Apologies have been received from Deputy Ó Ríordáin and Deputy Sherlock is substituting for him today. The Minister is here. I remind members and officials to make sure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting. We have convened to resume consideration of the Research and Innovation Bill 2024. I welcome the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and his officials to the meeting. I remind all members that should a vote be called members must physically be present in the committee in order to vote. We will now proceed with the Bill.
Research and Innovation Bill 2024: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1 and 45 to 47, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, after line 29, to insert the following:
" "appeals board" has the meaning assigned to it by section 44(1);".
These amendments are largely either technical or clarifying in terms of the policy intent. The committee will recall that the legislation has an appeals provision whereby the CEO and the agency would require the recipient to return some or all of the funding awarded in the event of non-compliance with the terms of the funding award. What we are doing in amendments Nos. 1 and 45 to 47, inclusive, is stretching this out a bit based on the legal advice of the Attorney General.
In amendment No. 1 I propose a minor technical amendment to section 2 in the form of an additional definition:
In page 5, after line 29, to insert the following:
" "appeals board" has the meaning assigned to it by section 44(1);".
This definition is required in connection with the proposed sections 44 to 46, inclusive, relating to the appeals provision.
With regard to amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, as I have said these appeals provisions are being inserted on the advice of the Attorney General to strengthen the appeals provisions in the Bill and ensure an external impartial review.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 14, 17, 19, 21 to 27, inclusive, 29 to 33, inclusive, 35, 39, 49, and 60 to 64, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 27, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "official".
I can take people through these very individually but it would not be a good use of time.
The Minister can take them altogether.
These amendments that have been grouped together are very minor technical amendments that serve either to give a greater clarity to the policy intention of a certain section, to better anchor the provision in a section or make reference to other relevant sections in the Bill. They are all technical. For example, amendment No. 2 proposes inserting the word "the". I propose these amendments which are technical in nature.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, line 30, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "official".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, line 9, after "social," to insert "political, historical, legal,".
We received the groupings very late so it is a bit difficult. Amendment No. 4 proposes inserting "political, historical, legal," after "social," in line 9 on page 9. It expands the list of identified areas for research and innovation to include political, historical and legal. We believe these could be very important areas of research, especially in the context of a united Ireland, for example with regard to constitutional change and potential changes to the organs of the State, interaction with EU law and the need for historically informed research. We can look to Germany and Cyprus after reunification.
Amendment No. 5 proposes to insert "community," after "enterprise,". A key focus of the legislation is to strengthen the position of taighde Éireann to make a contribution nationally to fostering new research and innovation partnerships and collaborations. It specifies collaboration between enterprise, Government and the wider research and innovation sector. It would be further strengthened if the word "community" was included in it.
Amendment No. 6 proposes a little piece which the Minister can see. Although the Bill mentions equality in terms of research approach we believe the failure to mention parity of esteem is a continuing shortcoming. We also feel the failure to specify the importance, and mutually reinforce the role, of fundamental and applied research must be addressed.
These amendments leave no ambiguity. When raising the former we stress the principle of parity of esteem so there can be no confusion that we require a one-to-one approach of funding disbursement between STEM and arts, humanities and social science, AHSS. Impact 2030 references parity of esteem. This is the context in which we are using it. We stress that these two approaches to research are two wings of the same bird and one supports the other. The amendments are with regard to explicit recognition of such and propose that it should be present in the objects of the agency.
I thank Deputy Farrell for the amendments and I understand the intention. Let me share my thoughts on this on Committee Stage. No doubt it may be something Deputy Farrell wants to return to later in the legislative process. I understand the intention of amendment No. 4 in making specific reference to elements that might seem to need highlighting, and the Deputy has outlined why she believes it is important. In terms of the Bill, it is our view that provision for these elements is already captured under the meaning of the broader terms used and it is not necessary to restate them in the legislation as proposed. "Political, historical and legal" are captured under the broader banners of social and cultural impact.
There is also a risk, and we say this often when dealing with primary legislation, that when we start listing more specific elements it can be read as having an unintended consequence of exclusion. If all of this was put in why did we leave out something that none of us have yet to think about? To suggest that anything not specified here is not covered by the broader provision would potentially be an unintended consequence. As always, this is the risk if we are overly prescriptive in primary legislation. This is why I do not propose to accept amendment No. 4.
With regard to amendment No. 5 we are creating legal capacity with the provision enabling the agency and providing scope for action. Of course community outreach work, particularly in terms of education, is envisaged as being an ongoing aspect of the operation of the agency, as it is of both SFI and the Irish Research Council, IRC. However this capacity is already captured in the functions at section 9(1)(j) and in the objects in this provision as already worded. It is, therefore, not necessary to make a more specific provision in this section of the Bill.
With regard to proposed amendment No. 6, definitions containing lists of the types of research the agency can engage in were included in the published heads of the Bill but they were deemed to be problematic in a number of ways. The lists were capable of being incorrectly interpreted as being exhaustive or excluding elements not specifically mentioned. They were also misinterpreted as being listed in some sort of priority order in terms of giving greater weight to particular ones and this is absolutely not the policy intention. We arrived at the decision in the course of the drafting process to use definitions and descriptions to try to capture the policy intention of parity of esteem. The Bill employs definitions and provisions which are enabling for the agency to support all disciplines, all career stages and all research types. Making provision for all disciplines, all types of research and all career stages means the specifications and potential misinterpretation of the policy position as we had originally envisaged has been eliminated.
In terms of the Bill where there is provision for all types, specifying provision for one or another kind of research is not necessary. These provisions are also about ensuring the agency has the capacity to keep up with innovation and developments in how we do research in the future. Again, they have been carefully considered with this requirement in mind. Both agencies have an impressive track record of supporting all stages of research, including fundamental research. This support will absolutely continue with the new agency. Deputy Farrell is absolutely correct that fundamental and applied research are mutually reinforcing. I fully agree on this. We need to continue supporting both. We believe this is captured in the existing provision.
At a high level as opposed to on the specific amendments, we are trying to do several things. One is absolutely to achieve parity of esteem. I know that we all on a cross-party basis share this view. The greatest creation of parity of esteem is the fact that for the first time we are taking humanities and ensuring they are on a statutory footing in terms of creating this new agency. I am so proud of and impressed by the work the IRC has done but, of course, the IRC does not exist in statute. Effectively it is a suboffice or substructure of the HEA.
That is not to demean its work. It is incredible it has achieved so much without having that statutory function. The second thing we are eager to do is be careful that we do what need to do in primary legislation, but do not overexert ourselves to the point where we could apply rigidity to the new agency or find ourselves with legislation that does not keep up with innovation. That is always the balance and struggle on which we are trying to arrive at a judgment when it comes to legislation. For those reasons I do not propose to accept these amendments at this stage.
To be fair to the Minister and his Department, I think people were happy with the amendments he made over time and that he listened to people. That is important to say from the outset. These are concerns that have been raised with me. I understand what the Minister is saying about being too prescriptive. I understand things could be left out and that is the benefit of having these discussions in committee because this is where you are trying to work it out. In my view, these things are needed. I do not think the Minister is doing this from a negative viewpoint. However, I think they are needed. I am happy to press the amendment to a voice vote so it is registered. My belief is that it is needed and that is why Committee Stage is so incredibly important when we talk about such legislation.
I accept Deputy Farrell's bona fides on this and where she is coming from. In many ways, when we started with the heads of the Bill, which we published and brought to Government, we had a more prescriptive approach to some of this in terms of definitions and the like. By teasing through it - and I credit my officials for this - we ended up acknowledging that what we published was not the final product. We have made amendments between the heads of the Bill and the final piece of legislation. I think we are both coming at this from a good point of view. It is just a question of what you put in and do not put in primary legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, line 14, after “enterprise,” to insert “community,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(g) to advance the principle of parity of esteem between disciplines with regard to opportunities to undertake research and innovation and in the undertaking of that research and innovation;
(h) to recognise the importance and support the mutually reinforcing roles of fundamental and applied research.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed. Amendment No. 9 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 8.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“(e) promote research and innovation which supports economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability and human wellbeing, and to so do in co-operation and collaboration with the bodies to which section 48 applies and such other persons and bodies in the higher education and research system or the research and innovation system as the Agency considers appropriate,”.
I look forward to hear from the Minister on amendments Nos. 7 and 11 in particular. I note the correspondence I received today from the Minister in respect of points I raised on Second Stage. It was a timely response to those issues and I thank him for that. I also note from the Minister's correspondence in response to my asking about the composition of the board that it "will be able to articulate a balanced perspective across all disciplines and across the full spectrum of research, have international and national experience, and have a mix of experienced researchers and individuals with governance experience. There is provision in the Bill for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to nominate a member, and this will maintain and develop the essential links between both Departments and their aegis bodies." I accept that.
In speaking to these amendments, it could be argued, for economic reasons and in particular for the period from 2011 to 2016, that under the research prioritisation exercise the board of SFI had a clear policy focus on job creation and economic output. That was certainly felt by people in the arts, humanities and social sciences. However, that Government had limited choices in respect of needing to focus on job creation. I am again seeking comfort from the Minister. I know he gave a lot of comfort on Second Stage to the arts, humanities and social sciences, and the need to ensure the IRC does not feel like the poor relation. When you are enjoining two cultures, one culture should not feel it is subservient to the other and, by extension, that the arts, humanities and social sciences does not feel as if it is playing second fiddle to economic output. That is ultimately what we are talking about.
Will the Minister provide some comfort for me again on that? That would send a signal to the community. I recognise what the Minister is saying about the need to not be too prescriptive about what you instil or put into primary legislation. However, the historical experience of certain stakeholders within the research community suggests that when it comes to funding they are not equal partners. I again seek reassurance from the Minister and a response on the need to ensure the arts, humanities and social sciences is not left out of the equation.
I thank the Deputy and acknowledge the weight and respect I attach to his contribution as a former Minister of State in this area, and the knowledge and perspective he brings to it. I am conscious of that, and I thank him for the issues he raised on Second Stage, which I tried to address in my correspondence. It got to him, slightly belatedly, today in advance of Committee Stage. Before I speak to this specific amendment I will address the issue of parity of esteem. My starting point for this conversation is that this legislation is, of itself, a Bill that places funding for arts, humanities and social sciences on a statutory basis for the first time. That is what we are fundamentally doing. For the first time we are placing that on a statutory basis. The creation of Taighde Éireann is where the principle of parity of esteem is being realised. The decision to use definitions and descriptions that capture that policy intention of parity of esteem throughout was arrived at in the course of the drafting process. The Bill employs definitions and provisions, which are enabling for the agency to support all disciplines, all career stages and all research types.
I turn to clarity as to where in the Bill there are specific provisions that will place arts, humanities and social sciences on an equal statutory footing for the first time, ensuring parity of esteem, access to research funding and a greater consistency for this research community. That wording has been given careful consideration at every stage of the stakeholder consultation and the drafting process. That policy intention has also been captured throughout the Bill. It is in the definitions section, the objects, the functions and the funding sections. The objects section specifically states it is "to support the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines". That clearly places all disciplines on the same footing. I acknowledge sincerely that the IRC has a worthy history of supporting cultural, historical and heritage studies, viewing blues skies and fundamental AHSS research as a worthy endeavour on its own, which it is. We intend to carry these values into the new agency. The legislation puts arts, humanities and social science funding on a statutory basis for the first time. In making competitive funding awards of varying sizes and across all disciplines, the agency will significantly broaden the access of researchers in these areas to an improved range of research funding programmes.
I have taken particular interest in engaging with the humanities sector on this. I know the sensitivities and I take the Deputy's point about the historical reality it has experienced. There is a balance. Some people on the enterprise stage ask if we are handing this "enterprise" agency over to the academics. There is a healthy tension, but I think we have gotten the balance right. All disciplines are ultimately needed and required to address most of the grand challenges we face.
On the specific proposed amendments, it should be noted that I propose to make an amendment to this section, which is amendment No. 8. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 7 because I think the issues it seeks to address are being addressed by amendment No. 8. I propose the following amendment No. 8 to section 9(1)(j) which is, in page 10, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute them with, "promote the undertaking in the State of research and innovation that is funded (wholly or partly) by an international or European Union body, institution or organisation and, where so funded, to promote the success of such research and innovation,”.
This amendment provides better balance to the provision and better alignment with other sections that deal with international and EU co-operation regarding research and innovation. It captures the intention of the amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Riordáin and Sherlock.
We wanted to accept amendment No. 10. What is being sought in the amendment is definitely very much in keeping with the policy intentions behind the Bill. In going about seeing if we could accept it, we sought legal advice to ensure that the wording would not create any unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the advice is that it might do so. The advice was that the insertion of behind of the amendment. The amendment could be read as restricting the agency and its powers so that the agency may not be permitted to "support the undertaking of research and innovation", in instances where it does not directly or immediately comply with the general definition of being a measurable "public good". This could potentially create an unworkable level of complexity in the provision. I am happy to debate this further or return to it at a later stage.
I will finish briefly because the Chair might want to suspend proceedings. If I can have a moment, I will finish. The role of the agency in contributing to the public good is those set out in broad terms of reference to the objects in section 8. I see the point being made in amendment No. 11 but I cannot accept this amendment. In legal terms, the word "recognition" is a problem because it would imply recognising that a qualification is to be awarded for the research performed. This is the role of QQI and the HEA, not of the new agency. The intention outlined in the proposed amendment can be incorporated into the arrangements around existing provisions, and I think I have addressed the issue of parity of esteem.
I that amendment No. 8 in my name be accepted. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not propose to accept the other amendments in this grouping.
I can go through these amendments very quickly. Does Deputy Farrell want to come back in?
I will want to speak to my amendment.
If that is the case, we will have to suspend.
I am quite happy to come back after the vote in the House.
Okay. We will suspend.
I am sorry. I should have said that amendment No. 10 is in Deputy Farrell's name.
That is okay.
Sitting suspended at 5.52 p.m. and resumed at 5.53 p.m.
We will resume in public session.
Is there a voting block for postponed divisions?
We had better just check to be sure.
Sitting suspended at 5.53 p.m. and resumed at 6.17 p.m.
I note what the Minister said in respect of amendment No. 8. In that context, I am happy to withdraw amendments Nos. 7 and 11. If I understand what he said correctly, the purpose of amendment No. 8 is to seek to draw down as much funding from entities like the ERC, through Horizon and so on. That is laudable. I would have thought that would be obvious anyway, but I think the Minister may be stating an ambition there. In accepting the logic of his amendment and withdrawing amendments Nos. 7 and 11, what I would say is that we cannot talk about accessing funding if the infrastructure that is there at the moment across the HEIs is such that there is downward pressure on funding people - good, excellent researchers - and providing good terms and conditions of employment. Where, for instance, universities or HEIs are operating deficits, it should not have a downward or, for want of a better expression, stultifying effect on people moving from below the bar to above the bar or from attaining professional status in their own institutions. That has an impact on their ability because they are trying to do more work with less people, and it makes the ability to apply for funding all the more limited. For the purposes of getting on with the proceedings quickly, I will formally withdraw amendments Nos. 7 and 11.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 10, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:
“(j) promote the undertaking in the State of research and innovation that is funded (wholly or partly) by an international or European Union body, institution or organisation and, where so funded, to promote the success of such research and innovation,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Apologies if I did not speak to amendment No. 9 earlier.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to make it easier. I assume the Minister is well aware of the intent of these amendments but it is just to give a stronger commitment to supporting internationally funded award success. I note the Minister's own amendment No. 8 and I would like to strengthen that. My view of the support was that given the importance of leveraging EU funds as well as international funds for the ecosystem, it is imperative that the language in the Bill be consistent. That is why I proposed amendment No. 9.
On amendment No. 10, because I know we have spoken on a few amendments there I wanted to get in on this as well. We want to emphasise the public good as a key output of research, which sometimes I feel it can be lacking. I am not suggesting it is lacking by the Department or anything like that but sometimes when we discuss research, the first thing people ask is what the monetary output will be. I had quite an interesting conversation with someone who does drama with children and he said that every time he goes for funding the first thing that he is asked is what the monetary value that comes out of that is. The output is that the children have fun. With regard to research it is really important that the emphasis is on the actual public good rather than necessarily the commercial and enterprise benefit. Obviously all of that is still there and that is why I felt that including "the promotion of the public good" is of benefit and can only add to it. That is my line of thinking on it. I am not suggesting that is not something that is not seen as part of the Bill but it is good to explicitly recognise that as well.
I thank Deputy Farrell for the amendment. My instinct and desire was to accept it because we share the view. The point I referenced earlier and I am happy for us both to reflect on this and tease it through further on Report Stage is the unintended legal consequence the legal drafters expressed with regard to putting a new public good test, for want of a better phrase and that is my word not theirs, in the legislation and their view it could create an unworkable level of complexity. If something was not able to be measured in terms of public good could, it have an accidental intent of limiting the ability to provide funding?
The broader point made by the Deputy is entirely correct. Research, science and innovation must be seen for economic benefit of course but also societal benefit. We have outlined very clearly that in Impact 2030. Also in Horizon Europe in the European research area, there is movement towards research which has societal impact as well as economic impact. It is not a point of policy disagreement; it is just a wording and legal concern the drafters had.
I take that on board. I would still like to press the amendment in terms of a voice vote because-----
The Deputy cannot move amendment No. 9 because it was already discussed with amendment No. 7 and the question of amendment No. 8 has already been agreed.
It that because amendment No. 8 took over from amendment No. 9?
Yes.
I take it that we had the vote on amendment No. 8.
Yes. The Deputy also has amendment No. 10.
That is actually the amendment I was going to put to a voice vote. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No.10:
In page 10, line 29, after “policy” to insert “, the promotion of the public good”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 10, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(2) In the performance of its functions the Agency shall—
(a) accord due recognition and equal respect to research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines in the higher education and research system and the research and innovation system, and
(b) ensure that, taken in the round, funding for research and innovation in accordance with Part 3 is awarded and disbursed on an equitable basis.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10
Amendments Nos. 12, 28, 34, 36, 37, 40 to 44, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 11, line 15, after “applications” to insert “or investigating whether recipients of funding are in compliance with conditions of funding”.
These amendments are broadly related to ensuring clarity of a provision within a section or provide better alignment between provisions within the Bill by referencing or anchoring these more closely. There is no policy change here from what we already proposed in the original Bill. Very briefly, amendment No. 12 is to section 10 and clarifies the definite role of the assessors in the process for appointment of the external assessors with regard to the review process for non-compliance with the funding award in section 42.
Amendment No. 28 is to section 35. Again, it is about ensuring clarity of provision to ensure the provisions for North-South co-operation in section 44 are captured here by inserting a reference to companies which will be needed to cover the existing programme.
Amendment No. 34 is to section 36 and is to delete lines 34 to 36 and to substitute the following, namely, that "An application may be submitted to the Agency on behalf of an applicant by an employee of the applicant or, as may be appropriate, a person who is a registered student (or who intends to register as a student) of the applicant.”. This is just to provide greater clarity on the respective roles in the application process of the principal or lead investigator and the sponsoring institution or body. The amendments in this grouping continue in a similar vein in terms of trying to provide either clarity or better alignment between provisions in the Bill. There is no new policy in this grouping.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11
Amendment No. 13 is in the name of Deputy Mairéad Farrell.
Are we not doing the grouping of amendments Nos. 28, 34, 36, etc.?
Yes, I am sorry, I went on. We are on section 11, amendment No. 13.
Okay, so we are not dealing with amendments Nos. 28, 34, 36, etc.
We took them all as a group there.
Then we vote on them later.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(c) the implementation of any funding schemes for research designed to improve innovation within the public service.”.
This amendment is to try to encourage, as much as possible, public sector research on innovation in the sense of trying to improve and be of benefit to the wider public service. We know this is a crucially important thing that can only be of benefit to the wider public service. In the EU's recent innovation scoreboard, this was highlighted as an area where significant headway needs to be made and that is the reason for this amendment. We want to see as ambitious an approach as possible when it comes to the likes of STEM and AHSS research. With regard to the former, there is a significant job of work that can be done. Obviously as times change and technolgies change, this could really be of benefit be it within our healthcare system, building manufacturing and all that kind of thing. There is also the likes of the public registries such as the CRO and the Land Registry where we could look at modernising those databases. That could be something we could look at so they could be more user-friendly, transparent and freely available. That is the thinking behind that particular amendment.
I thank the Deputy for the amendment. The Civil Service Renewal 2030 strategy does outline the policy intention of creating that culture of innovation within the public service. The planning, implementation and funding of these programmes is a matter in the first instance for the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Section 47 of the Bill does give the new agency capacity to co-operate with other Departments, including that Department, in terms of implementing strategy and policy. This intention is already captured in the current provision for the object of the agency and both section 8(d) and functions at section 9(1)(n).
In addition, the existing section already makes provision for the Minister of the day to give direction to the agency to support the implementation of any policy objective of the Minister or the Government.
Is the amendment being pressed, Deputy Farrell?
I think it can of benefit, so yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, line 25, to delete “time” and substitute “period”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16
There are two amendments to section 16, amendment No. 15 in the name of Deputy Farrell and amendment No. 16 in the name of Deputy Ó Ríordáin. We will go to Deputy Farrell first and then to Deputy Sherlock.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 13, line 19, after “members” to insert “, a majority of whom shall be active researchers from a wide range of disciplines reflecting the principle of parity of esteem, and one of whom shall be chosen from outside the State”.
This amendment, for full clarity of the thousands of people watching from home, on page 13, line 19 after members that we insert "a majority of whom shall be active researchers from a wide range of disciplines reflecting the principle of parity of esteem, and one of whom shall be chosen from outside the State".
We obviously have a lot of opportunity here. That is reflected in the Bill but we have a great opportunity here to make sure that the entire research community is very much represented here. Any new agency needs to reflect the needs, abilities and capacity of the research community that it will back and will fund to deliver on its objectives and national objectives. As a result of that, it is important to make sure that it is as reflective as possible. Also, international peers are something that can add value. Having as many diverse research areas as possible, with different research methods and methodological approaches, is something that would be of benefit. That is the background to that amendment.
On amendment No. 16, I note that the Minister in his correspondence to me specifically references the need to ensure that individuals who are on the board will have governance experience. The current travails of RTÉ makes that all the more important. I welcome that.
The amendment is similar to Deputy Farrell's amendment in that we merely want to ensure that there are people who are experienced in the area of research and innovation and who have been at the coalface of that because they can bring that perspective to any funding decisions that might be made or any proposals that might be considered. That is the first point.
The second point in which I may be pushing out the envelop in respect of my party's amendment is that there is an obligation on Ireland to transpose into law the directive on adequate minimum wages, which relates to specific targets in respect of collective bargaining. I am striking a blow here for trade union rights and ensuring that there is at least on the board members who are cognisant of workers' rights and that we do not exploit in any way researchers or those who are funded, and that they do not find themselves in precarious contracts, that there is some sort of recognition by the board, if it has a mandate to do so, to ensure that nobody is exploited in any way, and that any funding decisions are such that people's rights as workers, given the panoply of law that is there in respect of workers' rights on this island, are respected.
I thank Deputies Farrell and Sherlock.
I might start with Deputy Sherlock's point. It is captured in a later amendment, amendment No. 38, from Deputy Farrell. Briefly, on that broader point, because Deputy Sherlock brought it up, there are two points I would make. First, from a legal point of view, as the Deputy will be aware, the board and the agency are unlikely to be the employer of the researcher. It will be the institution. However, the broader point Deputy Sherlock makes is still valid in terms of how we support our PhD researchers, how we value them and how we value human talent.
We have the independent review into PhD researchers completed now. I published part 1 one of that last year. That was largely, but not exclusively, around the issues of stipend. We are set to get to a stipend rate of €25,000. We have got to €22,000. I hope to finish that piece out in the next budgetary process. A number of parts of the system have now got to €25,000, although not all.
The next report, which I will be publish next month, looks at a range of other issues in terms of how one supports and ensures the development on career pathways for PhD researchers. I want to make that point, considering the Deputy brought it up.
The heads of the Bill in terms of the board and the membership of the board is an important discussion we have probably when we bring any legislation around the establishment of any agency. Being blunt, it comes back to the fact that for the past number of years in Ireland, successive Governments have taken the approach of competency-based boards. For any of those thousands of people watching in, that is not to suggest that people involved in active research do not have competency. What I am suggesting is we have moved away from the representational board model where there is a seat for this interest group and a seat for that stakeholder to more having a set of competencies that we want on a board outlined and then people applying on the basis of those competencies through the PAS process.
The heads of the Bill provided the Department with the capacity to recruit a chairperson and a board in advance of the establishment of the new agency through an open, transparent competency-based public appointments recruitment process. This competition has been run and PAS is in the process of finalising recommendations, with the board to be announced. I intend to put this board in place prior to the establishment of the new agency for obvious transitional reasons.
The recruitment process has been founded in ensuring that the board has the best possible array of competencies, voices, skills and experience. The requirements outlined in the candidate booklet were aligned with the functions of the agency to ensure that the board will be able to articulate a balanced perspective across all disciplines and across the full spectrum of research, have international and national experience, and have a mix of experienced researchers and individuals with solid governance experience. The booklet was detailed in terms of the competency requirements.
The policy intention, which was detailed in the PAS booklet, is that there will be a range of voices on the board to speak for a variety of backgrounds: enterprise, STEM, the humanities and social scientists, researchers of all career stages, future planning and development, with high level expertise in governance for the reason Deputy Sherlock referenced and the proven skills the board will acquire in setting up a new agency.
One must remember the board will also have - this is an important point in this legislation - a research council with top-class researchers for ongoing input as well. There is that research council piece in addition to the board.
I see the board as the board of the company, the board of the agency. Absolutely, I would be very surprised when we fill that if it does not end up with active researchers on it. The PAS booklet is clear in relation to the competencies, but we also have the research council which is an important input as well.
I very much understand the points being made. A wide range and balance of expertise and perspective is absolutely vital but we do not, for example, say, in the HSE governance legislation, that a majority of people on the HSE board should be doctors and nurses because that is not necessarily the competency that a HSE board requires. One needs to have a mix between people who have expertise and skills in the area that the agency is working on and other corporate governance structures and important skills as well.
For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I am happy to withdraw the Labour amendment on the basis of what the Minister has said but seek further clarification on the relationship that will exist between the research council and the board proper. The Minister will have addressed this, possibly on Second Stage and on prelegislative scrutiny stage, and he will forgive me if he is going over old ground on this one. In responding, I ask the Minister to give me a sense of what the dynamic of that will be, whether one is subservient to the other and it is a hierarchical relationship, and what is the feedback loop on that like?
It is a valid point and will set it out in writing for the Deputy. For the benefit of the meeting, the research council is a sub-committee of the board from a legal point of view. It is seen as a group that will consist entirely of top-class researchers and will be able to feed into the board but also put forward proposals such as around the design of programmes.
First, I obviously have amendment No. 38 and I will speak to that when we get to it. That is on a different point.
On my amendment No. 15, I understand the Minister's point that the requirements generally should meet that but it is still no harm to have it written in. That is why the amendment is important to include. I understand where the Minister is coming from on it and that he is saying that, realistically, with the competencies, it will be reflective of that but it would be important to include it.
I do not have much to add other than to say it would be a significant break with tradition in terms of a competency-based board. As I said, we do not state in the HSE legislation a majority of members of the HSE board should be healthcare professionals. We certainly do not say, in relation to RTÉ, a majority of members of the board should be working in television or radio. It would be quite unusual to do that.
What we have tried to do is to get that balance and expertise and it is the word "majority" that would cause a particular challenge from my perspective. Again, I understand what Deputies Farrell and Sherlock are trying to do. It is just a difference of opinion in how best to do it.
I have only just received the correspondence but I am internalising it. Before we move on, I note for the record, from the Minister's correspondence to me, that the policy intention which was detailed in the PAS booklet is that there would be a range of voices on the board to speak for enterprise, STEM, the humanities and social sciences, researchers of all career stages, future planning and development with the high level expertise in governance and proven skills the board would require in setting up the new agency.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 16, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, line 6, after “1997” to insert “as”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23
I move amendment No 18:
In page 18, line 32, after “years,” to insert “drawing upon the relevant research based stakeholders and in line with international best practice, which will be laid before the relevant Oireachtas Committee(s),”.
This is just about how we look at the proposed five-year review. After "years" what we are looking to insert is "drawing upon the relevant research based stakeholders and in line with international best practice, which will be laid before the relevant Oireachtas Committee". The reality is, no matter what we create, the review has to place firstly and it is important then to be able to hear from all the stakeholders and that is why that should be included in it. It would also obviously be in line with international best practice. It is helpful to put in front of the relevant Oireachtas committee because some people might have louder voices. I do not mean that in terms of sway, just that some people contact us and like to have things discussed in that way as well. Therefore, having input from the Oireachtas committee allows the relevant stakeholders to have a very clear voice. I am not suggesting they will not have a clear voice but sometimes it can be helpful that people can come at this level. Oireachtas committees can be very useful in this particular sense. Allowing stakeholders, especially given the fact that it is going to be new, to have the best possible access to input in that review is really important. I am not suggesting this is not the intention but I also know that sometimes these things can unintentionally happen or that people are not included in a review. That is why this would be very important to include and I think the committee can have a strong part in that.
Regarding amendment No. 20, myself and Deputy Clarke are looking at putting in, between the lines of 10 and 11, "the Royal Irish Academy" and "designated institutions of higher education or their representative bodies". Myself and Deputy Clarke feel the Bill would benefit from that inclusion of consultation with different higher education institutions in the preparation of the corporate plan because he agency should be specifically required to engage and consult with higher education research institutions where much of the publicly-funded research activity takes place and most of the national research experience and expertise resides. That is part of the thinking behind this. I would be interested in the Minister's views on that.
I thank the Deputy for the amendments. This is Committee Stage and I will reflect on these amendments and no doubt we will have an opportunity on Report Stage as well to tease them through further. However, I will outline my initial response. Regarding amendment No. 18, the provision we have put into this Bill is based in very similar provisions in comparable legislation. In fact, it is the wording that is in comparable legislation and the requirement is included in section 23(8) that the plan must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is also provision in section 31 relating to the accountability of the chief executive officer to other Oireachtas committees for the committee to request the attendance of the CEO before it to give an account for the administration of the agency. The Deputy will know this. This is in the Bill. The existing provision includes that the agency may "consult with such other persons or bodies as it considers appropriate", which gives scope for consultation with any of the other higher education institution representative bodies research performing organisations which may wish to make representation or have an input in the preparation of the plan. I am of the view that is captured already and the Deputy is of the view it should be spelt out a bit more and that is back to that prescriptive piece again.
Regarding amendment No. 20, again, I am extremely grateful and fond of the work the Royal Irish Academy does and the important role it plays in society. The purpose here again is back to not having an overly prescriptive list for fear that we will have forgotten somebody and therefore the list will be read as exhaustive rather than indicative. For amendment No. 20, the existing provision we have in the legislation is in the interest of ensuring clarity of purpose in connected planning in the research and innovation system as a whole, which is the reason for including the requirement to consult with the bodies that are specified here. Once we go beyond that, my worry is that we could end up leaving others out by accident. I do not propose to accept this but I will reflect further on amendment No. 20 between now and Report Stage.
I thank the Minister. For us, it is very much about having as much of a positive feedback loop in the review process as possible. I have outlined exactly why I feel this would be of benefit so I put that to a voice vote.
I apologise for coming back in again but just for clarity, because I should have said it for the record of the committee, the reason some bodies are specified currently in the Bill and others are not, is that those that are specified are funding bodies. We have kept the specified list to the funding bodies.
Members will forgive my blinding ignorance here, but what is the status of the RIA and how it would be dealt with in this amendment? Could it be inculcated into this Bill technically anyway?
Our understanding is that it will remain under the aegis of the HEA.
Right. Okay.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 19, line 2, after “plan,” to insert “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 19, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(v) the Royal Irish Academy,
(vi) designated institutions of higher education or their representative bodies,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, have been discussed with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 26, to delete lines 34 to 36 and substitute the following:
“(a) immediately before the establishment day, is a member of the staff of the dissolved body and, on that day, becomes a member of the staff of the Agency, or
(b) immediately before the effective date, is a member of the staff of An tÚdarás who is transferring to the Agency and, on that date, becomes a member of the staff of the Agency,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 27, lines 3 and 4, to delete “(within the meaning of section 61)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 27, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:
“(12) In this section—
“effective date” has the meaning it has in section 61;
“superannuation benefit” means a pension, gratuity or other allowance payable on retirement, resignation or death.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 28, line 14, after “Agency” to insert “specified”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No.25:
In page 28, line 15, after “Agency” to insert “specified”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No.26:
In page 28, line 22, to delete “either”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 28, line 25, after “subsection (1)” to insert “that is approved by the Board”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 28, line 29, after “(c)” to insert the following:
“the criteria for eligibility of the institutions, providers, organisations, bodies or companies which may be invited by the Agency under section 36(1) to apply for funding under the scheme and, where appropriate, ”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 28, lines 35 and 36, to delete “person to whom, or a body to which, funding is awarded” and substitute “recipient of funding”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 29, line 26, to delete “organisation or body” and substitute “organisation, body or company”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 29, line 28, to delete “organisations and bodies” and substitute “organisations, bodies and companies”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 29, line 30, to delete “organisation or body” and substitute “organisation, body or company”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 29, line 30, after “subsection (1)” to insert “or any combination of them”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 29, to delete lines 34 to 36 and substitute the following:
“(3) An application may be submitted to the Agency on behalf of an applicant by an employee of the applicant or, as may be appropriate, a person who is a registered student (or who intends to register as a student) of the applicant.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 37
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 30, line 34, to delete “section 36(4)” and substitute “section 36(5)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 30, to delete lines 35 to 38 and substitute the following:
“(c) having regard to—
(i) the objects and functions of the Agency specified in sections 8 and 9 respectively,
(ii) the objectives, outputs and related strategies in the corporate plan of the Agency under section 23, and
(iii) the proposed activities and performance targets related to those activities in the annual plan of the Agency under section 24, consider how, and the extent to which, awards of funding for those applications would achieve an appropriate balance as regards the disbursement by the Agency of moneys at its disposal for the funding of research and innovation.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 31, line 4, after “subsection (5)” to insert the following:
“, together with the matters referred to in subsection (4) to be considered by the Chief Executive Officer in making those recommendations,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 31, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(11) The terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration, of those engaged through funding provided by the Agency must be arrived at through a process of collective bargaining.”.
I thought we might have got another agreed in respect of this amendment.
Really?
I was saying nothing.
We tabled this amendment because we want to stress the importance of collective bargaining. We also think referencing it is necessary in light of the need to transpose the EU's adequate minimum wage directive. As the Minister will be aware, Ireland is obliged to present an action plan to the European Commission as part of its transposition of the directive no later than November next. The directive requires member states with a collective bargaining coverage rate below 80% to provide for a framework of enabling conditions for collective bargaining to be implemented. The action plan is to be prepared in consultation with the social partners and is a standing item on the agenda of the sub-committee on employment rights. Deputy Clarke and I think this amendment is important, particularly in advance of the publication of the action plan. It would show that the Department is actively working on gathering evidence in the context of the preparation of that plan.
I am going to read into the record correspondence I received from the general secretary of the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT. I am sure the Minister will be aware of this correspondence, which is dated 25 January last and which states:
Upon examination of the proposed legislation, it is my concern that the existing draft fails to address the pressing trade union concerns regarding the improvement of terms and conditions of employment for Researchers funded through the new entity established under the legislation. Specifically, I believe that the current draft lacks the necessary ambition to rectify this matter and overlooks the potential of the legislation to address the deficient collective bargaining cover within this sector. It is crucial to note that the upcoming transposition of the EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages into law by November imposes an obligation on the Government to ensure that the proportion of workers represented in collective bargaining increases to 80 percent.
I am aware the Minister has previously addressed this and said it is the funders or the HEIs that must have regard to or responsibility for the terms and conditions for individual workers. That is broadly accepted. The terms and conditions of employment or the conditions under which many of researchers work nowadays are quite precarious and there is enough evidence of that. What we are trying to here, which the Minister will see, is to inculcate within the culture of this new entity a recognition of the need to ensure where the research council, which will comprise what we will call front-line researchers, is concerned that the broader board would have due regard to that situation and seek to ensure it will use its influence to ensure workers' rights are upheld. It is as simple as that.
I will write to IFUT on the basis of Deputy Sherlock's intervention, particularly as this is an important matter and it deserves a response. IFUT deserves the rationale for this legislation and I am very happy to try to address the issues it has raised by way of, from my perspective, clarification. Precarious employment is an issue IFUT raises regularly and I note Deputy Farrell had a briefing session with the federation in the Leinster House complex not that long ago. IFUT is right to highlight that the level of precarious employment in academic is far too high. As we have increased core funding for the higher education sector, it has been able to take on more people. I said that at the federation's conference, to the university presidents at the IUA Council when I met them a few weeks ago and say it everywhere I go because we mean it, we mean it as a Department and we mean it across parties in these Houses. It is a statement of fact that funding enabled the sector last year to create, from memory, about 1,500 permanent posts and somewhere around 1,000 posts. We have said that is not all about just creating new posts, but also about converting people who are on precarious terms and conditions to proper, full-time jobs with better terms and conditions. I recognise IFUT's ongoing campaign on that and the concern expressed by the Deputies opposite about that. The second thing to say to close out the IFUT correspondence relates to the point I made earlier around PhD researchers and the independent review into how we can do better by them. We published the first report. We will publish the second next month, along with a Government response of actions that can be taken.
More broadly, and while I accept the bona fides of what the Deputies are trying to do here, the challenge we have is that the new agency will not be the employer. To make a couple of technical points, there is no similar provision using these terms in other recent legislation which either established or update the provisions for an agency of this kind. Someone can be the first, and it is not a good enough reason in and of itself, but it is true. The terms for staff at the agency are dealt with in section 32. The funding award is somewhere between a recruitment and a procurement process, but it is not fully either. It is somewhere in the middle, which is why we had to create the very specific funding award provisions within the Bill. The agency is not employing anyone by awarding them funding. It is not making the individual terms of employment for all the researchers, including PhD researchers, who will be employed in the course of research undertaken as part of an award. The award goes to a principal investigator via the supporting or sponsoring institution. The team they will require and the costs associated with that are outlined in their application. The agency will not be paying any of these directly. The agency will not be the employer and therefore, and I do not say this provocatively, the amendment is not legally appropriate and so we are not in a position to take it. Again, I am not dismissing the seriousness of the issues both Deputies are raising, but the position of this agency as a funder rather than an employer puts it in a different position.
Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh took the Chair.
Does Deputy Sherlock wish to reply?
I will defer to the proposer.
I am happy for the Deputy to begin if he wishes. We are two Mervue people.
I thank Deputy Farrell. I accept the point the Minister is making, and also his broader point. I am just seeking to understand and clarify that he is saying to us that where the State is funding HEIs there is a clear policy around ensuring progression among postdoctoral students, for instance, can take place. The terms and conditions of postdoctoral students are in the main going to be the subject of the first and second reports. We must ensure there is an understanding by presidents across the system that that State money cannot be used to buttress out or create bigger silos for presidents and a greater number of whole-time equivalents for presidents to buttress their own presidential offices, because we have seen evidence of that in the system. It is absolutely and utterly destroying morale. When universities enter a deficit situation, the people who are most affected are the ones we are trying to advocate for here. They look upwards and they do not see any kind of clawing back of funding around the upper echelons of HEIs. If I am interpreting the Minister correctly, he is very wise to that and is exercising his ministerial prerogative, for want of a better expression, to ensure the money is used widely and we are not creating larger fiefdoms among the upper echelons within the HEIs.
My understanding of what the Minister is saying is that legally he does not think this can be put in.
Yes.
In that case, perhaps this is the kind of thing where we could all look at how we could do this on Report Stage. It is important at every level. I hear what an Teachta Sherlock is saying as well about the feelings among staff and that kind of thing.
On PhD researchers, I am sure the Minister is aware the PWO is having a presentation tomorrow as well and it will be interesting to hear what its members have to say. It is a very important amendment for all of us, but specifically for people working in the area. If the Minister does not think it is possible legally, then I would like to try to get an amendment that can be done legally, through the Minister's legal advice.
Maybe that is something we can work together on for Report Stage.
I am happy to do so in advance of Report Stage.
To do what?
I am happy to write to both Deputies setting out the factual position in terms of the role that Research Ireland will or will not have, which might enable the Deputy to then decide what she wishes to do on Report Stage. As the Deputy will see in the Bill, Research Ireland will have a function to promote research careers at all levels. I think that is a good thing. It will obviously align with European work. It is a research funder and not an employer. I am saying this to be helpful in terms of the conversations the Deputy may wish to have in advance of Report Stage. It will set standards for the projects it funds. We want Research Ireland to be the gold standard.
Precarity is not in any way exclusively a research issue. It can exist anywhere there is fixed-term funding involved. I wish to make the following point to Deputies. I am very clear, and the Government is very clear, that as we increase funding for more staff in HEIs we have a right to attach to that an understanding that precarity is being addressed. I would very happily set out that as well in my letter to the Deputy and, indeed, to IFUT.
I will withdraw my amendment. I will consider resubmitting it on Report Stage and trying to work it out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 32, line 16, after “of” where it secondly occurs, to insert “, or any other internal development or factor impacting on,” after "results of".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 34, line 13, after “section 42” to insert “as respects the recipient of funding”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 34, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(2) Where the Chief Executive Officer proposes to make a determination under any paragraph of subsection (1), he or she shall, by notice in writing to the recipient of funding concerned, inform that recipient of funding that he or she proposes to make the determination and shall state the reasons therefor in the notice.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall state that the recipient of funding concerned may make representations to the Chief Executive Officer in relation to the reasons specified therein for the making of the determination not later than 14 days after the service of the notice on the recipient of funding.
(4) The Chief Executive Officer shall consider the representations (if any) made to him or her in accordance with subsection (3) and if he or she decides for the reasons stated in the notice under subsection (2) or otherwise to make the determination concerned with regard to the funding awarded to the recipient of funding concerned, he or she may proceed to make that determination.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 34, line 41, after “made” to insert the following: “(which date shall not be a date earlier than the end of the prescribed period within which an appeal may be brought under subsection (8))”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 35, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(8) Where a determination is made by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection (1) (d), the recipient of funding concerned may appeal against that determination within the prescribed period after the service of the notice on that recipient of funding under subsection (5).
(9) The bringing of an appeal under subsection (8) by a recipient of funding against a determination of the Chief Executive Officer under subsection (1)(d) shall not have the effect of staying the operation of the determination until the appeal is determined or discontinued.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(9) In a case to which subsection (8) applies, the Chief Executive Officer shall inform An tÚdarás if the recipient of funding concerned appeals against the determination of the Chief Executive Officer under subsection (1)(d) and shall provide particulars of that appeal and its determination or discontinuance, as the case may be, to An tÚdarás.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 43, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“Appeals board
44. (1) The Minister shall, within 28 days or such other period as may be prescribed after the receipt of a notice of appeal under section 43(8), establish an appeals board (in this Act referred to as an “appeals board”) comprised of 3 members, one of whom shall be its chairperson along with 2 ordinary members, for the purposes of determining the appeal.
(2) Subject to subsection (9), the Minister shall appoint—
(a) two persons having a special interest in or expertise in, or knowledge of, matters relating to research and innovation or the functions of Taighde Éireann (other than members of the Board or members of the staff of Taighde Éireann or officers of the Minister), and
(b) one person who is a practising solicitor, or a practising barrister, having not less than 10 years’ experience as such (other than a solicitor or barrister in the full-time service of the State),
as the members of an appeals board.
(3) The Minister shall appoint a chairperson of an appeals board from among the members of the appeals board.
(4) A member of an appeals board is entitled to be paid such fees and allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, determines.
(5) The Minister shall furnish such support of an administrative nature to an appeals board as the Minister in his or her opinion determines necessary to enable the board to perform its functions.
(6) A member of an appeals board may at any time resign as such a member by giving notice in writing to the Minister of his or her resignation.
(7) A resignation under subsection (6) shall take effect on the day on which the Minister receives the notice.
(8) The Minister may at any time remove a member of an appeals board if, in the opinion of the Minister—
(a) the member has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his or her functions,
(b) the member has committed stated misbehaviour, or
(c) the removal of the member appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance by the appeals board of its functions.
(9) A person shall not be appointed to be a member of an appeals board, and he or she shall cease to be a member of an appeals board, if he or she—
(a) is adjudicated bankrupt and such bankruptcy has not been annulled or discharged,
(b) makes a composition or arrangement with creditors,
(c) is sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction to a term of imprisonment,
(d) is convicted of any indictable offence in relation to a company,
(e) is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or
(f) is, or is deemed to be, the subject of an order under section 160 of the Companies Act 1990 or a disqualification order within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 14 of the Companies Act 2014.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“Determination of appeal by appeals board
45. (1) An appeal—
(a) shall be lodged with the Minister within the time, and in accordance with the procedures, prescribed under section 46, and
(b) shall state the grounds for the appeal.
(2) Subject to this Act and any regulations under section 46, the chairperson of an appeals board shall regulate the procedures of the board.
(3) An appeals board may refuse to determine an appeal where, in the opinion of the appeals board, the appeal lodged is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious.
(4) An appeals board may require any person to provide information which it may reasonably require for the purposes of conducting and determining an appeal.
(5) A decision by a majority of the members of an appeals board shall suffice for any purpose.
(6) In determining an appeal, an appeals board may—
(a) affirm the determination of the Chief Executive Officer, or
(b) where it is satisfied that a serious or significant error or a series of errors was made in making the determination the subject of the appeal or that the determination was made without complying with fair procedures, quash the determination and remit it, for stated reasons, to the Chief Executive Officer.
(7) An appeals board shall communicate its determination under subsection (6), including in the case of a determination under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the reasons therefor, to the recipient of funding who brought the appeal concerned and the Chief Executive Officer as soon as practicable after it is made.
(8) In the case of a determination under subsection (6)(b), the Chief Executive Officer shall reconsider his or her determination.
(9) An appeals board shall be independent in the performance of its functions.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
“Appeal procedures
46. (1) As soon as practicable after the establishment day and following consultation with Taighde Éireann, the Minister shall prescribe procedures for the conduct and determination of appeals under section 43(8).
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may provide for all or any of the following:
(a) the form and manner to be used for bringing an appeal under section 43(8);
(b) the time within which an appeal shall be brought after the date of the determination of the Chief Executive Officer that is being appealed;
(c) the fees (if any) to accompany a notice of appeal and the circumstances in which such fees may be refunded, in whole or in part;
(d) the period within which the Minister shall establish an appeals board after the receipt of a notice of appeal;
(e) the information and documents which shall be provided to the appeals board and the manner in which they shall be so provided;
(f) the procedures to be followed regarding the making of submissions to an appeals board and their form;
(g) the time within which an appeal shall be determined.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 44 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 48
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 37, line 9, after “functions,” to insert “and only to the extent that these collaborations further support and fund competitive research and innovation,”.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. It seeks to ensure that any collaborations with other bodies are linked to the objectives and to make sure that there is no dilution of the mission.
It is anticipated that the proposed change could be unnecessarily limiting. The agency may wish to co-operate with another body on outreach work or community engagement, which is enabled under the current provision in the Bill but which is not covered by the text of the proposed amendment. The provision is already limited to the proper performance of the objects and functions of the agency. The agency can only operate with the performance of the objects and functions. The sense of the proposed amendment of ensuring that co-operation is aligned with policy and strategy intentions, and the remit of the agency, I believe, is already captured within that existing provision.
We have different views on that, so I will press my amendment to a voice vote.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 48 agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 39, line 35, to delete “shared” and substitute “furnished”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
SECTION 52
Amendments Nos. 50 to 59, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 41, line 1, to delete “Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004” and substitute “Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2022”.
Members will be relieved to hear that these amendments are all correcting Acts of citation. So the amendments relate to the list of Acts cited at sections 52 and 61 that need to be updated in terms of the years references, which have been superseded by developments in the Statute Book. These only became clear after publication when more extensive technical checking of the provisions were undertaken. There is no change to the wording here. These amendments simply bring these sections up to date. A number of minor technical amendments are proposed to sections 52 and 61, as I have said, to bring these citations up to date, as required.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 41, line 5, to delete “Parental Leave Acts 1998 to 2019” and substitute “Parental Leave Acts 1998 to 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 41, line 6, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 41, line 7, to delete “Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016.” and substitute “Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 41, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(m) the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 53 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 61
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 43, line 38, to delete “Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004” and substitute “Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2022”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 44, line 4, to delete “Parental Leave Acts 1998 to 2019” and substitute “Parental Leave Acts 1998 to 2023”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 44, line 5, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 44, line 6, to delete “Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016.” and substitute “Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 44, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “(m) the Parent’s Leave and Benefit Act 2019.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 66
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 45, line 5, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 45, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(ii) in paragraph (h), by the substitution of “Taighde Éireann” for “Science Foundation Ireland”, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 45, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
Section 67 agreed to.
SECTION 68
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 46, line 7, after “person” to insert “or body”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 68, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 69 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 5, lines 12 and 13, to delete “Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) Act 2003 and” and substitute “Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) Act 2003,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
I am duty bound to flag that on Report Stage I may bring forward a minor technical issue which we need to resolve in terms of the transfer of functions order, which is being progressed in parallel with this Bill.
It is duly noted. Pursuant to Standing Order 187(3), the clerk to the committee will report specially to the Dáil that the committee has amended the Title. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Bill reported with amendments.