Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 32, line 26, after “independent” to insert “, impartial”.

I am moving this amendment but the Minister of State previously made strong points on a similar amendment around the language of “impartial” versus “independent”, so I signal that I will withdraw it. The argument the Minister made was strong in the debate on a previous amendment. I believe I must move it, however, because it is the first in the grouping.

Amendment No. 86 seeks to amend section 42 to provide that where the CEO is making a determination in respect of compliance with conditions for funding for research and innovation they would be required to consult with the board.

Amendment No. 87 seeks to amend section 43(1) that where a determination was being made in respect of mitigating measures to address non-compliance with conditions for research and innovation there would be a requirement to consult with the board.

Amendment No. 88 is an alternative to amendment No. 87 and will provide for an alternative point at which the CEO would consult with the board regarding amending funding arrangements in light of non-compliance.

These amendments are just trying to ensure what will happen when significant decisions may be being made. I do believe there are, in fact, circumstances where they will need to be made. I indicate that I will be bringing forward amendments later that will look at certain situations whereby, for example, questions arise of incompatibility with international law, breaches of international law and human rights standards. There may well be circumstances in which it may, unfortunately, be necessary that questions would be asked concerning compliance or even a scenario where an amendment may need to be made to funding applications. It is important, however, that this type of provision is as transparent as possible.

This is why I am suggesting that when applying powers under section 42 it would be appropriate that the CEO would engage with the board of the agency. It is a significant undertaking to decide whether there must be a review of funding or a potential withdrawal of funding. This is a situation where there may be within the board, if it is appointed in the balanced way I hope it will be, a balance of expertise and skills that could be relevant. We cannot expect the CEO to have expertise in every area and on every issue. There is also a concern regarding any situation where too much power is being consolidated in the hands of any one person. In this case, a great amount of power is being placed in the hands of the Minister and below that level of responsibility a great deal of power is also being placed in the hands of the chief executive officer. It is always important that there be checks and balances in terms of how such powers are exercised. Perhaps the Minister of State might indicate his perspective regarding whether the powers bestowed by section 42, concerning the review of compliance, might be something the board could be part of.

Equally, regarding the chief executive officer initiating a review in certain situations, I signal that there should also perhaps be a mechanism whereby the board could request the chief executive officer would initiate such a review. I say this because there may be circumstances where the board, either as individuals or collectively, may identify a problem or issue that the chief executive officer might not have spotted or identified because they are across such a huge breadth of research projects. In this context, it would be important that there would be some system to allow the board to flag a concern or suggest a review to the chief executive officer. I may bring in an amendment in this regard on Report Stage.