Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1950

Vol. 123 No. 5

Industrial Development Authority Bill, 1949—Committee.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:—

Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—

The functions of the authority shall not extend to any undertaking constituted by statute, being an undertaking which is carried on by or on behalf of the State or the directors of which are appointed by the Government or by a Minister. of State, or to any commodities which any such undertaking is authorised by statute to produce or make.

Mr. Lemass

This amendment stands in my name. We had a somewhat scrappy debate on it on Thursday last and it may facilitate the House if I briefly reiterate the arguments in favour of the amendment. The debate was scrappy not merely because the Dáil came to consider the Bill in Committee at a late hour on Thursday, but also because eight months had elapsed since the Bill received its Second Reading. Deputies may not recollect fully the nature of the debate we had when the Bill was before us on the Second Stage. Deputies on this side of the House unsuccessfully opposed the approval of the Bill on Second Reading on the ground that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is charged under the Ministers and Secretaries Act with certain statutory functions in relation to industrial development and other matters and that he appeared under this Bill to be endeavouring to pass over the responsibility for the discharge of these functions from his Department to this new body, described as an autonomous body, but possibly more accurately described as an anomalous body, with the grandiose title of Industrial Development Authority.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Lemass

I was saying that we had unsuccessfully opposed the approval of this Bill on Second Reading because we disliked the proposal to transfer to an autonomous body, with which the Dáil would have no contact, functions which were previously discharged by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and concerning which he could be questioned by the Dáil. I do not think, however, that many of the Deputies who failed to respond to our arguments for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading can have fully appreciated that, as framed, it purports to give to this Industrial Development Authority a position of superiority to all other statutory boards and companies concerned with industrial development in any form.

The purpose of this amendment is to endeavour to limit the functions of the new board in regard to matters for which other statutory boards and companies have already been given responsibility by the Oireachtas. Its aim is to provide that the functions of this Industrial Development Authority "shall not extend to any undertaking constituted by statute, being an undertaking which is carried on by or on behalf of the State or the directors of which are appointed by the Government or by a Minister of State, or to any commodities which any such undertaking is authorised by statute to produce or make." I do not know what the view of the Government is on this amendment. We have not yet had an opportunity of hearing that view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, but, in so far as the limited discussion which we had on last Thursday night is an indication of the views held on the benches opposite, there appears to be a desire to justify the position in which this new Industrial Development Authority will have functions not merely in relation to industrial development by private enterprise but also in relation to the activities of organisations like the Electricity Supply Board and Córas Iompair Éireann. If that is intended, then I think the opposition originally expressed on this Bill is even more justified than it at first appeared.

The Oireachtas, by legislation, established these other bodies. It empowered the Government, or a particular Minister, to choose for membership of those boards persons with the experience and competence that would enable them to carry on properly the undertakings entrusted to them. It is certain that any attempt to put between them and the Minister, or between them and this House, this Industrial Authority will merely lead to confusion and retard rather than facilitate progress.

These other bodies have their powers defined by statute. Their members are appointed by the Government, or by Ministers who are answerable for their appointments here. They are under an obligation to submit annual reports and accounts which are presented to the Dáil and which the Dáil can discuss. It has on occasion discussed them for the purpose of expressing criticism of their administration or of urging development along particular lines.

Clearly, the intention of the Dáil in framing the legislation which established them—the legislation establishing Córas Iompair Éireann was enacted no later than this year—was to have these bodies directly answerable to the Dáil through a Minister and to give no responsibility to anybody else, except the Minister, and through the Minister to the Dáil, for the way they discharged their duties. It is a matter upon which I would have thought that many Deputies sitting opposite would have strong views and that they would join with us in objecting to the intervention between these bodies and the Government and the Dáil of another organisation described as an autonomous organisation, an organisation which has no responsibility whatever to any Minister or to the Dáil and which it is not proposed should be under any obligation by statute to present any report here as to how it exercises its powers or discharges its functions. I do not know whether the other statutory boards to which I have referred have been consulted about this proposal to appoint over them this super-authority. I am sure it is most unlikely that, if they were consulted, they agreed. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some information on that point.

During our brief discussion on Thursday last Deputy Hickey made an observation which appeared to convey that he regarded this Bill as an answer to the case that is being made for instituting some more explicit system of supervision over the activities of other statutory bodies. Clearly, that is not so. The reply given to-day by the Taoiseach to a parliamentary question which I addressed to him makes it obvious that the Government has not yet completed its considerations of the methods by which more detailed examination of the accounts and reports of these other bodies can be accomplished by the Dáil, and that when it has so completed its consideration of that matter it will have definite proposals to make to the House. This Bill is not an answer to that case. If it were so regarded I think most of us would consider it as asking the Dáil to move in a direction opposite to that which the majority of the Dáil would prefer to go in that regard.

Mind you, this is not quite a matter of theory, because I have already drawn the attention of the House to one important matter in regard to which it can be said that ambiguity as to the functions of this new board has stopped progress. In 1947 the Dáil enacted a Bill to establish a company with special responsibility for the development here of chemical industries. That Bill was passed with the approval of all Parties then represented in the Dáil, and the Government chose for the company—Ceimici Teoranta—a board of directors that appeared particularly suitable to be entrusted with that responsibility. I intimated to the Dáil when, as Minister, I proposed the enactment of that measure, that the first task the new company would be asked to undertake would be to investigate the commercial problems associated with the manufacture here of nitrogenous fertilisers, of sulphate of ammonia. The history of previous attempts to establish that industry here need not now be recounted, but our experience during the war years, when supplies of that important fertiliser were not available at all except the very limited quantities that were smuggled into the country and sold at exorbitant prices, justified us in regarding it as an urgent post-war task to get that industry established here. It is particularly suitable for this country, in so far as it can be conducted with practically no imported raw materials.

That company was set up, given the necessary legal powers and assured of the necessary financial resources to enable it to do all the preliminary work necessary to secure the establishment of that industry, although it was recognised that before the final step could be taken, the Dáil would again have to be consulted and would have to agree to make the financial provision which it was estimated would be required. It has done nothing. The accounts of that company, as published, indicate quite clearly that in that particular matter with which it was especially charged nothing has been done. There has been no expenditure of any kind on any activity which could be regarded as being remotely associated with the establishment of that industry.

A question addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce early this year elicited the reply that it was the Industrial Development Authority which was now expected to carry out any investigations which were necessary in that matter. They are doing nothing either and we have the position that, as a result of the creation by the Dail of two authorities with overlapping functions, progress is stifled. I think it would be far better for us if we could leave these other statutory bodies in their present position, responsible to the Minister for the discharge of the duties given to them by statute and, through the Minister, to the Dáil, and that the giving of any functions whatever in relation to these matters to this so-called autonomous body, with which the Dáil will have no contact, is a retrograde step which we should resist.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

I think this amendment proceeds from a misinterpretation of the functions of the Industrial Development Authority. It is made quite clear in Section 4, sub-section (6), that the members of the Industrial Development Authority will be answerable to the Minister. The phrase is that "the members in the exercise of their duties shall be responsible to the Minister". That obviously places emphatically the responsibility on the Minister and if the Minister regards it as necessary to get a particular view of the workings of an industry carried on either by a company set up under statute or by private enterprise, then he is free to take the advice of the Industrial Development Authority.

The amendment which Deputy Lemass proposes would exclude statutory bodies from an inquisition by members of the Industrial Development Authority. He bases the case for the amendment on the ground that the bodies referred to have been set up under statute and have defined functions, that the directors are appointed by the Minister and that consequently it is assumed that the Minister and the Government have confidence in them. I do not think that the functions which the Industrial Development Authority have under this Bill in any way question the authority or the competence of the directors of a statutory body.

The functions of the Industrial Development Authority are purely advisory. It is true that it is an autonomous body, that the members are free to decide their own procedure, to investigate any particular matter or to inquire into factors which they think it desirable should be inquired into in any way, and according to their own procedure, but having completed whatever investigations they have in hand, the members of the Industrial Development Authority are responsible to the Minister, just as statutory companies have their functions and responsibilities and their duties defined precisely by statute. It may be that these companies from time to time would be required by the Minister to furnish either, in the course of their annual reports or otherwise, particulars about the nature of the work they have in hands and the Minister may query them as to how their duties are carried out under the statute but I cannot see any objection to the members of the Industrial Development Authority inquiring into the workings of a particular industry merely because it is carried on by a company set up under statute rather than by private enterprise.

This Bill in no way places the members of the Industrial Development Authority as a super-body over existing statutory companies. The statutes which set up these companies and defined their functions allocated specific duties to them. This Bill defines the functions of the Industrial Development Authority and assuming the amendment were passed, it would not preclude the Minister getting information at any time or carrying out any investigation he liked, either from the directors of the concern or alternatively through the officers of his Department in the ordinary course of their duties. It is the normal procedure to have direct contact between the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the various statutory bodies that are responsible to that particular Minister just as certain companies may be answerable to other Ministers. The majority of these State companies are answerable to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Deputy Lemass asked were these companies consulted. I can state emphatically they were not, but I do not think there is any obligation to consult existing statutory bodies on the effect of legislation of this sort. It is not usual to consult any of these statutory bodies on any legislation that is introduced. From time to time that legislation may impinge on them. If, of course, the legislation deals directly with the work of the particular body concerned, then naturally consultation would take place, but in a case of this sort, no consultation takes place, and I do not think it is necessary. I think that the passing of this amendment may unduly restrict the work of the Industrial Development Authority, and for that reason may in some way limit its usefulness. Deputy Lemass referred to the fact that in reply to a parliamentary question it was stated that the Industrial Development Authority had investigated or was considering certain proposals which, he said, were allocated under statute to Ceimici Teoranta. If the Minister feels that the advice of the Industrial Development Authority or the information that may be available to them would be of help in deciding any matter of policy, which would be in the national interest or in the interest of an individual industrial concern, then I think it is desirable that he should be in a position to get the advice directly, and get the authority to undertake certain investigations, all the time in the knowledge that the authority is responsible to the Minister and the Minister responsible to the Dáil for whatever duties and responsibilities the authority may discharge.

Mr. Hickey

My objection to Deputy Lemass' amendment is that you are limiting the functions of the Industrial Development Authority. He mentioned insurance and banking. Is there anything wrong if the Minister should say to the Industrial Development Authority: "I want a report on the services the insurance companies are giving to the country?"

Mr. Lemass

That was on another amendment.

Mr. Hickey

Even if the Deputy's amendment is passed it would prevent the Minister from inquiring into those statutory bodies. I think we should leave it completely to the Minister to get any advice possible from the Industrial Development Authority and there should be no limitation either as to insurance, banking or shipping if it is in the interests of the country. Take the case of the fertilisers factory. The Minister is nearly as well aware as I am of the reason why nothing more practical was done since 1945 to get a fertilisers factory established in this country.

Mr. Lemass

A company was set up to do it and they stopped it.

Mr. Hickey

I am satisfied that this Government did not stop it from being built, but the people in control have no interest in the development of industry in the country and they are doing very well at the moment.

Mr. Lemass

That is a different industry.

Mr. Hickey

The Minister should not be limited and should be allowed to inquire what services any statutory body is giving to the country. I hope that he will not be limited in that or in any way.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not think that Deputy Lemass has really made a case for his amendment at all. It seems to me that statutory bodies and undertakings set up and carried on by or on behalf of the State or alternatively undertakings the directors of which are appointed by the Government or by a Minister of State are the very bodies and undertakings the functions of which should come under the examination of the Industrial Development Authority. I think that they are the very people who would benefit from examination, help or assistance. The bodies which purport to be above the law or outside the law are the very ones whose workings should be investigated. Far from leaving them as they are I think a very strong case can be made for the Government and this House having all the information possible.

Mr. Connolly

Would, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce clear up a point regarding the functions of the Industrial Development Authority? It has been stated that it is an autonomous body and I would like to know how far its autonomy extends particularly regarding State or semiState bodies. So far as I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, he stated that the Industrial Development Authority is free to conduct any investigation by its own procedure and methods and that at the same time it is responsible to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it not a fact, however, that the authority only conducts investigations or handles questions which are remitted to it through the Minister for Industry and Commerce? If we are to take the Parliamentary Secretary literally, is any Ministry with a problem which may have some relation to the work of the authority free to remit directly to the authority a question concerning these State-owned bodies or any other body or any question generally? Is the authority empowered to make its decisions or give its findings direct to that other body or to any other body outside the Minister for Industry and Commerce? If its initiative is regulated or restrained by the desires or wishes of the Minister for Industry and Commerce it certainly has not the autonomous functions ascribed to it by Deputy Lemass nor is it the super-body which he contends it is in pressing his case for this amendment. In other words, if the powers of this body are limited to actions decided upon by the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible to this Dáil, then it cannot get between the State bodies which have been set up or cause confusion in the way instanced by Deputy Lemass because any investigation on their part can only proceed on the initiative of the Minister who is ultimately responsible for these bodies. Therefore, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make quite clear whether the authority can proceed on its own initiative against the wishes perhaps— in a critical case or a case of emergency—of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to whom, theoretically, it is responsible and to whom it makes its report; or whether they can proceed on the request of any responsible body, responsible industrialist or trade union or any other person who is concerned about the activities of State bodies or anxious to get their view on any question which relates to these bodies. When that matter is settled we might see the amendment in a clearer way.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not know whether Deputy Connolly has seen the Bill or not, but the functions of the authority are defined in Section 3. There are eight sub-sections which read:—

(i) to initiate proposals and schemes for the creation and development of Irish industries;

(ii) to survey possibilities of further industrial development;

(iii) to advise on steps necessary and desirable for establishing new industries;

(iv) to advise on steps necessary for the expansion and modernisation of existing industries;

(v) to give advice and guidance to persons contemplating starting new industries or expanding existing industries;

(vi) to investigate the effects of protective measures, with special reference to employment, prices, quality of goods, wage levels and conditions of employment;

(vii) to examine any proposals referred to the authority by the Minister relating to the imposition or revision of tariffs, quotas or other protective or developmental measures, and to investigate the probable effects of such proposals, with special reference to employment, prices, quality of goods, wage levels and conditions of employment, and

(viii) to advise on any matter relating to industrial development referred to the authority by the Minister.

These functions, the Deputy will realise, embrace any aspect of industrial development or any matter which is related to it. The authority is free to investigate on request or on its own initiative any individual concern and inquire not only into matters which the Minister may refer to it but into matters which an individual industry or company wishes to have investigated.

Mr. Lemass

Whether they wish it or not.

Mr. Cosgrave

They are free to investigate on their own initiative or if someone asks them to do it. The Minister can refer a matter to them for special investigation.

Mr. Connolly

That does not meet the point. I am aware of the general functions set out in the abstract and the ideas governing the Industrial Development Authority as such, but what I want to get at is the actual mode of operation. I am founding my question on a case of which I have knowledge in which a particular matter concerning a definite industry was referred by one Department to this authority which, as I understand it, stated that they were not empowered to investigate it, except through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the matter had to go through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, limiting in that way, as I thought, the functions of this body which had been given broad duties and functions under this Bill. I want to know whether it is limited by having first to get a reference to the Minister.

Mr. Cosgrave

They are not limited. Any individual can refer a matter for investigation to the authority. I think the Deputy has some case in mind with regard to another Department. In that case, the Department would refer it to the Minister who, in turn, would ask the Industrial Development Authority to investigate it.

Mr. Connolly

It was the other way about. They referred it to the Industrial Development Authority, in the first instance, who sent it back to the Department, stating that it must come through the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have no knowledge of any Department referring a matter directly to the authority.

Mr. Connolly

That is what I want to clear up.

Captain Cowan

I can see the merit of the amendment, but whether Deputy Lemass is wise in wasting time trying to improve this Bill I do not know. There was a broad conception with regard to this body that it would be a body which would, by its efforts in investigating possibilities and such like, succeed in establishing industries, and, as I gather from the schedule of duties laid down, this authority will be snowed under with all types of little routine matters and will have no time whatever to get down to the big problem of getting industries started. If they do not get industries started and if we do not make provision to enable them to start an industry, we are to a large extent merely wasting time.

The general tendency on the part of Deputies who understand certain difficulties has been, and will be, to make this Dáil supreme, and where you have any statutory authority or undertaking such as has been set up there will be a demand by a number of Deputies that that stautuory authority be subject to this House, through the Minister. I think that is a very wise thing. It has been resisted in the past and it is being resisted at present, but I nevertheless think that this House must have absolute control over these statutory bodies which it sets up. If any authority such as the Industrial Development Authority has the right, or if it can be regarded as having the right, to pry into the affairs of these other bodies, it may spend time on them which could very well be spent on considering the development of industry. They may create a certain amount of discontent. There may be certain objections and the position may well arise in which a very serious conflict might develop between this Industrial Development Authority and one of these statutory bodies. I do not think that is desirable.

This authority ought not to be permitted to have anything to do with the industries or bodies or authorities set up by this House and, secondly, it should be relieved of all these routine matters which are the responsibility of the Minister and which are being thrown on to it and which will have the effect of preventing them doing anything worth while. I should like to see the Bill such that its main and primary function would be to get industry going, and that is its prime and main function, but clearly if we give it other responsibilities, it will be inclined to look after these responsibilities rather than get industry going.

This authority has been in existence for a number of months. I do not know whether anyone will contend that it has not been able to do as much as it might have done because it had not got the statutory authority. I think it was understood that whatever it did would be approved, but this is probably the time when we might know what exactly it has done other than these routine matters to which I have referred. If the House would approach this Bill in that way, on the basis of trying to give this body authority only to do the big things, I think we would have a considerable amount of sympathy with the point of view expressed in the amendment put forward by Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Lemass

It may be true that I am wasting time in trying to improve the Bill, but I feel that I have the obligation to ensure that the House understands what it is doing when it passes the Bill and approves of each section in it. Let this be quite clear, in reply to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and, to some extent, to what Deputy Hickey has said: I have no objection whatever to the Minister having the right to get every detail of information he thinks he should have concerning the activities of these other statutory organisations. The suggestion that I am trying to prevent him getting that information is completely groundless. I am objecting to his seeking that information through this Industrial Development Authority. I think he should seek it by direct approach to the organisations concerned. That has been the practice heretofore and should be the practice in the future. There may be, and I think there is, need for the creation by the Dáil of some machinery for the closer examination of the reports and accounts which these other statutory bodies submit to Ministers from time to time. Deputy Cowan is incorrect in suggesting that that idea had been resisted in the past. It was not resisted.

Captain Cowan

I understand that is so.

Mr. Lemass

No. The matter became one of urgent importance as the number of these statutory bodies increased. When originally there was only the Electricity Supply Board, the annual report of that board was, on occasion, discussed here, and when the number of such bodies was limited that was a practical procedure. But, as they increased in number and in the complexity of their activities, that procedure became impracticable. The Dáil had not time to discuss these reports and accounts as they appeared. The need for the creation of some organ of the Dáil to discharge that duty of the Dáil became clear. I am strongly in favour of that. The question that arises there is not one that concerns this Dáil alone. Deputies who have read the papers know that a proposal on the same question was debated in the British Parliament last week. The same desire exists amongst members there as exists amongst members here to have some effective means of investigating the activities and questioning the policies of these statutory organisations. A procedure was adopted there which I do not think would suit our circumstances. Nevertheless, it would be better than nothing at all.

Neither have I any objection to the Minister for Industry and Commerce having the right to go to the Industrial Development Authority for advice on any question. I instanced the case of the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers to indicate the nature of my objection. It is not that he has gone to the Industrial Development Authority for advice but that, pending the receipt of that advice, he has told the organisation which the Dáil set up to establish that industry to do nothing, and they have done nothing. Deputy Hickey is confused about the industry to which I am referring. The manufacture of superphosphates and phosphatic fertilisers has been conducted in this country for many years by private concerns. We never had an industry here for the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers. It is a large-scale undertaking involving the investment, in present circumstances, of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. In my view, it can only be done by a State organisation. It should only be done by a State organisation because, of necessity, it must be a monopoly concern. We nearly got it established before the war. Difficulties emerged which delayed it and then the war started.

We set out after the war with the idea that this was one of the first of the tasks to be attempted in the industrial development programme and to discharge that task an organisation was set up. I do not say that it was a perfect organisation, but on the board there were people with high qualifications for investigating and organising that industry. There are no people on the Industrial Development Authority who even pretend to have qualifications of that order, and I think it was completely wrong of the Government to take from that specialised body set up for that particular task the duties which were assigned to it by the Dáil and give them to this Industrial Development Authority, the establishment of which the Oireachtas has not yet approved.

However, to come back to the particular point covered by the amendment, it is not good enough, I think, for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that of course the Industrial Development Authority will not annoy the directors of these other boards by interfering unnecessarily in their affairs or that the Minister will not ask them to do so. Deputy Dockrell rose immediately afterwards to put another point of view: that this was going to be a most important function of the Industrial Development Authority, namely, meddling round with the affairs of the Electricity Supply Board, Córas Iompair Éireann and similar organisations. Neither is it sufficient for the Parliamentary Secretary to refer me to the sub-section of Section 4 which says that the members of the authority shall be responsible in the exercise of their duties to the Minister. That either means something entirely different from what the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, or else it is in direct conflict with the assertion in Section 3, that the authority is to be an autonomous body. If that word means anything, it means that it is independent of the Minister in the discharge of these functions. That is clear from the whole text of the Bill. The members of this authority are appointed by name; there are names in the Bill. They are appointed for a stated period of time. They cannot be removed by the Minister during that period of time, assuming they remain capable of discharging the functions of the authority, except for stated misconduct. They are set up as a judge is set up, independent of the Government and of the Minister, to discharge these functions, subject only to this condition, that in the specific matters where the Minister is empowered to ask them to do things they must do them if he directs them.

They can interfere with the affairs of a private company which is benefiting under a protective tariff whether that company asks for their interference or not. They can interfere with the affairs of those statutory organisations whose functions have any relationship with industrial development. Is it not nonsense to say that this is not a super-authority? In the event of a conflict, it can bring the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board and the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann before them on mandate and make them give evidence on oath and send them to jail if they do not. It is unlikely that the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board——

Mr. Hickey

That is an exaggeration.

Mr. Lemass

It is not. Will Deputy Hickey read the provisions of Section 5?

Mr. Cosgrave

Proceedings in connection with offences under the section may be prosecuted by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

What happens if the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board or the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann tells the authority to go for a walk, that they are not going to answer to them for their affairs?

Mr. Cosgrave

Unless the Minister prosecutes, it ends there.

Mr. Lemass

That is a dangerous suggestion. If a person has committed an offence under the law, he is prosecuted at the suit of the Minister, but the Minister has not got, morally anyway, the right to say that he will prosecute some and not prosecute others. It is a rather dangerous suggestion.

Mr. Hickey

I am sure that no one will object to coming before them in the national interest.

Mr. Lemass

If it is not the wish of the Government or the desire of the Dáil that this authority should have these powers and functions in relation to other statutory bodies, then is it not the safe course to put this amendment or some similar amendment into the Bill to limit their functions to private industrial development, concerns that are operated by private individuals, and exclude them altogether from having anything to do with other activities for the discharge of which the Oireachtas has already set up bodies under statute? I think it is and I do not think we should be put off by an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government will not act unreasonably in the matter. It is far better to have the law clear both from the point of view of this House and the point of view of the members of the authority as well as those with whom they will have dealings. That is all I am asking. If it is not intended that the authority should interfere, then say so. If it is intended, I want the House to understand what they are doing.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is a very wide discussion on a comparatively restricted amendment. We have discussed two problems which are entirely separate, one of which is the question of making statutory bodies amenable to the Dáil and having their activities brought under review. That question, Deputy Lemass says, has attracted considerable attention in the British Parliament. Even last week there was a debate there on it. I do not know whether Deputies read the article in the Economist. I think it was headed “Controlling the Giant” and dealt with that problem. But here the situation is very different. Relatively, I suppose, we have probably nearly as many statutory bodies as they have in Great Britain, but one fact about it which has not been generally noticed is that, although the Electricity Supply Board has been established now for over 20 years and the accounts have been laid on the table each year since it was established, there was never a separate discussion on the accounts.

Mr. Lemass

The report was discussed.

Mr. Cosgrave

The report was discussed but the accounts were never discussed. It may be that there were a number of amending Acts in the period and that, consequently, Deputies had an opportunity of discussing different aspects from time to time but, with few exceptions—and possibly only one exception—the report has not been discussed. The accounts are presented. Of course, there have been a number of amending Acts which enable Deputies to raise matters that normally they might have wished to raise on the accounts or on the annual report. The same, probably, goes for a number of statutory bodies. Again, in the case of Bord na Móna or any of the other bodies, amending Acts have probably provided the opportunity, which the Dáil would normally expect to avail of by tabling a motion, to discuss the report or report and accounts. But, from time to time—in fact, on each Order Paper—there are questions dealing with statutory bodies, asking for specific points of information about, probably, matters of local interest or, alternatively, asking for information on major matters.

From time to time discussions have taken place here on the desirability of making these bodies amenable to Parliament and amenable to public discussion both from the point of view of ascertaining how the bodies work and from the point of view of shedding light on their activities. With the exceptions that have been mentioned, it is a remarkable fact that, generally, these bodies have functioned without any number of specific debates on their activities. While Deputies, from time to time, may feel aggrieved with particular aspects of the workings of individual statutory bodies, there is a general recognition that the day-to-day affairs of these bodies—their ordinary day-to-day administration—should not be the subject of continuous surveillance by the Dáil. Certainly, it is felt that, whatever about getting information, the ordinary day-to-day administration is entrusted to whatever number of directors are appointed or whatever from the company may take and that the responsibility for carrying on for a limited period—subject to placing the accounts of the company and presenting an annual report and answering directly to the Dáil—is a matter that should be left to the individuals concerned.

In this amendment it is proposed to exclude the Industrial Development Authority from having the right to inquire into the workings of any of the statutory bodies on the ground that it is undue interference and that they are already charged with specific responsibilities and have defined functions. Again, I want to say that Deputies misinterpret the functions of the Industrial Development Authority. Deputy Lemass instanced the possibility that the members of this body may interfere with or may ask for information which will cause disturbance in a statutory company or which will be an undue interference with their functions. Remember, however, that under this Bill the authority can take no specific decision affecting any of these bodies other than an inquiry into them and that it must report back to the Minister. In fact, the Minister cannot impose a tariff or quota: it must be done by the Government. He can suspend quotas but the actual imposition of a tariff is a matter for the Government. Assuming that the authority does inquire into the working of a statutory undertaking, no specific action on any inquiry they may make may be taken unless the Minister assents to it. If it is protection for an industry, either a tariff or a quota, not only must the Minister assent but the Minister must afterwards get the consent of the Government.

The discussion here is unreal in the sense that the Industrial Development Authority is in no way superimposed on existing statutory corporations and can in no way interfere with their functions. I agree that if the members of the Industrial Development Authority acted in an unreasonable fashion they could be a source of annoyance to the directors of other concerns. However, I do not think it is to be expected that reasonable men will act in that manner and it is unlikely that anyone would expect that they would even have the time to do it.

If this amendment were accepted it would preclude the Minister from having a specific question inquired into by the members of the authority. Consequently, he would not have the advice which he will have available if the authority reports on a particular question referred to it.

Mr. Lemass

That is too bad a case. I shall have to ask for a vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Spring.

Question declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are consequential.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The authority in the exercise of its powers and functions shall be responsible to the Minister.

I feel the Minister is going to refer me to Section 4 (6) which says:—

"The members in the exercise of their duties shall be responsible to the Minister."

I do not pretend to be sufficiently well versed in the legal—

Mr. Cosgrave

Phraseology.

Mr. Lemass

In the intricacies of legal interpretation to know whether both sub-sections mean the same thing, but I do not think they do. I read Section 4 (6), both in the context of the section and in its wording, to refer to individual members and to place on them an obligation to do the work for which they are being paid. That, however, is a very different purpose from what I have in mind. I want to make the authority, as such, responsible to the Minister.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think it makes any great difference, and if it will help the Deputy I will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I think it is on Section 2 that we might try to clear up some of the ambiguities of the Bill which have already caused some trouble to Deputy Connolly. It is true that in Section 3 the authority is described as an autonomous body. This is the section which sets it up, and it is on this section that we should try to ascertain the Government's view as to the form the authority should take. I interpret the term, "autonomous body," as meaning a body that is able to function independently of the Minister or the Government.

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted amendment No. 4 improves the position to my mind, but it still leaves it ambiguous if it is intended to keep in Section 3 the term "autonomous body." The Dáil is aware of the feeling that exists amongst Deputies on this side of the House that this Industrial Development Authority may turn out to be the old Tariff Commission dressed up, and nothing that has been said yet by the Parliamentary Secretary has removed that feeling.

The Cumann na nGaedheal Government set up the Tariff Commission with the obligation of investigating, as a court would investigate, applications for the imposition of customs duties for protective purposes. That commission reported to the Government following each investigation. It was a procedure which imposed interminable delay on every attempt to promote industrial development of any kind and led inevitably to the abandonment of many industrial projects which might have proceeded if there had been a more encouraging attitude on the part of the Government of the time, or if these prolonged investigations of relevant and irrelevant matters relating to the industry or company concerned were not carried out. If it is intended that this Industrial Development Authority shall undertake on its own initiative prolonged investigations of that kind, either in relation to tariff applications or the operation of tariffs, then I think there should be some power given to the Minister to check it, because it can do very considerable harm.

May I say that I learned that by experience? The first Prices Commission set up by the Act of 1933 could and did function independently of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I must record my disgust when I found it had occupied a very long period of time, after it came into operation, investigating the price charged for a commodity that was not subject to protection at all and that was being sold by an Irish concern in competition with the world. That concern was making profits and it was this fact that attracted the attention of the Prices Commission. Where there were industries that might have been taking an unfair advantage of the protection afforded them I thought it was a waste of time to be inquiring about a commodity that was not protected. When the Prices Commission Act was amended there was a different procedure followed.

I fear what this Industrial Development Authority, as an autonomous body able to function in these matters independently of the Minister, able to defy the Minister when he expresses a desire that they should not do it, might do in the way of slowing down industrial development, and I think the Minister should have power generally to supervise their activities. They should not be autonomous in the ordinary meaning of that term. They should investigate only matters that he thinks are worth investigating and nothing else.

The body established by this legislation will be in a strong position. The members of it are not merely people who are appointed by the Minister and who are removable by the Minister. The proposal is that they will be appointed by the Dáil and they are named in the Bill. It will be an Act of the Oireachtas that will give them their position. They cannot be removed by the Minister except for stated misconduct or incapacity. They will hold office to a date in 1954, a date named in the Bill, and if any of them chooses to use that appointment over that period of time for purposes that would be regarded by the Minister as a waste of their time or harmful in their consequences, he cannot do anything about it, because the exercise of the power given by the Bill could not, in any circumstances, be described as stated misconduct. Is it intended that this Industrial Development Authority will be an instrument of the Minister or is it intended, like the Supreme Court or the High Court, to be an independent authority which can function independently even against the Government's wishes?

Mr. Cosgrave

As I said earlier, this authority will be responsible to the Minister in the exercise of its functions. The amendment which was accepted just now makes assurance doubly sure. It provides that this body will be responsible and answerable as a unit or body, as distinct from individual members, to the Minister. The reason for making this body an autonomous body is to give it freedom from normal Civil Service procedure and practice to regulate its procedure, to undertake investigations and to make inquiries free from the ordinary restrictions which we associate with Civil Service procedure.

I think Deputies recognise that for the particular work for which this body has been set up it is essential it should have that freedom and that liberty of action. Deputy Lemass mentioned that it might be comparable to the old Tariff Commission, which was regarded as rather slow and which took some time to make recommendations and caused what appeared to be unnecessary delay. In introducing the Prices and Efficiency Bill in 1947, Deputy Lemass provided that a number of factors would be taken into consideration by the commission or body set up in relation to tariffs and price protection generally and the effect on public economy. It would review existing tariffs. The Tariff Commission examined proposals initially and tried to gauge their effect and consequently the procedure was a slow one, but I think there is a general recognition that the functions and duties defined in Section 3 of the Bill are defined in the manner in which the Dáil wishes and in the manner in which public opinion desires, in order to give effective protection generally regarding prices charged to the community. In order to see how protection works and whether the rate is unduly high or not, or whether there is some element which should be taken into consideration, it is necessary that a body of this sort should investigate it.

If the body is to function effectively it should be free and autonomous. That is necessary in order to carry out properly and efficiently the responsibilities and the defined functions under Section 3. The body is responsible to the Minister and the Minister is responsible to the Dáil, so there is no question of it functioning in any way which might be regarded as inconsistent with national policy or with economic policy as laid down from time to time by the Government or by Parliament. From every point of view, it is desirable that the autonomy which this body has under this Bill should be retained and, consequently, I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of historical fact, the proposal I made in the Prices and Industrial Efficiency Bill of 1947 provided for the independence of the commission only in respect of prices.

Mr. Cosgrave

But it empowered them to take into consideration the rate of protection in deciding whether the price was reasonable or otherwise.

Mr. Lemass

But if it wanted to go further than that and investigate the efficiency with which the industry was carried on, it had to get ministerial authority before starting and the Minister could do nothing until he brought in a report to the Dáil.

Mr. Cosgrave

Surely one follows the other? Inefficiency may be the cause of high prices.

Mr. Lemass

It is, generally—and the only cause in which I was interested.

Captain Cowan

I certainly would agree that the board should not be subject to Civil Service control—I think we all agree on that—in other words, that it would not have all the kinds of queries about procedure coming in from the Department of Industry and Commerce. At the same time, the word "autonomous" has two interpretations—one from Deputy Lemass and one from the Parliamentary Secretary —and the question is as to which interpretation it will get in practice. If they are to be autonomous in regard to control of their own procedure, I do not see any objection; but if it means that for the period of their appointment they can do whatever they like it would be a serious matter. Perhaps between now and the Report Stage the Parliamentary Secretary would consider that particular aspect of interpretation. I am quite sure it would be no desire of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary that this board would not be subject to him and through him to the Dáil except in so far as their actual procedure and their method of operation would be concerned. Certainly, as regards the responsibilities, there ought to be no doubt whatever about it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think there is any necessity to consider it. In case there was any doubt about it, the previous amendment by Deputy Lemass provides that the authority in the exercise of its powers and functions shall be responsible to the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

Nevertheless, in support of what Deputy Cowan was saying, I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary for his consideration that the case he has just made shows that it is really a fake, that the Industrial Development Authority will in practice have to act in consultation with the Minister, in accordance with procedure of which he approves, and that their main function would be to report to him, since action can follow only on submission of the report. He does not really mean that the body is going to be autonomous but rather that it is not going to be subject to ministerial control in the matter of procedure.

Captain Cowan

In other words, they will not have to come in at 9.30 every morning?

Mr. Lemass

Exactly. They will not have to punch a clock.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 2, line 23, sub-paragraph (i) to insert before the word "for" the words "for submission to the Minister."

These are drafting amendments. As they stand, the various paragraphs appear to be rather meaningless. I see no point in saying that the authority shall "initiate proposals and schemes for the creation and development of Irish industries." It may be initiating proposals and schemes from this until doomsday and nothing may happen. The thing that matters is that, having initiated them, they should make a definite and positive recommendation to the Minister to take some action.

Mr. Cosgrave

One of these amendments inserts the words "at the request of the Minister."

Mr. Lemass

That is a different one —in the case of advising private industrialists.

Mr. Cosgrave

If a private industrialist wants to get advice, he should be able to go to the authority without being requested by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I did not mean it in that way. I meant that the Industrial Development Authority should not have the power to offer advice where it was not asked, but they should have the right to advise private industrialists on matters affecting the industry where the private industrialist requested them to do so.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think these amendments are necessary, in view of the earlier amendment and also in view of sub-section (6) of Section 4.

Mr. Lemass

I was merely trying to improve the drafting of the Bill, which is very loose. I will be satisfied with asking the Parliamentary Secretary to get the draftsman to look into it. These paragraphs seem to be up in the air and do not contemplate anything happening.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will have a look at it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 2, line 31, to insert before the word "advice" the words "on request."

There is a different point involved here. I regard it as important that it should be clear that the authority will give advice to private firms on the steps necessary for the expansion or modernisation of their industry only where private firms are willing to accept that advice. I think it would lead to a great deal of friction if the members of the authority could go down to some private firm, which had no desire to have any talk whatsoever with them, and start advising that firm as to how to run its business. Remember, people can start industries here without going to the Industrial Development Authority, the Department of Industry and Commerce or any Government Department. There is no law in the Statute Book which says that nobody can start an industry. They go then to the Department of Industry and Commerce or to the Industrial Development Authority only if they want protection, Government assistance in procuring raw materials, or some other form of Government aid or, perhaps, if they require a building licence.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the amendment is an improvement.

Mr. Lemass

And if anybody requires help, then the Government has power to give it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the amendment would be an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I shall examine amendments Nos. 11 and 12 between this and the Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 13:—

Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

When the authority reports to the Minister on the effects of protective measures, the Government shall not remove, suspend or amend any customs duty or restriction on importation, to which such report refers, until the said report has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

I regard this amendment as an important one. This Industrial Development Authority will have the function of investigating the effect of protective measures with special reference to employment, prices, quality, wage levels, etc. Presumably, if an investigation shows that there is something unsatisfactory in any industry in relation to these matters, the Minister will take action to remedy the position. As matters stand now, the only effective sanction the Minister has is to withdraw, or threaten to withdraw, or reduce, the protection given by law. That was my difficulty on various occasions when considering this question of controlling protected industries because this is a sanction which can rarely be used. If a particular concern, or a number of concerns, engaged in some industry are not functioning satisfactorily, if their goods are of poor quality, their prices unduly high, their conditions of employment and level of wages unduly low, it does not remedy anything to withdraw the protection which brought the industry into being. That not merely punishes efficient firms just as much as the inefficient ones, but it certainly is no remedy for the unsatisfactory conditions so far as the employees are concerned and not even, in my view, so far as the public is concerned.

The purpose I had in mind in framing the Industrial Efficiency and Prices Act was to devise alternative sanctions, methods that could be applied in order to force efficiency upon industries which were found to be inefficient and methods which did not involve wiping out an industry altogether. I do not want to discuss that particular measure now, but I did recognise then, and I think the Dáil should accept now, that if the authority has carried out an investigation into the conditions in any industry and reported to the Minister that the industry is badly managed or organised and producing goods of poor quality or at unduly high prices and the Minister feels he must do something about it, that he should not do anything in the way of removing protective duties or reducing the measure of protection afforded without giving the Dáil an opportunity of seeing the report submitted to him by the authority. That is what the Industrial Efficiency and Prices Bill, 1947, proposed.

The Minister was given drastic powers to handle such cases, powers which were attacked here and outside because of their particular character, but powers which he could not begin to use until he had published to the Dáil the report he had received which, in his view, justified the use of such powers.

The purpose of my amendment is to establish a similar procedure in relation to this Bill. I seek to get the Dáil to accept that if there is a report made by this Industrial Development Authority to the Minister under sub-section (6) of Section 3 and if, as a result of that report, the Government decides to remove, suspend or amend any customs duty or other restriction on importation, that, before doing so, it should publish to the Dáil the report upon which it is acting.

Mr. Cosgrave

I cannot accept this amendment because I think it must be obvious to the House that, if the Government is to take action quickly in, for instance, a case of dumping or for any other reason, then patently an opportunity of forestalling such action would be afforded by the publication of the report by laying it on the Table of the House. If the Dáil happened to be in Recess, widespread efforts could be made to counteract the effect of any action the Government might take. Most amendments in the past and at the present time are for the purpose of increasing the rate of tariff. Even if the Government wished to reduce the rate or alter the size of a quota, if advance publicity is given to that immediate steps can be taken to stock up or defeat in some other way the effects of whatever decision the Government may take. One of the problems at any time is that, if there is a suggestion that protection will be introduced, immediate steps are taken to stock up or in some way to avail of the existing situation to defeat or delay the effect sought to be created by the imposition of a tariff. If publicity is given in a matter of this kind by laying on the Table of the Dáil the report furnished to the Government that will inevitably retard the effectiveness of any Government decision. The Industrial Efficiency and Prices Act did lay down the procedure under which reports would be presented to the Dáil but up to the present all protective measures have for their effectiveness rested in most cases on the rapidity with which a decision can be taken and put into effect.

If at any time there is a suggestion that protection is to be afforded or any alteration made in the existing rate of protection, then the effects can be nullified by rapid action on the part of those people who are prepared to take a chance. If this amendment were accepted, it would restrict the powers of the Government to take action quickly and, consequently, effectively. I do not see any reason why any particular decision based on a report from the Industrial Development Authority should be presented to the House any more than a normal decision taken by the Minister on the basis of the advice available to him.

Captain Cowan

I certainly would resist this amendment for the reasons stated by the Parliamentary Secretary. We place responsibility on the Government and the effectiveness of Government action depends entirely on the speed with which that action is taken. In the public interest it is essential that the Government should act speedily and effectively. If that is not done, the effectiveness is nullified. In the ordinary way I would contend for Dáil control but, after all, we can have control in this matter by taking advantage of those methods by which a particular decision can be brought up for discussion and review here. It is the type of thing that, in the public interest, must be dealt with speedily and quickly. The bringing of a report before the Dáil, which could be debated here, would, I think, defeat, probably, very good recommendations that might be made to the Government. To a large extent that course would hamstring the Government. If we hold the Government responsible in these matters, as we must, then I think we cannot interfere with it in the proper exercise of its responsibilities. For these reasons I could not support the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I have no desire whatever to deprive the Government of the power to impose customs duties or to increase customs duties speedily without any previous notification to the Dáil or to anybody else. I was I think responsible for pressing on the previous Government the necessity for legislation giving that power. In reading over my amendment again, I realise that it does not quite express fully the idea I had in mind when preparing it. What I am anxious to ensure is that the Government will not remove, suspend or reduce customs' duties speedily without giving the Dáil an opportunity of examining the justification for their action, on a report from the Industrial Development Authority that it is a desirable step to take to penalise some industry for its inefficiency. This is a situation which may never arise. On the other hand, we have seen a member of the Government attacking a particular industry last week, the tanning industry, in public. Under a normal Government that speech would be taken by the public as indicating the intention of the Government to take some action in relation to the tanning industry, at least of asking this Industrial Development Authority to look into it. If the speech is any indication of what the investigation might result in, then we must conceive the possibility of a report from the Industrial Development Authority to the Minister recommending that the protection which that industry at present enjoys should be removed.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if such a recommendation comes from the authority to the Government, a recommendation that a particular industry benefiting by protection is not efficient, that it is producing goods which are in the opinion of the authority not of sufficiently good quality or are too dear and that it should be wiped out by the withdrawal of the protection which created it, then I want the Dáil to have an opportunity of considering it before the Government takes action. Whatever case there is for speed when the imposition of duties or the increase of duties is involved, there is not anything like the same case for it where their removal is concerned, and particularly their removal as a form of penalty upon those who previously benefited under a duty.

It has often been suggested here that some of the industries which were established in consequence of the imposition of protective tariffs had not developed as fully as was anticipated at the time or had not developed on the right lines, and that we should wipe them out and start again. I must say that, on occasion, I was often tempted to consider that course when representations of a verbal kind to those directing the industries did not produce the increase in efficiency or the increase in output or employment which had been deemed practicable. That course was, however, precluded by the realisation that such a step would involve putting a number of people out of employment and might indirectly hit other industrialists who were not to blame for the conditions that it was sought to remedy.

I do not think the Government is going far enough at all in this Bill to take powers to enforce efficiency in industry or to supervise the development of industries which are benefiting from protection, or to insist upon them utilising in full the opportunities which are there for them. But, if they were proposing to go further, then they would have to consider again the problem that I considered in 1947—the alternative methods of making their will effective. The only method open to them now is to withdraw or reduce the protective tariffs, and it is only when they decide to take that course that I intend to ask that the Dáil should be given the opportunity of considering their justification for it by seeing the report from the Industrial Development Authority which led to their decision.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 14:—

Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The authority shall not exercise any function in relation to

(a) the administration of the Control of Manufactures Acts;

(b) the administration of the Control of Imports Act;

(c) the administration of the Trade Loan (Guarantee) Acts;

(d) the granting of licences for the importation free of customs duty of dutiable goods;

(e) any other power or duty conferred on the Minister by statute,

unless a resolution approving of the giving of such function to the authority has been passed by Dáil Éireann.

(2) A resolution under the preceding sub-section of the section shall be effective for a period of one year and no longer, and at the end of that time the authority shall cease to have the function to which the resolution referred, unless and until another similar resolution is passed by Dáil Éireann.

The question which arises on this amendment is one, I think, of very considerable importance, one that came to the knowledge of the House only when the Minister made his speech proposing that the Bill should get a Second Reading. When the Government first established the Industrial Development Authority, and when the Bill was circulated, it seemed to be a straightforward proposition—more or less straightforward—to set up a board to investigate industrial possibilities and make recommendations to the Government concerning them. Subsequently, however, we learned that the Minister proposed to transfer to this board many of the administrative functions previously exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce under the authority of other Acts. In fact, we know that the Industrial Development Authority, even in advance of the passage of this Bill, has already been exercising these functions. What are these functions? They are functions under the Control of Manufactures Acts, under the Control of Imports Act, under the Trade Loan (Guarantee) Acts and under various Finance Acts, under which the Minister is empowered to grant licences for the duty-free importation of goods, and possibly under other Acts as well. That decision of the Government to leave the effective administration of these Acts to the Industrial Development Authority has been tried out in practice.

We are discussing this Bill in rather unusual circumstances. It is a Bill which proposes to authorise the establishment of an authority which was in fact set up 18 months ago, and which has been functioning ever since. Not merely can the Minister, but individual Deputies and citizens also, judge the desirability of leaving to this authority the administrative functions to which I have referred, administrative functions which were formerly exercised by officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am in this position that, when framing this amendment, I had intended to put in separate amendments to cover each of the five paragraphs so that we could have a separate discussion on them, but the amendment appears in this form, and I leave it at that.

I think the Industrial Development Authority could act in lieu of the advisory committees that functioned under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts. I withdraw any objections which appear to be implied in this amendment to the Industrial Development Authority replacing the advisory committees under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts. There is no point in having the two committees doing the same job, but I hope the functions of the authority under the Act are limited to the functions previously exercised by the advisory committees. A recommendation from the committee for a trade loan has not merely to secure the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce; it has also to secure the approval of the Minister for Finance. Though the Minister for Industry and Commerce may be prepared to act blindly on a recommendation of the authority, I doubt if he could bring the Department of Finance that far. Where it comes, however, to other questions which intimately affect the business of individual citizens, I think it is not good enough to have these matters passed over to a non-official body such as this. In the course of the past few days, I met some traders who went along to the Department of Industry and Commerce in Kildare Street last week for consultations which they intended to have with representatives of the Minister for Industry and Commerce relating to a quota Order. The question of fixing a new quota was under consideration and both the importers and the manufacturers were anxious to discuss the matter with the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They went to the building in Kildare Street and they met an official of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but before the proceedings started, the official of the Department told them that he was not there as an official of the Department, that he was there as a representative of the Industrial Development Authority, that the Industrial Development Authority was not an official body and that the only thing he could do was to make a report to the Industrial Development Authority following the discussion. Apparently what happens is that the Industrial Development Authority, having considered that report, themselves make a recommendation back to the Department which that official presumably takes to the Minister and gets him to approve of it.

I have seen to-day a circular issued to a number of traders telling them that they will recommend the issue of duty free licences for the importation of nylons before the 1st February if they cost more than 70/- a dozen. There is inevitably a doubt in the minds of the traders who received that circular as to where precisely they stand. Is it the situation that recommendations from this authority are accepted by the Minister? The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.

Mr. Cosgrave

I said "No."

Mr. Lemass

They are not accepted. Therefore the position is that the individual trader who wants a licence to import goods free of duty, who wants some alteration in a control of imports Order or some other change, has an opportunity of arguing his case for it only to the authority, and he is left under the impression that what the authority recommends will happen. While I cannot say that I know of any case where a course recommended by the authority was rejected by the Minister, I know of many cases where the authority gave people to understand that they did make a recommendation on which no action was taken. I gather the position apparently was that if the Minister disagreed with the authority's recommendation, he either left the matter standing on his desk or sent it back to the authority to have another look at it, leading to further delay with inevitably adverse consequences on the business of the persons concerned.

This amendment is proposed first of all on the grounds of administrative efficiency. It is unsatisfactory from an administrative point of view that this change should be made. It is undesirable from the point of view of traders who are naturally concerned with the way in which the powers of the Minister under these various Acts are exercised. There is a further reason than that. For many years the power of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to grant duty free import licences was the subject of debate in the Dáil, and, not infrequently, of rather discreditable misrepresentation in the Dáil, but there was always the answer made to those who queried the use of these powers, that the Minister was responsible for every individual act of his to the Dáil.

He had to come to the Dáil, give full information as to the manner in which he exercised his powers, and be prepared to defend every single licence issued by him if the propriety of his action were questioned here. Now we are apparently putting between the Minister and the Dáil this Industrial Development Authority because it will always be open to the Minister, if his actions are questioned here, to defend himself on the ground that the course he took was recommended by the Industrial Development Authority.

I do not think that is good enough nor do I think it is good enough that the particular method of procedure, of which the Dáil approved when passing these Acts, should be warped in this manner so that an alternative method, not contemplated by the Dáil at the time, is now in operation. Where the question of issuing duty free licences arises there is some element of discrimination possible. Normally it is a limited element. The Minister announces, or makes known through the trade channels concerned, that duty free licences for certain goods will be available and that everybody who applies for them will get them, or that licences up to a certain quantity are available and will be distributed amongst applicants on some rationing basis. If the Minister goes further and issues in certain circumstances a licence to one individual, then the name of that individual and the particulars of the licence must be placed on the Table of the Dáil. All that procedure was established because it was recognised that where there was the power of discrimination between individuals and a power of individual decision given to the Minister, there was also the danger of a mistake, or an abuse or, at any rate, the danger that suspicion would be associated with it. It is not good enough in my view for the Industrial Development Authority to decide that they are prepared to recommend, for example, licences to import nylons duty free from now until February next if the traders who are invited to make applications for these duty free licences do not know at the time they make them whether the Minister is going to accept the Industrial Development Authority's recommendation or not. It would be an entirely different proposition if a circular went out from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell traders that he would give these licences in certain circumstances to certain traders. The element of uncertainty and doubt which now exists and which must continue to exist when administration is done at secondhand through the Industrial Development Authority is very undesirable. That applies both to the Control of Imports Acts and to the duties imposed by the various Finance Acts which admit of duty free licences.

I want Deputies to notice particularly the intention of the Minister to transfer to the Industrial Development Authority his functions under the Control of Manufactures Acts. The Control of Manufactures Acts were a necessary corollary of the industrial development policy. They were intended to ensure that the imposition of tariffs by the Irish Government to promote industrial development would not merely result in the creation here of branch factories of British concerns, limited in scope, which would disappear if the protection which created them were withdrawn. In order to minimise that risk, a risk which was peculiar to this country being alongside a great industrial State with which we had had intimate industrial relations over a long number of years, it was decided to insist that except in exceptional circumstances all industrial development would be under the control of companies owned and in the main managed by Irish citizens. That was a limiting policy. No doubt if we had not decided on that policy we could have got a larger number of factories established more quickly but on a far less secure basis. In passing that Act the Dáil with reluctance gave the Minister power to exempt certain companies from the obligation to be Irish-owned and Irish-controlled by authorising him to issue Control of Manufactures Act licences—subject to a whole series of conditions which were set out by that Act—in specific cases. I think that that is a matter of Government policy —the extent to which these powers are used. I think that the Dáil should object strongly to the Minister's farming out his functions under that Act to any body, to any autonomous body such as it is proposed to set up here with which the Dáil has not got intimate contact.

There is another function of the Minister's under the Control of Manufactures Act in which Deputy McQuillan may be particularly interested. One of the problems which we had to consider in our day when we were promoting industrial development was the likelihood that industrial development would in the main be concentrated around east coast towns and that if we were to get industrial concerns interested in establishing factories in the West of Ireland we would have to take special powers to ensure it. We took special powers to guarantee to anybody who started a new industry with our approval in the West of Ireland that he would not be subsequently subjected to competition from another concern starting up in Dublin or in Cork or in some more convenient centre. That power of giving reserved commodity licences to persons engaging in industries in the West of Ireland was not very extensively used. The first time it was used was for the purpose of assisting a thread factory in Westport and I invite Deputy McQuillan to read the debates of the Dáil over a long period of years following the establishment of that factory during which the Government was criticised, abused and misrepresented because of the limiting effect of the exercise of these powers upon competition in that industry or any other industry established under that section of the Control of Manufactures Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

There was a tie-up in that case with an outside firm.

Mr. Lemass

No there was not. Quite the contrary. It was because an outside monopoly was anxious to establish itself here the campaign occurred.

Mr. Cosgrave

There are English directors.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. There may be, but it is an Irish company. It was not necessary to get a control of manufactures licence of the ordinary kind. Do not have any doubt; it was the well-known monopoly in England that was largely responsible for a lot of the things said and done in the Dáil. I do not say that those who said them and did them were not responsible but they got their information from that source.

Mr. Cosgrave

It might not have been too far wrong.

Mr. Lemass

So much public agitation followed that attempt to induce industries into the West of Ireland that the Government was naturally reluctant to use its powers for that purpose in other cases, yet here we have a proposal that that particular power, the exercise of which was so criticised before the war, should pass from the Minister to this body which is not responsible to the Dáil and which is not even under an obligation to report to the Dáil if it uses these powers. I do not think that that is desirable. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer will be that whatever is done in the long run will be done on the authority of the Minister. That is true, but both from the point of view of administrative efficiency and convenience and from the point of view of helping traders and manufacturers to know precisely where they stand, particularly in relation to the importation of goods and other matters to which I referred —I am thinking particularly of the special powers given to the Minister under the Control of Manufactures Act—it would be far better if things were handled by the Minister's own officials and the Department of Industry and Commerce. In that way people dealing with these officials would know that they were speaking at first hand to the Minister's representatives and that whatever decision was conveyed through them was a final decision which would be implemented. I am quite certain that if the Parliamentary Secretary consults with any of the trade organisations which have been compelled to deal with these questions of the control of imports and regulations as to customs duties in a roundabout manner in the present year since the Industrial Development Authority was created, and if he gets their opinion on the practice they will easily convince him that it is a bad practice and that it should be removed.

Furthermore—and this objection will, I think, appeal to Deputy Captain Cowan—inevitably the day-to-day administrative work given to the Industrial Development Authority under the Acts is so heavy that they have no time to do anything else, and a large part of the failure of the Industrial Development Authority to produce more decisive results in the general industrial field in the very favourable circumstances now existing is because they are cluttered up with questions such as whether nylons should be imported, how many and at what price between now and the 1st February. Surely there are competent officials in the Department of Industry and Commerce who could deal with these matters without bringing this highly paid body into consultation.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely this body operates in the same way as the Department over which the Deputy had charge operates.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know whether that is true or not.

Mr. Sweetman

No board would get down to minor details like that if they had any idea of their functions.

Mr. Lemass

That is a question which was raised in the Dáil by Deputy Lehane. He asked if the members of the Industrial Development Authority could divide their functions amongst themselves so that one individual member would be responsible for the discharge of one set of functions and another member would be responsible for the discharge of another set. I believe that that is so. At least it is well known that if you want to deal with duty-free licences for goods that are otherwise subject to a customs duty you go to one member, and that if you want to deal with quotas you go to another member, but that was denied by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister, and as the Bill stands there is no such power to divide their functions between the members of the Industrial Development Authority. It is the Industrial Development Authority as such that must act, and we must assume therefore when we are dealing with importations of nylons, quotas for hats or anything else that it is the Industrial Development Authority which meets and discusses them. Because it is meeting and discussing these matters which could be handled more expeditiously and efficiently by officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce—if nothing else from the Minister's own point of view—it was a mistake to have farmed out his functions. I am quite certain that it was not the original intention to farm out his functions. It was an afterthought, and so perhaps they will think further about it. If, as I have said, they consult with traders affected by the change before they do their further thinking, they will have little difficulty in making up their minds to go back to the better arrangement which previously existed.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think Deputy Lemass has built up a case which has not got a great deal of foundation in fact. First, the administration of the Control of Manufactures Act is a function exercised by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary or whoever else is in charge, and as the Deputy is well aware, there were in his day a number of applications per week which had to be dealt with and which had to be referred to the Minister for decision as to whether a particular individual or concern was to be granted a licence under that Act or not. The decision in all these cases is taken by the Minister or by whomsoever is functioning on his behalf. It is, however, either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. In present circumstances, numerous similar applications are dealt with in the course of a week, and maybe a few in a single day sometimes. There is no change whatever in the procedure of dealing with these applications.

I hope that Deputy McQuillan will not be misled into the belief that the exercise of these functions in some way confers particular benefits on the West of Ireland. It may be that some competitive concern anxious to establish itself in the West in the particular circumstances in which the Westport Thread Company was set up was refused a manufacture licence. That particular company was given a reserved commodity licence, but, in general, there are no powers available at present under statute, and were none at any time in the past, which would enable the Government to direct the establishment of factories in any part of the country.

Mr. Lemass

They can only induce them.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is so, and I hope that Deputy McQuillan will not be under any illusion about it. Similarly with the Control of Imports Act, duty-free licences are granted by the Minister. In practice, a great number of functions are carried out under the duty-free section by officials who act in the name of the Minister. That is essential.

Experience shows that over a number of years in any Government Department a number of functions are carried out by the particular Minister responsible, but, in effect and in practice, general policy is laid down, and, subject to compliance with general policy, a number of individuals carry out these functions. If difficulties arise, or if at any time trade organisations wish to make representations, they make them, in the first instance, to officials and, if necessary, then, direct to the Minister. That is the practice which has operated since the establishment of the State and I think it is a practice common to other countries as well, so that there is nothing remarkable in these duties being carried out by officials of the particular section concerned.

The fact that at present some of these functions to which the Deputy has referred are carried out by officials who are under the Industrial Development Authority is, I think, nothing unusual. It may be that, for precise purposes, the authority should delegate particular duties to the staff, but in effect these various functions, either under the Control of Manufactures Act or the Control of Imports Act in relation to the granting of duty-free licences, are all part of the protection machine which is designed to assist industry. It is probably a reflection on the general working of the machine that so many duty-free licences have to be issued. They are useful for precise cases and the advantage of the issue of a duty-free licence quickly and at a particular time is obvious. But generally, the fact that so many such licences have to be issued for such a wide variety of commodities is, in itself, a criticism of the effect of protection, either because manufacturers here are not able to supply the market or alternatively because people under the protection may be taking advantage of the particular rate of protection operating for a specific article or range of goods.

With regard to trade loans, the Deputy withdrew any objection with regard to the system under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts working reasonably well and the Industrial Development Authority can function as a committee in the same manner as ad hoc committees functioned in the past. All these functions mentioned, however, are nominally, if not in fact, carried out by the Minister. The practice has been, and I suppose will be in the future, because of the administrative difficulty and impossibility of the Minister issuing the licences personally, to have them carried out and issued by staff in some section of the Department. The fact that at the moment the staff of the Industrial Development Authority are dealing with it is due to the general system under which protection is administered and the responsibility which this body has for protection and looking into the whole question of industry and its development, and I think it only reasonable that these different parts of the protection machine should be administered under that body; but to say that, when the traders were in the Department, they were told they were visiting the offices of the Industrial Development Authority or that it was that body which was dealing with the matter is an exaggeration of the effect or influence which the authority might have on the traders concerned. In the past, before this authority was set up, these traders would visit the Department and be interviewed possibly by the same officials—and, in the main, the same officials are still dealing with it—and subsequently, whatever decision was taken was taken by the Minister. At present, they still visit the Department. The section concerned is under the Industrial Development Authority and whatever decision is taken is taken by the Minister.

Captain Cowan

I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not make some reference to the Industrial Development Authority's staff position. I take it that, with all the functions it has to carry out and all the responsibilities placed on it, it must have a staff. Whether a section of the Department of Industry and Commerce has been handed over to it as staff or not, I do not know.

Mr. Cosgrave

More than a section— several sections.

Captain Cowan

I should like to know whether, from the ordinary point of view, this will represent an added expense or a reduction in expenses. I take it there will be some addition to the expenses because of this Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Cosgrave

There will be an increased staff for the Industrial Development Authority but, as the Deputy is probably aware, there have been some considerable retrenchments in other section of the Department.

Captain Cowan

However, that is only part of the question. I certainly agree with Deputy Lemass, and I have already expressed the view that, unless this Industrial Development Authority is left free to deal with major matters, the purpose for which it was established will not be achieved. It is the general feeling that the authority is snowed under with the consideration of matters that were entirely routine matters in the Department of Industry and Commerce and that, consequently, they are not in a position to deal with important matters. If it is correct that they have divided the responsibility amongst themselves and that one member takes on one particular line and another another and so on, that is not in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, nor is it in accordance with statements made when this authority was first authorised. They are to act as a unit and they have no right, for the purpose of overtaking or overcoming the heavy work thrust upon them, to divide up the duties and responsibilities amongst themselves. If the authority will realise that they have no authority to act in an independent capacity and that they must act as an authority——

Mr. Cosgrave

The members can function independently for different aspects, but the authority functions as a unit. Any recommendation is a recommendation of the authority. For different aspects of the work, the authority are free to allocate it amongst the members.

Captain Cowan

I did not understand that when the authority were set up or even under this Bill I did not understand that it is permissible for them to divide up the duties and responsibilities amongst themselves because, if that were so, it would mean that an individual would be acting in respect of certain matters and that the authority might agree among themselves that whatever the individual member, in respect of the duties allocated to him, might decide, would be the decision of the authority.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Captain Cowan

As I said, I feel that a division of responsibility amongst members would be a very undesirable thing, because there is the danger that the authority would adopt as an authority decision the decision of an individual member without examination. I would consider that to be a very objectionable feature. Clearly, as far as the public are concerned, the public have the right to go to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and it is the Minister's responsibility if he transmits to this authority certain matters for consideration by them. But I think it would be wrong in the first instance for the Minister's Department to suggest to a citizen that he should go and have a discussion with the authority. I think he ought to make his case to the Minister, the Minister refer it to the authority, receive advice from the authority and come to his decision. Before he comes to that decision, however, the individual citizen ought to have the right to discuss the matter with the Minister or his representative. That is vital, and it is vital also from the point of view of parliamentary control that the matter should be operated in that fashion. I certainly agree that the Authority ought to be free from a number of these routine matters that will prevent them from dealing with the major matter of starting industry. I gathered from Deputy Lemass that private traders recently received licences to import signed by the Industrial Development Authority or by a member.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that. I said they got a circular from the authority saying that they would recommend licences.

Captain Cowan

A statement from the authority saying that they would recommend licences. I think that is undesirable, because the responsibility is on the Minister and, if the authority makes a recommendation, that recommendation should go to the Minister. It puts the Minister in an embarrassing position if the authority will send out to certain people a circular saying they will recommend and then the Minister may not accept that recommendation. That is an objectionable way of doing the thing and I do not think the authority should have that right under any circumstances. The question as to whether nylons should be imported at 70/- a dozen is a matter for another day. I do not think, however, that it is right that this authority should communicate with the public telling the public of recommendations they are going to make to the Minister.

Mr. Hickey

That is so.

Captain Cowan

Apparently that is so.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should be glad to see the circular.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Lemass has said that he has seen it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I hope the Deputy is not confusing the intimation to a trade organisation that the Minister is recommending a duty free licence. Under that system the recommendation is made to the Revenue Commissioners and they issue it. The Deputy may be confusing the recommendation which the Minister makes to the Revenue Commissioners. In practice, of course, once a recommendation is made it is acted upon but there is a distinction between a recommendation to the Revenue Commissioners and any recommendation that the authority themselves may make to the Minister.

Captain Cowan

I took Deputy Lemass as stating that this circular was issued by the authority stating that the authority was recommending a free import licence for so many hundred dozen, or whatever it may be, of nylons at a price of not less than 70/- a dozen. Clearly, that is something that the Industrial Development Authority ought not to do. That procedure would be entirely wrong. Perhaps, now that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard about it he will inquire into it and will certainly not permit it to happen in the future.

Briefly, I want to see this Industrial Development Authority free from the clutter of routine work that is being thrown on it, so that it will be free to create and set industries going. If it does not bring about the establishment of additional industries in this country, then it were better it were never established at all.

Mr. Connolly

I think we are all at one with Deputy Cowan in his desire to see that the Industrial Development Authority exercises its primary function, its function as commonly understood by the people generally. This amendment 14, however, has a restrictive force which would to some extent reduce the activity of the authority on matters ancillary to that main general purpose. Generally speaking, it is very easy to talk in the abstract about the initiation of proposals and schemes for the creation of Irish industries. This, however, is a very complicated matter. No new industry can be created or given birth to, nor can the birth of it be assisted by the Industrial Development Authority without consideration of the very complicated circumstances of the present industrial set-up. No industry starts de novo. On no aspect of the needs of the consumers or the needs of manufacturers or on none of the other divisions of industrial work can we conceive an industry starting without having some impact on the existing industries, not only definitely in that field but on the borderline and flowing over into fields of similar and related activity. In so far as that is correct, the body will have to go further than merely initiate proposals or survey possibilities or advise on steps necessary and desirable for establishing these industries. It will require to consider the effects of protective measures and the effects of tariffs and quotas and other restrictive devices on any such new industry being created.

In so far as the Opposition permitted paragraph (vi) of Section 3 to pass, giving the authority this power of examining the effect of existing measures on the industries related to any given industry they propose to create, it seems rather contradictory that their power should be attempted in this amendment to be nullified. It is clearly a matter of importance to any person considering the establishment of a new industry, on which he may have been guided under paragraphs (v) and (vi) of Section 3, to understand and to have an examination by the authority of the effect of the administration of the Control of Manufactures Act on his particular industry, factory, workshop or whatever it may be. How he can escape that, I cannot quite say from Deputy Lemass's contention in regard to this. In the same way, in connection with the Control of Imports Acts and the administration of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, in which anyone interested in the initiation of a new industry would be closely interested, surely he should ask for and have the advice of this body on how all the existing industrial legislation will affect his proposals, whether adversely or otherwise. It may be a matter of supreme importance to him as to whether he will continue with his proposals, particularly if he is not very conversant with the very complicated legislation governing industrial development in this country. For that reason it does not appear to me that a very good case has been made for this amendment which seeks, if it is the intention, to prevent the Industrial Development Authority from being cluttered up by merely administrative work concerning tariffs and quotas, nylons and silks and other matters of subsidiary and minor importance. With that we are all in agreement, but surely, however, this cluttering up of the Industrial Development Authority is not a criticism of that authority so much as a criticism of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Department under his jurisdiction. While it is incumbent upon the authority to examine under paragraph (vii) of Section 3 any proposals referred to the authority by the Minister, there is nothing in this Bill which would indicate that the Industrial Development Authority is a body which is likely to welcome such routine matters nor is the record so far available nor the opinions of the members of that Industrial Development Authority, in so far as they may be known, in any way indicative of their encouraging this type of work. I think that each of them would be very glad to be relieved of this routine duty and that this authority, or the creation of it, has given quite a number of executive heads in the Department of Industry and Commerce a unique opportunity of practising the American act of "passing the buck".

It would appear to me, from my little experience—and I am sure this would be borne out by others who have greater experience in the matter—that whatever appears to be difficult to certain sections of the Department of Industry and Commerce, whatever appears to have the slighest element of doubt in connection with any proposal before them, is referred to the Industrial Development Authority. It would appear that certain sections of the Department think that this newlycreated body, the Industrial Development Authority, is the body on which they can unload all their troubles or a certain part of their work. That is a criticism of the Department. The Minister might be asked to consider whether this unloading of routine work on the authority should not be curtailed. It has grown and is tending to grow beyond reasonable bounds.

It has become necessary and, I suppose, under the most favourable set of circumstances it would become necessary, that the Industrial Development Authority should institute some form of division of labour among themselves. Whether that is implicit or explicit in the Bill, it will be done. It has already been done, despite any parliamentary denial. Anybody who is in touch with the Industrial Development Authority knows, as Deputy Lemass said, that each member of this board is charged with or is primarily concerned with one or other of the different types of work which relate to the board and which come before the board. One member of the board is primarily concerned with the establishing of new industries and if any entrepreneur has the idea of starting an industry, he will naturally be referred in the first instance to this particular member of the board. Whether that particular member of the board objects to the proposal or favours the proposal or has any views or observations upon the proposal, naturally, it will be the procedure of the board to have regular meetings, weekly, daily or otherwise, at which the various problems assembled by each of the members is brought before the board and the board get a quick review of the whole question. The unessential and unnecessarily detailed portions of the proposal have been condensed by the particular member charged with investigating the proposal. Thus, the time of the board is saved.

That is a natural labour-saving device that any board of this nature will create for itself. It is a line of action that will develop in any efficient board and no objection can be taken to it. The only objection, as was already suggested by some Deputies, probably under a misapprehension of the idea, is that a member of the board may have been in the past, or might be in the future, tempted to render a decision on his own account. I do not know whether there is any case of that. That, of course, is not likely to be the practice of the board. There is nothing that indicates that here. So long as the board gives its imprimatur to a decision, even if it is arrived at by one member of the board, and endorses the advice that he suggested should be given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that appears to me to be a quite well-regulated business, a quite businesslike type of procedure to which there should be no objection.

That should dispose of the contention that the board has been going on the wrong lines, in so far as, up to the present, it has been reduced to a board for which too much material of work has been found by the Department. In my opinion, that is not a criticism of the board but a criticism of the Department. We should try to avoid that so as to enable the authority to get on with its primary work.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Óg.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kennedy and Kissane; Níl, Deputies P.S. Doyle and Spring.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 15:—

In sub-section (2), line 13, to delete all words after the word "appointment" to the end of sub-section.

I do not know why the Government decided to write into the Bill this provision, that if a member is reappointed on the expiration of any period of office it must be on terms not less favourable to him than those upon which he was first appointed. Whatever their motive, I do not think that they are doing such a favour to the members of the authority whom they have appointed as may appear at first sight because by this provision they have created a situation that, if at any subsequent time it should be decided to reduce the function of the authority to such an extent that it might be considered necessary to have all, or some of them on a part-time basis, the existing members could not be reappointed, and in order to bring about that change the Government would have to appoint new members and, while the appointment of new members might not disimprove the Authority, I am sure it is not the position that the Government intend to create. It is open to the Minister to decide the terms and conditions of the appointment of any member, and it seems to me that it is wiser that he should leave himself free to consider the circumstances of the time and the merits of the individual he proposes to appoint, rather than that he should bind himself by statute to reappoint them only upon conditions not less favourable than those on which they were appointed originally.

Mr. Cosgrave

The purpose of this section was to give an assurance to the persons appointed that in the event of reappointment the terms would not be less favourable. These people had positions in commercial industrial life and consequently, when requested to relinquish their ordinary work, it was necessary to give them some assurance that, at the end of their term of office in the authority—subject, I suppose, to the possibility of changing Ministers or a change of Government—in the event of reappointment the terms would be not less favourable. I think it is reasonable that a person accepting a position of this nature should get such an assurance.

Deputy Lemass has referred to the possibility of the functions being diminished in some way. That would require an amendment of the Act and, if that occurred, provision could be made during such alteration for a revision of the terms. In the event of no revision of the Act, there is no case for refusing reappointment on the same terms as were given in the first instance.

Mr. Lemass

The Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in one respect. A substantial reduction in the duties now exercised by the Industrial Development Authority could be effected by administrative order, without any amendment. All this work regarding licences, quotas and so on is work to which there is no reference in the Bill, work which the Minister decided to give them and gave them by administrative order. It could be reversed by administrative order. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants this in, he can have it, but the effect is that if at any time it should be decided to reduce the functions and consequently reduce the remuneration of the members, the only way to bring it about is by appointing new members— and that does not seem to me to be anything like an assurance to the present members.

Mr. Cosgrave

You cannot appoint new members unless the Act is amended. If these functions to which the Deputy refers were taken away, it is assumed they would devote themselves to other work covered in Section 3. It is difficult to define precisely the amount of work.

Captain Cowan

Is it worth bothering about five years hence?

Mr. Cosgrave

I am always optimistic.

Mr. Connolly

I think it is a superfluous amendment, in so far as the Minister has set out in this Bill the terms of the remuneration, service, and so on, only for the period. If these members have discharged their duties and functions to the best of their capacity and to the satisfaction of the House, they will be reappointed, it is assumed; and if they are to be reappointed we hope that the Minister and the Opposition will not depart from the usual custom of giving increments to competent officials when they have discharged their work. If they have proved incompetent or have not discharged their duty, if they have done things which are against the interests of the country, surely the Minister will not reappoint them.

Mr. Lemass

You cannot be sure of that. Look at those who are there already.

Mr. Connolly

Is not that a criticism of the Minister and not of the members?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. If the Minister wants to tie himself up in this way, he can do so. The whole thing disappears in 1954, anyway.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 16:—

To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following:—

(3) The Minister may at any time for stated reasons and shall if a member contravenes (by omission or act) the provisions of sub-section (11) or (12) of this section by Order remove a member from office and any such Order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Sub-section (3) gives the Minister power to remove one of these named members before 1954 for stated misconduct or incapacity. I think that is tying the Minister's hand far too tightly. The normal phraseology used in other Acts providing for the appointment of members of boards by Ministers gives the Minister power to remove members for stated reasons. I do not know what constitutes incapacity or misconduct. If the Minister has good reason for removing a member, a reason he can state to the House, he should have power to do so. The effect of leaving the sub-section as it stands means that the member cannot be removed for incompetence. I think that is an undesirable restriction on the Minister's power. Incompetence is neither misconduct nor incapacity. At least, incompetence has to go a long way before it becomes incapacity.

Mr. Cosgrave

A disclosure under sub-section (11) would surely be misconduct.

Mr. Lemass

That is the point of my amendment. It seems to me that whereas sub-section (11), which prohibits a member from disclosing information, or sub-section (12) which requires a member to give information regarding his financial interest in industrial concerns, do not provide for sanctions; one of the purposes of my amendment was to require the Minister to remove the member who committed either offence. That, however, is a secondary consideration. It is true that in certain circumstances the Minister could do it, but he could not remove a member who just proves himself incompetent. That is an undesirable limitation. He would be much wiser to accept my amendment, even if he leaves out the second part, and take power to remove him for stated reasons, which has been the normal provision in other Acts.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Deputy's words are:

"The Minister may at any time for stated reasons and shall if a member contravenes ..."

That would not enable him to remove for incompetence.

Mr. Lemass

He may "for stated reasons" and he shall, for other reasons. There are two parts.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not know whether incompetence has ever been regarded as a stated reason.

Mr. Lemass

In one particular case, I think the statement was that his services were no longer required.

Captain Cowan

I think the Parliamentary Secretary should agree to the amendment, on general principles. A lot of things may happen; he may be completely and absolutely inefficient.

Mr. Lemass

That is not what is meant by incapacity.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am not adverse to the amendment, but incompetence is a thing on which there may be two opinions.

Mr. Lemass

Take the case of a member of the Electricity Supply Board who was removed for stated reasons, reasons which were stated to the Dáil. In such circumstances, the Minister could not remove one of these members, as the Bill stands.

Mr. Cosgrave

That was an exceptional case.

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

I will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment 16a:—

To delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following:—

(5) The remuneration, terms of appointment and conditions of service of a member may be fixed by contract entered into with him by the Minister, acting with the approval of the Government.

The purpose of the amendment is to delete sub-section (5) and substitute the amendment which has been circulated and is printed on the Order Paper to-day. As Deputies are aware, the members of this authority were appointed in the first instance under contract and it is provided in the Schedule to the Bill that that contract will have legal effect. This amendment provides a new sub-section which legalises the method of appointment and which, in addition, allows the contract to include the remuneration, terms of appointment and conditions of service under which the members of the authority may hold office, the contract being entered into with the Minister, acting with the approval of the Government. The members of the authority are rather apprehensive that their period of office might be disturbed and for that reason it is desirable to cover, by this sub-section, the contract entered into with them. I think it is desirable that they should get an assurance carried into legal effect that the term of office for which they are appointed will be completed without disturbance or that, in the event of disturbance, that the terms of their appointment will be such as to enable them to be compensated for any loss between now and the end of the five years for which they were appointed.

Mr. Lemass

If the Government have entered into any contract with any member of the Industrial Development Authority they have done so without any legal authority from the Dáil. The Dáil is only now considering the Bill which purports to authorise the establishment of this Industrial Development Authority. It was in fact established 18 months ago. Any contract made by the Government with the members of that authority is, so far as I am concerned, of no binding value whatsoever. I have already given notice here on the Second Reading of this Bill that this Party is opposed to this Bill and, should it become an Act, will repeal it so soon as this Party can command a majority in the Dáil; and no member can claim that he accepted membership of that body after the Government had obtained legal sanction for its creation without knowing that that position existed. If the Minister is now trying to validate retrospectively some contract he made without legal authority 18 months ago he can, no doubt, do so by inserting this provision in the Bill; but, so far as I am concerned and so far as this Party is concerned, if and when the Bill is repealed every safeguard he now seeks to insert in it will disappear with it.

Mr. Cosgrave

That might be a legal question and we need not try to interpret here any contract that may be entered into. But it is precisely because members of the authority recognise that the tenure of office might be disturbed in the unlikely eventuality of any immediate change that it is necessary to give legal effect to the warrant of appointment under which the members of the authority have been appointed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 17:—

In sub-section (7), line 25, to delete the words "from time to time" and substitute the words "at the time of his appointment".

Sub-section (7) says that a member shall devote to his duties the whole of his time or so much of his time as the Minister may from time to time direct. That contemplates that the contract between the Minister and the member may be varied from time to time and that a member of this body appointed in accordance with the terms set out in the Schedule and at the rate of remuneration indicated there may be released by the Minister from the obligation of giving whole-time service by action under this sub-section. I think it is far preferable to provide that the amount of time the member should devote to his duties should be fixed by the Minister at the time of his appointment and should not be subject to variation except the whole contract, including the rate of remuneration, is varied also.

Captain Cowan

What does the Minister mean by "the whole"?

Mr. Lemass

A member is not free to take any other job.

Mr. Connolly

There is some substance in the contention of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in so far as it appears to me to establish a new precedent as a result of which we may have part-time members of this body, which is completely under the jurisdiction of the Minister, who do not appear to be in the same category as industrialists serving on different boards. They are in an advisory capacity. They are civil servants. It might be to the detriment of the members themselves if they were allowed to engage in other activities. If they are members of the board they should be full-time members and, having heard so much about "cluttering" up their time, they would not appear to have time for any other occupation. As their remuneration is fixed and as there will be no diminution in that remuneration it would appear advisable to consider seriously the point made by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition and to make them whole-time servants of the public.

Mr. C. Lehane

On the Second Reading of the Bill it was made abundantly clear that the intention was that the persons appointed to this body would act in a whole-time capacity. I do not know whether or not it is necessary to accept Deputy Lemass's amendment in order to ensure that. I would urge very strongly on the Parliamentary Secretary that the Dáil should not be asked to leave it open for members of this authority to engage in any profession or occupation or be gainfully employed other than in their capacity as directors of the Industrial Development Authority. I take it the Dáil is entitled to an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on that point. If the position is not adequately covered, and I incline to the view that it is not, I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that Deputy Lemass's amendment, or some other amendment, should be accepted.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the amendment is unduly restrictive. All the members, with the exception of the chairman, are whole-time. The chairman is also whole-time but he is a director of the Industrial Credit Corporation on which in a way he has functions that vitally impinge.

Mr. Connolly

That is governmental.

Mr. Cosgrave

With that exception, all the others are whole-time.

Mr. C. Lehane

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not undertake to bring in an amendment covering the position on the Report Stage?

Mr. Cosgrave

If for any reason the Minister deemed it advisable or desirable to vary, even in a specific case and for a limited period, the duties of a member of the Industrial Development Authority he could not do so and I think it is desirable to leave it as it is. It gives the Minister freedom of action and the Minister has undertaken that that freedom shall be exercised on a whole-time basis.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not think it is fair to the Dáil to ask that the Minister's hands should be left free in this matter. The Bill was presented to the House on the Second Reading on the basis that these five members would not be gainfully engaged in any other occupation. The Parliamentary Secretary instanced the case of the chairman who is also a director of the Industrial Credit Corporation. Admittedly quite a good case could be made why that duality of that function should continue but it should not defeat the Parliamentary Secretary's ingenuity to bring in an amendment covering the position and, at the same time, meeting the case made by Deputy Lemass. I would be prepared to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that that will be done on the Report Stage. I think the position should be covered.

Mr. Cosgrave

I shall consider the amendment but I do not give any guarantee.

Mr. Dockrell

I think it would be better to leave it as it is. The Minister has discretion. It is mandatory on the member, and the Minister has to direct him in this matter. I think it is much better that the Minister should be left free. I do not think there is any necessity in the present case to bring in anything on the Report Stage.

Captain Cowan

The wording in the Schedule says that he is to be remunerated "at the rate of". Is his salary to be £2,000 a year or £2,500, and is he to be paid that if he does eight hours a day on so many days a week or, if the Minister does not employ him for so many days, is the usual Civil Service regulation to apply that he is not to get paid for the days that he does not work? This matter is important from the point of view of the members of the authority, to be certain as to whether they are to get £2,000 or £2,500 a year and be employed whole-time and that the Minister will not have the right to say: "You are to report only on four days a week and lose two days' pay." There is that difficulty that could possibly arise. Then the question arises as to what is work. Does work mean physical effort, or are the members of the Industrial Authority not entitled to sit down and think? At least a good thinker may be doing very valuable work. I think that, at the present stage, there ought to be no doubt that the members of this authority will be whole-time, and that they should be given no excuse for not producing the goods.

Mr. Connolly

I personally approve of the amendment. I think it is the one service which Deputy Lemass has rendered to the members of the Industrial Development Authority despite his virulent antagonism to them, and despite the fact that he has served notice on them on several occasions that he is going to sack the lot as soon as he is returned to power. I think it safeguards their conditions of employment. The case made by the Parliamentary Secretary does not satisfy me at all. He says that the Minister may vary the work of these members of the authority, and that he should be left free to find some method for a variation of their work from time to time. I think that is not correct because, according to the terms of the Bill, the Minister has no such power. Once the Minister employs them, he employs them as members of the Industrial Development Authority. He can vary their work in so far as he can give them different tasks to perform, but as the Parliamentary Secretary says, once he gives them some work other than that of the Industrial Development Authority, they are no longer amenable to him as members of that authority and so will have to come under the Civil Service Regulation Acts, 1924 to 1926, and all the other regulations that concern civil servants.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Civil Service Regulation Acts, do not apply to them.

Mr. Connolly

That is what I have been saying, that these Acts do not apply to them as members of the Industrial Development Authority. If the Minister varies their work to Civil Service work, to work other than Industrial Development Authority work as laid down under Section 3, then the only way they can come under the Minister is under the Civil Service Regulation Acts.

Mr. Cosgrave

They will be part-time instead of whole-time, but they are still members.

Mr. Connolly

The Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion was that the Minister could vary their work.

Mr. Cosgrave

No. They could be part-time instead of whole-time. As the section says, the Minister could allow the members to be engaged in other work. In practice, the only person so engaged is the chairman. The others are whole-time. They have no other occupation.

Mr. Connolly

The point of the amendment is to make it even more strict—that they shall not be part-time, but that they shall be full-time members. As far as they are anxious about their own positions, I think it would be better if the Minister had no power to vary their work from full-time to part-time, and that the House would be better pleased if, as Deputy Con Lehane has said, they were tied down to being full-time members.

Mr. C. Lehane

Could the Parliamentary Secretary be a little bit more frank with the House? I am not saying that in any offensive way; but, in answer to the case made for the amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary put forward the position of the chairman, and the fact that the amendment, as drafted, would preclude the chairman from acting in his capacity as a director of the Industrial Credit Corporation. I agree that is so. I also agree that it is desirable probably that there should be that duality of functions. He then went further and sought to suggest that there should be freedom for the Minister to vary the work of the members.

Mr. Cosgrave

Not to vary the work. It is defined under statute.

Mr. C. Lehane

Are we to take it then that the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary is that he envisages a time when there will not be whole-time employment, and when it will not be necessary to employ whole-time these five gentlemen? If that is the case, it shows to me a complete misconception of the job which these people have to carry out. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his position and give the House an undertaking that, on the Report Stage, he will bring in an amendment which will cover the position. If there is something else in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary which is his answer to the case made by Deputy Lemass, I would ask him to be frank with the House, and let the House know. Up to date he has not told the House, except to express the vague desire that the Minister should have as much freedom as possible. Quite frankly, I do not think that is desirable. I agree that the amendment, as drafted, is not in all the circumstances an acceptable one. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should give an assurance to the House that he will bring in an amendment to cover the position.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is only one member, the chairman, who is not whole-time. In other words, he holds another directorship. If circumstances were to arise in which, for any reason, the present chairman was no longer a member of the authority, then no member of the authority could be a director of the Industrial Credit Corporation.

Mr. C. Lehane

That could be covered.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not know. You would have to define a whole lot of individual cases. I think there are advantages in having a member of that corporation a member of the Industrial Authority.

Mr. C. Lehane

Surely that could be covered.

Mr. Cosgrave

There may be other cases. That is one. If the present chairman were off the board it might be desirable to have another member of the Industrial Authority a member of that company. If, under the warrant of an appointment, and by an amendment of the section, the Minister was precluded from varying the warrant, he could do nothing about it.

Mr. Allen

I should like to refer to the position that might arise if the next amendment—No. 18—in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary were carried. The obvious object of that amendment is to alter what is in the Bill already. The members of this authority would require time to get elected to the Oireachtas. They might want a month or two before an election and might want to fight every by-election that took place. They would not be whole-time members of the authority while fighting an election.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want to point out to Deputy Lehane and Deputy Connolly that the amendment proposed by Deputy Lemass does not deal at all with the case which they were making. Deputy Lemass's amendment does not affect the possibility of having people there on a part-time basis. What Deputy Lemass's amendment suggests is that, instead of the Minister having power during the period of appointment of a member of the authority of varying the hours of work, if you like, the Minister should be compelled to define the period and the hours of work when the member is being appointed. It does not deal with the question as to whether you must fix at the start the matter of a whole-time appointment or a part-time appointment. The amendment will still leave it open for members of the authority to be appointed on a part-time basis with this qualification, that it would have to be made clear at the time the appointment was made that it was to be on a part-time basis rather than on a whole-time basis. I want to point that out because I think a certain amount of confusion seems to have arisen in the minds of Deputies who spoke because they appeared to consider that the question involved in this amendment is part-time work as against whole-time work.

Mr. Lemass

As an addendum to Deputy O'Higgins's explanation of my amendment, might I point out that the remuneration of these members is fixed at a stated amount which presupposes whole-time service. Even though the Minister, under the sub-section as it stands, can vary the conditions of service and hours of work, as Deputy O'Higgins says, it cannot alter the remuneration. Now, I want to provide that where you appoint named individuals on the basis of whole-time salaries, the obligation of whole-time work will be specified in their appointments. If the Minister had power to vary the remuneration with the conditions of service, I would not have proposed the amendment.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There is one other point. Prima facie a person is appointed on a whole-time basis, but the latter part of the section would leave a certain amount of freedom with the Minister. I think that is a good idea.

Captain Cowan

Not when there is so much work to be done, and when there is so much to be paid for it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Remember we may be legislating for present conditions but the piece of legislation that is being enacted now may be in full force and effect after ten or twenty years in different circumstances. We should have sufficient commonsense, in my opinion, to allow a certain amount of discretion and not to allow ourselves to adopt the defeatist attitude that the situation which we want to remedy will never be remedied. If we were to accept the suggestion implicit in Deputy Cowan's remark it would mean that we would have to accept the belief that the present circumstances will always be in existence. I want to point out that sub-section (7) of Section 4 provides that "a member shall devote to his duties the whole of his time." That is the first part of it. Then the discretion comes in—"or so much of his time as the Minister may from time to time direct." If the Minister does not direct any variation, then it must be a whole-time appointment. The responsibility is on the Minister when he is making the appointment. If the Minister does nothing when he is making the appointment, then it is a whole-time appointment. If Deputy Lemass's amendment were accepted, the position would be that if the Minister made an appointment and said nothing more, then it would be a whole-time appointment, but it is still open to the Minister at the time he is making the appointment to vary the conditions as to whether it is to be a whole-time appointment or not.

Mr. Connolly

I think Deputy O'Higgins has not quite grasped the point that has been made in reference to the amendment. In so far as he has presented his case, it is not a very strong one. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has yet grasped my point and Deputy O'Higgins is in a similar position.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I grasped it but I did not think it had reference to the amendment.

Mr. Connolly

The difficulty is that the Bill, as it stands, states that the Minister may vary the time of a member as he thinks fit. The idea of the amendment is to guard against that and it makes the definite point that the member is a full-time member or, if he is not, that the variation in his time is stated at the time of his appointment.

Mr. Cosgrave

I follow that clearly.

Mr. Connolly

Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary did not follow, that this is an autonomous body who, the Parliamentary Secretary assured us, could proceed as they wished, define their own procedure and carry on generally as an autonomous body. How can the Minister vary the time of a member of an autonomous body? He may try to vary it by taking a man out of that autonomous body. He is then no longer a member of it and this section no longer applies. He becomes a mere civil servant. If the Minister wishes to keep him there as a civil servant, for the sake of the common good or whatever the phrase is, then he will come under Civil Service regulations. That is the only way in which his work can be varied. It would appear to me, therefore, that the amendment does safeguard the position and makes it obligatory on the Minister to see that these members are fully employed for the purpose for which they were selected. These members are named in the Bill, as has been pointed out again and again. Their work is known.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The amendment does not deal with work. It deals with hours.

Mr. Connolly

How can there be work without hours? That is the lawyers' conception of things, that work can be done without hours. The Labour conception is that work and hours are complementary and that you are paid on the basis of hours.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Undoubtedly hours come into it.

Mr. Cosgrave

You might put in time but not do any work.

Mr. Connolly

That is again a criticism of the Minister. If the Minister sees fit to appoint certain members with certain qualifications to this position, it is incumbent upon him to see that they are fully employed. It is incumbent on us as members of the Dáil to see that these members give a full return for the money which they receive. Any amendment put forward by the Opposition which would ensure that they are fully employed and which safeguards against their being gainfully employed in any other capacity, will receive my endorsement and support and the endorsement and support of many other members of the Government Parties. I do think that the Parliamentary Secretary should take this amendment under serious consideration. If he can accept it so much the better and if he has reasons for not accepting it which have not been made apparent to us he might put in an amendment of his own so that the matter can be safeguarded. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.