Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. I thank the Business Committee for scheduling it and Deputy Naughten who was involved in ensuring that was the case. I commend Deputy Naughten on his chairmanship of the Houses of the Oireachtas Friends of Science group, of which I am a member. I do not get to it as much as I might like, but it is a very useful forum.

There is a huge opportunity for Ireland in science, research and innovation. There are opportunities in the green, digital, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. I would like to see the State take a leading role in creating the environment for progress. I welcome the establishment of the Department. I do not think we are there yet with the Department. I have submitted parliamentary questions asking the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science what efforts the Minister is making to position Ireland as a world leader in renewable energy, research and development. It is a reasonable question. It was diverted to another Department. Everyone in this Chamber knows what happens if one’s question does not meet that standard and it is diverted elsewhere, it tells you something about the question you are asking or the Department's interest in responding to it. I encourage the Department to take on a cross-cutting role in research, innovation and to set the bar high.

I want to make a point on our working scientists in Ireland. I was one before in a previous life. Yesterday we heard that medical scientists voted for industrial action up to and including strike action. That is a very significant move. My colleague Deputy Louise O’Reilly also mentioned this. This group has taken this step only once in the past 60 years. It seeks pay parity with biochemist colleagues, colleagues who do the same work but are paid more. They are an excellent example of Irish science research, innovation and potential but that potential is being denied and is being lost due to the intransigence of the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Health. That needs to change. I find the whole thing incredible. We have brilliantly trained scientists, experts, a wealth of knowledge, a tremendous asset and resource to our State and to science and innovation, and instead of saying “Yes, let us realise the potential of this and maximise the benefit for the public good, for science and for innovation”, the State is saying “No, there is a glass ceiling and you will go no further”. It has built in a punitive level of inequality. The State is cutting its nose to spite its face and losing credibility and good people at the same time. I implore the Minister of State to take back that to his colleagues in government, to get around the table and get it resolved. It is a 20-year-old agreement that has not been delivered on.

In the coming weeks, I will bring forward legislation not dissimilar to a Bill the Minister of State’s former colleague, former Deputy Billy Kelleher, brought forward on the transfer of value and payments from the pharmaceutical industry to healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations. It is an important thing to do. We want to be proactive and create an environment where industry works with the public sector, third level and communities. We saw this with the Creating our Future initiative, which is very welcome but there needs to be transparency and accountability and a public return on a public good. I ask that the Government would engage with that transparency legislation when I bring it forward in the coming weeks. It would be for the betterment of scientific endeavour in this country.

See this speech in context