Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1950

Vol. 123 No. 7

Industrial Development Authority Bill, 1949—Report and Fifth Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, Section 1, line 9, to delete "save where the context otherwise requires".

These words are no longer necessary in view of the amendment of a later section.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 2, Section 1, between lines 12 and 13, to insert a new definition as follows: "references to industry do not include references to banking, insurance or agriculture".

I undertook to introduce amendments on Report Stage which would exclude banking, insurance and agriculture from the operation of the Bill and this amendment carries out that undertaking.

I object to the exclusion of insurance and banking, as was sought by Deputy Lemass on the previous occasion, and, since I heard the debate on this Bill, I have been disappointed by the attitude of Deputy Lemass to the Bill and by some of the speeches made by his supporters. Why should we exclude banking and insurance? Is Deputy Lemass or the Parliamentary Secretary going to tell me that the ramifications of these two organisations have not got something to do with industrial development here?

They have, but they are both covered. Insurance is covered by the Insurance Act and banking by the Central Bank Act. I think they are adequately dealt with under these Acts. It may be that certain matters will arise which may require attention, but they are not, in the normally accepted definition of industry, regarded as coming within the scope of it.

I have yet to be told what power the Central Bank has over the operations of the other banks in this country. On looking up statistics relating to the banks, I find that, since 1939, the assets of the Irish banks within the State are £134,000,000.

The Deputy is widening the scope of the discussion considerably in telling us about the Central Bank and the joint stock banks.

The amendment means that the Industrial Development Authority must have nothing to do with banks or insurance companies. I am satisfied that there are no two organisations which will require more close attention from the Industrial Development Authority than these two, because both the banks and the insurance companies operating in this country dominate the industrial development of this country. I am at a loss to know why Deputy Lemass should argue that these two combinations should not be dealt with by this authority.

What competence would the Industrial Development Authority have to report to the Government on banking or insurance?

This is Report Stage.

I submit that they have better knowledge on which to instruct the Minister and the House than some of the gentlemen who are directors of the banks, and the Deputy should know that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I desire to be taken as objecting.

The Deputy's objection will be noted.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 2, Section 3, paragraph (i), line 25, after "schemes" to insert "for submission to the Minister".

Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 incorporate amendments which Deputy Lemass moved on Committee Stage and which I agreed to provide on Report. They all deal with the same matter. They provide for the submission of schemes to the Minister, for reports to the Minister and for advice to the Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following ministerial amendments were also agreed to:—
4. In page 2, Section 3, paragraph (ii), line 28, to add the following: "and advise the Minister thereon".
5. In page 2, Section 3, paragraph (iii), line 29, after "advise" to insert "the Minister".
6. In page 2, Section 3, paragraph (iv), line 31, after "advise" to insert "the Minister".
7. In page 2, Section 3, paragraph (vi), line 39, to add the following: "and report thereon to the Minister".

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 3, Section 4, to delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(3) The Minister may, by Order, remove a member from office for stated misconduct or incapacity and shall lay such Order before each House of the Oireachtas.

On Committee Stage, I accepted an amendment by Deputy Lemass, which, I think, required redrafting, inasmuch as the warrant for appointment given to each member provided that a member could be removed from office only for stated misconduct or incapacity, but not otherwise. The amendment which I now move safeguards that position and also includes that portion of his amendment which Deputy Lemass wanted to include, providing that any Order under the sub-section will be laid on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas.

There is, of course, something more than a drafting amendment here. The amendment which the Minister accepted in Committee gave him the right to remove a member of this authority from office for stated reasons. The Bill, as introduced here, or as it will appear if this further amendment is accepted, limits the power of the Minister to the removal of a member of the authority for stated misconduct or incapacity. I argued in favour of the amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted on the ground that the Minister or the Government should have the power of removing from membership of the authority a member who was found to be incompetent, and I do not think that incompetence could be described as incapacity or misconduct.

The Minister is unwise to tie his own hands, or to attempt to tie the hands of his successor, by restricting the provisions of this sub-section. There have been other statutes which gave Ministers power to appoint members to boards, and none of them was as restrictive in this regard as it is proposed to make this Bill. It may be in the Government's view desirable, because of the opposition which has been expressed in this Bill from this side of the House, to give these nominees of theirs the security of civil servants for the period of years mentioned in the Bill, but it is establishing a new precedent which is, from every point of view, undesirable. Members have been removed from office on statutory boards for reasons other than misconduct or incapacity, and it is unlikely that any Government which found it was getting bad service from any such board or felt that public mischief was being done by the activities of members of this board, would be deterred from making changes by a provision of this kind in the legislation. It would be forced to make these changes, and the only effect of having this safeguard in the Bill would be to put them under obligation to make some payment in compensation to those whom, for good reasons, they thought fit to remove.

I do not know if I am right in believing that I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that the reason he was unable to leave sub-section (3) in the Bill in the form in which it stands is that the warrants of appointment already given to the members of the authority limit the power of the Minister to remove them to circumstances in which misconduct or incapacity could be shown. If that is so, I would protest strongly against any warrant having been issued to anybody to act on this authority in advance of the enactment of the legislation setting it up. No warrant issued by the Minister to a member of the Industrial Development Authority, as such, can have any binding force yet, and will not have any binding force until this Bill becomes law, and then only when issued under the provisions of the Bill. I do not think it is right that the Dáil should be put in this position that, because the Government has already, without statutory authority, appointed certain individuals upon certain terms, we are bound to accept their appointment and terms without question when the Bill comes before us.

I agree that this Industrial Development Authority was set up in rather unusual circumstances. Normally, when people are appointed to public boards even if there is a change of Government, they are not removed until their terms of appointment fall in. It is undoubtedly difficult to oppose the view of the Deputy and the Opposition that this safeguard is required. On the other hand, the phrase "for stated reasons" which in effect, means for no reason, would entitle the Minister to remove a member of the authority. But, even if the same Minister changed his mind and were to say that he was not specifying a reason, that, normally, would not be accepted as a cogent reason for a change of that sort. The amendment which I have moved, if it does not meet the Deputy in full, meets, I think, the main point in the amendment that he moved in Committee.

I have stated my objection. I do not propose to divide the House on it.

Amendment No. 8 put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 4, Section 5, immediately after sub-section (1), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) A witness shall not under any circumstances be called upon to disclose any particulars which would involve the divulging of secret manufacturing processes or recipes or of methods peculiar to the particular undertaking of such witness.

This amendment meets, I think, amendment No. 9 which appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Dockrell. The Deputy submitted the same amendment on the Committee Stage, and put it down again for Report. It provided that a witness should not disclose any particulars which would involve the divulging of secret manufacturing processes, or recipes, or methods peculiar to the particular undertaking of such witness. As the section was originally drafted, it might have involved particular technical processes or knowledge which were peculiarly the property of an individual manufacturer being made public in circumstances which might not in any way assist the inquiry in hand, and yet might seriously injure that manufacturer in competition with other people in the same line of business. For these reasons, amendment No. 10 which is moved to meet amendment No. 9, provides that a witness shall not be called upon under any circumstances to disclose particulars which he regards as secret or possessing particular value to the undertaking in question.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 4, at the end of Section 6, to add the following new subsections:—

(4) No technical adviser appointed under sub-section (3) of this section shall disclose any information obtained by him in performing his duties as such adviser except in the course of a report made by him to the authority.

(5) A person who contravenes sub-section (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £50.

This amendment is to meet a point which was raised by Deputy Lemass on the Committee Stage concerning officers of the Industrial Development Authority who are not civil servants, in the event of such being appointed. It provides that they will be liable in respect of any wrongful disclosure of information obtained by them in the course of their duties. I think it covers the point which the Deputy made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed: That the Final Stage be taken now.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share