Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill arises out of a review which I have had carried out with a view to ascertaining what changes were required in present legislation dealing with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The original legislation under which the Institute was established was enacted in 1946, and an amending Act was passed in 1954. As it is now fifteen years since the original Act was passed, it is not perhaps surprising that it has been found necessary to amend the existing legislation. This Bill is designed to overhaul the functions, powers and organisation of the Institute so as to enable it to function more effectively.

While it is proposed in the Bill to repeal the 1946 and 1954 Acts I should like to make it clear that the changes now proposed are not very radical inasmuch as the Institute as set up in 1946 is being continued in being, although its organisation, financing and functions are being adapted in the light of experience of their working.

It might help the House if I indicated briefly the main changes which the Bill is designed to bring about in the present arrangements. Perhaps the most important change proposed is that relating to the organisation of what might be described as the governing body of the Institute. Deputies will be aware that the Institute's functions under the 1946 and 1954 Acts were discharged by several constituent parts, namely, the Industrial Research Committee, the Standards Committee, the Director and the Council. The new Bill provides for the concentration of functions in the hands of a single entity in the form of a Board which is to be established. This simplification in the organisation of the Institute is designed to improve its efficiency. The Board will be responsible for the general government of the Institute and the administration of its affairs. It will be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and will consist of a maximum of nine members.

Deputies will recall that it had been hoped to keep industry in close touch with the work of the Institute through the Council, which comprises, in addition to the members of the Industrial Research Committee and of the Standards Committee, not more than fifty ordinary members, each of whom was appointed for his special attainments. I want to pay tribute here to these gentlemen for the selfless service they have rendered to the Institute in the past.

It was found that because of its size and the infrequency of its meetings it was not possible for the Council to fill to its own satisfaction the role for which it was established. It is proposed, accordingly, to have no Council in the reconstituted Institute. Instead, the Board is being given authority to appoint such ad hoc Committees as it sees fit to assist and advise it in carrying out its functions. The revised arrangements now proposed should have the effect of introducing greater flexibility into the conduct of the Institute's affairs, of broadening the base of the Institute, and of giving it more latitude in determining the appropriate industrial and scientific contacts which should be enlisted to help towards the solution of specific problems.

The functions of the reconstituted Institute will be, broadly, similar to those of the present Institute. It is proposed, in addition, to vest the Institute with authority, where the public interest so requires, to undertake or assist in the development or exploitation of inventions. It is felt that this would be a desirable extension of the existing powers of the Institute to conduct scientific research.

Under the present legislation, the maximum annual grant from funds provided by the Oireachtas which may be made to the Institute for expenses of administration is £35,000. It is proposed to remove this limit, and to arrange that, each year, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, will propose in the Estimates a certain sum for approval by the Oireachtas. With the expansion of industrial enterprise in this country, with the greater awareness which we may expect from industrialists of the necessity for a scientific approach to production, we may anticipate an increase in the activities of the Institute in the future. To this end, three new laboratories have recently been completed and handed over to the Institute. The object of the removal of the present statutory limit on the level of the annual State grant is to ensure that the Institute will not be prevented by lack of funds from using those new facilities to the best possible advantage.

This greater flexibility in regard to financial matters should I feel be accompanied by similar flexibility in regard to staffing arrangements. At present, the numbers, grades, remuneration and conditions of service of the staff are subject to the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The new Bill is designed to remove this control, except for such posts in the Institute's service as are designated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as posts of special responsibility. The change proposed will, it is hoped, make it easier for the Institute to recruit suitable personnel for the various posts in the organisation.

The connection between the Institute and Industry which it was created to serve should be as intimate as possible. Towards this end, provision is made in the Bill whereby industrial firms and other bodies may become associated with the Institute on payment of an annual fee, in return for which they can become entitled to certain facilities from the Institute. The exact terms of the relationship which will thus be created between the Institute and the associated firms will be a matter to be worked out by the Institute.

In regard to standard marks, the Bill provides that certain functions, which are at present exercised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, are transferred to the Institute, and some other minor amendments which appear desirable in the light of experience, are also proposed. The most important change in this respect is that which empowers the Institute to grant a licence to use a standard mark. This is at present a function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The new Bill also provides for the prescription by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest, of compulsory standards for certain commodities intended for sale. In recent years, public attention has been focussed on the fact that there was no power to prevent the sale to the public of articles which may constitute a hazard to life or health. The provision to which I have referred seeks to remedy this deficiency, and it is the intention normally to utilise the powers involved only for the protection of life and health. There is no intention to make compulsory the ordinary standard specifications which will be drawn up by the Institute.

The Bill makes other provisions in regard to finances, accounts, and audits, annual reports, Board procedure, offices and premises, and other matters, which are generally on the lines of those approved by the Oireachtas for other State-sponsored bodies.

In regard to the general merits of this Bill, I feel that there should be general agreement to any measure which is designed to improve the working of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. This Bill will, I believe, have this effect. The days are long gone by when industry could afford to carry on from year to year with the same old processes and practices, and in every country it is increasingly recognised that scientific research is essential to any worthwhile development of resources in the industrial field. This is more than ever important for this country which has poor natural resources of raw materials, and the additional handicap, so far as human resources are concerned, of a lack of tradition in industrial and managerial skills.

For this reason, there is a very urgent need for industrial research to improve technical processes and techniques, to develop new processes and new products, to promote the use of substitutes and by-products, and to eliminate waste. This research is expensive, and the smaller type of industrial firm which we have in this country is often not in a position to provide the skilled staff and the laboratory equipment to investigate its own working so as to find out newer, more efficient and cheaper ways of making a better article. The Institute exists as a central organisation to provide these facilities for industry. It has, or will have, the skilled staff and the equipment to do the job.

I should like to see a greater awareness among industrialists firstly of the need for scientific research and, secondly, of the great advantages which they can achieve from utilising the services which the Institute provides for them. This Bill represents an effort at improving the organisation of the Institute and giving it more independence with a view to improving its working and making it a better servant of industry. I recommend the Bill to the Dáil, and I feel sure that the general principles of the Bill which I have outlined will receive approval.

Mr. Cosgrave

As the Minister said, the Bill will be generally welcomed. Its purpose is to continue, with modifications, the Institute for Research and Standards established by the 1946 Act. That Act established an institute which consisted of four parts, the council of the institute, the industrial research committee, the standards committee and the directorate of industrial research and standards. This Bill continues in being the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards but it appears from the Bill and from what the Minister said that the four components established by the 1946 Act will be merged in a single body to be known as the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and that this will function through a Board which is established by Section 7 of this Bill.

This Board will function through a chairman and will comprise eight ordinary members chosen by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for appointment to the board by reason of their attainments in scientific research applied to industry or because the person is representative of industry or of persons employed in industry or is capable of giving substantial practical assistance in the work of the Institute. It seems that that change is desirable because the earlier arrangement under which there was a council of 50, as the Minister said, proved unwieldy in practice and meant that there were infrequent meetings.

There are, however, certain aspects of this legislation which would seem to me to involve the Minister for Industry and Commerce's entering too largely into the affairs of the Institute. Under certain sections he has power to designate specified offices and the Minister's consent is necessary before an appointment is made. That involves direct Ministerial intervention in a matter which might clearly be regarded as more proper to the Institute itself and it does seem that some of these sections might require amendment.

One important aspect of this matter which should be stressed is that up to the present the amount provided by the grant-in-aid was entirely insufficient. The Minister has said it is proposed to raise the ceiling from the present limit of £35,000 to an unspecified sum which will be approved according as the Minister, as a result of discussions with or representations from the Institute, considers necessary. In the last annual report the Institute referred to the difficulties they had in securing staff and under a heading on page 15 of the Fourteenth Annual Report they said:

The difficulty referred to in previous reports in recruiting suitable technical staff because of the unattractiveness of the salary scales and prospects offered by the Institute still persists. On this account a number of posts remain unfilled. This matter, however, is under discussion with the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I had a look at the total number of staff and I found that in 1960 the technical staff consisted of 15 people and that, in fact, that was a reduction of four compared with the staff in 1957 which then consisted of 19 people. There is no doubt that if the Institute is to be successful adequate finance must be made available to it. There is not much point in making legislative changes if adequate financial facilities are not afforded to the Institute.

In the course of the Minister's speech he referred to the fact that many firms are small and unable, out of their own resources, to provide themselves with adequate scientific and other technical advice and that for that reason they have to look to an institute such as this for assistance. It does seem, therefore, essential that, if this Institute is to achieve the objective we believe it should achieve, sufficient financial assistance should be provided for the work which of necessity must grow with the substantial development in industry and with the growing competition which is the continuous experience of industry generally. On the assumption that the Common Market develops and that there will ultimately be competition from Common Market countries with our own industrialists, the competition which industrialists will have to face in the future is likely to be more intense. It seems essential that adequate financial assistance should be provided in that regard.

It is, therefore, important that the Institute should have sufficient independence. In Section 20 provision is made that the Institute must comply with the directions of the Minister in the formulation of specifications for commodities and under Section 34 the Minister is empowered to designate an office and approve the appointees to these offices. These particular powers appear to me to involve to an unnecessary extent the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the work of the Institute. Bodies of this sort generally function more effectively when they are free from any interference of a non-technical nature. Subject to the over-all limitation of financial control which is inevitable in this case, the Institute should itself be free to operate its own affairs.

There is one aspect of the work of the Institute up to the present which is not sufficiently publicised. Generally, the ordinary consumer is almost unaware of the existence of the Institute. If there are commodities for which a standard mark or specification has been declared by the Institute and which is, therefore, entitled to bear that standard mark of the Institute, the ordinary consumer knows practically nothing about it. Some effort should be made to bring the fruits of the work of the Institute to the notice of the public generally.

One of the purposes of this Institute is to prevent inferior articles or commodities being produced and sold to the consumer. In many cases consumers are unaware of the rights which they have under the legislation already in existence. It is important that some publicity should be given to the work of the Institute so that, if consumers are aggrieved, dissatisfied or feel that a particular commodity does not measure up to the standard, they are entitled to have the matter remedied.

Indeed, many of the commodities which measure up to the standards of the Institute are of a far higher quality than imported articles. Some of the imported articles have not to comply with the same standards or specifications as the Institute lays down. For that reason it is in the interest of the public generally that the standard specifications which are provided for under the Institute should be widely known and that the public should be familiar with the arrangements under which it is possible to have these standards adhered to.

The amount provided up to the present was entirely inadequate for the work of this Institute. Last year, the grant-in-aid was £35,000. The provision for additional laboratories and equipment amounted to £38,000. For land and buildings the sum was £3,000 and for special investigations a nominal sum. It seems to me that the funds which this Institute will require in the future, if it is properly staffed and if it is to achieve the functions which an Institute of this sort is expected to achieve, may involve very considerable expenditure. In research of this sort it is never possible, in advance of the actual work, to say what may be involved. Some investigations may turn out to cost more than others but in order to ensure that our industrialists have available the best possible services and that the standards which we believe they should aspire to, not only in their own interests but in the national interests, are maintained at the very highest level, it is obvious that additional funds will be needed.

Subject to the provision of these funds and to the observations I made that the Minister for Industry and Commerce appears to enter too much to some extent into the work of the Institute, I believe that the proposed changes in the law are desirable and that the arrangement under which a small body rather than a somewhat unwieldy council will have responsibility for directing the affairs of the institution with power to establish ad hoc committees is a more efficient and sensible arrangement.

I believe that the work which the Institute has already done has proved very useful and that if adequate funds were provided it might be possible for it to do still more useful work in the future. There are certain other points which I think, will arise more appropriately on individual sections on Committee Stage. Subject to that, I believe, the measure is desirable.

Mr. Norton

As the Minister said in his speech, the size of the Bill is not an indication of the extent to which we are changing from our present pattern of legislation governing industrial research and standards. In fact, this Bill very largely consists of providing for the repeal of the Acts of 1946 and 1954 and the re-enactment of the provisions of those two Acts. As the Minister properly says, this new Bill is based on experience of the 1946 and 1954 Acts. It is quite obvious that has been taken into consideration in framing this legislation.

The first observation I want to make so far as this legislation is concerned is that I do not believe one per cent. of the population of this country know anything whatever about the Institute of Research and Standards. Judging from the fact that there are seven or eight Deputies in the House out of 147, a very substantial number of Deputies do not want to know anything about it either. I think that is a great pity. I think the Institute of Research and Standards is potentially a very good piece of industrial organisation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how you could have an expanding and progressive industry or industries or a progressive and expanding industrial fabric if you have not, as an adjunct to that, an Institute of Research and Standards which would do all the research work, all the testing, and the examination and all the weighing that is necessary to improve the quality of products and at the same time bring to the benefit of our young and emergent industries here the technical experience and resources which have been developed in other countries as a result of the operations in those countries of Institutes of Research and Standards. I think it is a pity that manufacturing industry generally is not aware as adequately as it ought to be of the existence of this valuable organisation.

I think it is a great pity that our young and developing industries do not avail of the Institute of Research and Standards to find solutions for many of the problems thrown up at them from day to day. If, therefore, there is a discussion in the House or elsewhere on the potential value of research to industries, I hope that every possibility will be availed of to publicise the existence of this Institute and the useful character of its work in encouraging industrialists to avail of it. Ministerial statements and Press publicity would be of immense value to advertise the work of the Institute and to induce employers in large groups to come and look at its work. Efforts should be made also to issue to some of the employers memoranda which would bring home to them the work the Institute is doing to help employers.

It must be remembered that the Institute has at its disposal technical equipment and scientific brains, plus access to sources of technical knowledge, that our industrialists do not have. I put it to the Minister, therefore, that steps should be taken immediately to bring home to industrialists that the Institute is there, that it wants to help in a friendly way to assist growing industries. Otherwise the Institute will fall into a backwater and I am afraid will remain unused unless the Department or the Institute itself advertise its worthwhile qualities.

I observe from the Bill that the Minister has decided to abolish the Council of the Institute and to substitute a Board which will carry out the administrative work of the Institute. The old Council of the Institute consisted of about 60 very busy people and I am quite sure, having looked at the record of attendances of some of them, that many of them found it impossible to give regular attendance at meetings of the Council. That is understandable because, as I mention, they are very busy people with other demands on their time and I think it is an improvement in our legislation to substitute for a large and perhaps unwieldy body of 60 a Board of not more than nine people who can be much more cohesive than a large Council and who, I hope, will be selected not merely on the basis of their knowledge and experience but also with an eye to their ability to attend meetings regularly.

I think that in general the substitution of a Board of nine persons for a Council of 60 makes for improvement in this type of legislation. I am glad to notice that with experience and with development on the part of the Institute it is now possible for the Minister to pass over to the new Board for future administration a number of functions which, by the 1946 Act, were held under the Minister's control but which were to some extent decentralised in the first instance by the 1954 Act. That procedure is to continue and the Board is to be given wider powers to act on its own initiative on matters which up to now have been exclusively reserved for Ministerial administration.

Section 34 provides that posts on the staff of the Institute are to be reserved for appointment by the Minister. In other words, the Minister is to designate certain posts as special posts—that is, posts which can be filled only after consultation with the Minister and the conditions in relation to which will be fixed by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance. I should like if the Minister would tell us at this stage what kind of posts he has in mind. Are they posts which will be designated as offices of special responsibility, do they call for special qualifications, are they posts in the scientific and technical field or peculiarly in the administrative field and does the Minister himself contemplate making these appointments or will any board be established such as the Civil Service Commission or some such body to assist the Minister in selecting the people who will fill these posts?

Like Deputy Cosgrave I am glad the Minister is adopting a new manner of financing the Institute. The position up to the moment has been that an annual grant of approximately £35,000 was made towards the expenses of the Institute. That, of course, was in addition to capital grants from time to time provided for the extension of the Institute premises, but I think the concept of preparing an estimate of what the Institute will require, having regard to the amount of work it does, is preferable to the idea of a grant which is made without any regard to whether it is adequate or otherwise or whether the Institute could do more work of a valuable kind if it got more money for discharging wider responsibilities.

This idea of the estimate will show us clearly how inadequate the present technical and scientific aid is, as far as industry is concerned. We are here an outpost of European civilisation, far from the main streams of industrial production and industrial and scientific thought and we have got to work out as best we can and make it as good as we can. It is idle to suggest that we are automatic heirs to all the scientific and technical knowledge which the world produces. We are not. We can, of course, get the knowledge if we have the resources to pick it up, if we can examine it and see in what way it can be of use to our own industries here and only an Institute of Research and Standards can do that kind of valuable work in an organised way. No single industry by itself can manage to do that or get access to what the world has to offer in technical and scientific knowledge. The Institute, however, can do that and it is because it can do it that I would travel as far as I could with the Minister in saying that this is a body on which we can spend a good deal of money and that we ought to spend a good deal of money on it because it is an investment in knowledge, in experience, in progress and, in the long run, it will pay very substantial dividends particularly to our young and emerging industries.

I hope, therefore, that this work of financing the Institute can be interpreted as a wider appreciation of the work the Institute can do. I think that when approaching the Institute from that standpoint we should not consider we are too poor in industrial, scientific and technical equipment to spend money on an Institute of that kind. We ought rather take the view that every pound spent on an Institute of this kind is an investment in better production, in better articles of produce from our industries which will give us a greater competitive interest in those markets where the competitive spirit is so keen that quality, and even a small difference in price, could determine whether an industry here would thrive or even survive on the basis of quality, production and prices.

I want to say that I heartily endorse the sentiments expressed by the Minister in the last paragraph of his speech. This Institute I think can pay good dividends to industry and I hope we will provide for its existence and treat it reasonably with financial support, encouraging it by every means open to us, in the hope that our industrialists will equip themselves and their industries with the resources which the Institute of Research and Standards makes available, as only it can make available this knowledge for our new industries.

Mr. Russell

I should like to join with Deputies Cosgrave and Norton in welcoming the Bill. I might advance a small criticism and that is of the name of the Bill. It is much too long and I think it is one of the reasons why the Institute is so little known— it has rather an unfortunate name. I think it would pay to have an institute comparable with the Agricultural Institute. If the Minister started by limiting the title of the Bill to "Industrial Institute Bill" I think it would have been better. Tying it to research and standards, to my mind, suggests that the scope of the Institute is to be limited while I am quite certain the Minister's intention is that it should not be limited in any such way.

There is such a vast field for such an institute here, such great opportunities to do work so vitally necessary, that we could have left it with the simple title of Industrial Institute in the belief that it would work hand-in-hand with industrial and other organisations to help the expansion of industry. That may be a minor point but I think it is rather important. It bears some relation to the criticism of Deputy Norton that the present Institute is very little known. I think also it would be of advantage if the Institute followed the very good example of its counterpart in the Agricultural Institute by issuing regular bulletins. The Agricultural Institute issues a very useful monthly bulletin and, while it may not be possible for this Institute to issue a bulletin so frequently, I suggest that a quarterly bulletin distributed to industry, to the universities and to the public would help generally to advertise its work.

The Minister referred to the association between the Institute and industry. I should like to see that association extended to the universities and technical schools and to the new Institute that was recently set up. If we are to develop our own resources to the maximum extent we shall need the co-operation of every organisation, scientific and technological. For that reason I should like to see greater association with universities and technological institutes.

As other Deputies have pointed out, the grant for the Institute up to now— some £35,000 — is hopelessly inadequate. I think I am correct in saying that we spend a fantastically small sum on scientific research compared with any other productive country. Other small countries spend enormous sums on such research and if we want to take our rightful place in this new emerging European trade group, obviously we cannot afford to stint on scientific research.

I am glad the Bill makes provision to enable the Institute to assist inventors. This is a very useful provision and I hope it will be availed of fully. I am not quite clear from the Minister's remarks how capital grants would be provided. There is reference in the Bill to the cost of administration but no reference to capital costs. Possibly the Minister will explain that when replying.

There are two essential qualifications for the success of this Institute. It must be autonomous. That is why I feel a little bit uneasy about the Minister retaining certain powers regarding appointments to certain specialised posts. I do not understand what these posts are. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate when winding up the debate. I should far prefer to pick nine competent men and give them complete autonomy and the necessary finance to run this Institute properly. I should be very slow to retain any links, however tenuous, between the Minister and the work of the Institute. I am certainly in favour of giving them the freest possible hand to appoint their own staff and get on with their job.

This Bill in many ways is another indication of the developments that have been taking place in recent years here. I have mentioned the Agricultural Institute but we also had the Irish Management Institute and the Productivity Council, all of which are working towards very well defined and essential ends—the raising of the general level of efficiency and endeavouring to make the country and its people more productive-minded, more efficient and better able to sell their wares against other countries of the world.

I do not know what views the Minister has on the question of the personnel of this new Board which is to run the Institute. However, I sincerely hope he will eschew any political appointments when he comes to deciding on the nine persons who are to comprise the Board. Unfortunately in this country we do tend from time to time to make appointments on a political basis rather than on a basis of qualification or experience. This Institute is too important to risk favouring any political supporter, however good he may be in other fields, by appointing him to this Board. I would ask the Minister in appointing the men of his choice to ensure they have the necessary qualifications for their job.

Although this is an industrial institute I would like to see some representative of agriculture on it. That may seem a bit incongruous but agriculture in one form or another does supply the most essential and the most valuable raw materials we have. It would be a natural and logical link with our greatest natural resource if at least one representative of agriculture were appointed on the Board. I am certain the Minister will ensure that the other branches of industry and commerce will be represented—accountancy, economics and so on. I would like to see the industrial worker being brought into the picture as well because on his co-operation, goodwill and skill depends the success of our industrial expansion. If the Minister is guided purely by getting the nine best men I am sure this Institute will be the success we all hope it will be.

I do not think the Minister or his successor, if he is to have a successor in the near future, need worry about getting this Dáil or any future Dáil to vote the necessary funds. We are all alive to the necessity for giving industry all the tools it requires to make a success of this job and the fact that European free trade is very near at hand makes it all the more urgent that we be fully equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that offer. Personally I would rather look to the opportunities that offer than to the threats to our existence about which we have heard so much recently. The emerging European free trade area will be a challenge to our ability as a people and I feel confident that if we are given the necessary tools to do the job we can do it. I wish the Minister every success with his Bill and I am sure he has the support of every member of the House.

Mr. Sherwin

The purpose of this Bill is to raise the standard of Irish products and to ensure that, where products meet the specifications laid down by the Board, a trade mark may be used. It is an offence to use this trade mark if there is any deterioration in the specification or standard laid down. However, I am interested in something else. I do not know whether I am entitled to raise the matter under this Bill but I think I am. No one should have the right to manufacture or produce anything unless he has a licence. I mentioned to the Minister a few times during the year the junk that is put on the market for home consumption. Under Section 44 of this Bill the Minister can prohibit the manufacture of anything but the latter part of the provision reads: "... which the Minister considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of promoting the safe use of such commodity by the public." That merely means the Minister can prohibit the manufacture of an article if it is not safe. An article could be a fraud and still be safe.

I have experience in regard to articles put on the market which will last only while you look at them. I saw an umbrella which was in use only three days when a strut broke in half. It was sent back to the manufacturer where a new strut was fitted. Within a week another strut broke. It was downright robbery to charge a girl 17/6d. for something that would not last a fortnight. Articles of this sort should not be permitted to be produced unless they can stand up to certain wear and tear. There should be some way of protecting the public. I know of a young lady who bought a handbag for 17/6. The handle was made of some sort of bone material which broke within a couple of days. She held it together with a piece of wire but within a week the other side of the handle broke. There are cheap stockings on the market a pair of which I bought for 2/-. That evening you could see both of my heels. There are also supposed to be giant packets of various commodities. There are large tins of polish with false tops on them; in other words the tin is only half full. Likewise you will find a lot of packing on a commodity giving the impression that it is good value. That type of fraud should not be allowed.

Another practice which should be stopped is the selling of stale sweets to children. These sweets are sold cheap but they are not fit for human consumption. I know of cases where the doctor had to be summoned after children had eaten such sweets. There are all sorts of commodities of that sort whose sale the Minister should prohibit. I remember some years ago Japanese bicycles being imported here which were sold on Bachelor's Walk. They were all right to look at but when you rode out on them you discovered the ball bearings were like a piece of putty. I am not saying all our goods are as bad as these but a lot of junk is being put on the market for sale. The Minister should prohibit the sale of such articles unless they can stand up to some test.

I would also draw the Minister's attention to the practice of certain upholsterers who purchase old mattresses for use for upholstering new furniture. They should have some sort of fumigating plant, where fibre and such commodity is used, to ensure that people will not be stuck with some verminous matter. I would ask the Minister to look into the whole question and not to permit any article to be manufactured for sale unless it conforms to certain standards. It is not enough to ensure that certain articles only will have a mark and must stand up to specification. I am asking the Minister to protect the community in respect of certain goods which are put on the market.

Major de Valera

In this Bill the Minister has tightened administration considerably. The provisions are an improvement on the original Bill. The Institute has perhaps been in some ways a disappointment to people who were keen on its initiation about 15 years ago. Much of the criticisms of the original Bill at that time were substantiated by experience in years afterwards. However, that is all water under the bridge and there is not much sense in going back on it now. The present Bill will commend itself to anybody who takes the trouble to think about it as a much more business-like effort and as a Bill which will do its part to achieve the aim for which it is designed.

Apart from the defects in organisation in the original structure of the Institute there was the general overall defect that it tended to put the Institute in a vacuum, to leave it unassociated with related spheres of activity and, of necessity in that context, to leave it under-financed. How far can these defects be remedied under the present legislation? I think the proposed legislation can go a long way to improve the situation. First of all, in the provision for a single Board you have a provision for unified direction and unified activity which must be the first principle in getting anything done. Therefore, on that basis and its administrative structure, I have very little to say to the Bill other than to share the opinion of others who have welcomed the Bill and feel it is well worth supporting.

I do not think there is a lot to be said in regard to standards and specifications except that the work being done under the old Bill can be continued. Broadly speaking, there are two aspects of that matter. There is the progressive fixing of standards for the convenience of industry which is a useful service. That, perhaps, has been the most successful aspect of the Institute to date. That work can continue in the new framework. There is also the question of fixing standards for the benefit of the public whether in matters of safety or for the better administration of our industrial policy. That also can be achieved under the Bill. It will perhaps require some initiative from the Minister's Department if one wants to follow the road in that direction further but there is not very much more to be said on that.

When we come to industrial research there is more room for discussion. Everybody welcomes the idea of industrial research. Opposition speakers have gone so far as to say in so many words that unlimited funds should be provided for industrial research. There have been very many general statements of that nature. That is all very well but let us come down to earth and see what the problem is in regard to industrial research.

Industrial research is not a thing that you can carry out by putting yourself so to speak in a corner whether under the name of an institute or anything else, and carrying on, regardless. It presupposes a wide area of contacts and it presupposes a great deal of co-ordination of effort not only directly in any particular programme of research but in related fields. One of the criticisms of the old Institute was that perhaps it was left too much in a vacuum. Perhaps the number of people who were enthusiastic about it at the beginning had the idea of an Institute which would carry on under its own steam and provide all its own resources. I do not think that is practical in the modern world.

When it comes to industrial research, this Institute must function as a directing and co-ordinating body. Because of that consideration, the change the Minister is making in the organisation of the Institute is vital and very efficient.

When it comes to industrial research it is not a question of a board sitting down around a table and saying: "We we will do research." There is too much general research going on in the world and too much research has been done for any profit to come from such a general approach. The only thing we can hope for in a practical line is that the board will consider specific problems and any specific problem in industrial research which will be sizable will probably, before it is finished, be beyond the local resources of any Institute such as we intend to set up. When a sizable problem of industrial research comes up, what the directors and the people who sit down to solve that problem will be faced with is the gathering of information, the organising of work to be done not only in their own institution, their own laboratories, their own plant, but in other institutions or at another site, perhaps. They will be faced with the problem of securing the co-operation of, perhaps, some industry, university or other institute. Not only must the research task become specific before it becomes a realistic thing at all, it must also be distributed over the points where it can be dealt with.

I think there should be some careful thinking on that by the people who talk about spending money on an Institute of this nature. The function of this Board, as I see it, would be to collect information, get the work done at the appropriate points perhaps in an industry or in a plant that has the facility for doing the work, perhaps in a university laboratory and even get experimentation done abroad and, perhaps, erect a pilot plant or something of that kind and have that supplemented by some work in their own laboratory, using their own scientists who will be limited in number and using their own equipment.

Therefore, in this connection I think that the Institute in its reconstituted form should be encouraged to make contact not only with our universities but with all our other technical institutions and with our industries. After all, research, especially industrial research, is just, shall I say, another name for experiment. This will have to be supplemented by the collection of information, the utilisation of library services, statistical services and probably in the case of industries commercial information, that is, economic information. Therefore, the function of this Board must be a very broad one and their success will depend in my view upon how far they can call upon the resources that are available in all our technical institutions, some of our universities, our technical schools, the laboratories of big firms, in the actual plants of small firms. Success will depend on their ability to assess what resources are available to them as well as their own and the ability to take a special job, organise it and use those general resources which I have mentioned in the best, speediest and most economic way to get a solution for the particular problem with which they are confronted.

I see no other way in which industrial research can be done in this country. It will, therefore, be as much a management business for this Board as a research job in their laboratory. In Glasnevin they have the buildings, the equipment and a laboratory which are all very fine in their own way but let us face the facts. Very limited resources are available to an Institute of that size having regard to modern developments, the size of modern industry, the complexity of modern life and the complexity of the present state of technical knowledge pure and applied.

Anybody who thinks that sizable problems will be brought into a laboratory and worked out in Glasnevin and that that is the end of it will be restricting himself to a very confined field altogether. It is for that reason I feel I should emphasise again the function of the Board as a directing Board, as a co-ordinating Board and as a Board which will seize on a problem, make it specific and then organise the working on that problem having regard to all the resources available. To do that task the Board from the beginning must be in contact with all the resources available and be able to put itself in a position where it can call upon them.

That brings me to a matter which has cropped up before in other forms. It is the so-called distinction between pure and applied research. There is not any such distinction really. Very often the applied research of today is following the pure research of yesterday. Very often the two are indistinguishably interlinked. Although in modern countries the specific following of a problem in industry is a specialised thing in itself and has the right to be followed as such, nevertheless the other fields, the so-called pure or academic fields of research, have a bearing there and can contribute in two ways.

First of all, they can contribute information. Secondly there is the contribution they make in the training of personnel who will ultimately be involved in the technical field. It is for that reason that I mention on this Stage the words in Section 8, subsection (3) "applied to industry" which restricts. No such narrow restriction should be imposed overall, I submit, because frequently it is from the academic-minded, if they are properly harnessed, that the most fruitful ideas come. It is significant that in other countries in this modern age it is the most academic of the academic-minded who very often are brought in as associates in industrial research or who are consulted in that matter.

It is also rather significant that, during the pressure of the war years and the post-war years, people like pure mathematicians, theoretical physicists and chemists were inevitably called upon to assist when a problem developed to a certain size. That is the case in the aircraft industry, the chemical industry and in the development of modern physics and so on. Therefore, we would be wise in this country, quite apart from the fact that we have few resources we can afford to put into watertight compartments, to ensure that that attitude should be maintained in regard to this matter from the beginning.

There is the question of staffing. One of the difficulties here is going to be that of getting and attracting staff of adequate calibre. We have the same problem in our academic institutions. Indeed, the same problem is found abroad in institutions in getting properly qualified staffs. In a matter of this sort, unless we have a certain percentage of top-grade scientists in an Institute of this nature, we are not going to get top-grade returns. To get top-rate scientists at the moment means paying adequate rates. There will be, I anticipate, a question of proper remuneration of scientists in this regard. The day is passing when the administrator alone will be the person who will draw the highest grades of pay in State services or anywhere else.

I, therefore, think that people who are willing to spend money in this Institute, or who are willing to advise the Government to spend money on it, will agree this is the best investment that can be made. We must invest in securing the proper personnel and it is then a question of keeping them sufficiently interested in the needs of the community and how they can be supplied. I think it was Deputy Russell who spoke about autonomy. I am all for autonomy, particularly on the question of the prosecution of research in scientific and industrial matters. In the case of industrial research, however, it will come to nothing unless it is specific and I think the Minister should make it a point to see that whatever research is done is specific and is devoted to something that is going to be worth while from the point of view of the community.

I would point out that there is an essential difference between this type of Institute and, say, the universities, which are there to train scientists, to develop thought. The same type of autonomy does not apply in both cases and for that reason I think it would be very proper that the Minister should have some say as to what the activities of this Institute of Industrial Research and Standards are to be. Space research may be a very practical thing for other countries but I do not think that, at the present moment anyway, research into rocket engines should be undertaken here though there is no doubt that it could come into the matter of applied and industrial research. If any Board of the Institute were foolish enough to go off on some line like that, the Minister would have every right to interfere and say: "Look here, we want something more down to earth."

I also think the Minister would have a function, on the one hand, in trying to encourage firms and producers to put their problems to the Institute and on the other hand to encourage the Institute Board to tackle these problems and indicate what they are. I would not, therefore, go as far as Deputy Russell did on the question of autonomy. There is, of course, the question of autonomy in the matter of appointments. I am all for free appointments, the appointment on merit of the best man, but I do draw the line at the suggestion that every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right, with the exception of the Minister, to suggest appointments to a post for which the State is paying. My remarks are for the sake of balancing the argument.

On the whole, I do hope the Bill will work more effectively than did its predecessor. I think the Minister has done a very practical day's work in revising the organisation as he has done. I think that whatever chance there is for further success will come from a board of this nature. A board in charge of scientific and industrial research must be composed of people who are experienced in the matter of research.

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy want to leave the appointment of the staff to the Board?

Major de Valera

I would let them appoint the staff but I do not see why the Minister should not have a supervisory function in this.

Mr. Norton

He has more than a supervisory function.

Major de Valera

I know the section to which the Deputy is referring and can say I am not myself quite clear as to what the content of that section is at the moment. In making those remarks about the Minister's function I am trying to swing the pendulum to bring about balance.

Mr. Norton

I think the Minister is put in imbalance now by the Deputy's argument.

Major de Valera

And I hope the Minister is listening as closely to my remarks as to the Deputy's and perhaps we might then get the proper balance.

Mr. J. Lynch

In the first place, I should like to take up the suggestion that Section 34, which empowers the Minister to designate certain posts, is taking away a degree of autonomy which should be vested in a board of this sort. There is no intention on my part or on the part of anybody who will have the obligation of working the Act subsequently to interfere with actual appointments. The intention is that one or two key posts will be so designated and the Institute itself will have the opportunity of appointing the best person they think it can get for a particular post. The position is not to interfere with the personnel but to keep an eye on the salary scales the Institute will be inclined to give in order to make sure it does not go unduly out of line with salary scales applicable to other branches of the public service.

That is the purpose of Section 34 to which some opposition was taken. Otherwise, Section 34 itself removes, on the whole, restrictions that were in the last Act obliging the Institute to come to the Minister on the occasion of every appointment, clerical or otherwise. It was, in my opinion, far too frustrating for such a body to be obliged to seek authority for making each and every appointment to the Institute Staff, whether clerical or scientific.

As far as the personnel of the Board is concerned, I can only say it naturally will be my intention to appoint the very best people I can get to meet the qualification standards as set out in the Section. Deputy Russell suggested we were prone to make political appointments to boards of one kind or another. I suppose it is not unnatural that the Government in power will know their own supporters better and their qualifications better and will be able to assess the merits of a person known to the members of the Government. However, I have no intention whatsoever of selecting anybody just because of his political affiliations. I have made a number of appointments to different boards since I took office in this Department and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I never inquired about the appointees' politics either before or after appointments. In fact, some of the appointments have been acclaimed by the appointees' colleagues on particular boards.

This is far too important a board to have any persuasion, political or otherwise, other than to procure the very best sort possible. With regard to the new method of financing the Institute, Deputy Norton asked if that was evidence of a better or more generous approach. I think that is what it means. In future, the Institute will present, like any other section of the Department, its requirements for the coming year. These will be scrutinised in the Department and will be agreed with the Department of Finance before the estimate is presented to the House so that the Institute will be expected to submit a realistic bill as to what the expenditure is likely to be and, within reasonable limits I shall feel responsible in seeing that there will be no skimping.

I agree, too, with the remarks of both Deputy Norton and Deputy Russell that the Institute has not been in the past sufficiently widely known Deputy de Valera observed that perhaps we have been disappointed with the results that have come from the Institute. I think the Institute itself, as the present members of the council readily admit, was unwieldy, that it never got down to work properly. I am saying that in face of the fact that since it was founded it has produced no less than 102 standard specifications. That is some indication that it was working fairly effectively but, unfortunately, it was not well enough known to industry. I have been encouraging it for the past couple of years to keep more in touch with industry and I think the Institute has been doing that of its own volition. They have been inclined to go out and seek industrialists rather than sit in Glasnevin for industrialists to go to them. That will be the keynote in future years—to make sure that its advisory services generally will be fully known and fully appreciated by industrialists. Specifications issued will be brought to the notice of the public so that the general public, too, will be fully aware of the Institute's activities.

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister say how many of these specifications have been adopted? The Minister mentioned that over 100 were produced. How many were adopted by industrialists?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am advised that only a small number of them were adopted. As far as the question of capital grants is concerned, it is true that the Institute heretofore was financed within the limits of £35,000 and also by way of special capital grants. There is no provision in the present Bill for capital grants because it is not envisaged that capital grants will be required to the same scale as in the past when the Institute was acquiring equipment and premises but, in so far as capital is required, it will be made available in the annual provision for the Institute.

Mr. Norton

The Institute has got capital grants?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, in the past largely to help the Institute equip itself with these new laboratories. The last point made by Deputy de Valera was that the Minister should keep a watchful eye to ensure that specific research is carried out. I cannot go into such detail about scientific matters as the Deputy but I know what he means to convey. It is better that, having appointed a Board in which the House can have confidence, to leave it to the Board to see that the job of research carried out will be specifically designed to help industry.

Deputy Sherwin made a complaint about types of commodities which did not live up to what most people would expect. First of all, it would be impossible to insist on having a licence for the manufacture of every commodity. That would not be tolerated perhaps even in totalitarian States. However, in so far as there are complaints about such items as ladies' handbags and umbrellas not being fit for the purpose for which they were bought, there is a legal remedy available and it will not be necessary to provide another remedy in the case of these commodities in this Bill.

Mr. Norton

What remedy is there about the socks?

Mr. J. Lynch

The only suggestion I can make there is that perhaps the purchaser might spend 4/- instead of 2/- on them.

Mr. Sherwin

Is it not still a fraud, even if they only cost 6d? Why put them on the market even at 6d?

Mr. J. Lynch

These are the main points which were raised. I do not wish to delay the House longer. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to complete my reply to the Second Reading debate. If there were any other points raised, I can deal with them more effectively on the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 31st May, 1961.

The Dail adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th May, 1961.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 25 May 1961