For the same reasons I outlined in respect of amendments Nos. 10 and 11, there is a danger inherent within the amendment that too short a view might be taken. At the time of SFI's establishment, it was generally recognised that the research it began to fund in 2000 would not generate the desired outcomes or impact for a horizon spanning perhaps ten to 15 years and we have not yet even reached that stage. It is important to have perspective and I acknowledge the Deputy's point regarding the opportunity it presents to highlight the value of research and so on. However, if one is to account for every single cent or euro that is spent and if one seeks to put in place an appraisal mechanism around that, is one then in danger of creating huge bureaucracies or administrative functions that are unserviceable precisely for the reasons I outlined previously? For instance, under the new opportunities that will arise under Horizon 2020, the foreign direct investment landscape mentioned by the Deputy will, while working with the research landscape in Ireland, retain jobs.
However, we can now use the investment made of €300 million as leverage to create further opportunities during the lifetime of the next framework programme, because we believe we can ramp up that activity and surpass the €600 million target under the current framework. If one were obliged to create an administrative function to drill down into that to the last cent, I do not know whether one would be able to achieve that goal. I do not know of any research landscape in the world, even the most highly evolved, that would be able to achieve it. For instance, if one takes the Fraunhofer model, that is, the funding cost model that exists at present under FP7, there is a certain resistance by some larger research institutions against the simplification model the member states are trying to establish. This is because it suits them as they can fund administrative models that allow them to get greater leverage from European Union funding calls. Consequently, while I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, I believe it is far too prescriptive. Its timelines are too short and were members able to develop a mechanism here whereby this matter was being debated by the Houses of the Oireachtas or was at least discussed in a formalised and structured way, they could drill down into such debates and arguments. In that sense, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Title agreed to.
