Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On that basis, amendment No. 16 will fall. I was hoping that the directions in this respect would not apply. In amendment No. 15 I was attempting to ask the Minister to include provision where, for example, the foundation could present him with 2 ft high of referred journal articles and point out, say, that what he had proposed was not worth pursuing. I know he can give a directive but this is about science. In the amendment I was providing for a situation where the foundation could supply him with the scientific evidence pointing out that, for example, his idea of XYZ that he would like to direct it to do would cost the country substantially. That is what I was seeking to do in the amendment, rather than for the approach to be that the Minister knows the position, he has the legal power and he tells the foundation what to do.

I sought to include the wording whereby if the foundation genuinely believed it, it could "supply to the Minister refereed scholarly papers which recommend that the cost of the Minister's directions outweigh the benefits". SFI is part of the scientific society. Do we want SFI just to do what it is told or do we want it to be a bubbly source of ideas and that sometimes it might disagree with the Minister and say "With respect, what you have asked us to do will not be a viable project" or is its job just to salute and say "Yes Minister", to name but one TV programme? There should be a right of reply. The SFI is budgeted by the State but if it genuinely thinks something will get the country into trouble, and we have plenty of experience of that in other fields, should it not tell the Minister rather than simply say it was a ministerial direction, it complied and everybody shuts up, continues on and does what they are told? It is contrary to promoting the scientific community that the Minister of State and I both wish to see.