Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity finally to discuss this Bill, which we have been prepared to do on a number of occasions recently. The Minister of State's opening remarks reflect the strength of this sector, a strength which has not happened by accident but which has been developed over many years. One of the high points of our economy in the last few difficult years has been the science, technology and knowledge-based sector. It is probably difficult for people to understand how important it is and there are many who would query the level of investment in this sector. However, the level of job creation that comes through, albeit on a delayed basis, justifies that investment. If one gets to see the companies in operation or some of the research centres, such as the CRANN Centre in Trinity College, Dublin, with its world-class knowledge and equipment, one can understand the importance of this sector.

The Minister of State noted that the majority of IDA-assisted investment is in research-intensive areas, moving on to products that would not have even been envisaged when many of the companies which are now reorienting their investment in this country set up in Ireland many years ago. It is right that we should celebrate it because it is a national success story of which we should be proud and which will lay the foundation for future success. It has been a constant bright spot even in very dark times. This has happened because of a consistent commitment, for over a decade, to building a national research and innovation system almost from nothing. Most importantly, there was a consistent political commitment across the House to building our research infrastructure on the basis of very challenging world-class standards. We chose not to accept second-best in terms of our research and demanded ambition on the part of our research community.

It is hard to believe that 16 years ago the entire dedicated research budget of the Department of Education was zero - there was not a penny. A handful of grants were awarded by the IDA in its earlier guise, Science Foundation Ireland and the Research Council did not exist and there was no national research strategy. As a country, we languished near the bottom in almost every area of serious research activity. Of the millions that have been allocated to support research since then, the most important point to remember is that every single cent was awarded on the basis of internationally-reviewed competitions. Irish Governments placed their faith in the expertise of our research community and did not try to control their work or their innovation. In that short period, we have gone from being ranked alongside developing nations to being one of the top 20 countries in the world in terms of the impact of our research. Our universities have a cadre of research teams which do not just compete with the best in the world but actually are the best. They frequently redefine what is best. Many of the world's most important companies now see Ireland as a place where their future products can not just be manufactured, but where they can be inspired.

In its formal review of our research and innovation performance, the EU has pointed out that the Irish research and innovation system is characterised by strong, high-quality performance, while acknowledging that there is probably a time-lag between our recently-developed capacity and full economic benefits. However, the review states that, "From a dynamic perspective, in the last decade, the Irish research and innovation system made good progress in all dimensions, from R&D investments to scientific and technological performance or shifts towards more knowledge intensive activities. Ireland outperformed not only the EU average or the United States, but also the average of the reference group of countries with similar research characteristics". It is always possible to cherry-pick statistics to help one to criticise actions but the overwhelming evidence is that Ireland's research system is delivering. It is respected in a demanding world and has delivered faster than many would have expected at the inception of this period.

We should acknowledge the work of the individuals, teams and institutions both here and internationally which have delivered so well for our country in such a short period.

In seeking to alter this system, it is the duty of the Government to justify changes fully, which should only be implemented on the basis of international best practice and a full impact analysis of what we will lose by diverting funding into new streams. Given how central research is to the most successful parts of our economy, our economic future and, most importantly, to employment creation, it should not just come up for debate in this House once every few years with a relatively empty Chamber. I therefore welcome the chance to highlight the work of the research community and the opportunity to discuss State research policy and the role of funding for scientific research in particular.

One will never see a gathering outside the gates of this House or Government Buildings demanding funding for research but that is no reason for us to consider it so rarely or to miss the fact that tens of thousands of jobs are involved, both directly and indirectly. The extent to which this Dáil is being marginalised on major policy is clear again with this Bill. It is a significant Bill relating to an important public body and it changes the remit of Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, and narrows its focus. Changes like this were always intended to be made by legislation and not by ministerial or executive decision. Nevertheless, the SFI 2013 annual plan and its agenda 2020 state explicitly that it is operating the new policy. If SFI is implementing the main changes contained in this Bill, why are we going through the charade of having Dáil vote on them?

In principle, Fianna Fáil supports this Bill but I must make it clear that I have met many people in the research community concerned about the manner in which discussions have been held around this in the past year. There have been many consultations but it is widely believed that these consultations have had little or no impact on policy. Many reassurances have been given but these have yet to be translated into any concrete action.

There is an issue surrounding the Minister of State's interview on the Science Calling blog, which is a cause of particular concern. The full audio interview was placed online and within an hour or so, it was removed, and the promised transcripts have yet to materialise. The journalist running the blog has refused to explain what happened. A difficulty with the Government's research policy is a lack of explanation, and this was a chance for it to be outlined. The list of questions covered all important issues, so I ask that the full text of the interview be released so we can see where the priorities are.

A further problem for us in this debate is that it is taking place without there being any overall strategy on research. The existing strategy for science, technology and innovation has effectively drawn to a close. Most of its targets were achieved ahead of time and it gave a certainty to everyone within the system as to who had responsibility for different activities. This certainty is now gone and the issue should be clarified as soon as possible. The programme for research in third level institutions appears to have been suspended and although SFI's remit is being extended, its funding is falling, albeit not by much. It is a credit to the Minister of State for securing that funding but we are making its responsibilities much wider. Other funders have not made their short-term plans known. With this Bill, a potentially major change is to be implemented, but there is no clarity in the overall jigsaw. Before we complete passage of this Bill, I ask the Minister of State to set out in detail - perhaps on Committee Stage - the intentions for each major research funder and their responsibilities.

As the Minister of State has indicated, there are four major elements to the SFI portion of this Bill. These are that the remit of SFI is to be changed to include whatever the Minister prescribes; that SFI will now fund both basic and applied research; that SFI will take lead responsibility in promoting science awareness; and current practice regarding institutions in Northern Ireland will be formalised. The concerns of the research community are significant with many of these headings and I intend to reflect on some of those concerns before tabling amendments on Committee Stage.

When we are changing the remit we should take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff and various directors who have served SFI since its foundation. It is an excellent agency and its current director is experienced and qualified, providing energetic leadership with a passion for science. He is trying to teach the country about the importance of research. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the position of director of SFI and chief science adviser being merged. That is probably an unfair and unreasonable demand of Professor Ferguson and his team, as they have enough to do with the ambitions we set and the expectation with regard to funding. This decision undermines the current balance between different research funders. The research community will not openly criticise any researchers and one cannot expect them to do so. Most researchers do not have permanent jobs and I can assure the Minister of State that although the research community may not vocally express unease about the amalgamation of the two roles, it does exist.

From its inception, SFI has focused on particular areas. Initially it was just ICT and biotechnology, and subsequently energy was added. These priorities were set after an independent study and they had broad support. They were written into the legislation to avoid a drift in the focus of SFI and to avoid its work constantly changing with political winds. This reinforced the absolute commitment of Government to allow it be run to the highest international standards and give researchers certainty. A re-examination of these areas was needed and was begun by the then Government in October 2010, when it appointed the research prioritisation steering group. The group finished its work in November 2011 and its report sets out 14 areas which it believes should be prioritised by the entire system. Broadly, these fit within the three areas within SFI's remit, although there are areas which fall outside it. What these areas are is not known because nobody has produced an impact statement for implementing these 14 priorities.

In principle, the 14 areas seem appropriate and they reflect the input of people whose expertise we should respect. Before these should be implemented, however, we should be told what this means in practice and how much of current activity falls outside of these priorities. A core claim of this Government has been that it is demanding proper planning and exact figures before taking decisions, so someone must have done this basic impact analysis and this must be published. A significant change in this Bill is that the core areas to be funded by SFI are no longer to be set out in primary legislation. Under the current law these can be added to but cannot be removed without an Oireachtas vote. The addition of energy in 2008 was also done by statutory instrument and could, therefore, be reviewed by the Oireachtas. The certainty which came from the political commitment not to interfere was a big part of building SFI's credibility.

Under this Bill the Minister is proposing to take to his office, with no limit and no review process, the right to determine exactly what SFI does. This opens up SFI to the prospect of future ministerial interference and a constantly changing remit, which we absolutely reject. Therefore I am encouraging the Minister to bring forward amendments which limit ministerial ability to constantly change SFI's remit. Specifically, he should be obliged to bring all changes to the Oireachtas for a vote and a formal process of public consultation should be undertaken.

We support the principle of the 14 priority areas recommended by the steering group but we do not support the manner in which other parts of the steering group's report have been ignored. Their entire argument was based on the principle that the 14 areas were to be seen as only one of three elements of the public funding system. In particular, it was explicitly indicated that there needs to be direct funding for more general areas - or research for knowledge, as it is called - because a broad range of excellence was essential for the system and the Government must understand that major breakthroughs cannot be ordered up to a set agenda.

The agenda 2020 and 2013 annual plan issued by SFI in recent months confirm that this recommendation has been largely ignored. For each of SFI significant funding schemes, funding is to be restricted solely to these 14 areas. There is a provision for exceptional circumstances but this, by definition, has no general application. In the Seanad and again this evening, the Minister of State pointed to the results of a funding programme in 2012 to give reassurance, but that was run under old rules. There is no ambiguity in the published documents, and funding is to be limited to the 14 areas, bar the exceptional areas. We are seeking clarification in that respect.

A number of programmes have been transferred to SFI over the years which have had a general application. As a result of the broad definitions of the areas covered by SFI, the system welcomed the transfer of these schemes, especially as they relate to new research teams. From this year it would appear that there is to be a complete end to team or centre funding outside of these areas.

This issue goes to heart of whether we will have excellence in our universities, whether our students will be taught by lecturers working at the highest levels to be challenged tot he highest standards possible. We cannot afford to let the reputation of its universities fall. The process will be accelerated if programme funding is closed down outside of preselected areas. Equally, our universities will rapidly fall behind if they are cut off from even knowing about international standards. Funding for 400 science journals has been withdrawn, as Deputy Peter Mathews discovered in a parliamentary question. As a Minister of State in both the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Sherlock should intervene to ensure this knowledge is kept in place. On Committee Stage I will ask the Minister to include in the Bill a provision which reflects the recommendation of the research prioritisation steering group to provide specifically for the need to fund research for knowledge outside of the 14 areas.

SFI was set up as a funding agency for basic research. The definition of this which will remain in the Act even after this legislation is that it provides for a "broad-base of knowledge". The Minister is now proposing to add applied research, which is construed as relating to more practical objectives. It is true that the barriers between basic and applied research are not rigid, but the fact that they are still important is reflected in the proposal to define them separately in this Bill.

The Minister of State has said that people should stop worrying that everything will be fine but we need a detailed explanation of how much funding will now be diverted from basic research to fund applied research. If the funding envelope is the same and a new area is being brought in then it stands to reason that current activity will be cut. No amount of glossy announcements will cover this up. It was pointed out recently in The Irish Timesthat the seven new centres announced last month are all excellent, but that at the same time 27 existing centres are to be closed or merged to fund the new ones. It was also pointed out that one group which was excluded from the final list is actually rated number one in the world in some vital areas. A policy which talks about wanting to be world class but excludes a team which is first in the world is a policy which needs to be explained more. If it is the case that the funding is being diverted to other areas because of the new policy, it will justifiably cause major concern.

This is all about jobs, we agree with the Minister of State on that. We disagree, however, with the implication that current basic research funding is not having an impact because it is not directly linked to enough companies. This misses the entire point that we cannot pick and choose from different elements of a research system; we cannot have excellent applied research if we do not have excellent basic research. We cannot have knowledge-intensive industry by just funding the last part of the process. If the new definition of fundable research is that it must have a direct link to specific companies and job prospects then this excludes research at the frontiers of knowledge. By definition, basic frontiers research has limited appeal for companies; that is why governments fund it. If we look at any of the world's most successful research systems, we see distinct streams of funding without immediate commercial involvement.

When this change is enacted, SFI will no longer have a unique role in the funding system. Before we finalise it the Minister of State should publish a detailed statement of the relative funding streams to be available through different agencies. Only then will people be reassured by his promise that no major areas will suffer.

The proposal to formally give SFI the role to promote awareness and public engagement with science is welcome. Our largest science funder should play this role. However, the objective of having a high level of public engagement can only be achieved if other bodies also participate. For example, the objectives in the Bill involve very significant areas like school curricula and I would like the Minister of State to explain how he envisages this wider role being achieved.

My party believes that significantly improved co-operation between all universities on this island would be to the benefit of all. This can already be seen in humanities and social science research and we should increase this work in the sphere of science and technology. Therefore we welcome the Bill's provision to allow SFI funding to be paid to institutions in Northern Ireland.

In little over a decade the Irish research system has delivered sustained economic and social benefits for Ireland. Every international study has commented on how far and fast we have gone. Ireland cannot be excellent in everything, however, it must prioritise. In doing this, it must avoid a return to the days where faceless officials sat in offices trying to pick winners and losers. We must set our priorities in such a way that we allow those sparks of genius which can revolutionise not just economic sectors but society as a whole.

Ireland has a balanced research system. This proposal will re-balance it and we have a right to see what that means in practice. Overall funding cannot realistically be higher so some areas will lose significant funding. Before this Bill is enacted, the Government must be open and show us its impact studies. It must be honest with those who will lose funding and it must be specific about what exactly will be delivered with these changes. Funding decisions controlled by people outside the system and teams working without political interference are central characteristics of what works. We need reassurance from the Minister of State and Government that these will be respected.

There are other matters related to Shannon Development and funding for the Shannon area. I cannot let this opportunity pass without mentioning the proposals on Shannon Airport and expressing my concerns about the impact those proposals will have on other airports. The favouritism of this Government for this project will have an effect on Ireland West Airport in Knock, Kerry Airport and Cork Airport. Further legislation will follow and we will rigorously oppose it unless it is fair.

Research indirectly supports tens of thousands of jobs and there are jobs that will be common in ten years time that we do not even know about today because of the work being done in the research community at present. We must protect what we have and build on it. If this is the motivation behind this Bill then I welcome it but I ask the Minister of State to engage with us in his reply on Second Stage and on Committee Stage so we can get the information that remains outstanding or that we may have misrepresented.

See this speech in context