Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To be clear, we have heard it multiple times that parity of esteem is woven throughout and underpins the Bill but it is not anywhere in the Bill because it is very vague and I do not believe it is clear enough. There is a significant contradiction. We are constantly told that parity of esteem is here but it is nowhere to be seen. Not only is the phrase "parity of esteem" not found anywhere in this Bill, there is nothing that gives the effect. The Minister of State said there is language there that gives effect but there is nothing I can see that gives a guarantee of parity of esteem or the effect of parity of esteem. He mentioned the objects and functions.I am looking at the objects, however, and they are very clear. They refer to "the undertaking of research and innovation in all fields of activity and disciplines by researchers [of] different levels". While the Bill states there will be research in all areas, stating that everything will be covered is not the same as state there will be parity of esteem. The Bill does not state that 10% or 20% might be given to one area and 70% or 80% to another. There is nothing that addresses the very reasonable fear of an imbalance. Senator Dolan referred to the word "balance". If there is a concern about the language of "parity of esteem", maybe language around ensuring a balance between the different sectors could be used. At the moment, however, there is nothing that indicates balance, nothing that indicates there will be equity and nothing that states practical effect will be given to parity of esteem. There is literally no guarantee at all. The Government is setting a lot of cogs and instruments in motion here. It is setting out objects, functions, a corporate plan and guidelines for funding. It is setting in place a lot of processes and none of them have built into them any mechanism that is designed to ensure anything like an equitable or balanced outcome or parity of esteem for the humanities, social sciences and so forth and STEM. With respect to the Minister of State, simply stating one is guided by a principle of parity of esteem, which one does not believe means anything, and that is why one does not want to put it in the Bill is not enough of an assurance. The people I have spoken to think parity of esteem is a meaningful phrase, and they would feel a lot better if it were in the Bill. If, however, the Government is not putting it in the Bill, it needs to put in something else. The measure I have proposed here is about ensuring that when funding and courses are being designed, thought is given to parity of esteem or maybe to the language Senator Dolan used. As I heard her contribution, I thought that perhaps something like "balance" could be used. That may be a way around this. However, the Government needs to have something that does not simply state both the humanities and sciences will be there and that interdisciplinary stuff might be there. It needs to indicate that there will be some fairness in how those are addressed, allocated and prioritised.

When the Minister of State recited the ways in which things will be considered, he again mentioned the corporate plan. Under the objects, the Bill simply says others will be there. Under the functions, co-operation and collaboration with Enterprise Ireland and other bodies are explicitly mentioned, but Enterprise Ireland is taken into the section whereas other bodies are not. As regards the corporate plan, we know there is the issue with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. There is therefore a real danger that we lose out on areas of research and innovation that may not be of direct interest to Enterprise Ireland or the IDA.

Lastly, I find a little hard to accept the language that we do not want to interfere in any way in the employment practices of universities, higher education institutions or research institutions. This is in a Bill which is reaching to a huge extent in respect of certain powers, following the HEA Bill. That Bill gave the Minister all kinds of powers, just the same as this Bill, to give direction and to say the Minister can tell you to do anything when he or she wants to. The exact same language is in the HEA Bill as is in this Bill. The Government therefore has absolutely no problem with the Minister and the Government making policy requirements and giving policy direction to this agency or to individual higher education institutions or through the Higher Education Authority, yet, somehow, giving an opinion on whether there should be decent working conditions would be too much of an overreach. Is it or is it not the policy of the Government that there should be decent working conditions, fair remuneration and career progression opportunities for researchers? If it is not Government policy, why not? If it is, why is the Government holding back on giving direction on it? It is not holding back on any other Government policy. It is like saying we want to wash our hands of the employment contracts but we also want to make sure our thumb is firmly on any other area of policy or compliance. It does not wash. The Government does not get to step away while also stepping in. I would like the Minister of State to clarify that. Is it the policy of the Government that there should be career opportunities that are fair, career progression that is fair, remuneration that is fair, recognition in respect of employment standards and, if not long-term contracts, at least security of contracts and a lack of reliance on precarious practices for those working in research in Ireland? Is that the Government's policy or not or does the Government have a policy on that?