Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

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 Deputy Sherlock proposed an amendment on Committee Stage that was perhaps superseded by an amendment I brought forward, which further underpins the importance of international partnerships.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.

See this speech in context