Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome to the House, for the first time in his new role, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Patrick O’Donovan. He is very welcome back to the Seanad. I wish him well in his new role, as I am sure we all do.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 1 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, line 24, to delete “where they have not been used previously”.

I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I look forward to engaging with him on this and other legislation.

This group of amendments aims to address some of the questions around the definitions in the Bill. By strengthening and widening the definitions, we will be able to derive more in the longer term from what will be landmark legislation and a landmark new infrastructure in respect of research and innovation.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete the phrase “where they have not been used previously” as the definition of “innovation” in the Bill. The rationale for this amendment is that the definition in the Bill would constrain innovation to brand-new ideas, methods, products, processes, policies and services and not allow for innovation to encompass the expansion or deepening of knowledge. If, for example, we look to some of the extraordinary innovation we have seen in the State, it has often used existing ideas, methods, products, processes, policies and services in new ways. For example, we have seen existing crafts or ideas being reapplied to deliver for the circular economy or for our new climate targets. In fact, in achieving the circular economy and our climate innovation, much of what is innovation in the climate area goes back to older ideas and methods. It revisits them, brings them to new purposes and applies them in new ways. Another recognised example is the work of one of the satellite companies in the State, which has won awards for innovation. Its technology was not completely unused or applied previously. Rather, it built on existing satellite technology that it had developed over many years and then applied it in new ways.That was recognised as a very crucial innovation at a European level.

Amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1, in that amendment No.1 simply deletes that phrase in order that we do not have an unnecessary limitation on what can be properly addressed and recognised as innovation, whereas amendment No. 2 seeks to replace that with something that is very much spelling out the fact of "the application of ideas, methods, products, processes, policies and services in new ways or for new purposes". One is a straight deletion of what I think might be tying our hands unnecessarily in narrowing what can be construed as innovation, while the other explicitly names that application for new purposes or ways.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to change the definition of research as proposed on Second Stage by adding the phrase "in order to increase or deepen knowledge and understanding ... and devise new or improved applications of available knowledge and understanding". At the moment, the language in the Bill is a strange definition of research that I have not seen before and it is almost quite an extractive or a utilitarian version of research, where it talks about the "stock of knowledge". This is quite a weird phrase that I would not normally have seen applied to knowledge. There is then the application of the existing knowledge for particular new applications and the devising of new applications. It is a very material and narrow version of what research can cover. We know that much of what good research can do is not just to increase almost a commercial supply of knowledge but it may change the knowledge we have and can transform and deepen knowledge. This is why I mention the word "understanding" in this amendment, which is crucial.

It may be that we are not acquiring 20 new facts but we are acquiring new understanding of those facts and that can be very transformative and powerful, and a very important part of what research can do. That amendment would seek to replace the language of speaking of "a stock of knowledge" and instead is talking about the increasing or deepening of knowledge and understanding.

The "stock of knowledge" phrase is oddly reminiscent of what Paulo Freire has described in the past as the banking model of education where knowledge is something that is deposited rather than something that is gained, transformed and deepened through dialogue and other methods, and through the understanding of the other.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to amend the definition of research by inserting the provision that we include the deepening and not just the increasing of knowledge. This might seem like a minor amendment but, again, it is trying to expand the definition to reflect that knowledge is not just something that is gained in multiple subjects but is deepened and explored. I am speaking, for example, of somehow and sometimes the way in which we take existing knowledge, not just to devise new applications for it, but where we shift or change our understanding of it. That can be an extraordinary form of innovation in, for example, the social sciences where we know that very often the exact same graph or data, examined in a different way, can lead to extraordinarily different outcomes.

We know, for example, that many universities are engaged currently in the processes of decolonisation whereby existing knowledge we may have had for many years, which may have come and may have been framed from a past of colonisation, is being re-examined. If one looks to the British Museum, for example, with a different perspective; one's understanding shifts. The same facts, data and knowledge may be there but the understanding is different.

Again, I say to the Minister, that these amendments may seem to an extent to be philosophical, which they are, but they are also very practical. The first two amendments are around ensuring that we do not have an unnecessary narrowing of what was proposed. The second two are around research but if we think that this Bill is expected to be the foundation for the next ten, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100 years of research and innovation in the State, then it is very important that we get the foundations right.That is why I hope the Minister will engage with and consider these proposals for, as I say, strengthening the definitions put forward in the Bill.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, who is here in his brand new role in the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I recognise that this is a landmark piece of legislation. We are talking here about the definitions of research and innovation, but this Bill is going to bring about the funding of all areas of research. It is an incredible landmark Bill that we are seeing come in front of us here. To me, it is very clear that this agency, which will be formed on the dissolution of the statutory agency, Science Foundation Ireland, bringing it together with the Irish Research Council, IRC, will ensure we fund research across all areas.

It is important to me that Taighde Éireann will fund both research and innovation. Innovation is now more needed than at any time before in terms of how we make sure that our research has an impact on society. In the definitions of research across all disciplines and innovation that will be funded under this agency, it is very clear that innovation will have an impact on the people of Ireland, for our society and further afield as well at an international level. Gabhaim míle buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his time.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like him to come back on a few points because it would be very useful to me in terms of whether I have to table any amendments on Report Stage. Some of what he said is quite positive but perhaps he could just clarify some points again.

Am I right that in the phrase "use" that is currently in the Bill, the understanding of "use" does encompass foundational or frontier research and that it is not necessarily used in an immediate utilitarian application but as part of the furthering of knowledge, understanding or research? The Minister will be aware that this is one of the key issues, which comes up again and again across the research community, that is, the fear that frontier, foundational or basic research that encompasses the nuts and bolts is not included.I am therefore glad the Minister mentioned that. It would be really useful and, I think, reassuring to many people if he were to reconfirm that that is the case.

The Minister mentioned "depth and breadth of knowledge". Is that, rather than "stock of knowledge", a phrase he would be open to looking at? It captures it much better.

I recognise in what the Minister has said about his understanding that a lot of the language is really good. I just wonder if he could reassure me on that point and then let me know his thoughts on the "depth and breadth" point.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not press some of these issues, but I think it would be okay for us to look to the HEA Act because that Act was rushed through this House at breakneck speed and-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not dealing with that today.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know. I am flagging that there will be a number of amendments that address some of these questions. Yes, after a period of time that was brought forward, but the initial part of it moved through very fast, and Senators were put under extreme pressure for simply proposing amendments and asking for debate on matters of definition.

I want to be clear that I think that some mistakes were made in respect of the HEA Act and that there is an opportunity to address them.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Fine Gael Seanad spokesperson for education and further and higher education, I know we spent many hours here debating this really important legislation with our current Taoiseach and former Minister, Simon Harris. The then Minister spent time with his team and the officials from the Department to engage across the board, particularly on Committee Stage, and to consider amendments that were proposed across the House. A lot of good work was done on that as well as during the debate in this House.

As regards Taighde Éireann, researchers talk about the impact of what they are doing at any level of research or the stage they are at. Such impact statements are crucial. That was brought about a number of years ago in terms of applications for funding. Such impact statements refer to the impact of the research in its current form, in its potential form and in how it could be applied in the future. That is how we see how research will be used and will have an impact for people on the ground. It is key that that is always applied to research, no matter what stage it is at.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as this is the first time he has been in this Chamber in his new role. I-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We did point that out already but there is no harm in pointing it out twice.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I encourage him to be as forthright and direct in his new role-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not that he was ever like that in the past.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----as he was during his time as Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works.

It is essential that this legislation align with the provisions within the HEA Act. Contrary to Senator Higgins's comments, we spent extensive time discussing that Act. There was a lot of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister at the time engaged a lot, as I am sure will be the hallmark of the new Minister's role in the Department. Given some of the regulatory functions which were given to the HEA in light of certain events happening in some institutions at the moment, they were the correct measures to take. As regards the opposition to some of the measures within the HEA Act, it is now shown why it is important to have effective regulation in this space. The Government approach at that time was the correct one. I agree with Senator Dolan on how critical the new agency is. That this legislation aligns with the provisions of the HEA Act is welcome. However, having sat here for many hours of debate, and given that there was considerable prelegislative scrutiny and engagement, I dispute that the HEA Act was rushed. It certainly was not. I do not want to have to spend as long on this Bill as we did on the HEA Act.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a matter for the Members, and the Chair will do his best. A number of us had connections with the HEA in previous lives. I now intend to put the question on amendment No. 1.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before that, if I may, I will say that in the end, there was engagement and it made the legislation a lot better and the Minister was much happier. There was, however, an attempt at a certain point where things were going to be moving fast. Regarding amendments I am proposing here again, I was told we do not have time and that we should not have to look at these matters; matters that are really important in respect of climate and sustainability, for example. There was - at the time to which I am referring - a question of whether we should even be discussing definitions. There will be considerable scrutiny and engagement. I acknowledge that, when discussing the HEA legislation, the then Minister, Deputy Harris, did engage in the end. He was happier with the Bill when there was engagement and when he accepted amendments from the Seanad – amendments that did in fact strengthen and improve the HEA Bill in the end. I hope we can begin this process at the point where that debate ended, a point of constructive engagement. If we can, it would be good.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, line 24, to delete "where they have not been used previously" and substitute the following: "or the application of ideas, methods, products, processes, policies and services in new ways or for new purposes".

I propose to withdraw this as the Minister has made a valid point.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including "in" where it secondly occurs in line 5 down to and including "knowledge" in line 7 and substitute the following: "in order to increase or deepen knowledge and understanding, including knowledge and understanding of humankind, culture and society, and to devise new or improved applications of available knowledge and understanding".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, line 6, after "increase", to insert "or deepen".

I reserve the right to return to this on Report Stage.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 6 and 61 to 68, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suggest that amendment No. 69 be included in the grouping because it is consequential to amendment No. 68. They comprise a set.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is in a different grouping.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is why I suggest that it be in the grouping we are to discuss. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are related. What I propose would make the proceedings quicker and save us from making the same points-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is up to the House to agree to it.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree to Senator Higgins's suggestion.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perfect. It will make it quicker for everyone.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed. The grouping has been changed by the agreement of the House, meaning that amendments Nos. 6, 61 to 69, inclusive, are being taken together. We are discussing amendment No. 69 now, not later.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand. It will save us from making all the same points again.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Senator to move amendment No. 6.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Higgins. Senator Malcolm Byrne will be followed by Senator Dolan.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry; amendment No. 69 in that set, which I insist on including-----

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can bring the Senator back in later.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is consequential on the last one.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Byrne has the floor.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is obviously important that there are views that are reflective of the arts, humanities and social sciences community as well as the science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, community but also increasingly the interdisciplinarity of research whereby we are not just appointing people because they come from a particular background.

The purpose of this new agency is to promote and develop research and innovation in Ireland. The individuals who sit on it are not there as representatives of some sector. They are there to contribute to Ireland Inc. through their particular roles. We have seen this in the past. In fact, the Irish Research Council, IRC, is itself a merger of what was formerly the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences and Irish Research Council for Science Engineering and Technology, indeed, two research councils that were set up by then then Minister for Education and Science, Micheál Martin.The Minister will be aware that Ministers who take an interest in this role tend to go on to greater things. That was a very successful merger with the IRC and I am confident that the merger that will take place between the IRC and SFI will also be successful.

On the point raised by Senator Higgins, we should not just assume that research takes place within higher education institutions. Much of it takes place within other State agencies, but also in industry and some voluntary organisations within the wider community. While a lot of the purpose of this agency will focus on research in universities and higher education institutions, it is about building a research infrastructure and the board, therefore, must reflect that wider purpose. The reason the Minister's Department was established in the first place, it being a Fianna Fáil creation, was not to be an administrative Department simply to deal with every sectoral interest within the further and higher education sector. It was essentially established as a Department for the future, looking at how we prepare Ireland to meet the challenges for the future and how that would be done through further and higher education and research, innovation and science. That is what this agency is about. I am concerned that we could look to be too prescriptive in respect of whom we appoint to the board. As far as I am concerned, the people who need to be appointed to the board are the people who will drive the research agenda for Ireland, make this the best place in which research can be carried out and make the case to Government around the supports that are necessary for the research sector. Of course, there should be engagement with all of the relevant stakeholders and parties and consideration of their being represented, but I am certainly concerned about an amendment which would provide that half of the authority would be "active researchers and innovators". Even within that, there can be a debate as to precisely what that means and where these researchers and innovators are located.

On Senator Higgins's point around engagement with the relevant Oireachtas committee, consideration might be given to some way of giving, not necessarily an approval of the chair, but certainly whenever he or she is appointed that they would present and speak to the agenda. There certainly could be more balance within the legislation around the direct engagement by the agency and so on. I would be happy for that to be fleshed out. As regards the board, however, boards are not there to be reflective of the representative groups. Rather, they are there to achieve the best results for research in Ireland.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whether it is to be called research Ireland or Taighde Éireann, the number one priority for this agency is the availability of funding. That is what this agency has to do. The people operating the agency and those on its board need to be fighting for funding. They need to get Exchequer funding for the agency to distribute to researchers. That has to be the number one priority of this agency and its board. I was previously a contract researcher. From my experience in that position in Galway, I understand the importance of funding - Exchequer funding and non-Exchequer funding. We see so much funding from Horizon Europe and other European and international sources coming into our universities, but they fund projects that are time-limited. These are projects for five or six years or whatever it may be. They take on people and offer opportunities for work as postdocs, PhD students or research assistants. The whole gamut of research activities, profiles and careers is outlined there. There needs to be an awful lot more work done. I know the IUA has its career framework for researchers. We also need to see that the funding coming in means more opportunities for researchers to develop and progress their careers. There were fewer such opportunities ten or 20 years ago. It is crucial that the people who are on this board and part of this agency will be driving funding towards researchers and into colleges, including working with non-Exchequer funds. A key element of this is in the supports for and development of that research career profile and trajectory.Science Foundation Ireland previously sat within another Department, namely, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There was a reason for that, which is that when research and innovation move through the different areas of impact, they eventually will come out into the community and society and will have a commercial application. Having a commercial application means it is available for people to use, be that in medicine, our hospitals or across a wide range of areas. It is important to understand there is an important element of enterprise linked to the outcomes of research. It is important we have that skill set and that is acknowledged. I believe there is a key liaison and link between innovation and it being brought into society and the community, and it being developed. We see that now with the Enterprise Ireland agencies and the technology officers that already operate in a university setting.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to come in on a couple of points.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have still not brought in the Minister.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will be easier then. Amendment No. 69 is another in this set that ensures consistency with amendment No. 68 by ensuring that if there is a casual vacancy for chairperson, it would not be a direct appointment by the Minister but the same measures I have outlined would apply. It is a technical amendment.

I will speak to a couple of points. We are blending bodies that have different records, have had different cultures and have done different work. While Science Foundation Ireland sat within the Department of enterprise, that is one of the reasons we need to ensure we do not see this as simply an extension of the Department of enterprise. While I reserve the right on Report Stage, I have not sought to remove the representative of the Department of enterprise from this. I think it says a representative or voice. Senator Malcolm Byrne has said that once they are in the room they are simply bringing their expertise. There is an acknowledgement of expertise. There is similarly an expertise that comes from being chosen and having worked with so many of your colleagues in the area of research. They have collectively chosen you as somebody who can bring expertise from the real world of research. You bring expertise, insight and knowledge from all of them into the room when the research and innovation agenda is being set. There is an extraordinary expertise that comes from having worked and having been in conversation with the great body of researchers in Ireland, as well as being a representative of those.

We also need to be honest that there is danger of slippage in this Bill. I am not excluding what colleagues are mentioning but not everything will have a commercial application. Some things will have a social, environmental, ecological or human rights application. That is not necessarily going to be a commercial application. Ireland is not Ireland Inc. It is not Ireland incorporated. The Irish State is a republic. It has a different piece there. While the incorporated or business world that happens within Ireland is important, it is not Ireland. In this context we need to be clear that it is only part of it. There is a danger, and I can see the slippage now when we talk about commercial applications and Ireland Inc. I really see the danger of losing that work on the humanities, sociology, culture, human rights, society and that bigger picture. Some of the challenges we need to address, and which will not make money for anyone, may help save lives. Today, for example, one of the largest groups of researchers to ever collectively come in attended the climate committee. I heard two things there. One was that there is an excessive reliance on industry funding in respect of the direction and application of climate action and a lack of adequate resourcing for public research for the public good. Additional funding that may come from industry is fine.There are certain things, especially in respect of climate, where the solution may end up being something that does not make anybody any money, but instead involves a shift in society, social practice or how we manage our public resources in terms of our environment and land, for example. That is why we need to have measures that deliver the balance on the board in terms of researchers and the arts and humanities on the board. That is required so that we do not fall into a very narrow version of what research and innovation will do.

This is about more than the higher education institutions. I would have to check the figures, but a huge amount of what we spend on research in Ireland comes in the form of research and development tax breaks. In terms of the knowledge box and others, we do not actually know what such things do. There may well be many other forms of research taking place, but one of the problems is that much of that research does not have a lot of transparency and we do not know where the public benefit is coming from. If we are looking for those voices to be represented, we also need to come with a better expectation of transparency in terms of that part of the research. I will yield to the Minister of State and come back in afterwards.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is to be hoped he will resolve a lot of the Senator's questions.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No problem, I thank the Minister. I welcome the Minister of State.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. He was very clear about the need for the broad level of representation. Given the experience of certain people sitting on State boards, there is a reluctance on the part of some of the best people at present to sit on these boards. It is important, therefore, that we encourage the best people to apply.

I also welcome the fact that the Minister said we should encourage people in this regard. It is an element of good citizenship. One thing I should note is that, unlike in much other legislation, people are not being excluded from applying to be a member of this board by virtue of being members of local authorities. This is welcome. I can understand why Oireachtas Members would be excluded, but many people serving as members of local authorities have extensive experience of research and innovation and could apply and make very good members of this board. I welcome the fact that in this legislation, therefore, unlike in so many other Bills, local authority members are not excluded.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator can use that as a precedent the next time. I call Senator Higgins.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge local authority members being eligible to apply to be members of this board.I also acknowledge that is progress on the issue of local authority members and it is something I know that everybody across the House has called for and that issue was highlighted in Bill after Bill. It is good to hear there has been a shift.

I hope this is an example of how the way we have done things can be slightly changed and improved and I hope we will see similar shifts and improvements. To be clear, we are not necessarily speaking about X or Y academic qualifications; we are speaking about that diversity of representation. There are areas identified in the Bill and people would have to have expertise in two or more of these areas. The danger is that unless we clarify we want diversity and we do not want to end up with all of the board representing the same two or three areas of expertise and the other five areas of potential expertise named in the Bill having nobody represent them, we will have problems. There were issues in the past. For example, the previous climate advisory council - I emphasise not the current one - had a pile of economists on it and no scientists at all. There was nobody with an expertise in environmental science of any kind on the council, yet there were a number of economists and that was who was giving advice to the State about its policies on climate at a time we failed to deliver on climate change. It does matter. I take hope that there was an aspiration towards diversity from the Minister of State. However, unless we clarify in the way the board is being set up that we want diversity, unfortunately the experience has been that we sometimes do not get that. I will table more amendments on Report Stage, which at least, even if the Minister of State does not agree with my suggested numbers or prescriptions, would ensure all of those skill areas listed by him will be represented on the board in some form. It will ensure we will not end up with simply five, six or seven board members all representing one or two particular areas of focus or expertise and major gaps that will affect the quality of the work done by the board in the future.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 18, 45 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“ “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” means the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1 to 17 set out in the document entitled “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015” or any document which amends or replaces that document.”.

The amendment seeks to insert a definition of the UN Sustainable Development Goals into the Bill. The definition I propose comes from the Government's Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022. By inserting the definition, I am trying to ensure Ireland's international obligations under the sustainable development goals are reflected in this new body's work right the way through. One of the many issues I raised with the now Taoiseach and former Minister, Deputy Harris, during debates on the Higher Education Authority Act 2022 was the fact the legislation was lacking when it came to environment and climate action. Specifically, the use of the phrase "environmental development and sustainability" and its definition is not adequate and something I will return to in later amendments. I am disappointed that it seems the Department did not reflect on the very lengthy debates we had on these points and on that problematic element during the Higher Education Authority, HEA, Act. Instead, the same very problematic and outdated definition seems to have been cut and pasted across from the HEA Act.

Amendment No. 8 attempts to address this issue with the definition of "environmental development and sustainability". The HEA Act was to supposedly set Ireland up and mark out our vision for the future. We know one of the core areas and major areas for research into the future is climate, environment and sustainability. As highlighted during the HEA debates, the terminology and language in this Bill comes from the 1987 Brundtland report from the World Commission on Environment and Development.A commission that was dissolved later in 1987 was replaced by the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement and the sustainable development goals. Ireland negotiated the SDGs and led in those negotiations. The SDGs now form the blueprint for how we could be living together in a more sustainable and equitable way on this planet.

My amendment would ensure that references to environmental development and sustainability do not use outdated language from before even the Rio Conference, which was the very first COP on climate, and before the SDGs. Indeed, that is a definition predicated on a very narrow relationship between this generation and the next generation, which does not reflect the realities of where we are today where every generation is already feeling the impacts of climate change.

In fact, my amendment would provide that the references would draw instead on the UN's sustainable development goals. These are definitions which the Government itself has put into other legislation. There is almost a contradiction between that dated definition that is being proposed here and definitions which we have in the Circular Economy Act, which are very clear about the relationship between the circular economy and sustainable development.

One of my amendments, and I have a number of amendment that address this, will provide that references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed not just as references to development and actions that meet the needs of the present. As I have said, the language at the moment in the Bill must meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations, but that meets the needs of the present without compromising or contributing to the climate emergency or accelerating the climate emergency, which is already taking place, and without worsening or accelerating the climate emergency for those already experiencing its effects and those impacts.

Maybe in the 1980s we were in a space where we could talk about climate change impacting the next generation and that we have to balance what we do now with the next generation. Let us be clear, we are two or three generations on from the Brundtland report and we are now in a position where climate change is impacting this generation, not just people in Ireland but people in the developing world and right across the planet.

When we think about the actions we take, it is no longer simply okay to say we are balancing what we want to do now with what might suit people in the future. It has to be what we might deliver for us now, in terms of economy and so forth, without adding to the climate emergency for those people across the world who are already experiencing the impact, and without worsening the crisis that is already here. We are at the point of the next generations they spoke about in the 1980s and we failed them. We are in the place we are because they did not deliver on protecting the next generations. We are in generation climate change now. That is why this language needs to be changed and addressed. This is Committee Stage now and there will be opportunities between now and Report Stage to address this.

I want to be very clear that it is not good enough that in a Bill that sets the agenda for research and innovation into the future, we roll back to language that has not been used anywhere else since the 1980s and we ignore everything we have learned about sustainability and climate action in the decades since. In addition, we even ignore, and do not reference, the sustainable development goals. Imagine having a definition of sustainability from the 1980s and not referencing the sustainable development goals, which we not only negotiated but last September Ireland again hosted, at the UN, the discussions on where we go now and how we plan for the future of the sustainable development goals. Last September, Ireland chaired a discussion on this. It is a complete non sequitur. I can understand how it may have happened accidentally in the HEA Bill but I cannot understand how it is happening in yet another Bill a year and a half later.

The climate crisis is here and it is having a disproportionate impact on the world's most vulnerable. We heard the Climate Change Assessment Report at the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action this morning. The report was unequivocally clear that the climate emergency is already having impacts.It highlighted how in Ireland, the average temperatures are now one 1°C higher than they were in the early 20th century and that 16 of the 20 warmest years have occurred since 1990. Of the 20 warmest years on record, 16 have happened since publication of the Brundtland report. Moreover, 2022 was the hottest year on record to date. There are precipitation extremes and higher rates of sea level rise are expected. While I focused on people around the world who are impacted by climate change, the reports and research we saw also show that the impact in Ireland will be very severe.

Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and provides that references to environmental development and sustainability should be construed as references to development and actions which comply with our obligations under the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, and the United Nations sustainable development goals, SDGs, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing. In one, I use the definition that was used in the circular economy legislation. That is one proposal. Another proposal is that we simply refer to the Paris Agreement, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN SDGs. These are two very practical approaches, one of which takes from the circular economy legislation, and the other of which simply names those agreements we are already a party to, namely, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Paris Agreement and the UN SDGs.

Amendment No. 10 is another approach, which would insert the provision that, as well as looking at future generations, we would also recognise the historic responsibility for climate change and its effect on current populations. Again, that is a really important one, because it recognises that the impacts are taking place now.

Amendment No. 18 would insert a new object into the section. Those are all in relation to the definitions of environmental development and sustainability, but amendment No. 18 moves to a new object of the body. The new object would be that the agency would promote and support research that funds the achievement of the obligations regarding climate change, including emission reduction targets, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the implementation and achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. This moves out of the definitions space. At the moment, the section on objects only references environmental development and sustainability in that narrow definition. If the Minister of State does not want to change that definition, we will need to add something extra. He can leave that if he wishes, but we can add something extra that specifically names climate, the SDGs and the enhancement of biodiversity.

Amendment No. 45 inserts a new function, which would require the agency to promote and support the undertaking in the State of research and innovation, which furthers climate action, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the implementation and achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. Amendment No. 46 would insert a new function which would require the agency to enable and assist research sharing and technology transfer between designated higher education institutions, HEIs, research bodies and public bodies in line with and with due regard to Article 4(1)(g) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, which specifically provides for technology transfer.

There is a gaping hole in this Bill in terms of addressing the climate crisis, biodiversity, sustainability and the environment in its widest sense. International research was mentioned, as was international funding. These are the priority areas for much international research. These are the priority areas for much international funding for research. On Report Stage, I might address how it is important that these remain a priority for example, for the Horizon Europe funding, and that we do not see that being rerouted into defence spending. This is another issue that needs to be addressed in research. At the moment, climate and environment are huge global priorities for research and innovation and they are not reflected properly in this Bill. I have therefore suggested addressing this in the definitions. I have suggested a way it could be addressed in the objects. I have suggested a way it could be addressed in the functions. I want to signal that I am really keen and willing to engage to ensure something happens in this regard in the Bill.I am putting forward multiple ways through which we can try to address this issue. If this Bill goes through as it stands, without any proper reference to or engagement with these issues, it will be dated as soon as it is printed. It will be out of date, given what we need as a society. I again urge the Minister of State to engage in the areas of either definitions, objects or functions. I ask for opportunities to engage with the Minister and his team between Committee Stage and Report Stage. I am open to the Minister bringing his own proposals for how we can ensure the sustainable development goals, biodiversity and climate change are properly reflected in this Bill. Nevertheless, I will be fighting hard to ensure we do not send a Bill that is not fit for purpose out of this House.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, 18, 45 and 46 relate to the United Nations sustainable development goals, which only run up to 2030. This means that amendments would be required on a rolling basis. The principles underlying the sustainable development goals are already captured in the definitions and impact considerations. Environmental and sustainability impacts are to be considered in every aspect of the work of the agency. Maintaining this broader provision allows scope for the agency to keep aligned with emerging national and international policies and priorities. We therefore do not propose to accept these amendments.

Regarding amendment No. 8, the existing provision throughout the Bill is a positive requirement, meaning that the agency will be required to consider sustainable development and environmental impact in the undertaking of any research. The proposed amendment is a negative and would be impossible to quantify. It would require the agency to not accelerate or worsen the climate emergency but does not specify how this must be undertaken or measured. The existing provision is a stronger emphasis. It creates a template for action and puts these considerations at the heart of the assessment process. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 9 again potentially limits the longevity and future focus of the Bill. The United Nations sustainable development goals, as I said previously, only run up to 2030. This means that amendments will be required on a running basis to keep up with each new agreement. This is a rapidly evolving field. We have already seen a recognition and resolve in terms of the need for rapid climate action progress in recent years. We can anticipate that there will be further fairly rapid developments in this regard. These principles are already captured in the definitions and impact considerations. Maintaining this broader provision allows scope for the agency to keep aligned with emerging national policy and priorities with international developments, so we do not propose to accept the amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 10, the agency will only come into existence after the establishment date. The agency will have no legal existence until then, and we cannot accept liability or responsibility for wider historic events that have occurred prior to the establishment. Therefore, we do not propose to accept the amendment.

I will also say that the investments made by the agency on behalf of the Government will respond to and deliver against several important national and international strategies, including Impact 2030, which is Ireland's research and innovation strategy, the climate action plan, the national strategy on education for sustainable development, the long-term strategy on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and the United Nations sustainable development goals. The new agency will play a critical role in driving change and finding innovative solutions to enable us to thrive within planetary boundaries and to integrate climate action and sustainability into all its functions by aligning the new agency's efforts with national and international policies. We will ensure that the new agency plays its part in contributing to the achievement of Ireland's climate targets and our transition to a sustainable future.

Responding to the climate crisis cannot be the preserve of any single entity. It demands that we all take responsibility. The new agency will proactively engage and collaborate with other funders and stakeholders to create a cohesive response to the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation. By fostering partnerships and engaging with stakeholders, we can use our collective expertise to drive innovation and influence national policies that support climate action and environmental sustainability. The new agency can make a lasting difference in addressing the climate crisis through informed, evidence-based decision-making, providing top talent for industry and Government and inspiring societal change. Both agencies, but particularly SFI, have an excellent track record in this regard and this important work will continue under the new agency.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The circular economy Bill references the sustainable development goals and it does not have an issue with doing so. There are formulations that allow for references to the sustainable development goals and the subsequent goals that may follow them, as was done in relation to the millennium development goals, which preceded them. The Minister of State mentioned a number of bodies that would be engaged with, but I do not believe those bodies are named or reflected in the Bill. The Minister of State mentioned that there would be engagement with the UN sustainable development goals and a number of other parties, but that is not in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that gives that imprimatur. I just want to read it so that I am clear. The Bill could have left it and simply said “environmental sustainability”, which the Minister of State said lots of times, but it actually states "references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to development and actions that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It is a section that has some hope because it continues by providing "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes actions in respect of social, economic, cultural and environmental development, climate and biodiversity". Yet, the conversation is simply about the needs of this generation and those of the next generation. That is not where we are at. This looks at a 20-year frame that has passed. Climate action is here now.

With respect, the idea of the historic response is important. It is important to look at the historic responsibility. Maybe the Minister of State does not want to include a recognition of it but I propose that because the solutions one comes up with make a difference. Ireland has used up more than its global share of emissions. We have put more carbon out into the air per capita than many other countries in the world, such as Bolivia, Malawi, etc. At the moment, in our carbon budget plan, we are going to continue to take more than our fair share. Our fair share would involve a 7.6% reduction, but we are hoping for a 6% reduction. We are therefore still planning to continue to take up more than our fair share of our planetary boundary space, which is actual and physical and has limited availability for emissions. Therefore, the decisions one makes about the future need to be informed by the past and by the fact that if one has been taking and taking from the collective planetary resource, that is, air and our atmosphere, then one needs to start taking a little bit less. You need to come up with ways to innovate and think of research and ideas about how one can take up less. That is recognised under the UNFCCC. I will indicate now that on Report Stage, I may bring forward amendments that spell out more clearly the common but differentiated responsibilities. Under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, tackling climate change is a common challenge but there are differentiated responsibilities. Those differentiated responsibilities are based on the history we have.

That historic loss and damage, etc., therefore matters, but maybe right now it is a bridge too far for the Government, even though it is where we need to go. Even if that is not there, I refer to the kinds of things the Minister of State was talking about, such as how we want to be ahead, how we want to be ready for the next generations and how we want to move and evolve with what is happening. Yet, this phrasing ties us to really outdated language from the 1980s, rather than referencing the many subsequent available definitions of sustainability and environment, such as how they are defined within the sustainable development goals. The Minister of State's way of phrasing it does not equip us to move to the future and I will again point out how narrow it is.At the moment, the Act has references to a narrow definition of environmental development and sustainability but when we move to the other area I have tabled amendments, which is the "Objects of Agency", it is actually worded in a strange way where it states "to promote and support the contribution made by research and innovation to economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability in the State". Under that, the objects of the agency are just looking at the needs of people in this State and the needs of the next generation in this State and have no thought about the rest of the world at all or no mandate to look at environment, climate and sustainability on a global level or even a European level. That is just the way it is worded at the moment. Again, I hope that may be unintentional. I will come to some other ways we can address that, which I hope is inadvertent, but right now it is framed in such a narrow way that it is as if when we talk about environmental sustainability, that is just about this generation and the next generation in Ireland and everybody else in this whole shared planet that is pretty much on fire right now does not feature at all.

I am not going to press all of these amendments because I hope there might be some engagement but I really urge that there is a rethink and some examination of how we can make this Bill better in terms of its addressing climate and biodiversity.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, to delete lines 15 to 19 and substitute the following: “(3) In this Act, references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to development and actions that meet the needs of the present and which contribute to climate action without accelerating or worsening the climate emergency for those already experiencing its effects and those belonging to future generations who may experience its impacts.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, to delete lines 15 to 19 and substitute the following: “(3) In this Act, references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to developments and actions which comply with actions under the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes actions in respect of social, economic, cultural and environmental development, climate and biodiversity.”.

I will withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, line 16 after “present” to insert the following:“, while recognising historic responsibility for climate change and its effects on current populations,”

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 11, 34, 43 and 80 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:“(4)In this Act, nothing should violate and instead seek to uphold the principles of parity of esteem (between disciples) and of academic freedom cited in Impact 2030,Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy and European standards of good practice.”.

I want to explain a little about the reason for proposing these amendments. I am speaking to these amendments as an academic of 22 years' experience in DIT, now the Technological University of Dublin, and also as a researcher who did research in the area of the human sciences, which led to transformative change for Óglaigh na hÉireann and that revealed highly disturbing and shocking levels of sexual violence within our Naval Service, Army and Air Corps. The reason I highlight that is it was the work of one researcher and, when my findings were published, I was accused of having fabricated the findings because they were disruptive. I was accused by the military authorities of falsifying the research. I was also threatened with criminal prosecution for breaching the Official Secrets Act 1963. I almost lost my job as a probationer lecturer in TU Dublin. That is because the research was provocative, and it was disruptive.

One of the issues I want to address by way of my amendments is that academic freedom would be very explicitly preserved in the wording of the Bill because it is lacking in that area. As we move forward as a society, and as a strong, independent, neutral voice in Europe and in the world, we must ensure that we have a research environment that is holistic and that encourages provocative and disruptive research, particularly in the human sciences. The reason I say that is the Bill mentions "science and innovation" hundreds of times, but it mentions "arts and humanities" less than ten times. There is a kind of inbuilt bias or set of domain assumptions within the wording that imply a hierarchy of knowledge that prefers the natural sciences associated with research and innovation in the industrial sphere. In many respects, it reminds me of the wording of the Hunt report, which is the national strategy for higher education to 2030. It saw the universities in the aftermath of the financial crash as being engines of economic recovery. I agree that the third level sector and universities and researchers should play a role in our economic recovery and growth, but more importantly, our universities should be engines of ethical recovery and growth because, as Senator Higgins pointed out, our economy is one thing, but we do live in a republic and we have a society and many areas of our society, quite frankly, are broken. I just want to provide the context for the rationale for my submitting these amendments. I am not going to speak to each amendment in any great detail.

I also come here as a Trinity College Dublin, TCD, Senator. TCD has made submissions to the Minister. It is one of the oldest universities and one of the largest research institutes in the State. It has expressed some concerns about the agency and the manner in which Taighde Éireann or the research and innovation entity, whatever it may look like, has been brought into being. It talks about a lack of consultation and a set of truncated timelines. TCD is asking that when it comes to amendments, whether on Committee or Report Stages, that the Minister would take on board its views.

I know that not everybody who is going to input into the research and innovation decisions we make as a society needs to have a PhD or some sort of a postdoctoral qualification. Trinity College Dublin is a community of practice, one of some considerable expertise, both nationally and internationally, as highlighted by Senator Higgins, so we should take on board its concerns. One of the points it makes, which is very reasonable, is that Impact 2030 proposes a budget in the region of €270 million for the new agency, and that is only going to grow. It is more than a quarter of a billion euro and, therefore, issues around governance, consultation and accountability are really important.

Like Senator Higgins, some of the amendments I propose speak to the constitution of the board and the oversight and governance mechanisms in place there. It is very important that we have the proper governance because it is going to be of such vital importance to our future. The amendments I suggest are very modest in that regard. I ask that there would be some engagement on that. The amendments also talk about research excellence that is evidence-based. Again, ideas such as having active researchers as members of the board are very important. We must have reflective practitioners who have expertise and experience at the coalface of research, whether it be in the human sciences or the natural sciences, so that they are part of the decision-making process.

Finally, I refer to attracting and retaining talent. Fundamentally, TCD's submission talks about three values. The first one is ambition. The Bill, as currently worded, lacks ambition. Again, Senator Higgins pointed out this almost, dare I say, parochial kind of parameter that we look at the research interests of the State. We are a global interconnected community. Ireland has an open knowledge-based society that really needs a diverse research ecosystem that is interoperable with other research agencies on the European stage and internationally.Academic freedom is something which is very close to my heart. The Universities Act very explicitly sets out the rights of academics and researchers to be provocative and offensive. We have had a lot of debate in the Chamber about the proposed incitement to hatred legislation that is coming forward. We expressed some concerns about the lack of a definition of hatred. One of my concerns about that legislation is the chilling effect it might have on academics who seek to upset the status quoand challenge very dearly held received and culturally important beliefs that may not be useful and, in fact, may be harmful or toxic in society. Trinity College said there needs to be specific wording and I have suggested a number of amendments that reinforce that concept of academic freedom. This is not to assume that there is an implied academic freedom; rather, we need to actively and explicitly state that.

I refer to curiosity driven basic research. I echo the main assumptions of the national strategy for higher education, as set out in the Hunt report. We have to have an explicit recognition of and parity of esteem for blue-sky thinking and ground-breaking research for which there is no prior contribution to knowledge. We cannot build on what we know; we have to explore the unknown in order to contribute to knowledge and generate new insights and understandings that might dramatically change the world that we live in. That informs some of the amendments I have submitted.

Over a thousand senior academics and researchers wrote to the then Minister and current Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, about the Bill last year and set out a number of key concerns. They include Professors Luke O'Neill and Jane Ohlmeyer from Trinity College, Professor Kingston Mills from the Trinity school of biochemistry and so on. The list is a who's who of research and expertise across the Republic. They all share similar concerns. In their submission, they said in an era of misinformation and disinformation, it is important that we have evidence-based criteria for the way in which we identify areas of research interest that are of value to society. This is the key to our economic and social survival and the antidote to a period of anti-intellectualism, misinformation and disinformation.

Those on the list also highlighted that expenditure in Ireland in terms of funding for research is very low, at in or around 1.2% or 1.3% of GDP. They state that there should be some sort of aspiration to at least meet the European average of 2.32% of GDP, in terms of the ambition of the Bill. At the moment, we are highly dependent on foreign direct investment. We need to be able to grow our own capacity and self-reliance. That will principally happen through research and innovation. It is well worth investing in those.

The other concerns are brief. I will then move on to the amendments. There needs to be a meaningful definition of research and it must be inclusive of every sector of knowledge and career stage. There must be balance, something which is not currently present, between science, technology, engineering and maths, STEM, and health sciences, arts, humanities and the social sciences. As I said, there are hundreds of references to the natural sciences and innovation in the Bill, but a bare few mentions of the arts and humanities. That is where some of the most ground-breaking research is going to take place, because of some of the principal threats to our survival as a species, as embodied by people like Vladimir Putin and, God help us, Donald Trump. Those problems are human and highly behaviouristic and can only be addressed through evidence-based research in the human sciences. We need an emphasis to be placed on that research.

I refer to the principles of parity of esteem between disciplines and academic freedom, something I will not rehearse again. One thousand academics are concerned about academic freedom. Strong, accountable and independent governance is required. This is a body that will control 75% of the research funding. It is a hugely powerful instrument and there needs to be robust, accountable and independent governance. Like the amendments proposed by Senator Higgins, my amendments will address some of the concerns. The European standards of good practice in terms of the fair allocation of funding and transparency and a commitment to meet the EU average of GDP investment are also factors.

I propose to run through the amendments briefly. Senator O'Hara has left; I must have bored him out of the Chamber. I am no longer the newest Senator, but I am relatively new to this. I will try to be as succinct as I can. Amendment No. 5-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are on amendment Nos. 11, 34, 43 and 80. We are dealing with amendment No. 11.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. The amendment states: "In this Act, nothing should violate and instead seek to uphold the principles of parity of esteem (between disciples) and of academic freedom cited in Impact 2030, Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy and European standards of good practice.” I wish to reiterate those concerns and have that statement inserted explicitly into the Act. Will I move to amendment number 13?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next amendments are amendments Nos. 34, 43 and 80.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The grouping is-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 11, 34, 43 and 80 are grouped.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to amendment No. 43. The amendment states:

In page 12, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(k) to promote party of esteem and support equality, diversity and inclusion in research and innovation,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address my amendments in this group. The points made by Senator Clonan are important, in terms of best practice in respect of intellectual freedom, parity of esteem between areas and the other principles around support for foundational research, which he emphasised.

The Senator mentioned his research in respect of the armed forces. There is a key ethical question which needs to be addressed, and I may bring forward amendments on Report Stage to address it. I refer to how core ethics relate to a research body, without compromising academic and intellectual freedom. There may be certain ethical questions that will need to be asked and addressed in terms of research that may be funded through this research and innovation process. As has been mentioned, it will be responsible for a huge volume of research.

I attended a meeting of the education committee today. Luckily, at this point something which is very worrying is still just a proposal. I refer to the proposal regarding European Horizon funding, which has an explicitly civilian focus, and the European Defence Fund, which has a military focus. They are separate areas of research and have separate strands of funding at research level for very good reasons. There are attempts at European level to merge the two and create a situation whereby military expenditure, research and innovation would be able to access, draw from and draw away research funding from other areas by being able to draw on Horizon funding. When we discussed this with the Department, we did not get clarity that Ireland will be explicitly clear on its position. There are currently three options on the table in Europe. The first is to keep a civilian focus for Horizon funding and a separate military focus for the European Defence Fund. The second and third options involve some form of merger of or overlap between the two.It is going to be really important that Ireland is explicitly clear that Horizon funding must remain for civilian purposes. When we spoke to officials from the Department about it today, they emphasised that whatever happens, no researchers will be obliged to apply for that research. We need to be clear, however. They almost put it back to the idea that research practice on the ground might address it rather than us addressing it by inputting at EU level. We need, therefore, to be really clear that this research and innovation body will not be participating in that kind of muddying of the line between civilian and military purposes and will not be facilitating or funding that. That is a key area of ethics that will need to be addressed again. It was not an issue we needed to be concerned about when the Bill was first drafted, but it is one that is actually coming into focus now and that may need to be addressed. I will be coming back to this. It was appropriate that Senator Clonan mentioned how important ethical applications are, especially in very sensitive and high stakes areas such as military action.

My amendments are quite brief in respect of this. Amendment No. 34 seeks to amend section 8 by inserting a new object for the agency. It is a similar point that has been made regarding the importance of "parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines with regard to the research and innovation opportunities available to them, and in the ongoing undertaking of that research and innovation”. It is no coincidence that myself and Senator Clonan have very similar amendments here.

This was one of the core issues identified during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The pre-legislative scrutiny report explicitly stated that the legislation should include a clear blueprint on how parity of esteem can be achieved between academic disciplines, forms of research - that includes that question of foundation versus applied research - and researchers themselves. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service, in its digest for the Bill, stated that it is not clear how the Bill, as initiated, will have the effect of placing arts, humanities and social science research on a "statutory footing". The Department offered a suggestion that there are difficulties in directly referencing parity of esteem within the text.

I would like the Minister of State in replying to us on this grouping to talk us through what the difficulties are in referencing parity of esteem. If there are such difficulties, what measures will be taken? Again, this is what the pre-legislative scrutiny called for. It was highlighted as the big gap in the Bill's digest. It has been highlighted by Senator Clonan and me. Crucially, and I am not going to list all the other academics from National University of Ireland, NUI, universities in the letter Senator Clonan referenced, it has been mentioned by academics and researchers from right across third level institutions and, indeed, not just third level institutions. The importance of some measure that delivers either explicit parity of esteem or other mechanisms that will allow for assurances that arts, humanities and social sciences research will not end up in second place or in a lesser place in terms of how they are addressed in the Bill has been highlighted. Therefore, the Minister of State might address how he plans to approach this, what his thinking is with regard to it and if he could specifically talk to that question of the parity of esteem language.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank both Senators. In terms of parity of esteem, this intention is woven throughout the Bill in the existing definitions, objectives and functions. Parity of esteem needs to be realised and this is not achieved by simply inserting the words, as was discussed during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It has been a principle of consideration at every stage of the drafting process and will continue to be a founding and core principle of the new agency.

The Bill puts arts, humanities and social sciences, AHSS, funding on a statutory basis for the first time. It changes the process for managing project teams which are applying for the funding so that researchers from AHSS disciplines can lead on these teams. Parity of esteem has been intentionally woven throughout the definitions, objectives and functions of the Bill. This is how we are going to achieve this principle in a real sense. For this reason, we do not propose to accept the amendments.

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 34, 43 and 80 as there is already an object in the Bill in section 8(b) relating to the principles referenced here. As I previously stated, parity of esteem was pointed out in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It is a defining principle of the new agency and we wanted to get the term into the text of the Bill. However, this does not place any kind of obligation on anyone. It does not require them to do anything. How the principle has actively been woven throughout the definitions, objects, functions and funding sections of the Bill is a much more effective way of ensuring the principle. It gives active considerations and requirements. It sounds counterintuitive that we can better ensure parity of esteem by not having that phrase in the Bill, but that is the position we are in. We, therefore, do not propose to accept these amendments.

Proposals can come in from all career stages, all disciplines and all types of research and the agency will assess them in terms of impact, standard and quality. The best proposal will be successful, whether coming from a STEM or AHSS principal investigator, and the movement towards more interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary work is also a consideration. AHSS researchers cannot take on that principal investigator role under the existing structures and the fact that they now can, because the funding for AHSS research is on a statutory basis for the first time, is hugely significant in terms of an active representation of parity of esteem.

I also want to reference the White Paper on dual-use technologies, which is an ongoing process. The White Paper provides an opportunity to consult European stakeholders on how research and development in technologies with dual-use potential are supported at European level. Dual-use technologies have the potential to be used for both military and civil purposes. The current EU framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon Europe, exclusively funds research for civil applications. This is complemented by the European Defence Fund, which supports research for military purposes. The European Commission is seeking to assess whether the current approach is still appropriate in light of the changing geopolitical context. The White Paper explores options to facilitate cross-fertilisation between civil and defence research and development activities and create greater synergies between EU programmes. The White Paper acknowledges that enhancing the support for technologies with dual-use potential at EU level brings both opportunities and challenges. The European Commission consultation is open until 30 April. Our Department is encouraging the research and innovation community to respond to the consultation.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First of all, it would be good if the Department responded to the consultation and was explicit that Ireland, as a neutral country, and bear in mind one with very concrete legislation in areas like cluster munitions and so forth, believes in the retention of a separation between civil and military research, especially in the current geopolitical context when, for example, we know of the extraordinary increase in arms and military products that have been exported from Europe and have been going to Israel. We know the United Nations Human Rights Council called for an arms embargo and actions in respect of arms. We need to be very careful if we are going to have any engagement in the pipeline of weapons that may be engaged in a breach of human rights. In that context, absolutely, we should seek to protect our research and innovation for the many common goals we have in many other areas of society and, indeed, the environment. I expect and hope the Irish Government will take a very clear position.We are at the point where if the Government speaks up clearly on this dangerous proposal, it may go back to the drawing board. We should not allow a slide towards a militarisation of Horizon funding, which used to be focused on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth but seems to be getting redirected towards a military industrial complex, which, of course, is an area where Ireland would not be able to, and should not, fully participate. I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the issue. I join the call for people to make clear submissions before 30 April and that includes those in the Department.

On the parity of esteem issue, the Bill includes some good language but parity of esteem is not the same as stating that many things can exist. Parity of esteem is about whether those things are valued equally. Section 8(b), to which the Minister of State referred, contains good language. It states that one of the agency's objects will be "to support the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines by researchers with different levels of knowledge, experience and specialist skills in such fields or disciplines". That is stating we should have research and innovation in many different areas to be conducted by many different researchers, which is great. However, we are not saying that many things should happen. When we talk about parity of esteem, we are suggesting that resources should be somewhat equal in how they are applied in order that we do not end up with a €1 million fund for the social sciences and a €25 million fund for science and technology or for artificial intelligence that may have a dual use and may be used in autonomous weapons if the European Commission has its way. Parity of esteem is not the same as acknowledging there is a wide diversity of things there. The Bill is quite good at recognising that there are many different kinds of discipline and research but, as was highlighted in the Bill digest, it does not give any indication that there is going to be any equality of weighting. We do not require exact equality but we want some parity of esteem and equal weighting so we do not end up with something that is giving three quarters of its funding to one or two disciplines and then having decorative schemes. We do not want the situation we used to have in forestry where there were enormous plantations of Sitka spruce and a few decorative deciduous trees tucked around the edge. We do not want the social sciences to be on the decorative flourish side but need them to be given substantial funding. That is the missing bit.

I appreciate that the Minister of State has been clear that his intention is that it would be woven throughout the Bill but the language in the Bill at the moment does not quite deliver. If that phrase is not the right phrase, we need to find some other mechanisms. I have one such mechanism in amendment No. 80, to which I have not spoken but which is in this group. I think the Minister of State spoke to it. Amendment No. 80 is not around definitions or objects but is quite concrete as a mechanism. It relates to the section on funding. This is amendment No. 80 under section 35. It specifically states that the agency would have a duty to uphold the principle of parity of esteem - and we can consider the language - between fields of activity and discipline when it comes to the allocation of resources and the design, disbursement and administration of schemes under the Bill. The Minister of State said the language is woven throughout the Bill but in that section around research and its funding, there is an opportunity to send a strong signal to the arts, humanities and social sciences that his intention and the intention of this legislation is that resources will be allocated on an equal level, or at least to a substantially equal or relatively equitable level, to the arts, humanities and social sciences. The Minister of State said that the words themselves do not do anything but amendment No. 80 would do something. It would allow the Government to put teeth and concrete commitment behind what the Minister of State has expressed as a genuine aspiration.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come in briefly. What the Minister of State said sounds counterintuitive. He said that mentioning parity of esteem will not guarantee it but we need to reinforce it. It reminds me of a scene in "The Simpsons" where Homer asks Lisa what she is going to study in university and she tells him she is going to study philosophy. Homer tells her that is great because it will mean she can get a job in the big philosophy factory on the edge of town. Even in popular culture and cartoons, there is an acknowledgement of the kind of status hierarchy of knowledge, which is completely false and bogus. We have an opportunity to intervene to ensure there is an absolute guarantee.

I was struck by what Senator Higgins has said. She said she hopes it will not be only €1 million for the arts, with the rest of the budget going to our engineering and astrophysicist friends. We must ensure that at least a minimum of the funding is ring-fenced for meaningful research into the human sciences and arts. I see in the senior leadership teams in our universities an over-representation of decision-makers from a natural sciences background. There is a feeling that people who have qualifications and a research track record in those areas are somehow more authoritative or carry more intellectual weight, which is completely false. I have experience of being in a university where the president is an engineer, which is great, but I would prefer to be led by a poet and let the engineers do the servicing. I think we would have a better society for it. I want to press the point that there should be more explicit guarantees of parity of esteem in the Bill.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Senator Malcolm Byrne.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was the quote from "The Simpsons". The Senator cannot help himself. He has come to life now.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure if "The Simpsons" amendment to the Bill is going to be proposed at some stage. It could certainly be considered. Returning to the point, I am always reluctant to be overly prescriptive. If we look at the objects of the agency that are outlined in section 8, they are sufficiently broad. Section 8(c) covers "to promote and support the contribution made by research and innovation to economic, social, cultural and environmental development and sustainability in the State". I am always a little reluctant when we start to talk about ring-fencing funding and being very specific. I would point, for instance, to when Science Foundation Ireland engaged in a research prioritisation exercise and effectively listed 14 different types of research that would be its priorities and anything that fell outside that did not happen. I am a great believer in supporting blue-sky research and collaboration because I believe the poet and the engineer should be working together to solve some of our problems. In fact, solving problems requires interdisciplinarity and is not the preserve of one particular field. I appreciate the principles of the point but the objects of the agency set out in the Bill are quite broad. I would be worried, to return to an earlier point, if we were to become overly prescriptive around who sits on the board and so on. Part of it will be about setting out the agency's programme of work year on year, but that should not be going into legislation.

This is also about more than just our universities. It is about creating a research culture for all sectors of society within Ireland. Section 8 of the Bill is quite comprehensive in that regard. I encourage the Senator to propose "The Simpsons" amendment on Report Stage.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I object to the Senator referring to the Homer Simpson amendment. I will never live that down.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will now check on the Homer Simpson amendment. Is amendment No. 11 being pressed?

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I ask your advice, a Leas-Chathaoirligh? I would like to reintroduce the amendment on Report Stage.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator may withdraw the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 12 and 48 to 56, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 51 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 50.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 25, to delete “or expedient”.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to amend section 3 on regulations and orders by deleting the provision in subsection (2), which allows the Minister to make regulations which include such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be expedient for the purposes of the regulations. The word "necessary" is already there, so it covers situations where we need to have incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions. Adding the additional word "expediency" lowers the bar and allows a Minister include additional provisions in regulations simply because it is expedient. It is a fast and quick way of getting something done, and not because it is necessary. Expediency alone, and anything that encourages cutting corners and fast tracking new measures without proper review, needs to be balanced out by necessity and proportionality. Expediency relates to a broader issue I will address later, which is that there has been a lack of listening from the Department about some issues raised during the HEA debates. We will come to it during further debate on these sections, but the Minister and the Government have been given an extraordinary level of power and discretionary power over this agency. It is not typical of things I have seen in the past during my time in the Oireachtas. What we saw in the HEA Bill and what we see here are really extraordinary powers allowing the Minister and the Government to effectively direct the work and operation of the agency. Adding to that, that regulations can be made that are not necessary, but just expedient, that is a different thing. If these changes to the provisions in the regulations are necessary, they will meet the bar of necessary. That is fine and you do not need to do it. If they are not necessary, then that is the only time that expedient might come in. You have to ask who that expediency is serving. Is it that the Government wants to make a measure quickly because it suits the Minister? Could it be that we are responding with supplementary measures that are expedient and easier and quicker, so as to avoid normal scrutiny? It is language we do not need to have.

I refer to amendment No. 48. This is among a broader set of amendments linked to this section and relate to a key issue in the Bill which is the extraordinary powers being given to the Minister in respect of giving direction to the agency. People I spoke within the research community found this language surprising. The Bill currently states that, "The Minister may give a direction in writing to the Agency for any purpose relating to this Act and concerning... any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other enactment". A Minister can give directions to the agency on any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other Act. That is pretty wide. Some would say that is extraordinarily wide in terms of the level of power being given to a Minister to move this agency. You really move to a point where the agency looks like it is simply a tool of the Minister. It also states, "And... the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government". The body that oversees higher education and research in Ireland will presumably be responsible for huge amounts of funding and will set the agenda for what happens with funding in the social sciences, science, arts, music, agriculture and all of these areas. It effectively has to respond and deliver on anything a Minister decides to tell it to do. That is wild, frankly.

My amendments are small, and I will be clear and say I will oppose this section. My amendments are maybe too mild. I am adding the word "reasonable". I am asking how it would be if we asked the Minister to give a reasonable direction so there is some brake on what might come in, and we do not have a Minister who simply decides he is all about livestock and redirects all agency funding to go towards livestock and ditch any focus on horticulture because that is the policy the Government has decided. This is about "reasonable" direction. Again, we could see measures or directions coming from a Minister in this context, which could sabotage a higher education institution's applications for international funding, collaborations it has with international institutions, or maybe a direction that undermines its Horizon funding. Reasonable is the bar for the directions the Minister might give. Reasonable is the bar by which the agency will comply with a reasonable direction given by the Minister. It will also be reasonable in terms of how the agency will respond.

Not only can the Minister give direction on effectively anything but, "The Agency shall, within the period specified by the Minister in a direction, inform the Minister of the measures taken by the Agency to comply with the direction". Not only does the agency have to do whatever the Minister or Government wants to do, with anything. They have to it exactly when the Minister says. The Minister might say it has two months or a week. The Minister has absolute discretion in setting the time period in which the agency has to respond to the direction from the Minister. There is no brake on this. I hope we will not have Ministers giving incredibly inappropriate or dangerous direction, but right now there is nothing in this Bill to stop that. There is no brake. There is not even a basic bar of reasonableness, which is normal in legislation. We have had it inserted in lots of legislation.

I will go through this set of amendments addressing this section. As I said, amendment No. 48 would provide that the Minister would give a reasonable direction in writing to the agency for any purpose relating to this Act. Amendment No. 49 is consequential on amendment No. 50, which would delete section 11(1)(b) which states the Minister may give a direction concerning the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government. Again, it is disappointing to see that no lessons have been learned from the extensive HEA debates and the problematic actions of that legislation have been copied and pasted into this Bill. The idea is that the Oireachtas would give the Minister the power to issue directions for implementing any policy or objective of the Minister, and we would give a blank cheque to the Minister to decide what the research, development and innovation agency would do at any given moment.

I note the language here as well. I will speak to amendment No. 50, which goes to a different part of that.When we talk about "any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government", does this include memos, policy papers and press releases? What is the intention behind this sweeping provision?

Amendment No. 51, as I said, would amend section 11(1)(b) by specifying that the policies or objectives referred to must be those that are "provided for in legislation". That is a reasonable break. If the Minister wishes to remind the research and development agency of measures in legislation, that is reasonable.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As it is now 6 p.m., the debate on this Bill must adjourn in accordance with the order of the House.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.