Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chair for the warm welcome back to the Seanad. I really enjoy the engagement with the Upper House. I have just come from the other House. As legislators, if we ever needed a dose of perspective and reality around what should actually be important to us, that was a fair injection of reality this afternoon. Sometimes we get tied up in the minutiae of things and the ordinary people out there wonder why we are fighting among ourselves and then on a day like today we get slapped across the face, as it were, and brought into reality.

I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 1 to 5. I thank the Senators for their consideration of the Bill, both here in the House and in the pre-legislative process, which everybody has acknowledged was very useful in terms of the proposed amendments we are considering. I, my departmental officials, and my predecessor, the Taoiseach, value the work which ensures that we are about to make changes that are robust and fit for purpose.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. This definition has been carefully considered and stakeholder input has been sought into the drafting process, both during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and since. We are seeking to align the existing definition and the European Commission definition with the accepted international norms and standards. The existing definition captures the intent of the proposed amendment and "use" is a broader term than "application", which is a deliberate choice in terms of future-proofing and limiting the scope only as much as necessary. For frontier and basic research especially there may not be an intended application but the research may have use or value in another sense. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

While proposed amendment No. 3 would be a significant differentiation between depth and breadth of knowledge in terms of a research endeavour, in terms of the legislation, the existing provision encompasses this intention and I do not propose to accept this amendment either.

In regard to proposed amendment No. 4, the existing provision has been carefully considered and stakeholder input has been sought in the drafting process. The existing definition is the OECD definition, which provides clarity and certainty and encompasses the meaning in the proposed amendment. For this reason, I do not propose to accept it.

In regard to Senator Clonan's proposed amendment No. 5, careful consideration has been put into the definition within the Bill and the existing definition is the broadest we could encompass and is based on and again aligned with the OECD and international norms and definitions and an existing definition within the HEA Act. For these reasons I do not propose to accept that amendment.