Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1996

Vol. 149 No. 14

White Paper on Science and Technology: Statements.

I extend my congratulations to you, a Chathaoirligh, on taking over this important office.

I begin by sincerely thanking my colleagues in Seanad Éireann for the opportunity to have a substantial debate on this crucial issue. I would especially like to thank two of our colleagues, Senator Quinn who made a contribution to the White Paper from a technology user's perspective and Senator Lee who, through his column in the Sunday Tribune, gave a media airing to this debate, regrettably an all too infrequent occurrence. It is particularly in longer term policy areas such as science and technology where the implications are profound but rarely of obvious immediate impact, that the Upper House can make a valuable contribution.

The process of the White Paper began with the reports of the National Economic and Social Council on innovation, growth and competitiveness over 1992 and 1993 and the establishment of the independent Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council.

The task of the council under the chairmanship of Mr. Dan Tierney, established in February 1994 was to review and make recommendations on science and technology in Ireland and its contribution to innovation and industrial competitiveness.

There had been, in particular, concern among the scientific community about the level of public funding for research in third level colleges. There was also concern at the low levels of technological competence in Irish industry and the insufficient attention to research and development and innovation on the agenda of the business sector. Somewhat ironically, these concerns came in the wake of a significant injection of funds into science and technology in Ireland through the EU Structural Funds Programme which began in 1989.

In the wake of the impact of the Structural Funds Programme, the increasing pace and penetration of technical innovation as a factor in industrial competitiveness, and the wide ranging deliberations of the Tierney committee, I felt it was timely to review the policy and practice behind science, technology and innovation in Ireland and to publish the results in the form of a White Paper.

In today's debate I do not intend to confine myself to the content of the White Paper because that is, in effect, the culmination of a series of mini debates and issues which it is difficult to encapsulate in one document. I intend to go over the philosophy behind the need for State involvement in science and technology in terms of the developing nation, to look at Irish science and technology in the wider European and international dimension and to reflect on some of the more important specific aspects and issues that we are addressing.

In presenting the White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation before the Seanad, it is important to set science and technology in the context of broad national policy for economic development. The report of the STI Ádvisory Council, or Tierney Report, drew attention to what it considered the lamentable neglect of science and technology issues by national policy-makers over an extended period of time. Some of these issues had been addressed by a joint Irish/OECD Report in the mid-1960s and some excellent and far-sighted recommendations made. These might have come to fruition under normal circumstances but for whatever reasons, including the turbulent political situation emerging at that time, effective immediate action did not take place.

The result was that national science and technology policy remained in a time-warp in Ireland at a period when significant developments were taking place in other European countries, particularly small countries such as Denmark, Norway and Finland. Our time-warp had a 1950s look to it and was characterised by a heavy concentration of effort and resources on the agricultural sector and related research priorities; very little support for industry-related infrastructure, in particular a failure to develop a strong and effective technological institute geared towards industrial technologies along the lines of similar institutes in Denmark and Finland; and the absence of a research council mechanism for funding academic research.

It was only with the advent of the European Structural Funds programmes in the late 1980s that a serious effort was made to make up for lost time. Since these funds were made available from the science and technology sub-programme of the industry operational programme, they were required to have a strong industrial focus.

The policy thinking underlying the various initiatives in this programme ran along these lines: industry needs support in developing and using new or appropriate technologies but we lack suitable research institutes either in the public or private sector, the National Microelectronics Centre in Cork being a notable exception. Establishing such research centres from scratch was ruled out as too ambitious although the Spanish and Portuguese were much more adventurous in their use of Structural Funds.

Instead it was decided to attempt to make use of existing expertise in the third-level colleges as back-up for industry. This seemingly risky strategy led to the birth of the programmes in advanced technology in the universities and the technology centres in the regional technical colleges. Despite early misgivings I believe these initiatives have been largely successful and indeed the White Paper has recommended their continuation and improvement.

The new policy included other mechanisms for encouraging industrial innovation, including a major invigoration of the existing under-utilised and ineffectually promoted scheme to provide grants for R&D in industry, the introduction of placement schemes for encouraging companies to employ technical graduates, subsidised technology audits in companies and efforts to promote technology transfer from outside the country.

While industrial innovation and industry-college collaboration have benefited substantially from Structural Funds, another aspect has drawn criticism that it has suffered from chronic under-funding over the years — support for academic research. This area has generated sometimes heated policy debates in the past; academics have argued that they get a very raw deal here by comparison with other countries, while others including for example the Culliton Report, have claimed that Ireland does not need to do any fundamental research as a small and relatively undeveloped economy.

We do not have any research council mechanism to fund academic research projects as do most other industrialised countries. Since 1978 various bodies, from the National Board for Science and Technology to Eolas and now Forbairt, have operated a scheme to support such research. Until the last few years the annual value of this scheme was less than £1 million. Arising from the Tierney Report and the White Paper this has been increased to £2 million, although to put this in some sort of context the UK Research Councils would have something of the order of £1 billion to disburse; clearly there are great differences between the countries, so these figures can do no more than create an overall impression.

The position of academic research here is complicated by other factors. The Department of Education decided in 1988 to abolish all support for post-graduate students. Only some £2 million is available on an annual basis to fund equipment and buildings for all seven universities, resulting in a cumulative equipment shortfall in the colleges estimated by the Higher Education Authority to be at least £50 million. At the same time, there is funding for research and equipment going into the colleges through a number of avenues, including the Department of Education and Higher Education Authority grants, national and international, especially EU, programmes and from private sector funding.

All these factors were recorded in the Tierney Report and reasonably modest proposals were made to redesss them. The White Paper responded by calling for more funds as resources permit and for the relevant Government Departments to work more closely together while recognising that funding from the EU Framework Programme, for example, has to some extent filled the vacuum in the past. The White Paper has also endorsed the existing policy emphasis on promoting industrial innovation and made concrete proposals for strengthening this area.

The White Paper aims to bring Ireland more into line with economic and industrial policies world wide. We are virtually alone in failing to appreciate the profound link between national science and technology performance and economic growth. That link is now becoming more important as the developed world moves beyond the industrial society to the information age.

Recent evidence from the OECD indicates that while the manufacturing sector has almost universally lost jobs there are certain pockets of growth, particularly in the high technology sector. Future employment will most likely be in high technology manufacturing or services which use such equipment to change the nature of existing products or to generate totally new ones. Over the past decade it is clear that countries where manufacturing employment increased or suffered the smallest loss were those undergoing the most rapid structural change involving an increased share of manufacturing employment in high technology, high wage, high skill, science based industries.

A number of ‘new fundamentals' alongside the more established macroeconomic indicators for European Monetary Union and Maastricht are now influencing science, technology and innovation policies everywhere and will need attention in Ireland if the momentum of growth and development we are currently enjoying is to be sustained. Some of these ‘new fundamentals' which will influence science and technology policy and investment decisions in the future are international and outside the control of national governments. Others are concerned with the performance of national economies and can be influenced by national initiatives.

All indicators point to a rapid increase in the knowledge base of world economies, an increase which is closely associated with declining prices for information processing, the convergence of communications and computer technology and a rapid expansion in international electronic networking — the emergence of the digital economy. These developments improve considerably the position of less favoured and geographically peripheral and underdeveloped regions as well as providing a completely new context for the debate on regional science and technology disparities. This raises questions about the future performance of economies such as Ireland's, in particular the capability of Irish owned firms and the access of SMEs to new information, technology and markets.

Access to the global knowledge base is not automatic. There are entry barriers. Lack of connections will mean exclusion. There are, for example, significant implications for the education and training sectors if there is to be ready access to information and communications technologies. The status of our communications infrastructure is crucial for access to the international knowledge base.

As a result of these developments, information and knowledge based concepts of economic development are emerging, concepts which focus on how knowledge is generated, transferred, exchanged and transformed, and on the economic implications of such activity. The role of knowledge and information in the organisation and conduct of economic activities will fundamentally alter the form and structure of economic growth. However, there may be the prospect of an increase in growth differentials between those who can and cannot connect easily and usefully to the digital economy.

In common with most developed nations, Ireland has ambitions for a significant share of this emerging post-industrial and knowledge based world economy. We have in place most of the basic prerequisites for this — a modern communications infrastructure, a mature and internationally respected university system and a young and well educated workforce which is highly mobile and adaptive. There are, however, some serious weaknesses to be addressed, especially the low level of skills and technology in the indigenous sectors of industry, the relatively slow emergence of a strong services sector in the economy generally and more especially, our very weak national system of innovation.

A national system of innovation is the term used to describe the complexity of culture and interaction among the actors who produce, distribute and apply knowledge in an economy and which ultimately determines the innovation performance of national firms. The overall performance of an economy depends not so much on how its various institutions — embracing the laws and rules concerning patents, incentives and culture for continuous education and training, patterns of co-operation between social partners and so forth — and formal organisations, firms, research institutes, universities etc., perform individually but on how well they interact with each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation, distribution and use and the general culture of the system.

Different sections of the White Paper examine each of the broad elements of Ireland's system of innovation: the enterprise sector, the higher education sector, the public research sector and the role of the State in funding and supporting science, technology and innovation. Few will have read all of the NESC Report, Ireland in a Comparative Institutional Perspective, prepared by Lars Mjoset, although anybody interested in national policy formulation should at least look at, but his analysis is centred around this concept. He argues that Ireland suffers from a weak national system of innovation.

A common feature of all innovation systems — regional, national and transnational — is the emphasis on the systemic nature of the innovation process. Firms rarely innovate alone. Constant interaction and co-operation between the different functions of the firm and between the firm and its external economic and political environment, leads to continuous learning and better exploitation of available knowledge.

The new world view of the underlying processes of innovation and economic growth has profound implications for policy makers everywhere. Its significance for the European Union, whose relative economic position has weakened over the past decade, is particularly pertinent. The European economy is characterised by a high level of structural ‘technological unemployment' because of its comparative neglect of knowledge-intensive sectors. The Commissioner for Science, Research and Development has highlighted the European Union's principal weakness, brought to light by a series of analyses, as lying in the fact that the economy suffers from an innovation deficit.

In order to monitor and attempt to regulate the dynamic system of knowledge development and acquisition which is driving the emerging economic order, the traditional portfolio of economic performance indicators must be supplemented by a range of knowledge indicators which provide policy makers with information on such key dimensions of knowledge as: (i) knowledge stock — its magnitude and availability; (ii) knowledge flows and circulation — both disembodied and embodied in human resources; (iii) effectiveness of knowledge sharing, its conversion and diffusion; and (iv) economic impact of knowledge sharing and transfer.

A second priority is a comprehensive reappraisal of education and training in the light of the realisation that learning is an essential part of living and not just a means to an end. New motivations for learning, new ways to reward learning experiences and new modes of delivering learning are required if economies are to accelerate their progress towards knowledge based economies and ultimately address the endemic problem of long-term unemployment and its attendant social marginalisation.

These are difficult concepts whose significance is increasingly recognised. It is only recently that countries have begun to make operative the national system of innovation model, taking it from its conceptual form and particularising it to their own country. By elaborating on their national system of innovation countries are able to come to a greater understanding of the knowledge flows within their economies and the inter-linkages between different institutions. Some of the countries which have given attention to the process include Canada, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, New Zealand and Australia.

Ireland's White Paper seeks to instigate a similar process here. My Department, through the office of science and technology, is also undertaking a detailed survey of existing linkages between the major players in the national system of innovation with a view to proposing further concrete actions that might be taken to address the manifold problems identified.

In discussing the role of technology in economic development, many commentators have noted, for example, the pervasive nature of electronics, the rapid advances in biotechnology and the impact which new technologies have on so many aspects of our lives. When the Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council was established in 1994, it was an uneasy awareness of the pace, scale and impact of these changes which was at the back of people's minds. That uneasy feeling is at the heart of our frequently negative attitude to things scientific. It is worthwhile, therefore, when one wishes to consider the future impact of technological change, to look back at trends in the past to see if any lessons may be learned and also to reflect on the past in an attempt to chart a course for the future.

Technological development has been in progress since man first started to use tools. The rate of change, however, has become dramatically increased in the last two centuries. The introduction of steam power in the late 18th century was followed by a widespread mechanisation of production during the 19th century. The common use of electric power opened up huge consumer markets in the period 1890 to 1940 and, in the last 50 years, we have seen the electronic revolution at its most dramatic with the arrival of electronics and its most important offspring, the computer.

For countries trying to establish a vibrant industrial base, this has meant a realisation that the major path to prosperity is to be able to convert scientific and technologically-based innovations into products and get them on to world markets. The ability to undertake this conversion quickly and effectively is the mark of a successful modern economy and is the goal which we must set ourselves. In the fastest growing economies it can been seen that the proportion of industry based on high technology products is critical. These are firms in computers, software, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, etc., and they are the technology producers after whom all others must follow. Although this sector of the economy is small in many countries, it has been shown that it can act as a driver of technology change into less advanced sectors of the economy.

In Ireland our major technology producers tend to be multinationals, a point to which I will return later. A central part of what we must achieve in this country in technology terms is to firmly link indigenous industry into these technology producers so that business opportunities associated with new products and processes can be transferred and the skills of many Irish firms may be enhanced.

It has been suggested by some historians that science and technology are two separate things which have developed distinctly and independent of each other. This view proposes that the scientific community is concerned with observation and discovery and the technologists are concerned with application and the working device. This approach may have been appropriate in the 19th century but today these boundaries have been almost completely eroded. In practice, it is becoming more difficult to distinguish research from experimental development. Japanese cars, for example, are on the market in two years from design stage. This is also clear in the biosciences where today's basic research can lead to tomorrow's product. This places increasing pressure on companies to be continuously aware of the need to conduct research and development and to innovate.

A second major issue is the availability of skills. A considerable upgrading in the knowledge and skills of school leavers and graduates will be required to ensure that this country can avail of the possible technological opportunities. Last year's White Paper on Education also lays emphasis on this area. All school leavers should have at least a basic understanding of science and technology. At third level the students produced should be well trained in research and development techniques and the course material which they have gone through should provide them with a suitable basis for a career in industry. To continue this development, the business sector must be encouraged to articulate its needs clearly to ensure there is an effective feedback to the education system.

The industry base in Ireland is predominantly populated by small firms and is also broadly split between a technologically sophisticated multinational group and a less active indigenous sector. The Tierney report referred to over 3,800 indigenous companies, employing 105,000 people, and producing an output of £2.8 billion. This compares with a foreign sector employing 88,000 people producing £6.1 billion. The dichotomy between high and low level performers is reflected in the different levels of research and development and innovative activity which these different groups undertake. This division is becoming less dramatic, however, and a central focus of our science and technology policy must be to close the gap between our domestic firms and their international competitors.

While there are undoubted deficiencies in Irish firms, it is heartening to note that business expenditure on research and development has been increasing at a dramatic pace in recent years, up to 17 per cent per annum. One quarter of Irish companies perform research and development on a continuous basis and just under half were buying in technology in the form of equipment, licences or specialist skills. As indigenous firms are smaller and larger firms have the potential to use their size to employ technology more effectively, it is clear that Irish indigenous firms face difficult challenges. These include a low level of technology, a low commitment of technology development and low levels of innovation and entrepreneurship. While size of firm is not the only consideration, it is important that the thrust of our actions must be to help firms to either achieve a scale that will allow them to be able to become technology performers, for example, by working together, or to become sophisticated enough to be successful in technology niche areas. The undoubted success of Irish firms in the software sector is an excellent example of this latter approach.

It remains the firm's responsibility to build its own innovative capability, although to do this, we must accept it is important for the State to provide assistance, especially where the cost and risk factors are high. This assistance may take a number of forms and, additionally, there must be an effective infrastructure upon which companies can draw. The White Paper puts in place a range of initiatives to address these problems and to help Irish companies to build their own capabilities to access technology. The central theme is to assist companies by means of finance, skills and information to address their own needs and to be effective in locating and using the sources of technology which have been made available.

The availability of skills in Ireland is one of the most important features in the attraction of overseas manufacturing and international services investment. This is especially the case for high technology projects, including health care, electronics and software development. In these cases, the availability of chemists, engineers and software graduates is critical. The importance of these skills is not only at graduate level but also at certificate and diploma levels.

The third level educational infrastructure in Ireland is the key to the continuing attraction of overseas industry to Ireland for two reasons. It will continue to provide the skills available for industry and, because Ireland and the education sector are small relative to other countries, we are able to be flexible here. Colleges can respond quickly to the requirements of industry, they can move quickly to carry out specialised research or development work on behalf of companies and they can tailor training courses for sectors or companies. The programmes in advanced technology, for example, provide a very valuable asset in the development and co-ordination of university research in specialised areas, in the development of indigenous industry and in the attraction of overseas companies to Ireland. They clearly demonstrate to a potential investor that they can support them in many ways. These include the provision of contract research and development, ongoing research collaboration and staff interaction. As Ireland is small, we can be highly flexible and this always gives a good impression to a potential investor. Skills availability, educational infrastructure and available facilities also provide assistance and encouragement to companies once they have established here. As a project develops, companies work more closely with the college infrastructure which contributes to greater embeddedness of business in Ireland.

This aspect of the science and technology system is often overlooked by those who only see research as worthwhile if a commercial product is in sight or by those who believe that mobile investment is merely the product of grants and tax concessions. However, as yesterday's Irish Times acknowledges in commenting on our continuing success in winning international investment, a priority must be to ensure that the education system continues to turn out sufficient numbers of graduates with the technical, computer and other skills needed to remain competitive in this field. That is a core objective of science and technology policy as enunciated in the White Paper.

I also believe that, unfortunately, the value of research activities and training facilities in Irish universities as a valuable asset to overseas companies is a factor not sufficiently demonstrated by colleges themselves in arguing a case for more research funding. Universities need to promote their research expertise effectively and develop good and broad contacts with industry. There are many cases of industry/university collaborative research taking place which contribute to the integration and development of overseas companies in Ireland which need to be constantly highlighted.

The colleges have witnessed a substantial investment by the State, especially over the last ten years, reflecting the rapid growth in student numbers. Traditionally, the view has been that such investment is made with the expectation of the production of high qualified students. However, recent experience has shown that colleges perceive and are expected to have a strong and identifiable role in economic and industrial development through the wider exploitation of their expertise and facilities.

This change is predicated upon the fact that the third level sector has built up an increasing knowledge base which is an important resource. This base cannot only be used to solve industrial problems or create new products, it must also connect with a larger body of researchers overseas. Research plays a vital role in the maintenance of this knowledge base and is used as a vital training activity for graduates. To put the issue in a nutshell, companies need to get hold of technology and the third level sector is a vibrant source of such technology. The problem is how to get that transfer to work effectively.

There are obvious differences in the way in which colleges and companies operate; they work to different deadlines and perceive different benefits to collaboration; college researchers tend to be driven by self-interest and a desire to see their skills and experience put to broad use; companies tend to see problems as short-term and very specific requiring immediate answers. Despite this difference in approach, I think it is possible and necessary to engender a better flow of business between colleges and companies.

A Forfás innovation study found that, of the innovative firms interviewed, only about 16 per cent use the third level sector as a source of innovation. This figure can surely be improved but for that to happen both sides must accept the validity of the other's approach. Colleges must change their reward systems to recognise that academics who work with industry should be rewarded. It is unacceptable that industry collaboration is not taken into account in recruitment or promotion procedures as much as academic publications. Equally, firms should understand the pressures on academic researchers and set realistic targets for collaborative research. These issues are addressed in the White Paper.

A particular issue that I wish to mention is the role of the regional technical colleges and the Dublin Institute of Technology. These colleges have a special role to play as they are located in areas where they can develop close working relationships with industry. New legislation will help them interact more effectively with firms and their applied curricula will make this interaction all the more attractive to small firms. The regional technical colleges have great potential to become regionally based centres where firms can come for advice and specialist technology training without the disadvantages of geographic location. The council of directors of the regional technical colleges has strongly affirmed this role and is committed to working in partnership with Forbairt in bringing forward regionally based actions which will serve to develop their local areas.

The Irish science and technology system is enormously dependent upon support from the European Union. To a large extent, discretionary spending on science and technology programmes is financed out of Structural Funds. In particular, the European Regional Development Fund plays a major role in supporting research and development in Ireland. EU support under the 1994-99 Industry Operational Programme amounts to £220 million for the research and development subprogramme along with an Exchequer contribution of £45 million. The programme has a specific mission statement. It seeks to support the enhancement of competitive advantage in Irish firms through the appropriate use of technology. It aims to achieve this objective through a portfolio of infrastructure, financial and skills supports attuned to the expressed and anticipated needs of Irish industry, briefly summarised as follows.

Measure 1 — the industry R&D initiative — addresses the need for demand led research and development in industry. It is open to all firms and allows industry to define and cater for its research and development needs by putting the funding to undertake projects which meet those needs in industry's hands.

Measure 2 consists of a number of schemes designed to increase the capability of industry, to improve the technological supports provided to industry and to increase third level expertise on key technologies for the development of industry.

Measure 3 consists of a number of schemes designed to improve the ability of industry to manage the process of research and technological development and to enhance the interaction between higher education institutes and enterprises in that regard.

Measure 4 provides for research support to the third level sector to tap the vein of innovation and more outward looking perspective which has been adopted by progressive researchers within the colleges. Measure 4 supports both college based projects and co-operative projects with industry.

However, this heavy dependency means we must start to address the post-1999 situation when the current round of funding finishes. The Tierney report highlighted the importance of Structural Funds in the public financing of science and technology activities in enterprises in particular and pointed out that, with the possibility of reduced European Regional Development Fund support for Ireland post-1999, there must be grounds for concern about the long-term funding of the innovation system. The likelihood is that, as a result of our success in making use of Structural Fund support up to 1999, Ireland will probably cease to be an Objective 1 region at that point.

The overall approach to the Structural Funds issue post-1999 will be a matter for the Government to decide in due course. For my own part, however, whatever about the progress we have made on other fronts, the area of innovation is one in which Irish industry still lags far behind our main competitors and where continued support is likely to be necessary, and I hope likely to be forthcoming. In this respect I would refer to an address entitled Towards a New Regional Policy for the Promotion of Innovation given by Dr. Midel Landabaso of DGXVI at the Innovation Day Conference in November in which he indicated that, given the correlation between innovation and research, training and development efforts with regional economic development, closing the inter-regional research and technology gap in the European Union becomes a precondition for reducing what is referred to as the cohesion gap. In simple terms, there is a strong argument for Cohesion and Structural Funds to be targeted on strategic activities such as science and technology after the current round. He went on to say that economic analysis confirms that there is an inter-regional innovation, research and technology gap which is much wider than the so-called cohesion gap, that is, inter-regional disparities in income per capita, productivity and unemployment rates between the developed and the less developed regions of the European Union. It follows therefore that regional policy should increasingly concentrate its efforts on the promotion of innovation if it is to be successful in creating the conditions for a sustained and sustainable economic development process in less favoured regions.

I would like to report to the House on progress during the Irish Presidency of the research council, including specific initiatives which we undertook. Two research councils were scheduled in the Presidency calender, the first on 7 October and the second on 5 December. All the items on the agenda for the December council had important implications and I would list them as follows.

The Irish Presidency has been very conscious of the BSE/CJD concerns all over Europe. The Presidency has drawn up Council conclusions which call for an enhanced research effort. I am pleased to inform the House that last week the Council approved these conclusions, which include funding for a major research action plan on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, include funding for a major research action plan on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including BSE and human related diseases. The conclusions take on board the report of the high level scientific group, chaired by the Austrian scientist, Dr. Weissman, which recommended targeted research in specific areas. I have no doubt that news of new funding for research on this important topic will be welcomed by consumer, agricultural and health interests and will also act to restore consumer confidence.

I inherited from the last Presidency a proposal from the Commission to provide 700 million ecu in additional funding for the EU's current fourth research framework programme, as part of a review process agreed by research Ministers in 1994. This was rendered redundant by the ECOFIN council's decision not to breach the Community's financial perspectives. Nevertheless, the Irish Presidency managed to salvage some of the proposal and what seemed like a non-starter in July has regained centre stage. We secured political agreement at Council last week that will deliver additional funding for research of 100 million ecu for the period 1997-8. This will provide the research funding for BSE related diseases to which I referred earlier and for other worthwhile projects.

The launch of discussions on the European Union's fifth framework programme of research and technological development and demonstration, covering 1998-2002, during the Irish Presidency was a major achievement. The current fourth framework programme embraces all Community research and technology development programmes with funding of 13.1 billion ecu. Research Ministers engaged in a major debate to decide the guidelines which will serve as the basis for a detailed Commission proposal for the fifth framework programme due next Spring.

Early in our term, and with the encouragement of the Presidency, the EU Commission published its strategy paper for the fifth framework programme "Inventing Tomorrow: Europe's Research at the service of its people". An orientation debate took place at the October Council and, following further encouragement from the Presidency, the EU Commission published a working document on the fifth framework programme in late November. I presented a Presidency paper to focus matters and a second debate was held at Research Council last week which has moved the debate forward and will assist the Commission in the preparation of its detailed proposal next Spring. I am happy to say that my continued efforts to have the EU action plan on innovation completed during the Irish Presidency have paid dividends. This follows the Green Paper on Innovation which was published earlier this year. The plan has now been cleared by the EU Commission, was presented to the December Research Council last week and will go to the European Summit in Dublin this weekend. The plan is a comprehensive response to the need to put innovation in all its diversity and complexity at the heart of industrial and economic policy and mirrors in many ways the approach in our White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation.

Apart from the foregoing items, I also took two Presidency initiatives to coincide with national Presidency objectives on drugs and SMEs. The drugs issue is a major priority for this Government and my Presidency initiative on research in the drugs area complements this wider process. The initiative relates to the contribution which the European scientific community can make to the fight against drug abuse and detection. On 12 November, a very successful high level workshop on "Research on the Medical, Socio-Economic and Detection Issues of Drug Abuse" was held in Brussels, as part of the Irish Presidency initiative. All 15 member states made valuable inputs to the recommendations in the report of the workshop. These recommendations have been reflected in the Council Conclusions which were agreed by research Ministers last week. They will in turn feed into the Dublin summit this weekend.

On SMEs, last week's Council approved a set of Presidency initiated conclusions which aim at making it easier for SMEs to participate in EU research programme activities. This was an important achievement which recognises the significant contribution that SMEs can make to economic growth, and the fact that technology is vital if SMEs are to make that contribution.

I would like to make a few brief comments on the much talked about information society as, for most people, it represents the demonstrable capacity of technology in our lives. The information society concerns the products and services which are emerging on foot of the convergence of information and communications technologies, and the impact which these products/services will have. The White Paper raises an agenda for discussion on the enormous ramifications of these developments. At this stage there are more questions than answers. The information society heralds a new revolution, equal in scale, intensity, effect and implications to the industrial revolution which spread throughout Europe and the new world into the nineteenth century.

Where this transformation will lead is not yet clear but there are already visible enormous implications for all aspects of life, in business and trade, work and employment, in education, health and leisure. Many traditional jobs are disappearing as new markets, new types of jobs and ways of working are being created. Long established industries and ways of life are disappearing. Methods of communication, independent of time, place or defined structure, are emerging. The world is being reshaped on a gigantic scale.

Nobody knows what will be the outcome of it all. In a sense there will be no outcome as such; there is simply a continuous process but we have the power to influence events. We have a duty to do so because it is possible to build a better society for all and increase employment opportunities out of what is now happening. The development of the new age cannot be left solely to market forces. As the White Paper states, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment put in place a steering group on the information society in early 1996. That group comprises representatives of the broad strata of society likely to be affected by and involved in the information society. The group was given a mandate to examine various aspects of the information society with a view to reaching agreement on recommendations regarding how Ireland might best handle the challenges and opportunities which the information society will present in the short to medium term. I understand that the group hopes to finalise its study before the year end. I assure Senators that the document will be afforded high priority within the Department of Enterprise and Employment on foot of its submission to the Minister.

In recognition of the increasing importance of the information society for business firms and the citizen in the EU, the Irish Presidency sought and obtained support for the holding of a special Council on the information society. That Council meeting took place on 8 October 1996.

The main outcome of the Council concerned the arrival at a consensus on a resolution regarding new political priorities for the information society. In effect, the resolution gives a new impetus to various work programmes at both EU and member state level, which are aimed at enhancing Europe's position in the emerging information society. In particular, the resolution emphasises the need for the EU to improve its competitive position in the highly competitive global information society market for products and services. The more detailed elements of the resolution include references to the potential of information and communication technologies to generate significant additional employment in EU firms, especially small and medium sized enterprises. This is an important consideration in the context of relatively high unemployment in the EU. In this regard, the resolution emphasises the need for private sector firms to meet the challenges and exploit the opportunities which the information society presents.

A positive public perception of science and technology is one of the pillars on which the White Paper and its objectives is founded. As the White Paper says "all of the decisions in relation to specific programmes, sectors and issues will have a lesser impact unless there is a generally improved public perception of science and technology". To this end, the Government decision has been to implement a three year programme of awareness raising and promotional activities, in the areas of science, technology and innovation, targeting key audiences -decision makers in the public and private sectors, the education and business sectors, the media and the general public. The programme has been placed under the management of Forfás, which is being advised by a steering panel.

In 1996, four flagship events were undertaken in addition to a campaign of information dissemination. The first flagship activity is the competition for the National Innovation Awards, launched in November and to be presented in March 1997. Four awards for industrial innovation will be made, one each for companies employing over 50 people, for companies employing fewer than 50 people and for campus companies, and one overall award for the best innovation by a company of any size. The aim of the awards is to identify and encourage organisations which promote an innovative culture and thus to increase awareness of the critical role of innovation in determining the growth and survival of firms.

Information technology and science week is the second of the flagship activities and took place countrywide in the last week of November, with the participation and assistance of many organisations and professional bodies. This week of interactive events, school activities and media coverage was primarily focused on the general public and young people. Through the media, people were encouraged to take part in activities ranging from surfing the Internet, to an electronics workshop for primary schools to reading about science and technology in popular magazines or papers. The aim was to help people to take the first steps in combating their fears of, or apprehensions about, unfamiliar technologies.

These fears and apprehensions are generally not founded on bad experiences of the area but rather on the absence of any experiences in science and technology. Most other countries in Europe, and the EU itself, dedicate a week to the promotion of science and technology. With the aid of private sector sponsorship and the participation of the many professional and voluntary bodies in the science and technology arena, I expect the science and technology week to expand and become a permanent feature on the calendar.

The two remaining flagships are a television programme about science and technology and a programme of activities for young people and the education sector. Groundwork for a television series, initially on a pilot scale and for a general audience, is under way, with proposed screening after Easter 1997.

In the area of young people, projects include the recent publication of a yearbook on science in Ireland, aimed primarily at older school-goers, and ongoing visits to an interactive science roadshow. Also in hand is the preparation of a CD-ROM aimed at career guidance teachers. All of these activities have been designed and implemented with the assistance of teachers' representative groups.

As we move into 1997, the programme plans to take into account lessons learnt from the first year's activities. The response to the programme has been enthusiastic and many private sector sponsors have already become involved. It is essential that the programme is supplementary to the work already being undertaken by individuals and organisations, mostly on a voluntary basis, and that it should have a significant lasting effect on key audiences — decision makers in the education sector, the media and the public. The latter is the key factor in the planning of activities for 1997 and 1998.

I will elaborate on perhaps the two most important recommendations emanating from the White Paper. Leading on from the need for a better public awareness of science and technology, I am convinced that a major gap in that regard is the absence of a dedicated advisory council. In seeking to further merge and to improve the productive relationship between science and technology on the one hand and industrial development on the other, the functions of the Science and Technology Act, 1987, are now the responsibility of Forfás. That organisation has a broad developmental and policy advisory remit and the Act confers wide ranging powers in relation to national science and technology policy. To be fully effective in this field, I believe that we need independent and expert advice which is capable of commenting authoritatively on relevant issues and thereby contributing to public debate and Government action as appropriate.

When I published the White Paper I indicated that my first initiative would be to appoint a new council. I am currently considering suitable terms of reference and membership and I hope to announce the new council early in the new year. I would stress at this stage that I place a great premium on the personal qualities of the members to be able to deliver new ideas, fresh thinking and comprehensive treatment to science and technology policy and not to represent sectoral interests or some of the narrow dimensions which characterised the science and technology debate in the past.

In the longer term, the major objective is to devise a system to comprehensively, coherently and productively extract the maximum value for the State's investment in science, technology and innovation. The official survey, known as the Forfás Science Budget, indicates that close on £800 million will be spent by 12 Government Departments and over 30 Government agencies in 1996 in a huge variety of programmes relating to scientific and technological development. Without wishing to repeat the argument in the White Paper, the problem in essence is that there is no global predetermination of how this considerable sum of money should be invested, nor is there any attempt to establish Ireland's science and technology priorities.

The White Paper proposes to establish an interdepartmental group under the auspices of a Cabinet subcommittee which will review and comment upon departmental spending and Estimates plans as an input to the annual Estimates process. As the work of the interdepartmental committee and Cabinet committee develops, my expectation is that we will have a greater understanding of the amounts and output of the investment in individual areas, a consistency of policy approach across Departments and agencies, elimination of any overlap or duplication identified, and ultimately clearer focus and targeting of investment on the areas of priority.

I thank Senators for the opportunity to take up this debate in the House and I look forward to hearing their views on the main issues. I would instance questions such as: how critical is scientific research and technological innovation to our national development, economic growth and social progress? How do we bring about a more positive public attitude and acceptance of that need? How do we encourage Irish industry, especially indigenous companies, to invest more time and effort in the development of their technological and innovation capacity? How do we develop the other aspects of the national system of innovation such as the third-level, State agencies and financial sector to help industry to become more innovative? Finally, how do we better target the State investment in science, technology and innovation to achieve the best results?

I thank the Minister of State for his long speech on the White Paper. If he were in Opposition he would have responded by tearing the speech to shreds because there is no beef in what he has said. There has been no innovation during his term as Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology. This debate represented an opportunity for him to tell the House about new developments and investment, but unfortunately his speech is a great disappointment.

The recent publication of the White Paper is to be welcomed in that it is the first of its kind on science and technology in Ireland. However, it is a pity that the opportunity has been less than enthusiastically seized. The White Paper is a backward looking document and parts of it amount to little more than a contraction of the relevant pages from the STIAC report. It is more a Green Paper in that it is a discussion document, despite the fact that we have been discussing science and technology for almost the last four years. It makes hollow demands that scientists become involved in the debate without placing similar obligations on the Government as the largest spender.

The White Paper seeks to map out a future for Irish science and technology yet it sets no targets or objectives. It is not an educational White Paper. If the Minster of State with responsiblility for science and technology is not the key person involved in the development of science, technology and education and of innovation in education then who is?

There are 50 agencies involved in science and technology, including State agencies, Departments, councils, committees and boards. There is a plethora of agencies and it is especially disappointing, therefore, that the main recommendation by the Minister of State is the establishment of another council. We do not have a research institute other than Teagasc and are largely dependent on universities and colleges. From my discussions, it seems there is grave frustration and disappointment at the lack of progress on the part of the Minister of State and his Department.

In supporting fundamental research the State underpins the national science, technology and innovation system. We cannot have a national STI system in the absence of a skilled national expertise pool generating ideas and results at a fundamental level. Third level researchers, who are the largest and most productive group of researchers in the State, form the only group to have "as resources permit" attached to the White Paper's aspirations for it. The weak drafting of the section of the White Paper dealing with research in the colleges is evident from the many contradictory statements it contains. The White Paper accepts the need for curiosity driven research but then says that basic research must be prioritised and relevant. How is it proposed to resolve this conundrum?

Forbairt is to be charged with establishing research networks among SMEs. As the Minister of State said, similar networks work in Scandinavia. However, it is remarkable that the largest research resource in the State, that is, the third level sector, will not be included in this initiative. This is despite the fact that figures published by the EU show that industrial networks involving fundamental research laboratories are twice as profitable as those which do not do so. Neither Forfás nor Forbairt, the two major science and technology agencies, have a scientist on their boards. The matter of research equipment is not addressed in a comprehensive way. Merely saying that the Departments of Education and Enterprise and Employment might talk to each other about equipment is totally inadequate.

The section in the Minister of State's speech in which he referred to funding spelled out how useless is his speech. He stated "Only some £2 million is available on an annual basis to fund equipment and buildings for all seven universities, resulting in a cumulative equipment shortfall in the colleges estimated by the Higher Education Authority to be at least £50 million". He also stated "The White Paper has responded, calling for more funds as resources permit and for the relevant Departments to work more closely together while recognising that funding from, for example, the EU framework programme has to some extent filled the vacuum in the past". The Minister of State is the person charged with the job of producing the money. I hope he will give us some indication that it is a priority of the Government to invest seriously in third level institutions, which are going from bad to worse because of their inability to cope with the challenges and demands made on them.

The Minister of State further stated that only 16 per cent of firms use the third level sector as a source of innovation. He said that this can surely be improved, but for that to happen both sides will have to accept the validity of the other's approach. Only 16 per cent of firms use the third level sector for the simple reason that it is totally unequipped to meet the demands and challenges it faces. The colleges, which carry out more than 80 per cent of all research, need access to up to date equipment if they are to teach effectively, attract industrial money for research and maintain the quality of their expertise. The colleges, as hotbeds of innovation, require equipment to maintain the stream of ideas which has directly resulted in more than 200 campus companies, more than 2,500 jobs and considerable foreign earnings.

Antiquated equipment is a considerable health and safety issue. Equipment in several colleges is uninsurable as the cost of maintaining it at an acceptable level of repair is too high. Scarce resources are diverted into maintaining equipment which it would be better to replace. Equipment which was decommissioned overseas is being dumped in Ireland and traded out stock is being sold as new to researchers here because international dealers know that Irish researchers do not have the resources to obtain the state of the art equipment which their competitors take for granted. As illustrated by a recent accident, the lives of research students are being put at risk by the failure to implement an emergency reequipment programme.

The Minister of State has a responsibility to convince his Government colleagues it is time that research and development in our third level colleges was taken seriously and that the wonderful work they do in the absence of a research institute should be recognised and supported. If some of the £100 million which the Minister of State's party insisted was spent on the long-term unemployed in last year's budget — much of which has been wasted — was spent in the area of science and technology in third level colleges, far more jobs would come on stream within 12 months of it being spent. University College Galway and the University of Limerick, for example, will produce the goods if they get the resources needed for new equipment and new initiatives.

When the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, was in Opposition — I often admired much of what he said and stood for then — he would hammer home the point that the person sitting in the Minister's chair must deliver the money required to produce the goods. I say to the Minister of State in the strongest possible terms, although I do not want him to interpret it as a personal attack, that he has a duty over the next few months to secure significant money in the budget or Finance Bill for third level colleges so that they can produce far greater and more accomplished research in science, technology and innovation, which they are capable of doing.

I am disappointed the White Paper is no more than an aspirational document. It spells out many points which were already dealt with in the Tierney report. We need action in terms of the Government providing the necessary resources. The Minister of State and his Department must take a clear look at their work and the initiatives they take because it is mindboggling that he would state in this House that: "A second priority is a comprehensive reappraisal of education and training in the light of the current realisation that learning is an essential part of living and not just a means to an end". Is that new thinking? The House deserves more than such comments from the Minister of State and his Department. They have failed miserably to move forward the development of science, technology and innovation. A much more effective approach must be taken than the details outlined in the Minister's speech.

I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place in this session. I take issue with Senator Fahey's contribution. The Minister of State acknowledged that we are behind most developed countries on this issue. He does not make any bones about the fact that we have a long way to go in terms of focused spending in this area. The publication of the White Paper and the consultation process which took place before it, including the Tierney report, flagged the importance of the issue which is being addressed. It is considered central to job creation, developing the economy and focusing on future rather than past needs. This is necessary if we are to make progress and continue to create jobs in the fast moving climate in which we live.

The Minister of State mentioned moving from an industrial society to the information age and also referred to the digital economy. We are in a constant process of change and if we do not focus on this area, we will be left behind. It is not enough to just throw money at educational institutions. It must be linked to the broader economy and industry and provide networks to ensure a transfer of technology and that we will not have research just for its own sake but for added value to the economy. This is evident in Denmark, Finland and Japan and other countries which have taken this issue on board. They have moved their economies forward although they did not all have a head start 40 years ago.

In terms of the amount of money being spent, the Minister of State said the official survey, known as the Forfás science budget, indicates that almost £800 million will be spent by 12 Departments and over 30 Government agencies in 1996 on a huge variety of programmes relating to scientific and technological development. I did not intend to quote chunks from the White Paper but on page 56, under the heading "Action to Date", it mentions a series of measures which have already been taken. In relation to taxation, it states that a 400 per cent deduction for incremental research and development expenditure was provided. It also mentions the business expansion scheme and that basic research expenditure increased from £1 million to £1.5 million in 1995 and to £2 million in 1996.

It states that strategic research funding increased and mentions college/industry applied research. The National Research Support Fund Board was established and there was increased funding for technology brokerage, such as Techstart, which is an important scheme. The annual PhD support grant for individual students was doubled and funding was provided for a new post-doctoral fellowship scheme. Additional funding was provided for the company technology audit scheme and inter-firm collaborative networks have been piloted.

The Minister of State and his Government colleagues have indicated that, while a series of measures have already been taken, there is still a long way to go. This is the focus of the White Paper. Such documents are a summary of what took place previously and include statements on actions it is intended to take in the future. I reject the negative tone of Senator Fahey's contribution which did not forward the debate in any way.

It is important to have a clear focus on the type of horizontal and vertical links which are required to move forward. There is an onus on the Government and public bodies but also on private sector to spend money in that regard. In most countries mentioned earlier, there is a great deal of interaction between private and public sector funding. If industries will directly benefit from research, they should be expected to contribute funding.

I also heard a speech made by Dr. Midel Landabaso at a conference in Dún Laoghaire this year when he made a strong point about the private and public sectors and the educational institutions working together. He mentioned that regions which will be successful in this area have an interaction between industry, chambers of commerce, local government, regional government, national Government and educational institutions. He illustrated cases of where it has been successful, such as Amelia Romano in Italy. His general point was that in all regions which have been successful there is inevitably that type of collaboration and interaction.

A man from south Wales also addressed the conference. He illustrated how they were forced to move from heavy industry, mainly based on coal, because they were losing energy and the ability to create jobs. They moved the emphasis to electronics and automation and brought in the Japanese in a focused and determined manner. They learned how to use the methods which have been so successful there and there are now successful developments in areas of south Wales.

I cannot remember the name of Will Hutton's book but he also carried out a detailed study of how the Japanese work in this regard in terms of the close interaction between the banking system and industry. He mentioned the transfer of knowledge between firms competing with each other, particularly the motor and electronic industries. Although they are in competition, they also work together and banks and local money have a major interaction with the companies if a change of direction is needed. He cited a definite and precise example in his book where one company needed to change direction because it was beginning to lose money. It brought in the banks and the local equivalent of the chamber of commerce and together they worked out a way forward based on the experience of other industries. The company was given the economic support it needed and was able to move forward. This type of collaboration is essential if we are to make progress.

Ireland probably has much to learn from Denmark, given our agricultural indigenous history. The Danes have developed a complex interaction between basic production on farms and added value before the produce is marketed and sold. The applied nature of the interaction between basic science in terms of what happens in laboratories and the creation of jobs is important and the transfer of technology is a crucial aspect. From what I have read on the subject, if we are to have economic growth in these areas we need specialisation in particular regions. My region is a good example of that. There has been interaction between Shannon development, the University of Limerick, Limerick regional technical college, the technology base around the airport, the technology centre beside the university and the Raheen industrial estate, which has a large research element, particularly in relation to food. Through such interaction one industry feeds off another. Industries are attracted to areas where such activities occur and people learn from each other. However, this does not happen automatically, a point which the Minister made. There must be a focus and a way to channel these energies so that they yield the type of results about which he spoke. In that regard, I welcome the intention to set up an advisory council so that there will be a national focus in this area.

It is important also to have a regional focus where knowledge and information could be gathered together in an area. This relates to a point made by Senator McGowan on the Order of Business. He spoke about the need to ensure that all new jobs do not go to population centres, in particular those along the east coast. He was probably thinking about the 2,000 jobs announced yesterday and he has a point in this regard. The Minister made the point that regional technical colleges offer an opportunity for that type of knowledge and information gathering in areas other than Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Galway or Waterford. He made a solid point about the need to focus more on the regions and away from the larger centres of growth, particularly Dublin. I hope there will be a response to these initiatives and that we will see results in terms of job creation. The trade union movement has responded effectively in this area. ICTU, in particular, has researched information technology, biotechnology and so on. Workers must also be prepared to look to the future and be innovative. The trade union movement is part of this process.

The publication of the White Paper has created a focus. It is important that institutions of learning respond and have an input. They have argued in the media and elsewhere for more funding for research and science. Members of Government parties acknowledge the need to continue to invest more money in this area. They must consider ways in which their work can be transferred into the economy thereby creating job opportunities. We are still very concerned about the number of people out of work. I hope institutions of learning will become involved in the debate on how to channel these energies so as to get the maximum value for money. We should learn rather than copy from countries which have been most effective in doing this.

I welcome the fact that we have reached this point but we have some distance to go. I hope those involved in this area, including chambers of commerce and existing industries, will have an input so that it will not be a case of the Government doing everything. There is an onus of everybody in this regard. The Minister referred to education. The public should know what is going on and should recognise that this is not an esoteric issue relevant only to nutty professors in laboratories but that it is relevant to job creation.

I called for this debate four weeks after the launch of the White Paper. I congratulate the Minister on this unusual White Paper which is very readable. It contains interesting stories about a number of famous Irish scientists and short articles, one of which I contributed, as did Pat Kenny, Dr. Gary O'Toole and others. The Minister has given us five challenges which I will attempt to cover. I agree with Senator Fahey that although this is a White Paper, it is, in many respects, more like a Green Paper — a consultation document. It is not a like a White Paper which sets out a programme of Government decisions. Whether it is a White Paper with a green tinge or a Green Paper with white tinge, the fact remains that future policy in this area depends on a radical shift in public awareness of science, technology and innovation.

We need to debate this matter in the House but a national debate is also required. If we do not succeed in starting a national debate on science, technology and innovation, the move forward will be slight or it may even peter out. We need to create a new level of support for these three areas which will fuel an ambitious new programme at a national level to allow us to catch up with countries with which we must compete. My French son-in-law recently became an executive in CNRS, the French based centre for scientific research. When he joined that organisation three or four years ago he told me about its work. I was fascinated because I did not know that considerable State funding went into this area. I looked to see what we were doing and it was only at that stage I realised how far behind the rest of the world we were. Senator O'Sullivan described what happens in Japan. We need to fuel an ambitious national programme to allow us to catch up with countries which we are so far behind.

The starting point in the debate we hope to spark should be to realise that Ireland is not a scientific nation. Our culture is clearly nonscientific — some might even say it is anti-scientific. However, we must change. The Minister and I will not be fooled into believing this will be an easy job. Ireland has a clear idea about its identity. The younger generation is confident about who it is and what it wants to be. That identity is overwhelmingly based on our culture and heritage and it has become even stronger over the past 20 years with the resurgence of the musical side of our culture, which is good. By defining ourselves in that way, we have left a vital element of our future economic success on the sideline.

We have a Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, as is proper, but, notwithstanding the Minister of State's position in the Cabinet, we do not have a Minister for science, technology and innovation. That position sums up the problem we must address. Why do we not have a Minister for science, technology and innovation? The reason is simple — we do not consider these areas important enough to merit a Department of State and a Minister at the Cabinet table because most of us come from what I term the other side of the fence.

I do not know how many Members of the Oireachtas have third level degrees but I bet the overwhelming majority of their degrees are in the humanities. Allowing for the fact that parliaments appear to attract a huge number of lawyers, it is probable that most of the other graduates have non-scientific backgrounds. I fall into that category in that I have a B. Comm. Even the honorary degrees with which I have been conferred are in the humanities. Look at the public service and one can see the same phenomenon. How many Secretaries of Departments have a scientific background? The Secretary of the Department of Education has, but how small is the minority to which he belongs? How many members of the next level in the Civil Service, deputy secretaries and assistant secretaries, have scientific backgrounds?

The answers to these questions will show that the overwhelming majority of top level personnel in the Civil Service have no scientific background. There are hundreds of scientists in the public service but most of them are in technical niche areas. Few of them move to the top level of management. In saying that, I am not targeting the Civil Service or the Oireachtas.

This phenomenon shows a nation that is almost totally driven by people with backgrounds in the humanities. The same can be seen in business. I do not like it but the quickest way to get to the top in business is to be an accountant. Look at how often we recruit accountants to head semi-State bodies. The chairman of Telecom Éireann, whom I admire, is an accountant, as is the chairman of the ESB, whom I also admire. These people lead companies that are technologically driven. This country might not have an "establishment" but it has a group of people who can be designated as opinion formers or leaders. Overwhelmingly these people do not have a grounding in and share a lack of understanding of science.

One of the problems highlighted by the report of the Scientific Technical Innovation Advisory Council, which was the precursor of the White Paper, is the low level of spending on research and development in Ireland. The national spend on research is low, particularly on research and development in business and enterprise. If we are to change that — we have no choice but to do so as the future of our economy depends on it — we must look at the reasons the spend is low. The main reason is that, as a nation, we are not yet convinced that science and technology matter. Successive Governments have not thought so, as can be seen in our legislation. The public service, our opinion formers and our businesses do not think they matter, so the public does not think so.

The reason we spend so little on research and development is due to a national myopia about science and technology. Were it not for the existence of European funds we would be even further behind in the race. It is vital, therefore, that we take the White Paper as our starting point. We have a national problem and it involves everybody. We have left science and technology out of our national mix and it is extremely urgent that we include it right away. The Minister, in the five questions at the end of his contribution, asked how we will do that. Two necessary projects must be undertaken and the White Paper pays little more than lip service to either of them. Some progress has been made in the first project, which is convincing the nation that science and technology are important to our future. We have made progress in the White Paper by linking science and technology with innovation. The Minister of State was strong and clear in making that link and by establishing it we are getting across the idea that innovation is the natural consequence of science and technology. Implicit in that is the even stronger idea that without science and technology there cannot be innovation. That proposition is true and Ireland is its proof.

A few years ago, Scandinavian consultants produced a report which focused on our track record in innovation and highlighted the fact that our businesses are not generally innovative. Most of our policy consists of piggy backing on innovation that has been created elsewhere. We have often heard the phrase: "If it is such a good idea somebody would have thought of it before now". We must adopt a different attitude because not much has changed since the production of the Scandinavian report. Some years ago I read a phrase which caught my imagination: "The impossible is often the untried". Irish people are afraid of making mistakes — our attitude is let us not make a mistake in case we are blamed for it — and that is one of the reasons innovation has not happened. We have almost an inferiority complex in that area.

Innovation is still low on the list of priorities for both Government and business. I am seeking to show a crucial weakness in the argument that science and technology are important because they are essential to innovation. That argument is true but it is less than persuasive for people who do not appreciate the importance of innovation in the first place. Many people, even those in business, do not realise that the importance of innovation has changed radically in the past ten years. We are rapidly reaching a stage where the company that does not innovate will have no place in the marketplace.

I attended a conference in London yesterday at which Tom Peters, a management guru, spoke. His original profession was as an engineer. He told us he went to Cornell University — only the first and second placed students in secondary school were accepted at Cornell — to study for his engineering degree. On the first day of his course, which would have been during the 1960s, a professor said to the class of about 500 students: "Take a good look at the guys on your right and on your left because on this day, next year, only two of you will be here". He continued: "Take another look at the same guys because on this day five years, when you graduate, there will be only one of the three of you present". Tom Peters looked around at the 700 people, approximately, at the conference yesterday and said: "You should do the same and look to your left and right because, regardless of the business in which you are involved, if you do not change none of you will be here in five years time". That is where innovation is important and that is why we must find a way to innovate.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of State say he has managed to secure BSE funding. The National Food Centre needs it urgently because so much depends on the food sector. Research is necessary in the food sector and I urge the Minister of State to ensure that some of the funding is diverted into the food technology sector, on which so much also depends. We have seen what happened in the beef sector during the past year.

We are moving away from the position where only the leaders had to be innovators and those who piggy-backed on the work of others always earned a good living. Ireland has been doing this for the past 50 years. Just as we have no culture in science and technology, we have no culture of innovation either. We have always taken the easy way out and felt that innovation was for others. When we saw how the wind was blowing, then we could choose to follow.

Those days are gone forever. We should carve the motto "innovate or die" on our consciousness. This is not an exaggeration and applies individually and to companies. An awareness campaign, such as is mentioned in the White Paper, should focus on innovation, not on science and technology. We have to sell the Irish people innovation first, then science and technology as the means to achieve it. It is not only the opinion formers who have to be convinced of this. Every person in a job needs to realise that the future of that job depends to a significant extent on how much innovation can be brought to bear on it. The company's past does not deliver job security but rather the company's attitude to the future. We should realise that innovation is no longer an optional extra or the icing on the cake, it is the factor that determines whether there will be a cake in the first place.

Those who are establishing the awareness campaign promised in the White Paper should concentrate on innovation first. Unless that is sold effectively, science and technology will never be sold to the extent needed. The second necessary project is even more fundamental and relates to the fact that our culture is nonscientific. It is necessary to convince people about innovation and to persuade them that science and technology is the main road to that end but this is not enough on its own. It is also necessary that we feel comfortable about science and technology, which is not the case now. We do not feel comfortable because we know so little about it.

We learned a smattering of science at school. I was lucky as I attended Newbridge College where the Dominican Father Michael Casey taught. He moved to Maynooth as a Professor of Science and is still active in his 90s. Very few had that kind of opportunity. The media had little material about science and technology. There is very little public interest in science.

This can be created in a manner which is not prohibitively expensive. Anyone who travels abroad regularly will be aware of the emergence of the phenomenon of the science centre. These use all the tools of modern technology to bring science to people in an exciting and interactive way. They are educational and recreational facilities but are tourist attractions in their own right. They are reasonably economical because they pay much of their own way.

Not one museum in Ireland is devoted to science. We have poured money into bringing arts and culture to people, especially in the last ten years. We can do exactly the same for science and technology. If we do, we will get the results in a shorter timeframe. It is necessary to be comfortable about science so we can make the right decisions. Our ignorance of science has allowed us to starve basic research of funding for many years. The White Paper says that spending on basic research was doubled in the last year. However, this means it went from £1 million to £2 million in an overall spend of £800 million and illustrates the tiny place basic research plays in the mindset of those who make the decisions. We have heard of changes today. However, anyone who claims that basic research is worth only one four hundredth of the overall science budget is unaware of what science is about and how it works.

It is clear that the tidy, administrative, humanities-centred mind would love to fund only research that will show payback on the bottom line within a short time. However, scientific life is not like that. Basic research is the inescapable, unavoidable foundation which must be there if applied science or technology is to thrive. The State should fund only basic research and insist on the marketplace doing the rest. There are certain fundamentals which must be addressed first. If we change the national attitude to science and technology, everything else will fall into place. We can do this in a few years if we put our minds to it. However, if we skirt around the task and shirk it, we will never catch up, however much we increase our spending on specific science projects in the short-term. I am delighted with the White Paper and the Minister's efforts in publicising it. It is the start of a movement that will change the national attitude to science and technology.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this White Paper. Senator Quinn mentioned looking at the person beside us who might not be here this time next year. This time next year, many people on his right or left may not be with us in the same capacity.

In the 1950s the main emphasis in Ireland was on agriculture and the development of cooperative movements. No effort was made in the scientific field until one Government in the early 1980s appointed a junior Minister with responsibility for science and technology. The appointment was a recognition that there was a movement towards looking at science and technology and research and development in real terms. We fell behind as we did not develop this area for the different type of student coming out of our schools. The IDA has been successful in bringing many computer companies to this country. They are coming here because of the level of education in our schools and universities. What is being done to develop this further and provide greater research and development to allow us to enter other fields where there are the same possibilities to provide a huge number of jobs?

When I visited Taiwan in 1986, I was amazed at their research and development and the money and work invested in new ideas. Staff were provided to inform, help and develop good ideas. It was a major industry. We were never in the position to do that. I will consider my answers to the five questions the Minister put at the end of his contribution.

As is obvious from what the Minister said, many traditional jobs are disappearing because of new markets. We could have had a far greater research, development, science and technology programme in place but for the fact mentioned by Senator Quinn — people are afraid to introduce change in case it fails, because then the person responsible is the worst in the world. We, as politicians, are the biggest culprit in that regard; if a politician introduces something new which fails, he will be hounded by every other politician and the media. However, entrepreneurs know that one must have failures before becoming a success. Our political establishment does not realise that we should support ideas even though not all of them will succeed.

We have not created a positive public perception of science and technology, although efforts have been made in the schools for the last few years. From my discussions with entrepreneurs, I know that only those who are improving their product or changing it for the modern day are interested in further investment in this area. The Government has decided to implement a three year programme to raise awareness of potential activity in science, technology and innovation, targeting key audiences. That development is required and some schools are doing it already. Teachers tell me the single biggest problem is that the curriculum is too broad, it is not geared to send students in a particular direction at a sufficiently early stage, so many students do not do something they might be good at. It is not necessarily wrong to have ten subjects on the curriculum but perhaps the Department of Education could consider the matter in light of these proposed changes.

What should we do as a nation? The Minister asked how critical scientific research, technology and innovation was to our national development, economic growth and social progress; my answer is that it is extremely critical and we should do something about it. The Government must provide a substantial budget on a continuous basis over five years to ensure proper information on particular areas is made available to companies and the public. If what we do is not focused, the impact will be lost. I agree with the Minister's decision to target certain areas to ensure a better result. That could also help us succeed in the aim of bringing about a more positive public attitude and acceptance of the need for science and technology.

The Minister also asked how we would encourage Irish industry, particularly indigenous companies, to invest more time and effort in the development of their technological and innovative capabilities. Companies have not made more efforts in this area because of the pressure of keeping up with the market and making sales, although some of them have tried harder in recent years. It may be necessary to consider a tax break for companies which are prepared to set up science and technology divisions. That could be coupled with help from the board the Minister wishes to set up. Such a scheme would work provided it was properly managed by the Department.

We must also develop the other aspects of the national system of innovation, such as third level institutions and State agencies. Perhaps, as in other countries, we could set up competitions for people in third level who come up with new ideas with prizes of scholarships for further training, provided the ideas meet certain standards and are worth pursuing. These people would then be able to expand and build on their ideas and gain further education. That might not be the precise road to follow but the correct method could be devised between the third level colleges, State agencies, the financial sector and industry. When someone comes up with a good idea there is always an industry interested in promoting and improving it.

The Minister is also interested in better targeting for State investment in science and technology. The Government should provide the proposed board with money on a continuous basis to fund this development over a five year period. This money should be earmarked from the start so that the scheme does not suffer from "stop-go" funding. As was stated already, we are behind other countries and were it not for European funding we would be another 20 years further behind. In 1978, the two agencies concerned in Ireland had a total of £1 million and even then other countries were providing far more money for this area. It is no wonder that these countries are so far ahead of us with new products, developments and proposals. However, there is a great opportunity to start from where we are.

The White Paper gives us, as elected representatives, the opportunity to bring forward proposals to develop this area and this industry as have other countries. We can only achieve what we want in this area if the Government decides this is the road we want to travel. We have the opportunity to develop this area because of the large number of well educated young people who are in a position to come up with ideas and who must be given the opportunity to develop them. Today we have an opportunity to move this forward and I know the Minister is open to that.

The State should provide a certain level of continuous funding and industry should provide the research and development facilities to further develop this area. Other countries have decided this area will be important in the future and we must do the same. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this topic and I know we will have more opportunities to bring our ideas to fruition.

I welcome this White Paper. I have had a considerable amount of liaison with research scientists and during the summer one of their reports was headed "Tierney Report Gathering Dust". That the Minister has produced this White Paper will show he is determined to bring some of the recommendations from the Tierney report to fruition.

Senator Quinn said we have to sell science to the public. Unfortunately most of the money we would like to see spent on research, development and innovation will have to come from the State, although more will come from industry. I will make two suggestions which would be helpful in selling science to the public. The Irish Scientist, is a yearbook produced by Dr. Charles Mullen and the Minister and Baroness Denton have written forewords in the current issue. I would recommend it because many of the research projects in this country are reported on in a most readable manner.

The diveristy of research reported here is incredible. There are articles on bio fuels from setaside land, on predicting the potential production of an energy crop in Ireland, on food research by Teagas, on research in the UCD faculty of engineering, on environmental sensing of lactic acid bacteria, on combat impacts in Armagh and radioactive atomic data from astrophysics. The biological, biochemical, genetic and medical sciences are covered. There are articles entitled "Plant Transformation — a Role for the Future", "Growth and Respiration of Salt Marsh Plants" and "It takes Two to Tango, but not Necessarily in Step". The last article is about the breeding of deer in the Phoenix Park and how important it is to be a large stag. It was found that this played a vital part in the breeding process. There is another article on the influence of growth regulators on geotropism. There is an enormous amount of very readable information in this yearbook and it should be very widely distributed.

That we are at last to have a science museum for Dublin and that this is to be established in the Pigeon House power station is important. I hope that pleas for its support will not go unheeded. Corporate sponsors are being sought and there is hope of support from the European Union. I hope the Government will be generous and support this project.

Senator Quinn spoke about basic research which is much more difficult to sell than applied research. I do not know how we are to tell the public and industry how important it is but we have to keep stressing this fact to the Minister and the Government. This area of research is vital. I have heard it said that basic research has generated more heat than light but that is not true. It is often very hard to correlate a technology which comes many years later with the basic research but without the basic research there might not be the later initiatives.

In the United Kingdom the Treasury estimated recently that the direct economic return on investment in basic research is in the order of 28 per cent; similarly the US committee of economic advisers conservatively estimates that the direct social return on investment in fundamental research is of the order of 70 per cent. Sometimes it is hard to quantify, but we should be very careful about dismissing the value of basic research because without that research we might not develop much of the applied research which follows.

Fundamental research in this area must be underpinned by the State. A great deal of this research will take place in third level institutions. Campus companies have allowed the employment of a large number of people and are seen as particularly relevant in the area of research in the universities, but this is not acceptable. There are many reasons for supporting fundamental research within the universities because we do not know what new and useful information may come from basic research. People may understand new instrumentation or develop new methods of analysis of various materials and acquire new research skills. These may improve existing technologies which then will be applicable to research.

People in universities are in constant contact on a global basis with others who are doing research in their fields and this can be of great importance. Even within a university, the fact that different disciplines make contact with each other can lead to huge initiatives. I read an article in The Lancet once which dealt with the value of coffee breaks. People from different disciplines within a hospital or large university departments often meet at coffee time and incredible developments sometimes result just from an exchange of ideas or sharing of problems, where one person can get informal advice from another.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share