Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Higgins, McDowell and Mullen for tabling this panel debate and providing me with an opportunity to discuss the commitment of the Government to address the complex and multifaceted issue of academic precarity. The Government does not intend to oppose this motion. As the speakers before me outlined in their insightful contributions, there can be no doubt that academic career precarity is a pressing issue, especially in the research system. It is true that insecure employment can and does have a detrimental impact on the finances of individuals and their ability to plan for the future. Regrettably, these difficulties have become more pronounced in recent months given strong global inflationary pressures and their impact on the cost of living for all in our society. It is therefore right that we debate this topic and look to identify initiatives that may help these individuals who contribute so much to the work of the third level sector but do not have the financial security they desire.

At the same time, we must be very mindful of overreach. Our traditional universities have considerable autonomy in respect of human resource polices under the Universities Act 1997. Although the legal basis for the Technological Universities and other institutions is somewhat different, they too still require operational freedom and flexibility if they are to deliver on their mission. The reality is that the staff profile across higher education is determined by a vast range of factors, including financial sustainability, capacity to change and innovate, the breadth of course provision and the availability of required skills and expertise. In that context, the staffing profile of universities is a direct outcome of operational need and the typical academic workforce comprises a mix of permanent and fixed-term academic staff as well as some casual employees. It has proven challenging to collect data in this area but the Irish Universities Association estimates that around 12% or 13% of academic staff are employed on a fixed-term contract.

Many different factors give rise to non-permanent staffing arrangements and there are sound reasons or objective grounds that a position may not be filled on a permanent basis. Typical examples include replacement appointments for seconded staff, timebound or project-based philanthropic activities, and appointments to new programmes, the continuance of which is dependent on student uptake. Meanwhile, occasional hourly-paid staff may be engaged as examination invigilators, specialist staff such as industry or professional leaders or for cover at short notice due to staff absence. We must also remember that the sector is required to operate in accordance with the provision of national industrial relations agreements and employment law and that any individual in the sector who feels that he or she is being exploited can avail of the various dispute resolution mechanisms that exist.I do not make these points to dispute the broad thrust of concerns that have been raised or to wash the Department's hands of responsibility in this area. However, I strongly believe we must be cautious about calling for regulations or legislation that would be practically difficult to implement in one sector, may not be appropriate for the general operational needs of institutions and may limit options for individuals seeking to work in the sector. These words of caution do not change the fact that Senators are correct that we must address the issue of precarity if we are to realise the potential of the third level sector. However, we must get our response right.

There is a lot to unpack in the phrase "academic precarity". It is used to refer to many different things including fixed-term contracts, short-term contracts, hourly pay, low pay, the employment status of researchers and the broader idea of casualisation of staff in the sector. Concerns around precarious working go beyond individual staff concerns, important as they are, and impact, at a strategic level, on the future development of higher education, given the critical nature of high quality and committed staff to maintaining and improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment for students. The response of the Department and the Government reflects the importance and complexity of the issue. It is critical that the ongoing work underpinning this response is recognised.

The motion calls for urgent engagement with the sector and I assure the House that engagement with the Higher Education Authority, HEA, trade unions, universities, higher education institutes and others on these issues has been under way for some time and continues today. The fruits of this engagement can be seen in the work on the implementation of the recommendations of the Cush report from 2016 and the work to convert hourly-paid assistant lecturers to pro-rataterms. The Government is also responding through a significant increase in investment. Budget 2023 saw a combined increase in funding across the National Training Fund and the departmental Vote of €513 million. That represents a 14% uplift from the 2022 baseline and brings funding to a significant €4.1 billion for this year. Some €40 million of this is classified under the future policy funding which is a significant step forward in funding higher education on a sustainable basis. The adoption of a sustainable future model of funding will allow steps to be taken to address the issue of precarious work in the sector. It is also through such planned and sustained investment that our universities and other higher education institutions will be able to recruit the staff they need while helping to remove the temptation to rely on more casual arrangements for budgetary reasons.

The motion calls on the Government to revise the employment control framework, ECF. This framework is a legacy of the financial crisis. The reality is that work is already well under way. Our Department is working with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform as well as other stakeholders on a new framework. A reformed system would bring many benefits but the most relevant in this context is greater flexibility for institutions to award permanent contracts subject to an objective assessment of the appropriate contract type and confirmation of sustainable funding. Our aim is to have a way of working whereby permanent contracts will no longer be restricted to core-funded posts. This recognises that the sector, especially the traditional universities, derives a steady base of income from non-Exchequer sources such as postgraduate and international fees. We should allow the sector to use those funds to appropriately address staffing levels. This approach aligns fully with public sector recruitment policy generally which only promotes temporary or fixed-term contracts in limited circumstances where there is an objective need. The reform of the ECF would be a real game-changer for the sector but, as an interim measure, I am pleased to report to the Seanad that a significant uplift in the ceiling of core posts has been approved for 2023. For HEA designated institutions, the uplift represents an increase of more than 1,500 posts from the 2021 ceiling. The effect of this measure is to give more scope for permanent recruitment.

The motion raises issues around the condition of PhD researchers and calls for them to be treated as employees. As I am sure Senators are aware, the Minister, Deputy Harris, has already initiated an independent review of State supports for PhD researchers under the co-chairs Dr. Andrea Johnson and Mr. David Cagney. The review's remit includes the question of whether PhD researchers should be treated as students or employees. It also includes other issues such as stipends, conditions and visa requirements. The review has heard from all stakeholders and interested parties including PhD researchers. The findings of this exercise will give us the evidence base to develop the correct response. It is hoped that the first report from the co-chairs will be submitted to the Minister shortly. However, we have not been sitting on our hands waiting for the report. We have sought to improve matters where we can. For example, budget 2023 saw a €500 increase in the stipend paid to PhD students in receipt of Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, or Irish Research Council, IRC, awards, bringing the support to €19,000 per year. I think we can all agree that PhD researchers make a vital and significant contribution that benefits universities, industry and the State, but I caution Senators about the potential unintended consequences of the call to classify them as workers. How will this impact compensation once taxation is taken into account? What impact might this measure have on international students? Could it reduce access to PhD training or discourage some individuals from pursuing a PhD? There are differing views and we must wait to see the evidence and analysis from the national review to determine how best the State can support PhD researchers in pursuing their ambitions.

I will close by thanking the Senators again for raising the important issue of academic precarity. As I hope I have made clear in my comments, the concerns they identified are shared by the Government. I fully appreciate that we need to offer pay, terms and conditions that can attract and retain quality staff. A considerable stream of work is already under way to do just that. I have, however, also been honest that some of the actions called for in this motion may be impractical or have unintended consequences that we do not think the Senators would like to see. The Minister and I look forward to working with the Senators on these important matters in the coming weeks and months as we seek to advance our shared commitment to Ireland's further and higher education, training and research system.