Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 17 June 2004
9 Mr. Gilmore asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the response she has received to her recent call for improved collaboration between private industry and universities to allow Europe to catch up with the US on research and development; if there are specific steps she intends to take here to facilitate such co-operation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18048/04]
View answerAt European Union level it is clear that industry in most member states, including Ireland, needs to improve its levels of research in order to compete more effectively on global markets with the US and Japan. A major part of the focus of Irish research, technology and innovation is centred on developing the capacity of the higher education system. This development encompasses all aspects of the national system of innovation including basic research, the development of graduates with high level skills, the commercialisation of university research and direct collaboration with industrial partners, nationally and in the context of the EU framework programme.
The Irish EU Presidency has encouraged all member states to respond effectively to the Barcelona summit target of 2002 that overall spending on research and development in the Union should be increased to 3% of GDP by 2010. This March a snapshot of the state of progress towards the 3% across the EU was made by the European Commission. A cross-departmental group which I set up last year to identify the actions which Ireland needs to take to reach this 3% target, is due to report to me over coming weeks. We already have several important policy actions focused on this linkage from a research and industrial development perspective.
Enterprise Ireland spends some €35 million per annum on its national collaboration programme. This is made up of a range of separate schemes promoting links between companies and the research infrastructure at national level. Enterprise Ireland has also committed a further €30 million in support of the universities and institutes of technology in providing incubation spaces for campus enterprises to grow. Support is included where needed for research space. Science Foundation Ireland has invested almost €79 million in funding to centres for science, engineering and technology in third level colleges. There is also an important educational perspective in promoting industry-third level linkages. The programmes for research in third level institutions administered by the HEA offer third level institutions an opportunity to build infrastructure and to develop the careers of Ireland's brightest researchers. The facilities and schemes put in place under the programme are attracting industrial interest and its researchers have already made some 60 patent applications. An independent review of the programme is under way.
There is a general acknowledgement that this is a time of change and development for Ireland's universities. Factors impacting on this include changing demographics, the increased emphasis on research and growing interaction with the enterprise sector and outreach to society generally. Against this background, my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, has commissioned a wide-ranging review of higher education in Ireland by the OECD to be completed later this year. The review will include considering the role of higher education in contributing to national economic goals in the knowledge area.
The question asked whether the Tánaiste had received a response to her call in Galway to know how we could do better to capture that raw research. It was not quite an alarm bell but an expression of concern at the news that 40% of research and development funding from European companies had gone to North America. What has happened since she made that call? In regard to achieving the objectives set out in her initial response, for example, the commercialisation of intellectual property, who is looking at that now? Is there any direct link between her Department and the Department of Education and Science? Has she sat down with the Minister for Education and Science to see how raw research which is very good here can be better commercialised? Is there any particular overarching structure to deal with thorny issues like intellectual property rights and patenting? Is this matter getting the attention it needs on a cross-departmental level? Does she see a role for herself in driving such co-operation?
The first factor is that 40% of the research of pharmaceutical companies in Europe is now done in America. The figure was 26% approximately six or seven years ago so it is going in the wrong direction. During our Presidency of the EU we have succeeded in obtaining some agreement from member states in respect of the funding of basic research. Heretofore, such research was not funded on the basis of excellence but rather on a pro rata basis across a number of different programmes. The only basis on which EU money should be invested in research of this nature is that they should be the best projects involving the best people and should be internationally peer group reviewed to ensure that this happens.
The second factor is that, regardless of how the financial perspectives pan out, more of the European Union budget must be invested in the area of innovation. Commissioner Busquin has had a great deal to say about that matter. During our Presidency we have taken a hands-on role in respect of EU funding and programmes. We have, in particular, urged that there be a reduction in the bureaucracy surrounding the programmes. For example, the sixth framework programme, which is the current programme to support research in the European Union, is so bureaucratic that many researchers have stated that they would go anywhere for funding but to the EU because they are obliged to spend so much time completing forms and dealing with bureaucratic issues at the expense of their research.
The Irish Council for Science and Technology has an overarching role and it recently produced a code of practice for the commercialisation of research because one of the issues that arises is who owns the intellectual property.
Deputy Howlin is correct that we need greater coherence. I have just circulated a memorandum to my colleagues in the Cabinet suggesting that, similar to the position in other countries, we appoint a new scientific adviser to the Government. In addition, I have recommended that we put in place a new structure, including a Cabinet sub-committee that would be chaired, for example, by the Taoiseach, so that there would be an overarching role across the areas of education, health, agriculture etc., and that matters would not be merely confined to one area. I hope we can win support for that. Just as the Attorney General advises us in respect of legal issues, we need a scientific guru to advise the Government in respect of research and to act as a driver of coherence, particularly as we are spending such enormous sums of money. I am of the opinion that my proposal will receive the support of the Cabinet in the near future.
I wish to ask a brief supplementary question in light of the fact that I have no competition from other Deputies.
The Deputy has the House to himself.
I regard this as one of the most pressing issues for our future, not only in terms of enterprise and employment in this country but also in terms of education. I heartily welcome the notion of a science adviser to the Government. However, does the Tánaiste accept that consideration might be given to having, as is the case in Northern Ireland, a Minister for higher education who could focus exclusively on issues that go well beyond the education sphere? Subsequent to our visit to Canada, has she given consideration to how universities in that country develop intellectual resources, commercialise them on campus and use the existing infrastructure to support all aspects of that commercialisation? Is there a need for a fundamental partnership change in this country for that model to be replicated here? Does the Tánaiste believe that this could be realised under the education structure in place in Ireland?
Deputy Howlin is correct to state that the link between industrial development and prosperity in education is enormous. It will be even greater in the future. One cannot have too much education. I believe it was the former president of Harvard University who once said: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." There are a number of serious issues about the funding of higher education. I cannot remember the name of the university the Deputy and I visited in New York but it obtains $100 million per year in licensing from activities that are generated on the research side. If we can get it right, Irish universities have the capacity to make a considerable amount from the intellectual activity under way on their campuses. We are looking at best international practice in this area.
It is interesting that the Deputy should refer to a Ministry for higher education. As I was entering the Chamber, my press officer advised me that he had received a telephone call from a journalist speculating that higher education and training must be put together. That was the first time I ever heard that assertion. In my experience, breaking things up is not a good idea. If we want coherence in education, we should ensure that the system remains whole. That would be my strong advice. Even if it was felt that it might be desirable to establish such a Ministry, it would take years to put it into effect. I would not be in favour of breaking up the Department of Education and Science because we need coherence between the various levels in education. However, we need to ensure that there are appropriate resources for higher education in order that we can produce the intellectual brain power we need for our society and our economy as we go forward.
