Vol. 28 No. 5
I move:
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £5,976 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Roimhíocanna Ilghnéitheacha áirithe d'aisíoc leis an gCiste Teagmhais.
That a sum not exceeding £5,976 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Repayment to the Contingency Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.
Deputies will see that the first two items in this Vote are normal. We, as a rule, have deeds that are presented by Government Departments, stamped free of duty. The usual procedure is to repay the Revenue Commissioners by means of an advance out of the Contingency Fund.
With regard to the next item. Colonel Fitzmaurice was presented with a motor car in the United States after his flight. The two German airmen who participated in the flight were also presented with motor cars. In their case no difficulty arose about the admission of the cars into their own country. Colonel Fitzmaurice at the time was — for various reasons, the expenses in connection with the trip, and all that — unwilling, and, as he said, unable to pay the amount of the duty that was required on the car. We thought, in view of the credit that had been reflected on the country by Colonel Fitzmaurice's participation in the flight, that it was only fair that this car should be allowed in free of duty and that we should not have a position under which it would possibly be returned to America, so that the duty was paid. In connection with the sum of £80 odd for the funeral of the late Vice-President, the items are made up of payments by the Department of Defence for the purchase of crepe and black linen, £32; to the Department of Justice, which incurred expenses to the extent of £17 for postage in connection with the funeral — for the Mass and the postage of cards for it; and the Stationery Office, for printing in connection with the funeral, incurred a bill of £30. The last item on the list will be dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The item of £5,000 repayment to the Contingency Fund this year is an item about which I am not in a position to give detailed information to the Dáil at this moment. All I can say to the Dáil is this, that I got the benefit of the assignment of a certain patent, and certain arrangements have been made to complete the patenting of a particular invention, and to have the majority part of the benefits derived from that accruing to the State if all goes well. Certain research work in connection with it and certain arrangements are still being made.
It is not possible even yet to indicate to the Dáil what the invention is, nor should I go any further than merely to say that there is a very definite advance being made, even with manufacturing, as a result of the invention. I hope to be in a position before the Dáil rises for the Summer Recess to give more definite information as to what is being done, what the nature of the invention is, and as to what the benefit likely to accrue to the State from it will be. But at the moment, as the matter is an invention and under a certain type of patent protection, and as the development of it is still proceeding, I do not intend to say any more, and I have simply to put this to the Dáil in good faith at the moment. The whole matter may be adjudicated on afterwards, and the wisdom or unwisdom of advancing State money for this purpose can be debated at length; but, while it is still secret, and must necessarily remain so, I do not think it is wise to enter into a discussion of it at the moment.
We will have, presumably, under discussion to-day a Bill to amend the Industrial and Commercial Property Act, and it is proposed to include a section in that Act giving the Minister power to take an interest in a patent or an invention. Presumably he had not that power heretofore.
Certain power, yes.
The Minister undoubtedly had power to have assigned to him the whole of or an interest in a patent, but I do not think he had power to invest money in the development of that patent, in which case it would appear that this investment was made extra statutory.
Possibly.
And are we to understand that one of the reasons for the Bill that is coming before the House is to legalise retrospectively the action which the Minister took?
Partly.
Would the Minister say whether there are any precedents in this State for the purchase of patents? Of course until we know something of the details we cannot say what liabilities may be incurred in the future in the development of this patent. But to me, at all events, it seems rather a novel proceeding for a State to purchase a patent, and I would like to know whether there are any precedents for such action on the part of this State.
I do not know that there are any other precedents for this being done. I do know that there was a particular invention, the property of an officer of the Army, to whom I think help was given, but I do not think the State ever took over the advantages of it in the same degree as I am proposing to do in regard to this. I think that this is a unique proceeding.
Will the Minister say whether this patent has to do with the Army or with industry?
It has not to do with the Army.
Is this in the nature of a speculation or an investment?
An investment.
The item here states that this is for the purchase of shares. Does that mean that this £5,000 is the final liability of the State in connection with this item, or is just the starting-off point?
That will depend exactly on the progress of the matter that is under discussion. If it happens to be as good as the people who are scientifically minded and who have examined it think it will be, it will not be the end. But the profits, which are not known at the moment, will be far beyond anything that the State would have to expend.
While we hope that these profits will greatly exceed the expenditure that is now involved, the point that Deputy Briscoe has raised is one on which I think the Minister should give us information. Presumably he has purchased shares. Does £5,000 represent the total liability in respect of those shares?
Oh, yes; the £5,000 includes much more than that. In fact a couple of thousand pounds of that will be for work in connection with the development of the item, and £3,000 would be about the extreme amount required for the investment in shares.
The Minister says that £2,000 is going to be used for development purposes.
In or about that.
So we are to take it, then, that the £3,000 is going to be paid to some person for his rights in the invention, or for a share in those rights. Is that it?
Yes.
Will the Minister say whether this invention is of a national character? If it is only what one might call an industrial speculation, I do not think that is a matter for the Government to indulge in. If we are asked to pass this Estimate we are asked to approve of the Government indulging in an ordinary speculation. If this thing is something of a national character there may be some justification for it, but before we are asked to approve of this Estimate we want something more definite in the way of information than we have had from the Minister.
Will the Minister tell us if he has purchased the whole or, if not, what part?
A majority holding.
I would like to say that I disagree entirely with the view expressed by Deputy Good. If there is any prospect of this invention being successful the Minister, in my opinion, did right in coming to the assistance of the person concerned.
The whole thing is unsatisfactory from the point of view of ordinary Parliamentary procedure because I cannot give details, and nobody who had thought the invention of sufficient importance to ask the State to put money into it would jeopardise the chances of it becoming a success by giving details. I will not be escaping, because if the matter is a failure, or even whether it is a failure or not, it will be criticised — at least my unwisdom in asking the State to bear the bulk of the burden of getting this developed and trying to bring it to the process of manufacture will be criticised, and I will have to stand over it afterwards. I do not escape by getting this Vote passed. I simply ask Deputies to give me this £5,000 in good faith. I believe that the thing is of value. I have had it scientifically tested. Work has been going on for more than six months, and there should be some fruits from it soon. But, again, with all the best wishes in the world to give the Dáil information as early as possible, I would not jeopardise the thing by coming to the Dáil with information until I thought that it had been completely protected and when information could be given about the working of it.
That information is quite satisfactory, but there is a Bill coming up now to give the Minister the right to repeat such a transaction. Would it not be better for the Minister to get permission from the House to go on with this particular transaction, or have embodied in the Bill what would cover this transaction, because a precedent is established by this, and the Bill is being introduced to give the Minister power to continue like activities? There may be every reason for the Minister's action and for the Minister's secrecy; but at least we should get some assurance that nothing further will be gone into in the same way until the result of this is known.
I ask Deputies to pause before they ask for such a guarantee. Supposing there were inventors in this country whom we could help, under the Bill that is to be brought before the House shortly a Vote will be taken year by year. What more security have Deputies than simply to limit the Vote? They could say: "We will give you £20,000 for the purpose of people with inventions." The thing is so extraordinary that it would be better not to have Votes put down year by year for such purposes. Do Deputies mean that before giving money to any inventor I should come to the House and say: "I am going into this," and what more would they get than a statement from me, or from anybody in my position, that the thing is going to be done?
An invention of this nature cannot be revealed. If there is any value at all in it there has to be secrecy in order to secure protection for it. You cannot fit in this type of thing with the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. The amount of money is inconsiderable if any good is to come out of the invention at all. It is absolutely inconsiderable. The Deputy is afraid that some Minister is going to be seized with the idea of benefiting inventors and to contribute to inventors, or those who think themselves inventors — and they are very numerous — and it may be that somebody would go along lavishing money, hoping to pay it back to the Contingency Fund afterwards. The Contingency Fund is a small fund— £20,000 — and there is at any rate that bridle. I should say that one of the hopes I have from this particular invention, if it works out to be a success and if there are profits accruing to the State from it, would be to see a big amount of whatever comes from it to the State set aside to help other inventors. I would like to see an industrial and scientific research body established out of the proceeds to bring along other inventors. I simply have to ask the Dáil to take this in good faith, and I will present myself for their castigation or for their praise hereafter when the thing works out.
