Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 29 June 2017
9. Deputy James Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if she has considered the need for a dedicated stand-alone office of a chief science adviser that would be free of other responsibilities and solely responsible for advising the Government and its members on scientific and research issues; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30412/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraCan an office of chief scientific adviser, free of other responsibilities, be created? Such an office was in place under previous Administrations but it was merged. Does the Government have a view about re-establishing the office?
I thank Deputy Lawless for his important question and his attendance at the briefing with Professor Mark Ferguson of Science Foundation Ireland, which I hope he found informative.
The office of chief scientific adviser to the Government was created in 2004 to provide expert advice on matters of science policy. In November 2011, the public sector reform initiative called for a rationalisation and reduction in the number of State bodies. Following consultation with Departments and on foot of a memorandum for Government, it was decided to dissolve the office of chief scientific adviser. However, it was agreed that Professor Mark Ferguson, director general of Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, would assume the role of chief scientific adviser in addition to his SFI responsibilities. Deputy Lawless has met Professor Ferguson on a number of occasions. The Government was of the view that the suppression of the office of the chief scientific adviser as a stand-alone office could be done without undue adverse impact on the Government's access to advice on scientific matters. The decision to combine the role with the role of director general of the SFI ensures greater synergies between the development of policy and the support of national scientific aims. Like Deputy Lawless, I am very interested in science. We have many discussions on it. I have looked at this very carefully and wondered if it had an impact on the advice the Government receives on all issues. I believe it has not.
In his role as chief scientific adviser, Professor Ferguson sits on a number of committees, including the implementation group on Innovation 2020 and the high-level group which informs national policy and direction for Horizon 2020 and EU framework programmes. He also represents Ireland at both EU and international fora. Ireland has a national target to win €1.25 billion in competitive funding from Horizon 2020 and has already drawn down €424 million. I am satisfied, having looked at it very carefully, that there has been no diminution of the quality of advice offered by the chief scientific adviser notwithstanding that there is no specific office for that role.
I thank the Minister of State for the reply and the invitation to attend the briefing with Science Foundation Ireland, which was a very useful session. I do not want to talk about the individual, because we have learned about doing that on different topics in the House over recent days. I want to talk about the formulation of the offices and the relationship between them. It was a progressive move in 2004 to create the office of chief scientific adviser. There were many arguments in favour of that policy. I attended recently the science march with a number of academics, policymakers and others with an interest in the area who came together to make the point that a more evidence-based policy was needed with a whole-of-Government approach and to call for investment in research, development and science. The Minister of State and I have often talked about that and I know he understands the need for it.
It was regressive to abolish the position in 2012. In the same way, we have an Attorney General, who is separate from the Chief Justice, an Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser, and a budget office that is being created, which have different functions in terms of advice to the Government and are separate to the multiple agencies that stem from Government. At the time the office was abolished, it was understood that it was for financial considerations. One would hope that, as financial fortunes are, hopefully, beginning to be restored, there may be scope to revisit it. There was some criticism at the time of the abolition that it was seen as a shortsighted move and one that potentially created a conflict of interest in terms of the agency and the advisory roles. It is important enough to be reconstituted into its own office now that budget conditions, hopefully, allow that to be a possibility again.
I will make a number of brief points. It is important to note that, when required to do so, Professor Ferguson provides top-level, independent and informed advice to the Government, either in response to direct requests or through his involvement in cross-departmental groups such as Horizon 2020. I took some advice and made some inquiries on the model in other countries. Interestingly, there are other countries which invest far more in science than we do, and the Deputy and I agree that we should probably be doing a lot more in research and development, but there is no one model followed in some of the top countries across Europe for the structuring of their chief scientific adviser's role. In some countries, for instance, the UK, New Zealand and Malta, which are pretty highly involved in research and development, there is a separate chief scientific adviser. In other countries the role is undertaken by national academics. The Royal Netherlands Academy for Arts and Science does not have a dedicated, if one likes, chief scientific officer, while in others it can be a mix of the head or the president of the national academy of funding bodies. I considered countries across Europe and elsewhere to see if it was a disadvantage to us not to have it, and I found it not to be so.
Perhaps we will agree to disagree as I think it would be useful to create a separate office. Were we to reconstitute the office, it would recognise the status that the Government and the State place on science and research. Another point I make is that currently it is aligned to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. Research needs a whole-of-Government approach. My understanding is that around 2004, when it was created, this office came within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach. As part of that, it had a whole-of-Government approach. It is not just the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation that needs that sort of evidence-based policy advice but all of Government.
Yesterday there was, arising from the recent Nevin report, a Topical Issue that I had tabled on the lack of research and development funding. I expected either the Minister or the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to take it or, if not, perhaps the Minister for Education and Skills. I was surprised to see a Minister of State at the Department of Finance take it. It was a good debate and the Minister of State made good points. However, it highlighted the number of stools between which research and development can fall, that is, education, enterprise and, in yesterday's case, finance. Things such as research and development tax credits came into yesterday's debate, which amplifies and highlights the need for a whole-of-Government approach. Perhaps when considering the chief scientific adviser in whatever guise, at least under the Department of the Taoiseach there was that broad role.
I agree to a certain degree with what the Deputy is saying. When I was in opposition, I called specifically for a ministerial position to deal exclusively with innovation and research and development, which is why I specifically asked the Taoiseach, if I were to be reappointed in this position, that he would add research and development to the portfolio. Having regard to the advancement of technology, science, research and development, and innovation, I agree absolutely with the Deputy that the Government or future Governments will probably have to look at that position, where we dedicate a particular role to research and development.
I will not go through the detail of the role of the chief adviser now. Probably the best thing I could do is send a note to the Deputy on Professor Ferguson's exact role. The Deputy will find that he is comfortable in his role. He has great people with him at university level and within the Department who were able to deal with all of the Departments. However, there is an argument to be made and a discussion to be had on the Deputy's last point about a combination of roles and so on.
