Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy and acknowledge the weight and respect I attach to his contribution as a former Minister of State in this area, and the knowledge and perspective he brings to it. I am conscious of that, and I thank him for the issues he raised on Second Stage, which I tried to address in my correspondence. It got to him, slightly belatedly, today in advance of Committee Stage. Before I speak to this specific amendment I will address the issue of parity of esteem. My starting point for this conversation is that this legislation is, of itself, a Bill that places funding for arts, humanities and social sciences on a statutory basis for the first time. That is what we are fundamentally doing. For the first time we are placing that on a statutory basis. The creation of Taighde Éireann is where the principle of parity of esteem is being realised. The decision to use definitions and descriptions that capture that policy intention of parity of esteem throughout was arrived at in the course of the drafting process. The Bill employs definitions and provisions, which are enabling for the agency to support all disciplines, all career stages and all research types.

I turn to clarity as to where in the Bill there are specific provisions that will place arts, humanities and social sciences on an equal statutory footing for the first time, ensuring parity of esteem, access to research funding and a greater consistency for this research community. That wording has been given careful consideration at every stage of the stakeholder consultation and the drafting process. That policy intention has also been captured throughout the Bill. It is in the definitions section, the objects, the functions and the funding sections. The objects section specifically states it is "to support the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines". That clearly places all disciplines on the same footing. I acknowledge sincerely that the IRC has a worthy history of supporting cultural, historical and heritage studies, viewing blues skies and fundamental AHSS research as a worthy endeavour on its own, which it is. We intend to carry these values into the new agency. The legislation puts arts, humanities and social science funding on a statutory basis for the first time. In making competitive funding awards of varying sizes and across all disciplines, the agency will significantly broaden the access of researchers in these areas to an improved range of research funding programmes.

I have taken particular interest in engaging with the humanities sector on this. I know the sensitivities and I take the Deputy's point about the historical reality it has experienced. There is a balance. Some people on the enterprise stage ask if we are handing this "enterprise" agency over to the academics. There is a healthy tension, but I think we have gotten the balance right. All disciplines are ultimately needed and required to address most of the grand challenges we face.

On the specific proposed amendments, it should be noted that I propose to make an amendment to this section, which is amendment No. 8. I do not propose to accept amendment No. 7 because I think the issues it seeks to address are being addressed by amendment No. 8. I propose the following amendment No. 8 to section 9(1)(j) which is, in page 10, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute them with, "promote the undertaking in the State of research and innovation that is funded (wholly or partly) by an international or European Union body, institution or organisation and, where so funded, to promote the success of such research and innovation,”.

This amendment provides better balance to the provision and better alignment with other sections that deal with international and EU co-operation regarding research and innovation. It captures the intention of the amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Riordáin and Sherlock.

We wanted to accept amendment No. 10. What is being sought in the amendment is definitely very much in keeping with the policy intentions behind the Bill. In going about seeing if we could accept it, we sought legal advice to ensure that the wording would not create any unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the advice is that it might do so. The advice was that the insertion of behind of the amendment. The amendment could be read as restricting the agency and its powers so that the agency may not be permitted to "support the undertaking of research and innovation", in instances where it does not directly or immediately comply with the general definition of being a measurable "public good". This could potentially create an unworkable level of complexity in the provision. I am happy to debate this further or return to it at a later stage.

I will finish briefly because the Chair might want to suspend proceedings. If I can have a moment, I will finish. The role of the agency in contributing to the public good is those set out in broad terms of reference to the objects in section 8. I see the point being made in amendment No. 11 but I cannot accept this amendment. In legal terms, the word "recognition" is a problem because it would imply recognising that a qualification is to be awarded for the research performed. This is the role of QQI and the HEA, not of the new agency. The intention outlined in the proposed amendment can be incorporated into the arrangements around existing provisions, and I think I have addressed the issue of parity of esteem.

I that amendment No. 8 in my name be accepted. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not propose to accept the other amendments in this grouping.