Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

To Deputy Sherlock's point, I respectfully disagree that this is not the place. I was not aware of IFUT's representations. I was aware of those of the Postgraduate Workers Association, but it is interesting IFUT is making that representation. It is in line with the earlier amendments, although that comment was more proper to the earlier group of amendments.

When we look at the other objectives of the agency, the idea that conditions of employment, and the well-being and career opportunities of researchers, would not be included as part of the objects of the agency does not make sense. The objectives are quite wide-ranging. Surely, the critical component in all of it are the human beings who do the research. It is just obvious, in a way, that it should be a priority for the agency to look after the well-being and welfare of researchers.

The amendment itself is very reasonable. All it is asking, as part of the annual report, is that the allocation of resources is specified, including "(both financial and persons) of the Agency between particular academic disciplines, fields of research or groupings thereof,"." That should be set out in the agency's report so that it can be said, at a glance, what it has been doing and whether there is a good diversity of disciplines. It is very reasonable. Whatever else may be said about the debates and differences, this is an amendment that could be accepted. It would benefit the report that would be produced every year by the agency. The Minister might consider accepting one amendment.

See this speech in context