Amendments Nos. 1, 10, 12, 17, 22, 25, 27, 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together. Deputy Boyd Barrett has seven minutes.
Research and Innovation Bill 2024: Report and Final Stages
Is that for the whole group?
Yes, the whole group.
Okay. I am moving these series of amendments-----
The Deputy is moving the first amendment only, but we will speak to all the amendments.
I have seven minutes to speak to all of those amendments.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“ “researchers’ representative group” means—
(a) a trade union which is the holder of a negotiation licence under Part II of the Trade Union Act 1941, or
(b) any independent and self-governing body, recognised by a higher education provider, research body or by the Minister, that is established for the purpose of promoting the general interests of postgraduate researchers, and of representing such postgraduate researchers, both individually and collectively, in respect of their well-being and academic, disciplinary and other matters arising within, and outside of that institution;
“postgraduate researcher” shall include doctoral students and other early-career researchers employed in institutions of higher education and research, in accordance with the Salzburg Principles;”.
Seven minutes is not very long to speak to multiple amendments. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that we have proper representation of postgraduate researchers and that those researchers, as proposed in amendment No. 1, will be defined in line with the Salzburg principles. As I am sure the Minister knows, the Salzburg principles are a series of principles that were put together by the European University Association, of which all the Irish universities are members. For example, principle iv states, "Doctoral candidates as early stage researchers: should be recognized as professionals – with commensurate rights – who make a key contribution to the creation of new knowledge."
The critical point is the Postgraduate Workers Organisation, which represents postgraduate workers, as the Minister knows, have been campaigning for some time to be recognised as workers because that is what they are. Many of them live in poverty, frankly, while they do important research creating "new knowledge", to use that phrase, which is vital knowledge for our society, economy and culture, and for science, the humanities and so on. These are workers who have lives, often have kids, and have relationships and rents to pay. Very few of them can afford a mortgage because they are on such pitiful incomes. They point out that even though the stipends for those who are funded by the Irish Research Council and Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, have been increased slightly, it is not as high as originally recommended and is far below best practice in most of the rest of Europe in terms of incomes. It is far below a living income and much less than postgraduate workers and researchers get from best practice in Europe, where people can be paid up to €40,000 or €50,000. People get €22,000 here but, let us not forget, that applies to only 30% of postgraduate researchers. Some 70% are often on much less than that and are living in poverty.
Postgraduate workers need to be treated as workers, they need to be given a living wage, and they need to have proper conditions of employment. Their representative groups and organisations, as outlined in amendment No. 1, need to be recognised and subsequently, as referenced in some of the other amendments, represented on the board. They also need to be consulted when the corporate plan of the new agency is being put together. That is what is proposed in the amendments I tabled. When the annual plan of the agency is being put together, they, and not just the bodies prescribed in the Bill so far, need to be consulted. In addition, amendment No. 30 outlines that if other bodies, companies or agencies are looking to get funding from the new research agency, it has to be taken into account in deciding whether such funding is forthcoming from the agency, that "The Agency will give due regard to employment conditions for researchers at any applicant body when considering their application" and "The Agency will take measures to ensure that individuals carrying out research funded by the Agency are in receipt of any attendant employee rights, in line with the Salzburg Principles.”
The intent of the amendments is very clear. The Minister will understand they are about recognising researchers as workers, their rights to have decent conditions of employment and proper representation, and to be consulted in the development of the plans, trajectory and so on of the agency. That is the very least they deserve. We often hear members of the Government talking about the importance of research and innovation but when we look at the reality, researchers are living in poverty, are in precarious employment, and are not treated as employees. It is a very difficult, precarious and, in many cases, unattractive option for people, when you consider the poverty so many researchers are living in. These amendments are very reasonable in that context.
Much of the guidance for the amendments I tabled in this regard comes from the document recently produced by the Postgraduate Workers Organisation, where comparisons are given between postgraduate workers here and in the rest of Europe. These show we are far inferior in our treatment of postgraduate workers compared with most places across Europe. The document also cites the Salzburg principles I mentioned, which came from the Bologna process, and the European Charter for Researchers and the code of conduct for the recruitment for researchers, which clearly indicate the imperative - I do not have time to quote it - to ensure that we give decent conditions of employment, social security rights, pension rights and so on, to our researchers so that it is an attractive, secure, sustainable environment for people to work in our universities and higher education institutions as researchers. That is not the case at present. If these amendments are included as part of the mandate of the new research body, we would be taking a huge step forward for research and innovation, and for giving decent employment rights, incomes and conditions to our postgraduate researchers.
I thank the Deputy for tabling the amendments. A number of the issues he raised are ones I genuinely view as extremely important. I will very shortly publish the final report of the independent external review on researchers, supports, career structures and other issues. I intend to do that this month.
The Deputy will remember that we published phase 1 just before the budget and we will be publishing phase 2 in this month of March. I am very happy to commit on the floor of the Dáil to recommending to Government that we find space then to debate that report and a number of the important issues the Deputy raised around terms and conditions, supports and career structures for PhD researchers. I want to say that by way of introduction to my comments. It is not that I do not take seriously the issues the Deputy raised but, obviously, I have to look at the context of the legislation that is before the House. This legislation is to establish the funding agency. The funding agency will not be the employer, in many ways. It will award competitive funding, but there will be other institutions involved. For many of those reasons, therefore, I respectfully suggest that some of the amendments and some of the points the Deputy raised do not fit here. Let me make a few points first, however.
As Deputy Boyd Barrett knows, the quality of Irish PhD provision is underpinned by Ireland's national framework for doctorate education, which is in and of itself underpinned by international policies, including the Salzburg principles. I want to say that first. This framework has been agreed in co-operation between our Higher Education Authority, the Technological Higher Education Association, the Irish Universities Association and Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI. I am very pleased that as part of its wider proactive engagement on the European research area, Ireland participated actively in the development of the council recommendation that was published in December on research, talent and careers. The recommendation includes a new charter for researchers, replacing the previous charter and code. At a European level, that was important progress. The Bologna Process is an intergovernmental process of voluntary higher education policy convergence, and the Salzburg principles are basic principles that underline further considerations on the key role of doctoral programmes and the training of scientific personnel within the framework of the Bologna Process. One of these principles is that doctoral education must be developed by autonomous and accountable institutions and that institutions need flexible regulations to create special structures and instruments to continue advancing European doctoral education. These recommendations are, of course, a set of guidelines and the Irish legislation that mentions the Bologna Process is in terms of the recognition of European qualifications.
I will address this grouping of amendments. With regard to proposed amendment No. 31, the provision for staff of the agency is dealt with elsewhere. This amendment is, therefore, respectfully, out of context in my view with regard to the provision here. HR policy in respect of researchers was formalised through the researcher career development and employment framework, RCDEF. The RCDEF addresses the terms and conditions and the need for a defined career path for researchers that applies across the research ecosystem. The RCDEF has significant benefits for researchers, including a clear and uniform salary structure and salary policy, which includes incremental progression and general round increases, open and transparent recruitment, clarity around career progression and professional career development, and clear exit provisions. The collective bargaining function on behalf of researchers is a matter for the representative bodies and their institutions or research performing organisations. It is not within the remit of the new agency. We can only put things in this legislation that will fall within the remit of the new agency. My Department has agreed to meet with representatives from the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT, and other relevant unions to discuss issues pertaining to researchers. Deputy Boyd Barrett may also have groups he wishes me and my Department to meet in that context. We are committed to implementing Impact 2030: Ireland's Research and Innovation Strategy. A dedicated talent pillar highlights the crucial importance of people and talent to the Irish research and innovation ecosystem. It commits to ensuring that researchers will be supported with the right skills development and career opportunities so they can make a maximum contribution to research and innovation efforts. My Department is working on this, but again, the collective bargaining aspect is not within the remit of the new agency. I am fully aware of the EU minimum wage directive and the requirement that sectoral and cross-industry level collective bargaining needs to be promoted and strengthened. Again, however, this is not something that falls within the remit of this agency and, therefore, it does not belong within the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 12 relates to another aspect of the work of my Department that is not directly connected to the provisions of Bill. My Department published the National Review of State Supports for PhD Researchers: First Report last summer, which I referenced and which, at my request, focused on the issue of stipend levels. It recommended an increase towards a level of €25,000. We did take the first step towards that with €22,000. I accept that the Deputy said it is not enough. I also want to be very clear that it is not the final word on the matter. I intend to get it to €25,000. I note that a number of agencies and schools have now moved to €25,000. A university in Dublin has moved to the €25,000, as have a school and another university. I believe some State agencies have now also moved to that. That 30% figure may be a little out of date now because a number actually did move beyond €22,000 to €25,000. I intend to continue to work to get us to €25,000.
I am also very conscious, though, that it is not the only issue people raise. They raise a number of other issues, such as maternity leave, paternity leave, career structures and a whole range of matters. I look forward to publishing phase 2 or report 2 of that independent review this month. I am very happy to have a debate either at the Oireachtas committee or in the Dáil in that regard. As I said, I secured funding in the previous budget to increase the stipends awarded to researchers that are funded under my remit, from €19,000 to €22,000 per annum, which is a 15.8% increase, building on the additional funding I secured in the budget before that. My officials and I continue to engage with the budget process to continue progress on these issues.
As I said, the co-chairs' final report will be published this month. It includes consideration of people's PhD status, on which Deputy Boyd Barrett has a view and campaigns for as well. As with all elements of their work, they are taking into account the perspective of 35 stakeholder organisations. I do not think anybody the Deputy will come across who has engaged with this process can say it has been anything other than consultative and inclusive. The co-chairs have objectively found the process to be inclusive, and I got that feedback from people who do not even agree with my political views on the world. I hope that is the case. These issues are not appropriate to the work of the agency or legislation in this case, however.
The heads of the Bill provide the Department with the capacity to recruit a chair of the board in advance of the establishment the new agency through an open and transparent competency-based public appointment service. We are looking for a competency-based board and a transparent recruitment process rather than a representative board. I have discussed this at quite a bit of length with Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Sherlock on Committee Stage. Therefore, we do not have a ring-fenced seat or sectoral interest for this representative body. Instead, we are trying to recruit a competency-based board which will, of course, include people with practical research experience. Therefore, amendment No. 25 is not appropriate here. I have also run the competition for the new board, and the Public Appointments Service, PAS, is in the process of finalising recommendations. In short, I am not in a position to accept these amendments for the reasons I have outlined, but I am very happy to engage further.
First of all, in terms of not having a representative board, I would like to point out that the European Research Council has a different approach. Researchers and scientists from all disciplines are in the driving seat. The people whom the Minister described as having competency are told what to do by the researchers and scientists. That is the way it should be, in my opinion. I disagree with the Minister on that. A research council should be driven by people who work in research and who have expertise in the different disciplines of arts, science or whatever it might all be about in the first place. I respectfully disagree with the Minister on that. They should be a majority, as our amendments are proposing, and they should be consulted on developing plans and so on. I will, in the very short time I have, quote one of the amendments I put forward. Amendment No. 10 proposes to "support the development and maintenance of high standards of working conditions across the research sector in Ireland in cooperation with relevant bodies, including trade unions and other representative organisations”. I do not see why that is not appropriate in this Bill. That is hardwiring into the approach of the agency that it is there to promote good working conditions and standards of employment for people, which is in line with what the European Commission and all the universities associations that were involved in producing the Salzburg principles recommended. Therefore, why is it not appropriate? To my mind, it is absolutely appropriate. In fact, it is imperative that a research council is there to promote, support and protect the interests of the researchers who actually do the research.
To be very clear, and again we teased through this on Committee Stage, which the transcripts will show, it is absolutely the intention that there will be researcher input into the work of the new agency. That is beyond question. There are structures within the legislation, including what would effectively operate as a subcommittee of the board, which will be overwhelmingly dominated by people who are actively involved in research. There is no doubt about that. However, the HSE board is not a board made up of doctors and nurses because they work in the health service. It is made up of people who can look after the entire governance of significant levels of State investment. I fully accept we have a difference of opinion on this. However, we do have competency-based boards in Ireland that we have advertised through the public appointments process. We have done that. The booklet, which is there for all to see, will have very clearly outlined the range of criteria we are looking for on that board and those criteria will, of course, include people with practical research experience.
It is about trying to get a balanced board that covers a whole range of competencies that would be required to run a major new State agency. However, the legislation absolutely provides for the establishment of councils which offers another avenue for researchers to be able to input into this. There will be more opportunities than ever before for the research community to feed in. I can assure the Deputy of that. We get this idea any time legislation is brought forward - and it is a valid area of debate - that X organisation, group or profession should have Y number of seats on a board. In general, the approach taken in the past several years in Ireland has been that we are not overly prescriptive in allocating seats. It is more that we set out the criteria that is needed on a board, advertise it publicly, put it through a public appointment service, which is an independent process, and the names come back from Government on that.
On the broader issues that have been raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett, I say very clearly for the record, it is not in any way to dismiss their importance. It is simply a question of the right vehicle for the agency that is being established, as distinct from other policy matters for Government around PhD stipends and the likes.
I will be coming back to Deputy Boyd Barrett as the proposer. He still has two minutes left.
The Minister has spoken about the composition of the board and that is what the amendment is about here. We had some deliberations about the rights of researchers. I was satisfied on Committee Stage with the Minister's response on that point. I would have liked it to have been a bit stronger, if I may, but we had amendments to that effect. However, there was always a long-standing protocol whereby the board would be comprised of people of international standing. I am hopeful the Minister will give us some comfort that the board will not be inward-looking, that it would be comprised of people who are not from this island, and that we have principal investigators, researchers and scientists of international standing if that is possible. That has always being the hallmark of SFI and if it continues in that vein, allows the board to retain its international status. There are some worries about this. The Minister will be aware of the William C. Harris article in The Irish Times in the past few days in which there is a concern being expressed that the loss of the Science Foundation Ireland name could give rise to a loss of reputation. That is how it is being perceived in some circles. I do not necessarily share the same concerns but if a message is sent out from the Minister directly to all of the stakeholders that it is the intention of the Minister and the Department to ensure that there are people of international standing represented on the board, this will give a lot of confidence to those people who have contacted me. Very reasonable people who themselves are scientists of international repute have contacted me expressing their concerns. Will the Minister address the point in the Harris article and also the point in respect of the need to have people of international standing with stellar careers behind them and ahead of them also represented on the board?
In this procedure, the Minister is allowed in twice, just as Deputies are allowed in twice. Perhaps the Minister can address the issue that is being raised further on when he is addressing an amendment. Deputy Sherlock came late into the procedure.
The European Research Council has it right and the Government has it wrong, to put it simply. In driving the sort of research agency we want, it should not be about technocrats, for want of a better word. I just do not think it should be. The technocrats should be subservient to the people who have experience, knowledge and are engaged in the research, in whatever field it may be, the arts, humanities, science or whatever. Indeed, I worry when we get in technocrats, and we will be dealing with something else later about how we specify that the one person who has to be on the board is somebody connected to enterprise. There is no mention of arts, science, humanities, but there has to be someone from enterprise, from business. This worries me. I want to see a diversity and a cross-section of people engaged in the different disciplines as a dominant and majority force on the research council.
The people who do the research and create the knowledge are the researchers. That is who does it. Everything else is meaningless without them. Our problem is that they are treated pretty badly. They are living in poverty and below the living wage. Even with the increases the Minister has given, they are still on less than the living wage of €32,000 and on far less than some of our counterparts across Europe. The need to create good pay, conditions, environment, employment rights and so on is critical to the success of our research agency. It is not an add-on to something else. It should be hardwired into the research agency.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 74; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Duncan Smith; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
We will move forward. Amendment No. 2, which is in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett, arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, 9 and 11 are related and will be discussed together.
An féidir leis na Teachtaí leanúint ar aghaidh leis an gcomhrá taobh amuigh den Dáil?
Stop the chatter.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(b) to offer researchers sustainable career development systems at all career stages and to endeavour to ensure that researchers are treated as professionals and as an integral part of the institutions in which they work, in line with the objectives of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers;”.
These amendments are related to the earlier discussion but in a way they are the most substantial ones. Dealing with amendments Nos. 2 and 3 that I have put forward, they are seeking to include, as an objective of the agency:
to offer researchers sustainable career development systems at all career stages and to endeavour to ensure that researchers are treated as professionals and as an integral part of the institutions in which they work, in line with the objectives of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers
Second, a similar objective would be "to ensure the provision of adequate funding for the development of high quality doctoral programmes, in line with the Salzburg Principles".
I will talk to those two. I am using, very deliberately, wording taken from the European Commission's recommendations that I have referenced. They are very clear about the sort of conditions that researchers should enjoy, if we are going to have best practice in developing research and innovation. It is worth quoting some of the things they say. They say that "Member States [should] endeavour to ensure that researchers enjoy adequate social security coverage... portability of pension rights" and a guarantee of social security rights in order to maintain and advance the "attractiveness of a career" in research. I could quote more but it elaborates on this in great detail, and in my amendments, I have directly used the wording of the European Commission's recommendations regarding how we are supposed to support our researchers.
To my mind, that is precisely what one of the key objectives for a research agency should be. The rationale is self-evident even from the wording that is used by the Commission. If being a researcher is not an attractive option, people will not do it. They will not do it, and it will impact negatively on research and innovation. That is the story, as I am sure the Minister has heard from the testimonies of people who are postgraduate researchers. Many of them are on the brink of just giving it up because it is impossible. They are doing work but they are not being treated as workers. They are not given those rights to holiday pay, sick pay, parental leave and all the right pension entitlements and so on that they should get when they are workers. One of the things I think they are discussing - and if they are not, they should be discussing it - is whether they are, in fact, de facto employees in law because of what they do. I think they probably have a good case - if they took it to the WRC or the Labour Court - that they should be categorised, legally speaking, as employees for what they do. However, they are not treated in that way, and they have this very precarious existence.
The point I am making, echoing what the European Commission is saying, is this is not the way to encourage research. We should be about guaranteeing and ensuring the best possible standards of employment and social security rights, and generally making research an attractive option from an income point of view, from an employment security point of view and so on. That is the logic, and I think it is entirely appropriate that they should be included as objects of the new research agency.
In this grouping I also have amendments proposing that an additional object of the agency should be to promote the independence and flexibility of early-career researchers and to preserve and support the independence of academic and research institutions. In that regard, one of the amendments deletes the reference to strengthening the relationship with the Government and Ministers because I believe that research should be independent. It should not be linked to the political priorities of any particular government or to commercial or industrial interests that may want to influence a government about what it should invest in regarding research. It should be driven by the science or the discipline itself. In other words, it should be in the best interests of science, society and humanity, rather than the political interests of a government or commercial interests. That is the logic of these amendments. I think the Minister should accept them. I think they are in line with what the postgraduate workers' representative organisations have asked for. They are in line with what European institutions are saying should happen. It is about how we can best advance and support research. I do not really see any reason the Minister would not accept these amendments.
I just want to confirm that we are speaking on amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive.
In addition to amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, you are also speaking on amendments Nos. 9 and 11.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. On amendment No. 6, I have listened carefully to Deputy Boyd Barrett. I am about to do an unusual thing and ask the proposer of the amendment if he is suggesting that preserving and supporting the independence of academic and research institutions is now to be a matter for Taighde Éireann? In law, will that be its remit? If that is the case, what is the role of, for instance, the National University of Ireland, NUI? Does that become subservient in terms of the remit of any academic institution, which I would have thought would be self-evident anyway? It is well established that the preservation and support of the independence of any academic institution or research institution is a matter of form. It is in existence already. Are we seeking to supplant one with the other? Does Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, now supersede, for example, NUI? I may be accused of being slightly pedantic on this but we are legislating. I want to be careful about what is it that we might or might not support by way of amendment.
In relation to amendment No. 7, I am at pains to understand why Enterprise Ireland would be deleted and not-----
Amendment No. 7 is not part of the group.
I will speak to that later. That is the question I have.
The Minister will answer for me.
I certainly would not answer for the Deputy. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle suggested, I want to return very briefly to the point Deputy Sherlock made in the last grouping which also brings us very much into this grouping. I want be very clear that the advertisements in the booklet regarding appointments to the board of Research and Innovation Ireland gave the closing date as 3 p.m. on Monday, 23 October 2023. This outlined very clearly the competencies we were seeking for the new board. Very specifically, the last two bullet points talked about people who had experience in developing research and innovation collaborations and partnerships at national and international scale. It also talked about experience and ensuring research integrity and research ethics to the highest international standards. I can assure the Deputy that it was very much outward-looking and international. Deputy Sherlock proposed an amendment on Committee Stage that was perhaps superseded by an amendment I brought forward, which further underpins the importance of international partnerships.
On Deputy Boyd Barrett's point, I would respectfully say to anyone watching this debate that there is a very clear emphasis in those criteria seeking researchers with research experience on the board as a competency. I say that in passing but in the hope of being helpful.
In many ways, Deputy Sherlock has made a point that I was going to make at greater length. We need to be very careful to protect academic freedom and the autonomous nature of institutions. We are setting up a State agency, an agency of the Government, to dispense funding. That is not unimportant. It is important and we need this new research agency. However, we are not in any way having that agency supersede the role of the HEA, for example, as Deputy Boyd Barrett would want us to do. Crucially, it will; not supersede the autonomous role of individual higher education institutions, or their academic freedoms and autonomy. I am not suggesting that is what the Deputy wants to do, but much of what he is suggesting is not unimportant. It is just a question of what falls within the remit of this agency, what falls within the remit of the HEA and what falls within the remit of individual institutions.
There is a specific function of the new agency that talks about supporting the development and maintenance of a national system of research and innovation. It talks about promoting research and innovation. In the objects of the agency there are clear references to supporting researchers and supporting the undertaking of research of all different disciplines by researchers with different levels of knowledge. There are clear outlines of the importance of protecting and promoting our researchers, in both the objects and the functions of the agency, but within the constraints of what it can do. As the Deputy rightly acknowledged, we dealt with a number of the amendments in this group in our back-and-forth on the previous group.
Deputy Boyd Barrett has proposed a number of amendments here along similar themes to perhaps the previous grouping. Again, I want to make the point that we need to be clear about the role of the agency and the matters that are proper either to other agencies or to the higher education institutions themselves, especially in protecting academic freedom.
Regarding amendment No. 3, for example, funding is a matter determined by the Government and by the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. The HEA and QQI are the agencies with responsibility for the accreditation and design of PhD programmes and awards and qualifications. While Deputy Boyd Barrett may have a very clear view in relation to funding levels and programmes, we are clear in the law as to where the funding responsibility comes from in terms of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and the Oireachtas, and the role of the HEA and QQI in terms of accreditation and design. I very much understand the intention, particularly of amendment No. 3, but these are matters that would not be within the remit of the new agency. Therefore, I do not believe the provisions are appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.
In line with the Universities Act 1997, third level institutions have autonomy in relation to human resource policies, subject to compliance with Government policy in respect of employment numbers and pay policy. They require operational freedom and flexibility if they are to deliver on their mission. The higher education institutions are, and must be, committed to providing stable and fulfilling employment and career opportunities. The significant majority - approximately 83% - of university employment is through full-time and permanent contracts of employment. However, I am concerned about the issue when it comes to academic precarity. My Department has been leading a number of initiatives to address these issues. I undertook further engagement on foot of Committee Stage with the Irish Federation of University Teachers, IFUT, regarding its recent report about precarious employment in the third level sector. There has been extensive engagement with institutes of higher education, staff representative bodies and other stakeholders on issues of concern, such as low pay and short-term contracts. As we increase core funding and the number of staff that institutions can employ, it is not acceptable to me if there is not a direct benefit in terms of a reduction and ultimately an elimination of precarious employment. It is clearly important that we understand the scale of the issue. Work has been done with the HEA in this regard. Significant additional funding has been put into higher education in the last two budgets, including some €100 million to the Funding the Future policy framework. This gave an uplift of 1,500 core-funded posts under the current employment control framework. This will assist higher education institutions in recruiting more permanent staff and reducing precarious employment.
At the same time, we need to be clear that different factors can give rise to non-permanent staffing arrangements. Sometimes there can be sound reasons a position may not be filled on a permanent basis. As I said earlier, HR policy in respect of researchers was formalised through the research and career development and employment framework, RCDEF, which addressed the core issues of disparate and potentially unequal terms and conditions and a lack of defined career pathways for researchers that applied across the ecosystem. It has delivered significant benefits for researchers, including a clear and uniform salary structure and salary policy. I am committed to doing much more to improve the financial supports available to PhD researchers, to building on the progress we made in this budget, to going further in the next one and, crucially, to publishing the co-chair's final report this month, which gives consideration to a range of issues to do with PhD researchers, including their status.
This has taken into account, as I said earlier, the perspectives of 35 stakeholder organisations, as well as a variety of international practices in operation across Europe.
I welcome the Deputy’s commitment to the European Union and his support for European Commission initiatives in relation to this. That is not lost on me. We are in the European Union. We are around the decision-making table of the European Union. We have representation in the Commission, the Parliament and at the Council. I reject any suggestion, if one is being asserted, that we are not very much following the principles, laws and guidelines that are set out at a European level. I am simply making a point on the appropriateness of what should be in this Bill regarding other agencies or institutions.
The code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers, the Commission’s recommendations and the European Charter for Researchers state, for example, that “All researchers engaged in a research career should be recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly”. They are not.
As professionals.
Yes, they are professionals. That is their point. Are they not professionals?
Absolutely. I am differentiating between the word “professionals” and “employees”, but I do not mean to interrupt.
I consider them to be professionals.
As do I.
They are working. Without our researchers, our third-level institutions would not be able to function. They are not being treated as professionals. The vast majority of them are living in poverty. They are not acknowledged for the contribution they make in terms of their employment status and rights. That is a fact and that is why they are campaigning. They are looking to be recognised as workers. They have gone to the trouble of producing a very detailed document. I am not sure if the Minister has had a chance to read it yet, but it is very good. What would you expect from postgraduate researchers, except a very forensic and detailed piece of research?
Yes.
It clearly demonstrates that we are performing very poorly compared to many, if not most, of our European counterparts when it comes to the treatment of our postgraduate researchers in terms of levels of income, employment security, career paths, opportunities, etc. We have a long way to go. It would be entirely reasonable therefore to hardwire that into a State body that is responsible for funding research.
I accept the Minister's answer on this. I am just concerned that we do not create a situation where a research funding body is given a remit that supersedes long-established practice. I daresay most of us have benefited from the practice or have experience of interfacing with institutions like HEIs and we recognise that academic independence. I just do not want to see anything in law that would potentially compromise that.
On this issue, I very much agree with Deputy Sherlock and how he put it. That is the balance we are trying to get right. What is appropriate to belong within the legal remit of a research agency? What is appropriate to belong with independent autonomous higher education institutions?
To be very clear on the European question, which I want to come back to again, we should not allow the record of Dáil Éireann to suggest that there is a uniform approach to the status of PhD researchers across the member states. There is not one; that would be counterfactual and it is not the position.
I had very good engagement with a number of PhD research groups. They rightly spoke - and I agree with them - of the need for us to do more to better support them. That is something we can all agree on. We may disagree on how to go about it, but we agree on how important it is to protect and promote talent in our country. Very interestingly, when you ask people to give you examples of which countries they think are the best in class inthis, they suggest different countries that might have different ways of approaching the issue. There is not a uniform, one-size-fits-all approach here.
Quite rightly at a European level - where we are proud members, are sitting around the decision-making table and are contributing to the development of these guidelines and others - as well as at a national level, there is the need to continue to do more to support researchers. That is why we have increased the stipend in this budget. That is why we have taken a number of steps to equalise levels of stipends between the IRC and SFI over recent years. It is why we intend to go further on the stipend level. It is why we will now publish the final report by the co-chairs. This month, there has been a really extensive process; it was an exhaustive process in many ways. Once I publish it, I would be very happy to come back either to this House or the Oireachtas committee and tease through what next concrete steps we can and should take to better support PhD researchers in Ireland. I very much look forward to engaging with colleagues on that.
An Teachta Boyd Barrett may have the last word.
Just to be clear, I am not saying they are uniform-----
I appreciate that.
-----and, indeed, the Postgraduate Workers Organisation’s report shows that there are different models. I am quoting the recommendation that they should be treated as professionals, they should be seen as professionals and they should be treated accordingly. Currently, they rightly feel in many cases they are brutally underpaid, they are really struggling to sustain themselves in the work they do and the career they would like to pursue, and indeed, in many cases, they are being exploited and are being taken advantage of. Some of them were very clear about this. As the Minister will know, quite a few of these people are from other countries and have come here to do research, and many of them are just saying they do not know why they came here, because it is impossible. It seems to me that that is not a good space for us to be in. We want to make this an attractive place for people to do research. We have a long way to go in order to get to that situation. As of now, we do not even have a guaranteed living wage or proper employment conditions for people in research. If you work for four or five years on this and if you are not treated as an employee, it will have consequences on pension entitlements, etc., later in life.
The preferred option of the Postgraduate Workers Organisation, having looked at all the models and principles that were set out in Salzburg, etc., is to be treated as an employee. That is the option the Minister should go for. It seems reasonable that a research body should at least set out to guarantee decent conditions of employment, income, etc., for our researchers. Of course, as Deputy Sherlock said, we should maintain the independence institutions, but that does not mean we cannot have a decent floor in terms of conditions of employment.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 77; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Duncan Smith; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(c) to ensure the provision of adequate funding for the development of high quality doctoral programmes, in line with the Salzburg Principles;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“(d) to promote the independence and flexibility of early-career researchers;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 11, line 12, to delete “the Government, Ministers of the Government and”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(e) to preserve and support the independence of academic and research institutions;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, 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 51 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,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“(e) support the development and maintenance of high standards of working conditions across the research sector in Ireland in cooperation with relevant bodies, including trade unions and other representative organisations;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 12, between lines 34 and 35, 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.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 14, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“Report on employment status of key researchers
14. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the potential for recognition of employment status for
postgraduate researchers and the implications the current model of non-recognition has in terms of social protection and employment rights.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, and 18 to 21, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 15, to delete lines 20 to 24 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subject to subsection (3)—
(a) the chairperson and ordinary members of the Board shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have sufficient experience and expertise relating to matters connected with the functions of the Agency to enable them to make a substantial contribution to the effective and efficient performance of those functions,
(b) in relation to the ordinary members so appointed a majority shall be persons who have carried out or undertaken research or innovation, and
(c) appointments under paragraph (b) shall be made so as to provide an equitable balance between research and innovation carried out or undertaken in different fields of activity and disciplines.”.
When we raised this matter on Committee Stage, we received a comprehensive reply from the Minister. We decided to reintroduce the amendment because we want to seek reassurances in respect of the issues it raises. It is about ensuring that, as the agency is a research funding entity, the majority of persons on the board shall have carried out or undertaken research and innovation. I want to get the Minister's response to the amendment on the record.
My two amendments in the grouping have been tabled on the back of our discussion on Committee Stage when we voted on the matter. On amendment No. 19, I understand the Minister thinks parity of esteem is explicit in the legislation. The reason I am proposing the amendment is to have a report done within one year of passing the Act to determine whether those affected, including researchers and people generally in the third level sector, feel the provisions are strong enough with respect to parity of esteem. The issue of parity of esteem has long come up in the third level sector and it had regularly come up when the Bill was being developed. It was clear on Committee Stage that we were all in agreement that there should be parity of esteem but not on whether that is stated explicitly enough in the legislation as it stands. It would be worthwhile for us to have a report within a year to allow us to reflect on whether parity of esteem should be made more explicit in the legislation.
Regarding my amendment No. 20, we have had some discussion on this issue and its impact of researchers. The amendment refers back to an issue we discussed on Committee Stage. It proposes that the board should be comprised of a majority of people who are active researchers from a broad range of fields. Again, this reflects the issues of parity of esteem and of making sure the composition of a board is as reflective as possible of the research sector. That can only be of benefit to the board.
We voted on this matter on Committee Stage but the proposal did not pass. A requirement to bring forward a report within a year of the passing of the Bill would be helpful. It might be that we come back after a year and find these two issues are cleared and okay. In that case, all will be well and good. On the other hand, if people still have the same concerns they have been highlighting to me for some time, we can take a look at the issues again. Reviewing the position within a year of the passing of the Bill would be of benefit. The principle that the composition of the board should be representative is an extremely important one, along with principle of parity of esteem. As we have discussed this at length previously, I will leave it at that. Those two reports would be of benefit.
I have a number of amendments in this grouping. Some of the discussion has been had. Amendment No. 15 proposes that "no fewer than six ordinary members of the Board shall have experience and expertise in carrying out research". We are seeking to specify that a majority of the board, as a minimum, would be people with expertise and experience in research. This is a reasonable demand.
I draw the Minister's attention to the European Research Council, which is absolutely dominated by researchers, academics and so on. Every discipline is represented and there are no technocrats, for want of a better word. I do not mean that pejoratively. All academic disciplines are represented, including geography, history, biochemistry - I see our own Luke O'Neill is there - mathematics, physics, linguistics, law, psychology and so on. They are the people who run the council. However, the only field the Minister has specified is enterprise. I am interested to know why that is.
This rings alarm bells for me. Research should not become the slave of profit-driven industry. I have a deep concern that this can and, all too often does, happen. That is because the people with the big money and resources, whom governments decide are essential for the economy and so on, start dictating the type of research that is done and what is considered important in research. It becomes all about what is considered profitable in the short term. It becomes blue-chip research instead of blue-sky research. The best of science and research happens where there are no restraints of that sort and where people can delve into the world we live in and dream of things that do not yet exist.
The other amendment I put forward is important in ensuring there is a diverse expertise. I propose in amendment No. 18 that there should be representation on the board from a "wide variety of academic disciplines and fields of research", which is very important. Historically, the arts were the poor relation of research, third-level funding and so on because they were not considered to be as important economically. However, the fact is if people had not written science fiction, we probably would not have the mobile phone. It is often through artists imagining things that do not exist but could exist that we later see those things being developed and put into practice by engineers, mathematicians and scientists. An artistic dimension that is not very narrowly commercially focused or concerned with solving what appears to be an immediately important problem is critical for the development of human society. Taking linguistics as an example, without human communication, none of the industry and science that has been developed would exist.
The temptation to see some fields as less important because they are not seen to have an immediate economic return or benefit for the economy is very short-sighted. In fact, in the end, it is a big mistake even from an economic point of view. The undervaluing of the arts in this country is a massive economic mistake. Although I hate to justify the arts in terms of economics in any event, because they should be valued in and of themselves, our underinvestment in that area is a huge economic mistake. It has very serious economic and financial consequences for the many artists who live in poverty but, in addition, it is to the detriment of our economy. I am almost reluctant to say that because these matters should not be valued in narrowly economic terms. It is critical that in funding research, there should be no hierarchy, with what industry and the economy considers important dictating what is at the top and, somewhere down the pecking order, we find the arts, humanities and blue-sky research that does not seem immediately beneficial to some industrial enterprise or strategy.
That is the logic of the amendments I am putting forward. They are not dissimilar to what Deputy Farrell is putting forward. We discussed similar proposals on Committee Stage. As I said, the proposals are reflective of the make-up and structure of the European Research Council. I am not sure why the Minister wants to depart from that. What we are proposing is better.
I have no doubt the Deputy believes what he is proposing is better than what is in the Bill. I will explain why I think what I am proposing is better.
I hope he will accept my first point. This is the first time in the history of the State that we are placing arts and humanities research on a statutory footing. The Irish Research Council, which has done absolutely incredible work, does not exist in statute. There is no law and there has never been a vote in this House or in the Seanad to set it up. In effect, without meaning to be pejorative, because it is excellent, it is a sub-office of the Higher Education Authority. It could be ended with a ministerial letter or by any Minister in the future. Primary legislation has never been passed to provide for arts and humanities funding. That is what we are doing in these provisions.
While we have been debating and teasing out the content of the Bill, as we should, and without presuming to speak for colleagues across the political divide, that is why, instinctively, we have not divided as a House on Second Stage or at several other opportunities. We are trying to create one unified agency that recognises the benefit of all research, for some of the reasons the Deputy mentioned. I am the Minister with responsibility for education and innovation. The research agency was previously fully based in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is now based in my Department, recognising that there is, of course, an enterprise element to research and innovation, as the Deputy knows, but there is also an educational, well-being and societal impact and benefit. That is quite a shift in and of itself.
While I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendments, I invite him and anyone else, following this debate, to read the booklet in which the positions on the board were advertised. It states that to be successful in applying for a position, candidates must meet two of the criteria.
They have to demonstrate evidence of significant experience in two or more of nine areas, each of which mentions "research" or "researcher". There are 11 references to the words "research" and "researcher" in the nine criteria. One cannot successfully end up on the board of the agency through the PAS process without meeting two of the criteria.
We can have a difference of view on how we proceed and word legislation, and that is part of our job as legislators, but I would not like to be misrepresented as not believing experience in research or being a researcher matters regarding the competency of the board. It does. It is correct that there is one seat on the board for an appointee of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and that is for a good reason in the context of the work SFI has traditionally done and its linkages with IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, but there are ten seats on the board that are filled by me, an education and innovation Minister. In the nine criteria, there are 11 references to "research" and "researcher". This is the first time ever in Ireland that we are passing legislation that brings about the parity of esteem concerning the arts, humanities and, let us say, the traditional enterprise view of science and research. That is not an insignificant moment.
I thank Deputy Farrell for engaging with me on this on Committee Stage. We had a lengthy enough back-and-forth on this but ultimately my view remains the same. I agree with the Deputy that when a new agency is established, it is important for the Oireachtas, including committees, and the Government to monitor how it is functioning and ensure it fulfils its duty regarding what we all want, namely, parity of esteem. However, I do not propose to stipulate in primary legislation that we review the functioning of the board within a year because other elements in the legislation will enable it to be subject to ongoing review, including the provision on having the chief executive appear before the committee. Also, it is open to any Member of the Oireachtas to seek to amend legislation at any stage. If I stipulated in law that we must review the composition of the board within a year, hopefully having appointed a board for four years, it could create accidental instability. It is not that I am against the idea of keeping this under review; it is more that I do not want to be prescriptive in that regard in legislation.
There are a few points to make on this. We discussed this on Committee Stage, so I do not necessarily want to go over all the relevant points again. I had more amendments but they were not taken. I came back with the concept of a report because it is something we could achieve. It can be and is done. Considering that Members' concerns were not addressed through the acceptance of their amendments, having a report could put their minds at ease. If the Minister is correct regarding there being full parity of esteem and it is ensured that there are researchers from a broad range of fields on the board, it will be all well and good, but if these criteria are not met it can be looked into in producing the report. Perhaps this could be worked on during the four-year period.
I wish to refer to a point mentioned by Deputy Boyd Barrett and discussed by us on Committee Stage, namely the impossibility of putting a monetary value on certain things. Research is not all about that. I gave the powerful example of someone who does drama work with children having to fill out forms showing the monetary value of the work. The concept is that the children's happiness has no monetary worth. What Deputy Boyd Barrett said was very powerful.
The Minister said the requirement is that people will most likely have to have experience in research, but the diversity that is critical is not written into the legislation. It is noteworthy that the area the Minister specified was enterprise. Why, for example, would he not have specified arts? Enterprise is specified because what is considered to be important for the economy is prioritised. I believe that is a mistake. That sort of mistake leads in all sorts of terrible directions. I could refer to the example of RTÉ's "Toy Show The Musical". Somebody thought they could cash in on the Christmas toy show to make money. It really had nothing to do with art and did not make money. It was a total disaster, a fiasco. Therefore, there is a need for diversity of opinion and perspective to make all the things work. I hate to use a word like "dialectics" but I am very committed to dialectics and the interconnectedness of things. The truth is that art needs science. There is a need for balance and diversity in all the various disciplines. That should be hardwired in. This is a reasonable proposal. Although the Minister is not going to accept it, I believe it would inform the make-up of the board. I worry it is at the whim of Ministers. The Minister present may be a good one in this regard - I hope he will be - but others may not. It is right to hardwire diversity of disciplines into the board's composition and that is why we are proposing this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 15, line 20, to delete "Subject to subsection (3)" and substitute "Subject to subsections (3) and (4)".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 15, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(3) No fewer than six ordinary members of the Board shall have experience and expertise in carrying out research.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 15, to delete lines 25 to 27.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 15, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(4) No fewer than three members of the Board shall be nominated for such appointment by researchers' representative groups.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 15, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(5) The Minister, when making appointments to the Board, shall have regard to the objective that expertise in the Board shall come from a wide variety of academic disciplines and fields of research.".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 65; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Mick Barry; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.