25 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if his attention has been drawn to a recent article in the international science journal, Nature, about cutbacks in the Government's funding for basic science research; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have read theNature magazine article to which the Deputy refers and I do not agree with its thrust. The article was written without any prior consultation with the Office of Science and Technology in my Department and it wrongly attributes certain remarks to Ministers. Let me put the record straight.
According to the Eolas S & T Annual Audit, State funding for science and technology in its broadest sense rose from £396 million in 1988 to £454 million in 1990 to an estimated £556 million in 1992. The bulk of this is in the area of education, where in 1993 funding by the Department of Education for third level and further education rose from £283 million to £299 million.
As regards funding provided by my Department specifically for S & T, the two main sources in my Department's Vote are the Eolas grant-in-aid and the S & T development programme. The Eolas grant-in-aid overall went from £9,282,000 in 1992 to £11,436,000 in 1993 while the S & T development programme was cut from £27,843,000 to £20,465,000. However, when a non-voted sum of £23,416,000 for the industry R & D initiative is added, then the budget for S & T rose from £27,843,000 to £43,871,000.
I am also informed by Eolas that the amount provided in their grant-in-aid for basic science in 1993 is actually up on the 1992 figure.
Will the Minister agree that, at a time when we are trying to retain jobs, create jobs and attract foreign jobs, a banner headline in the top international science magazine which says that the Irish Government turned its back on science, is not helpful? We are not talking about EC funding or applied research. We are talking about first time projects in university and Eolas notified the universities that they could not start any new strategic projects this year. The headline which has gone around the world with the Culliton report which confirms that out of 23 countries we are second from the bottom in terms of science and innovation, coupled with the fact it has been proved that in terms of research and money to scientific discovery we rank behind Turkey and Yugoslavia, is doing irreparable damage to our international reputation. There seems to be an unwarranted purge against universities which have been the unrecognised incubators for good industrial ideas here.
I agree that the headline, like many others, is not helpful and——
Tara included.
Misquoting of Ministers?
——I have brought that to the attention of the relevant people involved with the magazine. I have decided to establish a science and technology review group about which there will be an announcement in the next couple of weeks. I will ask that group to look at the points which the Deputy brought to my attention. Funding for science and technology at third level from the Department of Education has gone from £283 million to £299 million in one year, a significant amount of funding for third level and further education. That sum has increased virtually every year since. The sum is substantial although it will never be enough and that magazine article was not helpful. They did not contact us to discuss it and I regard the article as ill-informed.
Sue them, Minister.
Did the Minister read an interesting article by his colleague, Deputy Upton, which dealt with this matter and cited the figures indicating the deplorably low level of research effort and the very low level of support from Government? Will the Minister not agree that he is a little disingenuous in suggesting thatNature got it all wrong and that official statistics from the EC indicate that Ireland's Government research effort at 37 ECU per head of population is only one quarter of that for the EC 12 as a whole? Will he agree that we have a serious porblem and that to pretend that Nature got it all wrong is naive?
I have not read Deputy Upton's article, but I will study it. All I can do is operate on the figures available to me, that spending through my Department, a substantial amount of it European funding, will amount to £43 million this year compared with £27 million the previous year. In additon, spending in the education sector has increased from £283 million to £299 million. I take the Deputy's point that we have not committed as much finance as some of our international partners towards science and technology. For this reason I will ask the review group to make some recommendations in this area.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): In view of the fact that our only hope of creating jobs lies in research and development and in view of the information from the OECD that we lag far behind will the Minister of State agree that it is time the Government availed of the opportunity to make money available for research and development? At a conferring ceremony last week the president of DCU strongly criticised the lack of opportunities for highly qualified graduates to carry out research. In the absence of any opportunities to use this expertise they will not be able to help in the creation of employment.
I cannot meet the demands for funding in the area of science and technology. For example, in regard to one programme, Measure 6, which is funded by the European Community, the demands for funding would have taken up three or four times the amount available from the Community. The Deputy is correct in the sense that Irish business and universities have an exciting opportunity to do more in this area. I will make every effort to ensure that this happens.
The Minister of State is using the figures to create the best possible impression. The bottom line is that the science and technology development fund has been reduced from £27 million to £20 million. Will the Minister agree that Ireland has always had a poor image when it comes to research and development? Given that 80 per cent of the jobs that will be created by the end of the decade will be in the science and technology area would the Minister of State agree that the gap in spendingper capita between ourselves and our European colleagues will be much larger in six or seven years' time? Will he agree that for this reason we need to find substantial funds and create linkages between industry and the universities to ensure that the necessary research and development is carried out? This is not happening at present and that is the point we are trying to get across today.
Earlier I admitted that funding for the research and development programme had been cut from £27 million to £20 million; I am not trying to conceal that fact. However, as I explained, additional European Community funding, particularly under Measure 6, more than makes up for this. As a result the overall figure has been increased substantially on the amount for the previous year.
The money cannot be used for the same purpose.
I take the Deputy's point but Measure 6 is targeted more at industry than at the universities. The universities should take into account the fact that their budgets have been increased. To secure additional investment in science and technology we must have a comprehensive policy. I am asking the review group to work with me in producing that policy so that I will be able to argue, at Government level, for increased funding in this area.
To follow up the point made by Deputy Cullen, would the Minister of State agree that the budget for third level education has been increased, as he said, by £10 million while the budget for research and development has been cut by 1 per cent? Would he agree that Government spending on research and development has again been reduced this when the European Community offered to fund a new support programme? Would he further agree — this fact has been proven — that there is a considerable brain drain of top class science graduates who are carrying out post graduate work of enormous importance abroad for our competitors and that these graduates do not return once they leave this country? Last week at a special conference Irish research scientists made the point that the equipment they are working with is hopelessly obsolete. Will the Minister ensure that they are represented on the review body?
A sum of £556 million from the State is spent by industry and the universities in one year on science and technology. Like the Deputy, I am concerned at the lack of funds available to me for post graduate research in particular. I acknowledge that there has been a shift in emphasis towards industry under the Measure 6 programme with the result that substantial additional funding has been made available to industry and it appears to be at the expense of post's graduate research work. This matter is being discussed in the Department.
I am concerned at the way the Minister of State is excusing himself. Will he agree that if the Government and his Department were interested the sale of 77 acres of land at Oakpark, Carlow to provide funding for Teagasc would not have gone ahead? Essential research and development work was carried out at that centre. The Minister of State should have found another way of raising the funds rather than selling the land that is required to carry out research and development.
My Department is not involved.
