Amendments Nos. 13, 17, 19, 25 to 31, inclusive, 33 and 37 are related. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 25. Amendments Nos. 13, 17, 19, 25 to 31, inclusive, 33 and 37 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Research and Innovation Bill 2024: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 3
Debate resumed on amendment No. 12:
In page 9, line 25, to delete "or expedient".
(Senator Alice Mary Higgins)
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, have been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 17 is in the same grouping as amendment No. 13, but it has not been discussed as amendment No. 13 was not moved. Would Senator Black like to move and discuss amendment No. 17 now?
Is the question whether I would like to move amendment No. 13.
No, we are on amendment No. 17 now.
I apologise; I am a bit confused as to where we are. It is amendment No. 17 that I can speak to.
Yes. There is a grouping.
Is that the grouping beginning with amendment No. 12?
No, that was in a separate grouping. We have already dealt with it. This grouping begins with amendment No. 13, but the latter was not moved. The grouping comprises amendments Nos. 13, 17, 19, 25 to 31, inclusive, 33 and 37. Senator Black may move amendment No. 17 and speak to the grouping related to it, or she may move amendment No. 17 and withdraw it.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) to support tangible measures to bring an end to precarious work in the research sector and ensure quality and sustainable employment for all researchers;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote and support research which furthers the achievement of obligations regarding climate change including emission reduction targets, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and implementation and achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
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;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, line 12, after “Government,” to insert “both Houses of the Oireachtas,”.
Like my colleague, Senator Higgins, I have a number of concerns, highlighted by our amendments to this section. We are opposing section 11 because it seems that what is proposed here is a massive overreach in terms of ministerial and Government powers to dictate to the agency how it conducts its business, without an expressed mandate from the Oireachtas. The idea that the Oireachtas would give the Minister the power to issue directions for implementing any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government and that we as legislators would be comfortable or okay with essentially giving a blank cheque, is bizarre. Would this include memos, policy papers and press releases? What is the actual intention behind this sweeping provision?
Amendment No. 55 seeks to amend section 12 by deleting the provision that guidelines issued under section 12 may relate to codes of practice for governance or such other codes that may be issued from time to time, by a Minister. It replaces it with the provision that it would be the Minister who would issue codes of practice for governance or such other codes. Not only is the Minister being give extraordinary powers, but it seems that any Minister of the Government is being given the right to determine the policy of the agency.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to amend section 12 by inserting a requirement that the Minister shall publish guidelines, issued by him or her, under subsection 1 in such a manner as he or she considers appropriate. The fact that a Bill as currently drafted, gives a Minister the option of not publishing guidelines, is unacceptable. When so much power is being concentrated we need a much higher level of transparency and accountability.
I would appreciate if, in his response, the Minister of State would outline scenarios where he sees these powers being necessary. I also ask him to outline any appropriate safeguards that might be given consideration.
For amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, in this section, we are referencing Government, Ministers of the Government and bodies, whether statutory or otherwise, which are funded, wholly or partly, by public moneys because we are aligning these funded bodies together into a cohesive national funding system.
Engagement with multilateral institutions, local authorities or trade unions is of a different order and is not appropriate here. Engagement with multilateral institutions such as Science Foundation Ireland's, SFI, engagement with Irish Aid is led by the relevant Government Departments and this is captured in the existing provision. Engagement with all other bodies referenced in the amendment is also captured within the existing provision. Therefore, there is no need to include very specific lists, which, as previously discussed, have unintended risks attached, such as risking unintended omissions or lists being read as being in priority order, which is not the intention.
The broad provision here already creates the capacity for the agency to engage with any body within the research and innovation ecosystem. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendments. The role of the Oireachtas is clearly defined elsewhere within the legislation in sections 3, 23, 25, 30, 31, 33 and 62.
For amendment No. 22, the broader reference to enterprise encompasses the detail proposed by amendment No. 22. This is a broad principle. The specific action of the functions at section 9(1)(d), which refers specifically to the regional development and enterprise development, would contain social enterprise and SMEs. For this reason, we do not propose to accept that amendment.
Finally, the objects are intended as high-level principles. The existing provisions are deliberately open and proportionate in that they only create limitations to the agency as much as necessary. We do not wish to get into creating lists or inserting prescriptive detail in these provisions, which is an inherent risk attached. We also need to be clear we are aligning and creating greater cohesion for the existing public research funding structures. For these reasons, we do not propose to accept the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, line 12, after "Government," to insert "local authorities,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 11, line 14, after "enterprise," to insert "particularly social enterprises and small and medium enterprises,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 11, line 14, after "enterprise," to insert ", trade unions,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, line 14, after "organisations," to insert "multilateral institutions,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 11, to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
"(e) to promote parity of esteem and to advance equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation;".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 11, line 16, after "internationally" to insert "for its contribution to global research and innovation and".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 11, line 17, after "innovation" to insert ", and the development of a sustainable career in research and academia".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(f) to promote, develop and assist the carrying out of basic research in a range of areas, including strategic areas of endeavour that concerns the future societal development and competitiveness of the State;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:
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;".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 11, line 18, after "equality," to insert "equity,".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 11, line 20, after "innovation" to insert "and the outcome of that research and innovation".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(g) to preserve and promote the principles of academic freedom.".
I spoke on this on Second Stage. The principle of academic freedom is very important. In the environment we are in, with a culture of cancellation, contested knowledge, disinformation and misinformation, it is very important we have an explicit statement of academic freedom. I alluded to it last week.
Some areas of research will be provocative and unpopular and may challenge deeply held received beliefs and we must have the right to have a provocative professoriate. The universities must be able to challenge established views and domain assumptions and can only do that if we have an explicit statement of academic freedom, as we do in the Universities Act.
It is a very small amendment but it has huge import and I ask the Government to consider it.
Regarding the proposed amendment No. 32 and the objects in section 8, the principles of academic freedom are not a matter for the new agency and not appropriate to the legislation. The Universities Act 1997 protects academic freedom and this is appropriate to the higher education institutions themselves. We absolutely value the principle of academic freedom and it is not appropriate in this proposed legislation.
If organisations do not get funding, the research does not happen. We have expressed concerns about this, where there are clear, explicit commitments to hierarchies of status within knowledge and so on. I believe the agency will effectively act as a gatekeeper in terms of what we investigate and do not investigate, by virtue of it awarding 75% of the research funding within the State. The amendment is a one-liner to preserve and promote the principle of academic freedom. I do not want to beat the point to death, but the amendment has a place in this Bill.
It has been noted by the Minister of State that this is very clearly outlined in the Universities Act 1997 and, of course, with all universities that is a key tenet. Regarding funding that is coming under this agency, it will fund across all disciplines and will be based on excellence. The very first line talks about the maintenance of excellence in the standard and quality of research and innovation undertaken. Taighde Éireann will be about funding excellence, both Exchequer and non-Exchequer funding. That is really where we would like to see that focus being brought to bear, across all disciplines. It is important that funding is not, in any shape or form, limited to any extent. It will be based on the excellence within the universities, both applying for Exchequer funding being provided by this agency and non-Exchequer funding being provided internationally and across the board.
While I have some sympathy in terms of the principle behind what Senator Clonan is talking about, it needs to be remembered that this agency is not just dealing with universities. It is also dealing with research more generally within the State. There are a number of amendments here where I would argue efforts are being made to amend the objects of the agency but which would actually be more appropriate to the functions or codes of practice that will be developed.
Within other legislation in this space, there are very strong safeguards around academic freedom, which is the correct place for it to be. I would certainly anticipate, in terms of any of the funding codes, that they would need to follow the principles outlined there. If one reads the objects of the agency, along with the functions that are set out, it addresses some of the concerns in this amendment and some of the others.
Will the Minister of State explain why academic freedom is not appropriate here, given that researchers who might not work in universities need this protection?
I do not have anything further to add only that, under the Universities Act 1997, academic freedom is protected. We feel that it is appropriate within the higher education institutions themselves. We absolutely agree with the principle, but we do not feel it is appropriate to this legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(g) to support and promote new knowledge and understanding in all fields of activity, inquiry and disciplines.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 11, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(g) to uphold and advance the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines with regard to the research and innovation opportunities available to them, and in the ongoing undertaking of that research and innovation”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments No. 35, 36 and 95 to 102, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 11, line 29, after “Ireland” to insert “, the Environmental Protection Agency”.
I will not speak on the amendment for now.
Does anyone else want to speak on this grouping?
I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me to discuss the Bill and the functions of the agency, which these amendments address. Culture is mentioned throughout the Bill and that is a welcome addition. The culture and creative sectors, which incorporate arts, heritage and audiovisual media, are essential for who we are and for our international reputation. It is a lightning rod for our well-being. It is rewarding, uncomfortable, entertaining, exciting and provocative and it is a constant challenge to us all at times as well.
What we understand is that these socially very valuable things are also great economic drivers. When we look at the research to prove the points around why we should invest in these things, the research is so desperately out of date. The audiovisual research tells us that the sector had a gross value added, GVA, of €1.1 billion in this State and created 10,000 indirect jobs and 16,000 direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent jobs. However, this research is from 2015.
When we want to prove the economic value of the arts sector, we go back to 2010. The arts sector, excluding film and video, had a total expenditure of €1.4 billion and created 10,000 direct jobs and 16,000 indirect jobs. If we want to do the same and look at the heritage sector to prove the value and worth of it economically, we go back to 2009. The figures prove that these sectors have an economic value but the fact that the figures come from different years and are so desperately out of date is part of the challenge we have in understanding the value of our culture. We do not even take it seriously enough to track it on a regular basis.
Professor Daniel Carey and Dr. Steven Hadley from NUI Galway have written an excellent paper on Ireland's creative and cultural industries in which they draw a comparison between Ireland and Britain. They highlight the fact that Britain, in association with its universities, has multiple creative industries centres which are policy- and evidence-based. They argue that the Irish Research Council would have been well placed to support such an initiative here. Considering that the Irish Research Council will be incorporated into this new agency, it is important the functions of the agency evolve or that we at least lay down a marker here that we should have a cultural and creative evidence and policy centre of our own in Ireland. Even if we have a State agency like the Arts Council or Screen Ireland, for film, video and animation, their research and work will have an element of politics about it.
It is important that we have a very independent evidence and policy centre for the arts, creativity and cultural industries and that it is associated with a university. I would welcome the Minister of State's thoughts on this and on the lack of research and policy that we have in the creative and cultural industries.
I apologise for the confusion. I will speak to amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 95 to 102, inclusive. Amendment No. 35 seeks to amend section 9 by specifying, with regard to the functions of the agency, that as well as supporting the development and maintenance of a national system of research and innovation, in co-operation and collaboration with An tÚdaras, Enterprise Ireland and the other bodies to which section 51 applies, that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, would also be a named body. The EPA is named in section 51, but I wonder what the rationale for not naming it here is. It seems the primary focus is on how to make research and innovation beneficial to enterprise, and that a framework that looks at society as a whole and our shared planet is missing from the Bill.
Amendment No. 36, in a similar vein to amendment No. 35, seeks to amend section 9(1)(c) by specifying in the functions of the agency that as well as supporting the development and maintenance of a national system of research and innovation in co-operation and collaboration with An tÚdaras, Enterprise Ireland and the other bodies to which section 51 applies, the Health Research Board would also be a named body here.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 102, inclusive, seek to amend section 51 to add to the list of bodies with which the agency may enter into administrative co-operation. Amendment No. 95 would add the Irish Federation of University Teachers. Amendment No. 96 would add the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Amendment No. 97 would add the Heritage Council. Amendment No. 98 would add Coimisiún na Meán. Amendment No. 99 would add local authorities. Amendment No. 100 would add the Climate Change Advisory Council. Amendment No. 101 would add the Arts Council. Amendment 102 would add the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. At present, the bodies with which the agency can enter into administrative co-operation is far too narrow. It is enterprise heavy and misses the whole-of-society and environmental approach that we need.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to amend section 9(1)(c) to charge the agency with an additional specific function to promote research linked with economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability. The Bill empowers the agency to function in support of all of its objectives but certain subsections go on to describe in more detail the nature of the agency's commitments as they relate to its economics objectives. As a result, it seems important that a specific function to promote research linked with economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability should also be provided. This amendment would ensure the objectives of the agency under section 8 are fully congruent with the functions of the agency provided in section 9.
Senator Malcolm Byrne looks somewhat puzzled.
Yes, I am puzzled about some of the amendments. The bodies specifically named already have statutory functions in the context of in research and innovation. The Bill does provide in section 51 that there shall be engagement with any body that is involved in the promotion and undertaking of research and innovation. I do not see the link with some of the organisations. I do not doubt the work it does, but IFUT does not have a specific statutory remit to deal with research and innovation.
I agree with many points made by Senator Warfield. It is critical that research carried out by any of the agencies is cross-disciplinary and it is provided for in the legislation that this is the case. I am a little worried about getting overly prescriptive in respect of organisations that do not have a specific statutory function in this area.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 propose to amend section 9, which relates to the functions of the agency. The three agencies specified in the section are the core funding agencies for research and innovation, particularly in terms of education. We will be requiring a closer degree of co-operation and communication between them in terms of ensuring a more cohesive national system.
While the EPA will, of course, have a role to play, and ongoing co-operation with the Health Research Board is intended and provided for in section 51, they will not be in the order of relationships between the three specified agencies, which will need close co-operation in terms of planning and funding allocations. For this reason these amendments are not appropriate to the specific provisions and we do not propose to accept them.
Amendments Nos. 99 to 102, inclusive, deal with section 51, which relates to administrative co-operation with other bodies. This section contains a clause which gives the Minister powers to prescribe bodies to be added to the list contained here. This will provide the complete description of all agencies and bodies with which the agency will be charged to co-operate as part of a cohesive overall national research and innovation ecosystem. Work is under way to scope and map these additions. When this is completed, an order will be drafted to add the appropriate bodies to the list. For the moment we are simply including the most relevant funded research and innovation agencies and we think there is appropriate clarity in the existing provision. The preference is to do this is in an orderly and deliberate manner rather than adding elements piecemeal. The bodies referenced by the Senators will be taken into consideration when the order is being prepared, but it would not be appropriate to begin the process prior to doing the more detailed work that needs to be completed. We do not propose to accept these amendments.
With regard to amendment 102a, EU programmes are agreed every seven years under the multi-annual financial framework.
We are not on that one yet.
I apologise.
We will get there, but we are not there yet.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 11, line 29, after "Ireland" to insert ", the Health Research Board".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 11, line 33, after "development" to insert ", quality".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 11, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(e) promote research and innovation which supports the health and wellbeing of individuals, groups and communities in the State, nationally and regionally, including through artistic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability, and, as may be appropriate, to do so in co-operation and collaboration with the bodies to which section 51 applies,".
The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 9(1)(c) to charge the agency with an additional specific function to promote research linked with economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability.
The Bill empowers the agency to function in support of all its objects, but certain subsections go on to describe in more detail the nature of the agency's commitments as it relates to the economic objects. As a result, it seems important that a specific function to promote research linked with economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability should also be provided. This amendment would therefore ensure that the objects of the agency under section 8 are fully congruent in the functions of the agents provided for in section 9.
Amendment No. 38 proposes to amend the functions in section 9 in regard to health and well-being in the State. These matters come under the remit of the Department of Health and the Health Research Board. While we envisage collaboration between the agencies in this space, this would be led by the Health Research Board. Therefore, this amendment would not be appropriate to this legislation.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Ruane, Lynn.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Frances Black and Annie Hoey; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 11, line 37, after “retention” to insert “, career progression”.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 39 to 42, inclusive. Amendment No. 39 seeks to amend section 9(1)(e) by specifying that it would be a function of the agency to support career progression. Currently, the paragraph only provides for engagement, retention and development of the skills and capacity of researchers of an excellent standard in the national system of research and innovation. We also need to be looking to career progression and ensuring that researchers have viable career paths that provide quality employment and living standards.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to amend section 9(1)(f) to provide that, as well as attracting to the State research and innovation teams of an excellent standard and individuals with an interesting research and innovation of an excellent standard with a view to them carrying out research and innovation in the State, it would be an explicit function to nature within the State such research. We know many researchers come to Ireland and that PhD researchers who come to Ireland face significant barriers once they arrive, particularly in the context of low pay and of course the housing crisis which damages our research system in Ireland.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to insert a new function which would require the agency, in co-operation with An tÚdarás, to promote, support and develop quality employment in the research sector, with sustainable career paths for researchers.
Amendment No. 42 seeks to insert a new function which would require the agency, in co-operation with An tÚdarás, to support and develop tangible plans to end precarious work in the higher education sector. We have had numerous discussions in this House regarding precarious work in higher education and the research sector and I wish to acknowledge Mr. Frank Jones, general secretary of the Irish Federation of University Teachers, who is in the Public Gallery.
Reporting from Noteworthy demonstrated that there have been, on average, more than 11,200 lecturers working on a temporary or casual basis in recent years across Irish universities and institutes of technology, costing an average of more than €67 million each year. Many precarious staff are employed on an hourly basis for the teaching they deliver, which excludes the hours of preparation required to effectively teach classes. Many staff who are on fixed-term contracts are only employed during academic term time and may not be paid for research work which is vital for career progression. They often have to rely on social welfare for the summer months.
The IFUT recently carried out a survey of lecturers which found that 36% of respondents considered themselves to be precariously employed, 95% considered precarious work to be pervasive in our higher education system and 30.6% of hourly-paid staff worked on an if-and-when basis.
The surveyed also reported that 21% had no access to maternity leave, 31% had no access to paid sick leave, 33% had no access to paid paternity leave and 62% had no access to compassionate leave. When we look to the experiences of those in precarious work, we see from this noteworthy investigation that the common experience is one of low pay, poor conditions and a lack of security in planning for the future. Rates of hourly pay range from approximately €12.50 to €85 for teaching, depending on a number of factors, but hours not spent teaching, where lecturers are preparing, providing academic and pastoral support to students and doing administrative work, are not factored into pay. In her essay on precarious work, Dr. Deirdre Flynn notes: "There’s an unwritten rule that one hour of lecturing pay includes three or four hours of research and preparation time". Precarity and low pay have real consequences for people’s lives and effectively put a system in place under which someone who is from a disadvantaged background, has a disability or is a woman will in many cases effectively be blocked from pursuing a career in academia. In research by Dr. Theresa O’Keeffe and Dr. Aline Courtois, it was noted that casualisation in the Irish context was systemic and the gender discrepancy became more visible towards the lower end of the status hierarchy, with women concentrated in hourly paid and pro rata work, the most precarious of the forms of casual labour identified in their sample. We should make no mistake – by excluding diverse voices from our university and higher education institutions, we are losing out on the potential of excellent candidates who would contribute not only to educating society, but to research on solving the most pressing social and environmental challenges of our time.
For PhD researchers, precarity is baked into their lack of recognition as workers. This lack of recognition of employee status disadvantages them, not just when doing their PhDs, but in the years to come when they are employees, given that they are not entitled to PRSI contributions and, therefore, are denied relevant employment protections and rights such as parental leave, maternity leave and sick leave. Importantly, they are disadvantaged in the long term in respect of pension contributions. They also experience low pay. Research from the Postgraduate Workers Organisation shows that the combination of existing low pay with the rising cost of living has made doing a PhD unaffordable for many in our society. Further, non-EEA PhD students also face additional costs in respect of health insurance and visas, which further adds to unaffordability. All of this means that people experience precarity before they are qualified and, after they qualify, that precarity continues and will likely impact much of their careers.
The message we have heard from the Government lacks any real urgency. My colleague, Senator Higgins, tabled a motion that was unanimously passed by the House. Unfortunately, the line from the Government was that it was looking into the matter. Here we are a year later and the situation has not improved for precarious staff, and the Government again looks like it is happy to wash its hands of this problem. Make no mistake – people are exiting the sector and will continue doing so while conditions like these remain. I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment or to at least engage with Senator Higgins, our colleagues and me between now and Report Stage. The quality and excellence of Irish research depends on being able to bring people into the sector and retain them.
It is important that we have attractive terms and conditions for researchers in our universities. This is clear. He is now our Taoiseach, but when Deputy Harris was the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, he and the Minister of State examined the issue of stipends for people doing PhDs and so on to make it more accessible for people to do PhDs and further and higher research.
It is the nature of some of the funding that comes into universities that it is for four or five years. I am thinking of research in particular, where people can get funding for a four-year or five-year programme. The principal investigator takes on PhD students, postdoctoral students and research assistants for that period. It offers those individuals a great deal of experience. The IUA is highlighting the importance of this element. It has done a great deal of work on the researcher career framework and examined how we progress researchers in terms of their work within universities, colleges and technological universities and how we support them in their lifelong careers, wherever those take them. This aspect is important.
Section 9 is on the functions of the agency and amendment No. 39 proposes to amend section 9(e), which relates to engaging with An tÚdarás on skills development and ensuring that is a consideration in programme design and participation. The proposed amendment is not appropriate to this provision, as it relates to the completely separate issue of career progression, which is not within the agency’s remit. Therefore, we do not propose to accept this amendment.
Regarding amendment No. 40, the existing provision is aligned with Global Citizens 2030: Ireland’s International Talent and Innovation Strategy and the function of the research attachés, who will be working on embedding talent and innovation as a flagship initiative. The intent relates to attracting international researchers to Ireland and the provision does not deal with researchers currently working within the State, who are dealt with in section 9(e). Our Department is working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and will appoint six talent and innovation attachés in Ireland House locations in priority regions by 2030. It is envisaged that they will work closely with the new agency, the Department of enterprise and the Department of Foreign Affairs on promoting Irish research and Ireland as a research location. We recognise the intention of the amendment, which is fully in keeping with our policy intentions and the talent pillar of Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy, but it is not appropriate to this section of the Bill. For this reason, we do not propose to accept it.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are not within the remit of the agency or the scope of the Bill and we do not propose to accept them. The agency will not be employing any researchers directly. It is an entity charged with funding research projects that are carried out by employees of research-performing organisations or by researchers in higher education institutions. It is neither appropriate nor possible for it to also take on a HR function in managing the careers of hundreds of different researchers at various career stages on dozens of campuses around the country unless it is structured and operated in a way that is fundamentally different from how it is set out in the Bill.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State will not accept these amendments. Will he expand on what work is under way in his Department on the specific issue of precarity? Such work would be important and I would love to know what is happening.
The Government is committed to implementing Impact 2030: Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy. A dedicated talent pillar highlights the crucial importance of people and talent to the Irish research and innovation ecosystem. It commits to ensuring that researchers are 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, which addressed terms and conditions and the need for a defined career path for researchers that applied across the research ecosystem. The framework has delivered significant benefits for researchers, including a clear and uniform salary structure and salary policy, 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. The significant majority of universities’ employment – approximately 83% - is through full-time and permanent contracts of employment.
Our Department published a 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 toward an optimum level of €25,000, subject to funding availability, which we are working on. Funding was secured under budget 2024 to increase the stipends awarded by the two competitive research funders under our remit, the Irish Research Council and Science Foundation Ireland, from €19,000 to €22,000 per annum, which is a 15.8% increase, building on the additional funding secured under budget 2023. My officials and I continue to engage with the budgetary process to continue progress on this issue.
The co-chairs' final report will be published shortly. It includes their consideration of people's PhD status. As with all elements of their work, they are taking into account the perspective of 35 stakeholder organisations, with which they met as well as a variety of international practices in operation across Europe. The report will provide the basis for ongoing policy development.
We recognise that there is further work to do here, and that we need to work with researchers on these issues and ensure that we retain our research talent into the future. However, the agency has no remit with regard to researchers' careers and the Bill is not the appropriate for this. Therefore, we are not accepting the amendment, as I previously indicated.
Has the Department ever considered giving a direction under section 143(2) of the HEA Act on codes of practice to tackle precarious employment?
I do not know the answer to that question. I will have to revert to the Senator on that.
I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 12, line 1, after “State” to insert “and nurturing within the State”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(h) in co-operation with An tÚdarás, promote, support and develop quality employment in the research sector with sustainable career paths for researchers;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Clonan, Tom.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Frances Black and Eileen Flynn; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly..
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 42:
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 withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 12, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(k) to promote party of esteem and support equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 44, 77, 79, 91 and 92 are related. Amendment No. 44 is consequential on amendment No. 91. Amendment No. 92 is a logical alternative to amendment No. 91. Amendments Nos. 44, 77, 79, 91 and 92 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 12, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(k) to promote and support the development of public-public partnerships in accordance with section 50;”.
Amendment No. 44 will introduce a new function which will require that the agency will "promote and support the development of public-public partnerships in accordance with section 50". I will talk a little more about public-public partnerships in respect of the rest of this group of amendments.
Amendment No. 79 is a simple amendment which seeks to specify that the schemes for funding of research and innovation should be administered in an impartial manner. Section 35(6) currently specifies that the schemes should be administered in "an independent and transparent manner". We believe that the provisions of the subsection should be made more robust to ensure the agency will be impartial in decision-making regarding the administration of schemes for funding. This relates to the need to put explicit references, again, to parity of esteem in the Bill. Again, this is almost a safeguard which would not really be necessary except for our concerns about certain other areas of the Bill.
We have concerns around parity of esteem between the humanities, social sciences and STEM topics, and around section 11 and the extraordinarily large discretionary powers granted to the Minister to give direction to the agency in that regard. This amendment would not be necessary except for the concerns whereby we could end up with an excessively politically directive agency and an agency that is imbalanced with regard to parity of esteem between subjects.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill that would provide that the agency could enter into, establish or support public-public partnerships for research between designated higher education institutions and public bodies. Amendment No. 92 is a material alternative to amendment No. 91, again, involving a new section allowing the agency to enter into, establish or support public-public partnerships for research between designated higher education institutions and public bodies in Ireland and internationally. In the case of amendment No. 92, I specify some areas. Amendment No. 91 is the general principle of public-public partnerships while in amendment No. 92, I set out a non-exclusive list of some of the areas where I believe this kind of public-public partnership might be necessary and beneficial, for example, the UN Sustainable Development Goals where Ireland played a key role in their negotiation and where the clock is ticking in terms of delivering on them. Other examples are climate action; biodiversity protection and enhancement; social cohesion; gender equality; poverty and social inclusion; disability, including the implementation of the UNCRPD; arts and culture; and workers' rights and the future of work. These areas are significant in Ireland and internationally. There may not be money to be made in these areas and one of the problems with the structures we have in universities is the fact there is a lot of focus on public-private partnership and the way public institutions like universities may link with the private sector and produce items, services or innovations that may lead to profit and the making of money somewhere. Some of the innovation, new ideas, creativity, research and understanding we need are in areas that may not generate money but will be vital in terms of social cohesion, the protection of our very fragile environment and even that existential question of our survival as a species when we look to the question of climate change. Linked to that are really important issues such as global food security.
Some of the solutions will probably involve people making less money but will have a collective value to all of us as a society, the State and the world more widely that is significant. This is why public bodies have a particular role to play in innovation and research because public bodies can often look at how to do things better, which does not always mean more profitably or more cheaply. It may mean more cheaply but what it means is doing things better and delivering more for the public, which all of us as parliamentarians represent.
Regarding some of the things we are going to do on climate change, there is a lot of focus on electric vehicles and on some of the different new applications of the sectoral changes, which I am very enthusiastic about. However, preventing a public sewage system from overflowing, dealing with flood management where we are looking at damage prevention rather than new financial opportunity, having cities speak to each other and having partnerships between universities here and in the global south on food security are really important conversations and there is a big gap in almost the imagination of the State around innovation at the moment.
One of the surprising moments occurred when a parliamentary question was submitted at my request regarding the State and its public partnerships. The response we got back asked whether we meant public-private partnerships. There was such a lack of imagination around what public-public partnerships might be.
I engaged with the former Minister in the last Oireachtas on memorandums of understanding. There are memorandums of understanding between universities and private institutions but there are no equivalent memorandums of understanding that set out the rules in which our third level institutions may constructively engage and partner with public bodies. There are many individual examples in individual higher education institutions of really great collaborations but as an area, it has not been given recognition, tools and focus. If we are setting in place a new infrastructure for research and innovation, the crucial role played in terms of public bodies and innovation and the conversation between different kinds of public bodies in Ireland and different kinds of public bodies and universities internationally will be really important.
It is a very reasonable amendment. In amendment No. 92, I set out some of the reasons I think public-public partnerships are going to be important and some of the areas I see as important but I am quite happy to withdraw amendment No. 92 if the Minister of State would prefer to accept amendment No. 91, which simply sets out the general principle of public-public partnership and names it as something important in terms of the work of research and innovation in the State.
I want to highlight the excellence we see across partnerships that are already happening with our universities and colleges. Just recently, we saw €7 million come into the US-Ireland programme. This is a phenomenal programme that is bringing in researchers. That €7 million will fund ten research positions in colleges in Ireland, another ten or 11 in Northern Ireland and the equivalent in the US. It works with funding agencies. Those partnerships are in place now and I am very hopeful, and I know the Minister of State will probably speak to this, that those existing partnerships we see in our current funding agencies will transfer to Taighde Éireann.
The Senator mentioned water. Those projects were around sustainable collection and management of water, photonic integrated circuits, wearable sensors to monitor health, telecomms and microbial activity. Funding for those projects was announced in March 2024. It shows that those types of partnerships with other universities at an international level are already benefiting Ireland in terms of us getting that research that, hopefully, will have an impact on society and we will be able to see in society. I hope those existing partnerships and developing new partnerships with other universities, colleges and funding agencies at an international level will continue.
While we recognise and support the intentions relating to amendments Nos. 44, 91 and 92, the partnerships described are already possible and facilitated under section 49 of the Bill. In being very detailed and prescriptive, this could become a limiting provision. The policy areas described are all encompassed by the existing provisions in section 8(d) and (f). The aspects the agency will focus on will be based on the needs of society and these could change dramatically over time. The intention of these amendments is, therefore, already captured within the existing provision. The agency has these powers and there is no need to repeat a provision that is already contained in the Bill. Therefore, we do not propose to accept these amendments.
Regarding amendment No. 79, this is the existing policy intention. Funding award processes will be independent and will adhere to international good practice. "Impartial" is not quite at home here because the agency will be bearing other considerations in mind such as parity of esteem, inclusive practices and balance of distribution.
The objects and principles laid out in the Bill require the new agency to promote the highest standards of openness and transparency, ethics and integrity. By definition, this means that funding and awards will operate in an open and transparent manner. Funding award assessment processes will be independent and will adhere to good international practice, as I have already said. There may be additional criteria or weighting added to a decision process to ensure that not all of the available funding goes towards one type of research or to ensure inclusive practices in terms of equality, diversity and inclusion. All of this will be done transparently but it may not necessarily be entirely impartial. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendment.
There is scope within section 8. Section 49, which the Minister of State referenced, talks about agreements or partnerships between the agency and other bodies. I recognise that it provides that the agency may partner with a body, whether public or private, but what we were trying to get at is encouraging and supporting public-public partnerships between, for example, research or higher education institutions and other public bodies. It was not simply about the agency's own partnerships but about encouraging other partnerships. That is where it would be useful to strengthen the provisions. I accept that the Minister of State is concerned about setting out too prescriptive a list but it is important to name public-public partnerships at some point.
To pick up on what Senator Dolan said about some of the existing relationships, the Irish Research Council had a really important funding strand that specifically and explicitly related to the sustainable development goals. I am concerned about things like the really interesting work on the goals funded by the council being lost. Perhaps there could be some wording in respect of existing partnerships to ensure that existing partnerships and existing schemes such as that funding for work on the sustainable development goals are not lost.
I accept that "impartial" may be an unusual word. I am not going to press the amendment at this point but the problem is that we are coming to a tension between "independent", which is the wording used in the Bill, and what we see in section 11 whereby the agency is effectively obliged to comply with any direction from the Minister or any policy of the Government or the Minister within any time period specified by the Minister. That level of extraordinary discretionary power to give direction to an agency comes up against the independence piece. I am not going to press the amendment because I agree that "impartial" may not be the right word but we were trying to copper-fasten the provisions on independence, which are in tension with the provisions of section 11.
The Minister of State mentioned the criteria that would be considered and, in listing them, he explicitly listed parity of esteem. However, I do not believe parity of esteem is mentioned in the Bill. In our last discussion, we heard that parity of esteem was not included in the Bill. If the Minister of State is listing it as one of the criteria he expects to be reflected in the decisions made by this independent body, let us actually put it in the Bill. Simply saying that the agency is going to think about parity of esteem while not putting any obligation on it to do so does not add up.
The Minister of State made fair points on a couple of the amendments and I will withdraw some of them but I am going to come back. I ask the Minister of State to really think about how we can strengthen or make more robust the public-public partnership element. I acknowledge that there is some language in section 8 that goes part of the way but the fact that we do not have MOU structures or any of the same support infrastructure for such partnerships as we have for public private partnerships points to a gap that still exists.
Is the Senator withdrawing the amendment?
Give me one moment.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am sorry. I did not want to withdraw amendment No. 44. I was going to withdraw a later one. It is fine. The Acting Chairperson can go ahead. I can come back to the same point in a different way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 12, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following:
“(l) to promote and support the undertaking in the State of research and innovation which furthers climate action, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and implementation and achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 12, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(m) to enable and assist research sharing and technology transfer between designated higher education institutions, research bodies and public bodies in line with and with due regard to Article 4(1)(g) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 13, line 21, after “a” to insert “reasonable”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 13, line 23, to delete “and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 13, to delete line 24.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 13, line 24, after “objective” to insert “, which is provided for in legislation,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 13, line 25, after “a” to insert “reasonable”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 13, line 26, to delete “the period” and substitute “a reasonable period”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 13, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(6) The Minister shall not give a direction under this section which would disrupt parity of esteem between the arts, humanities and social sciences and science, engineering, technology and mathematics.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Hoey, Annie.
Níl
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Mark.
- Daly, Paul.
- Davitt, Aidan.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Hackett, Pippa.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Eileen Flynn; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne.
Amendment declared lost.
Question, "That section 11 stand part of the Bill.", put.
Votáil.
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Eileen Flynn, Alice-Mary Higgins and Annie Hoey rose.
As fewer than five Members have risen, I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61, the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 13, line 37, to delete “a Minister of the Government” and substitute “the Minister”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 14, line 4, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: “That section 12 stand part of the Bill.”
Taken together, sections 11 and 12 provide extraordinary discretionary ministerial powers that I have not seen in almost any previous legislation. We discussed section 11 at length. It allows a Minister to give direction in writing for any purpose relating to any matter referred to in the legislation or any other enactment - basically, that means anything ever referred to in any law anywhere - and the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government within a specified period.
Section 12, on which I did not focus too much on our previous discussion, is also of concern. While somewhat more limited, section 12 makes provision for the Minister to issue guidelines to the Agency. It is somewhat more specific than the wide-open, anything-goes approach taken in section 11.
These guidelines relate to really important issues. They relate to guidelines on the codes of practice for governance, to guidelines on the policy guidance and changes in policy, and to guidelines on changes and objectives on the corporate plan under the agency, so the Minister can give guidelines that actually change the objectives of the agency and what it does. Again, when we hear about the agency being independent these are things that mitigate against that independence of the agency to be able to properly act and function.
I must indicate my intention to table an amendment on Report Stage. Where the Bill says "the Agency shall have regard to ... any direction given or guidelines issued by the Minister" this does not give the agency any discretion to decide that perhaps the guidelines issued by the Minister are not appropriate and do not fit with its independent remit, or do not fit with what it believes it needs to deliver in terms of its objectives. While "the Agency shall have" means it needs to do whatever the Minister is giving it in terms of guidelines, the Minister only "may" - not "shall" - "publish guidelines ... in such manner as he or she considers appropriate.". Will the Minister of State clarify this? It will affect how I approach amending this section on Report Stage. Is it the case that the Minister "may publish" the guidelines or may not publish the guidelines so that we may have guidelines that are issued to the agency in respect of those important matters such as, objectives, code of practice and policy or changes in its policy? Is it the case that the Minister may or may not publish those guidelines or is it simply the case that the Minister may publish those guidelines in a particular manner? I want to give the benefit of doubt to the Minster and this is why I withdrew the amendment but I want clarity from the Minister of State today on whether it is the intention that any guidelines produced under section 12 would be published? One could read it both ways, that it is simply a matter that the Bill does not want to specify how they are to be published - although I believe it should specify how they are to be published - but not whether they are published. Will the Minister of State clarify that point for me on section 12?
With regard to section 12 of the Bill and the power of the Minister to issue guidelines to the agency this reference is to other Ministers. This section of the Bill relates primarily to the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and also possibly to whole-of-Government policy, and is a standard provision in legislation of this kind. The example of codes of practice for governance is cited in subsection (2). I hope that explains it for the Senator.
The Senator also questioned the word "may". We contend that this is definitely the correct term. There would be no need or requirement for my Department to publish policy documents that originate or are circulated by other Departments. I hope that explains it.
I did not get clarity on whether they will be published.
I am advised that the standard practice is they will be published.
I may table amendments just to try to clarify that further on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15
Amendments Nos. 57 to 60, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 57.
Can I clarify whether amendment No. 69 is in this grouping for discussion?
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 57. Amendments Nos. 57 to 60, inclusive, may be discussed together.
I believe that amendment No. 69 was added. No, it was not as it was discussed previously, that is fine.
We are on amendments Nos. 57 to 60, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 14, to delete lines 33 to 35, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2.
The amendment seeks the deletion of section 15 (2)(b) (iii), which currently provides that the board "satisfy itself that appropriate systems, procedures and practices are in place ... in order to enable 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 to the extent that those policies may affect or relate to the functions of the Agency,".
Amendment No. 58 is an alternative to amendment No. 57, which would delete the phrase "(whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them)”.
Amendment No. 59 is an alternative to amendment Nos. 57 and 58, seeks to "delete “(whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them)” and substitute “(which are provided for by legislation or statutory instrument)”.
Amendment No. 60 seeks to amend that section by deleting the provision for a requirement of the board to satisfy itself that appropriate systems, procedures and practices are in place in order to enable compliance with certain policies, would be limited to the policies of the Minister rather than "a Minister of the Government”.
Effectively, at the moment this section provides that the board must set out and be ready with systems, procedures and practices in place to comply with any policy of any Minister to the extent that it relates to their functions of an agency. We know from the previous sections that this is effectively construed as meaning anything they might do. It goes to the same concern that there is no clarity around what kinds of things they are being asked to comply with. Maybe it is a health and safety code, for example, and that is fine because we could specify things like health and safety codes. At the moment, however, it is simply any policy of any Minister of the Government. The language in this section such as "whether contained in guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them" means that one could have a memo, a Post-it or a one-page document dreamed up by any Minister and the agency is meant to be ready and standing by with procedures in place to comply with that - not to consider, engage with, or have regard to rather comply with. These are not simply guidelines or health and safety code guidelines. This refers to any document of any Minister of a Government. This is wild overreach. There may well be clear purposes that are needed and there may be clear function cases and this is why I have tabled amendment No. 59 which seeks to make it clearer. It is absolutely appropriate if it is about legislation, for example around health and safety, or proper accounting practices, or even those statutory instruments that get implemented around new directives with which we must comply and get translated into statutory instruments. If there is a legal basis for something then it is absolutely appropriate that the agency would be ready to comply with any statutory instrument or any new piece of legislation, and which may come from other Departments that are not the Department of Education. They may come from Department of Health, from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, or the Department of Justice, for example. If we are looking at such wide powers the language of "guidelines, codes or other documents, or any combination of them" is super wide. It is too wide. We need clarity around what exactly this is intended to do and what exactly is the remit. We need some kind of limitation so it is clear that it is not simply any policy document that is dreamed up, not simply any memo from Government or any memo from a Minister, or any new decision that any Minister makes. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Collins will clarify this. I have suggested one approach, which is that the Government makes it clear where it is policy for something that is provided for by legislation or statutory instrument.
As it is 7 p.m. I ask the Senator to report progress.
I report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 1 Bealtaine 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 7 p.m. until 10.30 a.m., on Wednesday, 1 May 2024.