Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 25, to delete “or expedient”.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to amend section 3 on regulations and orders by deleting the provision in subsection (2), which allows the Minister to make regulations which include such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be expedient for the purposes of the regulations. The word "necessary" is already there, so it covers situations where we need to have incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions. Adding the additional word "expediency" lowers the bar and allows a Minister include additional provisions in regulations simply because it is expedient. It is a fast and quick way of getting something done, and not because it is necessary. Expediency alone, and anything that encourages cutting corners and fast tracking new measures without proper review, needs to be balanced out by necessity and proportionality. Expediency relates to a broader issue I will address later, which is that there has been a lack of listening from the Department about some issues raised during the HEA debates. We will come to it during further debate on these sections, but the Minister and the Government have been given an extraordinary level of power and discretionary power over this agency. It is not typical of things I have seen in the past during my time in the Oireachtas. What we saw in the HEA Bill and what we see here are really extraordinary powers allowing the Minister and the Government to effectively direct the work and operation of the agency. Adding to that, that regulations can be made that are not necessary, but just expedient, that is a different thing. If these changes to the provisions in the regulations are necessary, they will meet the bar of necessary. That is fine and you do not need to do it. If they are not necessary, then that is the only time that expedient might come in. You have to ask who that expediency is serving. Is it that the Government wants to make a measure quickly because it suits the Minister? Could it be that we are responding with supplementary measures that are expedient and easier and quicker, so as to avoid normal scrutiny? It is language we do not need to have.

I refer to amendment No. 48. This is among a broader set of amendments linked to this section and relate to a key issue in the Bill which is the extraordinary powers being given to the Minister in respect of giving direction to the agency. People I spoke within the research community found this language surprising. The Bill currently states that, "The Minister may give a direction in writing to the Agency for any purpose relating to this Act and concerning... any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other enactment". A Minister can give directions to the agency on any matter or thing referred to in this Act or any other Act. That is pretty wide. Some would say that is extraordinarily wide in terms of the level of power being given to a Minister to move this agency. You really move to a point where the agency looks like it is simply a tool of the Minister. It also states, "And... the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government". The body that oversees higher education and research in Ireland will presumably be responsible for huge amounts of funding and will set the agenda for what happens with funding in the social sciences, science, arts, music, agriculture and all of these areas. It effectively has to respond and deliver on anything a Minister decides to tell it to do. That is wild, frankly.

My amendments are small, and I will be clear and say I will oppose this section. My amendments are maybe too mild. I am adding the word "reasonable". I am asking how it would be if we asked the Minister to give a reasonable direction so there is some brake on what might come in, and we do not have a Minister who simply decides he is all about livestock and redirects all agency funding to go towards livestock and ditch any focus on horticulture because that is the policy the Government has decided. This is about "reasonable" direction. Again, we could see measures or directions coming from a Minister in this context, which could sabotage a higher education institution's applications for international funding, collaborations it has with international institutions, or maybe a direction that undermines its Horizon funding. Reasonable is the bar for the directions the Minister might give. Reasonable is the bar by which the agency will comply with a reasonable direction given by the Minister. It will also be reasonable in terms of how the agency will respond.

Not only can the Minister give direction on effectively anything but, "The Agency shall, within the period specified by the Minister in a direction, inform the Minister of the measures taken by the Agency to comply with the direction". Not only does the agency have to do whatever the Minister or Government wants to do, with anything. They have to it exactly when the Minister says. The Minister might say it has two months or a week. The Minister has absolute discretion in setting the time period in which the agency has to respond to the direction from the Minister. There is no brake on this. I hope we will not have Ministers giving incredibly inappropriate or dangerous direction, but right now there is nothing in this Bill to stop that. There is no brake. There is not even a basic bar of reasonableness, which is normal in legislation. We have had it inserted in lots of legislation.

I will go through this set of amendments addressing this section. As I said, amendment No. 48 would provide that the Minister would give a reasonable direction in writing to the agency for any purpose relating to this Act. Amendment No. 49 is consequential on amendment No. 50, which would delete section 11(1)(b) which states the Minister may give a direction concerning the implementation of any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government. Again, it is disappointing to see that no lessons have been learned from the extensive HEA debates and the problematic actions of that legislation have been copied and pasted into this Bill. The idea is that the Oireachtas would give the Minister the power to issue directions for implementing any policy or objective of the Minister, and we would give a blank cheque to the Minister to decide what the research, development and innovation agency would do at any given moment.

I note the language here as well. I will speak to amendment No. 50, which goes to a different part of that.When we talk about "any policy or objective of the Minister or the Government", does this include memos, policy papers and press releases? What is the intention behind this sweeping provision?

Amendment No. 51, as I said, would amend section 11(1)(b) by specifying that the policies or objectives referred to must be those that are "provided for in legislation". That is a reasonable break. If the Minister wishes to remind the research and development agency of measures in legislation, that is reasonable.