Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 18 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Industrial Development (Science Foundation Ireland)(Amendment) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 24, to delete “strategic”.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Sherlock, to the House. There was a good Second Stage debate on this Bill last week and I have some suggestions to make to the Minister of State, in the hope that he may find them useful in bringing forward the Bill. Members are aware this is an important issue and that investment in education, research and human capital is part of how the economy grows, which in turn enriches the rest of society. This is not merely about markets but is about people having the funds to do many other things. Members are aware that part of the problem being encountered has been the necessity to set aside so many projects because the State has run out of funds because of difficulties in other areas. There is research indicating that in modern economies, probably two thirds of growth is due to improvements in human capital and not to physical capital. Consequently, improving the quality of people, the work they do, the education they receive, the research they carry out and the new products and innovations they develop all are goals to which Members aspire and which the Government has reassessed in the framework of this Bill.
Members also must take account of the fact that things did go very wrong, albeit not necessarily in this area, but the implications for this area of things going wrong elsewhere are serious. Funds are not unlimited and when investigating this sector, an bord snip nua found it very difficult to get statements of outputs from those who were spending large amounts of money. Between them, I believe the first and second strategic innovation funds encompassed approximately €140 million. This was a very large budget and an bord snip nua's complaint was the system used to administer it did not measure the outputs to the wider society as a whole. Colm McCarthy's complaint regarding this group was that the main evidence of activity and output with which he was presented was the number of refereed articles but he sought something broader. I believe this is the reason changes were undertaken by the Government in Science Foundation Ireland to concentrate on the 14 strategic areas. As the Minister of State is aware, there were also complaints by the Committee of Public Accounts, as well as some fairly arduous sessions between the heads of universities and the members of the aforementioned committee.
This seems to reflect a growth in bureaucracy and managerialism as well as, one might say, a loss of perspective on what this budget is supposed to be about. I perceive it primarily as relating to how this sector looks after the next generation. Consequently, one point I will be addressing is that any use of research money from this foundation or any other foundation to "buy out lecturing" strikes me as appalling. In the Trinity College Dublin to which I went, the senior people made it an absolutely vital essential that they saw every single first-year student. They went into the Edmund Burke Theatre and lectured to 400 people. They did not regard themselves as being any kind of elite, which had distanced itself from the group it was supposed to serve because after all, the latter are the next generation of scientists, engineers, technologists, mathematicians and so on. I actually received documents stating one could use this money to "buy out lecturing". Needless to say, I refused, on the grounds that the reason I went there was to give lectures. However, such a mentality was abroad at the time.
Consequently, in the light of the straitened circumstances of the national finances, the urgency of dealing with the serious growth in unemployment and debt and household debt and so on, this budget must become more focused and I commend the Minister of State in this regard. Moreover, lessons can be learned from some of the faults to which I have referred, as found out by an bord snip nua. I believe they found approximately 70 people in TCD and UCD, in receipt of an average salary of €80,000, who were administering research budgets. They were not giving lectures or conducting research but were filling in forms about people conducting research. It is a question of what can be done to reduce this and put the money to use elsewhere. I believe the well known slogan in this area, "More scholar per dollar", will appeal to the Minister of State. I will investigate what the euro version of that slogan should be.
An evaluation of the strategic innovation fund was conducted, a lot of money was spent, about which an bord snip nua was particularly caustic. It is important to direct money towards where one can show definite results. One of the measures of results, namely, what is the income of the funding bodies, that is, the universities in terms of patents, royalties and research income apart from the grants from the Government, is actually minuscule. In many cases, it would compare with just a handful of undergraduates. Consequently, the State has been spending a lot of money and it is not insulting the scientific profession to state one would like to see some measure of output and some measure of results.
Obviously, those who were excluded do not like the Government's concentration on the 14 areas. It has been said to me that this is akin to taking last year's successful racehorse results, going to the races in five years' time and betting on the same horses on the assumption that things may happen. I am uncertain whether this analogy is correct, given all that has happened in the horse business, but using previous experience to project the future has its hazards. One suggestion I have made is the Government should keep some funding open and run approximately 20%, or whatever percentage the Minister of State might decide, against the 14 areas.
That would be important if something entirely novel outside the 14 areas looks good. In addition, there should be a limit on the 14. I have suggested that it might be a rolling 14. One would expect two or three of them to drop out each year and we could put in others so that we are not stuck with an outdated portfolio of projects or researchers who believe that the research is, to use the current phrase, of indefinite duration. In view of the amount of bureaucracy involved, and the need to cut it, I propose in the amendment to bring in people from the fields themselves. I listed learned societies. That is important as there is a huge industry called university and bureaucratic politics but it does not do anything. We want to get to the research and to the lecturer and we want to connect the two again.
All of this must relate to the next generation and what is happening in teacher training. As the Minister of State is aware, he and I have a cause in common, namely, what is happening in mathematics in this country. If we are interested in the next generation of scholars and researchers, there must be connections. I have some concerns that the current reconfiguration of teacher training is not going the Finnish route, which as I understand it is that a person teaching a subject such as science, mathematics or technology – the areas covered by the Bill – should have a masters degree in the subject. We seem to have gone in the opposite direction in that teacher training is not connected to the academic departments in which mathematics, sciences and languages are being taught but is moved to a separate enclave. That disconnect could be serious because the Minister of State is seeking, and we are supporting him, to get a solid foundation for science. For example, to be a mathematics teacher it would be eminently desirable that one would have attended all of the mathematics lectures right up to masters level with other people learning mathematics as well. The idea that there is an inferior or baby mathematics for people who become teachers totally understates the importance of primary and second level in building up the capacity that is being sought in the legislation, which we support.
Some of the comments by employers and employer bodies that they do not much like the look of some of the graduates is a legitimate statement. In the United States that would be dealt with by philanthropy. The corporations which felt there was a need to help promote mathematics would provide money to endow a number of sizarships and fellowships because it would be in the broad national interest. I tend to discount statements by wealthy industrialists paying low rates of corporate tax and blaming universities for not doing what they would like. They should become involved. I am sure the funds officers of all of the colleges would be delighted for multinationals and Irish industry to assist in this vital national need.
It is important the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and perhaps the Department of Finance, is involved in evaluating outcomes. This reform is vital because it is not just in this area we threw funds at initiatives and never bothered to measure whether there was any return. That cannot continue in the era of promissory notes and subsequent to it. It is necessary to develop those kinds of models because value for money is more important than ever.
There was a certain exclusivity in the way we approached the issue in the past in that only science, technology, engineering and mathematics were important. Mathematics dropped off the radar. Some branches of science are annoyed at being excluded. The knowledge economy excluded a significant part of the knowledge one would find in any good university, so there was elitism in that regard. One could say that part of the ingredients of the progress of the country and the economy in the future will involve mathematics, basic economics for senior public servants and even more basic economics for people in banking. We must also address language deficiencies in terms of doing business outside the English-speaking world. Those subjects do not cost much money but they are a vital part of knowledge. That is the reason I have tabled an amendment on wider knowledge. We should not be so arrogant that only three subjects could possibly be endowed with research funds on the basis of their contribution to economic growth. It is important to remember that simple things could also be done which are attractive in the case of an Exchequer in our situation. We could undertake simple tasks that would improve the overall competitiveness of the economy and not define knowledge so narrowly.
I gather from my science friends that one of the excluded subjects is botany. That sounds like a remote academic subject but our late friend and colleague, Shane McEntee, was trying to cope with the damage caused to trees in this country by imported diseases, in particular, ash dieback disease, which is ten times more serious than the problem with Dutch elm disease. Botany is not included in one of the 14 priority areas but, in time, if the Minister of State has some flexibility, I urge him to include botany to save the forests of this country because they could be valuable to the landscape. Perhaps we could develop an industry based on our distance from places where they do have tree diseases. We could develop an industry around the export of healthy plants. Many scientists feel left out from access to the funds. Others in academe feel left out as well. In the wider national interest, those who do get the money should be able to show the Minister of State and the House the returns. Heretofore, the policy appears to have been very much kicking in hope.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 18 have been grouped together. In the light of what I have said, it is probably somewhat self-indulgent but I hate the word “strategic”. It is a Greek military word and the definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary includes demoralising the opposition. It means nothing. If it means important, let us call it important but it is typically used to give somebody a fancy title over the person who will actually do the work. As it means nothing I suggest that it would be dropped from all Government documents. I will not push the point any further. It is meaningless, self-important and managerialist, and is nothing to do with the world of learning. In the world of learning one either impresses people by one’s ideas or one does not. Calling oneself “strategic” does not mean anything. One person I knew in an Irish university was called the director of strategic innovation. His nickname was “Disi” based on putting the initials together. Strategic is a pointless word that university heads love and it means nothing to those who do the work. I will not press the amendments. It is a mere suggestion to improve the nomenclature.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to reintroduce the conversation between the Minister of State and me on this topic but I will not press the three amendments, Nos. 1, 3 and 18, unless someone else has strong views about the word “strategic”.
I thank the Senator. I will respond in general to some of the points raised by him.
His points are valid and we are conscious of them because we want to ensure we have the best research landscape in the world. That is our ambition and with the meagre resources we have, given we are borrowing €300 million per week, we want to prioritise. I take the Senator's point on the word "strategic" but the sense of the word for the purpose of this legislation is that we have a strategy that is mapped out through the national research prioritisation exercise. The steering group has reported on 14 key areas the State will fund.
That is not the end. The State's resources that are applied to this are a portion of the overall spend on research and innovation. We need to have context. The HEA block grant is €1.02 billion and research prioritisation amounts to €440 million. There are other research funders through private enterprise and entities such as the Health Research Board, Teagasc and the IRC. If we send a signal about this legislation to the research community, it must say that in times of economic constraint, we have built up the capacity in recent years and now we want to sharpen the focus. That does not mean that botanists, for instance, cannot be funded within the Irish landscape. It is not true to say that if they are not within research prioritisation, they will not be funded. It is unfair for anyone to make that assumption. There are imaginative ways where if people can prove an economic or social impact, and there are clear metrics set out by SFI in the area, I see no reason that area of research cannot be funded. If a project does not fit into prioritisation, it does not mean the area will be an outlier in the system. Talking of mathematics, which underpins all of the best science, there is no reason that mathematicians cannot map on to the prioritisation exercise. There is a mechanism for them to do that.
We are thinking long term and in terms of the next generation. We want to come up with a research infrastructure to ensure that we can attract the sort of world class researchers who are so necessary for the system we have and to measure up to that excellence and have a long-term goal of excellence. This legislation is part of that process and is necessary.
There is within the prioritisation exercise a clear pathway to measuring outputs. We are in the midst of completing a metrics paper with the assistance of Forfás, which I thank for its work so far, that will measure outputs and impact. It is important to measure on behalf of the taxpayer where funding is being funnelled and the impact it is having. That process is ongoing and I am conscious of the Senator's point.
I also agree with the Senator about the role of industry. Sometimes we get stark messages from industry but we are engaged in a process whereby we are putting together a group of people, some from the HEI and some from industry, in order that we can map out what is happening in the stem cell area. There are two aspects to that. We must ensure we have the continuing professional development that is so vital at primary and secondary level so we have the through-put into the tertiary education sphere. We also must ensure that where disparate initiatives are taking place in industry, if there is a way to map them, we will do so to see how they can be replicated across the system. Every child at primary and post-primary level should have access to that industrial engagement in the area of promoting science, technology, engineering and maths.
All of this inhabits the educational sphere. Regarding the legislation, section 3 will insert a definition of "applied research" and define "strategic areas of opportunity for the State which shall be construed in accordance with section 7(6). "Applied research" means original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective. Applied research is usually undertaken either to determine possible uses for the findings of basic research or to determine new methods or ways of creating practical applications. This amendment is necessary to enable Science Foundation Ireland to support applied research, as well as continuing to support oriented basic research.
The other amendment to section 3 will help to refocus the foundation's efforts in areas of opportunity by adding the term "strategic areas of opportunity for the State". This revised definition relates to the revision of Science Foundation Ireland's functions provided for in section 4. The amendment relating to strategic areas of opportunity will allow for Science Foundation Ireland to realign its programme portfolio in line with the recommendations arising from the national research prioritisation steering group, which was chaired by Mr. Jim O'Hara, formerly of Intel.
The group identified 14 priority areas of opportunity for Ireland and six underpinning technologies and infrastructure. To support these priority areas on the basis of existing strengths of the enterprise base, opportunities in the global market place and those most likely to deliver economic and societal impact and, ultimately, jobs, the Government approved the recommendations arising from the group's recommendations. The aim is to align the majority of public STI investment with 14 areas of opportunity identified in the report, as well as the underpinning technologies and infrastructure. The report also acknowledged the important role of research for policy and research for knowledge, and recommended the remaining funding be channelled to support these two areas. A number of measures were also recommended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the STI system. It is in the context that the Bill provides for the refocusing of the research themes to be funded by the SFI towards the priority areas of opportunity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 6, to delete "strategic".
On the need to integrate the applied science and the research, in Cambridge I met people who had been lectured to by Walton, the last Irish Nobel Prize winner. They all remember how good a lecturer he was, particularly for women who had not done physics in school. I am trying to make that linkage in the section but I appreciate that is what the Minister of State has in mind.
It was a telling illustration that the most famous person was remembered by his former students in the context to which I referred.
I acknowledge the point made by the Senator in speaking of the importance of education. Without wishing to be pedantic, the purposes of the Bill are reasonably clear. Nevertheless, I note the points the Senator makes on the importance of the teaching role and function in education. This area is also part of current deliberations in the restructuring of higher education and its teacher training component.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 in the name of Senator Sean Barrett is out of order as it involves a potential charge on Revenue.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, line 9, to delete “and applied research” and substitute “, applied research and education”.
I will not press amendment No. 5, which proposes to incorporate applied research and education, as he Minister of State addressed the issue. The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to strengthen the assessment, including assessments by international external examiners, and have the standards referred to incorporated in the lecturing at institutions of higher education and linked to primary and secondary level education. The Minister of State expressed his sentiments on these matters and it is not necessary for me to proceed with the amendment. We may discuss the matter before Report Stage or when we meet around the House. For this reason, I will not press the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 17, to delete “the State” and substitute “Ireland”.
This is a minor amendment. The State might mean the Exchequer, while Ireland is the island of Ireland. I will leave this matter to the Minister of State given that he proposes later to extend the remit of Science Foundation Ireland to the entire island. I will not press the amendment but if this reflects the Minister's current thinking, I would be delighted to allow him, rather than me, to propose it on Report Stage. For this reason, I will withdraw the amendment.
Should I speak to the amendment given that the Senator proposes to withdraw it?
We could deal with it when we discuss aspects of the legislation relating to Northern Ireland. It is not a major amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, line 21, to delete “in the State” and substitute “and learned societies”.
Under the current wording, Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, will "cooperate and collaborate with other statutory bodies in the State". I have proposed to delete the words "in the State" and insert the phrase "and learned societies". I displayed some prejudice, if one likes, in this regard earlier. There are too many statutory bodies. Learned societies are where knowledge is located. I have two such societies in mind, namely, the Royal Irish Academy and Royal Dublin Society. As an bord snip nua showed, bureaucracy in this area is a problem rather than the solution. The point I seek to incorporate in my amendment is that collaboration between different brands of bureaucrats differs from collaboration between different brands of scholars.
I do not support the amendments. The main purpose of section 7(1)(e) is to ensure a co-ordinated approach to research among bodies in the State by extending the scope of Science Foundation Ireland's consultation to bodies anywhere. The amendment would dilute this purpose and could increase costs.
On amendment No. 13, Science Foundation Ireland's objective is, as set out in the legislation, to promote and assist the development and competitiveness of industry, enterprise and employment in the State. It is funded by the State through the Department's Vote. The purpose of the power of the Minister to issue directions to Science Foundation Ireland is to specify particular actions relating to the carrying out by the foundation of its functions in line with these objectives and ensure public funding is used in accordance with these objectives. Allowing external bodies to influence these policy directions would not be appropriate.
I note Senator Barrett's reference to consultations with learned societies such as the Royal Irish Academy and Royal Dublin Society. While I do not wish to be facetious, there are a number of learned societies, including many with the designation "Royal". This long list includes the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal Geological Society of Ireland, the Zoological Society of Ireland, Chartered Accountants Ireland, the Honorable Society of King's Inns, the Irish Association of Physicists in Medicines, the Irish Recorded Music Association and the Irish Texts Society. While I am aware the Senator is not being prescriptive, the role of determining science policy is predicated on a stakeholder engagement.
Last year the Royal Irish Academy hosted a good seminar on prioritisation and its impacts. The Irish Research Council has a strong role in the humanities and social sciences. In shaping any new strategy on science, technology and innovation, I must have a clear vision, following the prioritisation exercise, that proceeding with a new strategy for the country requires a clear role for the higher education institutes and all funders of research in the Irish landscape. We must also pay due regard to the institutions to which the Senator referred. However, for the reasons I have outlined, we should not be prescriptive in terms of how Science Foundation Ireland conducts its business given that the prioritisation is only one proportion of expenditure on research in the country as a whole.
We should thank the Royal Dublin Society for the use of this hall, which it left us in 1924. My concern from my own area is that none of the insiders, quangos and bureaucrats had ever heard of Morgan Kelly in University College Dublin. There are people outside this insider circle who know a great deal and it is a shame to have them excluded. In the area of transport in which I operate, for example, there is a major disparity between outsiders and insiders. The people on the inside never consult those who might disagree with them and there have been many examples of this in recent times. Why is the bureaucrat sector afraid to consult? If Morgan Kelly had been listened to, we could be expanding the budget for science and technology today.
We have an insider-outsider model in the academic and research communities. It would be good to ferment some ideas of the kind I have mentioned. I note the Minister of State took my point. Wisdom is available in places other than State boards, quangos and the ranks of bureaucracy. The critics of bureaucracy will argue that it will always expand and look after itself. Hence the benchmarking of public sector pay before the recession. How would the bureaucrats like to do something for the country? On the question of whether to join the euro, most of those on the outside, including the then British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, argued that one should read the small print. He did so and Britain did not join the single currency.
The insider people in Ireland joined, which is also part of our troubles. Knowledge is not exclusive. We should always try to be inclusive of all people, which is the purpose of this amendment. I note that the Minister of State proposes to spread the net on Report Stage. Who knows, the insiders might actually be entertained and enlightened by consulting more widely. I wish those in economics had done so.
I am not sure I agree with the points made by the Senator. This process on prioritisation and this legislation is not about propagating a system, rather it is about creating a new system. The legislation is designed in the first instance to create more jobs and in the second to create a system of knowledge that can be supported. It is eminently sensible that the Government via the taxpayer would prioritise those areas. There are a number of institutions relating to the research landscape in this country, for example, transport, as mentioned by the Senator. It is not true to say that the transport community was not in some way, shape or form consulted in the research prioritisation exercise. For example, the core issue in respect of priority area K, which relates to smart grids and smart cities, is transport in larger urban conurbations such as Dublin, Cork or Limerick. Work in the research community around these challenges is ongoing. There is no reason the discipline of economics cannot map onto any area of the research landscape. It is for the economists who are housed within the individual higher education institutions to think more laterally about how they can engage with other entities and research clusters in terms of the creation of an impact around that.
What we are trying to do is to force the breakdown of silos from an interdepartmental point of view. For instance, we have had some measure of success through the creation of a health innovation hub in Cork. There is ongoing engagement between the Departments of Health and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on how to push further innovation through that demonstrator model. Ireland is a small community and it is now time for people who traditionally operated within their own landscapes or silos to consider how they can collaborate and create new areas of opportunity in terms of how they carry out their research. There is nothing preventing them doing so.
Science Foundation Ireland provides opportunities in its output statement for people across the research landscape. Where good ideas, which potentially have an economic and societal impact become apparent, there will be a mechanism for them. It is for the researchers to start thinking more laterally about how they engage. There is a challenge for researchers within the community.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, line 25, after "facilities" to insert "in a cost effective manner".
The Minister of State and I share much in common on this issue. Section 4(1)(f) states: "devise, administer, allocate, monitor and evaluate, schemes, grants, and other financial facilities.....". The amendment seeks the addition after "facilities" of the words "in a cost effective manner". The Minister of State will know from the reflections of an bord snip nua and the Committee of Public Accounts on this issue that this has not been the case. This is also evident from a survey carried out in Trinity College Dublin on restructuring, which has nothing to do with lecturing. In response to a question in that survey on whether restructuring had given people more time for research, one person agreed, 17 indicated no change, 102 disagreed and 86 strongly disagreed. A great deal of money is being spent on projects from which there is no result.
The addition of "in a cost effective manner" might be useful to the Minister of State in terms of his preventing the recurrence of a scheme in respect of which the number of people who thought it to be useless outweighed the number who thought it freed up more time for research. However, the Minister of State might be of the view that he already has sufficient powers to address that type of problem. There is a need for stricter monitoring in this area. That the number of people who strongly disagreed that the aforementioned restructuring was of any benefit versus the number of people who believed it was of any benefit was 188:1 is shocking.
This section provides Science Foundation Ireland with the power to devise and administer research grant schemes using funds authorised and provided by the Minister with the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
I consider the proposed amendment as tabled by Senator Barrett unnecessary as all public bodies are required to comply with public financial procedures which are aimed at ensuring the most effective use possible of public funds. There is rigorous examination in the annual Estimates programme of all areas of expenditure and the Oireachtas has significant involvement in this process. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The survey to which I referred was taken in June 2010. Many of the procedures in this country broke down between 2008 and 2010. If, as the Minister said, things will be better going forward, I accept that. However, this is not in the dim and distant past. There are people working today who presided over this country having to be rescued in late 2010. They have to reform, as we all do. It is important we push on with that reform.
With the Minister of State's assurance, I will withdraw the amendment.
It is clear that research is delivering. More and more of our foreign direct investment wins are predicated on the research and development infrastructure available in this country. The Irish medical devices sector is ranked ninth of ten in the world. The number of social media and ICT related companies located here and the performance of our research and development sector during the past decade has had a significant impact on the economy. As part of the national research prioritisation exercise, which involves all State funders of research coming together, we must now measure that impact, which is vital in terms of ensuring transparency for the taxpayer in the context of the research we chose to fund.
Under amendment No. 10, the funds could not be used to buy out lecturing. It is vital that our scientists, engineers and academics perform their duty to this country's 18-22 year olds. The real reason that taxpayers stump up this money is their hope that their children will attend these institutions. I am appalled by any suggested use of the funds to buy out lecturing. I have received documents to that effect. Perhaps the Minister of State can informally state that this is a purpose for which the money will not be used.
Like the E. T. S. Walton case, lecturing is the valuable part, but too many senior figures in Irish universities have opted out of lecturing and do not know anything about 18-22 year olds. They comprise a bureaucratic cabal. Creating a second cabal of high-class researchers who would not need to give lectures anymore because they had money would be self-defeating for the country and annoying for the taxpayers who provided that money. The Minister might keep this practice under review with a view to ensuring it does not occur in future following moneys Voted by him through this House.
I accept the Senator's point, but it raises the issue of the culture surrounding higher education institutions and asks whether this is a matter for those institutions in terms of their contractual arrangements with employees. I agree that this issue needs to be raised. It is not strictly within the remit of this legislation but I will undertake to discuss it further with the Senator at a future date, given the fact that it has been raised in the House.
I thank the Minister of State. I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 4, line 35, after "mathematics," to insert "in consultation with the Minister for Education and Skills, where appropriate,".
In March 2012 the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation transferred responsibility for delivery of the discover science and engineering, DSE, programme from Forfás to Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, on an administrative basis. Since its establishment in 2003, the programme has been actively working with companies and higher education institutions as well as representative bodies, such as Engineers Ireland, to heighten awareness of science and engineering and to raise the level of student uptake of the physical sciences at second and third level. The programme also runs a range of science, technology, engineering and maths, STEM, initiatives at primary level.
The objective of the DSE programme is to promote awareness and understanding of the importance of STEM, to increase the number of students studying the physical sciences and mathematics, to promote a positive attitude to careers in STEM and to foster a greater public understanding of the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics and their value to Irish society.
There are many synergies and mutual complementarities between the programme and SFI, particularly in the light of the outreach programmes run through SFI-funded research centres. The transfer underpinned by this Bill will enable synergies between the programme and SFI funding to be maximised, will increase the programme's impact and will further enhance SFI's science outreach activities.
Including subparagraph (iii) of amendment No. 12 would be superfluous, as specifying in legislation the recipients of funding through SFI's awareness programmes is unnecessary. If only certain potential recipients of funding were identified, it would raise questions as to the eligibility of other bodies.
We can accept subparagraph (iv) of the amendment in principle. I agree that it would be appropriate for SFI to consult, as appropriate, the Department of Education and Skills where SFI's activities in an area are relevant to that Department. However, I propose to insert the amendment in subparagraph (i), as set out in amendment No. 11.
Subaragraph (v) appears to dilute the Bill's objective of enabling SFI to support STEM awareness. It also may go beyond the scope of SFI's function.
I am pleased to support the Minister of State's amendment. We have much in common this afternoon.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"(iii) the activities in subparagraph (ii) by programmes in teacher training colleges, and in first and second level schools,
(iv) the Minister for Education and Skills on these matters, and
(v) the enhancement in society as a whole of knowledge and learning including, but not confined to, science, technology, engineering and mathematics,".
We agree on the middle part. That is positive. It is difficult to comprehend that we have a problem with mathematics at primary level. I believed it to be a case of úll agus úll eile and adding the number of úlla.
We have a serious problem at second level, in that some estimates by the Royal Irish Academy, RIA, suggest that up to 80% of mathematics classes at second level are taught by people with no qualifications in the subject. This provides a considerable advantage to those who have qualified maths teachers and can attend grinds schools. As we have discussed several times, bonus points for mathematics have missed the point.
The Minister of State's officials should feed into this and ensure that it is not just once per year that we all attend the RDS for a big science exhibition. No matter how young a person is, he or she should be taught by qualified science and maths teachers. Rural science was a subject prior to emphasis being placed on reviving the Irish language in the 1920s. My grandfather was a school teacher who taught it. What happened to it was a shame.
We can do a great deal at fourth level and something at third level, which is under discussion in this Bill, but if we cannot enthuse teachers at first level and acquaint them with the subject, we should change the entry system to the higher diploma in education to ensure mathematics teachers have appropriate qualifications. The current crop of pupils are pretty sharp on the uptake and can quickly discover which teachers have a qualification in the subject in question. I gather that the most popular teacher is the English teacher, given the significant traditions in that subject, for example, Brendan Kennelly, Seán O'Casey and so on.
What the Minister of State is attempting to do at the top level is a difficult task if the foundations - we have returned to that word - are not secure. Can SFI ask schools of education in universities to address the problems of trying to inculcate the gospel, as it were? It is not just PR. Rather, it is about teachers who can use their knowledge to enthuse students.
I will withdraw amendment No. 12. It is excellent that the Minister of State has accepted the middle paragraph but I tabled the others in the spirit of helping him to develop this area. If it is done in isolation from teacher training, the task of achieving the goals that we all share will be made many times more difficult.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the Senator. It is important to state for the record that the Department has, via a tender won by the National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning, NCE-MSTL, out of the University of Limerick and NUIG, spent more than €2 million in the past year through a professional diploma, which is being delivered as we speak, for out-of-field maths teachers. There is a clear recognition by the Department of the need to ensure that we have a coterie of teachers who are properly skilled in STEM.
I refer briefly to the recent TIMMS and PIRLS results, which mapped out literacy, numeracy and scientific skills among a fourth class coterie at primary school level. Those results clearly show that in the area of literacy we are doing very well and that we are above average in the areas of mathematics and science, but my vision is that we could do much better. My personal vision is that I would like to see the teacher education colleges - which are going through a restructuring process, which is ongoing at higher education level - devise programmes with master's in STEM education or STEM advocates which could be created at primary school level, perhaps at district level. We could engage, for instance, the people who roll out SciFest. I take the point that was made that there is an annual pilgrimage to the RDS and the Young Scientist Exhibition has done marvellous work in raising the people's consciousness about science but there are other players in that field such as SciFest. This is where industry has a role to play in raising awareness and consciousness around the need to ensure we have advocates for science at primary level. We need to start thinking of more long-term objectives as well, instead of the five-year electoral cycles. My vision is that we move into five-year, ten-year and 15-year horizons. If we start to look at primary school now in terms of the way STEM education is taught, we will see the long-term results of that in due course. We are conscious of this but for the purposes of this amendment, technically speaking, this is in the area of education and would be done through the higher education strategy, which is a function of the Department of Education and Skills. It is in that context, although I agree with the sentiments expressed, that I would not be in a position to accept the amendment.
I state for the purposes of the record that SFI's objective is as set out in the legislation, to promote and assist the development and competitiveness of industry, enterprise and employment in the State. It is funded by the State through the Department's Vote. The power of the Minister to issue directions is for the purpose of specifying particular actions related to the carrying out by SFI of its function in line with these objectives and to ensure that public funding is used in accordance with these objectives. Allowing external bodies to influence these policy directions would not be appropriate. I agree with the sentiments of the amendment but for the purposes of this legislation and in terms of changing or evolving the remit of SFI, I would not be in a position to accept it.
I will withdraw the amendment. I wish the Minister of State the best of fortune in both his portfolios. He cannot split himself between the two but his remit encompasses both portfolios. I am sure the knowledge he has gained in one field will be useful to him in the other field. I wish him all the best in Marlborough Street, as well as in Kildare Street.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, line 1, after “Minister” to insert the following:
"following consultations with learned societies such as the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society".
This amendment refers to the Minister and we know from having listened to the Minister of State that he engages in consultation. Therefore, perhaps this amendment is not necessary. The section states that "The Minister may give directions relating to policy" and my amendment proposes the inclusion of the words "following consultations" with certain bodies. In a sense this would be at the Minister's discretion. We know his heart is in right place and that he will talk to people. I will not press the amendment if the Minister of State does not want to have it included in the legislation. I ask him to keep engaging in consultation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related and my be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 5, line 3, after "shall" to insert "either".
The presentation of the wording that "The Foundation shall comply with any direction referred in subsection (3)." is stark in the Bill. If a decentralisation policy or some other policy was put forward we could not say that would not happen under this Minister because he comes to the House, discusses ideas and we have an interesting debate. Does the wording as it stands give the Minister too much power to order a science foundation around? The wording that "The foundation shall comply with any direction", is stark. The Minister could say that he wants the foundation to give the entire funds to Professor Bloggs in XYZ university. Does the Minister of State consider the wording to be draconian? It was on that basis I tabled the amendment. We had that before and ministerial directions led to many strange results in many fields. The wording is very strong. It almost assumes that the people in the foundation would not know much and that the Minister would have to direct them to do things. I will leave it at that for the Minister's consideration. That was the point I had in mind.
I addressed this point in my last intervention where I spoke about the power of the Minister to issue directions. That is for the purpose of specifying particular actions. The directions relate to general policy. I do not think that we are being in any way draconian in that sense. There is a strong culture in this country of successive Governments, regardless of their political hue, having endeavoured to engage with stakeholders in this area. I point to the evidence of the research prioritisation steering group where we asked Mr. Jim O'Hara to chair that process. We brought in all the State's funders of research and those in industry and academia - a myriad of people involved in this area. We try to arrive at the best policy outcomes through a process of stakeholder engagement. It is important to state the powers of the Minister given the democratic mandate that he or she or the Government has. It is not heavy-handed or draconian to state SFI is funded through the Department's Vote and, in that sense, must be directed ultimately by the will of the people. Therefore, I would not support the acceptance of the amendments. SFI's objective is set out in legislation and it is designed to promote and assist the development and competitiveness of industry, enterprise and employment in the State, and that is a worthy endeavour.
On that basis, amendment No. 16 will fall. I was hoping that the directions in this respect would not apply. In amendment No. 15 I was attempting to ask the Minister to include provision where, for example, the foundation could present him with 2 ft high of referred journal articles and point out, say, that what he had proposed was not worth pursuing. I know he can give a directive but this is about science. In the amendment I was providing for a situation where the foundation could supply him with the scientific evidence pointing out that, for example, his idea of XYZ that he would like to direct it to do would cost the country substantially. That is what I was seeking to do in the amendment, rather than for the approach to be that the Minister knows the position, he has the legal power and he tells the foundation what to do.
I sought to include the wording whereby if the foundation genuinely believed it, it could "supply to the Minister refereed scholarly papers which recommend that the cost of the Minister's directions outweigh the benefits". SFI is part of the scientific society. Do we want SFI just to do what it is told or do we want it to be a bubbly source of ideas and that sometimes it might disagree with the Minister and say "With respect, what you have asked us to do will not be a viable project" or is its job just to salute and say "Yes Minister", to name but one TV programme? There should be a right of reply. The SFI is budgeted by the State but if it genuinely thinks something will get the country into trouble, and we have plenty of experience of that in other fields, should it not tell the Minister rather than simply say it was a ministerial direction, it complied and everybody shuts up, continues on and does what they are told? It is contrary to promoting the scientific community that the Minister of State and I both wish to see.
A thorough reading of the research prioritisation steering group document will reveal a clear statement about research for knowledge and for policy. Science Foundation Ireland is not the only game in town. Science Foundation Ireland and the research prioritisation exercise is one of a number of research funders within the State. There are entities like the Health Research Board, the Higher Education Authority, Teagasc, the Irish Research Council and other such bodies. It is important that we have perspective.
Research for knowledge is a key component of Government policy and that is embedded in the research prioritisation exercise steering group documentation. It is a fundamental principle and there is no moving away from that. There is also an adherence to the idea that if research does not measure up to excellence, has no impact or is found to be futile and going nowhere, there will be enough people within the system and externally, who will measure its impact and if it is deemed not to be fit for purpose the State can roll back its investment in specific areas. This is not written on tablets of stone. No research community in the world, where the state has an active part to play, is so inflexible that it will continue to research in areas where it is clear that there is no economic or societal impact or where the research does not measure up to the principle of excellence.
I can understand where Senator Barrett is coming from. He speaks about the enhancement of knowledge in the wider society. It is not only taken as a given that we are trying to enhance knowledge. It is set out clearly in the documentation relating to the prioritisation exercise. There is no ambiguity about that whatsoever.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Senator Sean D. Barrett has already touched on the matter of amendment No. 16.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, line 15 after “development,” to insert the following:
“or
(d) the enhancement of knowledge in the wider society.”.
As I have also mentioned the contents of amendment No. 17, I will not detain the Minister of State or the House.
We all know picking winners is difficult, and we have 14. Picking winners is not the end of knowledge and prioritisation. Circumstances also change. Would it be a good idea to keep a fund for the disappointed people outside the 14? Could a percentage, perhaps 20%, of the funding be kept so that some projects could operate outside the system? As things evolve, we could observe how a person outside the 14 compares with some of those in the 14, and we might get some very pleasant surprises.
The 14 should not be static. Last year's list of prizewinners at Leopardstown might not be any use in two years time. We might want to retain this dynamic because research and knowledge is not readily corralled into any area. I accept that the 14 will be, broadly, good but we could never be arrogant enough to say they are exclusive.
The Minister of State mentioned other avenues. The interest in this that people have expressed to me is a tribute to Science Foundation Ireland. I know there are other avenues, but this is the one many people think is really important. That is why they have been knocking on my door and suggesting amendments, which I am delighted to communicate to the House. Science Foundation Ireland is a very important body. If it gets this right, it will be hugely beneficial to the country, which is the goal we all share.
Does the Minister of State have any international evidence that keeping something aside for completely different, free range, blue sky research can yield interesting results? How about people who almost make themselves permanent and pensionable because something was a good idea ten years ago? As they will not be giving lectures, what will they be doing? What use is old hat research when we could have a much more vibrant community if we had more flexibility? If this amendment assists the Minister of State in the future management of the funds that is the spirit in which it is offered to him.
I always accept the Senator's interventions in the spirit in which he makes them. We must be clear, however. Prioritisation is not the entire funding game. There is a myriad of sources.
If the principle of excellence is adhered to and impact measured there should be no reason any researcher who is doing excellent research with impact within Irish society could not derive funding from some source. I wonder if some of the researchers who have approached Senator Barrett or are writing letters to The Irish Times or tweeting on this issue have read the steering group document. The document is giving birth to 14 action plans and the 13 systemic changes that are necessary. The document also contains a chapter giving examples of policy research. These examples include climate change, related environmental research, bio-energy, population health research and health services research. Those are mere examples. There is a funding mechanism for everybody, so long as the research measures up to the principles of excellence and impact.
The latest €60 million round of investment funding announced by Science Foundation Ireland two weeks ago includes many recipients of funding who are carrying out oriented basic research. There is clear evidence of that across a myriad of landscapes which map on to prioritisation, but more than €2 million was given to MACSI, a pure mathematics entity operating out of the University of Limerick. If we are imaginative, I do not see why we cannot continue to fund such researchers. They need to start thinking more laterally about engaging and collaborating in an interdisciplinary fashion, think about their own output as it stands at present and find new areas of opportunity for themselves. Some of them need to read the documentation before making false assumptions. I say this with respect, having read some of the public discourse on this issue.
I thank the Minister of State for his response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 6, to delete lines 19 and 20 and substitute the following:
“(a) the matters specified in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (d) of Article 2(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 995/2012
of 26 October 2012, and”.
The section amends section 9 of the Industrial Development Act 1993 by requiring an institution engaged in research and development funded wholly or partly from moneys provided by the Oireachtas to supply information to Forfás from time to time. This is required by a Commission regulation relating to statistics on science and technology. Forfás compiles data on a yearly basis regarding Government budget appropriations and outlays on research and development, as required under the Commission regulation, and the Bill provides statutory power for Forfás to collect the data necessary for the purposes of complying with the regulation. The Commission regulation has recently been replaced by a new regulation but retains the same requirement regarding the collection of Government budget appropriations and outlays on research and development and other research data. The amendment reflects the new regulation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
There has been a measure of agreement between the parties. I compliment the Minister of State on section 5. The disbursement of funds to institutions in Northern Ireland is a great step forward. I commend him.
I thank the Members for the time afforded to me and for the opportunity to debate the issues. I am grateful for the insights of Senator Barrett on the amendments he tabled and for the contributions of Members on Second Stage.
I thank the Minister of State for his contributions, which were most enlightening. Sometimes, one learns much more on Committee Stage outside the scope of legislation. I also thank Senator Barrett for his amendments.
I concur with the sentiments of previous speakers. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I also thank Senator Barrett for his worthwhile contribution. I commend the Minister of State for his work.
I am contributing on behalf of my colleague, Senator White, who is unable to be present due to illness. I welcome the Minister of State to the House, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, other than on one occasion when I was in the Chair. I compliment him on his knowledge of the Bill. He had a logical reason for not accepting the amendments that were tabled. I commend Senator Barrett for his excellent amendments. I had to leave the Chamber briefly to attend a meeting and as I passed him, he was like a barrister with three seats full of paperwork. I had pity for the Minister of State as I was leaving but he was well able to handle it. I compliment him and his officials on the speedy manner in which they put the Bill through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.50 p.m. and resumed at 4.15 p.m.