Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 31, line 19, after “appropriate” to insert “and in a manner which is accessible”.

The amendment is relatively simple and requires that the agency when it promotes and disseminates "information concerning funding schemes" would do so "in a manner which is accessible". It has been emphasised that the Bill does not deal exclusively with research and funding. I hope higher and further education institutions will play a key role in this but they are not the only area. Research and innovation can come from many sources and take many forms, including from members of civil society, civil society organisations, representative bodies and self-advocates of different kinds. The amendment wants to make sure that information is accessible. We want the dissemination and promotion of information on funding schemes to be accessible for those who may not be in conventional higher education institutions. We want it to be accessible in the sense of, for example, compatibility with the web accessibility directive. We also want appropriate language to be used, including plain English or, indeed, ISL. Amendment No. 81 seeks to insert a new subsection in section 35 of the Bill that would mandate the agency to have due regard to put in place a diverse range of schemes under this Part, including schemes of different scales and purposes. I will mention accessibility as well because it will be important that we do not have a situation where only those who already have large resources are in a position to apply for funding, which is sometimes the case. That is a measure to be looked at so that we would have transparency. That goes to the concern about a little bit of a risk of corporate capture in some of how the agency is being set up.

Amendment No. 81 seeks to insert a new subsection that would mandate the agency to have due regard to a diverse range of schemes, including schemes of different scales and purposes. The level of detail in the grant-making process that is provided in Part 3 of the Bill may inadvertently result in the agency's hands being tied in terms of how it can design schemes in a way that ends up disadvantaging and creating obstacles for smaller schemes, as opposed to bigger and more financially lucrative schemes. This amendment specifically refers to the excellent outreach research, networking and education programmes that are often provided by smaller schemes for which the requirements as currently set out are not particularly well aligned. Scale matters. If we have this body creating giant amalgamated schemes that only work with, for example, large partners or large or well-established institutions, we are going to lose out on some of what comes from smaller actors. Much innovation can come from small, nimble actors or those who may have first-hand experience of an issue which is proposed to be tackled by a research and innovation programme. We know that innovation may happen in a scheme that is targeted on the western seaboard and is looking at particular areas of just transition, to mention one example. In public procurement we had a situation whereby some just transition schemes, such as a cycleway in the midlands, were only given to those who already had experience of running large-scale schemes. In that case it was an enterprise initiative from local actors in the local area and it was effectively ruled out. Such small-scale targeted schemes look to the minutiae of the topics and are open to geographically smaller schemes. Maybe this is something that needs to be looked at. There are many different ways of describing it. I am thinking of some of the schemes that have been really transformative in Ireland. The Irish Research Council, for example, had a scheme in respect of the sustainable development goals which was very important but did not involve huge financing. The council gave small but significant grants to a large number of actors to perform small but important projects to further the achievement of the sustainable development goals. I am worried we will not have that same kind of diversity in terms of participants, creativity and output if we do not have a diversity in terms of schemes.

Moving on to the other amendments in this group, I will check the grouping. Is it amendment No. 82 and amendments Nos. 86 to 88, inclusive?