Response to the Consultation on the Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Strategy for Northern Ireland.

1. We strongly support the joint initiative taken by both the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), in progressing the creation of an RDI strategy for Northern Ireland. This is a long overdue development.

2. The following remarks focus on the role of university-based Research and Development (R&D), which comes directly within the responsibility of DEL, though some are of a more general nature.

3. It is now well established, by the Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC, 1999) and others, that Northern Ireland's total R&D spend is low in both absolute and proportional terms, relative to UK, Republic of Ireland, EU and other benchmarks. It is also worth stressing that Northern Ireland's universities represent a relatively high proportion of that total spend; according to NIEC (1999) roughly one-third, compared to approximately one-fifth in the UK as a whole (and a smaller proportion in other advanced economies). In other words, our universities must play a key role in the delivery of any RDI strategy.

4. There might be a tendency to dismiss much of the research done in higher education as abstract or theoretical and therefore having little or no commercial or economic pay-off. Northern Ireland certainly needs to ensure that more research is done which is 'close to the market', perhaps involving the application of known ideas or inventions to products and services. At the same time, certain research should be done, especially in the universities, simply because it is intrinsically beneficial i.e. it will yield a cultural, community and social benefit. Moreover, whilst the universities can and should do some 'close to the market' research with likely immediate commercial application, there are some gains precisely from the fact that the universities do some 'blue skies' work. This is essential scientific or technical research, which is less likely to gain commercial sponsorship because the short-term gains are uncertain, but which could nevertheless yield immense economic impacts over a longer time period. After all, when aircraft and computers, for example, were first developed there was little or no appreciation at that time, that those inventions would later lead to huge industrial sectors.

5. Northern Ireland is a small place with a small academic community and limited resources. Nevertheless, if we want to gain future economic pay-offs, we need to maintain a reasonably broad front with respect to basic scientific and technological research. There is obviously some merit in building on existing strengths eg medical technologies, cancer treatment, materials, aeronautical engineering etc.

6. The Committee is concerned at the relatively small increase, when compared to GB or the RoI, in recurrent funding for university research during the 1992-2001 period. Recent initiatives, such as the Support Programme for University Research (SPUR) and the Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF), whilst very welcome, do not go far enough.

7. The Committee commends the efforts already made by the universities to increase their Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and this improvement needs to continue. At the same time, the RAE is proving to be a cumbersome and distortionary mechanism for allocating research funding to universities across the UK. Whilst it is unlikely to be beneficial for Northern Ireland to unilaterally break from this UK-wide higher education system of funding, we would support recommendations that some (small) percentage (10 %) of the total block of money for university research be earmarked for the purposes of developing research which is of particular importance given the needs of Northern Ireland. The RDI strategy would have a role in defining what these regional research priorities could be.

8. Higher education is likely to remain the major source of basic R&D in Northern Ireland. We would, however, not wish to exclude the possibility that some R&D activity could also occur within the FE sector. The closest possible links between the FE Institutes and local industrial operations are very welcome and some of these might lead naturally into product and service development type activity.

9. The experiences of Silicon Valley in California, of Boston, USA and Cambridge, England seem to imply that academics need adequate personal incentives and sufficient flexibility from their university employers if laboratory ideas are to be translated into commercialisation or even company start-ups. The RDI strategy should consider whether the NI universities allow their staff sufficient time and share of any profits earned to provide an incentive for entrepreneurship.

10. As an incentive to promoting closer links between higher education and industry, we would support the NIEC (1999) suggestion that DETI provide full or part matching of any funding earned by the higher education sector in Northern Ireland from commercial and industrial sources.

11. Like many other commentators, the Committee is concerned by those indicators which suggest that NI's economic expansion in a number of sectors (e.g. aeronautical engineering, pharmaceuticals and software) is being imperilled by an inadequate supply of highly qualified personnel. The universities themselves may be finding it difficult to recruit or retain researchers at the postgraduate, post-doctoral or lecturer level. This raises an issue around student support for postgraduates, short-term contracts for post-doctorates and lecturer pay rates, which the RDI should consider.

12. The research strength of the Northern Ireland universities will depend crucially on the quality of their staff. The academic labour market is normally a very international one. The merit principle should be strictly applied, with the best person for the job being appointed in every case.

13. Given that Northern Ireland's R&D rate is so low compared to the UK average, it is probable that we have much to gain through well-designed research collaboration and transfer schemes. Links initiated through the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council could be useful.

14. NIEC (1999) made much of the fact that public R&D in Northern Ireland seemed to be conducted in a piecemeal manner with little overview as to strategic effects. Having considered policy in other UK regions and various regions of the EU to have fairly successful systems to promote innovation, NIEC recommended a single unit to co-ordinate and promote government-funded R&D in Northern Ireland. We note that the DETI and DEL Ministers have already suggested that they do not favour such a unit. We hope that the reasoning for this is based on an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of such a unit, as opposed to any resistance to joined-up government within the Northern Ireland Civil Service machine.

15. The DETI and DEL Ministers have proposed that the Industrial Research and Technology Unit take on some of the role of an R& D champion and promoter of collaboration across the 11 government departments. Whilst wishing the IRTU well in any such task we wonder if that agency, given its previous role as the main source of R&D grants to the private sector, is necessarily the right agency for this job. We also wonder as to the relationship of the new 'IRTU' within a new single industrial development agency which is supposed to have innovation at the heart of its own rationale?

16. The statistical record with respect to R&D in Northern Ireland needs to be improved. We would support the NIEC (1999) recommendation of an annual survey.

Esmond Birnie

Dr Esmond Birnie, MLA
Chairman
13 September 2001

Minutes of 6 September 2001, Para 8

Minutes of 13 September 2001, Para 3, (2)