Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Farrell for the amendments and I understand the intention. Let me share my thoughts on this on Committee Stage. No doubt it may be something Deputy Farrell wants to return to later in the legislative process. I understand the intention of amendment No. 4 in making specific reference to elements that might seem to need highlighting, and the Deputy has outlined why she believes it is important. In terms of the Bill, it is our view that provision for these elements is already captured under the meaning of the broader terms used and it is not necessary to restate them in the legislation as proposed. "Political, historical and legal" are captured under the broader banners of social and cultural impact.

There is also a risk, and we say this often when dealing with primary legislation, that when we start listing more specific elements it can be read as having an unintended consequence of exclusion. If all of this was put in why did we leave out something that none of us have yet to think about? To suggest that anything not specified here is not covered by the broader provision would potentially be an unintended consequence. As always, this is the risk if we are overly prescriptive in primary legislation. This is why I do not propose to accept amendment No. 4.

With regard to amendment No. 5 we are creating legal capacity with the provision enabling the agency and providing scope for action. Of course community outreach work, particularly in terms of education, is envisaged as being an ongoing aspect of the operation of the agency, as it is of both SFI and the Irish Research Council, IRC. However this capacity is already captured in the functions at section 9(1)(j) and in the objects in this provision as already worded. It is, therefore, not necessary to make a more specific provision in this section of the Bill.

With regard to proposed amendment No. 6, definitions containing lists of the types of research the agency can engage in were included in the published heads of the Bill but they were deemed to be problematic in a number of ways. The lists were capable of being incorrectly interpreted as being exhaustive or excluding elements not specifically mentioned. They were also misinterpreted as being listed in some sort of priority order in terms of giving greater weight to particular ones and this is absolutely not the policy intention. We arrived at the decision in the course of the drafting process to use definitions and descriptions to try to capture the policy intention of parity of esteem. The Bill employs definitions and provisions which are enabling for the agency to support all disciplines, all career stages and all research types. Making provision for all disciplines, all types of research and all career stages means the specifications and potential misinterpretation of the policy position as we had originally envisaged has been eliminated.

In terms of the Bill where there is provision for all types, specifying provision for one or another kind of research is not necessary. These provisions are also about ensuring the agency has the capacity to keep up with innovation and developments in how we do research in the future. Again, they have been carefully considered with this requirement in mind. Both agencies have an impressive track record of supporting all stages of research, including fundamental research. This support will absolutely continue with the new agency. Deputy Farrell is absolutely correct that fundamental and applied research are mutually reinforcing. I fully agree on this. We need to continue supporting both. We believe this is captured in the existing provision.

At a high level as opposed to on the specific amendments, we are trying to do several things. One is absolutely to achieve parity of esteem. I know that we all on a cross-party basis share this view. The greatest creation of parity of esteem is the fact that for the first time we are taking humanities and ensuring they are on a statutory footing in terms of creating this new agency. I am so proud of and impressed by the work the IRC has done but, of course, the IRC does not exist in statute. Effectively it is a suboffice or substructure of the HEA.

That is not to demean its work. It is incredible it has achieved so much without having that statutory function. The second thing we are eager to do is be careful that we do what need to do in primary legislation, but do not overexert ourselves to the point where we could apply rigidity to the new agency or find ourselves with legislation that does not keep up with innovation. That is always the balance and struggle on which we are trying to arrive at a judgment when it comes to legislation. For those reasons I do not propose to accept these amendments at this stage.