I would like to welcome the Minister to the Seanad and to say that I do not propose engaging in what has become the national pastime, O'Hanlon-bashing. I understand some of the difficulties and constraints under which he operates, but this is a very particular problem which I sought to raise at a time when it was immediately critical and featuring in the newspapers. It was brought to my attention by the fact that the Provost of the university I have the honour to represent in the Seanad felt constrained to resign as a result of the cutbacks in funding to the Health Research Board.
The Health Research Board was established by the Minister for Health under Statutory Instrument 279/86 and commenced operations on 1 January 1987. This new health research board evolved from a merger of the former Medico-Social Research Board, which was established in 1965, and the Medical Research Council of Ireland (MRC), which was established in 1937. At the inaugural meeting of the HRB on 7 January 1987 the then Minister for Health, the then Deputy Barry Desmond, pledged that the level of funding for the new board would not be diminished and that, in view of the wide responsibilities being assigned to the board, additional funding would be sought to support its activities. That is the premise on which I am basing my argument.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the chairman of this new board was, in fact, Professor Watts. He had a difficult job. He had the job of uniting two previously separate strands. In his difficult job he was given an undertaking, that undertaking, admittedly, having been given by a member of a previous Government. I do, however believe that the present Minister for Health is at least morally bound to continue the commitments that were given. Indeed, in the letter — sections of which I propose to read into the record — from Professor Watts where he tendered his resignation from this board he indicated that he felt the discussions conducted with officials of the Minister's Department had taken place in what he described as a "creative atmosphere". He clearly felt that some degree of indication was given to him that there would be additional funding for this very important venture. In this he was disappointed.
Basically, I have to ask the Minister today the usual question in adjournment debates of this kind. Is it not possible, even at this stage, to find money for this very important purpose? I accept that the Minister is in the situation that he has got to prioritise, and prioritise in quite a drastic situation, and that his Department bears the brunt of quite a lot of the cuts. But I hope to be able to demonstrate that this is an area where some indication of movement by the Government would be welcomed by the academic community, by the medical community and by the general community, who are well served by the programme of the board.
I want to place on the record the facts of the situation. In 1987 the budget allocation was £2.3 million. In 1988 this was maintained at £2.3 million, but in 1989, despite the undertaking that the research board had felt they had received, it was savagely slashed by £1 million to £1.3 million. In 1990, it was retained at £1.3 million. Not only does this reflect a continuance of the £1 million cut, but it actually represents a worsening of the situation when one takes into account the effects of inflation. You have a 43 per cent cut in the budget, almost 50 per cent gone, and you then have this compounded by the erosion effect of inflation and the fact that the £1 million cut is continued.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that no other research agency or institution sustained a parallel cut at that period of this magnitude on what was already regarded as a minimal base budget. I would also like to point out that there is an inconsistency in the fact that the grant was higher in 1987 and 1988, when the economy was arguably in a worse situation, and now that the economy is improving we do not have any amelioration of the board's position. The board's corporate plan for 1989-91, which was submitted in March 1989, sought an allocation of £2.5 million for 1990. An absolute minimal level of support for a viable medical and research programme is estimated by the people responsible as being £2 million.
I would like to make an additional point about the £1.3 million, because it may appear as if it is a figure in which there is a margin of appreciation, some degree of room for manoeuvre. There is not, because, as the Minister well knows, that £1.3 million is already committed for ongoing research. This is a very important point, because it means that as a result of budgetary constraints no new research commitments can be undertaken. That has a number of serious implications. Firstly, the cutting off of the possibility of the engagement of young graduates in research and, secondly, of course, the benefits that will be derived by the wider community from this research work.
I would like to point also to the fact that the programme of research within the area of health services generally was intended by the board to have been a principal element in their research programme for 1990 with a view to increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the health service generally. In anticipation of a viable funding level in 1990, initial applications were invited from health boards, hospitals, colleges etc. By the closing date of 17 November last 91 applications had been received. They are now all closed off.
That last paragraph I have just read on to the record is a substantial part of my argument. The health services research area was to be a major point — in other words, the efficiency and accuracy of delivery of health services was to be a major element. It is capable of being argued that an element of this money was to be used to make the health services more efficient and therefore more cost effective. I have to ask the Minister if it is not in fact a major and principal responsibility on him, particularly in the current situation of economic difficulties, to ensure that the health services are efficient and if he is not concerned that research schemes that would, in fact, have this impact, that would help the health services to be efficient have now been abandoned. It is clear that as a result of this cut back there will be virtually no funds available for new projects throughout 1990 or for research fellowships. As a result up to 100 of our brightest young graduates will be forced to emigrate, thereby creating a brain drain. We are also clearly going to abandon any pretence that we have a viable medical and health research programme in this country.
The Minister ought to be aware of the comparative European situation. For example, figures can be adduced which demonstrate very convincingly that Ireland is at the lowest level in the European Community in terms of Government funding for research and development for the protection or improvement of human health. I have a list in front of me. We have France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, all ahead of Ireland, proportionately, in terms of the amount of spending. They are maintaining or increasing their levels whereas we are going down from a figure of several million pounds to just £1 million, until we are in the situation where the officials of the Health Research Board feel we are heading towards either a situation of relegation or closure for the board. I find this a matter for every considerable concern.
Could I point out the fact that a number of projects involved are ones with which the general public would find no difficulty at all in having a great degree of sympathy. For example, one of the research programmes is in terms of sudden infant death syndrome, another was about bone marrow transplantation, another was about respiratory illnesses. If, through the application of health research findings in the health services, one cot death could be avoided, that steps could be taken to prevent the recurrence of a spina bifida birth, that the life of a teenager could be prolonged through new knowledge becoming available on bone marrow transplantation, or that improved treatment methods became available for the elderly suffering from respiratory illnesses in the present smoggy conditions, then surely the Minister would agree with me that this very meagre allocation for research should be increased. In terms of budgetary allocation we are really talking in pennies, because I understand this is about one two thousandth six hundredth of the general Health Estimate. So it really is very small. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that there is an important and sustainable argument for making proper funding available for this Medical Research Bureau.
I would also like to point to the Minister's own attitude in the matter. We are in the unusual sitution that we have a Minister who is professionally qualified in this area. Therefore, one has to listen to his views with some respect, particularly when they are placed on the record. The Minister, I understand, is actually on record as saying — and he will be able to correct me if I am misquoting him — that he acknowledges that an active and expanding medical research programme is absolutely essential. I am quoting from recollection of the Minister's words, but the phrase I am perfectly certain of is an "active and expanding medical research programme." Can the Minister, stand over those words with an easy conscience in the light of these cutbacks?
I would like to anticipate some of the Minister's argument, because I imagine that he may suggest that under the health services generally there is, in allied areas, a certain amount of research going on. The Minister knows, as well as I do and as well as some of my colleagues who have assured me on this point, that a lot of the material that is categorised as research is nothing more than information gathering and analysis under the auspices of sections of the health services. That really does not qualify under any international definition of medical research.
The kind of things, as the Minister I am sure will agree, that do qualify are the kind of things that the medical research board were involved in. There was bio medical research on subjects like heart disease, stroke, mental illness, diabetes, asthma, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and the nature and cause of depression. These are examples of ongoing research that will continue if the Minister is able to find the money. We have programmes concerning the genetic epidemiology of schizophrenia and psychiatric disorders. Time is short, but the Minister is aware that certainly until recently it was widely felt that schizophrenia had a higher incidence in this country, particularly on the western seaboard, than most other European countries. There is mental handicap, child health and a major epidemiological study to ascertain if vitamin supplements can reduce the risk of neural tube defects, that lead to spina bifida, in mothers with a previously affected baby: epidemiology being the scientific study of the distribution of disease. If we can prevent one incidence of spina bifida as a result of this, surely the Minister, as a doctor and as a caring person would agree that this would be worthwhile.
Then there is the question of travellers health status. A study of the birth and mortality rate of travellers and the health of travelling children, including how travellers utilise the available health services, is the kind of research that is vitally important. There is the programme of laboratory research, in which I would have a particular interest because, of course, a major element of this is being carried on in laboratories situated in my own university in Trinity College, where they are focusing principally on the development of anti-cancer and anti-leprosy drugs and on virology studies.
The Minister, I am sure, will remember with affection as I do a former distinguished colleague of mine, Dr. Barry with whom I often had the privilege of having lunch, a most delightful and charming man. He was one of the leaders in discovering drugs which are now effective against leprosy. With what great pride we, as Irish academics, realised that we were to the forefront of medical research. Is the Minister actually happy to stand over a situation where we are saying basically that we are not capable of supporting a decent level of research? Perhaps I have been a little bit rarified in what I have said in the last few remarks; I think I can see the Acting Chairman getting ready to indicate that my time is coming to a close, so I would like to——