Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 83 would impose an additional duty on the CEO when considering how decisions made by the agencies in respect of their assessment of applications would receive the appropriate balance in terms of disbursement of funding. The amendment provides that the CEO, in making a consideration, would have due regard to the need to uphold and advance the principle of parity of esteem between fields of activity and disciplines. Parity of esteem has come up repeatedly and is probably the most pressing issue, along with the conditions of work for researchers and staff. It comes up throughout the country from all those in the sector. The concern we have is that social sciences and the humanities will end up in a lesser position in respect of the funding, the action and the vision that comes out of this new research and innovation agency. Currently, parity of esteem is nowhere in the text. All we have in the text are occasional phrases which say that there may be a variety of kinds of research and innovation. However, we do not have any language that gives assurance.

I assure the Minister of State that many individual people have contacted me to highlight this issue. They are very concerned that we will see a huge focus on STEM and enterprise, and far less given to the humanities and the social sciences, which are vital at a time when social cohesion is crumbling across Europe. When we look at the importance of having inclusive societies, we see how fundamental this area is. Indeed some areas of biodiversity may not be covered by STEM. All of these areas - our culture, our history and our understanding of it - are important. I have given the Minister of State four or five opportunities to insert parity of esteem into the Bill. This is probably one of the most important issues. This amendment would insert parity of esteem into the funding process and say that when designing schemes and allocating resources - this is about the money and where it often matters - the CEO would bear in mind the issue of parity of esteem and seek to ensure it is reflected in the design of funding schemes and in the allocation of resources. This is an opportunity to address a core issue in a really solid way when the resources are being handed out. If the Minister of State were to accept this amendment or provide his own version of it, it would give a huge assurance. This is probably one of the most effective locations where parity of esteem could be addressed.

There are two more amendments in this section. Amendment No. 84 seeks to impose an additional duty on the CEO in terms of the consideration for applications for funding to have due regard to the employment conditions for researchers at the applicant body. It proposes that when the CEO is considering applications for funding, one of the matters to be considered is whether the people who are going to be employed in the proposal will be properly employed. Are there decent conditions for the researchers? It is a legitimate and appropriate issue because if the overall goals are meant to be around building a national environment that is conducive to research and innovation, in having that wider goal in mind the CEO would add a question about the conditions for researchers when determining which projects should get which resource. We do not want a situation where the project that is favoured is one that underpays its researchers, has insecure contracts, is going to rely entirely on underpaid and unrecognised postgraduate workers, and is not actually going to give back in terms of the people within research and innovation in Ireland. Such projects may be able to come in with a proposal that looks to offer slightly better value. Indeed, they may be favoured for research over a project that tries to apply ethical standards and in a holistic way gives better value in terms of research and innovation in the long term. I see this not as a way of penalising the bad project but as a way of ensuring there are rewards for those who seek to attach good terms and conditions, build and contribute to career pathways that are viable in research and innovation in this country, and thereby also contribute to the retention of skilled researchers in our country who we are at high risk of losing due to the constant precarity of their situation.

Amendment No. 85 seeks to make the awarding of funding conditional on the requirement that a recipient would ensure that persons carrying out research within the applicant body would be in receipt of attendant employment rights and protections in line with the Salzburg principles, the ten basic principles agreed to in the 2005 Bologna seminar which underpinned further consideration of the key role of doctoral programmes and research training.Amendment No. 84 has a wider question around employment conditions. Amendment No. 85 specifies some of the ways we could do that. One is a bit more prescriptive while the other is a general point in terms of consideration. I hope the Minister of State might be able to take on board one of those.