Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context