Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have no doubt the Deputy believes what he is proposing is better than what is in the Bill. I will explain why I think what I am proposing is better.

I hope he will accept my first point. This is the first time in the history of the State that we are placing arts and humanities research on a statutory footing. The Irish Research Council, which has done absolutely incredible work, does not exist in statute. There is no law and there has never been a vote in this House or in the Seanad to set it up. In effect, without meaning to be pejorative, because it is excellent, it is a sub-office of the Higher Education Authority. It could be ended with a ministerial letter or by any Minister in the future. Primary legislation has never been passed to provide for arts and humanities funding. That is what we are doing in these provisions.

While we have been debating and teasing out the content of the Bill, as we should, and without presuming to speak for colleagues across the political divide, that is why, instinctively, we have not divided as a House on Second Stage or at several other opportunities. We are trying to create one unified agency that recognises the benefit of all research, for some of the reasons the Deputy mentioned. I am the Minister with responsibility for education and innovation. The research agency was previously fully based in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is now based in my Department, recognising that there is, of course, an enterprise element to research and innovation, as the Deputy knows, but there is also an educational, well-being and societal impact and benefit. That is quite a shift in and of itself.

While I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendments, I invite him and anyone else, following this debate, to read the booklet in which the positions on the board were advertised. It states that to be successful in applying for a position, candidates must meet two of the criteria.

They have to demonstrate evidence of significant experience in two or more of nine areas, each of which mentions "research" or "researcher". There are 11 references to the words "research" and "researcher" in the nine criteria. One cannot successfully end up on the board of the agency through the PAS process without meeting two of the criteria.

We can have a difference of view on how we proceed and word legislation, and that is part of our job as legislators, but I would not like to be misrepresented as not believing experience in research or being a researcher matters regarding the competency of the board. It does. It is correct that there is one seat on the board for an appointee of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and that is for a good reason in the context of the work SFI has traditionally done and its linkages with IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, but there are ten seats on the board that are filled by me, an education and innovation Minister. In the nine criteria, there are 11 references to "research" and "researcher". This is the first time ever in Ireland that we are passing legislation that brings about the parity of esteem concerning the arts, humanities and, let us say, the traditional enterprise view of science and research. That is not an insignificant moment.

I thank Deputy Farrell for engaging with me on this on Committee Stage. We had a lengthy enough back-and-forth on this but ultimately my view remains the same. I agree with the Deputy that when a new agency is established, it is important for the Oireachtas, including committees, and the Government to monitor how it is functioning and ensure it fulfils its duty regarding what we all want, namely, parity of esteem. However, I do not propose to stipulate in primary legislation that we review the functioning of the board within a year because other elements in the legislation will enable it to be subject to ongoing review, including the provision on having the chief executive appear before the committee. Also, it is open to any Member of the Oireachtas to seek to amend legislation at any stage. If I stipulated in law that we must review the composition of the board within a year, hopefully having appointed a board for four years, it could create accidental instability. It is not that I am against the idea of keeping this under review; it is more that I do not want to be prescriptive in that regard in legislation.

See this speech in context