Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

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;".

Amendment No. 6 seeks to insert a definition of "researchers' representative group" into the Bill. The issue of workers' rights for those working in higher education and research is one I have been raising for a very long time. In 2018, I launched the TASC report Living with Uncertainty, in whose foreword I highlighted how insecure contracts have become prevalent in the very spaces we rely on to analyse and examine the employment landscape and, indeed, all the other policy areas. Since we rely on policymakers, it would be worrying if precarious conditions and practices were in fact to undermine research and the provision of new policy solutions.In the years since, the issue has become much more serious and much worse and little has been done to address it. More than 11,200 lecturers have been employed by universities and higher education institutions on a temporary or casual basis in recent years. This undermines higher education and research. We talk about the impact of precarious contracts and a lack of security, not only on individuals but on society, policymakers and the quality of research. That exact issue was being spoken about today. I was at meetings of the education committee and the climate committee today. At the climate committee we heard about climate research and the long-term thinking and research that are needed to deliver not only analysis of the climate crisis, but also solutions and practical ideas that will deliver the climate action we need.

Precarity was one of the issues highlighted by a cross-section of academics from numerous institutions. They spoke about the lack of solid resourcing, the lack of secure contracts and the lack of a research environment that allows for long-term thinking and challenging ideas in which researchers are not working on one-year or two-year contracts. It was highlighted that a number of the researchers who had contributed to the landmark research being presented to the climate committee were no longer employed because their contracts had expired. Many had left academic life altogether and moved to the private sector or completely different areas of work. That is what happens to research when we do not have secure conditions and proper contracts. I hope that this Bill is the moment when we will set out a new landscape for research and innovation and new regulatory and administrative structures. Part of a new era for research and innovation has to be a new era in terms of researchers' conditions and addressing the long-term issues of precarity.

On the specifics of amendment No. 6, I acknowledge the role played by PhD researchers who are not classified as workers and receive none of the benefits afforded to employees, including maternity leave, sick pay or public pension contributions, including that of the Postgraduate Workers' Organisation that has been organising in universities, demanding their work is recognised. They published a report recently, Workers in All but Name, Pay and Conditions. I also acknowledge the work of the Irish Federation of University Teachers. These are all crucial messages coming from the people who make up the staff of our universities and drive the research. They are all saying that terms and conditions, pay, recognition and representation for researchers must be part of the Bill. That is why we are proposing amendment No. 6.

I will turn now to the second set of amendments. Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment to ensure consistency if later amendments are accepted. Amendment No. 63 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 16 which would provide that no fewer than six ordinary members of the board should be active researchers and innovators from a broad range of disciplines. I am concerned that the current proposed constitution of the board lacks a dedicated space for researchers. We need to be clear. This is one issue which people will be listening to. They will want to know that those doing the work of research are represented and reflected on the board and that the expertise and real knowledge of those who are researchers are reflected at board level. They must be substantially represented, as in my amendment which would provide for no fewer than six members.

Amendment No. 64 would insert a new subsection in section 16 to provide that:

In making appointments to the Board under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that there is a diversity of disciplinary experience and expertise on the Board and that there are persons appointed with expertise and experience in both the arts, humanities and social sciences and in science, engineering, mathematics and technology.

The Minister may be aware this was a huge issue when the original heads of Bill were put forward. One of the big concerns from academic institutions across the State was that of parity of esteem and ensuring there is parity of esteem between the arts, social sciences, humanities and the STEM subjects. This is particularly crucial when we are seeing the merger between the Irish Research Council, which has a strong and extraordinarily important record in supporting the humanities and social sciences, and Science Foundation Ireland which has, until now, had a very narrow remit. We are asking the Minister to send a signal at the highest level that there will be parity of esteem by making sure the board itself will reflect expertise across those disciplines and that we will have a genuinely diverse board with the right mix of expertise to fulfil its functions effectively.

Amendment No. 65 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 16 to provide that when making appointments to the board, the Minister should ensure that persons from groups that are under-represented in research and innovation are represented on the board. This goes back to the point about equity. It is about ensuring that the board is reflective of what we want our research sector to be, which is diverse, and more representative of Irish society as a whole. Of course, when you have researchers who are more diverse and representative of the diversity within Irish society, you also deliver better research. That goes for board level too. A board makes better decisions when it reflects the diversity within Irish society and it is more in a position to really say what is needed by all of society and identify the solutions and challenges we need to seek for to deliver for all of the people in Ireland. I want to note that amendments Nos 64 and 65 are not necessarily additional. Amendment No. 64 relates to researchers. It may well be balanced. It may be that one of those researchers also addresses the concern in respect of diversity which is dealt with by amendment No. 65. That is to say, I am not adding up to 100 people on the board with these amendments. They are overlapping recommendations.

Amendment No. 66 seeks to insert a new subsection which would provide that one member be appointed to the board under subsection (2). The amendment would provide that one member of the board would be a workers’ representative of researchers and nominated for appointment by a researchers’ representative group. This goes back to issues which were debated in the context of the HEA Act around the issue of precarity. During those debates, we looked for workers' representatives on the boards of higher education institutions. We were roundly assured that, of course, workers' representatives would be appointed to university governing bodies and authorities and there was no need to specify it because it would so certainly happen. Yet, last year, following the passing of the HEA Act, we saw Maynooth University decide to abandon union representation on its governing authority for the first time and instead suggest that management would handpick staff members who it wished to add to the governing authority. This proposal was defeated. I want to commend the staff in Maynooth and the Irish Federation of University Teachers for their work in opposing that anti-democratic work. Again, that battle was made necessary by the fact that the position in respect of worker representatives was not copper-fastened. The then Minister, Deputy Harris, spoke of his expectation and his support for a worker representative being on the board but that did not transpire. As it was not provided for in the legislation, it became something that people had to campaign for and fight for on the ground.

That legislation made some mistakes. It is important that we do not make the same mistakes in this legislation. We are not bound by the HEA in this respect. That was the board of higher education institutions but here we are talking about the board of a new State-established body. It is really important that we learn from and build on previous mistakes and learning, however, and that we have a commitment to worker and researcher representation on the board.I note there is a rationale whereby the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment would have the power to nominate somebody with enterprise expertise to the board, but there is no requirement for workers’ rights expertise or for a workers' representative on the board. Therefore, we almost have a situation where enterprise and employers may well have a representative on the board but the workers, who actually make up the lifeblood of what happens in terms of research and innovation, are not going to be necessarily represented by someone they can choose. Again, this is a real imbalance of power where we are talking about a representative from enterprise on one hand but, on the other hand, no representative from workers, trade unions or researchers representative bodies.

Amendment No. 67 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 16 to the effect that "One member to be appointed to the Board ... [would] have [the] experience and expertise in workers’ rights in the sector and shall be nominated ... by the Irish Federation of University Teachers.”. In amendment No. 66, I am saying that generally there would be a representative of researchers and workers. In amendment No. 67, I suggest one way that could be done, which is by allowing for somebody to be nominated by appointment by the Irish Federation of University Teachers.

Amendment No. 68 would insert a new subsection into section 16 to provide that "The Minister shall nominate a suitably qualified person for appointment as chairperson and such a nomination shall require approval by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.”. I am also very concerned by some of the other powers that are given to the Minister. There are a number of other areas in which there is an overreach in terms of ministerial discretion and ministerial power within the Bill, which I will come to later. However, one of those areas is that there is a very high level of power sitting with the Minister around determining the make-up of the board and in that way shaping the potential agenda and operation of the board. In that context, it would be appropriate if a chairperson were to be subject to approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Again, I will reserve the right to table an amendment to suggest that person may even be subject to approval of or at least discussion by the relevant committee. As long as there was some engagement, we would be able to have more confidence in the capacity of this board to operate independently and at that high level. It is really important.

Government terms are four or five years. It looks like it will be years in this case. As we know, ministerial terms can be even less. It is really important that does not create a situation. The plan for research projects are often ten, 20 or 30 years. It is long-term thinking and long-term scale. It would be unfortunate if, effectively, the research board, which is going to set the agenda for five, ten or 15 years in terms of our research, is overly shaped by particular inhabitant of a ministerial role at one time. Again, while having absolute confidence, and I hope our Ministers will make very good choices with regard to who they appoint, it is important.