Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 78 relates to section 35 and making the information concerning funding schemes accessible. Again, the requirements for transparency and open competition already capture this. In terms of equality, diversity and inclusion considerations, this is captured in the objects of the agency under section 8(f), where it is required to "advance the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion with regard to opportunities to undertake research and innovation and in the undertaking of that research and innovation". Inclusive practices will be a consideration of every aspect of the work of the agency.

In respect of amendment No. 81, prescriptive lists again risk limiting the provision in unintended ways and omissions being read as intentional in some way. The agency will be continuing the IRC's critical work of supporting researchers at all career stages. There will be no sudden shocks at the establishment phase and Taighde Éireann will continue to make competitive funding awards across all disciplines and of varying sizes in a way that complements the Higher Education Authority’s core investment in higher education institutions. The outreach and education considerations are captured in the broader provision in the functions under section 9(m). I do not propose to accept this amendment for these reasons.

With regard to amendment No. 83, as previously discussed, parity of esteem is a core and vital principle and underpins all of the provisions within the Bill and the planning for the new agency. However, including this phrase, from a drafting perspective, was ultimately a question of whether it is appropriate for legislation. The Statute Book has a requirement for clear, concise and actionable language. There is a requirement for domestic legislation to maintain the clarity and integrity of the statute. The advice was that there is no precedent in statute and that the phrase itself does not give us the necessary clarity of provision. Ultimately, we need to ensure that parity of esteem is woven in a meaningful way throughout the provisions of the Bill. It is included here in a much more practical fashion under section 37 in requiring the CEO to ensure that the agency is delivering on the objects and functions; the objectives, outputs and related strategies in the corporate plan; and the proposed activities and performance targets related to those activities in the annual plan. In terms of assessment, section 37(2) provides that the assessment of proposals:

The assessment of proposals for research and innovation contained in applications—

(a) shall be undertaken by an assessor or assessors, with the required expertise to do so having regard to the purpose of the funding scheme concerned, who are nominated by the Chief Executive Officer for that purpose,

(b) shall be conducted in an independent and transparent manner in accordance with the terms of that funding scheme and this Part, and

(c) shall include an assessment and evaluation of the standard and quality of the proposals by the assessor or assessors so nominated for that purpose by peer review on an international basis, by reference to an international standard or by any other review process that is equivalent to international good practice

The existing provision in the definitions, objects and functions and in this section ensures the real capacity to support the requirement for the agency to ensure parity of esteem in a practical sense. This is much more functional and practical than including the words with no requirement for action. I cannot accept these amendments for this reason.

Amendment No. 84 relates to the employment conditions of researchers at the applicant body and for this reason, cannot be included as this is outside the remit of the agency and the scope of the Bill. Regarding amendment No. 85, as previously discussed, the Salzburg principles are not mandatory. They are something the higher education institutions themselves make a decision on and in terms of ensuring academic freedom, that decision is with the higher education institutions themselves and it would not be appropriate to include in this Bill. I, therefore, do not propose to accept this amendment.