Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—Committee Stage.

Before we proceed, may I suggest that Deputy Cosgrave be notified——

He has been notified. I have undertaken to look after the amendments standing in his name.

Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Is there any precedent for so sweeping a power in the hands of the Minister? The section reads:

(1) The Minister may by a notification in writing addressed to any member of the Board remove such member from his office for reasons which the Minister considers sufficient.

(2) The removal of any member of the Board from his office under this section shall take effect as on and from the date on which such member receives the notification of his removal by the Minister or any later date specified by the Minister in such notification.

From my own experience, I know there is a precedent for it in recent legislation. I cannot put my finger exactly on the measure, but, according to my brief, under earlier legislation which organised the affairs of the Institute, the Minister similarly had power to remove members from office, that is, from the Industrial Research Committee and the Standards Committee.

Is there an obligation on the Minister to inform the member of the Board of the grounds on which he is being removed?

No. There is no obligation on the Minister to inform the member of the grounds of his removal. Between now and the next Stage, I will consider whether it would be desirable to include such a provision.

I should be obliged to the Minister if he would.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

I want to renew my reservation in regard to this matter. I can see some justification for the advance of the proposition that this Board set up by this House should exclude from its membership members of the Oireachtas who are actively engaged in the transaction of public business in the Oireachtas. It seems to me to be highly undesirable that because a person becomes a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas, he is thereupon disqualified from being a member of a board of this kind.

What is wrong with a man becoming a candidate for election to the Oireachtas? Many a person becomes a candidate with full knowledge that, if he is elected, resignation from a Board of which he is a member will be involved. It is a common experience of people in business and industry that if they become members of the Government Party and are asked to accept office in the Government, it involves their resigning membership of a company to which they may belong, and they take that risk. Nobody says that if they stand for election, that automatically disqualifies them from membership of the board.

I want to renew my suggestion that the conditions provided in Section 13 should be abridged to read that "any person who becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas shall. on becoming such member, cease to be a member of the Board." It is going too far simply to say that, because he becomes a candidate, that should disqualify him from membership of a board of this kind.

I will concede that the necessity for this provision would appear to be much less than the necessity for such a provision in other Acts. It has been a provision in other Acts such as the Export Promotion Act, 1959, the Shannon Free Airport Development Act, 1959 and the Irish Steel Holdings Act. During the course of the Second Reading debate, it was suggested to me — a suggestion to which I readily agree — that there should be no appearance of political affiliation being used as a qualification for membership of this or any other board. I stated, as I think we can all readily accept, that in the past people who were known to hold certain political views and who probably were affiliated to political Parties on either side of this House were put on Government boards. Apart from the fact that there might be political considerations in it, many of these people were eminently qualified, at any rate. They were appointed because the Minister involved perhaps knew these individuals better than he knew others who might be equally well qualified for a similar appointment. However, that is beside the point.

To ensure, as far as I can in this instance, that the nine members of the Board will be the very best we can get, having regard to qualifications in science, in industrial research or in industrial relations, there should be no appearance whatever of any political affiliations. To require a person who discloses his political affiliations, by becoming an election candidate, to refrain from membership of this board is I think, a further instance of the suggestion that the board, so far as is humanly possible, should be devoid of any political colour whatever.

This board will not be engaged in business activities, as such. Therefore, any suggestion that a person might put himself in a special position of preferment by getting on the board in business relations would not hold any ground. I am mainly putting forward the section as it stands because of precedent recently created. I concede that the necessity for requiring a person who becomes a candidate to either House of the Oireachtas to resign from the board is not as strong in respect of other boards, the legislation for which requires resignation as in Section 13. My main reason for putting forward this section is because that precedent occurs in recent legislation.

This slipped in in the Electricity Supply Board (Amendment) Act, 1958. It is incorporated in that Bill, No. 35 of 1958, Section 9. I remember that on that occasion I protested against the principle of saying that because a man becomes a candidate for election to this House or to Seanad Éireann he disqualifies himself from membership of a statutory body. The anomaly is that any of the officers of this Board can not only be candidates but can be elected to the House and would be seconded or would be given leave of absence while members of the House.

I am prepared to concede with some reluctance that, when a man becomes a member of either House, on the whole it is better he should cease to be a member of these boards whose activities may come up for discussion here at any time. I strongly deprecate the suggestion that because he becomes a candidate he should automatically be disqualified. I think it is all wrong and that it contributes to the wholly evil thesis that some persons in this country are concerned to promote the idea that to be a candidate for public life in this country is in some degree a pejorative activity that suggests some debasement of a man's standards.

It is revolting to suggest that because a man is prepared to take part in the public life of his own country he is thereby disqualified from usefully functioning on such a body as this Bill is designed to set up. That is a disedifying and an improper suggestion to make. I do not think the Minister should content himself by saying that the principal reason for it is because it appears in another Act. If a mistake appears in one Act that is no reason why we should go on repeating the mistake for evermore.

I do not think the people who engage in politics are an inferior breed. I have much more respect for a man who makes his political views known and takes no trouble to conceal them, whether he agrees with me or whether he is opposed to me, than I have for the Lanna Machree's dog type of person who protests he is disinterested, that he cannot see any difference between one Party and another. If he cannot, he is a poor citizen of a free democracy. If there is a Fine Gael Government in office and there is a distinguished Fianna Fáil scientist, I cannot see any difficulty about his being a member of this board. I cannot see any reason why, if a Fianna Fáil Government is in office and there is an outstanding scientist of strong Fine Gael persuasion, he should not be a member of this Board.

I would have much more respect for a member of this board with strong Fianna Fáil convictions who, if asked to stand as a candidate for his Party, would come out and stand, make his views known and say: "If I am elected I shall get off the board and if I am not elected I will get on with my job" than for the fellow who protests he has no political views at all. If such exist, some charitable person ought to undertake their political education so as to give them political views and make them realise they have a duty to help in preserving free institutions in the society in which they have the good fortune to belong. The best way they can do that is by participation in politics.

I feel that this kind of section contributes to the general unhealthy attitude which tends to grow in modern times to the whole question of politics. Certainly, when I was a child, and when my father and grandfather were active in public life in this country, nobody looked down upon them because they were politicians. They were looked up to then. If an atmosphere is growing up in this country now in which a generation of boys and girls is arising who show a tendency to look down on politicians, can we blame them if we bring in legislation here which says that any man or woman who offers himself or herself as a candidate for election to this House or the Seanad automatically disqualifies himself or herself from sitting on a statutory body? That is all wrong.

To accept that as an immutable precedent for legislation in this House is a great evil. It is one we ought to correct before we let it develop. We ought to accept generally, as I think we could accept, the principle that persons who are elected to this House or the Seanad should withdraw from statutory bodies of this kind for one reason — that it may become the duty of this House or the Seanad to discuss the workings of such bodies and that in those circumstances it is not appropriate that one individual should be a member of the body and of the Oireachtas charged with the responsibility of supervising its activities.

I would ask the Minister to turn this over in his mind, because almost unoonsciously, I think, we can slip into most undesirable practices of this kind. The tragedy is that nobody appears to give a damn. But it does seem to me we are encouraging the view amongst young and impressionable people that to be in politics in their own country is something for which a man has almost to apologise. I do not apologise. I look up to a man who takes his place in politics and faithfully and honestly defends his point of view. I despise a Lanna Machree's dog, but I think the legislation of the Oireachtas should confirm that point of view and that we should not give it to anybody to say the members of the Oireachtas have come to the conclusion that anyone who stands for Parliament had better be kept out of any body such as the Industrial Research and Standards Bureau, which is expected to do serious work, and anyone who expected to do serious work could not seriously contemplate becoming a politician. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think our legislation should support that view and, accordingly, I strenuously object to the provision carried over into this Bill from the Electricity Supply Board (Amendment) Bill, 1958, which provides that if you become a candidate for election to this House, you are no longer eligible for membership of the body we now contemplate setting up.

I agree fully with the sentiments just now expressed by Deputy Dillon, as I agreed with the same sentiments as expressed by him more forcibly some time ago when he addressed the political study group of the University students' association. I have been thinking while the Deputy was speaking, and not for the sake of trying to make progress or avoid further argument on it today, he has made a sufficient case for me to say I shall seriously consider the suggestions he has made; and if I cannot accept his suggestions, I hope to give him a better reason for not doing so than I have done today.

I am much obliged to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

This section says:

A member of the Board shall disclose to the Board any financial or other interest which he may have in any concern with which the Board proposes to make any contract.

Suppose he does not disclose, is there any sanction involved? Does the contract continue to be valid?

I do not think it affects the contract at all. But the Minister is empowered to remove any member from office if he feels the disclosure is serious enough.

That is the sanction contemplated — removal under general powers?

This, then, is merely a declaratory section of the minimal standard of conduct which the Minister would expect of a member of the Board?

It amounts to no more than that?

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 and 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete subsection (1) and substitute: "(1) The Institute shall formulate specifications for commodities, processes and practices from time to time."

The purpose of this amendment is to suggest that the Institute itself shall be free to formulate specifications for commodities, processes and practices from time to time without moving the Minister to do it. In fact, it seeks to confer statutory power on the Institute to do what the Bill suggests the Institute should ask the Minister to do under powers he has under some other Act. I should be glad to know the Minister's reaction, whether he attaches importance to the principle in the Bill that everything should be done under the Minister or whether he is inclined favourably to the view that the Institute should have power to do certain things, such as those mentioned in this amendment, on their own initiative and by their own act.

The basis of the Section in its present form is that the Minister, having regard to his official knowledge of the needs of the community and of the production and supply position for any particular commodity, would be in a better position to be the person to require specification to be made in respect of any particular commodity. The Institute will be largely concerned with operations which are technical rather than administrative. While they will be able to tell the Minister whether certain commodities are merchantable, of good quality or have a good performance under all conditions, they would not be in the same position as the Minister is to determine what commodities are more likely to require standards specified, having regard to the considerations to which I referred — production, supply, market, and so on.

The practice is, however, that while the Minister may request the Institute to provide or formulate specifications for a commodity, the Institute, on the other hand, may suggest to the Minister that a certain commodity is one in respect of which a specification ought to be formulated and the Minister invariably accepts that recommendation. But the overall intention is that the Minister should be in the long run the person who would specify the commodity in respect of which a specification ought to be formulated. I do not think that, in practice, the wording of the Section as it stands will make any real difference. The Deputy might well envisage a situation in which the Institute for some reason best known to themselves — perhaps because one member of the Institute is obsessed with a particular commodity — might waste some of its time examining that commodity and formulating a specification in respect of it.

That would, in the long run, be unimportant to the general economic well-being and to industry in particular. I suggest that there is nothing ominous in the wording of the section and that the procedure indicated here is one established in practice and one that has worked reasonably well in practice in the past. There is nothing in the section which precludes the Institute from suggesting to the Minister that a certain commodity or commodities should be examined and specifications formulated in respect of them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete subsection (2).

I think the same principle is involved here?

Might I explain why I do not wish to accept the amendment? The power which this subsection gives would be used mainly by the Minister to indicate to the Institute the order of priority in which it would seem to the Minister that specifications might be formulated. The same reasons apply — that the Minister should be presumed to be the person who would be in possession of the knowledge of what would be in the best interests of the community, the knowledge of industry as a general rule, of marketing, of supply and of the requirements of the public, and in the end whether a specification should be formulated. The intention in this subsection is that the Minister would be able to say: "I ask the Institute to examine commodities A, B, C and D, in that order, with a view to formulating specifications." Again, I think, it is a matter of procedure which has worked satisfactorily in the past.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20 put and agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Why has it happened, as the Minister mentioned on the Second Stage, that so few firms have used the standard marks prescribed up to the present?

There is power of prosecution of firms whose goods do not conform to standard mark requirements and therefore firms whose efficiency perhaps may not be to their own satisfaction do not apply for a standard mark to be applied to their goods in fear of being prosecuted for not complying with the requirements. I think that is the simple answer.

It is not a very complimentary answer to industry.

No, it is not, and perhaps the consequences are not complimentary either. I am removing the danger of prosecution for not complying with the requirements of the standard mark. The only sanction there will be is that the licence to use the mark will be withdrawn in the event of the commodity not coming up to standard.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."

This is a general point and I do not know whether is comes under the section or not but it really gives me occasion to pause. All this elaborate legislation is in part, in any case, designed to provide a system of standard marks and naturally the consumers seeing a standard mark on an Irish product will assume it conforms to certain specifications. The reason our people assume such a thing is that if it did not, the person who used the mark improperly would be liable to prosecution. Now all that happens is that he is told not to use it again. The sanction has now become so slight that one begins to ask oneself has the standard mark any significance at all? Has that aspect of it presented itself to the Minister?

Previous experience indicated that firms do not apply to use the standard mark and we can only assume that it is because they fear possible prosecution as a consequence of not conforming strictly to the conditions involved in using the mark. In Britain, and perhaps in other countries, there is a very big sales value in being able to put a standard mark on a commodity or to advertise that it complies with certain standards set up by the Ideal Homes Institute or some such body. It is a good sales qualification but the new system, first of all, of giving a licence to use the standard mark will I think be a mark of quality in goods concerned and the withdrawal of the licence will certainly be obvious to everybody and will convey that the goods having once enjoyed the licence to use the standard mark no longer have it. I think the sanction will be real enough. At any rate we are trying to see if it will produce greater use of standard marks since fear of prosecution seemed to be the main factor in not having the standard marks used more widely heretofore.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 3:

3. To delete subsection (4).

This is an odd provision, which it is sought to delete here, providing that the Minister may designate any office in the service of the Institute as an office of special responsibility whereupon nobody may be appointed to such office by the Institute save with the consent of the Minister and the remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of the person appointed to such office so designated shall be determined from time to time by the Minister subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance.

Perhaps the Minister would tell us what classes of officer he has in mind which would justify such exceptional interference in the day to day administration of a statutory body of this kind?

The obvious office would be that of the present Director and while it is envisaged in the new Bill that the Director will not have the same powers as he enjoyed under the old legislation — he will not have the powers of administration that he has now — it is considered desirable that the Minister should have power to designate such an office as one having special responsibility and should be in a position to indicate to the Institute what the level of remuneration should be. The purpose of that is to ensure that that level of remuneration will not be out of line with that in the Civil Service or in industry generally. That is the main purpose. There may be one, or perhaps two, other officers who might be so designated but it will be limited to posts such as the Director holds now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."

I merely want to ask the same question as that implied in the amendment put down by Deputy Cosgrave. The Minister should give us more information on it. This matter was raised by Deputy Norton last week on the Second Reading and the Minister did not refer to it in his reply. I know that that was not deliberate. Would the Minister give us a better idea as to what posts he has in mind? Are they posts of special responsibility and do they call for special responsibilities or special scientific or technical knowledge? Will the Minister designate these posts first of all as being posts of special responsibility and/or qualification prior to his actually making the appointment after consultation with the Minister for Finance? I do not know whether at this stage the Minister can say what type of post he has in mind. He just referred to one and I assume there are others in which he may take a special interest and want to take power to make particular appointments himself.

The purpose of this legislation is to give the Board of the Institute a much greater degree of autonomy than they have at present. For example, under existing legislation the Minister had to be consulted in the case of all appointments, clerical or otherwise. No appointment could be made without the consent of the Minister, but all appointments to the staff other than these designated posts of special responsibility will, under this Bill, be made by the Institute itself without recourse to the Minister. I mentioned the Director's post as one that I would anticipate would be of special responsibility. It will be a matter for the new Board of the Institute to build their own staff structure and to put it up to me and at that stage we would be able to decide. Certain posts are of special importance and in order to expand on what I have just said I would envisage a chief scientific officer or his equivalent, or a chief administrative officer or whatever equivalent term was put on it, as posts of special responsibility. It will be apparent to the Deputy that in cases like that it is obviously desirable that the Minister in a Board which is responsible to him, whose expenditure is from a Vote for which he is responsible to the House, should have some say in the level of remuneration offered and fixed for these posts.

Clearly they are posts of responsibility, but will the Minister answer one final question? Will he have the services of any interview board, like, say, the Civil Service Commissioners, in making these appointments, or will he just use his own judgment and make the appointments at his own discretion?

The Institute will select their man and if the Minister considers the man is worth the money he will consent to the appointment. The Minister will not be involved in the selection of the individual concerned.

Is that not a rather bad principle, to have the Minister come in in that way? Would it not be much better to have the Minister determine that posts of special responsibility should carry certain qualifications and a certain salary and deal with it in a general way rather than that the Minister should come in for the selection of an individual? It seems to me to be asking for trouble.

The Minister only designates the post as one of special responsibility.

The appointment of the person involves the consent of the Minister. The Minister really does not appoint the person. He consents to the appointment rather than the selection and appointment of that person by the Board.

That may be the Minister's intention but the section allows him much more power.

The subsection reads that "a person shall not be appointed to an office so designated save with the consent of the Minister." It is clear there that the appointment is made by the Institute but only subject to the Minister's consent.

What I was objecting to particularly was that the Minister visualised he would determine what salary and so forth the particular appointee should get. That is not the way the problem should be faced. The problem should be faced by saying that the post should carry "X" pounds salary but surely it is undesirable for the Minister to be in the situation of determining the exact figure after the name of the person has been sent to him.

May I put this to the Deputy, as perhaps he knows better than I do, the level of salaries for scientists in industry nowadays is very high——

——and I could envisage a situation in which the Board would say to the Minister: "We want to appoint a chief scientific officer. We know AB, who at present works for a firm in Coventry, will come to us but we doubt if he will come at less than £4,000 a year." The Minister will then be asked: "Do you think we would be right to offer £4,000 a year or do you think it might interfere with the level of remuneration which officers of a similar calibre enjoy in other branches of the service?" The Minister would say: "Yes, I think in the circumstances you should employ AB and give him the salary of £4,000 a year." In these circumstances perhaps the Deputy will see the section in a different light.

It could be used in a different way from the way the Minister has just indicated.

It could be, but it is hardly likely to be.

I would not trust some boys.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Is that the standard form for superannuation sections in the recent State-sponsored bodies' legislation?

Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."

The effect of Section 37 is to do away with the limitation there was in the earlier Act. Is that not so?

That is so — the ordinary preparation of Estimates in any Department.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 38 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 43.

I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (5), page 17, to insert "(including financial assistance in the form of loans or grants)" after "expenditure" in line 16.

May I refer first to amendment No. 5, which proposes that the Institute may, without the consent of the Minister, spend up to £5,000 in examining and otherwise processing an invention? It is considered that the limit of £1,000 contained originally in the Bill is too low, and that they should have power to spend up to a limit of £5,000, without asking the consent of the Minister.

Surely that is amendment No. 5.

I asked to be allowed to refer to it first.

I beg the Minister's pardon; I was trying to follow him.

The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to make it clear that the limit of £5,000 which is proposed in the following amendment, may be spent on any one project and that these projects should include expenditure incurred directly by the Institute on the development of an invention, together with any financial assistance which it may provide to others in connection with development work, and expenditure incurred directly by the Institute on the commercial exploitation of individual work, or any grants or loans which may be made to persons or firms for the commercial exploitation of the invention. In other words, the intention is to make quite clear that the £5,000 limit proposed in the next amendment for expenditure on inventions will include financial assistance in the form of loans or grants.

It is a global figure?

Will the report which is required under Section 42 to be laid on the Table of the Houses give any information about the loans or grants made under Section 43?

I expect it will.

It is highly desirable that information should be given as to how it is being spent, but, at the same time, I can see considerable difficulty, perhaps in too early publication in relation to an invention, which might mean that someone else could hop in, in front of the inventor. It might not be possible to publish immediately the amount which had been made available, because the patent rights might not have been protected. There should be a very clear understanding that at the earliest possible opportunity, bearing in mind what I have said, the fullest information will be given about the type of grants to individuals, as is provided for in the section.

As I say, I can see difficulties in giving the information immediately, but, at the first possible opportunity, once the patent rights are protected, the fullest information should be given, because where there is any grant procedure to help such individuals, there is nothing that prevents unhealthy gossip as much as publishing the details in the fullest possible form.

I entirely agree. I think the Deputy will agree it should be left to the discretion of the Board.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (5), page 17, line 17, to delete "one" and substitute "five".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44.

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (4), page 17, to delete "Dáil Éireann" in line 36 and substitute "each House of the Oireachtas"; to delete in line 37 "Dáil Éireann" and substitute "either House"; and to delete in line 37 "it" and substitute "that House".

This amendment cures a defect in terminology. As the Bill now stands, it requires every order made by the Minister under the section to be laid before Dáil Éireann only. This amendment substitutes "either House" for the words "Dáil Éireann", in relation to a resolution for annulment of an order.

When it is amended, it will be in the ordinary form?

It was not before. I shall not press the Minister too hard as to why it was not in the ordinary form. Even Homer nods sometimes.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 44, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

To revert for a moment to what the Minister said earlier, I am not quite clear about the sanction by way of prosecution for the use of a standard mark when the goods were not up to standard. That has been removed and prosecutions are no longer possible under this Bill. The sanction which existed was that the right to use the standard mark would be withdrawn. Now we go on to say that not merely is the right to use the mark withdrawn, but the goods cannot be manufactured. It does not seem to me that the right to have the standard mark withdrawn is of any consequence, if, under another section, there is a prohibition against the manufacture of the goods. There seems to be a necessity for clarification.

I think the Deputy is talking about something else. Is it Section 44 he is dealing with?

Specifications.

The intention is that when a certain commodity which is obviously a danger to life or health is being manufactured, the Minister should have power to say that commodity should not be manufactured in that form. Obvious examples are — and tragedies have arisen out of their use in recent years — pram harnesses in which children have suffocated themselves with certain types of leather which slides and chokes the child, polythene bags and oil heaters.

How can a polythene bag be dangerous?

Surely the Deputy has read of children who got their heads into them and were suffocated?

From that point of view, they are dangerous, but that is by misuse and not by use. I visualise ordinary use.

I cannot give any better examples, but it is obviously desirable that the Minister should have power to refuse to allow manufacturers to manufacture a commodity that is obviously dangerous for ordinary use.

There is nothing about danger in the section. It is purely a public interest section, unless I misunderstand it. Is there something about danger?

The last line of subsection (1) refers to "the safe use of such commodity by the public". It does not specifically mention danger to life and health, but that is obviously what it means.

I am defeated. In other words, because someone might stick his head in a polythene bag, no one is to manufacture polythene bags. That is nonsense.

The Minister may require that a warning as to its proper use should accompany the bag or be printed on it. If the manufacturer does not do that, the Minister should be empowered to prevent its manufacture.

All I can say is that I hope the Minister does not make such an order. It would not be in the public interest for him to do so.

With regard to these bags, the same problem arose in England and the authorities there made an order that the bags must be perforated. That makes the bags safe. The Minister here could make an order prohibiting the use of these bags unless they are perforated.

If the bags are perforated, what good are they?

Perforation will be a protection because there will be no danger of anyone being smothered.

These bags are used for flour and, if they are perforated, the flour will fall out.

They are not used exclusively for flour. As I say, there is an order in England; the bags must be perforated to avoid accidents.

If parents looked after their children properly these accidents might not occur at all.

I want to raise a matter now. It is a matter I have raised on several occasions before. Under Section 44 the Minister may "declare ... that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, assemble or sell that commodity unless it complies with the standard specification". Does this extend to the point of prescribing the size of containers? The point is that, 50 years ago, quite a number of commodities were sold in sacks. The sack was then 2½ cwts. and, believe it or not, I have seen men lift those sacks. Indeed, in those days it was considered a great achievement to be able to carry one up a flight of stairs. I suppose the world is changing, but there has survived from that time a practice, now practically confined to the fertiliser industry, of packing fertilisers in 2 cwt. bags. I think that is almost the only commodity that continues to be packed in that form. The plain truth is that to handle 2 cwts. of certain types of fertilisers, such as slag, is a very difficult operation for persons belonging to the present generation; they do not seem to have the physique of those who went before them.

There is no particular reason why the public should have imposed upon them the very material inconvenience of having to grapple with containers of this kind. If the Minister can envisage a farmer in the field trying to put a 2 cwt. bag of fertiliser into a manure distributor he will realise what an extremely inconvenient and difficult thing that is to do. I should be glad to know if there is power here to require that no commodity shall be packed in a container weighing more than 1 cwt. I can well imagine some of my conservative friends speaking a word in defence of the half sack of flour, which is 10 stone in weight. Personally, I would be in favour of restricting the weight of the container to 8 stones. That has been done pretty extensively, I think, in the United States. I do not know how far it has been done in Great Britain. I am perfectly certain it would be an eminently desirable reform. It is coming in because with the more general user of multiwall paper bags, which are easily disposable, the very structure of the container itself practically imposes a limitation of 8 stones on the packer. But the jute bag can still be used for much larger weights. As I say, the change is coming fairly rapidly. I should be glad to know whether the Minister considers it is practical to expedite this change and, if so, do the powers under Section 44 enable him to take the requisite steps to ensure that there will be uniformity in this matter and that containers in excess of 8 stones are no longer allowed?

No. The section does not empower the Minister to make any orders on the lines suggested by the Deputy. The step suggested by the Deputy would require very detailed examination. To require commodities to be packed in containers of not more than 8 stones capacity could have repercussions in a very far flung field. A great many industries have handling equipment for containers of much larger capacity and much higher weight. Perhaps they find that more economic.

I have noticed a case in point in the course of visiting a fertiliser factory. There was an automatic filler into bags of a certain size. I asked the operative why smaller bags were not used. He said it was because the machine filled bags of a particular size; to replace the machine would be very costly. Not only would the filler have to be replaced but the stitching machine further along the line would have to be replaced also. As I say, making it compulsory to pack commodities in containers not in excess of a certain size would have very wide repercussions. It is a matter which would require detailed examination. It is not envisaged the Minister would have any power in respect to that under this section.

I agree the matter would require careful study. One would have to specify the special commodities in respect of which a maximum would be fixed. There are commodities packed in barrels and other kinds of container in which the maximum weight of 8 stones would be unsuitable, because long practice has established the custom of using mechanical methods of handling and that, in turn, removes the problem of physical effort associated with lifting. I think, however, that the Minister ought to turn his mind to this question, at least, of commodities which are normally manhandled with a view to determining whether we should not prescribe a maximum weight, recognising at the same time that there are other commodities to which such restrictions could not properly apply. I readily concede that there are commodities where restrictions would not suit, but it is equally true to say there are commodities in relation to which the standardisation I suggest is overdue, is now on its way, and could, with great advantage, be expedited.

I will keep that under review, but I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that the men of the last generation were better than the men of this generation.

In lifting large weights. I am not sure that it is a better thing. I do not know of anything to boast of in being able to carry 20 stones.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 45 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6th June, 1961.
Top
Share