I thank the Chairman and all members for their stimulating questions and comments. This proves yet again that committees such as this have an important role to play when we start to put together policies for the future to deal with the grave issues facing us.
I might forget some of the questions but I hope notes will be passed to me as I go through them. Senator Dearey raised the issue of climate change and behavioural change as well as flexibility and mobility in the European research area. At EU level we are, as members know, implementing the 20% greenhouse gas target and we have a keen interest in providing for and pursuing sustainable growth and jobs. The 30% target is on the table as the EU's conditional offer in our negotiations. Recently, we clearly demonstrated that a 30% target was achievable, but challenges remain. One of the difficulties that arose after Copenhagen was that people, for a short period at least, lost faith and felt it had been a failure. However, this was turned on its head by this new Commission — first, by the appointment of a Commissioner with specific responsibility for climate change; and second, because of the valuable lesson learned by the EU — by which I mean the 27 member states and the Commission — that never again could we attend a climate change discussion with 27, or indeed 28, different viewpoints. We must work together, present one strategy and work with one voice to pursue it.
We have seen changes in that area and now we must concentrate on three parallel aims. First, we must begin implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, including the 20/20/20 targets, to show that we can achieve growth and reduce emissions at the same time. Second, we must work on an international consensus, which is important in terms of action. We saw this happening last week at the G8 and the G20 meetings and it must consistently be a major theme in all future summits. Third, we must prepare for Cancún. We want a positive outcome to the next discussions and we in the Commission will work on a set of balanced, concrete, action-oriented decisions. That is the only way to go.
Deputy Dearey also raised the issue of cross-Border research co-operation. The Commission is organising a seminar involving key players on both sides of the Border, plus key officials from the Commission and farther afield. It is hoped, I understand from Martin Territt, to hold this after the October European summit. It is being organised by the representation offices here in Dublin and in Belfast. This committee could become involved and be supportive of the two representation offices in this regard.
Senator Leyden mentioned fuel cells and also spoke about red tape. Research into fuel cells and hydrogen is a joint technology initiative, and is an important and cohesive area of research in terms of sustainable energy. Together with this we also have the Clean Sky project, which is developing cleaner engines for aircraft. These are all the issues we must consider and which must be married into all our policies within the Commission and the Union as a whole. We should not have, as the Senator rightly said, a closed mind with regard to any of these issues.
The issue of flexibility and mobility in research is important. I do not have specific responsibility for this in the Commission, but my colleague Commissioner Andor has specific responsibility in this area and he is a key member of the group of Commissioners working on the research and innovation strategy. He recognises, as we all do — this was raised by several members — that if we are to have a cohesive strategy that works we must provide the kind of working conditions that allow researchers and scientists to be mobile across the 27 member states. We are dealing with 27 different social security, pension and employment frameworks. Member states are now beginning to realise that researchers do not get long-term contracts of work but have to move after spending perhaps a year or 18 months in one country to a project somewhere else. They are reluctant to do that unless they have the safety net of flexi-security. Commissioner Andor is working very hard to produce a proposal in this area with the support of the 27 member states.
Senator Quinn and other members of the committee stated the Commission and Governments are not there to create jobs rather the environment for jobs. What barricades, barriers and blockages are in place that prevent all the bright ideas that exist at basic research level coming to the market place? There are factors such as standards, regulation, intellectual property in European patent, for example. The lack of venture capital is very important in all of this. When resources are scarce the venture capital people move away and go elsewhere. What are we doing in that area? All these issues will be addressed in specific parts of the strategy we will publish at the end of September. All the commissioners who have responsibility in this area are working to clear away those barriers and blockages.
On the venture capital side, a very good example has been working for several years that combines the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund and the Commission, namely, the risk-sharing finance facility. That provides money from the Commission and the EIB which, in turn, provides money for projects, albeit large and high-tech projects. It provides the kind of money they need to get going. In co-operation with the EIF and the EIB, I have been trying to find a similar instrument that could be directed at small and medium-sized companies. Many such come to me and say,"We can't get this money at home. We can't get it from the EIB because they are only interested in big ones". They need to get it from a source that deals with smaller companies. We have been trying to find an instrument that would be similar to the risk-sharing finance facility but would be targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises.
Deputy Timmins suggested that commissioner-designates should be in an understudy role for six months. This is a very interesting proposal and one I had not thought of. However, I can say that from the time my nomination was announced by the Government until I came into office on February 15, I felt as if I was an understudy because a great deal of work had to be done, first in the preparatory work of getting to know the portfolio and then going through the scrutiny of the European Parliament for three hours, which was not easy. It is an interesting idea. I do not know whether this would work. It may be something for the future. It would be an interesting topic to take up for the committee members and their fellow committees throughout the European Union.
In reply to the Deputy's question, there are no treaty implications. Does one size fit all? No. Neither the G20 nor the Commission ever proposed that one size fits all in the austerity policy. The recovery plan is very clear -stimulus by those who have fiscal room for manoeuvre. The specific question about one size fitting all was on the 3% research and development target. One of the biggest criticisms of the Lisbon strategy on research and development was of the 3% target which was made up of 1% from public finance and 2% from private finance. It was declared to be a failure, that we should not continue with it. I fought a big battle within the Commission to get my commissioner colleagues to agree to keep that target in the EU 2020 strategy. Why did I do that? The Ministers for research and science I met on the Competitiveness Council lobbied very strongly that it should be kept, precisely because it enabled them to fight against Ministers for finance who may have wanted to cut back on investment in research and development. In addition, even though the target was not as successful as we might have wished, during that period there was a huge increase in virtually all member states in investment in research and development. The target might not have been reached but there was a huge increase. Rightly, the Deputy and others mentioned the Finnish example. When the Finns were in very difficult financial circumstances in the 1990s they made a conscious decision, as a Government, to keep investing in research and development. We know where the Finns stand now and how much this has benefited them.
In addition to the 3% target, however, and member state consistency there is no way of measuring what we get for the 3% which is invested. As part of the strategy, therefore, I asked for the Commission services in the ECOFIN and so on, along with my own director general, to look at what options or elements we might include in an innovation indicator; in other words, an output indicator. They came up with a list of options. In order for those options to be as independent as possible we set up a top-level panel, in co-operation with the OECD, made up of economists and business people who work in innovation indicators, know this area inside out and know what does and does not work. At the moment they are in the process of sifting through what was proposed by the Commission, accepting or rejecting certain or all elements. They will have a proposal for me on an innovation indicator by the end of July. Obviously, I do not know whether that will be a single indicator or a composite one nor do I know what might be included. It will definitely be of benefit to member states in that they will be able not alone to measure what goes on but equally what comes out at the end of the day.
I was asked how Ireland's draw down compares with that of other member states. The participation rate for the EU as a whole is 22% and for Ireland 21.97%. We hope to see that maintained and, if at all possible, increased. The legacy of Lisbon targets works but these need to be precise and accompanied by binding measures. As I am sure members know, there will be binding measures in the research and innovation strategy in 2020. We will have to target the framework conditions that are necessary — social security, standards, regulation, venture capital, public procurement and patents.
I refer to public procurement which relates to the public sector. The United States has a body called Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, wherein departments of Government are required to set aside a percentage of their spend every year to be spent on the public procurement of innovative products. This has been tried elsewhere in the EU and, to some extent, in the United Kingdom although I am not sure how successfully in the latter case. It has been tried in the Netherlands. We must see if we might get member states throughout the Union to consider using a facility like the SBIR. There is a unique opportunity for Ireland, or any member state in a large single market such as we have in Europe, to use public procurement. Let us say, for example, that Dublin City Council decided in the next ten years it wanted to change its buses to electric buses. If the council were to go to whatever company in Europe manufactures such buses and say that it needed X hundreds of them, that would be one thing. However, let us suppose Dublin could get together with several other cities from all the 27 member states to go collectively to such a manufacturer. Can members imagine the leverage that kind of public procurement would have? Those are the kinds of issues we are thinking about and making suggestions around. Public procurement is a very powerful leverage tool every member state has so let us work together to make it work for us.
I believe I dealt with the issue of transformation of inventions into commercial success and why that transformation may not occur when I said there are many blockages along the way that we need to break down.
Questions were asked about state regulation and monopolies and having a co-ordinated approach from research into those areas. Another arm of the Commission deals very effectively with state monopolies and state regulation. Some major changes are taking place in member states around the Union.
Deputy Creighton raised the targets issue, saying they were too broad and general and it was important that we did not fall into the same trap as we did with the Lisbon strategy. That is very important. I hope I dealt with that matter. The 3% target will be drilled deeply to find out the exact position of each member state. Officials from the research directorate general have gone to the authorities in each member state to examine where each state stands in regard to research and development, how they can improve and be helped. They are providing a diagnostic kit and tool box to the member states to show them what they need to do and to help them get to the 1% public investment target and to try to remove the blockages such that we can secure the 2% private money target in research and development as well.
I refer to the remarks on an open method of co-ordination and being short on specifics. The committee will see that the targets will be set very differently on this occasion and the strategy will have very robust monitoring built in, which is very important. The Member is correct to suggest that at least some member states did not step up to the plate. This time it will be done with each of the member states in a more systematic way.
I refer to the comments on my experience in the European Union and whether I believe it is a good thing to have one Commissioner per member state. I believe it is. I worked for ten years in the EU Court of Auditors. We progressed from having 15 to 25 and then 27 members. People said it would not and could not work and that meetings would continue for weeks on end. In fact, enlargement in the EU Court of Auditors and the European Commission has made us work in a smart way. It makes us do our business in a more co-ordinated way and it is important for citizens. Every citizen believes that having a voice at the table where decisions are made is very important. I support this idea and I believe it works very well. The Commission President, Mr. Barroso, ensures all polices and discussions take place in a very fair and open way and that everyone has a voice at the table.
Deputies Flynn and O'Rourke referred to science and society, one of the great challenges for me. How do we get young people to change their views on science, education and engineering such that they do not view them as tough subjects in which it is difficult to attain good marks and points? How do we change the whole culture? We need role models to do this. We must show young people that these are the areas where there will be jobs. Between now and 2020 if the strategy we have set out is implemented, there will be 700,000 jobs created in this area. Also, we must get third level institutions, second level schools and, in some cases, primary schools to consider what science means in a very different way.
Climate change has been mentioned by many people. This is one area where science and research has helped to change hearts and minds. The Commission and members states together must find a way to integrate science into society and encourage parents to consider what they might do to encourage their children to consider STEM, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, education. This is a problem everywhere. People I met in America made the same case. They referred to the difficulty of young people who consider science, technology, engineering and mathematics to be difficult and unattractive. Every member state appears to have this difficulty. In the Far East and China, they have put in place a major push and they are reaping success as a result.
FP7, the seventh framework programme, has been very important for this country and others given the facility to draw down funding, whether in third level institutions, research institutes or companies. It has been remarkably important. There is an interim evaluation of FP7 at the moment and the result of this will be available in the autumn. Next year, we will begin to examine the lessons to be learned from the interim evaluation and we will consider any recommendations for change that arise and what needs to done to make the programme more appropriate for the type of economic crises and the global challenges we face. All the policies in the Europe 2020 strategy, FP7 and the next framework programme, which it is hoped will have a more meaningful name, must feed into the way we respond to the global challenges of energy security, food security, health and an ageing population. It is important for us to be able to define our policies and policy instruments in a way that responds to these important issues.
Deputy Dooley raised the matter of Israel and Gaza. This is a very important issue. I watched a programme on television last night on the lessons that can be learned from what happened on this island of ours for what is happening in Gaza and Israel at the moment. Also, I read last weekend about the controversy over payments of funding from FP7 for Israel. Israel has been associated with the framework programmes since 1997. Nothing happens in this area unless it is consistent with standards laid down by the European Parliament and the European Council on how we should deliver funding. Between 2007 and 2013, Israel will contribute €440 million to the EU research and technological framework programme. It is one of 12 associate member countries outside the EU. All research activities under the framework programme, including security and aeronautics research, must be of a civil nature exclusively. No military research is funded and the European Commission anti-fraud office, OLAF, carries out regular on-the-spot checks in Israel and elsewhere to ensure EU funds are not being used for purposes other than their supposed purpose. It is important for me to state as much but it is also important for me to listen, to hear the concerns of the committee and to relay these back.
I refer to matters of education. A recent survey found that Irish graduates are the most sought after in Europe by employers. Another small but important example which may address the points made by Deputies O'Rourke and Flynn is Scientix, a website for teachers throughout Europe. It allows them to access innovative teaching methods. It was set up by the Commission and I understand a good deal of interest has been shown. There is also great potential here because people are interested in science. Recent Eurobarometer results published last week or the week before showed that 79% of people are interested in science compared with 65% interested in sport, an interesting piece of information which it is hoped will be very useful in future.
I refer to Government and jobs, issues raised by several people. We are not in the business of creating jobs but we are very much in the business of creating the framework for jobs. Even if only 2% of the public procurement was focused on innovative spending, including energy efficient housing, green vehicles and smart grids, it could fast forward innovation.
The Chairman and others referred to red tape and bureaucracy. I refer to three things that happened before and after my hearing. Researchers and scientists maintain if there were a boom in Europe such as that of recent years, they would never come to the Commission to seek funding. Why not? The reason is that the bureaucracy does not encourage anyone. It is not simply the case here, it is the same in the Commission as well. What are we doing about this? Three things have happened since February. First has been the publication of a Commission communication on simplification, a proposal now in inter-institutional discussion with the European Parliament and the European Council. Second has been the production of a proposal on the revision of financial regulation which is a legislative arm and will take longer. Third, recently the Commission published a communication on the tolerable risk of error. This will go to the European Parliament. It is an interesting concept. The EU Court of Auditors discussed this matter a long time ago when I was there. The Commission responded, then the Court of Auditors came back and now the Commission has issued its communication. The Parliament must discuss this carefully. There are two elements in the European Parliament. On the one hand there is the EU Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which is very supportive of a different rate of error in the research area than other areas. On the other hand the budget control committee of the Parliament, which is like the Committee of Public Accounts here, is very conscious of errors and the increase in errors and so on. The Court of Auditors always said the less complicated something is, the fewer errors there will be. Obviously, the Parliament is working together. It has set up a working group with members that are common to both committees to see if it can find a way that they can all agree on what the tolerable risk of error should be and decide on a rate of error. This would be very important.
As I said in my opening remarks, I want to get scientists and researchers out of the offices and back into their laboratories. Researchers and scientists would not be insulted if I said they are normally not the best people for keeping paperwork up to date. They should not have to be. Large institutes can organise it very well because they can have a separate element within the institute that deals with all of the paper work and bureaucracy. Scientists and researchers need to be in the laboratories doing that work without being bothered with paperwork.
On the other hand, the money of European citizens is involved and as a Commission we have to make sure it is spent well and according to the rules set down for expenditure. We have to find a pathway through the tolerable risk of error communication in order that we can fit with what is happening in research and innovation in the future. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. It reduces the risk of errors but increases manoeuvrability for the researchers and scientists that we need so badly to come up with inventions that can finally make it to market.
Deputy Tuffy raised an issue I also intended to raise, namely, the response to education. She is quite right. The European Union funded institutes of technology democratised third level education. They were a huge success and are a model of long-term change. They have been very innovative in the manner in which they have done their business. Deputy Breen referred to NUIG, the University of Limerick and USIT working together to find ways of doing business together. One difficulty in all 27 member states — it is not confined to Ireland — is that every city and region wants to have a university which has every single faculty at the highest possible level. That is no longer sustainable, in particular when the European Union is going through an economic crisis.
We have to get third level institutions and research centres to work together in a way that UCD and Trinity college, DCU and UL and NUIG are here, as Deputy Breen said. We also need to encourage third level institutions and universities to work together with enterprise to become incubators for small companies which start at a very small level and can then grow. We want to help small industries to become medium-sized enterprises and become global players. We in Europe are not good at doing that. We have to put in place the kind of environment to which members referred in order for that to happen.
Structural Funds are a very important way of helping those member states or institutions that do not feel they have reached their full potential. Ireland will receive €375 million from the social fund for 2007-13. It is an important and fundamental instrument of funding.
I cannot recall who asked about the regions, it may have been Deputy Breen. We are examining the regions and Commissioner Hahn, who was the Minister for Research and Science in Austria is very interested in how the regions can feed into what is happening in the research and innovation strategy and how we do not concentrate solely on the large cities or countries. We are using INTERREG and Structural Funds of €85 million to build up infrastructure and give support to third level institutions, which is very important. On our doorstep there is joint involvement between Ireland and Northern Ireland bodies in project bids. It may be an issue the all-Ireland bodies could consider because it is an area where there is a lot of cross-Border co-operation.
I have dealt with most of the issues raised.