The European Research Council has it right and the Government has it wrong, to put it simply. In driving the sort of research agency we want, it should not be about technocrats, for want of a better word. I just do not think it should be. The technocrats should be subservient to the people who have experience, knowledge and are engaged in the research, in whatever field it may be, the arts, humanities, science or whatever. Indeed, I worry when we get in technocrats, and we will be dealing with something else later …

I move amendment No. 2: In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(b) to offer researchers sustainable career development systems at all career stages and to endeavour to ensure that researchers are treated as professionals and as an integral part of the institutions in which they work, in line with the objectives of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers;”. These amendments are related to the earlier discussion but in a way they are the mo…

The Minister will answer for me.

The code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers, the Commission’s recommendations and the European Charter for Researchers state, for example, that “All researchers engaged in a research career should be recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly”. They are not.

Yes, they are professionals. That is their point. Are they not professionals?

I consider them to be professionals.

They are working. Without our researchers, our third-level institutions would not be able to function. They are not being treated as professionals. The vast majority of them are living in poverty. They are not acknowledged for the contribution they make in terms of their employment status and rights. That is a fact and that is why they are campaigning. They are looking to be recognised as workers. They have gone to the trouble of producing a very detailed document. I am not sure if the Minister has had a chance to …

It clearly demonstrates that we are performing very poorly compared to many, if not most, of our European counterparts when it comes to the treatment of our postgraduate researchers in terms of levels of income, employment security, career paths, opportunities, etc. We have a long way to go. It would be entirely reasonable therefore to hardwire that into a State body that is responsible for funding research.

Just to be clear, I am not saying they are uniform-----

-----and, indeed, the Postgraduate Workers Organisation’s report shows that there are different models. I am quoting the recommendation that they should be treated as professionals, they should be seen as professionals and they should be treated accordingly. Currently, they rightly feel in many cases they are brutally underpaid, they are really struggling to sustain themselves in the work they do and the career they would like to pursue, and indeed, in many cases, they are being exploited and are being taken advant…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) to ensure the provision of adequate funding for the development of high quality doctoral programmes, in line with the Salzburg Principles;”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(d) to promote the independence and flexibility of early-career researchers;”.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 11, line 12, to delete “the Government, Ministers of the Government and”.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 11, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(e) to preserve and support the independence of academic and research institutions;”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 11, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “(e) support the development and maintenance of high standards of working conditions across the research sector in Ireland in cooperation with relevant bodies, including trade unions and other representative organisations;”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 14, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “Report on employment status of key researchers 14. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the potential for recognition of employment status for postgraduate researchers and the implications the current model of non-recognition has in terms of social protection and employment rights.”.

I have a number of amendments in this grouping. Some of the discussion has been had. Amendment No. 15 proposes that "no fewer than six ordinary members of the Board shall have experience and expertise in carrying out research". We are seeking to specify that a majority of the board, as a minimum, would be people with expertise and experience in research. This is a reasonable demand. I draw the Minister's attention to the European Research Council, which is absolutely dominated by researchers, academics and so on. E…

The Minister said the requirement is that people will most likely have to have experience in research, but the diversity that is critical is not written into the legislation. It is noteworthy that the area the Minister specified was enterprise. Why, for example, would he not have specified arts? Enterprise is specified because what is considered to be important for the economy is prioritised. I believe that is a mistake. That sort of mistake leads in all sorts of terrible directions. I could refer to the example of…

I move amendment No. 14: In page 15, line 20, to delete "Subject to subsection (3) " and substitute "Subject to subsections (3) and (4) ".

I move amendment No. 15: In page 15, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: "(3) No fewer than six ordinary members of the Board shall have experience and expertise in carrying out research.".