Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. As Senator Clune said, it is a most important topic. We need the reforms which the Minister of State is proposing but we need to stay flexible. He referred to the need to fund applied research in addition to basic research and the need to promote awareness of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The 2003 Act specifies the areas of information and communications technology, and biotechnology. The 2008 Act added the areas of sustainable energy and energy-efficient technologies. As Senator Clune said, the committee decided on the 14 priority areas.

It is interesting to reflect that after the first stages of ten and five years, it is rational to ask - although some of the people involved might be annoyed with us - whether Ireland plans to do anything in the area of sustainable energy. If the current price of energy does not make us make use of it, what is the point of having a research programme? The same applies with regard to energy-efficient technologies. One of the reasons for the price advantage of Ryanair over other airlines is that its fleet is much younger. Mr. Boeing does that for you; the rising price of aviation fuel is factored into the design of aircraft. It is right to ask those questions.

What surprised me in some of the recent debates about contracts of indefinite duration was that some people thought that when, as it were, the soft money for research ran out they were guaranteed a job for life. They could be facing some trouble in that regard. We should have flexibility, including perhaps the blue-sky research to which people refer. Perhaps 10% could be kept for blue-sky research. We have national priorities as well. Perhaps the national priorities, such as the two I mentioned, should be a rolling scheme whereby we could have 14 priorities but reserve the right to drop two of them every year. That would keep it moving. Otherwise there is a danger that, as one researcher put it to me, one is taking a form book that might be ten years out of date to spend money up to five years hence. The form book is not a bad reference because, as the cliché has it, one is picking winners. However, one is using a very old form book and the race is not due for another number of years, so that flexibility is necessary.

I will be a little self-indulgent in referencing section 4, which provides that the Minister prescribes "strategic" areas. I propose that the word "strategic" be dropped from Irish public administration. It does not appear to mean anything at this stage. Where it means "important", that is fine. Wondering what it meant, I looked up the definition in the dictionary. Among the definitions was: "designed to disorganise the enemy's internal economy and to destroy morale". When I hear people at universities use the word "strategic" I know it is time to bail out. The word has definitely been associated with more nonsense than average.

We needed to do this because an bord snip nua was quite caustic in this regard. It found that scientists and engineers are always interested in inputs and have not the slightest interest in outputs. In fact, the group wrote in 2009 that it was strongly of the view that substantial reductions in funding were warranted, given the significant amounts invested to date, the lack of verifiable economic benefits resulting from the investment and the inflationary impact of funding on research and administration salaries. It pointed out that administering the scheme involved more than 200 staff in the seven universities, costing over ¤16 million per annum. That is just guys filling in pieces of paper. That reference is on pages 68 and 69 of the report by an bord snip nua. There was a view that it was almost ungentlemanly to ask - even if it is wonderful for the people involved - if they actually did anything that made any difference to the outside world. Keeping it flexible and facing up to people who feel seriously insulted when one asks them what the results of their research were should be par for the course.

We all appreciate the value of this system. One correspondent wrote to me that, while arguing against his own interests did not affect himself, a range of science and engineering disciplines, including social and health sciences, have been at the margins of Irish research and innovation policy for decades. We should not leave people out. It is not always the people who shout the loudest who should get the money. There is a bias in favour of STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics - but that is not by any means the full complement of knowledge in the universities. The AHSS - arts, humanities and social sciences - subjects have been marginalised. That seriously distorts the resource allocation within universities. They are areas of knowledge, and that is very important.

The downside is the loss of interest by some of the recipients of funds in giving lectures. The basic assumption of universities is that those of 18 years and older from this country, whose taxpayer parents pay for the universities, should see the important people. I have a document that states that one can use this money to buy out one's lecturing. Why would I buy it out? That is why I went there. I attended a Trinity College in which all the senior people gave lectures to first years. They regarded that as their basic duty. However, I encountered some people who, when I asked them if they gave any lectures, replied "My career is currently not teaching-centric." In fact, universities are teaching-centric. One owes that duty. Where is the next generation of scientists, engineers and economists to come from if the top people are off working on very large grants and avoiding contact?

The excess bureaucracy problem is mentioned by an bord snip nua. It is also mentioned by the Royal Irish Academy. It says that reforms are needed in the delivery of our research budget and suggests that we tailor government practices to individual institutions; protect and foster academic freedom; reduce bureaucracy; create and implement sophisticated validation methods; place academic practice and community centre stage; and promote sensitive participative management practices.

The Minister should look at the 14 priorities. One of them is more efficient business. If somebody runs his business more efficiently, his profit increases. Is some of the pleading by Irish enterprises for the Minister to spend more money due to the fact that their opposite numbers in the United States fund fellowships and scholarships for students? Is this just an imitation of the Irish Farmers' Association by multinational firms wanting to reduce their research budgets by transferring them to the Minister? They are quite good at getting tax breaks as well, as people have mentioned. There has to be a different type of enterprise by enterprises, and I look forward to much more funding and co-funding of research by industry.

The Minister mentioned Shannon. I attended the meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications at which there was a discussion with the new chairman of Shannon Airport. The Commission for Aviation Regulation said in 2003 that Shannon Airport is massively over-manned. If it is to make itself an attractive airport in the way the Minister envisages, it must deal with its labour productivity. Its capital productivity was not up to much either.

This is an interesting area. My ability to respond is limited by long hours - the Seanad works until 6 a.m. The Minister is going in the right direction but he should not lock himself into rigid models, because it is very hard to predict where the best research will be. Indeed, he must look beyond those who have grown used to large funds to the very able people elsewhere in universities where some small investment could be worthwhile. He should also keep it flexible outside the system of 14 priorities. Some of the 14 might already be redundant, but we can discuss that further on Committee Stage.