Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution. The Bill, and the creation of a singular body, Taighde Éireann, is an important move in research and development in this State. Unfortunately, Ireland has long been a poor investor in research and development. The White Paper on enterprise states that research, development and innovation are the best ways to generate sustainable, long-term productivity growth, and I completely agree with that.

However, analysis of European and global indicators shows that Ireland is drifting in the wrong direction on innovation scorecards and on international competitiveness in the area of research and development. We have moved in the right direction on the European innovation scorecard, and we are classed as a strong innovator. However, we are not yet an innovation leader similar to Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. The European scorecard indicates that our performance is at 118.9% of the EU average but our lead over the EU is becoming smaller. On the global innovation index, we have drifted from 12th to 19th, and on the International Institute for Management Development world competitiveness indicator, we have drifted seventh to 13th. Furthermore, we do not perform that well with regard to the creation of new patents, which is often used as an indicator of successful STEM research.

Ireland needs to improve and become an innovation leader. As a State, we have often had a tax-based policy, which can be welcomed by business in some instances. However, an unintended consequence of that policy is that sometimes intellectual property is relocated here rather than having the research, which leads to the creation of the intellectual property, actually conducted here. It is important to examine State investment and policy support in addition to a streamlined and well-functioning tax-based policy. Additionally, it is imperative that we examine the issue of the number of PhD students dropping out of their doctorates and early doctoral graduates leaving research due to employment precarity. Current funding structures for PhD students almost exclude any student who cannot home or be supported financially by their family. If this is not addressed, it could create an unrepresentative class of researchers and academics thereafter. There are obviously other PhD students who work part time and are put to the pin of their collars in making ends meet, and this is incredibly unfair. A full-time PhD is a full-time enterprise that requires the total academic dedication of the student and this has to be accounted for.

Since the majority of State funding for research and development moved from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, there has been somewhat of a sidelining of the role of industry in research and development. This is reinforced by the board membership for Taighde Éireann. The enterprise sector currently accounts for 80% of our national investment in research, development and innovation but only has a single nominee to the board. What additional mechanisms will be implemented at governance level to ensure the input of this significant stakeholder group can be recognised and actioned? Is there any possibility that the State economic agencies will be considered for full board seats? Finally, with regard to the structures of the new body, where does the new advisory structure laid out in the Bill fit with the advisory structures recommended in Impact 2030 of the advisory forum, implementation forum and steering group?

I would finally like to refer to a matter raised by my colleague, Teachta Farrell, which s the high cost of rents. It would be brilliant if students could live in announcements because obviously, every student would be housed adequately. Unfortunately, they cannot live in announcements; they need to live in accommodation. It is driving PhD and postdoctoral students into work when they should be studying and researching. We will be all the poorer for the loss of that intellectual property that they would create, the contribution they could make to research, development and innovation and the contribution that would make to the economy. Effectively, the Government's housing policy, and the housing crisis that has been created by the Government, is locking these people out. We will be the poorer as a State, economy and society because of that.

See this speech in context