annual report, is that the allocation of resources is specified, including "(both financial and persons) of the Agency between particular academic disciplines, fields of research or groupings thereof,"." That should be set out in the agency's report so that it can be said, at a glance, what it has been doing and whether there is a good diversity of disciplines. It is very reasonable. Whatever else may be said about the debates and differences, this is an amendment that could be accepted. It would benefit the report that would be produced every year by the agency. The Minister might consider accepting one amendment.
I believe that the aim of what the Deputy wants to achieve is already captured by the legislation. The chief executive is already accountable. This agency will be under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act, parliamentary questions, and the Minister of the day being accountable to the House. That is already the case. I also believe that the current provisions adequately capture this. I again make the point, because it is important, that the whole reason we are doing this and establishing this agency, is to try to have one research funding agency in Ireland and not have a sense that humanities are over here and science and enterprise over there. There are genuinely very exciting opportunities for arts and humanities researchers in accessing funding streams that perhaps have not been available in the past.
I am not opposing the legislation per se. I certainly hope what the Minister outlined is the case. I want it to be the case, but there are things to be done that he has decided not to include in this legislation. I would prefer that he did include them. I hope he will keep his commitment to researchers, and the people who engage in research, to resolve the issues that are very real issues for them. It is not right that so many researchers are living in poverty, and have such precarity in their lives that they often consider dropping out, and do drop out, because they just cannot sustain this. They are not students. They are people who are into, or even past, their early adulthood, who have lives, families, partners, mortgages, rents and so on. They cannot be treated as students. We should stop treating them as students. We should treat them properly, and give them decent incomes and sustainable career paths. I hope the Government will do that as a matter of urgency. It is the right thing for them to acknowledge them, but it is also the right thing for the country, for our society, and for the advancement of science, research, the arts and humanities. At every level, it is the right thing to do. We are still significantly behind the curve in doing it and we need to do it quickly. I would have preferred if it had been done here, but we will be on the Minister's case to make sure it is done.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 22, line 15, after “tÚdarás” to insert “and researchers’ representative groups”.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 have been ruled out of order
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 31, after line 39, to insert the following:
“(3) The Agency will give due regard to employment conditions for researchers at any applicant body when considering their application, in accordance with section 9(1)(e). (4) The Agency will take measures to ensure that individuals carrying out research funded by the Agency are in receipt of any attendant employee rights, in line with the Salzburg Principles.”.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 34, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(11) The Minister will report back, within one year of the passing of this Act, on foot of legal advice of including the recognition of collective bargaining in the legislation.”.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 have been ruled out of order.
We will now proceed to Fifth Stage.
We are out of time, but anybody who wishes to make a quick comment now may do so.
I thank the Minister and his officials. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation. If it is an opportune moment to do so, I want to ask the Minister of State about the status of the chief scientific adviser and when he envisages that role will be appointed.
Are there any other comments before we finish up?
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I commend the Bills Office and my officials in the Department who worked so hard on this legislation. I genuinely thank colleagues for the really constructive engagement we have had. I look forward to this legislation now going to the Seanad. This is a real opportunity to have one singular research funding agency in Ireland and to have that parity of esteem across disciplines. I very much take on board many of the constructive comments and the to-do list colleagues have set out here tonight. With regard to the Government chief scientific adviser, it is my hope that position will be re-advertised by the end of this month or early next month. I thank the Public Appointments Service for the work it is doing in that regard.
I wish to thank the officials as well.
Me too.
Cuirfear an Bille chun an tSeanaid anois.
