Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the opportunity to have this debate. It was good to have the opportunity to talk about Horizon 2020 in the Seanad and to discuss the results of the programme to date and to engage with Members. I will try to answer some of the issues and questions that came up during the debate. If I cannot provide a response I will come back to the House with the information.

It is clear that most Members understand how important the initiative is to us as a country. Horizon 2020 gives us access to a pot of funding to fund research and to drive on the ideas and concepts and get more enterprises engaged in the process. A big hope for Horizon 2020 is that it will draw in a lot more enterprises of all sizes and for them to realise how important innovation is.

The changes to Horizon 2020 have made it easier to access funding as much of the red tape has been cut out. SMEs now say they find it much easier to seek funding currently than under the previous regime. We are constantly trying to push for change and reform. It does not mean the system is perfect, which it is not, and we need to do more work on it.

We provide much support for those who make applications for funding and private companies are also beginning to get involved in the provision of support. We do a great deal and our door is open for people to ask for support. Our success rate is higher than the average in terms of the number of applications. We do quite well. It is normal to have a high failure rate, but we would like to see many more applications as well. I accept that failure is not attractive, which is the reason some companies might feel discouraged from getting involved in the process. While we are above the average in terms of success, we aim to make that even higher again.

It is important that all concerned would take the time to familiarise themselves with the programme and the benefits of Horizon 2020. Members of the Seanad have done that. I have asked the same of those involved with representative bodies in the enterprise area. It is important that everyone would seek assistance from the national support network led by Enterprise Ireland. As Minister of State with responsibility for this area I welcome the interest shown by Senators. When I got the job I said that it is something we must discuss a lot more both in this House and in committee. We must be aware of the importance of advocacy so as to promote research and innovation and to drive the country's recovery, as well as the impact it will have all over Europe. The change is evident in companies that get involved in research, development and innovation.

Senator Keane is correct that innovation starts early in the education system. We are examining how we can increase the drive for innovation and an entrepreneurship culture, which is part of the focus, from a younger age through early education and intervention in primary, secondary and third level. That is part of the work we are doing with both the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Education and Science. We are considering how we can improve innovation and get people thinking along those lines from an earlier stage.

Yesterday, we launched Science Week, which takes place from 6 to 15 November. During that week we hope to have an event for Oireachtas Members. That is part of the process of trying to get the message out on the importance of engagement in science. There will be more than 800 events during Science Week throughout the country under the auspices of the education system, community centres and various other places. They will all drive the awareness of science and try to get people interested. As I said at the launch of Science Week, some people are genuinely interested. Anyone who spends time with young people or who have children are aware that they constantly ask "Why, why, why?" and "How, how, how?" That is what one wants. They are naturally-born scientists. What we must do is keep that interest going. Sometimes we stop young people asking questions and that is where we fail. We must constantly encourage young people to push the boundaries and to ask more questions, and not to be quiet and sit in the corner. We must adapt education methods to encourage the interest and involvement of young people.

I take every opportunity to improve the approach nationally and to encourage potential applicants for EU research funding. Every week, we engage in many events in order to push the message about the importance of getting involved in research. It is building up our expertise. Even in the case of failed applicants, the chances are that they will have learned much from the process and that will help them the next time around. There is sufficient opportunity in a five-year or six-year programme to get involved again or to join another research team and collaborate across the board.

I am encouraged by the interest in this area.Yesterday, we also launched SFI's science barometer. SFI engaged Millward Brown, of which Senators will be aware as a result of its political polling, to gauge people's interest in and knowledge of science. The results are quite interesting and I encourage Senators to read the report, which was published yesterday. It shows a very strong awareness among Irish people of all ages. This research was conducted in their houses on the importance of science, the importance of the science, technology, engineering and maths, STEM, subjects, and the importance of spending on research to the economy and society for the benefits of health and energy, etc. People get it and the report shows that. We need to build on their interest. There is a desire for more knowledge and information. It is up to us, collectively, to get that message out. I acknowledge the cross-party support when it comes to spending on research and development, and investment in innovation. We need to build on that and get that message out to the community.

We are more than half-way through the second year of the programme and it is important to keep the momentum going. Some Senators referred to the success of the first year. Senator Brennan asked about the targets for this year and next year. We have set higher targets. We want to double it again and we need to keep pushing on it. It is not a case of sitting back. Each year is a separate year. We need to tick that box and move on to the next one. We have to push hard and we will do so.

It is important to increase the scale, engage more companies in the programme and aim big. Ireland needs to take the lead in some of these collaborations and not always to sit back. The more leadership we can show, the more funding we can win. We also need to develop our expertise and look at the background of our researchers, including their own education.

As I said in my opening statement, we have shown that we have an excellent science system and it allows us to compete with the best. I intend to ensure this remains the case. That is also about the drive for talent. We are producing our science strategy and a big focus of that will be on excellence, impact, enhancing prioritisation and developing that talent. That applies across all the disciplines. We need to drive more of a multidisciplinary approach where we can when it comes to the science and research agenda.

Some Senators asked about research to market. I think we have improved much of our offering and our drive to get that research to market. That has been a big focus of prioritisation. In the science strategy we will look at more ways, if we can, to increase that. Knowledge Transfer Ireland. KTI, has probably been in operation for 18 months. That is to engage with the system to make it easier for that research to get to market, have it commercialised and encourage more spin-outs. Most of our universities and ITs have their own knowledge transfer offices in house, with people employed directly to push that research out. I want to see more of it pushed out there. I have toured many of the universities and met all the players. I get the impression that there is a considerable amount of research that can be used. We need to encourage it more to be out there. There may often be a sense of fear that if it is pushed out too soon there is a risk of missing something big. As a country, we have to get our research out there and get it utilised as best we can. We need to engage with companies to drive that agenda. KTI is doing a good job under Ms Alison Campbell.

Senator White mentioned a target of €1.5 billion. I am not sure if it was a direct request to increase the target or just a figure. We constantly review our targets. I believe €1.25 billion is quite an ambitious target and it will take a serious drive to achieve that. We will review this midway through but we are constantly reviewing it. If we think we can go for a higher target, we will. We will not leave money behind us if we can get it at all. The Senator can trust me on that as well. Again, it depends on the success rate.

Reference was made to the letter signed by the 900 scientists. I have tried to engage with many of these people in recent months. We had considerable consultation on a new strategy to address their concerns. Many of their concerns are not based on fact. The percentage of money spent on basic research and frontier research versus applied research has not changed that much. So their concerns are not always factually based, but there is a perception and we need to deal with that perception because it is important that everyone in the science community feels content that they have access to competitive funding. We will certainly make that very clear in the new strategy.

Less money has been available through all Departments in recent years. I will not go into the history of that. It has meant that less money has been spent on research and innovation, which is a shame. It is something we will correct under the new strategy over the next three or four years. There has been a very strong Government commitment to reach 2.5% and we will hit that in 2020. We must go beyond it and not just stop there. However, it is not a case of us having changed the percentages or that there is less money for one sector as opposed to another. There has been less money available. We are trying to push for more competitive resources. We are looking at new systems and a new strategy to focus it more on roots to funding with more opportunity for people to win funding. However, I stress that it will be competitive. It will be to win and individuals will need to make their case to get it. That may address some of Senator Barrett's concerns. We should see a return from that to which I refer.

We are constantly looking towards new metrics to measure it. It is not always easy to measure the entire spend because sometimes there is a societal benefit. We have made great progress when it comes to the treatment of cancer. How can that be measured in terms of jobs or money? There is a major societal benefit. There is that crossover. Where we can measure and track it, however, we need to do so to be able to prove our case. The science strategy is a business case to win more investment. Where we can, we have to follow our money through the system. That should be done in all Departments. It is working well now in some of the health changes where the money follows the patient. That is what we are trying to do there as well.

It is important that we continue to fund research in all disciplines - frontier, basic and so on. We need to do that as best we can and get the right spend. We are proud of the prioritisation agenda, which has worked quite well over the past four or five years. It has helped us retain the resources we need in this area in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. It has delivered results and it will be a major plank of the new strategy as well as recognising that we have to make sure we get the spend across the board.

Senator Brennan asked about the €100 million and we touched on that. Our targets are redoubling every year and we keep pushing them as well. He asked about the jobs. It is not an exact science when it comes to jobs. However, companies that spend on research and development and get involved in innovation are those which are doubling both their size and their exports. They are also increasing the number of people they employ. We know that for a fact. By comparison, companies that do not get involved in research and development are going the other way. We need to push this in order to drive our economy. Our recovery is based on people's interest in research and development and on using this to drive innovation. Innovation comes for other reasons as well. That would be the proof of it there.

The Senator asked if the SFI centres are prioritised under Horizon 2020. They certainly are. For example, Tyndall tried to win one third of its funding from the EU framework programme for research and innovation. So all our universities and research centres are aiming high to try to tap into Horizon 2020. Many of them are employing project managers to drive that effort to increase their applications and increase their chances of winning.

The Senator asked for the most recent results. We have shared those results - the early figures for 2015, as well as those for 2014. They are all quite positive. We will have more results in November and I will make sure the Senator gets them and we can get them discussed. We are happy to pass on those data.

Senator Barrett referred to blue-sky research. That can and does result in commercial opportunities. I have seen some of the projects that came through Trinity College recently. They would have started back seven or eight years at a very early stage with basic research and end up in a spin-out company and create jobs. There have been a few recently in which we have been involved. It is not possible to have one without the other in my view but we need to get the balance right. That is something we are constantly working on. We have a target to have a majority percentage of competitive funding because that forces all of us to do our best and aim high and will have the greatest economic and societal benefit to Ireland and to Europe. We are committed to funding for frontier research and oriented basic research.

The Senator asked if SFI has a range of targets and how we track that. SFI has a range of targets and metrics that it must achieve and show. Much of its work is also internationally judged. It does not just compliment itself and pat itself on the back. Much of the work, along with its targets and metrics, are peer reviewed. It has other targets for spin-outs, new companies, intellectual property and industrial collaboration. We are trying to find new ways to measure that industrial collaboration. Many of our universities and ITs have now developed much stronger relationships with industry. We need to work out how to reflect that and measure it. It is not always just through a spin-out or a product. That relationship can generate a considerable amount of activity down the road. So we need to find more ways to measure that and have that conversation. We need to encourage other areas that do not do enough of it. We need that collaboration of enterprise and industry into our educational system, our educational stakeholders and our research community. I always say that the best way for us to get a result for taxpayers' money in this area is through a combination of private money with public money. That is how we will achieve our targets.

I think I have dealt with most of the concerns raised. I was asked about priorities. We are constantly changing them. In the new strategy we will look at challenge-based funding. Apart from our priority agenda which we are constantly trying to streamline and improve, we also have other challenges such as the greener Ireland. That is something the Seanad could discuss and feed into.We will set out challenges and try to put money behind them as well. That is what we aim to do through our strategy.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill referred to the Government's commitment to the target. Our commitment is strong and we are delivering on it. We all accept that we went through years when less money was available to all Departments. We have recommitted in the programme for Government to get the 2.5% rate referred to and we have to push beyond that because we will not compete in ten years' time if we are still at 2.5%. The Senator is correct. Countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden are at the 2.5% rate and we need to be up at that level. Israel is at 4% and it has large number of startups. That is the kind of target we have to reach and drive this on. We cannot take this for granted and I think most members accept that. Supports are available if people need to tap in and ask for them.

I think I have dealt with most of the concerns raised by Members. Senator Cáit Keane is right, science is the pipeline of talent for the future. The important issue is to get the message out to young people, those choosing their careers, that science is an area in which they can do well and in which they can have careers. Science can bring one through technology, engineering, mathematics and into many different areas of employment. Technology has a role everywhere. We need to get parents to understand this. We also have to get the education system to move with the times, to constantly change and adapt. We have the digital strategy, which is another step in the right direction. There is still plenty of room for improvement. The more money we have in the coming years the more we can do but we cannot sit back.

The interaction with enterprise and education - working together, planning ahead, spending the money together - will give us the best results throughout the system. I appreciate education is much bigger than enabling one to get a job but a major issue for parents is to get their children through an education system in order to get them a career, a job. Education and continuous education has to be looked at constantly. One can use it to get oneself a job and then one has time to add to it but it is a combination of both. Certainly there is a need to bring enterprise initiatives through the education system. We are looking at that issue. Finland is one of the best at doing this we need to copy it.

I hope I have dealt with most of the questions raised by Members. If I have missed anything I will follow up on it as I am conscious that Members may want me to conclude.