Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1977

Vol. 300 No. 9

National Board for Science and Technology Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.

While it is of no importance, I understood that the other Bill from the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy was to be taken first.

No. The House is taking this Bill first. Is the Deputy prepared to proceed with it?

There was some mix up this morning but the Bill dealing with the setting up of the National Board for Science and Technology will be taken first.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 15, after "institute," to insert "college,".

This amendment will insert the word "college" after the word "institute". The purpose is to remove any ambiguity regarding the inclusion under "institution" of university colleges, colleges of technology or regional technical colleges. This amendment was approved by the Special Committee.

I should like to tell the Minister that I have no intention of holding up this Bill and I hope we will get it finished with quickly. When in Opposition the Minister tabled an amendment along these lines except that the word "university" also occurred as well as the word "college." Although his predecessor agreed to the amendment in its present form I am not so sure that the Deputy's own amendment was not better in its original state because, although we have not any university institutions which are not simultaneously colleges at the moment, it is not unthinkable that we might have such in the future. I am surprised that the Minister did not reinstate his original amendment in the form which it first was.

The parliamentary draftsman advises that it is not necessary, particularly taking into account the saver which exists in section 4 (4) (b).

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, line 19, to delete "Industry and Commerce" and substitute "Economic Planning and Development".

This is simply consequential on the recent decision to put responsibility for this board as a board with the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.

Will it involve the transfer of staff from the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy to the new Department?

It will involve the transfer of some staff. Most of the staff will be officers of the board rather than of either Department but some staff will transfer to the new Department.

I do not object to the amendment, which of course has only emerged, as the Minister said, since the new Department was created. I can see a kind of justification for it, but is it intended that the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy will now shed all responsibility in this field? Perhaps the Minister will say something about the reason why this board, having started out under his predecessor's aegis, is now going to be transferred to a brand new Department?

It is not intended that my Department will shed all its responsibilities in this field. The work of the board will to a fair extent be long term planning work and in so far as it is that it is thought more appropriate that it be dealt with by the Department of Economic Planning and Development. Of course a lot of the work of the board will be involved with the industrial application of science and technology and the industrial application of research. Those aspects of the matter will continue to be dealt with under the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 3.

In page 3, subsection 1 (c), line 1, to insert "and of public with private investment" after "investment", and in line 2 to delete "such" and to substitute "public".

This amendment was agreed to by the Special Committee after long discussion between myself and my predecessor. It is based on an amendment of mine which, as far as I can recall, was reamended somewhat to represent the collective views of that Special Committee. In its present form it represents those views and is what was ultimately agreed by that Special Committee. It is intended to ensure that in promoting co-ordination of public investment in science and technology the situation in the private sector is taken full account of and that public investment is not dealt with as if it existed in a vacuum without any interrelationship with private investment.

Again I am inclined to think that it might have been better to leave the matter as it stood. I agree that the amendment before the House was conceded by the Minister's predecessor. What occurs to me, if I understand the matter correctly, is that it is conceivable that there might be a system of incentives to the private sector for the encouragement of research in science and technology which might come under the heading of promotion. I am not altogether clear that it is necessary to restrict the latter part of this amendment to public investment. I see the general sense of what is happening to this paragraph and I agree with it, but I do not see that the latter part of the paragraph, in line 2 to delete "such" and to substitute "public", improves it very much. I would not have any apprehensions about it if that change was not made.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following paragraph:—

"(f) to promote research,".

This amendment is considered necessary arising out of two other amendments relating to the application of science and technology—amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which were agreed by the Special Committee. Originally the support and development of research and of the application of science and technology by the board were regarded as implicit in the legislation. This amendment is designed to highlight the importance of fundamental research and to strike a balance with amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which refer specifically to the application of science and technology. If this amendment was not included it might be felt that fundamental research per se was being downgraded.

I agree with the amendment. I read the report of the Second Stage debate on this Bill—I did not take part in it—and although the Minister and his predecessor spoke about the problem of drawing boundaries between this new board and existing institutions dealing with science and technology, it was not clear from the debate exactly how this Bill was going to draw those boundaries. In regard to this amendment I should like to say that it and other parts of this subsection seem to collide with parts, for example, of the Higher Education Authority Act. Perhaps the Minister will find an appropriate moment in the course of this Stage to tell the House how it is proposed to prevent such a conflict. Perhaps there is not any way of doing it but how does his Department see the possibility of preventing conflicts between the operation of this board and the operation of the Higher Education Authority and the operation of other institutions like universities in which the promotion of research is carried on?

I will deal with the point the Deputy made shortly because it arises again on a subsequent amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following paragraph:—

"(g) to promote the application of science and technology to economic and social development,".

This amendment is designed to promote the application of science and technology to economic and social development. This was originally regarded as being implicit in the function of the board. However, the Special Committee was not satisfied that this, particularly in relation to industrial aspects, was so and it was therefore agreed that there should be specific reference to application to economic and social development which, of course, comprehends industrial development. I asked for that myself at the committee and it was agreed by the whole committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following paragraph:—

"(h) to promote the development of Ireland's natural resources through the application of science and technology,".

Again, this is an amendment which was agreed by the committee at my suggestion. The addition of subparagraph (h) has the effect of making it a function of the board to promote the development of our natural resources through the application of science and technology. It was felt this was implicit in the board's powers but the committee thought it proper to spell it out specifically to draw attention to it.

There can be no objection to the amendment but I want to take up what the Minister said about certain functions being thought implicit in the board's work and that he and the special committee thought it would be best to spell these things out. That being so, I would ask the Minister to consider whether the Bill ought not to contain a specific reference not just to Ireland's resources but to the submarine resources which may not belong to Ireland in the specific legal sense but to which Ireland might have access under international law now or in the future. I realise this is a sphere in which he himself is interested and so I hope he may think it worth considering. I am referring not only, of course, to problems of fishery conservation and other problems surrounding the whole fishing industry, but I am talking also about the exploitation of the resources of the seabed on the Continental Shelf, and not only the seabed on the Continental Shelf appurtenant to Ireland to which we may be found by the pending arbitration to be entitled, because it may be that we will have a share in the further out seabed when technology has reached the point of being able to exploit that bed. The direction the Conference on the Law of the Sea is taking is towards sharing the deep seabed between all the nations of the world with a heavy bias in favour of the under-developed nations and it is by no means clear that countries like this will be excluded from participation in the product of the deep seabed far away from our Continental Shelf when it is available. It is possible we may ourselves have to produce a technological input to give ourselves the benefit of that. I quite agree with the Minister that all this line of country might be thought to be implicit in the Bill but, if certain things are being spelled out, I think between now and the Report Stage, if the Minister has no objection, he might insert a specific reference to this also.

My feeling is that the sort of things to which the Deputy refers are covered by the phraseology in the Bill. I would have no objection to changing the wording here to read:

...to promote development of the natural resources under Irish jurisdiction through the application of science and technology.

That comprehends things that are not precisely our property in the traditional sense but property over which we might have control as a result of decisions of the Law of the Sea Conference.

I appreciate the Minister's willingness to meet the point, but I am not entirely sure whether—I am speaking now off the top of my head—"jurisdiction" is the right word. Would the Minister consider this?

I will do that.

Are we taking the amendment now as it stands?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, line 22, to delete "to promote the co-ordination of" and substitute "to co-ordinate".

It was felt that the section as it stood required strengthening and that something more might be expected from the NBST rather than simply the promotion of co-ordination. Its main function as a board will, of course, be the co-ordinating of activities in relation to science and technology. This amendment was agreed by the committee after a fairly full discusion.

I see the point of it but it again raises the question which the Minister has undertaken to deal with of concurrence between different institutions. For example, if the power of this board is being strengthened by the amendment and if the board is now able to brandish an Act which shows its entitlement to co-ordinate activities related to science and technology, is it then in a position to indicate imperatively, or fairly imperatively, to a university science department that its projects in regard to research of one kind or another or development are extravagant or do not go far enough?

I would draw the Deputy's attention to the provisions of subsection (4) (a) of this section which is a saver for existing institutions and their powers, rights and duties, and that would avoid the sort of conflict the Deputy appears to think might be troublesome.

I have read the sub-section and I quite agree that reasonable men behaving reasonably will not have any trouble but we must always consider the others. This strengthening would seem to me to give the board a certain power, if nothing more, of making a nuisance of itself by interfering with the work of university departments.

I think it is a useful amendment. It will give a better sense of direction to the board.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, between lines 52 and 53, to insert the following paragraph:

"(1) to promote the application of science and technology to the development and improvement of industrial and commercial design,".

The Special Committee agreed the board should have a role to play in relation to commercial and industrial design. The formula used is that agreed as a compromise by the committee. It will serve the purpose of emphasing the scientific and technological involvement of the board and at the same time ensure that other public bodies concerned with industrial and commercial design would not feel that their functions were being pre-empted. The body we had particularly in mind here was the Kilkenny Design Workshop.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, between lines 52 and 53, to insert the following paragraph:—

"(m) to advise and assist inventors in registering and protecting their inventions.".

The Special Committee agreed the new board should have a role in advising and assisting inventors from the patents angle. The particular formula of words was arrived at so that it could be seen that the function of the board was to advise and assist the inventors themselves and not pre-empt in any way the functions of the Patents Office.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I want to say a few words about clause (e) in subsection (3). No doubt the Minister and his predecessor are happy enough about this. It is not suspect if one is always dealing with reasonable people. There are, however, activities related to science and technology in which some Minister—I do not say he is present in this House; I hope he never will be—might direct the board to engage in and which would by no means meet with the approval of the House.

I give two instances. One would be to engage in activity related to science and technology with a military bearing. I am not one of these people with a kind of one-sided pacifism whereby any operations of a self-defensive kind undertaken by a democracy are suspect while those undertaken by other kinds of state are not. I do not want the Minister to misunderstand me. The phraseology of paragraph (e) does in fact—and it is hidden in a large number of paragraphs—seems to confer a fairly wide discretion on some future Minister who might not be of the same disposition as any of the parties in this House to require the board to carry out work or direct others to carry out work of a military complexion which would not meet with the approval of the House. I realise that there are all kinds of controls operating even on a bad or a tearaway Minister but to that extent the discretion seems rather wide.

Another instance is the scientific question now beginning to worry those who understand and are expert in such matters, the matter of genetic manipulation, on which only recently the Royal Irish Academy have set up a Committee for the purpose of offering advice to the Government in regard to legislation which might be necessary in order to control undesirable, really wicket experiments in genetic manipulation. While I do not wish to raise alarms in regard to the paragraph, these are two instances of scientific or technological research in which as it now stands uncontolled discretion given to a Minister seems to present in the future a potential danger. I do not want to make a meal of this point but I should like the Minister to think about it between now and the Report Stage.

It has been represented to me that perhaps the Minister would consider the extent to which the State currently affords protection in regard to nuclear fission and use of nuclear energy generally. It has been suggested that the activities of the board might be extended to give it an advisory function in regard to this matter. Rather than coming to any conclusion on the point, I think I should be more interested in having clarification from the Minister as to whether he would see any useful purpose in the suggestion and as to what extent currently the State has formal consultative provision in regard to radiation safeguards and so on which might generally under this Bill be co-ordinated. The Minister might comment on the matter on Report Stage and we could consider it then.

The first point I want to make about paragraph (e) of subsection (3) is that it does not provide for any initiative by the Minister. There may have been a misunderstanding about this on the part of the two Deputies. Initiative, in so far as it was exercised would come from the board itself but it would be subject to the approval of the Minister. Therefore the Minister would not be initiating any activities that might be carried out under paragraph (e); he will simply approve or disapprove of the proposals of the board to carry them out.

This subparagraph was inserted to provide for the undertaking of activities by the board in relation to what might be described as gaps or gap areas in the general science or technology field where other institutions are either unable or unwilling to act. The requirement of approval by the Minister is inserted in order to ensure that the board would not engage in activity without having due regard to the functions of other institutions or the possibility that they would act if requested or prevailed upon. So far as the specific matters referred to are concerned, the initiative would come from the Board. I cannot see any military initiative coming from the board but, if Deputies wish it, I have no objection to inserting here after the word "such" the word "non-military" or "civil" whichever is the opposite to "military" in this context.

We have disposed of that matter but it could be amended on Report.

I shall try to think of some suggestion.

The initiative would have to come from the board and, as I understand it, any military-minded Minister could not instruct them to carry out research of a military character. I do not think it likely that this country would want to engage in military research, which is abnormally expensive and for which, happily and hopefully, we shall have little need.

It is not unknown that NATO and many of the American military establishments have made funds available to academic institutions in Ireland and to individuals to engage in scientific research.

I was expressing the view that I do not anticipate that this board, which has a great variety of matters of considerable importance to this country to deal with, will seek to divert any significant, or any section at all, of its budget to the undertaking of military research which I think might more appropriately be done elsewhere.

As regards nuclear energy mentioned by Deputy Desmond, the position is that the Nuclear Energy Board are obviously the advisers of the Government in relation to matters concerning nuclear affairs and I envisage that situation continuing. I do not think this board would have any significant functions in regard to nuclear matters and the existing Board that has been established to deal with those matters would obviously be the appropriate one to continue to do so.

I am happy with that——

Sorry —Deputy Kelly.

I appreciate the way the Minister is meeting the cases made by Deputy Desmond and myself but it is not unfair to remind the Minister that in his contribution as a Deputy on the Second Stage debate on this very same Bill he devoted quite a lot of his speech to talking regretfully about the apparent limits that lay on us technologically in regard to the development of an armoured car. It was in the context of this very Bill that the Minister when in Opposition went out of his way to raise military matters which had not been adverted to by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I want to make it clear that I have not the least objection to this board having a role in military matters when the national interest requires it. I am not happy with the idea that this might be in the discretion of the Minister at any time. Although I see the Minister's point about the word "approval" for him meaning approving only when the board have initiated the suggestion, I do not think the language in the paragraph yields that result with entire clarity. I will try to make a suggestion for improvement on Report Stage.

I am glad the Minister clarified the point in relation to the national board and the Nuclear Energy Board because there has been some confusion in the minds of certain individuals making representations.

When Deputy Kelly referred to the possible military activities or research by this board not being excluded, I had in mind nuclear research in the context of research and the general discussion which has taken place here. I did not advert to the vehicle referred to in the previous debate which is clearly not of a nuclear nature. That is an armoured personnel carrier not an armoured car. I understand its construction is now about to commence anyway. It was regrettable—and I am sure Deputy Kelly will agree with me—that the construction of that vehicle which was invented and developed by an Irishman actually started in Belgium. I thought that was a great pity at the time.

I agree, but it was he who introduced that topic into the Second Stage debate.

The Timoney armoured personnel carrier will not stand up to nuclear weapons.

I said nothing about nuclear weapons.

I think we had better not continue on armoured cars.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 10.

In page 4, line 20, after "conduct" to insert "and publish".

As it stands, this section provides only that the board shall periodically conduct a review on the effectiveness of the programmes provided for in the science budget. Publication was not precluded by the wording then used, but the previous Dáil Special Committee considered the position was ambiguous and agreed there should be a specific reference to the publication of the review. This amendment was agreed by them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 4, lines 22 to 24, to delete subsection (2).

The only effect of amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together, because they are essentially the same thing, is simply to change the enumeration of the section and to take what is now section 6 (2) out from section 6 and call it section 7 on its own, the reason being that it was thought appropriate to separate them into two different sections rather than possibly run the risk of the two subsections of section 6, as it stands, being read and construed together. It is a minor point but it was thought preferable to separate them lest it might be argued afterwards that either of them should be read in the context of the other.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 4, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7.—Any institution for which provision is made in the Science Budget shall supply to the Board such information in such form and at such time as the Board may require.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4, lines 25 and 26, to delete the words "institute, conduct and promote" and substitute "institute and conduct".

This amendment is to section 7 in the Bill, section 8 as it will be. The amendment is consequential on the specific provision under section 4 (1) and the new paragraph (f) which provides for the promotion of research under amendment No. 4.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 4, subsection (6), line 46, before "a member" to insert "the chairman or".

I drew attention to this at the Special Committee the last time, and my predecessor agreed that there was a drafting error in the Bill as it stands, because while the period of office of the members would be specified as not exceeding four years, it being open to the Government to determine the length provided it does not exceed four years, the period of office of the chairman would not be specified and will be indefinite. That is unsatisfactory from two points of view. Either he could be there for too short a time or too long a time. It is better to specify his period of office the same as the ordinary member.

I see the point but I do not think the drafting is entirely clean yet. Section 8 (1) provides:

The members of the Board shall be a chairman and such number (not being more than ten) as the Minister may from time to time determine.

In other words, subsection (1) describes the chairman as a member. A certain contradiction of a minor drafting kind seems to remain in the section even with the Minister's amendment. In other words, subsection (1) which the Minister's amendment does not touch, mentions a chairman and a number of other persons but they are all equally members according to that subsection.

My predecessor made the same point as the Deputy is now making in reply to me at the Special Committee, and I pointed out to him in reply to that point that subsections (2) and (3) deal with the chairman quite separately from the ordinary members. The section as a whole, therefore, comprehends two different sets of rules as it were, one for the chairman and one for the ordinary members.

I have a note on my copy of the Bill that this might be improved—but I should like to think about it—by inserting the word "ordinary" before the word "member" in subsections (5), (7), (8) and perhaps others. All I am saying is that the drafting is not very clean. I see the Minister's point and I suppose he will have no difficulty with it. It is only a tiny point. The fact remains that, although the chairman obviously is dealt with in a special way, he remains a member of the board and the other subsections speak about a member of the board without making it clear that it is an ordinary member of the board they are talking about. So, ex facia, whatever the intent may be which, of course, is obvious enough, there is a drafting conflict. I will try to introduce an improvemnt on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are cognate and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, paragraph (a), line 33, before "interest" to insert "material or financial".

I had these amendments down for consideration at the Special Committee but they had not been reached or decided when we stopped. The amendments are intended to make more specific the references to the kind of interest which a member of the board must disclose, the kind of interest in any body corporate with which the board proposes to make a contract. For example, if some member of the board was a staff member of a university and the university had certain contacts with the board which might lead to contracts, I consider that it would be unreasonable to exclude a member of the university from talking about this, particularly if the matter referred to a department in which he had no direct interest. I propose, therefore, to put in the words "material or financial" because there could be a very slight interest which would not be material and which certainly would not be financial.

Is the Minister trying to distinguish between a personal interest of a member and an interest which is only remotely personal, arising merely through his membership of a university?

I do not want a remote interest to prevent a person carrying out his functions as a member of this board.

Perhaps on reflection the Minister may feel that he has unduly narrowed the matter of interest. One may not have a material or a financial interest but still have a beneficial interest because an individual with whom one is friendly may have an interest but this could in no way be construed as being a beneficial interest to the member of the board. Here where we have such a small community, particularly from the point of view of the field covered by this Bill, persons could have a great interest and I suggest that either now or on Report Stage the Minister might have a look at the unduly narrow effect of the section because of the excessively rigid nature of the proposed section as amended.

I should like to be clear about what the Minister has in mind. For example, the Chairman of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, or someone of that kind, under the unamended section would have an interest but not under the proposed section as amended. Is it to prevent complications of that kind that the Minister wants this amendment?

There might be an allegation that the chairman, under the unamended section, would have an interest, but it would be so remote that it would be unfair to exclude him. Assume that the Chairman of the IIRS was a member of the staff of Trinity College, in some department which was totally irrelevant to some matters the board had under discussion, it might be alleged that because the chairman was a member of the Trinity College staff that he had some kind of interest in seeing some other staff member of some other department being given, say, a research project under the direction of the board. That would put him in an unfair position. It is impossible in such a small country as this totally to exclude the kind of situation Deputy Desmond referred to. Everyone in a particular field knows everyone else and, therefore, we should try to narrow the form of interest involved.

What the Minister seems to be aiming at might be better expressed by using the word "personal" or something like that—possibly "material personal interest".

I am asking the Minister to have another look at it. Not only are we a small society but the number of people inevitably who would be affected in their daily work by the ramifications of this board would be very small, members of a very closed community. There is a great deal of contractual research work being done outside the academic institutions, increasingly so, and many such persons have more than one finger in the pie. There is a multiplicity of interests which a person could have and I am afraid the Minister might be opening up something under which a person might have a beneficial interest: a person could have a beneficial interest and he could by sleight of hand do another individual not just a good turn but such a good turn that he should be obliged to disclose it.

I will have a look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, paragraph (b), line 35, before "interest" to insert "material or financial".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister might consider the advisability of inserting some such phrase as "subject to sanction by the Minister". The Minister is well aware that many boards, particularly in relation to the premises they occupy, tend to develop empires of their own. The section states "provide, equip and maintain offices and other premises". One could have a board going off and spending 50 per cent of their allocation on their premises. We are a small country and any money we allocate should be spent on science and technology, not on bureaucracy, not on expensive offices. I do not want unduly to inhibit the National Board for Science and Technology or the Science Council who get little enough money, but in the years ahead we may well need the kind of constraint I am suggesting.

I do not think it is necessary to spell this out. The Minister has ultimate financial control. If the board are going to splurge their badly needed funds on elaborate accommodation for themselves, the Minister will step in and tell them they cannot do it. The section refers to equipping and maintaining offices. If you make all that subject to the consent of the Minister it will mean they will have to get his consent if they want to buy some trivial piece of office equipment. A board like this should be given a reasonable degree of autonomy and should not be subject to petty ministerial restrictions.

I accept that but I want to draw attention to the word "offices". When one is talking in that context for any State-sponsored body, even for such a modest and responsible body as this will undoubtedly be, one is entering the big-time financial league and I would like to know the extent of public expenditure involved in providing these offices.

These people will be primarily scientists and I am sure they will be more anxious to put the money into laboratories and other facilities that would increase the store of human knowledge rather than in providing elaborate office accommodation.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 8, line 10, after "information" to insert "classified by the Board as confidential which has been".

This amendment puts on the board the obligation of classifying information as confidential where they consider this necessary and so eliminating any doubts about the matter. Confidentiality is considered important in relation to the work of the board, particularly where it may interact with industry and where patents or inventions are involved. As the section stands, it would prohibit the disclosure of any information coming to the knowledge of an officer or servant and I think that would be unreasonable because it is too wide. It would mean in practice that officers of the board could not give public lectures even though they would be talking about matters which had no confidential element in them.

I fully agree with the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 8, line 15, to delete "£50" and substitute "£500".

This amendment proposes to increase the penalty for disclosure of classified information from £50 to £500. In my opinion if the information was worth disclosing, £50 was not an onerous penalty. Therefore, I thought it better to increase the penalty to £500, the figure the Attorney General recommends as being the appropriate maximum figure for summary conviction.

That is true but I am not entirely sure if it is water-tight. The point only occurred to me at a very late stage when I was looking at the amendments. I would like to consider this and possibly make other suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

What I want to say about this section bears on the drafting of subsection (1). I agree with both the general object of the section and the Minister's amendments but it seems to be defective in two ways. First, the subsection, as drafted, exempts from penalty anyone who may disclose information after he has ceased to be an officer, servant, consultant or adviser. The section would be improved by the inclusion of words such as "or has been" after "is". In the case of an officer who has served for a long time—20 years might have elapsed between the time he gained certain classified information and its publication—the publication of that information would not be of any importance because the technology in question would have been long since overhauled.

In the case of a consultant or adviser it would be different because the period of his consultancy or advisership may be very short. The purpose of this section, with which everyone must agree, is defeated if the criminal sanction resting on the person aimed at is lifted once his consultancy comes to an end.

The second point is that the expression "while performing duties" is an infirmity in the subsection. I can imagine some of the people in the categories named, particularly advisers and consultants who may be there for a short time, may, because of their past status or their known involvement, whether past or present, involuntary, not while performing duties, become recipients of classified information. I am drawing a distinction between a person receiving information in that way and his getting it while actually performing consultancy duties. I am only making the point a defence counsel would make for a consultant or adviser prosecuted under this section.

These are two respects in which the section might be tightened and I will put an amendment down on Report Stage.

The Deputy's first point is valid, that is that somebody should not be subject to prosecution only while he is a member. If the disclosure took place afterwards, it is fair that he should be still liable if he originally acquired the information as an officer or servant. If the House agrees, I suggest that in line 9, after the word "is"——

We are not dealing with an amendment but with a section. Amendments can be made on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Thursday?

I would like it to be taken as soon as convenient. It is a serious difficulty for the National Science Council that they have lived for much longer than it was intended and it is very important that this board be established as soon as possible. There-fore, I would ask that the next Stage, which should be very short, be taken next Wednesday.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd November, 1977.
Top
Share