Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Farrell and Sherlock.

I might start with Deputy Sherlock's point. It is captured in a later amendment, amendment No. 38, from Deputy Farrell. Briefly, on that broader point, because Deputy Sherlock brought it up, there are two points I would make. First, from a legal point of view, as the Deputy will be aware, the board and the agency are unlikely to be the employer of the researcher. It will be the institution. However, the broader point Deputy Sherlock makes is still valid in terms of how we support our PhD researchers, how we value them and how we value human talent.

We have the independent review into PhD researchers completed now. I published part 1 one of that last year. That was largely, but not exclusively, around the issues of stipend. We are set to get to a stipend rate of €25,000. We have got to €22,000. I hope to finish that piece out in the next budgetary process. A number of parts of the system have now got to €25,000, although not all.

The next report, which I will be publish next month, looks at a range of other issues in terms of how one supports and ensures the development on career pathways for PhD researchers. I want to make that point, considering the Deputy brought it up.

The heads of the Bill in terms of the board and the membership of the board is an important discussion we have probably when we bring any legislation around the establishment of any agency. Being blunt, it comes back to the fact that for the past number of years in Ireland, successive Governments have taken the approach of competency-based boards. For any of those thousands of people watching in, that is not to suggest that people involved in active research do not have competency. What I am suggesting is we have moved away from the representational board model where there is a seat for this interest group and a seat for that stakeholder to more having a set of competencies that we want on a board outlined and then people applying on the basis of those competencies through the PAS process.

The heads of the Bill provided the Department with the capacity to recruit a chairperson and a board in advance of the establishment of the new agency through an open, transparent competency-based public appointments recruitment process. This competition has been run and PAS is in the process of finalising recommendations, with the board to be announced. I intend to put this board in place prior to the establishment of the new agency for obvious transitional reasons.

The recruitment process has been founded in ensuring that the board has the best possible array of competencies, voices, skills and experience. The requirements outlined in the candidate booklet were aligned with the functions of the agency to ensure that the board will be able to articulate a balanced perspective across all disciplines and across the full spectrum of research, have international and national experience, and have a mix of experienced researchers and individuals with solid governance experience. The booklet was detailed in terms of the competency requirements.

The policy intention, which was detailed in the PAS booklet, is that there will be a range of voices on the board to speak for a variety of backgrounds: enterprise, STEM, the humanities and social scientists, researchers of all career stages, future planning and development, with high level expertise in governance for the reason Deputy Sherlock referenced and the proven skills the board will acquire in setting up a new agency.

One must remember the board will also have - this is an important point in this legislation - a research council with top-class researchers for ongoing input as well. There is that research council piece in addition to the board.

I see the board as the board of the company, the board of the agency. Absolutely, I would be very surprised when we fill that if it does not end up with active researchers on it. The PAS booklet is clear in relation to the competencies, but we also have the research council which is an important input as well.

I very much understand the points being made. A wide range and balance of expertise and perspective is absolutely vital but we do not, for example, say, in the HSE governance legislation, that a majority of people on the HSE board should be doctors and nurses because that is not necessarily the competency that a HSE board requires. One needs to have a mix between people who have expertise and skills in the area that the agency is working on and other corporate governance structures and important skills as well.

For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendments.