This meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the select committee of the Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) (Amendment) Bill 2012, which was referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil on 2 May 2013. I welcome the Minister of State at the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Education and Skills, with responsibility for research and innovation, Deputy Sean Sherlock, and his officials. As there are comparatively few amendments, we will conclude Committee Stage of the Bill today. Is that agreed? Agreed. I refer members to the grouping of amendments for the purpose of debate, which was circulated to them. Amendments Nos. 1 and 5, 3 and 4, and 10 and 11 are so grouped.
Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland) (Amendment) Bill 2012: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4
Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 6 and 7, to delete “opportunity for the State” and substitute the following:
“scientific endeavour that concerns the future development and competitiveness of industry and enterprise in the State”.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. We should acknowledge the considerable success of Science Foundation Ireland since its inception.
I know this Minister of State is personally committed to it but we must ensure that science remains a core function of Science Foundation Ireland, SFI. The purpose of amendment No. 1 to section 4 is to restore the definition as contained in the existing Act. I am not sure why we need to move to a weaker definition which indicates that Science Foundation Ireland would cover areas of opportunity. "Science" should be included in some sort of legislative definition for a body known as Science Foundation Ireland and the existing definition sums ups the body's role in a very concise way with good guidance. Throughout the legislation there is potential for future Ministers to weaken the really important science role in particular. I have proposed these amendments in response to that.
I acknowledge the sentiments expressed by Deputy Calleary on the role of Science Foundation Ireland. I thank Deputies Calleary and Tóibín for submitting the various amendments and the first proposed amendment is essentially already captured when one considers section 7(1) in conjunction with section 7(6), specifically lines 13 to 18, inclusive. The wording of the Bill as presented has been undertaken in consultation with the advisory council on science, technology and innovation, and I am satisfied that the wording of the Bill as it stands is appropriate. It will enable us to leverage more from the ever-increasing SFI investments and it also grants SFI some flexibility with regard to future funding calls for the development of Ireland's enterprise development and without diminution in standards of research excellence. Therefore, I do not propose to accept this amendment.
If we are to change the remit of SFI, the amendment would require a Minister to provide the Oireachtas with a justification to change any future remit of SFI in the way it occurred when energy was added to the remit. Future Ministers may seek to broaden the role of SFI into areas that funding will not cover, with associated weaknesses, but amendment No. 5 in particular would prevent that from happening. As Oireachtas consultation is a buzz phrase with some members of the Government now, this might be a good way to start the process.
With regard to amendment No. 5, it is the Government's intention to inform the Houses of the Oireachtas of the strategic areas of opportunities for Ireland. This will largely be centred on priority areas as set out in the recommendations arising from the national research prioritisation exercise and through the prioritisation action group, whose work continues. I am currently chairing that process. I am satisfied that we could consider this for further discussion on Report Stage, taking into account the submission made by the Deputy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, lines 14 to 16, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 14 down to and including "practice" in line 16.
There is a concern that in extending the standard by which SFI will award funding to a more general "any other review process equivalent to relevant international best practice", we are watering down peer review. Peer review is a gold standard and stands up within the scientific community, doing what it states on the tin. A vague "any other review process equivalent to relevant international best practice" seems to open all sorts of avenues for consideration which may not have international standing or strength, particularly in the scientific community, of a peer review process. What are the Minister of State's thoughts on what will be involved in this alternative review process?
I am not in a position to accept the amendment, although I appreciate the concerns and subtleties of the point made by Deputy Calleary. I was concerned that by including "by another review process equivalent to relevant international best practice" we might somehow lessen the rigour of SFI's renowned review process of excellence. There is a danger inherent in that if it is dissipated in any way, the core of SFI would be diminish.
I assure the Deputy that nobody is seeking to diminish that in any way and the inclusion of the words "review process equivalent to relevant international best practice" is absolutely necessary. Such a requirement is primarily due to the smaller grant-funded programmes that SFI is now supporting in the promotion of the science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, subjects, where SFI's rigorous international scientific peer review process is not an appropriate mechanism to use. Deputies should be aware that in March 2012, as part of our reform programme, we transferred responsibility for the Discover Science & Engineering, DSE, programme from Forfás to SFI, given the synergies that exist between the DSE-supported actions and certain SFI science awareness supports. In addition, some of the smaller grants that SFI administers, such as the conferences and workshops programme that works to attract top-class conferences and leading scientists to Ireland, are not internationally peer reviewed and nor should they be. As is increasingly the case, where opportunities arise for SFI to co-fund with another agency, Department or research entity - in Ireland or in collaboration across international borders - it may not always be appropriate or possible to utilise an international scientific peer review process.
It is critical that we ensure in such instances that whatever review mechanism is used by SFI or it is party to, such a process should be of an appropriately high standard and of international best practice. For these reasons, the inclusion of the words "or by any other review process equivalent to relevant international best practice" is absolutely necessary in the section.
Will the Minister of State consider for Report Stage some sort of grading of activity in peer review? I accept that conferences, etc., do not need peer review but the vast majority of SFI's work would require peer review status. Will the Minister of State consider some kind of amendment for Report Stage requiring specific elements of SFI's work and funding to have a peer review element as opposed to being able to get by with a lower grade as indicated by "any other review process equivalent to relevant international best practice"?
I assure Deputies that SFI will continue to operate its rigorous multi-stage scientific peer review for the main cohort of funding instruments, such as research centres, the investigators' programme, professorships and other principal investigator programmes. The peer review process has been the bedrock of Science Foundation Ireland since its establishment in order to ensure continued scientific excellence and relevance to the enterprise base. We do not want to dilute that in any way, shape or form and we want to continue that strong pillar while allowing flexibility in other areas of opportunity, as I referred to earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 29, after “development” to insert “and publication”.
We welcome that SFI is funding research into the effectiveness and quality of funding, and this amendment would lead to SFI having to publish the outcome of that research. Every Government agency and Department must publish everything so this would apply the responsibility to SFI.
We can accept amendments Nos. 3 and 4 without any problem.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, line 31, after “assessment” to insert “and publication”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 has already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(7) Before exercising the power referred to in subsection (6) the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas an account of research underpinning the decision to prescribe an area as a strategic area of opportunity.”.
The Minister of State has committed to reviewing this amendment for Report Stage.
Just to be sure there is no ambiguity about it, we will come back to this on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
“(b) to any cross-border institution established within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, or”.
I welcome the all-Ireland approach to this Bill. There is a practical concern that Science Foundation Ireland funding goes beyond universities and institutes of technology. It has also given money to Teagasc, for example. This amendment provides that every cross-Border body that has a relevance in this area could be eligible for SFI funding. It is a purely practical amendment.
Perhaps Deputy Calleary could tell us a little more. I am not sure what is meant by this because as far as I understand, there are no all-Ireland research bodies established as part of the Good Friday Agreement. InterTradeIreland and Waterways Ireland do not necessarily have research body elements to them. Both of us are speaking from an all-Ireland basis and Deputy Calleary wants to promote this in an all-Ireland context.
I am thinking of future bodies. If any existing bodies were to develop a research remit - one does not know where they will go - or if we were to establish future all-Ireland bodies, we would not need to change legislation in the future just for the sake of a word in the existing legislation here.
SFI provides research grant funding to higher education institutions and research-performing entities and as such an entity must satisfy a number of criteria to be deemed an eligible body to compete for SFI funding calls. On page 5, lines 20 onwards, particularly lines 32 to 39, inclusive, the Bill clearly sets out how the extension of the remit of SFI will be provided for on an all-Ireland basis. This section therefore already provides for the inclusion of any relevant institution in Northern Ireland, including those established under the Good Friday Agreement, and the important operational matter will be whether any such institution, be it based in the North or the South, meets with SFI criteria to be deemed an eligible body to compete for SFI funding calls. It is not necessary to accept the proposed amendment. We all adhere to the belief that the underlying principle of creating those opportunities subject to the right criteria is the overarching principle in the legislation.
Could Deputy Sherlock name those sections he referred to again?
It is on page 5, lines 20 onwards, particularly lines 32 to 39, inclusive. The Bill clearly sets out how the extension of SFI's remit will be provided for on an all-Ireland basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 8 of Act of 2003
6. Section 8 of the Act of 2003 is amended by inserting the following after subsection (7):
“(8) In appointing members of the Board the Minister shall seek to ensure that it contains a balance of expertise in the areas of academic research, industrial development and corporate governance.”.”.
This is to science-proof the board members so that they bring expertise in academic research, industrial development and corporate governance, that there would be people with specific strengths in that area, that a future Minister appointing would have to, by legislation, have people with those skills on the SFI board rather than the general wish that is there.
I can see where Deputy Calleary is coming from in terms of the spirit of this amendment. Appointments to the board of SFI are made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in consultation with the Minister for Education and Skills and with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In reality, this proposed amendment captures what is already established practice when, annually, the two longest serving SFI board members must retire from the board each July. As part of the board appointments process, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation actively considers the existing competencies of the SFI board membership and examines the gaps arising from board retirements or other vacancies that might arise separately to the annual retirement process. The Minister also examines the emerging scientific or industrial expertise needs and trends from which the board would benefit, the gender representation on the board at all times, the ongoing evolution of Ireland's research system and in particular the maturing and increasing relevance of SFI investments, foreign direct investment, linkages and our indigenous base.
The Government has also established a practice whereby appointments to State boards are advertised publicly via the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and applications invited. Such an advertisement regarding the forthcoming July 2013 SFI board vacancies is live on the PAS website, publicjobs.ie. As part of this process there is a detailed list of competencies which potential SFI board members would need to meet and if we were to accept the Deputy's proposed amendment in this regard, we would also need to significantly broaden the proposed wording of the Bill further. In this case on page 6 between lines 6 and 7 we would include text along the following lines: "In appointing members of the board the Minister shall seek to ensure it contains a balance of expertise in such areas as academic research, commercial research and development, corporate governance, entrepreneurship, research funding, development and venture funding, public engagement-outreach education, research and development, industrial policy development implementation and assessment both internationally and nationally, awareness and detailed knowledge of Ireland's research landscape, public sector experience and higher education systems," among many other things. However, given the established practice undertaken by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation regarding board appointments and the openness of the PAS process which the Government has established regarding appointments to State boards, and the lengthy list of competencies I have just mentioned, I am of the view that the Deputy's proposed amendment is unnecessary, therefore I am not in a position to accept it.
I accept that, but established practice has a habit of being changed by those with less honourable intentions than the Minister. If we put it into legislation we will ensure the integrity of the board going forward, but I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 9 of the Act of 2003
6. Section 9 of the Act of 2003 is amended by deleting subsection (11) and replacing it with:
“(11) The Minister shall ensure that there are not fewer than four men and four women in the composition of the Board,”.”.
I am conscious that SFI has generally met the 40% representation provision at all times, however everybody agrees, across parties, that we should try to get 50-50 representation of male and female members on the board and we should start inserting this into legislation.
We add our voices to that and support it. It is clear that gender balance improves the functioning of boards across the State and this is a good amendment.
The question here is whether one adheres to that by way of primary legislation or does it require a cultural or systemic change in our thinking. The view regarding the specific amendment is that while one would absolutely and utterly accept the sentiment expressed and the spirit of the amendment, putting forward a specific quota target for this piece of legislation would not be appropriate. Culturally, within SFI three of the past five appointments have been female. I take the point about driving a cultural and behavioural change across the State board and agency infrastructure but in SFI there has been a significant redistribution in gender balance.
I accept the issue on cultural change and I used to think culture might do it, but it has not in many areas of public of life. At some stage legislation must force a culture change and then maybe with that change made we can repeal the legislation but in the meantime legislation is a good place to start. I will not press the amendment now but will do so on Report Stage. We need to start implementing this by way of legislation.
It is very clear that in cases where gender balance is not apparent on boards, there is a dearth of experience and knowledge and inputs that would make a positive benefit to the running of the boards. Sometimes it is a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first, the culture or the legislation. I believe legislation can change culture. It is incumbent on the Minister of State to ensure cultural change comes about and this is the tool to do it.
While I am not accepting the amendment, I agree with the sentiment and spirit of the amendment. If one was to look at the scientific or the research landscape, there is clear evidence that female researchers can reach a certain stage but very few break through that glass ceiling. That applies to other sectors of the economy. I am not in a position to accept an amendment to enforce a gender quota at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 14 of the Act of 2003
6. Section 14 of the Act of 2003 is amended by adding a new subsection after subsection (3):
"(4) Where the Director General has responsibilities outside of the work of the Foundation assigned to him or her by the Government in relation to science policy the Director General shall publish an annual statement of such activities as he or she shall undertake in accordance with these additional responsibilities.".".
I am aware the director general is also the chief scientific adviser. As director general he is superb and brings an enthusiasm to the role that energises everybody who meets him about science and its potential. As he is being made chief scientific adviser, he has an overarching role. He has to look at how Science Foundation Ireland is operating. He almost has to assess himself and assess his organisation to be the chief scientific adviser. We will want to see how he fulfils that role. While not personalising the issue, maybe this is going to be the policy in the future where the head of Science Foundation Ireland is also the chief scientific adviser. The least he should be required to provide is a separate statement on his role as chief scientific adviser, pointing out the issues encountered, something he would have done in any event if the roles were still independent. It is not for Professor Ferguson but any future incumbent who may have other governmental responsibilities as well as being director general of Science Foundation Ireland.
I am willing to look again at the issue on Report Stage but we must distinguish between the role of the chief scientific adviser and the director general of Science Foundation Ireland. The question is whether the chief scientific adviser has a role in interrogating or advising on Government policy because Government policy is determined by those who are given the mandate by the people to direct how policy is implemented, subject to advice, but not necessarily through the chief scientific adviser role. We are lucky that we have a chief scientific adviser and we have continued to keep that position in Ireland. As there are only about seven countries worldwide that have a chief scientific adviser, we are in a unique position given that we have been able to keep that role in spite of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. I understand the amendment and perhaps we need to examine it further. The appointment of the chief scientific adviser is co-terminous with his appointment as director general. The current arrangement will not always necessarily be the case. We can have a further discussion on the issue on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 23 of the Act of 2003
6. Section 23 of the Act of 2003 is amended by adding a new paragraph after subsection (2)(c):
"(d) detail the balance of expenditure between basic and applied research, including where no such distinction is possible, and between the different strategic areas of opportunity for the State defined by the Minister in accordance with section 7(6).".".
This amendment deals with some of the fundamental issues of the Bill. The Minister of State signalled that the Bill is important in shaping the future direction of Science Foundation Ireland and where it goes in its teenage years and that the intention is not to move funding away from basic research. That is the wish of the Minister of State but when another Minister takes over who has different priorities, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent him or her from upending the current Minister of State's wishes. As he guards the legislation coming through, some other Minister may come in and change it completely. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would oblige Science Foundation Ireland to outline specifically what it is doing. Amendment No. 10 would require that an account be given on the proposed balance of expenditure between different types of research in various areas of research, and amendment No. 11 seeks that it be outlined in an annual report. That means the foundation will be conscious of the wishes of the legislation about basic research and that it will be core to its remit.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we are taking the foot off the pedal in terms of basic research and moving into applied research. We are extending the remit but, as I said at the earlier committee meeting, one is the logical extension of the other. It is an almost impossible task and would require significant additional resources to be deployed within Science Foundation Ireland and also across the higher education sector and would be burdensome for the scientific community. In reality, such a proposal would add little value over and above the systems that Science Foundation Ireland has in place.
Perhaps I can explain it briefly. One needs to appreciate fully the nature and increasing complexity of the research continuum which is not just at the national level but is global. One needs to realise how it spans from the blue skies fundamental research through oriented basic research and on towards the applied research arena. Internationally, there is the ever-increasing convergence across different scientific disciplines as well as significantly different timelines in certain sectors. For example, ICT related research evolves far more rapidly than the life sciences and biosciences research areas, and the lines between pure fundamental research and truly applied research can be very difficult to distinguish. Research can often span different areas and across different types. For instance, ICT related research will cross over into the life sciences, energy and many other research areas and will typically encompass basic clinical translational and applied research.
Science Foundation Ireland administers more than 450 live research grants with an awards commitment value of €400 million spanning out to 2019. On top of these SFI commitment levels there are also industry contributions in excess of €100 million from a significant cohort of the 700 plus industry partners directly connected to SFI funded researchers. The SFI grants awards will have differing durations and review processes which means that the SFI funding model and grants commitments and expenditure process is constantly evolving. Invariably, there will also be a range of other funding streams in research teams that involve certain SFI supported scientists whereby the SFI element may be only one aspect, along with private industry funding, EU funding, contributions from other private sources or other national funders. Committee members will appreciate that in recent years, Science Foundation Ireland-funded teams leveraged in excess of €150 million per annum from sources other than its SFI grants, and usually close to 60% comes from non-Exchequer sources. In 2012, the amount leveraged from other sources was approximately €171 million.
There is a complexity involved when trying to analyse and breakdown the funding between the various points on the research continuum. There is the SFI provided element and we must also distinguish between the other funding sources within a year and in each year. Funding is a constantly evolving and highly complex process. SFI already manages the process very tightly and effectively with its small staffing cohort of about 45 persons. Furthermore, one must remember that SFI is one of our research funding agencies. Even if one was keen to undertake the very resource intensive ask arising from the amendment, one would still not have a full picture of Ireland's overall research landscape. Typically, SFI research investments account for just over 25% of Ireland's overall public research investments.
The proposal would also place an added burden on those in the scientific community if we were to constantly press them to categorise their various projects and associated funding between oriented, basic and applied research. Such an exercise would, most likely, also eat further into the Exchequer's research provision to the higher education institutions. It would mean that colleges would have to deploy additional administrative supports. We need to ease the administrative burden on the scientific community in order for them to do what they do best which is to undertake excellent research with impact and relevance. On that basis, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The Minister of State gave a good lengthy answer.
I am amused when the Department comes back and says that a proposal is "resource intensive". In other words, the Department does not want to do it and will resist. The same reply is given for parliamentary questions and so on.
The remit has been extended but the budget is being reduced, so some areas will lose core funding. Has the Department conducted an analysis to determine which research areas will be affected? Who will lose if research is extended into other areas?
At the outset the Minister of State mentioned the research prioritisation report that recommends funding to be provided for more than the identified core areas. SFI has stated that when the Bill is passed, 100% of its programme funding will go to its priority areas. That means that there is a contradiction between the Bill and the research prioritisation report. My amendment would allow us to see where funding goes. The Bill only relates to SFI. The other institutions are covered by other legislation and we shall go after them under their headings. I want to see where SFI spends its money. Is it spent on core research? Is other research undertaken? Its funding partners are private enterprises that have a responsibility to their shareholders. Other agencies are the responsibility of other committees and we shall get after them under those committees. Today we are dealing with the SFI and we want to know how and where it spends its money.
The first thing to remember is that research prioritisation does not account for the entire SFI budget. We seek to move or evolve the research landscape in a way that will ensure that all of the State funders of research are, pretty much, on the same trajectory. One then seeks to identify new areas of opportunity where co-funding arises. For instance, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Teagasc and the SFI recently. It identified new areas of opportunity in a food related space. Even though food for health is within the priority area, there are other areas of basic research opportunities that can be mined from that type of memorandum of understanding. Similarly, the Irish Research Council funds an industry-based PhD.
One of the areas in which I am trying to drive a greater coherence in education is the area of stem science technology, engineering and maths. We have a National Centre of Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Perhaps we could drive new areas of funding opportunities into stem science through entities like the national centre of excellence, DCU, UCC and other areas. I do not just mean on the pedagogue side but also funding to ensure that teachers at primary and post-primary have the ability and the benefit of excellent research that would inform continual and professional development. That initiative would build up new knowledge areas that would provide for a throughput of students into tertiary education and help them to become the best engineers, technologists, mathematicians and scientists that the country has to offer.
The point that I am making is that the SFI has other areas of opportunity outside of the prioritisation exercise. We have just announced funding of €6.9 million for basic research with the potential for entrepreneurial activity to support basic scientific researchers in areas such as health. In that sector it will enable us to research whether there are economical or societal impacts. SFI core funding will be invested into that type of an endeavour.
SFI is not just concerned with prioritisation in the 14 areas. It is involved in a raft of other activities and one shall not be at the expense of the other. In other words, prioritisation is not applied at the expense of basic research and both aspects will continue together.
I will withdraw my amendment and will table a similar amendment on Report Stage because it is fundamental to our key concern about the Bill.
I ask the Chairman for some leeway. The Minister of State mentioned stem subjects, education and maths. He is also the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, so if it is inappropriate for him to comment then he can tell me so. I would like to hear his comments on the leaving certificate maths paper yesterday. If we want to have a relevant debate-----
I suggest that the Deputy waits until we complete the Bill before discussing the paper.
All right.
I shall allow the matter to be discussed at the end of the debate for a few minutes, if that is okay with the Minister of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.