Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First of all, it would be good if the Department responded to the consultation and was explicit that Ireland, as a neutral country, and bear in mind one with very concrete legislation in areas like cluster munitions and so forth, believes in the retention of a separation between civil and military research, especially in the current geopolitical context when, for example, we know of the extraordinary increase in arms and military products that have been exported from Europe and have been going to Israel. We know the United Nations Human Rights Council called for an arms embargo and actions in respect of arms. We need to be very careful if we are going to have any engagement in the pipeline of weapons that may be engaged in a breach of human rights. In that context, absolutely, we should seek to protect our research and innovation for the many common goals we have in many other areas of society and, indeed, the environment. I expect and hope the Irish Government will take a very clear position.We are at the point where if the Government speaks up clearly on this dangerous proposal, it may go back to the drawing board. We should not allow a slide towards a militarisation of Horizon funding, which used to be focused on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth but seems to be getting redirected towards a military industrial complex, which, of course, is an area where Ireland would not be able to, and should not, fully participate. I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the issue. I join the call for people to make clear submissions before 30 April and that includes those in the Department.

On the parity of esteem issue, the Bill includes some good language but parity of esteem is not the same as stating that many things can exist. Parity of esteem is about whether those things are valued equally. Section 8(b), to which the Minister of State referred, contains good language. It states that one of the agency's objects will be "to support the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines by researchers with different levels of knowledge, experience and specialist skills in such fields or disciplines". That is stating we should have research and innovation in many different areas to be conducted by many different researchers, which is great. However, we are not saying that many things should happen. When we talk about parity of esteem, we are suggesting that resources should be somewhat equal in how they are applied in order that we do not end up with a €1 million fund for the social sciences and a €25 million fund for science and technology or for artificial intelligence that may have a dual use and may be used in autonomous weapons if the European Commission has its way. Parity of esteem is not the same as acknowledging there is a wide diversity of things there. The Bill is quite good at recognising that there are many different kinds of discipline and research but, as was highlighted in the Bill digest, it does not give any indication that there is going to be any equality of weighting. We do not require exact equality but we want some parity of esteem and equal weighting so we do not end up with something that is giving three quarters of its funding to one or two disciplines and then having decorative schemes. We do not want the situation we used to have in forestry where there were enormous plantations of Sitka spruce and a few decorative deciduous trees tucked around the edge. We do not want the social sciences to be on the decorative flourish side but need them to be given substantial funding. That is the missing bit.

I appreciate that the Minister of State has been clear that his intention is that it would be woven throughout the Bill but the language in the Bill at the moment does not quite deliver. If that phrase is not the right phrase, we need to find some other mechanisms. I have one such mechanism in amendment No. 80, to which I have not spoken but which is in this group. I think the Minister of State spoke to it. Amendment No. 80 is not around definitions or objects but is quite concrete as a mechanism. It relates to the section on funding. This is amendment No. 80 under section 35. It specifically states that the agency would have a duty to uphold the principle of parity of esteem - and we can consider the language - between fields of activity and discipline when it comes to the allocation of resources and the design, disbursement and administration of schemes under the Bill. The Minister of State said the language is woven throughout the Bill but in that section around research and its funding, there is an opportunity to send a strong signal to the arts, humanities and social sciences that his intention and the intention of this legislation is that resources will be allocated on an equal level, or at least to a substantially equal or relatively equitable level, to the arts, humanities and social sciences. The Minister of State said that the words themselves do not do anything but amendment No. 80 would do something. It would allow the Government to put teeth and concrete commitment behind what the Minister of State has expressed as a genuine aspiration.