Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the spirit of what Deputy Boyd Barrett is suggesting by way of his amendment. He raised the point about increased militarisation that funding at a European Commission level could start to tilt towards funding for militarisation. I was glad that earlier the Deputy gave recognition to the Commission. He quoted from a Commission document. With tongue in cheek do I take it that the Deputy now recognises the European Commission and all that sails on that ship?

I am concerned by something that has been pointed out to me by an eminent researcher, namely that the funding line of the ERC could become compromised if the Commission decides that it will pile into investments in militarisation. We see the language relating to the development of a hegemonic framework around a European defence policy, whatever the rights and wrongs of that. At the end of the day, governments will be called on to give to that effort. I am concerned that where the ERC is trying to buttress its resources so that it can continue with its remit from the point of view of funding basic and fundamental science, that might become compromised down the line. It might be argued that is not pertinent to this legislation but it is something Taighde Éireann has to have regard to. It will be a matter for the Minister of the day to ensure that where funding is going into higher education institutions, it is at that level downwards that issues such as collective bargaining and adherence to labour law should be applied. That should not be a matter for this new entity. It should have regard to these matters but it should not have as part of its remit a function. That function should be kept as it is but the Minister of the day has a role to play in ensuring that where the taxpayer is funding these institutions, we have a certain call and leverage in respect of ensuring the terms and conditions of employment of people who work within these institutions are adhered to in respect of the law, particularly in regard to collective bargaining, which we see coming down the line..

I note the correspondence from IFUT. For the record, I have been a paid-up member of SIPTU all my adult life and I say respectfully that I am not entirely sure IFUT's attempt to seek to establish a remit for this entity in respect of terms and conditions in the legislation is the right way to go. I would rather that IFUT used whatever leverage it has with the Minister to ensure that the Minister of the day is policing the terms and conditions of employment to ensure the funding agencies, through the HEA and other such entities, are adhering to labour law and good practice and principles in things such as collective bargaining and that postdoctoral researchers in particular see their terms and conditions being met. Furthermore, as I said on Committee Stage, it needs to be ensured that notwithstanding academic independence, where HEIs are running deficits and there is a downward pressure on funding lines in an institution, it is not the people on the bottom rung of the ladder who get squeezed when they have to make savings. We have evidence of presidential offices within universities and other HEIs in this State buttressing out the presidential role and office and expending large swathes of money to create silos while the people on the bottom rung of the ladder barely earn minimum wage.

I am conscious of time. Notwithstanding the spirit of what Deputy Boyd Barrett is saying, which I agree with, I want this research funding body to be hyper-focused on ensuring that we can concentrate on basic, fundamental and applied research. That should be its remit.

See this speech in context