I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
In Section 8, subsection (5), page 6, line 2, "third" deleted and "fifth" substituted; and in line 4 "triennially" deleted and "quin-quennially" substituted.
Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—From the Seanad.
Amendments Nos 1 and 2 go together.
The amendments proposed here for acceptance by the Dáil are amendments which were suggested or agreed to by the Seanad. Amendment No. 1 extends the period of office of the Board of the Institute from three years, as was originally provided for in the Bill, to five years. Amendment No. 2 is consequential on that.
Is the Minister saying that this was proposed to the Dáil and——
It was proposed on the Second Stage in the Seanad.
Is there any reason why the Minister should change his mind?
In the original Act, certain members were appointed to the Institute for three years. The suggestion was made that five years would be a reasonable term. When I consulted the periods of appointment in respect of other boards, I found that five years was the period. I thought I should give a five year period to this Board as well.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
In Section 8, subsection (6), page 6, line 6, "triennial" deleted and "quinquennial" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In Section 34, subsection (2), paragraph (a) deleted.
In the Bill as it left the Dáil, it was provided that the Board of the Institute should have power to make appointments subject to the holding of public competitions, except in the case of appointments which require specialised qualifications not commonly held. It was argued in the Seanad that that reservation could apply to almost all forms of scientific and technical appointments. It was contended that the Board should, in respect of these appointments as well, be obliged to hold public competitions. I agreed that there was a strong point in favour of not giving the Board power to appoint to posts of specialised qualifications not commonly held without competition. Therefore, I accepted the amendment and I urge its acceptance by the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In Section 34 subsection (4), paragraph (a), line 34, "any office" deleted and "not more than two offices" substituted; and in line 35 "an office" deleted and "offices" substituted.
As the Bill left the Dáil, the Board of the Institute were empowered to make their own appointments and to fix the rate of remuneration in respect of these appointments, except in the case of special posts of responsibility so designated by the Minister. The intention was that these posts would be limited to a small number—perhaps one scientific and one administrative post—the purpose being to ensure that the Board would, in making these appointments, have regard to standards of remuneration and conditions of employment in similar posts in industry and the Civil Service.
The Seanad suggested that that power of the Minister to control certain appointments should be more specifically defined and I agreed to a suggestion that the number of posts that could be so defined should be limited to two, which means, in effect, what the Dáil had in mind. The obligation of the Board of the Institute to come to the Minister would, in fact, be confined to the two posts, the senior technical post and the senior administrative post.
I understood that when the Bill was in the Dáil and this matter was discussed, the Minister said that the desire was not to have the power to approve or disapprove of the candidate recommended but merely of the post so that the candidate's personality played no part in the exercise by the Minister of the power which he is taking in the Bill. I take it that is so?
That is still so.
The Minister's power will be exercised only in respect of the post and the salary conditions attaching to it?
That is quite correct.
The personality of the candidate has still nothing to do with the exercise of the Minister's power?
It will be a matter for the Board.
Surely not? The Minister may designate not more than two offices. Paragraph (b) says "a person shall not be appointed to an office so designated save with the consent of the Minister." The Minister has an absolute say in regard to the appointment of any person to either of the two offices designated by him as being an office of special responsibility.
Strictly speaking, the interpretation of the paragraph is, as Deputy Dillon has suggested, but I made it clear to the Dáil that the only powers I would propose to exercise in respect of these two appointments would be as regards the amount of salary to be paid and the conditions of employment, to ensure that that salary and these conditions would not get out of line with those of similar posts in other branches of the public service or in industry.
I did, I think, give an instance both to the Dáil and Seanad. If the Institute had in mind a particular person who is working in industry outside the country and were particularly anxious to procure the services of that individual and if they felt they would be obliged to pay him what might appear to be a high salary but felt it would be justified having regard to the qualifications of the individual, I indicated to the Dáil and Seanad that in these circumstances I would not propose to interfere with the appointment but that in all cases as far as the personality and qualifications of the person to be appointed were concerned I would not interfere. I think that will be the modus operandi in this case.
I gladly accept the Minister's personal assurance of his intention in connection with the first appointment that may be made while he is Minister for Industry and Commerce. He cannot bind any successor. The law will now say that a Minister may designate (a) not more than two persons in the service of the Institute as an officer of special responsibility; (b) a person shall not be appointed to either of these two offices so designated save with the consent of the Minister.
I understood Deputy Norton to ask the following question: Does this not simply mean that the Minister can fix the terms and conditions of the appointment and there is no question of the Minister having a veto on the individuality of the candidate chosen?
He has not.
I think the Minister misunderstood Deputy Norton and replied that that is exactly the position. That is not the position.
That was the intention.
It is not the position. If we adopt this amendment, what we are doing is giving the Minister an absolute veto on the person to be appointed to either of these two offices. The Minister has given his personal undertaking that, so far as he is concerned in respect of the first appointment made, if he should be Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time he does not propose to exercise his powers under paragraph (b).
Is that power not given to all Ministers in respect of public appointments? Take, for instance, a local authority. The names of those approved are sent forward by the local authority, the Civil Service Commissioners or, in this case the board——
Not that I ever heard of.
The Minister cannot make the appointment until it has been approved by the board. No officer is appointed to a local authority unless with the approval of the Minister for Local Government.
I could not answer the Deputy off-hand with regard to that. I am primarily concerned to clarify what I understood to be the exchange between Deputy Norton and the Minister. It seems to me to be clear that the Minister is not accurate. If Deputy Norton's impression is correct, all the Minister is in a position to say is: "I shall not exercise my powers under paragraph (b) if these two appointments fall to be made while I am Minister for Industry and Commerce——
As far as it affects the personality.
——as far as it affects the individual appointed." However, I think it is true to say that the power is there if the Minister chooses to use it. It is available to any of his successors in office.
We are designating two posts in respect of which the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the time being has an absolute veto as to conditions and personality. He can fix the conditions of the post. He can veto any person appointed to the post if he thinks that person unsuitable.
Strictly speaking, that is correct.
I think there is some misunderstanding. This was raised on the Committee Stage when the Bill was going through the Dáil. A number of Deputies persisted in raising the question of the unusual powers the Minister was claiming. As a result of the cut and thrust of the debate, the Minister said his concern to exercise this power was for no purpose other than to keep the salary and conditions within reasonable limits, so that they would not get hopelessly out of step with other posts in the Civil Service. The House then accepted the view that the Minister was concerned not with the qualifications of the candidates— because the Institute will prescribe and judge those—and not with the personality of the candidates.
The Minister said he was concerned only with the remuneration and conditions of the office and that he proposed to exercise this power only in respect of these two considerations, that is, salary, on the one hand, and conditions, on the other hand. The House accepted that. I think it was meeting the matter reasonably. The Minister goes on record as saying that, so far as he is concerned, and he is the piloting authority in respect of this Bill, that is the way he proposes to implement it. If any other Minister subsequently attempts to depart from it in such a way as to transgress the assurance now given by the Minister, I think we can have all the power necessary to raise the matter perhaps even in a reinforced way. Because of the assurance we have got from the Minister both here and in the Seanad, I have no doubts on the matter myself.
I raised the matter only to ensure that the change being made by the Seanad in no way invalidates or impairs the assurances the Minister had already given in this House and in the Seanad. I think the situation is being met. I think the House has all the power we require to ensure that, by reason of the Minister's assurance, the Act will be implemented in the spirit in which the Minister gave the undertaking to the House.
Assuming all Deputy Norton says is true, on the Minister's personal undertaking, I am prepared to accept that he does not propose to use the powers in paragraph (b). Why, therefore, is that paragraph in the Bill if nobody ever proposes to use these powers?
Perhaps I might put forward the reason given by Deputy Corish. In the case of most appointments to the public service by way even of recommendations by the Civil Service Commissioners, the Minister responsible for a post ultimately has the power of saying that that or some other person is not qualified in certain circumstances for appointment to the public service. It is a safeguard in the interests of the public service, I think, but it would be exercised, if at all, only very rarely. I doubt if it will ever be exercised in respect of these two posts. They will require certain qualifications of such a high standard that certainly will not commonly be held. It will be in the interests of the Institute that they can get people of the calibre they require and the Minister would, in the long run, require the veto, I suggest, only in respect of the salaries and conditions.
The Bill, as it passed the Dáil, contained this paragraph. It was amended in the Seanad. It continues to contain this paragraph. The Bill was accepted by both Houses. I am not attempting at this stage to raise the question but I submit in view of my assurances in the matter and of the unlikelihood of any Minister interfering with a personality, and particularly in view of the fact that the Institute itself selects the person to be so appointed, there is very little danger in the section as it stands that the Minister will be unreasonable about withholding sanction for the making of such an appointment.
It seems to me the oddest kind of legislation that the Minister takes the utmost care to assert that the one thing he will not do is to veto any question of personality connected with the appointment of a person to either of these two offices. He provides three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) gives him the power to designate two officers as being officers of responsibility. Paragraph (c) gives him the power to control questions of remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service, and these may be determined from time to time by the Minister for Industry and Commerce subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance. Then we have paragraph (b) which gives him a specific power which he says in no circumstances will he ever use. I do not think that that is reasonable.
Perhaps I should not say that in no circumstances would I ever use it. To give an example, the Institute might try to filch a specially qualified officer from another Institute or statutory company. For example, if they saw somebody in C.I.E. who had very high qualifications in an administrative way they might dangle another £1,000 a year before that person. It would not be desirable that people like that should be open to inducement from one office to another. If that happens at all it would only happen in rare cases. It is an example that just springs to my mind on the spur of the moment. It might never arise. The object there is to avoid bargaining between statutory bodies for the services of these men. There might be other cases when it might be necessary, but I cannot envisage them, when the Minister might invoke his power under subparagraph (b) but the likelihood is so rare, even in the cases I have given, that the power should be included.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 44, subsection (1) deleted and the following new subsection substituted:—
"(1) For the purpose of promoting the safe use by the public of a commodity intended for sale to the public (or for incorporation in any other other commodity intended for such sale) the Minister may, by an order under this section, declare that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, assemble or sell that commodity unless it complies with the standard specification declared by the Institute for that commodity or with a specification or standard of quality prescribed by a Minister of State or with any condition specified in such order which the Minister considers necessary or desirable."
When the Bill left the Dáil, Section 44 read:
(1) The Minister, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, may, by an order made under this section, declare in relation to any commodity intended for sale to the public (or for incorporation in any other commodity intended for such sale) that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, assemble or sell that commodity unless it complies with the standard specification declared by the Institute for that commodity or with a specification or standard of quality prescribed by a Minister of State or with any condition specified in such order which the Minister considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of promoting the safe use of such commodity by the public.
The amendment deals with the use of the words "in the public interest". It was pointed out in the Seanad that that phrase could be of such wide application that in respect of almost any commodity, irrespective of whether it would be necessary to control its manufacture in the event of its being unsafe in relation to life or health, the Minister could go too far perhaps, in prescribing or limiting the manufacture of goods. If I may give an example, cheap goods appear on the market from time to time. If the Minister had power in the public interest to prohibit the manufacture of goods unless they conformed to certain specifications published by the Institute, these cheap goods might not conform to such specifications. Many poor people require certain goods from time to time. It might be only on special occasions, such as weddings, First Communion days, or perhaps Confirmation days, when they would require, say, shoes, for relatives or children.
They would be new shoes, if the Minister "in the public interest," decided that shoes should conform to certain specifications. Therefore it would mean that they would possibly be subject to certain prices as well. Poor people might not be able to pay such prices and they might not be able to get shoes for their children for Confirmation or Holy Communion. Another example might be where by some mischance, production would not be up to standard, by reason, say, of failure of machinery. If the goods produced under these conditions did not conform to certain specifications, and if they were subject to an order made by the Minister under this section, it would mean that the manufacturer could not dispose of them by selling them under any circumstances.
In addition, it is often in the public interest that "seconds" made by competent manufacturers, or shop soiled goods should be sold. In present circumstances, that might be made illegal. In order to ensure that the intention of the section will be fulfilled, this amendment is introduced. The words "in the public interest" are dropped and the words "For the purpose of promoting the safe use by the public of a commodity intended for sale to the public..." etc., are substituted. I hope I have made the purpose of the amendment clear.
In other words, one can manufacture all the junk one likes.
Not necessarily.
You are giving them a charter to do so.
In certain circumstances, it might be in the public interest to have cheap goods available.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 44. Before Subsection (2) the following new subsection inserted:—
"(2) The Minister may, if he thinks fit, limit the application of an order made under this section to a commodity intended for sale to the public in any country or countries specified in the order or for incorporation in any other commodity intended for such sale."
In making an order I referred to in relation to the last amendment, if the application of the order was not limited to any country, it would mean that goods made here, unless they conformed to certain specifications required by the order, could not be exported to any other country. Circumstances could arise whereby specifications prescribed in this country might not be necessary in other countries, for example, by reason of climatic variations. In the case, for example, of oil heaters, in this country we are subject to pretty high winds and under this section it would be possible for the Minister to make illegal the manufacture of oil heaters unless they complied with certain specifications. These specifications might not be necessary in certain tropical countries: Perhaps tropical countries is a bad example; a better example would be countries where a high wind velocity might not obtain. As well as that, it is possible that firms in this country might get orders for delivering goods to certain specifications which might be below what they would be if intended for sale in this country. In these circumstances, unless the Minister had power to limit the application of the order to certain countries it would be possible that the export of goods to these countries would be prohibited.
I raised this question before. I see the point of the Minister's case. I am a little surprised to find it coming up by way of an amendment in the Seanad. I think one of the great dangers in our export trade would be that we should acquire the reputation of exporting what Deputy Sherwin so eloquently describes as junk. There used to be a great obstacle in the way of Japanese exports because in many lines they had a reputation of imitating domestic products to a very much lower standard of excellence. If you are exporting goods to an African State, or some recently emergent State where the whole procedure of standards and specifications has not yet had time to be formulated, I often wonder is it wise, if we have thought it expedient, in connection with promoting the safe use by the public, that we should exonerate a manufacturer from his obligations. The section stated originally that where the Minister is satisfied it is in the public interest, he may make a sale prohibiting order. Now we have changed that and we have simply said: "For the purpose of promoting the safe use by the public of a commodity..." the Minister may make an order.
I query the prudence of allowing any domestic manufacturer to export a commodity which falls below the standards set by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of Ireland, for no wider purpose than that of promoting the safe use by the public of the commodity concerned. Does not a general licence to export a commodity which falls short of that standard amount to a licence to export a commodity, the safe use by the public of which is open to question? I agree that every facility should be given to people to export goods, but I do not think we should encourage people to use this country as a source from which to export merchandise to our external markets which, in the judgment of our Department of Industry and Commerce, cannot safely be used by the public. I wonder has the Minister adverted to that aspect of the question?
I have. As I pointed out when proposing the amendment to the Dáil, circumstances can arise in which a commodity can be manufactured in this country which would not conform to the specifications and standards set by the Institute and made by order to apply to such goods as sold in this country. Those same goods could be quite safe for use in other countries in their circumstances. It would be unreasonable, if because of climatic conditions or other local considerations, these goods could be used in other countries, to prohibit their sale to the other countries.
Secondly, I envisage circumstances in which an order might be given by another country for the delivery of goods made in this country. If that country lays down certain specifications which fall short of the specifications prescribed by order made by the Minister applicable to goods for sale in this country, it would be unreasonable to prohibit our companies manufacturing and delivering that order in compliance with the specifications of the other country. Those are two specific cases. It would be unreasonable and unreal to restrict the right to manufacture goods in this country of certain specification.
I should like to point out that the power taken under the section is one which the Minister will exercise by order. I suggest to Deputy Dillon that in respect of any abuse simpliciter, the Minister may by order restrict the disposal of those goods by including the country to which they are to be exported, or any other country, within the terms of the order. Arguments for the retention of the amendment as it stands are substantial, and in the event of there being abuses, they can easily be remedied by the Minister by the making of another order.
What the Minister has said on the general proposition is sound, namely, that we should not insist upon imposing upon other people standards which they do not want, or compel them to accept standards which we necessarily require in the public interest and for our own purposes. At the same time, I think there is a danger if this section is administered in any kind of general or casual way, or without putting a microscope to every application received for the export of goods which do not comply with our statutory requirements in respect of standards and safety of manufacture.
In the new circumstances of recent years, many firms have gone into business—new firms not even of Irish nationality—for the purpose of producing goods for the export market. I have no doubt the aim and ambition of those people is to produce good quality goods and to sell them at competitive prices on the export market, but the Minister must take power, and it must be unceasing power, to ensure that no one will say: "Look, we can get a market in some of these new countries, in Africa or Asia, where they do not understand the technique of production, where we can sell them commodities which are not safe, not up to standard and risky to use. They would get us into trouble in our own country but it is O.K.; we can work them off on someone else who is not familiar with the technique of production." No one wants that to happen and we know that the Minister would not lend himself to a procedure of that kind, but I urge on the Minister that he should take power to deal with such a case.
I should like to hear from the Minister that this section will not be permitted to be used by those who deliberately manufacture below the safety standards and work off inferior or dangerous products on another people. It is essential that we should maintain our reputation, particularly in the export market, and that our name on goods in the export market should be synonymous with the best, and synonymous with safety. We should not permit anyone to gamble on an inferior product in the hope of getting a quick sale at perhaps a cheap price in the export market and of cleaning up in that way. That is something which would in the long run redound to our discredit and economic disadvantage.
I should like to bear out what the last speaker said. We manufacture for the export market such articles as shirts, and there is not a standard type of shirt.
There is no question about safety in a shirt, unless a person strangles himself with it.
The question of safety in our exports is what we are interested in.
This section will not apply to commodities like shirts.
We are discussing the commodities we export and are not tied to any particular commodity.
The Minister is not quite right.
"Safe use by the public."
In the United States, one can get shirts with different arm-lengths or different body widths. In this country, shirts are sometimes too long in the arms or too tight around the middle, as the case may be. We should have variety in sizes, particularly for the export market. We are taking on new markets now and we should be on the ball and well ahead when the bell rings.
It is interesting how people may mislead themselves, even when they have the best possible intentions. At first glance, any question of safety in connection with shirts sounds grotesque but it is not a bit grotesque. There is no greater danger attendant on a product than can be attendant on shirts or nightgowns as was found out. At one time, in fact, it was strongly argued that the employment of cotton flannelette in the manufacture of clothing should be prohibited, owing to the frequency with which women and children suffered dreadful burns as a result of that type of garment becoming ignited.
It is not impossible even in regard to so unlikely a commodity as clothing that a situation could arise in which the Minister might make an order stating that certain fabrics should not be used in the manufacture of certain types of clothing, on the ground that although they are cheap, they are so inflammable as to constitute a hazard to the safety of those who use them. It would be very unbecoming in these circumstances, if we determined that this did constitute a real hazard for our own people of so grave a kind that we prohibited the use of that fabric in the manufacture of clothes, that we would permit a manufacturer to manufacture it on a large scale for export to a country which had not yet had the time to establish this kind of standard for itself.
I am still not easy about it. If you determine that there are certain minimum standards associated with—I quote from the Bill—"promoting the safe use of such commodity by the public", it is a very doubtful procedure to allow a commodity which falls short of that minimal requirement to be manufactured here for export elsewhere. If you export, for instance, oil heaters—those are present to our mind because of the relatively recent scandals which arose in connection with their manufacture both in Great Britain and here——
Not here. We have no instance of any scandal or any accidents here, as far as I know.
I do not want to contradict the Minister but I saw a house burnt down with one. I can give the Minister particulars if he wants them.
I was given to understand there was no instance in this country but there were some in Britain.
I saw a house burnt down with one. Prompt measures were taken in Great Britain to prohibit the manufacture of that type of heater. Deputies will appreciate that so apprehensive were we here in Ireland of a consequential flood of these heaters from Great Britain in here that we passed very quickly through this House corresponding legislation to prohibit their import here. Under this amendment we could bring those heaters in here in parts, assemble them here and ship them to any foreign market who had not established standards of safety which we thought it necessary to establish consequent only on the experience they had in Great Britain.
I do not think that would be a good thing from the point of view of our export trade. I am dwelling on this here to-day because I distinctly recall that on the Second Stage of this and other Bills I directed the Minister's attention to this dilemma. While not wishing to place any unreasonable burden on exporters I really think we are going too far, if we make an order here restricting production of a commodity for the limited purpose of promoting the safe use by the public of that commodity, if we say then: "But if you produce it here, although we think it is dangerous to use, you may sell it anywhere you like outside Ireland."
I believe that if people associate garment manufacturers or oil burner manufacturers in Ireland with that kind of accident I have described, it could very easily create an impression abroad that Ireland was an exporter of goods of doubtful quality and would do a great damage to our reputation which, after all, is only in the process of making at the present time. It would be much better for us to forego some limited market for an unsatisfactory product in order to maintain our reputation for general excellence and dependability than to snatch a passing profit and thereby imperil the reputation of our entire export manufacturing trade in the world.
Our whole future depends on reputation. Even a politician's future depends on it. At one time the Japanese used to export bicycles to this country. I bought one some years back and the ball bearings sat down as if they were putty. Because of such occurrences all Japanese goods became synonymous with junk. No one would touch anything Japanese even though other products might be good. It is bad for our reputation if we export anything that is not up to standard and specification.
It is very easy to exaggerate——
I am not exaggerating about the bicycle.
If the Deputy would allow me; I did not interrupt him. It is very easy for anyone to exaggerate or over-emphasise a point in this House. I want to assure the House there is no intention, under the powers that the Minister takes under this section, to permit the sale abroad of unsafe commodities. I took up Deputy Coogan on the question of shirts, because I thought he was referring to matters that were outside the scope of the section. However, as pointed out by Deputy Dillon, it could happen that shirts might be made of certain inflammable material that would be a danger not only in this country but in other countries. Fire is fire in any country and inflammability is inflammability in any country. There is no quesion whatever that we would permit the manufacture from inflammable material of children's night shirts or any other items of wearing apparel for sale in this or any other country.
I should like to bring the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister may, for the purpose of promoting the safe use of manufactured goods, make an order prohibiting the sale of these goods unless they conform to certain specifications and standards prescribed by the Institute. That order is of general application and the Minister can limit the application of the order to any country or countries; in other words if specification has been made in respect of a commodity manufactured here which is higher than a standard which that manufacturer has been used to making in exporting to another country, if it has been quite acceptable in that other country—it might even conform to standard specifications made by a corresponding Institute of that country—would it not be reasonable for the manufacturer to approach the Minister and say: "The specification to which I have been manufacturing these goods for export to another country does not conform to the specification laid down here, but conforms in every way to the specification laid down by a similar institution in this other country"? Is it not unreasonable to say: "I do not care. Forget that market. I will not limit the application of this order to countries, excluding that country."
I should like to remind the House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a positive function in this. He must specifically limit the application of the order to goods for sale in any country, or countries. Furthermore, under subsection (4) of the section, it is specifically provided that:
Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either House, within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the order the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
There is, therefore, in each House of the Oireachtas power to annual an order, but there is the over-riding responsibility upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce to exclude a country from the operation of this order, if he thinks there is any danger in the goods concerned to the public of that country. Since a manufacturer cannot make these goods unless he gets specific permission from the Minister, under the order he cannot export to any country unless the goods conform with the standards laid down. I think there is ample protection in this.
We must assume that Ministers will not be irresponsible people. It will be the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, more so than of any member or members of this House, to ensure that the standard of Irish goods, particulary goods for export, will be high and will be such as not to damage industrially the reputation of the country in any way. I think the section is sound as it stands and I suggest that those who have spoken critically of this amendment are perhaps unduly apprehensive.
Question put and agreed to.
I think amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Before section 45 the following new section inserted:—
"( ) The Institute may from time to time publish scientific and technical information in its own name, including, with the consent of the Minister, codes of recommended practice."
The section as it stood empowered the Institute to publish from time to time scientific, technical, or other material in relation to codes of recommended practice. It was suggested in the Seanad that the approval of the Minister should not be necessary for the publication of such data. I admitted that a case could be made in relation to technical and scientific material, but, in so far as the Institute would publish data setting down codes of recommended practice, it would be desirable that the Minister should have power to prohibit the Institute publishing such data.
To give two concrete examples: let us consider the building industry. First, a code of recommended practice as published by the Institute may provide or recommend the use of a material manufactured abroad which has an equivalent manufacture in this country. Secondly, it might invade the field of labour relations and might in its publication of a code of recommended practice, breach the lines of demarcation that exist in certain trades at the moment in relation to building and allied industries. Before any such publications are put before the public, I think they should at least have the approval and sanction of the Minister. I think the House will approve of the limited power the Minister retains under this section.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 45 deleted.
This is consequential on amendment No. 7.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.