Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 May 2023

General Scheme of the Research and Innovation Bill 2023: Discussion

I ask those in attendance to please ensure their mobile phones are turned off for the duration of this meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment even on silent mode. Are the minutes of the meeting on 25 April agreed? Agreed.

The purpose of today's meeting is to meet representative bodies and relevant unions. There will be two sessions today. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Lisa Keating, director of research and innovation at the Irish Universities Association, IUA, Professor Willie Donnelly, director of research, development and innovation at the Technological Higher Education Association, THEA, and Professor Diarmuid Hegarty, chair of the Higher Education Colleges Association, HECA. The witnesses are attending the committee today regarding pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the research and innovation Bill 2023. I also welcome Mr. Michael Bosonnet, research and development director of Griffith College, who is in the Public Gallery.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to make brief opening statements in the following order: Dr. Keating, Professor Donnelly and Professor Hegarty. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a five-minute slot, given the time constraints as there are two sessions, for members to ask the question and for witnesses to respond. The committee will publish the opening statements on its website following today's meeting.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Dr. Keating may begin and the other witnesses will follow. The witnesses have five minutes each.

Dr. Lisa Keating

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to participate in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the research Bill 2023. The IUA member universities that I represent here today account for approximately 85% of publicly funded research in Ireland and have competitively secured over 90% of the Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, and Irish Research Council’s research grants, and so are significant stakeholders in the development of this Bill. In the interests of time, I will confine my remarks to a number of key points but I am happy to provide further details, should the committee require.

The IUA welcomes the Bill, which provides a comprehensive approach to the legislation on the public research and innovation system. The strategic intent of the Bill, built on the aspirations of Impact 2030 to broaden research funding in Ireland to enable it to address Ireland’s societal, economic and environmental challenges, is very positive. However, the new legislation, while welcome, must be accompanied by the required investment to achieve these national ambitions. The Government reports, the higher education research and development, HERD, survey and the research and development budget show Ireland languishing at the bottom of European tables. It is essential that, side by side with this Bill, the Government increases its spending on research if it is to realise its target of being an innovation leader in Europe.

The types of research that an agency funds define its role in the ecosystem and define the agency itself. The clear intent of the Bill, as per head 8(a), is to promote and support excellence in research and innovation within and across all disciplines, spanning fundamental and applied research, which is exactly what this country needs. However, inconsistent language throughout the Bill and a lack of clear definitions cause confusion. For example, while “applied research” is defined in head 3, “fundamental research” is not. This renders the range of the objects, and the remit of the agency itself, ambiguous. In head 8(f), the use of the term “oriented basic research”, again not defined, has the potential to narrow the range of head 8(a). Research excellence, cited five times in the Bill, is not defined but is the major criterion on which funding decisions will be made. We ask the committee to recommend that clear definitions and consistent language are inserted in the final Bill in order that the new agency has the capacity to deliver on its core objectives. I cannot overstate the importance of the clarification of those definitions.

The provisions in the Bill that outline the governance structures set a good framework for the agency but it is essential that there is sufficient diversity in the governance model to be fully reflective of Ireland’s research ecosystem and to include a broad spectrum of individuals with expertise reflecting the national and international research and innovation systems. We propose that a competency-based approach is used, in line with best governance practice, to ensure that the agency has the capacity to fund research excellence across all disciplines and career stages, and for that research to “make as big a difference as possible to as many people as possible”, as recently stated by the Minister, Deputy Harris.

The Bill explicitly provides for enterprise interests to be included on the board. We welcome this but it does not sufficiently address the broader societal and environmental scope of the agency. We suggest that the committee recommends that other research end-users are also represented on the board to ensure that the wider objectives of the Bill are fully reflected in the governance structure.

Head 29 provides for the preparation of the agency’s annual plan. We suggest that the committee recommends that the Department reconsiders the appropriateness of subsection (6), which confers significant powers on the Minister in relation to the annual plan. While the explanatory note in head 11 states it is not the intention of the Minister to have the power to direct the agency in respect of specific awards, the importance of keeping research funding decisions independent of political influence was called out clearly by the current Tánaiste in a speech to the IUA’s Future of Ireland series when he said he is absolutely opposed to the current “political attempt” to bring Ministers and Government Departments “back into the decision-making structures for research awards”.

While it is entirely appropriate for the Minister to set policy and sign off on the strategic plan, we urge the committee to recommend that the Minister would not have a veto over the annual plan of the agency or become involved in the peer review process.

Our universities are at the heart of regional development across the country. They are pivotal to the establishment and success of our knowledge economy and are centres of excellence for a whole range of growth clusters. It is essential that this bill enables the new research funding agency to continue to underpin the capacity of all higher education institutes to maintain their role as regional powerhouses of economic and societal development.

In conclusion, our universities are key stakeholders for the new agency, as the performers of the research it will fund. A strong partnership approach between the agency and universities, as vital stakeholders to drive research and innovation, will be critical to the success of the new agency and to the Government’s ambition to make Ireland an island of innovation and talent based on a world-class research system.

Professor Willie Donnelly

THEA, welcomes this opportunity to discuss the proposed Research and Innovation Bill 2023. THEA represents the common interests of Atlantic Technological University, ATU, South East Technological University, SETU, Technological University of the Shannon, TUS, Dundalk Institute of Technology, DIT, and Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, IADT. .

The creation of a new research agency focused on research and Innovation aligns with the needs of our institutions and the relevant stipulation within legislation and Government policy. The new agency must take these three core Government policies as its reference points.

The first is Government strategic priorities of climate action, housing, enterprise development, and the shared island initiative. Second, the national development plan, NDP, with its strong emphasis on regional development and sustainable and balanced growth across the island. The third is Impact 2030, Ireland’s research, and innovation strategy, which places innovation at the centre of Ireland’s economic and social development for the foreseeable future.

The committee will be aware of the strong emphasis in Ireland’s research and innovation plan, Impact 2030, on elevating Ireland’s research performance. Especially important is the ambition to raise Ireland’s international profile from one of a strong innovator to innovation leader in Europe by 2030. This requires considerable enhancement of our research and innovation effort and infrastructure.

The creation of the technological universities, TU, is seen as critical in Impact 2030, especially in improving regional innovation capacity and capability. As indicated in the Technological Universities Act 2018, the evolution from institute of technology, IOT, to TU requires a step change in research and innovation of the TUs compared to their legacy institutions. Research and innovation are clearly identified as core activities of the new TUs with specifically defined metrics to be achieved in the first ten years in respect of staff, qualifications to PhD and postgraduate students. We note not only that investment in the TU innovation capacity is needed to achieve the nationally agreed Impact 2030 targets, but also to realise the ambitions regarding regional development.

The NDP highlights Ireland’s commitment to balanced regional economic development that requires sustainable, high-performing regional economies. THEA members, and in particular the TUs, are catalysts for economic and social development delivered through their stakeholder partnerships in research, innovation and talent development. The sector has an unrivalled track record of partnership with its stakeholders for the delivery of regional economic and social advancement but needs to do more in the context of rapid technological changes, increased mobility of talent, upskilling and reskilling the workforce, changing business paradigms and processes, and, most important, the just transition mechanism that will see radical transformation across many sectors in the years ahead. This has been supported by the investment in knowledge transfer infrastructures such as the technology gateways and innovation centres and the regional skills forums. However, this investment needs to be complemented with equal investment in the upstream activities of knowledge production and talent development through leading edge research innovation, and PhD research in line with the TU legislation. The focus on strategic investment in the full research, innovation lifecycle provides protection to stakeholders and regional economies against future economic disruption by providing the knowledge and expertise to evolve as the markets evolve.

In summary, we welcome that the proposed legislation commits to promoting and supporting the contribution of such research and innovation to Ireland’s economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability. However, while we recognise the need for a competitive funding process, there needs to be cognition of the identification of appropriate evaluation criteria which recognise wider and more inclusive evaluation metrics, which identify impact in achieving national goals that go beyond the narrow academic publication metrics to include measures of social, economic and cultural impact on communities and regions and capacity building.

The commitment of the Bill should be extended to a commitment to investment in research and innovation which enables balanced regional economic development. The legislation should explicitly recognise the role of the new funding organisation in supporting the legislative requirement of the Technological Universities Act 2018 in relation to research and innovation through investment in capacity building in the new technological universities to realise the delivery of balanced economic development. This will enable the new agency to target competitive funding schemes towards regional economic development, similar to schemes that have been developed in other countries such as Norway, France and Australia.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. It is obviously very important for us in the Higher Education Colleges Association, as a relatively young institution and one which is new to research, to be able to make this submission. The purpose of my presentation is to emphasise the importance of creating a balanced and inclusive research ecosystem. There are four points I want to make. The first is on the importance of research in young institutions and the second is on the EU policy on access to EU funding which differs significantly from current Irish policy. I would also like to ask a question about the definition of "institutions" appearing in head 3 of the Bill. I will then summarise quickly the proposed amendments we would like to see made to the Bill.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of research to our institutions. Without a research function, for instance, our students would have difficulty progressing to doctorates and we would also have difficulty in securing delegated authority. We anticipate that we will have delegated authority at bachelor and master's level. Ultimately, our ambition would be to have it at doctorate level but we need a significant research function within our institutions for that. The other point is that the young institutions have a different, probably more commercial, approach. It is in the interests of the national system to encourage their involvement.

The EU policy on access to EU research is somewhat different from the Irish policy. I have included in my submission in appendix 3 a list of the organisations offering research funding in Ireland. Of those, a number do not permit the private institution to act as the lead co-ordinator, called the project co-ordinator. They can act as a support and in a support function as what is called a project beneficiary in Ireland but in Europe the elite function is open to all. In fact, currently one of our institutions is acting as project beneficiary in two research functions and has recently applied to act as co-ordinator in another. It is all open in the EU, whereas some institutions in Ireland, particularly the Irish Research Council, restrict the involvement of private institutions.

We are not eligible to be members of the Irish Research Council and that effectively closes the door of research from that.

If I may go on to the definition of "institutions", there is a definition in head 3 of the draft Bill. It defines a designated institution of the Higher Education Authority and then says, "in this Bill [referred] to ... as "institutions"". I am not sure whether that definition works in reverse. In other words, are we saying that institutions that will receive support of the research funding organisations have to be HEA-designated institutions? If that is the case, it is simply not possible for us at this point in time because HEA designated institution status is provided for in the HEA Act and the procedure has not been implemented.

The next point I would like to make is about amendments. Essentially, we would like to see a specific amendment in the objects to include an object to support private institutions. We would also like to see an allocation of the competitive research and innovation funding to support young research institutions. We would also like to see the various research institutions encouraged to work closely to encourage private education providers to develop their research function. Our strength to date has been in teaching. We need, in fact, for the benefit of our students and for the benefit of the development of institutions, to add a strong research function and we need support for that.

The other point I would make, if I may, is on the partnerships. We would like to see specific focus by the proposed body, research and innovation Ireland, RII, on partnerships with private institutions and the evaluation and monitoring reference in the Bill should include monitoring the impact of support for private higher education institutions.

If these proposals are accepted, it will help to address the current disparities that exist in the application of research funding and will tend to level the playing field.

I thank the Chair. Apologies, I think I stole back some of the time I lost at the beginning.

I thank all witnesses. Our first member up is Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. The Deputy will be followed by Senator Dolan or Deputy Ó Ríordáin.

I thank the Chairman. I welcome all the guests before the committee and thank them for their opening statements.

If I could start with Dr. Keating, we all recognise that academic research cannot take place without funding. At present, arts and humanities are funded by the research council and science is funded by Science Foundation Ireland. Is there legitimacy to the concern that by merging both together, the arts and humanities will suffer, and that, in particular, creative arts and humanities will be at a disadvantage if they are competing against science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, subjects and science and research funding requests?

Dr. Lisa Keating

I thank the Deputy for the question. It is a really important area and there is a lot of interest in this. The agency gives the opportunity for there to be, as the intention is, parity of esteem but it is in how the Bill is enacted and how the agency operationalises.

With regard to the funding, The Irish Research Council, IRC, funds across all disciplines and, therefore, arts, humanities and social sciences, AHSS, and STEM, and Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, funds then with regard to specific priority areas under STEM under its legislation. Bringing it together, there should be the opportunity to fund across all disciplines.

Specifically with regard to making sure that there is a balance between those, one aspect is the budget which is really important - a larger budget all round but also making sure that there is a sufficient budget in the arts, humanities and social sciences - but there is a lot more to it than that. A lot of it is with regard to the programme design, the language that is used and the expectation. For example, if the expectation on a funding programme is for there to be spin-out companies, there might be more difficulty for arts, humanities and social science, not to say that there is not. It is the language that is used in the phrase, performance index, PI. If the programmes, for example, are large-scale, AHSS, on project size, might be quite significantly different to STEM if the bar you are expected to look for is €1 million for a project.

There are ways it can be disincentivised and there could be problems. When we look at how the agency forms and functions, that is what we are interested in. It it important that the Bill deals with the full range of disciplines across arts, humanities, social sciences and STEM. It is the way that they are nourished and nurtured-----

Presumably, this will be very dependent on the membership of the board. Everyone will come with their own preferences, prejudices and biases. That is natural. Are there concerns that somebody who comes forward with a proposal to do research into a history or creative arts project will not be able to compete with somebody who comes forward with a very economically beneficial proposal in respect of a science?

Dr. Lisa Keating

This is why the research excellence piece is so key. The European Research Council, ERC, selects, identifies or awards project purely on the basis of research excellence. It is about who has the best idea and capacity to deliver on that. It does not matter what the discipline is. In terms of the ERC and Ireland, we do particularly well in the arts, humanities and social sciences. There are three panels, two in the life sciences and one in the arts, humanities and social sciences. We draw down two thirds of our total budget from the latter. We have a strong arts, humanities and social sciences community. It is important that the Bill ensures all disciplines are protected.

On research excellence, the Deputy asked about people going against each other in an evaluation. This is the thing. At the core of the new agency has to be the creation of new knowledge. That is what it has to be based on. It is the creation of new knowledge that is important.

Does Professor Hegarty wish to come in?

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

I wonder if in my thinking I am completely oversimplifying this. The Irish Research Council has a budget. SFI has a budget. The other STEM funding institutions have a budget. Would it be open to the Minister, in the guidelines he will issue, to say that he would like to see RII more or less follow the same proportions in the allocation of its funding to-----

That might be a solution.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

-----particular activities, the arts on the one hand and science on the other?

Dr. Lisa Keating

I wish to make a point on that since it relates to the answer. We want to make sure that the significant budget for arts, humanities and the social science is not limited. In the ERC we have drawn down two thirds of the budget for arts, humanities and social sciences. I would be cautious about that.

It is not really a final question. Under heads 11 and 29, the Minister has a role in giving direction to the new statutory body. Do the witnesses have any concerns that a politician or Minister could come under public pressure to disown some form of research because the individual at the centre who is being researched may be unpopular? There could be a campaign against him or her.

Professor Willie Donnelly

That is always a possibility. Public pressure can be a factor, in particular if one is in politics. That is why the make-up of the board is important. The independence and ability of the board to make those types of decisions is crucial.

I have gone over my five minutes. I am sorry I have had such a limited time, but they are the rules.

I will invite the Deputy back in.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. They were thought-provoking. The need for definition and clarity are absolutely pivotal. We need legislation that we hope will stand the test of time.

I will first deal with the idea of fundamental versus applied research. I share many of the concerns raised by Deputy O'Callaghan. As it stands, the Bill reads as something that may be a little overly business- and science-oriented. It seems to be about the metrics by which we judge research, as opposed to what Dr. Keating said about the creation of new knowledge. The creation of new knowledge can happen in any field. She said the definition of "fundamental research" is not properly fleshed out. I understand this as being about blue-sky thinking. It is about the research for which we have not figured out an application and we may come back to that.

How would Dr. Keating like to see that more broadly defined? Can she point the committee towards an international comparator that helps us define it in a way that best suits purposes?

Dr. Lisa Keating

I thank the Deputy for his question. I already mentioned the ERC, which specifically funds based on research excellence. That tends to go hand-in-hand with the creation of new knowledge. There is no expectation. An interesting finding from the ERC was that it funds purely based on research excellence. It funds fundamental, early stage, curiosity driven research. It has another important aspect. It comes from the individual. I refer back to the question put to my colleague by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. It is important that a country has priority areas but researchers with creativity also need to be able to come forward with new ideas, which we do not know we are going to use. The usual example refers to the Covid vaccine. Messenger RNA was discovered many decades ago, as everybody now knows. Nobody was interested in that creation of new knowledge at the time. That comes from individual funding. The new agency needs to have funding for individuals, as well as critical mass. It needs to have funding for fundamental, early stage, curiosity driven research and knowledge creation. The ERC is the best place to look for definitions, and we can provide that to the committee, if needed.

Professor Willie Donnelly

My concern is that these definitions are really out of date. The rate at which knowledge is created and impacts upon society is such that the discussion about whether something is fundamental, applied or strategically oriented does not add any value to the discussion. The focus has to be on supporting quality research that has some impact on society. Even new knowledge whose application is currently unknown has an impact on society. I refer to the previous question regarding concerns about the arts versus the sciences. If one focuses on research that impacts a country's social, economic and cultural capital, that is a good definition. My background is telecommunications. Before that it was particle physics. Those are the two ends of the spectrum. They had one similarity, which was the creation of new knowledge was the core element in both. Maybe the application was more direct in one than the other. Getting tied up in fundamental versus basic versus applied and allocating funding based on this, that or the other, will not be impactful. We have to look at a holistic approach to research, which benefits society. These are the types of conversations we used to have in Ireland when we had very little money. There were wars about a small budget. One group said they should get it because it was doing basic research, while the other said they should get it because it was going to have an impact. The new agency needs to have a budget that allows the creation of an ecosystem where knowledge is created and shared, and where it drives the quality of life in our society. That is key. The second key point relates to the definitions of excellence. The problem is not really with that definition. It is with the idea of how excellence is defined. If there is a narrow definition, then a narrow set of projects will be funded and its value for Ireland will be limited. Even within the scientific community, the idea that everything is defined in terms of peer-reviewed journals is gone. None of us consider that any more. It is important that this legislation takes time to define what it means by excellence and impact and how we support the broad church for the benefit of society.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh took the Chair.

I thank Professor Donnelly. I apologise for the musical chairs in the middle of his answer. I call Deputy Clarke.

The witnesses are most welcome. We could probably discuss this issue for hours but unfortunately we do not have the time. I agree fundamentally with what Professor Donnelly said about the holistic approach. I often find that we tend to get bogged down in problems without focusing on what the potential solution is. The outcome of that is a maze or tangle of red tape and bureaucracy that undermines, to a large extent, what the overall ambition was. I do not want to focus too much on the hierarchy of value between research or STEM and humanities. When we talk about the formation of an agency we want to see that parity of representation on it, obviously with a budget that correlates. Do we then need to start looking at quotas for membership on the board of that agency, to ensure diversity is there but also so those minority disciplines are represented at board level? Dr. Keating spoke about the ambiguity contained within the Bill and the potential to narrow the range. What is the impact of not addressing that ambiguity?

Dr. Lisa Keating

Regarding the board, it is key that there is diverse membership and that the members come from different backgrounds. That means across the disciplines so they have that understanding and also, as I mentioned, with regard to the end users because different people will want to use the knowledge that is created for different purposes. We really need to look at the make-up of the board. The SFI and IRC boards are quite different at the moment. Coming up with the ideal solution is key. I will not suggest specifically what should be done there but in the Norwegian system, while there is a department of education and research, the funding agency - the Research Council of Norway - works with 15 government departments so they all put money into that. It therefore does all it can for everyone it can. That is an interesting system. It is not necessarily where we are going here but we might have something along those lines.

The Deputy asked about the ambiguity. There were some restrictions with regard to the SFI legislation. SFI has done amazing work in bringing Ireland forward in terms of research and innovation, as has the Irish Research Council. However, the legislation was somewhat restrictive. My understanding is that this is an opportunity to open that all up. Of course we want research to help the economy and help with enterprise but we must also look at the grand challenges of health, housing, digitalisation and all those areas. If the definitions are ambiguous, they can be interpreted differently as the agency is operationalised. I am not supposing that would happen but we need that clarity. We need to be clear that it is across all disciplines, that it is fundamentally about curiosity-driven research as well as the priority areas we might need. It is very difficult to do that. Countries often prioritise but they do not prioritise to such an extent that other areas are left wanting. That is what we have had in the past. We saw in the time of Covid that we really needed those experts who had gone for many years without funding. It is a question of how we do that.

It is about finding that balance.

Dr. Lisa Keating

Yes.

Professor Willie Donnelly

As technological universities are a new sector in Irish education, it is important that the voices of the recipients are heard in the make-up of the board as well. If they are not there and are not heard, it would be very easy to ignore the needs of that sector to the detriment of society. The problem is that you cannot have every discipline on the board because it would become too weighty but you can have people who have an appreciation and understanding of the various disciplines. In terms of what we call the traditional universities, the new universities need a presence on the board to give a perspective.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

It is a very difficult question. There are three definitions in the Bill as drafted, namely, applied research, development and innovation. It would be useful to see a breakdown of the research funding under those three headings in the annual report. I suspect the question of fundamental research might be answered if we look at the amount of funding that went to projects focusing on innovation. If we see too much funding has been on development, maybe that is telling us the focus is too much on applied.

I agree with my colleagues that representation on the board is important but strangely, it is not about where they come from but how they think that matters. It is important, obviously, that the institutions be represented. I accept that and put in a plea for the private institutions to be represented as well. I have served on the Higher Education and Training Awards Council for ten years. It really is the attitude of the individual and his or her thinking that is going to determine his or her contribution. That would be just as much the case with research. I suggest a shorter period of appointment and maybe a frank review, though not a public one, of the performance of the board members in relation to that broadness we are looking for. It might be helpful in that regard. I am sorry, as that is not a strong process answer, but it is the practical answer to the Deputy's question.

Professor Willie Donnelly

I will make an important point the three of us probably agree on. Ireland is now a rich country. We have seen the windfall due and we are trying to work out how to use it. We need to change our mindset, especially in research. I think we have all experienced the mindset of only investing in winners in a very narrow scope into the area of capacity-building. We have superb academics, superb young researchers and a superb community and they want to contribute to society. Sometimes we go down to an argument about funding this area because it is more important than another area. What has to be at the heart of this new funding agency is the idea of inclusivity, of building national intellectual capacity and of creating a cohort of graduates and researchers who are contributing in a broad sense to society. That is a change of mindset and would require a commitment from Government to make enough money available such that we do not go back to arguments between areas about which should get funding on the basis of importance. Capacity-building must be at the heart of what this new agency is about, as well as investment to build that capacity. That is what will drive the future of society and sustain our society.

I will be brief as I am presenting at Leaders' Questions. I apologise if I have to run. I would like to get our guests' views on issues with the recruitment and retention of researchers. How do they feel these issues are impacting on the performance of third-level institutions across this State?

Dr. Lisa Keating

That is key. I do not think people appreciate it. PhD and postdoctoral students are the people doing the research. There are 10,000 PhD and 4,000 postdoctoral researchers, making 14,000 people. Obviously, researchers and permanent academic staff in the universities are providing guidance and leadership, but the day-to-day work is being carried out by PhD and postdoctoral students.

Attracting, retaining and developing that talent is key. The difficulty goes back to the agency specifically. If I am a young researcher, I want to know what my path is and how I can build a career. How can I do that if I stay in academia? The difficulty with funding for the last decade or more is that it is not clear. If I am at this stage, how do I get to the next stage? Not every PhD nor post-doctoral researcher will go into academia. They have to be developed to be able to go into other roles throughout different sectors, which is key. They also need to be able to develop and see, if they are to go down the academic route, that there is an opportunity, because we want those brightest minds to stay in the country, whether in academia or outside it, to be able to support the new generation coming.

One specific difficulty with funding streams is the lack of continuity. It seems to be about whatever is the flavour of the moment and of interest now to Government, which funds agencies for a programme that does that specific thing. There needs to be something about consistency and steadiness in order that individuals can plan where they are going and how they are going to get there. That will be in the operationalisation of the new agency, which will be key to being able to provide that opportunity to researchers as they start out on their careers. I would go for consistency and continuity, not one thing in one year and another the next year.

Professor Willie Donnelly

I would agree with that about giving some clarity to our young researchers on how their career will develop. We also have to broaden the discussion and debate. Research and innovation permeate all parts of society. There are exciting roles and jobs that are not in academia. Academia needs a certain degree of turnover and churn because it is a training ground for many people, including postgraduates and post-doctoral researchers. It needs a flow of new ideas. It is a global economy and system and we need to bring in new ideas and new people. I agree with Dr. Keating that it is about clarity and the needed supports are available to people in the system. It is also about opening the debate about the opportunities that exist for young researchers, not only in academia but in industry, the Civil Service, policy development and so on. That is where we need these brains. We do not want them all locked behind the walls of the university. They need to be in society, making a contribution to society. Clarity on the opportunities is fundamental.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

I want to come in on that. Professor Donnelly is striking a chord that I have experienced in another area. I am trying to raise funds all the time for a charity which runs the Veronica Dunne International Singing Competition. To be successful in my fundraising, I have to give some meaning and somehow have the funder positively identify with the work of the charity. It is the same for research, if we can establish links between the research function and industry. It does not just mean applied research. Deputy Clarke referred earlier to trying to get people to see solutions to problems. The person I want who is going to see solutions to problems is somebody who can think in a completely open way. I think a researcher gets that. If we can somehow have the research functions sold to industry and have people move between positions in industry and research, we will find that it will address some of the problem the Deputy is talking about. It will also attract people because they will see themselves as having an opportunity, not just in research, but, on the point Professor Donnelly made, it is a big world and there is plenty of opportunity. More co-operation between research departments and industry would help in that regard.

Forgive me for being longwinded.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions, as well as their statements, which I read with interest. Many of the concerns are well-founded. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a great opportunity to have our recommendations put before the Minister and for the Department to come back to tell us how it is addressing them.

Reference was made to governance. It is absolutely worthwhile having different forms of academia as part of the governance structure. I come from a humanities background and very much know the importance of research that is curiosity-based or blue-sky thinking. We need to guard against short-termism, particularly when it comes to research. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we do not know what is coming down the road. That is why research needs to be independent. That is not to say I am not a fan of applied research but there has been a mismatch. Even if one considers the funding from the Irish Research Council compared with that from SFI, there is a mismatch. This is an opportunity to advance this. People have asked me for examples of things that are really important about research, not just in humanities but more so curiosity-based research. Obviously, there is some such research in science but humanities has a part to play in answering some of the questions relating to diversity and social cohesion, as well as learning lessons from our past. Yesterday, I spoke to Dr. Marie-Louise Coolahan, who is doing research that involves looking back at where women's voices were in English literature in Ireland a few centuries ago. That informs their place in society, as well as the place of diversity and different ethnicities. It would be great if the witnesses could think of examples in that regard. We absolutely need to address the issue of parity of esteem. There has been concern that it was addressed in an earlier draft but the Bill no longer has that kind of definition.

On the models of research, there is concern that project teams for applied research are very different from those for fundamental research. If it is the case that, as part of this research body, we are saying these are the types of project teams we need to have, that holds that research in a different space from where it is currently and gets away from the curiosity that allows us to say what independent researchers require from the team around them.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

I can provide comfort to the Senator in that regard. Apart from my day job, I serve on the board of Baggot Street hospital. We administer a small research fund, to the value of €30 million, and fund projects of approximately €1 million a year. One of the things we support is work with TobaccoFree Research Institute Ireland. Most of the research work it has done that we have funded has been social research on the attitude or reaction of people to tobacco advertising. There is a health impact in that regard and it is very much applied, but the research is not on the illness; rather, it is on the social problem causing the impact and that is the inclination to smoke and how that is affected by advertising. The Senator referred to diversity and inclusion. That is getting a fair amount of funding. As an empiricist, I tell people I started out in life as an accountant and a lawyer but I am all right now. I am beginning to think in terms of the importance of humanities.

However, I think research has caught up with that importance. I do not know whether that is any comfort.

The research has caught up. We need to make sure it continues to be funded in the way it has been.

Dr. Lisa Keating

With the new agency, we have an opportunity to do all the Senator has described. Research can do much more than it is currently being funded and invested in to do. There is a great opportunity here. If we are to realise that opportunity, we have to fund across all of those disciplines. We have to give individual researchers the opportunity to use their creativity to create new knowledge we do not even know we need. The priority areas in ten or 20 years' time will be different from what they are now and will be set, to a certain extent, by the research conducted. Colleagues have talked about bringing researchers into the dialogue, conversation and governance structures, which is key because it is the researchers who are looking to and designing the future. That is important. Having this agency being able to go across disciplines and to focus on that creation of new knowledge is key.

The Acting Chairman mentioned the language in the Bill. The intention seems to be there, but the language in the Bill tends to contradict the intention. My background is in Enterprise Ireland. The enterprise piece is important and key in the economy, but this is an opportunity for it to do even more. Making sure the language is fully reflective of that is very important. If one is talking about including a wider number of higher education institutes, one is talking about more researchers and it being applied in more areas. The only way one can do more is by providing investment. We need individuals to be able to do all of that; the PhDs, postdocs and academics. They need to be able to live.

Yes, they need to have a proper standard of living.

Professor Willie Donnelly

From my own experience, I would like to urge caution in this debate about applied against fundamental research. People would see my background in telecoms as being applied, but I am also a supervisor of up to 30 PhD students. Regardless of whether they are in my area or in the arts or humanities, they are creating fundamental knowledge. The requirement to graduate as a PhD student is exactly the same. The only difference is that one may find an application for that knowledge earlier. Maybe the environment around which the work is being done informs that application, but how does one define applied research? The idea was mentioned of somebody looking at the history of the role of women in the Middle Ages. If that informs the way we define the role of women in the workplace today, that is applied research, but the foundation may be fundamental. That is very important. We are talking about the definitions to move away from such demarcation. At the basis of all research is the PhD student. It is the creation of knowledge. When we are fortunate in society, we may find an immediate application of that knowledge and other times something happens whereby we find an application of knowledge. Covid was an example of that. Sometimes we accept we are doing research on cancer and the application will be in 20 years' time. It is very important, when we are a small country with a relatively small community, that we do not use those demarcation lines and just say this is about doing high-quality research and creating new knowledge. In some areas, such as in an engineering discipline, we will apply that knowledge immediately, but even in humanities, we will apply the knowledge. I caution against such a demarcation.

It is hard to believe my research on medieval English has yet to find an industrial application, but there you go. Senator Flynn left a number of questions. She has been called away unavoidably. With the permission of the witnesses, I will put her questions to them on her behalf. The Senator has asked whether this Bill commits to allocating funding for frontier research and to increasing public funding for research and development through the agency, in line with European standards.

She has asked whether this Bill commits to doing anything to tackle the casualisation of researchers, the lack of liveable stipends and the lack of worker rights for PhDs to support research. She has further asked whether we can ensure that not only profitable, entrepreneurial and marketable research gets funded, but also blue skies research. She has asked why the board of the new agency is not required to include researchers in the scheme. Finally, she said the scheme is quite corporate in many of its functions and asked how the scheme appropriately balances the need for economic development and the idea of research for research's sake.

Dr. Lisa Keating

There are a number of items here. We discussed the frontiers and the blue skies. We understand the intention but the wording in the Bill needs to be strengthened. The intention needs to be in the legislation so it is not open to debate. There is an opportunity for the agency. Hand-in-hand with that, as the Deputy referenced, is the budget. To provide some statistics for the Government's investment in research in Ireland, one can use many different metrics and argue about which metrics are the best, but whichever ones are used, we are at the bottom of the table, which is a difficulty. The total Government spend, which is how much public funding is put into research out of all public funding, is just about half of the European average. Looking at it as GDP, GNP, or GNI*, it is about half the average of what everybody else is doing. The higher education research and development, HERD, survey shows investment is at the bottom of the table. It will be impossible to realise the ambitions that we have for this new agency and research in Ireland if we do not invest.

We have not come up with a cunning plan which means that other countries can invest money but we do not need to do so to get the same returns. We need to invest if we want those returns. Those are the simple maths or economics. That is really important. Our understanding is that the new agency will bring together the budgets of SFI and the IRC, which would be great, but it is not sufficient to do all that we as a country want to do and that we know the country can do to address climate action, the housing crisis and all the key areas relating to regional development. It is so important but it will not happen in the absence of funding.

On PhD students, we have been working across our membership and engaging with the chairs of the review and the PhD students themselves. We are strongly in favour of the PhD stipend being in line with the living wage. That is really important. If PhD students, who are the backbone of research in this country, are not able to afford to live, that is a difficulty. We are not able to retain them. We do not just need this new agency to be able to fund them. Other Government Departments fund PhD students. Higher education institutes fund them. Changing the budgets just for the new agency, the SFI or the IRC will not be sufficient to be able to do that. We want equity. When we look at the statistics with regard to PhD students, we see that while we have made great progress with undergraduates from under-represented groups and those from disadvantaged areas, we have not made that progress with PhD students. Giving them a living wage is critical.

We would also like to see all the social protections available, such as maternity leave, which is a significant issue. The funding has been provided but we are unable to pay it for legislative reasons. It is important that they are able to receive maternity pay, sick pay and so on. We strongly believe that postgraduate researchers are best off having student status because it gives them an opportunity to do and to receive more, but we think they should have the protections that workers would have. We believe that is possible and it happens in many other jurisdictions. We hope for that. I think I have covered matters and hope I have left time for my colleagues.

Professor Willie Donnelly

I agree with everything Dr. Keating has said. At the end of the day, the problem is that we have a layered system of research stipends in third level education. It is not just the funding agencies. That needs to be addressed.

With regard to whether we are in line with European investment in research we are, to a certain extent. It is a very broad church in Europe. We have the European Research Council, which does fundamental research. There is research at an industrial level and research in terms of society. There are also the great challenges with the environment. It simply comes back to the fact that if we do not invest enough money in the research system to create this ecosystem, we will always have certain groups positioning themselves to ensure they are at more of an advantage than other groups in the way research is conducted.

What is important is that we look to Europe and elsewhere. Dr. Keating is right. The first thing is that we have to get up to the European average for investment in research. This is investment in our own future. It is very short-sighted not to do so. As I have said previously, we must also look at how research contributes to the development of our society, how we see our society and how it reflects the qualities we support as a society. This is something we have to do. This has to be a starting point. If the starting point is that the Estimates provide €300 million for research, then we are into a bun fight. It has to start somewhere else.

Something else that has been problematic for a number of years is short-term commitment to investment. If we do not know that investment will be there for the next ten years, how can we plan the development of careers or centres of excellence? How can we engage people in a career in research if we do not make this level of commitment?

With one eye on the clock, I will ask Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan to make his contribution.

It is not really a contribution because I am aware we are limited for time and I want to allow time for the Cathaoirleach. I appreciate him letting me in. My first question is for Professor Donnelly. In his opening statement he made reference to the fact that Ireland's international profile needs to be raised from one of being a strong innovator to being an innovation leader in Europe by 2030. He also made comments on rapid technological change, the increased mobility of talent, upskilling and reskilling the workforce, changing business paradigms and processes, and a just green transition. Will Professor Donnelly elaborate on what he means by these references in his opening statement?

Professor Willie Donnelly

Ireland is an open economy. We are an economy that relies on the flow of talent and knowledge into the country and the flow of goods and services out of the country. Our economic well-being and our ability even to discuss how much we will invest in research and in social development are a function of our ability to be a leading economic driver in Europe. What I mean by this is that technology by its nature is disruptive. Technology will have major impacts on the economy and how the economy evolves. We, in our commitment to research and innovation, must be at the forefront of innovation, new ideas, new products and new services so that we remain a location of choice not only for multinational companies but also for our own industries. Innovation is at the heart of how we sustain our economy. One of the areas, but not the only area, in which the new agency must focus investment is creating a graduate community of innovators who can go into industry, contribute to industry and drive the economy.

Other speakers have also mentioned recruitment and retention issues. They seem to be the buzzwords of the day. How have issues of recruitment and retention, and the increased mobility of talent which is a modern phenomenon, impacted on the wider research field?

Professor Willie Donnelly

In one way we are competing for talent with the rest of the world. That is the first thing. One of the real values investment and research has brought to Ireland is our ability to attract the best graduates from around the world. Some of those graduates stay in academia but the majority of them go into industry in Ireland. They bring that talent, knowledge and innovation they have developed through their research, postgraduate studies and postdoctoral work in Irish academia. It is absolutely important that Ireland remains a country of choice for students from around the world to come to study and hopefully stay and put roots down. That is what will contribute to the further development of our economy.

Dr. Lisa Keating

I will follow on from what Professor Donnelly has said. I spoke about the funding streams we need for programmes and PhD students, which are needed for the attraction and retention of people. One thing we have not mentioned is infrastructure. The committee will be aware that the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, ended in 2015. It invested €1.2 billion. The residual funding left on the books across our institutions is around €100 million. It has deteriorated rapidly. We have done a survey and audit of our members and more than 50% of all equipment is more than ten years old. One third of it is 15 years old. One cannot really do cutting edge research if the equipment is that old. For example, we have a piece of equipment worth €300,000 in one institution. It has been there for nearly 15 years. It has just given up. That means we have 50 different researchers whose research has stopped. One researcher is doing a piece of research that took 17 minutes. It will go back to taking five days. When talking about investment and retention of staff, we are trying to bring the best and the brightest. We are not just talking about keeping what we have, but about attracting more. They come in and see machinery and equipment that is decades old. Some of it is 30 and 40 years old. That is a real issue. On investment, it is important the new agency has sufficient investment to do all it needs to be able to do. That is competitive funding. We also need to ensure there is core funding, and the HEA provides core funding that is also attributed to research. We need to have core and competitive funding, as most other nations have, and the balance between those is key. That is where something like PRTLI or investment and research infrastructure and equipment would be key for the two agencies to work together.

Professor Diarmuid Hegarty

On the point made earlier about providing better remuneration for research students, it strikes me that the EU may be able to assist in that regard. In Griffith College we are constantly raising funds from our alumni for venture capital investments. In the past, we found we were supported by the tax relief available for investment in risk enterprise. That is being restricted more and more, and the restriction is coming from Europe. That is a retrograde step and we need to get that message across to Europe. The concern from Europe's point of view is to eliminate, as far as possible, any grants that might have a distorting effect on competition. In fact, these grants would encourage research of an applied nature. They would also encourage investment of risk capital in that research. There must be, therefore, some kind of conviction on the part of the investors that the project is actually viable. For instance, there is now a proposal that the tax relief be reduced from 40% to 20%, which would kill that source of funds, namely, venture capital for incubation centres.

That is a practical thing people might focus on. The focus is in Europe and with the European Commission.

I thank the witnesses for coming here and sharing their knowledge and expertise in a fairly truncated session. We could have expanded and gone into a great deal more detail had the format allowed. The discussion has been very informative and will go towards informing our report on pre-legislative scrutiny.

Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.32 p.m.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Frank Jones, spokesperson for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU; Dr. John Walsh, the Trinity convenor from the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT; Dr. Richard Vance, chair of the Irish Research Staff Association, IRSA; Mr. Waqar Ahmed, vice president for postgraduate affairs, Union of Students in Ireland, USI; and Ms Annette Dolan, deputy general sectary, Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI. The witnesses are attending the committee today regarding pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the research and innovation Bill 2023. The format of the meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to make brief opening statements in the following order: Mr. Jones, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Vance, Mr. Ahmed and Ms Dolan. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a five-minute slot, given the time constraints, to both ask the question and for witnesses to respond. The committee will publish the opening statements on its website following today's meeting.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Mr. Jones may begin and the other witnesses will follow. They have five minutes each.

Mr. Frank Jones

I thank the Chair. While I am the general secretary of IFUT, I am before the committee in my capacity as a member of the ICTU education sector group and a member of the ICTU executive council, to share our inputs and concerns with the draft legislation as it currently stands. We will also focus on the opportunities the legislation presents.

My colleagues in the other unions and associations will make reference to some significant aspects of what is currently contained in the draft legislation and the need for greater long-term investment to ensure this sector delivers for all. ICTU supports these points and those that were included in the recent letter to The Irish Times by a group of senior academics, along with the follow-up letter that attracted in the order of 2,000 signatories and was delivered to the Minister, Deputy Harris, last Tuesday and with which I am sure the committee is familiar. I am aware of other submissions made to this process, including that by the Irish Humanities Alliance, and others, supportive of the points being made by some here before the committee. These include: the need for a meaningful definition of "research" to be included in the legislation; a need for parity of esteem between disciplines, namely, STEM, arts and humanities and social sciences; and the need for strong, accountable and independent governance of research and innovation Ireland.

As stated, Congress supports those key points and looks forward to working with like-minded organisations and the committee to ensure the draft legislation is amended to reflect all of the progressive points being heard through this process. Congress is the largest civil society organisation on the island of Ireland. It represents and campaigns on behalf of 750,000 working people. There are currently 44 unions affiliated to congress north and south of the Border. It is for this reason ICTU is well-positioned to raise specific points about the terms and conditions of employment and engagement for those who are and will be working in the area of research across the universities now and into the future.

Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union provides that each member state with collective bargaining coverage below a threshold of 80%, which includes us, should develop or introduce a framework of enabling conditions for collective bargaining and establish an action plan to promote collective bargaining to progressively increase the collective bargaining coverage rate. The establishment of research and innovation Ireland is an opportunity to address this requirement of the EU from the very outset, for researchers working in Ireland. To this end, we suggest that in addition to the changes being suggested by other groups and as per the aforementioned letter, a further clause should be inserted into the legislation under head 8 - objects. It would provide that research and innovation Ireland take overall responsibility for ensuring the terms and conditions of employment and engagement for researchers and others whose employment is supported by funding approved by research and innovation Ireland, is arrived at following a process of collective bargaining with the appropriate trade unions or ICTU.

Under head 15 - membership of board, head 15(3) should include provision that ICTU has the nominating rights for at least one of the 11 board members. I would be delighted to take any questions members may have and to engage with any of them in the coming weeks and months to ensure no opportunities are missed for improving this draft legislation as it passes through the Stages.

Dr. John Walsh

I thank the Chairperson and members for the opportunity to address the joint committee on behalf of IFUT. It is widely acknowledged Ireland has an open, knowledge-based economy that relies extensively on a vibrant research ecosystem. This ecosystem is a critical national asset not only in respect of our economic and social well-being but, as the Covid-19 pandemic illustrated starkly, we also rely on our research infrastructure to address an enormous range of health and societal issues. For example, long-term, blue sky medical research was essential in laying the groundwork for the rapid breakthrough in achieving the Covid vaccines. If the past decade involving the advent of Donald Trump, Brexit and mass campaigns of disinformation has taught us anything, it is that we need evidence-based research more than ever.

More generally, research in political science, history and education have a crucial role to play in understanding societal change and the significant challenges to democratic governance in recent years. We need evidence-based research from a wide range of disciplines that is both broad and deep.

As the Government prepares legislation, that will reconfigure our research funding landscape for generations to come, we wish to express support for the priorities identified by over 2,000 signatories to an open letter to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris. The open letter outlined a shared ambition for measures that would bring Ireland in line with best international practice when it comes to research funding in third level education.

The Bill and the creation of a single national research funding agency offer a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get this right, not unlike the key decisions made in the 1960s to provide free second level education and in the late 1990s to invest significantly in higher education research for the first time. Equally, the consequences of getting decisions wrong at this stage will be far-reaching not only in failing to support individual researchers but on the research ecosystem and its potential contribution to society and the economy. There is real anxiety and concern about unintended consequences of the Bill among our members. Early career researchers, particularly those on precarious contracts or working in precarious conditions, are particularly vulnerable to any change in research funding practices.

We have a number of concerns about the proposed legislation which have been compounded by a lack of structured consultation so far with a wider group of stakeholders. We wish to acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy Harris, recently met a group of researchers, including IFUT members, and indicated an openness to structured consultation on the Bill.

Currently, Ireland is well behind other EU countries in expenditure on research and development; investing only 1.23% of GDP compared with an EU average of 2.32%. This is hardly consistent with Ireland's ambition to be a leader in research and development in the European Union. Therefore, we call on the Minister to allocate additional funding for frontier research and to commit to increasing public funding for research and development, through the new agency, in line with European standards.

As it stands, the heads of Bill are missing some important elements. They include a meaningful definition of research, whereby research must be inclusive of every sector of knowledge and career stage and there must be balance between science, technology, engineering and mathematics and health sciences, as well as arts, humanities, and social sciences. Also missing are the principles of parity of esteem between disciplines and areas and of academic freedom. We seek strong, accountable and independent governance arrangements, including a meaningful and transparent system of selection of the members of the body overseeing the agency and that the majority of members of the board should be involved in research at various levels. Another key element is to achieve European standards of good practice that support appropriate governance in research and the fair allocation of funding. Last but not least, there should be a commitment to fund research at a level equal to or greater than the EU average based on percentage of GDP, including a commitment to allocate at least 70% of the total budget available to frontiers or basic research or both, and for sustained and ongoing investment in the full cost of research.

A wide-ranging group of researchers, who reflect a range of institutions, have proposed a number of amendments to the legislation that are supported by IFUT. Those are detailed in our submission and I will not going into them here except to say that we would advocate, as a priority, that the principle of academic freedom be included in head 8 as a separate item and that we seek the inclusion of a commitment to parity of esteem and support for equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation in head 9.

An inclusive governance structure is crucial. The board of the new research agency should include a majority of active researchers from a diversity of backgrounds, levels and disciplines, including early career and postdoctoral researchers. Academic input in framing the Bill should be sought through a structured consultation process. The expertise of researchers engaged in vital work on a day-to-day basis should not be neglected.

To conclude, we wish to acknowledge that the Bill is well intentioned but requires significant changes from the heads, as published. We do not undervalue the contribution of research to a competitive economy but the value of research cannot be defined in purely monetary terms. The Bill should guarantee a broad based and holistic understanding of research underpinned by a representative and collegial governance structure.

Dr. Richard Vance

On behalf of the Irish Research Staff Association, which represents salaried research staff in higher education, I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to participate in this process.

The research ecosystem is a central driver of Ireland’s long-term social and economic development and our ability to compete on the global stage. Yet, at present, for too many researchers, research in Ireland is not a particularly attractive career. Ireland, for example, is the only country in the European Union where researchers' salaries are lower than the mean across the entire economy. There is virtual universality of employment on serial contracts of very short duration, and exclusion from promotion schemes and tenure-track positions.

Researchers, for example, do not have the same progression and promotion opportunities as other public servants. Researchers may also experience barriers to collective bargaining, may be excluded from strategic decision-making as a profession, and may lack parity in the treatment of their disciplines. They may also experience systemic barriers to communication and networking.

The burden falls unequally depending on gender, disability status, socioeconomic class and other demographics. Those barriers to building sustained, independent research portfolios mean the system often does not select for excellence, if one likes, but rather for those with better means to ride out unfavourable terms and conditions.

All of that aligns to make it very difficult to attract and retain researchers in the system, and creates difficulties for academic grant holders to staff projects. This puts major grant awards at risk. It affects the competitiveness and sustainability of our institutions, which already lack the sufficient permanent staff to reliably deliver world-class education and research into the future.

In response, and pursuant chiefly to heads 8, 9, 40, and 41, we recommend that, first, the new funding agency and its work be founded upon a commitment to increase public research funding to a percentage of GDP at least in line with competitor countries. Second, in co-operation with researchers, academics, ourselves in the IRSA, trade unions and higher education institutions, HEIs, that the new agency must prioritise, set targets for, and implement dedicated, collaboratively-designed funding instruments specifically to reduce precarity. That process should be guided by the implementation of a thorough examination of precarity, as was recommended by this committee in 2022. Third, the implementation of ring-fenced public funding to facilitate and ensure career stability and progression and reduce precarity, as was also a recommendation of this committee previously. Fourth, the implementation of instruments to support tenure-track research positions across different career tracks, including traditional academic posts, research- and teaching-focused posts with parity of esteem. Finally, as a condition of funding, that employers abide by collective and sector-wide agreements on pay, pay scales and conditions; reduce reliance on precarious employment; have regular consultations with researchers as stakeholders; and advance equality, diversity and inclusion, EDI objectives.

Good governance of the proposed research funding agency is paramount. With reference particularly to heads 15, 17, 28, and 29 of the Bill, we propose inclusion in both board membership and the planning and consultation activities and processes of the agency, with expertise from across the diverse range of knowledge areas in order that the board is representative of the research ecosystem. We also propose that all stakeholder groups are represented in the board membership and in the planning and operations of the agency. The IRSA wishes to seek the right to make nominations to that board and finally, seeks to ensure that the board appointments process is marked by transparency and accountability.

With reference to heads 8, 9, 40, and 41, it is crucial that we have parity of esteem between the STEM fields and the arts, humanities, and social sciences; parity between the basic or "blue sky" and applied research fields; and parity across career stages in terms of meaningful input and inclusion in decision-making at strategic levels. With reference to inclusion, a sector that is reliant on precarious employment is not satisfying imperatives for equality, diversity and inclusion.

Barriers to data collection and communication need to be addressed, as they affect effective monitoring of employment conditions, precarity, strategic planning, professional network formation, and research collaboration at scale. The present Bill ought to institute transparent, open data collection on the workforce across the sector, and ease of communication between actors. This may be most closely related to head 41.

In closing, the IRSA thanks the committee for the opportunity to participate today. We offer our collaboration to promote sustainable social and economic development on the island.

Mr. Waqar Ahmed

I thank the committee and the Chair for the invitation to participate today. I am the vice president for postgraduate affairs at the Union of Students in Ireland, which is the representative body of students for third level education in Ireland. The research and innovation Bill is being discussed at a time when 50% of the Irish academic workforce is on casualised contracts. Postgraduate researchers have no working rights or living wage, and our expenditure on research and development is among the lowest.

Furthermore, poor international research mobility, the highest postgraduate fees in the EU, funding gaps and lack of grassroots support has led to a decline for Ireland. Ireland fell in the global innovation index from tenth to 23rd in 2022, over just five years. Our European innovation score has remained stagnant since 2015. The Bill should ensure the fair allocation and distribution of funding in the legislation and follow international standards of good practice that support the recruitment, training and career development of researchers.

The regulatory architecture being created by the Bill lacks academic representation and puts the researcher out of formation, management and oversight of the new agency. Our experience with the funding agencies that exist has been quite poor. From sick and maternity leave to research funds, the research agencies have always closed their doors to students' and postgraduate researchers' concerns. There is nothing in this Bill which will ensure that all stakeholders will be engaged and listened to when it comes to general concerns in future. We propose that the ordinary members of the board should be active researchers from a wide range of disciplines, across all career stages, including PhD and casualised researchers. There has been a complete collapse in the provision of supports for researchers from disadvantaged backgrounds, part-time researchers and researchers with disabilities. Education has been and always will be the ladder out of social disadvantage. Unless the Bill supports parity of all kinds of research and researchers, how will it achieve its goals of research and innovation across a wide range of disciplines? How researchers across all stages, especially PhD students, are recognised and supported is largely based on how research is defined. The Department's review of the higher education research system published in 2021 showed that Ireland's attraction of international researchers is affected by low remuneration levels and poor working and immigration conditions. We need a fair, open and high-quality research agency that caters for the needs of our society.

What we do not need from the Government is a two-tier system for international researchers that hinders Ireland's attractiveness to research and innovation. USI welcomes competition and collaboration in the sector. However, the sector has taken a corporate approach to teaching, research and innovation. This is problematic, as it will force third level institutions to become subservient to the needs of the market instead of focusing on social needs and challenges. Funding should be curiosity-driven and not driven by immediate economic gains. The objects of the Bill should be to add excellence in research in all its forms and across all career stages, spanning applied research that includes discovery, blue-skies research and critical and theoretical scholarship, as well as applied research. We need a system that allows all stakeholders to come together across STEM subjects, the humanities, arts and social sciences, to drive a research ecosystem which is better, more equitable and more accountable to all stakeholders and not just a few in power.

We have strong concerns that the Bill does not adequately protect academic autonomy, parity of esteem and the working conditions of researchers and open research. USI recommends amending the Bill to include an independent review and evaluation of the work of the research and innovation agency every five years, with regular consultation with higher education institutions, researchers, and their representatives on annual plans. There has been a lack of consultation and the announcement of the Bill took the research committee by surprise. USI recommends stakeholder engagement through public consultation and statutory consultation. Students and postgraduate researchers are looking forward to opportunities for further engagement on this Bill.

Ms Annette Dolan

The Teachers Union of Ireland, which represents academics including researchers in institutes of technology and technological universities, welcomes the opportunity to suggest changes to the research and innovation Bill 2023. While the proposal to form a single new agency to replace SFI and IRC is welcome, significant additional funding for research is required. Funding for research and development in Ireland falls well below the EU 27 average of 2.32% of GDP and is just above half of this at 1.23%. The proposed new agency, research and innovation Ireland, should support research from the bottom up, supporting researchers from all disciplines and at all stages of their careers. Research simply cannot happen without researchers. However, in the sector TUI represents, there is an unacceptable level of precarious contracts with inferior terms and conditions of employment. Our longstanding claim for pensions for researchers has not yet been sanctioned.

We recommend an elaboration of the definition of research in head 3, with the following addition to encompass research: "...across the spectrum of Arts, Engineering, Humanities, Mathematics, Sciences, Social Sciences and Technology, having regard for the terms and conditions of employment, remuneration, superannuation and career path of those so engaged."

TUI recommends the inclusion of additional objectives under head 8 including an objective "to promote and support balanced regional development of research and innovation" and an objective "to promote and support the value and necessity of research to society and the economy and the need for appropriate support and reward at all career stages of those engaged in research". Under head 8(b) we recommend the insertion of the term "sustainability" before "development" to emphasise the urgency of the need to address sustainability. Under head 8(e) we recommend the following amendment to comprehend the diverse range of research types, methods and research within the sector: "to promote parity of esteem, advance and facilitate equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation". The use of the term "oriented basic research" in head 8(f) is unnecessarily restrictive. We suggest that the term "applied research" be added or that both terms be replaced by the generic term "research". We also recommend that the word "sustainability" be added to the phrase "future development and competitiveness in the State". In addition, we suggest a further objective "to protect and promote the principle of academic freedom".

TUI recommends a number of amendments to head 9, including reference to developing an effective researcher, including academic staff, career development framework with the addition of the following to the end of head 9(d), "having due regard to the employment rights and opportunities for lecturing staff". We also recommended the additions of the following functions to head 9. The first is to "promote the attractiveness of research as a valued and viable career having due regard to the security and continuity of employment, the terms and conditions, remuneration and superannuation of researchers". The second is "for value in and of itself, as well as alignment with EU policy, which is to promote the inclusion of citizens in research co-design and delivery". The third is to "minimise the bureaucratic and administrative burden attendant to applications for funding". The fourth is to "support balanced regional development of research and innovation". The fifth is to "provide specific support to the development of the technological sector having due regard to the importance of research in the functions of a Technological University as ... [set] out in the Technological Universities Act 2018 and the role of Institutes of Technology and Technological Universities in civic and cultural life and in the development of business and enterprise at a local, regional and national level". In addition, we recommend amending head 9(k) by read "to promote parity of esteem and support equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation; design and delivery".

We recommend that there should be a transparent process in the selection of the board in head 15. We also recommend that membership of the board in section 15(3) should include provision for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, to have nominating rights for one of the 11 board members.

We recommend that head 28(3)(c) should specifically include a reference to consultation with higher education institutions, HEIs, researchers and citizens. It should also explicitly have regard to EU research policy and priorities. We recommend that a reference to the requirement for broader consultation with HEIs, researchers and citizens be included in head 29.

The proposed Bill is a great opportunity to enable Ireland to be at the centre of research internationally, but in order to achieve that, we need to ensure adequate investment and attractive contracts are available to researchers.

I thank all of the witnesses for their adherence to the timeframe. They were all very punctual.

I thank all the guests for coming before the committee. I will start by asking Mr. Jones a question. The heads of Bill say the objective is to promote research across all disciplines. Mr. Jones has identified in his opening statement that one of his concerns is that there has to be a need for parity of esteem between disciplines. Does he have a concern that certain disciplines such as arts and humanities, the creative arts and history will be at a disadvantage, because of the economic demands of the sciences?

Mr. Frank Jones

I have a concern they are already at an economic disadvantage and that the funding is disproportionately going into the STEM area.

That has an effect on the terms and conditions of employment and engagement for those, as one can imagine. We are very concerned about. The parity of esteem issue could be addressed at board level.

What is the best way to address it in the legislation? Is it by having a representative board across disciplines or is it by trying to be very structured by putting requirements into the legislation as to how disciplines should be treated?

Mr. Frank Jones

I think a representative board will arrive at that themselves. We are in the early stages and we would like to be involved in getting there with the precise wording. The Universities Act does not distinguish between research in various disciplines. It talks about scholarly research being the first object of the university.

It is hard to categorise it but Mr. Jones thinks a representative board is the best way to go about it.

Mr. Frank Jones

Yes.

On the proposed change to head 8 - objects, which I will not read out, the purpose behind it is that Mr. Jones thinks it will assist researchers in getting better terms and conditions because it will be a condition of funding by the new statutory body that the third-level institution will have to comply with certain minimum standards of employment. Is that correct?

Mr. Frank Jones

Yes. I think there should be some responsibility on the new entity to oversee that there is proper terms and conditions of employment. At the moment, these terms and conditions of employment and engagement are unilaterally set by an organisation that refuses and does not engage in collective bargaining with trade unions or groups of employees.

I wish to ask Dr. Walsh about that point. He mentioned in his opening statement that early career researchers, particularly those in precarious contracts, are particularly vulnerable to any change in research funding priorities. What does he think of congress’s proposal? Would it be helpful to researchers at an early stage of their career?

Dr. John Walsh

I agree with congress’s proposal. An inclusive board is important. A board should include a majority of active researchers but also representation for early career and postdoctoral researchers. That is important.

I wish to briefly comment on the question the Deputy asked Mr. Jones, which is relevant. The mission of Science Foundation Ireland has really narrowed in recent years. It has become more economically focused on niche areas. We fear that a focus on commercialisation and niche areas might dominate the new agency at the expense of individual awards and the arts-humanities.

I have a question for Dr. Vance. He made the point in respect of the board that he believes there should be a diversified board and he wants the right to make nominations to the board. I am not talking about this specific Minister but under the legislation, the Minister will be able to give directions to the board. Does he have any concern about that?

Dr. Richard Vance

We think it is crucial that the board is reflective of the research ecosystem. If the new research agency is subject to regular changes in policy or direction from the Minister of the day, that is probably not the best way to build a long-term and sustainable research ecosystem where people can rely on the policy.

In his opening statement, Mr. Ahmed said that dramatically increases the power of Government dramatically. What is his concern?

Mr. Waqar Ahmed

I will use the example of head 28, corporate plan. It mentions a review but it is not an independent review of the board. Throughout the sections, it states that the board will consult, but when it comes to institutions and researchers, it “may” consult. Our concern is that the structuring of the board does not reflect researchers from all stages, disciplines and areas such as, for example, technological areas, researchers who are part time and all that. The PhD researchers are the backbone of the research that we do. That is the way one progresses to postdoctoral research and all those higher positions. Therefore, if the foundation and representation is not right, what will happen is what has happened to us so far, which is we have no way to reach out to the current research agencies. The simplest of things that could happen do not, just because we do not have representation or a way to consult with these agencies. Things have been the same for 15 or 20 years.

I do not want to be rude by omitting Ms Dolan from my questions, if the Chair will give me another minute. Does she have any concern that a future Minister could interfere and block research because it is not popular or because it is controversial? Is that an issue of any concern?

Ms Annette Dolan

That is where we want the amendment to come in in respect of academic freedom. There has to be a balance. The research that was funded by the Irish Research Council, IRC, was very different from the research funded by Science Foundation Ireland, SFI. That was more basic and blue-skies research. It is important that we have that type of research. In the new board, I think the Minister needs to be cognisant of having that balance. There needs to be a balance between the type of research that SFI was funding, focused on industry development, research and development, and the blue-skies basic research. We need more opportunities for individuals to do that research. The SFI funding is given to broader research groups whereas the IRC funding was geared more towards individuals. It is really important to maintain that balance, particularly now with the development of the technological university sector and the emergence of that OECD report. There is an opportunity to provide researchers with proper terms and conditions of employment. We would favour researchers moving onto the assistant lecturer scale and then progressing onto the lecturer scale. It is very possible to do that and it would be a benefit to the whole sector.

I thank the witnesses for coming in to us this morning. We could spend all day speaking about this but unfortunately we do not have all day. This morning the committee heard from another group of guests about the importance of creating the ecosystem of research and of ensuring that research being undertaken is not only focused on any economic benefit at the end, so that balance and parity are being struck. I fundamentally agree with Ms Dolan when she said that cannot happen without researchers. It is not going to happen without researchers. If we get the legislation correct, if we get the make-up of the board correct and we still do not have those people coming in to do research, what are we at and what was the point of it all?

My question for Mr. Ahmed is what are his peers saying to him of their future intention around research? Going back to the make-up of the board, how important is it that there is a strong voice on behalf of researchers on it?

Mr. Waqar Ahmed

Our first concern has been to do with the point that was previously made about the definition of research and researchers. We have all the pay scales from post-doctoral research onwards. However, when it comes to postgraduate research, PhD researchers, it is not properly defined. The first concern we hear is that who we are and what we do is not recognised, which sets foundations that do not help us. Representation matters on the board. We are forming this new agency because not everything has been right in the previous one. Otherwise there would be no need to make a new one. One thing previous agencies have absolutely lacked is representation or even engagement with stakeholders and researchers themselves, including PhD researchers. I am referring to the simplest things, for example maternity leave. There are meetings every second minute but it never happens because there is no strong voice. Researchers who have European Research Council scholarships are getting contracts, while researchers with SFI or IRC funding are treated totally differently. It is necessary to include researchers from all areas and to create an equal system. There is no need to create a two-tier system for researchers funded by European research foundations and those funded by our research foundations.

As there is no representation, we fear that the corporate plan will be reviewed after five years. Again, there is no mention of consultation with stakeholders and there is not even an independent review provided for in the current legislation. We are concerned about how we are defined, the lack of representation we have in these agencies and the absence of the engagement we have sought. I reiterate that this Bill was a complete surprise to us. There was no public or structured consultation as to what we need or why we need this Bill. We then have to respond to it. We are always catching up. Our engagement has always been reactive and that has probably been our biggest concern.

I thank Mr. Ahmed.

Mr. Frank Jones

If I may, several speakers on our side have referred to the career advancement and the stages. Just so that the Deputies and Senators are very clear on the stages of development in a research career framework, there is a document produced by the Irish Universities Association and the Technological Higher Education Association titled, IUA Researcher Career Development and Employment Framework. When one reads this document, it sets some objectives and the path but it also sets out the career of a researcher in seven stages. The thing I want the committee to be very cognisant of is that stage seven is termination. One is therefore building oneself up for termination. The document states it can take between ten and 16 years to reach the highest point and then the research is on termination and free to go into the public sector, the private sector or somewhere else. This is not an employment framework. It is contrary to every decent piece of legislation that has come from our membership of the European Union. On Europe Day, it is worth mentioning that.

This has been developed without input from this side of the table. When we try to make an input, we are told by those responsible that we are not a negotiating body. This is the career framework we are up against. Research and innovation Ireland, if that is the name that will be chosen for the new entity, has to take some responsibility here. It is not good enough that such a large number of workers are as badly paid as we are telling the committee they are, with such desperate terms and conditions of employment, which, thankfully, we do not see in any other sector. They workers are paid through public funds, yet do not always attract the public sector pay increases. This group of workers is treated terribly. I hope I have shocked the Deputy.

I was a county councillor when there was no maternity leave so very little shocks me any more. It surprises me but does not shock me.

Ms Annette Dolan

I have an answer to what Mr. Jones is saying. We have negotiation rights for all of the researchers in the institutes of technology, IOTs, and the technological universities and we have lodged a claim. We were asked to break that claim up into little bits and front-load the most important aspect of the conditions of service, which we did. Several years ago, we lodged a claim in respect of pensions for researchers. Everybody around the table is now an agreement that this should happen, including everybody on the official and staff side. It has not yet happened, however, because we are still waiting for a decision from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. We are keeping our fingers and toes crossed that we will get a "Yes" soon. Hopefully, if the Minister is listening, he may say "Yes".

We then go on to the next aspect of that. As I said earlier, we want researchers to move on to a career framework. We have suggested having an assistant lecturer scale moving on to the lecturer scale because that, at least, would be progression. The researchers we represent have a contract for a number of years. That contract finishes and they then have no rights in respect of continuity of employment. Unfortunately, the collective agreements we have reached in respect of the contracts of indefinite duration, CIDs, after two years do not apply to researchers.

Those people come to us and they want to start families and ask their bank manager for a mortgage. The bank manager will ask if the job is permanent and mortgage approval will not be forthcoming. These researchers are real people with real lives who want to make a contribution and, unfortunately, we are losing the best of them because they cannot remain within education. They are moving to industry or abroad where there are better opportunities, conditions of employment and salaries.

That is unfortunate. This Bill presents an opportunity.

Would I be correct in saying that-----

I will be. Without that change being made, we are closing the door to talented, passionate and committed researchers who do not have access to additional funding to be able to support themselves for the duration.

Dr. John Walsh

There is no question about that. It is creating a massive brain drain. It is a fact that researchers in third level are the most vulnerable in the public sector, if not the wider economy.

Thank you for your brevity. I call Senator O'Loughlin.

I apologise for being late. We had a number of conflicting sessions this morning, particularly in the Seanad, so I did not have the opportunity to listen to the opening statements, although I did have the opportunity to go through the statements. It is good to see Ms Dolan again and I wish her continued success.

Given the area we are looking at, it was very helpful for the committee to have had the opportunity to visit some of our technological universities recently. In particular, when I was in the Chair's hometown of Waterford, in South East Technological University, we had a very good debate in regard to the whole area of research and how universities can attract the best people, and also attract good funding, which is obviously very important.

About six years ago, before Brexit happened, this committee did a paper and some research in regard to the possibilities and potentials, and challenges and disadvantages, that Brexit would bring in terms of trying to attract research funding. At the time, 70% of all research projects that Irish universities were doing were with a partner in England. If the witnesses have any views in regard to that impact, it would be helpful.

I do not want to go over what my colleagues have said. I know one of the areas that the witnesses were clear about in their opening statements was the issue regarding the definition of terms throughout the heads of the Bill. It is important that we get this right. If the witnesses have already responded to that, do not worry about it because I can look back through the proceedings.

On a question to Ms Dolan, I am interested to know if data are available showcasing the percentage of researchers from minority backgrounds. I think that is something we need to be clear about in terms of trying to facilitate equality of opportunity.

In general, I would like to know about current issues in regard to the recruitment and retention of researchers right across the board, and how that impacts both the performance of our third level institutions and the global university rankings.

Ms Annette Dolan

I do not have data in regard to the percentage of researchers from minority ethnic backgrounds. I suspect from anecdotal evidence that it is quite small because if we are to attract people from minority ethnic backgrounds into research, the first thing we need is proper terms and conditions of employment. It is a very good question, particularly when we talk about the social dimension of higher education and the fact we are signed up to the Rome communiqué. The next communiqué following that will be the Tirana communiqué. The social dimension was an integral part of the last Rome communiqué, which is about the Bologna process and standardisation across all of the Bologna process countries, and the social dimension was set out in Annex II to that communiqué. It is very important to ensure the social dimension is reflected in this Bill. It is also important that there is a balance of funding, as I said earlier, between the basic research, the blue skies research and then the broader type of research that is now being funded by SFI. Particularly for individuals from minority ethnic backgrounds, individual research is very important.

Dr. John Walsh

Brexit created a big opportunity for Ireland. The country has been very competitive in attracting high profile European Research Council awards. However, a key problem is staff retention because those researchers are highly mobile. Universities in particular find that many of the researchers move on because they can get better opportunities, facilities and infrastructure in other European countries. We end up with a brain drain and the loss of those very capable researchers. The retention issue needs to be addressed.

I thank the witnesses for attending. We are short on time so I will just ask a few questions rather than speak for a few minutes. Dr. Walsh made two interesting points. He said that we need to look at implementing European standards of good practice that support appropriate governance in research and fair allocation of funding here. At present, ahead of this Bill, how do we compare with our European counterparts regarding appropriate governance?

My second question is for Dr. Walsh also. The Minister has met stakeholders and he has indicated an openness to continuing dialogue with them. Can Dr. Walsh elaborate on what commitment the Minister has actually given in relation to facilitating that openness? Is it structured and does it involve meetings or appearing before this committee?

Dr. John Walsh

I will take the point on governance first. The issue with the Bill currently is that there is a lack of clarity around the governance. The Minister is to appoint the board but who would be members of the board? The European Research Council is one model for best practice at European level that the Minister could look at. It is also important that the board include a majority of researchers who are actively involved in research. For good governance there needs to be a diversity of perspectives representing various disciplines, levels and areas of research, postdoctoral and senior and people involved in the humanities, as well as STEM.

Regarding the meeting with the Minister, the open letter was handed into the Minister last Tuesday by a group of us, including Mr. Jones, Professor Ohlmeyer, Professor O'Neill and others. The Minister kindly facilitated a meeting and we had a constructive discussion with him. The Minister indicated that he was planning a structured engagement with stakeholders but he did not go into detail. I am not telling the committee what to do but it is obviously a question members may want to pursue. It is really important that there be a public consultation and an open and structured engagement with stakeholders which allows the voice of researchers and the academic community to be heard on this.

Maybe this is something for the committee to keep an eye on. Dr. Walsh might liaise with us as soon as something bears fruit. To go back to the issue of European governance within academic circles, is there any country we should aspire to be? Who is at the pinnacle?

Dr. John Walsh

One model is the European Research Council, which has separate committees focused on research and on innovation. These are complementary but they are not the same. Sometimes there is a danger of conflating research with innovation in a way that allows economically-driven objectives to dominate. Denmark is much closer to the European average as regards funding research. It is a small country whose size and economy are comparable to ours.

Most of the speakers have touched on the issue of staff retention and conditions. Ms Dolan specifically mentioned that head 45 and head 47 are silent on subcontracts entered into by awardees of SFI which are still in force. Will she explain what that means?

Ms Annette Dolan

I did not refer to them this morning but I sent in a number of amendments because the Bill is silent on that. We put those in is because there are existing contracts and they will continue for some time. The new Bill will be enacted yet those existing contracts will continue, so the amendments are to deal with that issue.

We cannot let people fall between the cracks. It is important, therefore, that amendments concerning subcontractors be put into those sections of the Bill, because it is silent on that.

I apologise if I am being a bit stupid, but is the concern that it is going to affect the conditions of people on existing contracts?

Ms Annette Dolan

Yes. Reference needs to be made to what happens in the overlap between contracts that have been given out and the new body being established, so there is that overlapping continuity.

Okay, I thank Ms Dolan. From listening to our guests and the discussion of parity of esteem between disciplines, I get their concerns and I think we all do. On competitive funding processes for research grants, how do our guests recommend we ensure equity or equal distribution into the future? It is akin to what Deputy Jim O'Callaghan said, namely, is it about specific quotas of people from minorities, genders and various academic disciplines? How would our guests structure it?

Dr. John Walsh

I will be brief as I have been in already. One thing that should be done is reserving the majority of the budget - we were suggesting 70% - for frontier or basic research. That would ensure the economically driven and niche areas SFI is specialised in do not crowd out frontier research. That includes medical research and humanities research. It would certainly be one way of doing it.

Ms Annette Dolan

I will add something brief to that. We have a new emerging sector in the technological universities. Everybody is excited and enthusiastic about it, but there is an opportunity for the development of research. It is there already, but there is an opportunity for further development and it needs targeted funding for the TU sector. We are hoping that will happen.

Dr. Richard Vance

One of the key interventions needs to be setting targets specifically to reduce the precarious employment the sector relies on. If people are in precarious employment they cannot build sustainable research portfolios and then there is a loss of return on investment in the sector. Thus, the first priority is to set a target and monitor it using open data to see if it is met. That should also be linked to career progression streams with parity, that is to say, not just the traditional academic stream but also the research-focused stream and a teaching-focused stream so researchers can filter up through the system and retain all the expertise within that system. That avoids a system of the kind Mr. Jones mentioned where a person might spend ten, 15 or many more years languishing on various contracts without reaching his or her potential or bringing his or her expertise into the system and on upwards. The priority should be linking that to a specific instrument that sets a target for reducing precarity.

Very good. I thank all our guests for their submissions, but I single out Ms Dolan's submission for the detailed way it goes through the different heads providing amendments. It gives me something concrete to respond to in my own head. I found it very helpful.

General themes are coming across from today's session and from what I am receiving in my inbox, as I imagine other members are too. These include the funding of the research being brought into line with international comparisons, the membership of the board and definitions around research. On the latter, we want to build legislation that will last, so we need to be tightening the definitions. The issue around parity of esteem seems to be fundamental. It is not just parity of esteem with respect to fundamental research versus applied research, but also the importance of the humanities versus STEM. It can easily get lost, especially in the case of blue skies research we have not figured out an application for. Such research is very often the important work. We were very glad somebody had developed mRNA technology a couple of years ago and it had been sitting on the shelf for a while ready for us to find a suitable outlet.

I wish to home in on the principle of academic freedom. As I read the general scheme, I have a nagging concern about the powers afforded to the Minister.

I am not sure that the balance is correctly struck. That has nothing at all to do with the present-day Minister but we should not make bad legislation in good times. At present we have a new stand-alone Department that is focused on further and higher education, which has never previously been the case. Normally we have the Department of Education as a whole, which is very large when it is all of education contained within one Department. I just have a nagging worry about what would happen if the legislation overpowers the role of the Minister and if at some future point, the higher education role gets folded back into the portfolio of a general education Minister. It might not even be due to ill-will of a Minister but lack of attention or lack of available time because the primary and secondary school sectors will always be demanding. I wanted to give our guests an opportunity to speak a little bit about how they see that balance being struck in the Bill. I worry about having a set of parameters that focus towards applied research. Politicians have short time horizons. We look to the next election. That may not be the appropriate time horizon when we are making decisions with regard to research. I would appreciate if our witnesses would speak about that facet of the Bill.

Mr. Frank Jones

As it stands right now, academic freedom is not something that is enjoyed to the degree it should be by researchers who are chasing funding to ensure their employment for the next two and a half years. The pot of funding they are aiming for can be very precise, the projects can be out there and they gear themselves towards them. There can be expectations about what the deliveries will be at the end of a project, too. I do not believe that academic freedom is enjoyed by anybody running on successive fixed-term contracts. I do not believe it is. The insecurity or precarity attached to the employment and engagement of researchers has to be removed in order that they can begin to enjoy the academic freedom that those people who developed the medicines and science behind what you referred to enjoyed. It gave them the time, facilities and resources to engage in blue-sky research without being told about a specific goal they were trying to reach. Some sort of security of employment and removal of precarity and insecurity, with the right board make-up, will lead to researchers enjoying the academic freedom that they need to enjoy if they are to deliver.

Dr. John Walsh

The Deputy's concern about the Bill is well founded. The heads of the Bill do not adequately establish the principle of academic freedom. A possibly good model is the Universities Act 1997, which includes an explicit commitment to academic freedom and even goes so far as to say that where there is a difference of interpretation between academic freedom and other heads of the Bill, that academic freedom will be given precedence or priority. Something like that would be very useful. We proposed an additional head 8(g) to the effect that preserving and promoting the principles of academic freedom would be included as a separate head in the Bill so it has a real status and is properly vindicated in the Bill. Of course Mr. Jones is right, precarious workers do not enjoy academic freedom. At the same time, we need to vindicate the principle and the text of the Bill.

Ms Annette Dolan

I concur with the comments of my colleagues to my left. That is absolutely a concern for the future. It is not a concern now under the current Minister. However, I would call for separate budget heads that are guaranteed for basic and blue-skies research, and linking that to broadening the definition of research so it includes the whole spectrum from arts and humanities to the sciences, as I outlined earlier. As I said in my submission, the principle of academic freedom needs to be written into head 8 to guarantee that provision is there. That is really important.

Funding is needed under a separate head to allow individual researchers with secure contracts to pursue the type of research which, in their view, will add to knowledge that will be of benefit across all those areas of research.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all of the witnesses for attending today and providing us with the benefit of their knowledge and insight in this area. It has been a very productive discussion, which I think will go some way to informing our final report on pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 May 2023.
Barr
Roinn