JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 6 Apr 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee members, I welcome the representatives of the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science, and the Irish Universities Association to a discussion on COM (2005) 705, which is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in action under the 7th framework programme for the dissemination of research results between 2007 and 2013. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is represented by Mr. Páraig Hennessy, principal officer, office of science and technology; Mr. Pádraig O'Conaill, research attaché, permanent representative of Ireland to the EU in Brussels; and Mr. BillBrandon, assistant principal officer in the office of science and technology. The Department of Education and Science is represented by Ms Ruth Carmody, principal officer, higher education policy research, and Ms Eucharia Meehan, head of the research programme at the Higher Education Authority. The Irish Universities Association is represented by Professor Iognáid ÓMuircheartaigh, president of NUIG, Dr. Conor O'Carroll, assistant director of research, IUA, Professor Desmond Fitzgerald, vice-president of research, UCD, Ms Doris Alexander, research development office, TCD, Ms Siobhán Harkin, central universities research officer, and Ms Susan Hedigan, head of the office of funded research support services, UCD. They are all welcome.

Before I begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to them. Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Páraig Hennessy

I appreciate the fact that my name has been spelled correctly. I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a presentation and build on the content of the information note we forwarded under the rules of procedures in respect of the European Union's seventh research framework programme. The area is complex and I propose to contextualise the rules for participation with regard to the overall programme before addressing the specific concerns we have raised on behalf of Ireland in the Council research group and on which we are making real progress.

Research and development are generally regarded as key components in any modern economy's drive towards competitiveness in an increasingly globalised business environment. The research framework programmes are the European Union's main instrument for funding research in Europe and have been operating successfully since 1984. There have been six so far and they have played a particularly important role in bringing European researchers, from academia and industry, together in collaborative research projects, in facilitating the mobility of researchers across Europe and in supporting economic and social development. The current framework programme, FP6, has a budget of €19 billion, spans the four-year period 2002 to 2006 and puts the emphasis on delivering on the Lisbon and Barcelona objectives of creating a European research area and on raising EU research efforts to 3% of EU GDP.

Irish engagement with the RTDI agenda owes much to the EU framework programme. During the difficult period of the mid to late-1980s and early 1990s framework support was effectively the only game in town in the science and technology area.

The researcher landscape has been transformed and science, technology and innovation have become a major plank of government policy, underpinned by significant resources. I have detailed some of the figures in the documents circulated to committee members, but I do not propose to go into them on account of time constraints.

The National Development Plan 2000-2006 has allocated €2.5 billion for investment in science, technology and innovation. This represents a five-fold increase over the period 1994-1999. While these increases provide us with a strong base on which to build, it is vital for long-term national economic success that we promote further investment in research and development to meet the targets in our national research and development plan, Building Ireland's Knowledge Economy, and to move towards the EU targets for these key areas as set out at the Lisbon and Barcelona Councils.

In February 2005, the Cabinet sub-committee on science technology and innovation charged the interdepartmental committee on science, technology and innovation with producing a strategy on STI to 2013. This work is currently being finalised and will build on the achievements of the last decade which can be seen today in new, well equipped labs, much research activity, enhanced collaboration between industry and academia and an enhanced image of Ireland as a good place to engage in research and development activity.

The strategy will, doubtless, recognise the importance of engaging in international collaboration and transnational co-operation and facilitate Ireland's participation in the framework programme and other collaborative research efforts such as those sponsored by the European Space Agency and similar inter-governmental research organisations.

The goals of European research policy are consistent with Ireland's strategy to move towards a knowledge-based economy. Through successive EU framework programmes, Irish researchers have joined with organisations in Europe and beyond to compete for and win funding for specific research projects. EU support under the framework programme has been used in addition to steadily increasing national supports to lay the foundation for a knowledge economy. This will continue. Irish researchers and institutions have been successful in securing approximately €165 million from FP6 proposals to date, with a number of calls still remaining. This compares favourably with a total drawdown of €148 million from FP5.

Ireland has put in place a comprehensive national support structure, NSS, to inform and support potential participants in FP6. This structure includes a network of 28 national delegates and national contact points drawn from 12 Departments and agencies. To ensure maximum impact from this network, an FP6 national information and support unit, located within Enterprise Ireland, was established in 2002. This support unit is a first point of contact for queries and dissemination of up-to-date information on the programme and holds regular meetings of the national delegates and contact points. Enterprise Ireland has also appointed a framework programme liaison officer in Brussels with the objective of helping to optimise Irish industry participation in the programme.

The achievements of the Irish Universities Association, IUA, in promoting the Marie Curie programme have been a major success story for Ireland under FP6. The IUA hosts the national delegate and contact point for the Marie Curie programme and this dedicated team is to be commended for its work in supporting researchers in both academia and industry, in submitting proposals and in managing the Marie Curie projects. Its members have significantly raised the bar in terms of performance and laid down a real challenge for the rest of the Irish system in terms of performance under FP7.

While our support structures have been reasonably successful in garnering support for Irish research efforts, the Department believes that more can yet be achieved in this regard. To this end, we are in consultation with stakeholders in the process of developing an enhanced support structure which will be headed by a national director for FP7 and supported by a core unit and dedicated teams. The aim is to outperform previous engagements under the framework programmes to date and to leverage as much international support and funding as possible to assist national efforts to achieve the Lisbon and Barcelona research and development targets.

In April 2005 the Commission published its proposal for the seventh framework programme which will cover the period 2007-2013. The proposal involves a doubling of the research budget to approximately €73 billion over the seven-year period. The adoption of the common position on FP7, which involves co-decision procedures with the European Parliament, is expected later this year. The specific programmes which give detailed effect to the FP7 proposal were published in September 2005 and these were followed in December by the rules for participation which we are here to discuss.

The rules for participation in the seventh framework programme lay out the contractual aspects of the programme. The Commission's aim is to simplify FP7 in comparison with its predecessor and claims that this proposal provides the vehicle for implementing many aspects of that simplification. The overall package of proposals for FP7 is designed to give new impetus to increasing Europe's growth and competitiveness and covers four specific research programmes. These are, co-operation, ideas, people and capacities. Co-operation covers transnational collaborative research projects. Ideas, covers frontier research and will involve discussions on the European Research Council, ERC. People, covers the human potential and Marie Curie actions referred to earlier and capacities will cover SME participation, research infrastructure and research potential.

Following the recent decision on the EU financial perspectives, current indications are that the FP7 budget will be in the region of €50 billion, a substantial increase on expenditure under the current programme but not quite the doubling Commissioner Potocnik had hoped to get.

Irish priorities for FP7 have been identified following extensive consultation with stakeholders, organised under the mantle of the then Irish council for science, technology and innovation, ICST. Ireland intervened early with the Commission in the design of FP7. Our overall aim in the negotiations is to ensure that the priorities to be funded under the programme and the rules governing participation are such as to facilitate the maximum level of Irish participation in the programme, both in academia and industry.

Ireland submitted a position paper on the issues hindering SME participation in the framework programme and has put forward suggestions to address the very real problems being encountered by small and medium-sized firms in engaging with it. In addition, Ireland, with a degree of support from the new member states, continues to make a significant input into the ongoing technical examination of the proposals in the Council research working group and has also submitted views on the thematic areas to be funded, the specific programmes and rules for participation proposals.

Many of the priorities and suggestions put forward by Ireland were reflected in the Commission's initial proposal and in subsequent Presidency amendments. These include: the continued focus on collaborative research in the thematic areas; the priority attached to the "people" component of the proposal; the emphasis placed on efforts to simplify the programme and make it more attuned to the needs of industry, particularly SMEs; a 15% target for SME participation in the co-operation programme; and improved support, better information and less bureaucratic participation procedures. The extent of Ireland's support for the new elements of the programme, including the proposed European Research Council, ERC, and support for the construction of research, etc., will depend on the amount of funding finally allocated to research in the EU budget package which is expected to be finalised shortly.

The Irish position on the rules for participation was formulated in consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. A national working group comprised of representatives from Forfás, Enterprise Ireland, and the Irish Universities Association, IUA, co-ordinated this consultation process. Representatives from UCD and NUIG also participated in the working group, which met frequently from August 2005. The group consulted the Commission prior to the publication of its proposal for the rules relating to participation. Following this, the group carried out a detailed analysis of the Commission proposal to determine any negative impact on Irish industrial and academic participation in FP7, both in terms of the level of that participation and the benefit that Irish participants would derive from it. Consultation was undertaken with researchers in industry, research institutes and in third level colleges, as well with counterparts abroad, to ensure that all appropriate angles were covered. Upon completion of this rigorous stakeholder consultation, the group formulated detailed observations on the Commission's proposal and submitted these to the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment for input through the Council research group in Brussels.

The group's position was broadly supportive of the Commission's rules in respect of participation and in overall terms it welcomed the latter's proposal. However, a number of issues were identified that are of particular concern to Ireland and clarification was sought on a number of other matters. The main issues of concern were the removal of the additional cost model, revisions to the operation of the programme committee and the perennial issue in this area of intellectual property rights ownership and management.

I wish to address each of these three important issues before concluding. The proposal to drop the additional cost model and provide for a full cost model is contained in Articles 30 to 33, inclusive, of the rules. This has been identified by the stakeholders' group and by the OST as the main concern in the Commission's proposal. We are not convinced that this represents any simplification in the programme, at least from the perspective of researchers on the ground.

In its current form, this proposal could have implications for the continued participation of Irish universities in FP7 research, which, I presume, my colleagues from the IUA will address in greater detail. In essence, it could place any university that does not have an accounting system to determine indirect costs at a financial disadvantage relative to FP6, unless the flat rate for indirect costs is set at a realistic figure. To address this concern, it will be necessary to ensure that such flat rates are based on a close approximation of the real indirect costs concerned.

The Commission proposal to change the powers of the programme committee are set out in page 5 of the memorandum accompanying the draft. The current arrangement whereby the Commission must obtain the consent of the programme committee, which is made up of representatives of member states, to proceed with the funding of proposals over a certain threshold has served the member states well. The Commission proposes to remove this mandate from the member states. Its argument for change is one of simplification in that it believes the time to contract would be reduced. We believe that the short window of opportunity provided to participating countries to raise issues about project funding decisions before their final approval is an important part of the governance and the transparency of the programme and we cautioned against the removal of this step. In this context, we have supported calls from other member states for the retention of the committee's existing functions. It remains to be seen how successful we will be in this regard.

An Austrian Presidency amendment to the original Commission proposal on intellectual property rights, IPR, is set out in Article 42.4. If adopted, this amendment would include a requirement in the FP7 rules to notify the Commission in advance of any intended transfer of ownership or any intended grant of an exclusive licence to a third party which is established in a third country not associated with FP7.

The original Commission proposal on the rules did not have this provision but simply allowed an option in the grant agreements to include a requirement that the Commission be notified in advance of such transfers. This matter is of concern to Ireland because it may deter multinational corporations from participating in FP7 and Ireland, UK and other countries have argued that the Presidency amendment in this respect should not be adopted. This is a major concern that has been placed on the table of the Council research group on a number of occasions. Ireland's concerns on the rules of participation were pursued in the course of extensive discussions in the Council research working group. To lend weight to this approach, at the Competitiveness Council on 13 March, the Minister, Deputy Martin, reiterated our concerns and placed particular emphasis on the views expressed by our universities about the practical implications of moving to a different funding arrangement in FP7 and the implications for the legitimate employment practices and accounting procedures currently in place in our universities. Our concerns regarding this key issue and the other matters identified will continue to be pursued in the ongoing negotiations.

I will not delay the meeting by outlining the intended conclusion or timeframe for completion. Information in this regard is, however, included in the submission.

Chairman

That is appreciated. I ask Ms Ruth Carmody to make a presentation on behalf of the Department of Education and Science.

Ms Ruth Carmody

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address them on the forthcoming seventh framework programme and, in particular, to comment on the proposed rules of participation as outlined in communication 2005/705.

While the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is the co-ordinating Department for the framework programme, the Department of Education and Science has a specific interest in the seventh framework programme due to its potential impact on the Irish higher education and research sector. It is clear that participation in the programme by the Irish higher education sector is critical for the attainment of national and European goals relating to research and innovation. It is, therefore, important that the programme and the associated rules of participation do not negatively impact on Irish higher education and research in an inadvertent manner.

In general, the Department of Education and Science welcomes the components of the FP7 package that will focus on people, enhancing human potential — for example, the Marie Curie actions — developing capacities through SMEs, establishment of pan-European research infrastructure, ideas generation and fostering co-operation. These components mirror the building blocks that Ireland has put in place to develop its national research capabilities and performance. Ireland's success in Europe and internationally is predicated on its possessing: quality researchers producing quality research; quality infrastructure and facilities so as to retain our best students and attract the best of international talent; co-operative structures to have critical mass, particularly to enable participation in the new instruments introduced in FP6; and international linkages and networks.

These are the key determining factors as to whether Ireland is in a position to play its role at European level. In addition, the two key determinants for researchers regarding where they will base themselves are the reputation of a centre or an institution and the quality of the facilities and supporting infrastructure provided. Ireland has been laying a strong foundation over the course of the national development programme to meet these needs and future success can be built on what has already been achieved. Many national agencies, including the Higher Education Authority — through the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI — Science Foundation Ireland, the research councils, Enterprise Ireland and the Health Research Board, are working together to develop the Irish system.

The PRTLI plays a unique and core role in enhancing our national research infrastructure. It also enhances the capacity of the higher education institutions through the establishment of physical infrastructure and the funding for personnel to establish national centres and institutes. This programme is the foundation on which most research funding from other sources is based. The PRTLI goes further by providing specific incentives for collaboration at a national level and these national networks further enable Irish researchers to participate in framework programmes, in particular in those instruments where large entities with critical mass are required. The track record of Ireland in attracting funding under FP6 has been outlined and a significant proportion of that drawdown has been by PRTLI-funded institutes and associated individuals.

There are many examples of this leveraging effect. However, two recent examples from very different areas of research demonstrate the breadth of participation by Irish researchers. NUIG was awarded €880,000 over five years under the Marie Curie programme to establish Galway as a top location in textual editing using the most modem technology. This success builds on research undertaken in the Centre for the Study of Human Settlement and Historical Change funded under cycle 2 of PRTLI and research currently under way funded by Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences. This is one of the largest awards ever made by the EU in the humanities and social sciences arena in Ireland. The Centre for Synthesis and Chemical Biology, a constituent research centre of the Conway Institute at UCD, both of which were established under PRTLI, has been awarded €2.5 million for leading a project researching inorganic nanostructures.

The Department of Education and Science, the HEA and the research councils are determined that this trend of leveraging European and other non-Exchequer funds into the higher education sector on the back of public funding will continue. The attraction of such funds is a key performance indicator for those institutions funded under PRTLI and will continue to be so in future programmes.

The independent international impact assessment of the PRTLI, which was published last year, commended the success of the programme in enabling investments from other national sources. This enabling dimension of the PRTLI is clearly manifest in the synergies that the PRTLI has with Science Foundation Ireland investments. Five of the seven SFI centres for science, engineering and technology are hosted in PRTLI-established institutes. PRTLI will by early next year have established 33 new centres and provided a total of 97,000 sq. m of new, purpose-built, high-quality research space. Some of this space houses new specialised national facilities such as the gene vector core facility at NUIG, the only one of its kind in Ireland and the UK; the genome, hospital-based clinical resource units at Dublin hospitals, which are the first of their kind in Ireland; and, in the environmental domain, the green building at UCC, which has been designed, constructed and is operated according to the principle of sustainability.

Even more importantly, the 33 research centres funded under PRTLI have provided 5,800 research spaces, while PRTLI has directly funded 1,600 new researchers. From the perspective of Ireland's future generations, the programme has enabled increases in the numbers of postgraduate students being enrolled by the higher education institutions. Some 1,000 postgraduate students have been directly funded by the PRTLI and the space provided by the programme has enabled the housing of a further 1,200 funded by other national and EU programmes. Of 1,000 postgraduate students funded directly by PRTLI since its inception, 20% originate from outside Ireland. This signals a growing attractiveness of the Irish higher education and research system and a growing confidence in its reputation. In the context of FP7 and what we are discussing today, these are encouraging developments.

Specific issues regarding the seventh framework research programme have already been discussed by my colleague. However, the Department of Education and Science is aware of some issues of concern with respect to the proposed rules and the IUA will also deal with these in its presentation. It is the view of the Department of Education and Science that the proposed rules should not be such that they, in effect, disadvantage Irish higher education institutions in the delivery of their research or education missions. The rules should not risk inadvertently risk deterring participation in FP7 by higher education institutions or other entities such as SMEs because it would ultimately impact negatively on European goals to develop a vibrant European research area, engaging all the best researchers in Europe.

In the first instance, it is the view of the Department of Education and Science that Irish participants should not be disadvantaged by not having a full economic cost accounting system in place. Last December the Minister for Education and Science announced the establishment of the strategic innovation fund, which will be a key funding instrument in enabling institutions to enhance their capacity across a range of activities, with a view to providing the highest quality teaching and research. The introduction of a full economic cost accounting system is a good example of the kind of capacity building the fund aims to facilitate. While the IUA has clearly signalled that developments of this nature will be prioritised within the sector, these developments will take time.

It is also intended that the fund will support the higher education system in further improving the quality of undergraduate and postgraduate education provision. These developments will place the higher education institutions in a position where they can maximise the impact of other Government initiatives, especially the strategy for STI, which is being developed. For the Department of Education and Science and the HEA, it is essential that undergraduate education, which is the foundation and pipeline for postgraduate students, and postgraduate education itself advance together to enable attainment of both our national and European goals.

With specific reference to the proposed rules for participation, it is imperative that an appropriate overhead rate, based on approximations of real indirect costs, is provided to avoid erosion of national investment in higher education and research. The issue here is that the conduct of research is expensive. It has implications across a wide range of an institution's activities, from personnel offices to groundsmen. Research funding, which is directed solely at the research activity, draws resources from other parts of the institution and in extreme cases could undermine the very foundations on which the research is built. This is not sustainable and will ultimately affect not only national objectives but also European objectives.

In summary, the Department of Education and Science supports the national position on these significant issues and supports the proposal that they be re-examined by the Commission. We look forward to discussing these matters further.

Professor Iognáid Ó Muircheartaigh

Ba mhaith liom, thar ceann Chumann Ollscoil na hÉireann, mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl daoibh as ucht an chaoi seo a thabhairt dúinn an dearcadh atá againn ar chlár taighde an Chomhphobal Eorpaigh a chur in iúl daoibh.

On behalf of the Irish Universities Association, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our position on the forthcoming EU seventh framework programme for research and development. The Irish Universities warmly welcome the opportunity to collaborate and compete with our EU counterparts for research and development funding. However, we are concerned that the rules for participation will hamper and constrain our ability to participate in framework seven. In this regard, we thank the Minister, Deputy Martin, and Mr. Pádraig Ó Conail, attaché to the Permanent Representative to the EU, for their skilled negotiations on the matter of the rules for participation.

The Irish Universities Association is the representative body of the seven Irish universities. The IUA seeks to advance university education and research through the formulation and pursuit of collective policies and actions on behalf of the Irish universities. As such, the issue of EU research and development funding is an area of major concern for our sector and we play an active role, nationally and at EU level, to inform the direction of important EU initiatives for Ireland. The way the EU funds research and development is highly complex and steeped in jargon so before we launch into our specific concerns, it would be helpful to understand something of the so-called framework programme and how that translates into research and development programmes in the universities.

Three main principles underlie the framework programme, FP. The first guiding principle is "EU added-value". While the FP does not exist to substitute national research and development funding in the EU member states, it attempts to integrate large, ambitious projects that could only be carried out at an EU level. An Irish scientist, Professor Michael Gibney, who co-ordinates an EU-wide project with 25 partner organisations and a budget of €12.5 million, has said:

You couldn't undertake a project like ours in Ireland or in any other single country. We have to work together.

Essentially, the framework programme is the EU's instrument for implementing the Lisbon Agenda. It places a strong emphasis on industrial research and development and on increasing researcher numbers.

The second guiding principle of the framework programme is that the EU calls for projects from EU-wide consortia — partnerships from universities and industry — to compete for funding to carry out research. The projects are peer-reviewed on the basis of the scientific quality, the quality of the consortium and the added value to the EU. Following this fiercely competitive process, the best projects get a contribution from the EU towards their funding.

I have already alluded to the third guiding principle of the framework programme, which is collaboration. EU framework funding is given to the best EU-wide partnerships to deliver research and development projects. It has been instrumental in enabling Irish universities to collaborate with leading research groups around Europe in industry and academia.

The EU framework programme has been very important for Irish universities since its inception 20 years ago. It was the only real source of significant research funding for Irish universities until significant national research and development funding was made available under the national development plan, the framework programme. Ireland has succeeded in winning €163 million under the current framework programme, framework programme 6, which will end this year. It is likely to have taken almost €200 million by the end of its four-year timeframe. Some 75% of that amount, or approximately €150 million, has been won by Irish universities.

While it has always been a political imperative to maximise our take from the framework programmes, a further fundamental point must be understood. The funding from the framework programme is allocated on a 50:50 shared cost basis, which means it is just a contribution to the cost of carrying out the research. Therefore, every €1 Ireland wins from the framework programme means it has to provide €1 extra to fund the research. The stated EU position is that the framework programme offers 50% of the funding for any project, regardless of whether the moneys are provided to a small or medium sized enterprise, a multinational company or a university. It can be understood, therefore, that organisations get involved in framework programme projects for reasons other than money. The framework programme has allowed our researchers to collaborate and compete with the best researchers in Europe, to forge links with universities and industry inside and outside Ireland and to get involved in highly ambitious research and development projects to which they would not otherwise have access.

I mentioned the dependence of universities on the framework programmes before the start of the current national development plan. Major investments in the programme for research in third level institutions and Science Foundation Ireland have transformed the research landscape in Ireland. They have enabled the universities to build world-class research institutes, to support our best researchers and to attract top people from abroad. If the members of the committee would like some excellent examples of this transformation, I refer them to a recently published book, Flashes of Brilliance, which has been featured on television. I do not have a copy of the book for everyone in the audience, but I ask the Chairman to distribute the three copies of the book which I am making available.

Researchers of many nationalities are working at the cutting edge in Ireland in a wide range of disciplines, including the humanities, biosciences, engineering and medicine. If universities are to be able to continue to carry out world-class research, it is essential that the necessary infrastructure — buildings and equipment — is in place and maintained. The pause in the distribution of funding under the programme for research in third level institutions is an example of the damage that can be done to the success and sustainability of Irish research and development by inconsistency in policy and funding. We have made major advances by attracting top international researchers, but we are still playing catch-up. The OECD's recent economic survey of Ireland pointed out that "Ireland's R&D intensity (as a % of GNP) has barely changed over the past decade and remains well below the OECD average". It also stated that "public funding for research and development remains well below the OECD average, and research funding per student and per faculty member is much less than in similar universities elsewhere".

The national research plan, to be developed under the next national development plan, will be vital if this country is to achieve its stated aim of becoming a knowledge society and economy. It is right that the national research plan is based on doubling the number of researchers, especially young researchers, who will be the future leaders of our public and private sectors. While Irish universities have welcomed the national research plan, they have emphasised the need for concomitant investment in the core activities and structures of the research sector. The universities know that the research plan cannot be delivered by the system as it stands.

This country's new national priorities represent a major challenge for universities. If they are to meet that challenge, the institutions will have to be transformed by building on the strengths which have been built up over many years. The universities' vision for the research sector was outlined in their fourth level Ireland proposal, which was submitted to the Government. The proposal, which examines the sector in a holistic and strategic context, makes clear the need for and commitment to reform within universities. The universities warmly welcome the Government's response to the proposal, which was the announcement in last December's budget of the establishment by the Minister for Education and Science of the strategic innovation fund. The fund will facilitate transformation within universities, by universities acting together, and enable universities to work together in developing new systems to underpin the national investment in research. For example, universities intend to move to a full economic costing system for reasons I will outline.

The issues of sustainability and the adequacy of funding for research become significant as universities expand their research infrastructure and continue to develop programmes of international standing. I do not doubt that research activity in universities is being subsidised by core teaching and learning funds. Such subsidisation arises through funding of the indirect costs or overheads of research, which can be considerable. It has put significant financial pressure on universities. Although they have managed to cope in the past, there is no doubt that the current system cannot continue, particularly in the context of the considerable growth in research activity that is envisaged. If this core funding issue is not addressed, research activity, teaching activity or both will suffer dramatically in Irish universities.

It is for this reason that the universities have proposed to adopt a full economic costing model for research, in partnership with the Government and the funding agencies, through a sector-wide initiative under the strategic innovation fund. Universities in the United Kingdom have taken the lead in Europe in moving towards a full economic costing model by having the most mature research environment. It has taken the UK the best part of a decade to transform to a full economic costing model. The costs of doing so are not insignificant. Imperial College London, which is one of the most research-intensive universities in the UK, has estimated the cost to the college of implementing the full economic costing model to be £1 million to date. The Irish universities believe that, with appropriate funding, they could adopt a full economic costing model within three to five years.

The members of the committee might wonder why models of funding are relevant to the EU framework programme. It is relevant because the national research plan will be based on a model of leverage of non-Exchequer funding. The only significant source of external research and development moneys is the framework programme. If universities are to deliver on the national research plan, they must maximise their take from the framework programme. The fundamental elements must be in place for them to draw down an appropriate level of funding. The most fundamental of all the elements is not whether researchers in the Irish universities are good enough to win the funding. It has been proven clearly that they are good enough. We will be increasingly competitive now that Science Foundation Ireland researchers have been embedded in the system. The most fundamental matter to be addressed is whether the rules for participation will ensure that universities can recoup an appropriate share of the costs associated with research. This is a highly significant concern, as the European Commission has proposed a major change in the costing models used for funding research under the seventh framework programme.

I have spoken about the universities' commitment to and the need for a full economic costing model of research as part of the overall drive to reform the university sector and to ensure long-term sustainability. It has been estimated, on the basis of the experience in the UK, that it would take between three and five years to implement the model here. The European Commission is proposing that a full economic costing model should be used by all organisations by the beginning of next year. It is unrealistic to expect universities to be in a position to implement such a model in this timeframe. It is clear, on the basis of discussions with our national and EU counterparts, that there are widespread concerns that the Commission's position will affect universities in Ireland and throughout Europe, as well as institutes of technology, hospitals and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

As we pointed out earlier, direct and indirect costs, or overheads, are associated with research and development. The indirect costs are the most difficult costs to quantify. This is especially so in institutes such as universities where a wide range of activities occur across teaching, learning and research. A key concern we have with the proposed rules for participation is that the European Commission asks that participants sign up to an FEC model without any commitment being given to the level of overheads they will pay. This places us and the majority of universities throughout the EU at a disadvantage in attempting to negotiate on the rules.

To ensure the future sustainability of research, a realistic overhead rate for funding indirect costs must be applied. Calculating the overhead rate is the most difficult part of costing research and the European Commission has indicated that organisations not in a position to calculate this will be presented with a fixed rate. However, this figure is not available and is likely to be significantly lower than required. We have carried out a modelling exercise which shows that if the overhead rate were to remain at current framework programme levels, our universities would be in the worrying position of having to contribute 65% of the costs as opposed to 50% to break even. It is our contention that the overhead rate needs to be at least 60% for our universities to be funded at a level comparable to that under the current framework programme.

The universities, as the engines of the framework programme in Ireland, are eager to compete in FP7 to raise the quantity and quality of research in this country and increasingly collaborate with our national and EU counterparts in academia and industry. We intend to continue to work in partnership with Government to ensure the rules of participation do no limit our ability to take part and compete, thus ensuring the future success of Ireland in levering this essential non-Exchequer source of funding.

Deputy Enright

I welcome the delegation and ask it to forgive me if my questions are put in a strange order. Some of my proposed questions were answered while I was taking notes. On intellectual property rights and Mr. Hennessy's concern that the rules may deter multinational companies from participating in FP7, is this concern shared by other countries? If so, how many countries have raised this matter? Is it of greater concern to Ireland than other European Union member states?

How do the funding arrangements operate in other countries? Are universities elsewhere in the same position as Irish universities in terms of moving to the full economic cost system or is this difficulty peculiar to Ireland? Ms Carmody referred to personnel officers, groundsmen and so forth. Is the problem related to the manner in which employees of universities are paid and the linkage between pay, skills and such matters in the education system?

What other changes will be required to current practices in universities? Will the current methodology applied to research be maintained? Will the changes amount to no more than another funding stream? How does the programme link in to the PRTLI and SFI? Can the 50% matching funding come from these programmes or must it be generated separately from Government funding? Is funding under FP7 allocated directly to the research institutions or is it disbursed by the Government? In other words, can the institutions compete for funding independently of Government? I assume the fund is separate from funding allocated to fourth level in the budget.

Will the national director for FP7 be appointed from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Will the director have links with those involved in the PRTLI and SFI or will this be a separate entity? What level of collaboration takes place between the Irish Universities Association and other institutions in the European Union? Will this programme result in a greater level of collaboration and participation among institutions in the EU?

The institutes of technology are not represented today. What will be the impact of the framework programme on the IT sector? It was noted that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, has sought to have the rules changed to suit Ireland better. What has been the response to his efforts and what is the likelihood of success? Given that we are in the middle of the process, it is more difficult for us to evaluate what will be the final outcome. Has the Minister received any indication of what will be the outcome of his efforts in this regard?

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the delegation. I will try to ask different questions from Deputy Enright. Clearly, everyone wishes to maximise the amount of funding Ireland will receive under the programme. Given that education is the primary focus of the committee and the lead Department in this framework programme is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, our concern must be to determine how the programme will impact on educational institutions.

How long will the period for discussion, during which we may influence change to improve the outcome for Ireland, last? Will the delegation elaborate on the move to the full economic cost accounting system which appears to be one of the main obstacles? Professor Ó Muircheartaigh noted that it has taken the UK universities a decade to make the transition. Deputy Enright also asked about the position in other European states. If the current proposal is not changed, we will have to make the transition by next year, which does not appear to be an attainable goal. What is our objective in this respect? Do we seek a return to the original system or the introduction of a transitional period within which to implement a full economic cost system? Realistically, what is the best outcome for Ireland?

To what extent do institutions need to collaborate and compete with institutions in other countries? Must every project involve collaboration with other institutions? I note members of the delegation are nodding. Are institutions from older EU member states more likely to succeed if they collaborate with institutions from one of the newer member states and vice versa? Are certain combinations more likely to succeed in securing funding than others or is the key issue the quality of the project? To what extent must a project be new, innovative and different from research carried out under previous projects? What is the relative importance of applied research — collaboration with industry — and pure research based in educational institutions?

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegation. Having read the submission, it is clear that three issues arise. On the removal of the additional cost model, will the delegation confirm that a strategic innovation fund is in place and will deal with this issue from the point of view of the political influence we may have? The second issue is our opposition to the removal of the veto in the operation of the programme's committee, which is a sensible approach.

Multinational companies are very concerned about the issue of intellectual property. The delegation indicated that multinational companies would run a mile from the new proposals on intellectual property. I presume many of the companies in question are involved in pharmaceuticals. Is that the case?

As public representatives we are often confronted with the issue of ethics in research. People are energised, for example, by the issue of stem cell research. The same is true in regard to issues to do with weapons technology — which is a sensitive subject — and the use of software and developments of that nature. How do we govern ourselves in terms of collaboration with other countries, or do we?

Deputy Gogarty

I will try to follow with something new after the previous three speakers. I would like further information from Ms Carmody in terms of how the strategic innovation fund could make up for some of the shortfall. Given that until recently our level of investment in research and development, particularly indigenous research and development, was particularly low, by how much will the new fund improve our figures in comparison with our EU partners?

On the proposal by the European Commission, Mr. Hennessy referred to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as having put the case for us at the Competitiveness Council last month. Has the possibility of derogation for Ireland been mentioned? We appear to get derogation in regard to many other EU directives. Given that, as Professor Ó Muircheartaigh stated, we are working towards the new system but we are not quite there yet, maybe a case can be made for seeking derogation for two to three years? That might be something we could push. We pride ourselves on being the cute hoors at European level and I have no doubt this might meet a sympathetic ear. I would like some feedback on whether that would be even considered if the case cannot be won to have the total implementation changed.

The budget will double to €73 billion——

Mr. Hennessy

It is €50 billion.

Deputy Gogarty

It is still increasing significantly so even if we lose out to some extent there will still be opportunities. In all of the work within the third level institutions in Ireland, either through the PRTLI or in terms of shared partnerships at EU level, there is very little strategic research in energy. Given the current debate as to whether Ireland should go nuclear, for example, we have the capacity to work in collaboration with countries such as Denmark in terms of wave and wind energy and possibly become one of the lead partners in any kind of strategic project. It is in our long-term strategic interests to push that front. If I have additional questions, I will ask them later.

Senator Tuffy

I apologise for being late. I was speaking in the Seanad on another Bill. I am somewhat disappointed there is nobody here from the institute of technology sector because it would be relevant to the discussion. Will the Department representative comment on the role of the institutes, especially in terms of applied research?

Does anyone have a comment on co-operation between the institutions on research, for example, universities working with each other or with institutes of technology and so on?

Chairman

We will now go back to the delegation for answers. As the questions are relevant to both groups, whoever wishes to lead off can do so.

Mr. Hennessy

Can we pick and choose?

Chairman

We do not mind.

Mr. Hennessy

I will try to deal with as many questions as I can. Whoever wishes can add to what I say. The first question put by Deputy Enright was about intellectual property. She asked if this is a bigger issue for Ireland than for other countries and how many other countries share our view. At this stage we are in the negotiation process. A number of other countries, including the UK, share our views and concerns on this in terms of the impact it might have on multinational companies. It is important for Ireland that any intellectual property rights issues do not become concerns that would stop companies or impede them from competing in or participating in the programme, given the number of multinational companies we have here. We are quite strong on this issue. The Irish University Association referred to my colleague. We have done a great deal of work with the Presidency and with other member states that share our views. We are quietly confident that we might get a result on that one.

In terms of the locus of the national support structure under FP7, we intend that will cover a broad church and that there will be engagement right across the system. It is our view that the post will be advertised so that there will not be any organisational capture in any shape or form in that respect.

Deputy Enright also asked how successful the Minister, Deputy Martin, has been in terms of the negotiations. It is probably a bit too early to call, but on the three areas his points have been well noted by the Presidency and we have engaged in a positive way at the Council. All of the points have found support around the table. Without wishing to say what will happen, we are quietly confident we will have some success on that.

Two questions were asked about institutes of technology and their participation. It is important to us that the institutes of technology are involved. Applied research is an important aspect of this matter. The institutes of technology will participate in FP7. We intend to include them in the national support structures in the future. Collaboration across institutions is as important to us as collaboration across borders. On that point, I should have referred in my presentation to the fact that we are looking at a North-South dimension in all of this as well.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked how long it will take. I deliberately did not answer that because the timeframe is referred to at the end of my presentation. It is to come in on 1 January 2007. The negotiations are reaching the point where there are three meetings a week of the Council research group. The Austrian Presidency will have an informal meeting and a Council meeting on these issues before the end of June. The Finns have two meetings planned as well so it will be fairly hectic in terms of finalisation but the aim is to have it in operation on 1 January 2007.

A question was asked about whether there is an interest in this covering applied research as well as basic research. Yes, very much so. Another question was asked about collaboration and competition. I suppose the driving principle in all of this is excellence. If that is best achieved through collaboration then that is the way we would want it to go and, vice versa, in terms of competition. The overarching theme is that it must be excellent research under FP7. I will leave the question about the strategic innovation fund to my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science.

In response to Deputy Andrews's question on defence, defence issues are not supported under FP. Security is, but defence is not. The dividing line in the definition is that it relates to civil security as opposed to defence issues. Armoured cars, tanks and so on are not included in FP7.

We will look into the point made by Deputy Gogarty about a derogation. It is too early to say we will not achieve what is necessary without resorting to that. However, it is an issue we will keep in mind. He also inquired about energy issues. Quite an amount of money is being provided for both energy and environmental research under FP7. A large sum of money is provided for energy and environmental research under FP7 and significant work will be done in all the areas mentioned. My colleagues will pick up on any questions I have omitted.

Mr. Pádraig O’Conaill

A number of questions were asked about the negotiations and the additional cost model, and whether Ireland was on its own or with or member states and universities in similar situation. We collaborated here and I had quite a lot of detail when I was negotiating in Brussels. It became clear over several weeks that a few member states were in the same position and many of their universities did not have a full cost model. The United Kingdom is the only country where all the universities have that type of model. A number of other member states have some universities on that model.

The consensus is that in order to keep European research competitive no one should be disadvantaged in respect of framework programmes 6 and 7. At the Council meeting several Ministers rowed in behind our Minister because this is a matter of European competitiveness. Commissioner Potocnik would have taken that message. While we are still negotiating, I am encouraged to believe that there will be movement.

Retention of the additional cost model is on the table. There is also the possibility of some kind of derogation or phasing in of the new cost model and a movement to that. The 50% funding will move to 75% funding on the Commission's proposal. Something will emerge from the negotiations we have undertaken and the support from other member states. We hope this will not put us at a disadvantage but it is difficult to tell at the moment.

Ms Carmody

I will deal specifically with the points about the strategic innovation fund, which the Minister for Education and Science announced last November. It is intended to incentivise, reform and modernise the higher education sector generally. It will promote improvements in quality, in teaching and learning, access, transfer and progression. A key priority is to improve capacity building generally in the institutions through areas such as improved performance management and improved management information systems.

The connection with today's topic is that we will thereby be able to put the technology and structures in place which will enable a full economic cost model to come into operation over time. I am happy to provide any further clarification required on that topic.

The institutions have codes of ethics which they take seriously when evaluating the proposal. My colleagues from the Irish Universities Association, IUA, may wish to speak further on that topic.

My colleague, Dr. Meehan from the Higher Education Authority, HEA, will deal with the question raised by Deputy Enright on pay structures which concerns overheads more than pay.

Dr. Eucharia Meehan

Activities within the institutions in the higher education sector have grown in recent decades. Many of the management information systems in place have been there for a long time. My colleagues from the IUA will comment on that too.

While the cost of doing business in effect will be captured across the system, there are accounting difficulties when it comes to allocating where costs should be apportioned. There are direct costs associated with funding researchers. While they are doing research other costs are incurred at the administration level because additional staff are needed to deal with recruitment of researchers and computer support services. There is a knock-on effect when research is conducted.

The institutions need to be able to capture and allocate those costs appropriately so that they can work up the full economic cost of particular activities. Many of the old systems are not sophisticated enough to enable this to happen across the sector. The HEA is in consultation with the group in the United Kingdom which implemented the management information system there to examine the best way of implementing it sector wide here, rather than allowing institutions to implement it in different ways.

The institutes of technology are involved in the framework programmes and we are aware from those we fund through programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, that they are successful in drawing down funding and play a key role in this. They have a strong record in collaboration with small and medium sized enterprises and of participation in the framework programmes.

Professor Ó Muircheartaigh

We collaborate extensively with the institutes of technology, for example we administer the Marie Curie programme on their behalf. The key criterion for collaboration is quality because we cannot do this work alone. We collaborate within Ireland and across Europe. Our assistant director, Dr.O'Carroll, will answer Deputy Enright's questions.

Dr. Conor O’Carroll

While the universities and other participants in the framework programme, industry and institutes of technology, receive support from funding agencies and Departments, it is up to individuals to go forward and bid in a competitive process in Brussels. The universities are involved in over 330 collaborative projects, in each of which there are at least ten partners. Many countries involved in the framework programme are outside what we would consider Europe. Israel is an example. We also have partners from the United States in many of these proposals. The programme offers a great opportunity for international collaboration.

There are no special cases for new member states but there are some special schemes for them. The programme, however, is competitive, and based on the overall scientific quality of the proposals. We have taken approximately 1.1% of the budget from the framework programme, which shows this is about competition. Irish universities and industry are involved in a project that took 20% of the entire budget last year and the preceding year. We are more competitive than our counterparts across Europe. That is an important aspect of the framework programme because it is an international benchmark of the quality of research, across the board, in Ireland. Our ability to participate and collaborate with other actors across Europe is also important.

There is a stringent ethical procedure within universities. My colleagues may wish to make some more specific comments on that. When the Commission reviews proposals it deals with ethics. Every proposer, whether the project seems far removed from areas such as stem cell, or so-called defence, research, must complete the ethics section of the review. Strict procedures are in place to deal with these particular issues.

We work with the institutes of technology and they are as concerned as we are, albeit their participation in the framework programme is not as high as that of the universities. With the strategic innovation fund, in a short time Ireland has come quickly to a point of carrying out much research. The national development plan from 1994 to 1999 devoted €500 million to research. In the current plan, €2.5 billion has been allocated. We expect a larger proportion in the next plan. The business of universities in the past was primarily teaching. Research was a sideline carried out by individual academics. Now it is a key part of the universities' activities and it needs to be properly costed. The full economic costing system is the way to go and the strategic innovation fund is the tool to allow the universities to do that. However, achieving it is an intensive and extensive process not just in finance but changing how we work.

Ms Doris Alexander

Questions were raised by several Deputies as to the changes needed in a university or an institute of technology to embrace the full economic costing model, or as it is referred to in the UK, the FEC model. Dr. Meehan referred to the transparent approach to costing, TRAC, which is what the full economic costing model is about.

The transparent approach costing manual states an institution is being managed sustainably if, taken one year with another, it is recovering its full economic costs across its activities as a whole and is investing in its infrastructure, including human and intellectual, at a rate adequate to retain its future productive capacity. It is not just about year on year but being able to invest in future infrastructure.

To achieve this, one has to ask what are the costs of research in a university. This is difficult; if universities were mono-functional, it would not be difficult. However, as teaching and research are intrinsically linked it is difficult to divide the cost of one element in a university. If a full economic cost model were implemented, we must ask what are the core components to be taken into account. The most important element in this is to have auditable metrics. Following on from the models Science Foundation Ireland has used regarding its overheads, we calculated our estimated costs. It is still, however, not good enough for a full economic cost model.

A project theme is also needed, not just at the university level but across the sector. We want a full economic cost model that uses a methodology into which research funders can buy. All elements of the third level sector will have to buy in together. These will have to be interdisciplinary because there will have to be personnel from IT, human resources and accounting. There will also have to be buy-in from consultants. We have been given an indication by our UK colleagues that they would be open for us to learn from their experience. Another element is financial resources which links in with the strategic innovation fund which has already been discussed.

Time is also needed. I cannot comment on Deputy Gogarty's question on derogation. However, if a derogation were obtained, it would have to be longer than two to three years because it will likely take five years to introduce the system. Metrics that have been in place for a period are needed as they can be reiterated. One could even run a dual system to dry-run projects to learn if one is getting price and cost recovery. Thereafter, one must think about retaining the system. Once a system is implemented, there are costs in keeping it updated. Those costs become an indirect cost which must be included if the full economic costing system is to maintain its sustainability without having to draw on more funds from the Government.

The consequences of having these components is that we need new systems in place to analyse the metric data and authenticate it. There are administrative consequences where extra resources will be required. Industrial relations consequences also arise because of the introduction and implementation of new systems. There is also a financial systems consequence. Will all the national sponsors move to this costing system together or will there be parallel systems in place for a given period?

There are various headings that highlight how difficult it is to decide between whether a cost is a research or teaching one. The various headings include energy, utilities, housekeeping, insurance, security, mail, grounds, property management, annual costs, renewals, mechanical, electrical and external elements, joinery and sanitary fittings. Those are just the items under the heading "estates". Every item must be examined to allocate a percentage of its cost to research, teaching or other activities. That is quite a trail and it must be done over a period so that seasonal changes and so forth are taken into account. Time allocation schedules for all university personnel must also be considered.

It is not a task that can be completed quickly. I agree with the previous speakers on what is our best outcome. Our best outcome for the seventh framework programme would be to retain the additional cost to allow us time to move to a proper version of the full economic cost model. Failing that, we need to get a good rate of indirect cost that would not disadvantage us with, say, our UK colleagues who will be able to calculate the indirect cost.

Professor Desmond Fitzgerald

I am a medical researcher and chairman of the Health Research Board. The issue of stem cell research is very important. Stem cells have the potential to change the lives of people with multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. It also has the potential to tackle the European-wide epidemic of heart failure.

One must distinguish between two issues — stem cell research involving adult cells and research involving embryonic stem cells. There are ethical issues about both. The Health Research Board has its own ethics committee that reviews all research grant applications. It applies both the national regulations and ethical guidelines to all grants to ensure only research adhering to those principles is funded. The Medical Council of Ireland has its own regulations regarding work in embryonic stem cells, including those imported into Ireland. Each hospital has an ethics committee and reviews all human studies which include any work on either adult or embryonic stem cells. The universities have established strict guidelines and their own ethics committees for human research. The research is carefully reviewed and would only be supported if it adhered to the guidelines.

There are important questions around the issue of the use of adult stem cells versus the use of embryonic stem cells. That is something Ireland will have to face up to at some stage. The likelihood is that products will be generated from embryonic stem cell research in other countries that could benefit patients. Serious questions could arise, in the event, as to whether we would allow the use of treatments derived from that type of research. At the moment we have strict guidelines in place and all our research community adheres to those. That includes European grants, by the way, because all of the universities involved in Ireland will look carefully at the grants their researchers sign up to, and ensure they adhere to strict ethical guidelines.

The other aspect I want to mention is the institute of technology, IT, sector, which was raised a number of times this morning. There are increasingly strong relationships developing between the universities and the ITs. I will just give two examples. A major programme was funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment this year, the National Institute of Bioprocessing Research and Training. That involves universities and Sligo Institute of Technology. Another one is the National Digital Research Centre, which is a programme launched by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. That is a consortium that involves two design colleges in Dublin, the Institute of Art and Design Technology, IADT, and the National College of Art and Design, NCAD. Increasingly we see large programmes that involve collaboration between the two higher level institutions.

On the energy research question from Deputy Gogarty, that is a really important issue for Ireland. The number of electrical engineers graduating from Irish universities is declining and the number of students applying for places in this area is rapidly going down — by about 25% per year. It is therefore quite a serious issue. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is about to announce a new energy research programme to support research programmes within the universities. The funding this year will be approximately €3.5 million and will more than double next year. The universities are well aware of the problem and are developing strategies to address the issue.

Mr. O’Conaill

I wanted to clarify one or two matters as regards the original cost model. In terms of the way the debate will probably go in Brussels, the retention of the original cost model is probably not realistic in that nearly all member states such as Ireland want to move to a full cost model. It is seen as the most competitive thing to do and the best way to go. On a full cost model one can receive money similar to the project one is on.

The derogation issue is a difficult one in that it involves retaining the additional cost model and having the full cost model. The Commission is attempting to simplify the framework programme and has been supported in doing that by most member states. To have two cost models running at the same time probably would not be supported around the table, because it does not add to the simplification issue. If institutions and other participants are given a realistic rate attuned to their projected overheads and indirect costs, that will be the solution and that is what we are pushing. I hope that will happen. It is difficult in that a Commission decision is required as regards the flat rate. What we hope to do, along with colleagues around the table who are on our side, is to try to insert some text into the framework programme that will push the Commission into developing a realistic flat rate. That would allow institutions to develop the full cost model while not being disadvantaged. In that manner they can still participate in the framework programme.

Deputy Gogarty

If the flat rate applies concurrently over five years, would that not help to push the process forward?

Mr. O’Conaill

The flat rate is a Commission decision that will last for the entire framework programme.

Deputy Gogarty

In terms of advancing an argument, Mr. O'Conaill says there are universities in other member states that would support the Irish position. Given that the third level institutions are moving towards this cost model, perhaps there could be agreement, if necessary, on a concurrent system for the two years remaining to the programme to allow people the opportunity to move to the full economic cost model.

Mr. O’Conaill

It is being looked at within the group. Based on negotiations so far it is the option that might prove difficult because of its simplification, but it is still on the table and we will look at it again.

Mr. Hennessy

There were two questions we did not get to. Deputy Enright asked whether the money went direct to the institutions. The answer is that it does, and it does not come through the Department. Deputy Andrews asked about MNCs. It is not just in the farm sector that we have some concerns. A number of ICT firms, as well, have major concerns about intellectual property and the impact this might have for them. We are looking at the issue right across the board.

Chairman

I thank all the delegates for their participation. It has been a beneficial meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 May 2006.