Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 7

Science and Technology Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce (Dr. McCarthy)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to combine, in one body, the functions which have up to now been carried out by two organisations, the National Board for Science and Technology and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. It is intended that the new body will be called "Eolas — the Irish Science and Technology Agency" and that it will come into being on 1 January 1988.

The Government consider that this Bill is of major importance. It reflects, not only, the Government's determination to make the best use of scarce resources and to deploy public funds more effectively, but, also, and most importantly, the Government view that a strong and welldeveloped scientific and technical base, integrated with industry, is essential, if Ireland is to prosper in today's keenly competitive high-technology world. The bringing together of the IIRS and the NBST is an essential step towards providing that base. It will result in a unified support mechanism for science and technology development in industry and services and in the higher education sector.

The 1988 Estimates provide for a grant-in-aid of £9,777,000 to the agency. This compares with a grant-in-aid, in 1987, of £7,927,000 to the IIRS and a grant-in-aid of £3,349,000 to the NBST, a combined total of £11,276,000. The saving involved therefore is £1,499,000 and this saving will be achieved through a reduction in staff numbers, a reduction in overhead and administration costs and an increase in own resources generated by the new organistion.

The Government have also provided for funds for the continuation of the science and technology development programme in 1988 at least at the same level as in 1987 — £3,100,000. I will refer in more detail to this programme later; suffice it to say, at this point, that the creation of the programme, at this time of severe budgetary constraints, is evidence of the Government commitment to a positive, and effective, science and technology policy. The establishment of my own office — the Office of Science and Technology — is further evidence of that commitment and the Bill before us today is an integral part of the development of that policy.

The close relationship between science and technology, and between the two elements together and economic and social development is an accepted fact. The countries which are most advanced in science and technology are the countries which are the wealthiest and have the highest living standards. It is only logical, therefore, to aspire to take a leading place in this high technology world. To do so, we must have proper national policies and we must have the most effective mechanisms in place for carrying through these policies. We are now well placed to do so. At a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in 1984 the Taoiseach said:

We must in future listen more to people who can make things happen, who can design new products, plan new processes, research new opportunities, apply science and technology to new areas of development. The development-minded section of our scientific and technological community must be brought into the centre of things where the decisions are made and have an input into those decisions.

Government policy for science and technology can now be described as having the following broad objectives: co-ordinated management of programmes and planning; raising the overall level and quality of science and technology; intensifying the application of modern technologies in indigenous industry; and increasing industrial innovation.

The Bill now before the House aims at creating the proper and most effective framework in which these elements can be pursued and worthwhile results can be achieved. The two organisations being combined are the major State support services for scientific and technological development of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

The role and the functions up to now assigned to the IIRS can be summarised as follows: supporting industry through process improvements, testing, analysis and the dissemination of technical information; specifying standards and marks for commodities and processes, and encouraging and monitoring standards; promotion and utilisation of national resources through research and development; and assisting the development and exploitation of inventions which are in the public interest.

By contrast, the NBST have been concerned with technology development policies, strategies and assessments at a national level. In particular, they have been involved in developing and co-ordinating national programmes for science and technology and in fostering the emergence of scientific and technological infrastructure attuned to industrial and economic needs.

The new agency, Eolas, will combine both these sets of functions and will have as its prime objective the development and expansion of industry in particular, and of economic and social development in general, through science and technology. It will set out to achieve this by undertaking the following precise actions: promoting national investment in science and technology; providing and administering grants for science and technology projects; optimising EC funding for science and technology; co-ordinating science and technology funding between development agencies, third-level institutions and industry; providing a national technical information service; providing technical, consulting and testing services; monitoring industrial research and development projects; and operating the national quality and standards programme. It will undertake these actions under the general direction of the Office of Science and Technology.

Eolas will be a vital element of our growing technological infrastructure and will exercise a much needed directional and co-ordinating role for State-support services in this area. A co-ordinated science and technology input is crucial for a successful industrial development policy and should be closely integrated into that policy. The direct input, by entrepeneurs through in-house research and development, and the indirect input, through the State science and technology infrastructure, are major elements of industrial strategy. They are just as important as management competence and financial resources. This fact will be reflected in this Government's approach to industrial development and industrial planning. This approach is being facilitated by bringing together, under one roof, responsibility for advising the Government on science and technology policy, together with responsibility for providing support services for the technical development for Irish manufacturing.

I referred earlier to the new Science and Technology Development Programme which was set in train in 1987. This programme followed the Government's commitment in their policy document on science and technology. An allocation of £3.1 million was made in the Department of Industry and Commerce Vote in 1987 to initiate immediate and indeed long overdue action in a number of key areas including: biotechnology, advanced manufacturing technology, microelectronics, a re-equipment programme for the IIRS, a technology innovation programme, and a teaching companies programme.

The common theme running through all the actions funded in this programme is the transfer of new scientific and technical knowledge to Irish industry to enable it to compete and develop new jobs. These programmes, which will be continued and extended in 1988, are now up and running. Many of them are under the management of the National Board for Science and Technology or are being carried out with the full co-operation of both the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the National Board for Science and Technology. The new agency, Eolas, will be responsible for the management and execution of these programmes.

In legislative terms, the Bill is relatively simple. The mechanism being proposed to effect the merger is as follows. Section 3 of the Bill provides that the name of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards will be changed to "Eolas — the Irish Science and Technology Agency". The Government consider it appropriate that the new agency should have an Irish title and that Eolas is suitable given the nature of the body involved.

Section 6 provides for the repeal of the National Board for Science and Technology Act, 1977, and for the repeal of certain redundant provisions of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for the dissolution of the National Board for Science and Technology and assigns the functions of that board to the new agency, in addition to the functions assigned to it by the Industrial Research and Standards Act of 1961. The functions are listed in sections 8, 9 and 10. They are the same as the functions which were specified in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the NBST Act of 1977. The Government consider that the resultant functions which will now be assigned to the new agency are suitably worded to enable the agency to fulfil the role expected of it.

I recognise that it could be argued that there are certain similarities between the functions listed in the 1977 Act and those in the 1961 Act. This was unavoidable since the stimulation, co-ordination, funding and advisory functions of the NBST were exercisable in respect of areas and activities of national interest where, necessarily, an operational body like IIRS would have operational programmes. But any such similarities in the combined functions will not result in any practical difficulties given that one agency will be responsible.

Section 8 (6) provides that the Minister may by order assign additional functions to the agency. This power is considered necessary in the event that it be decided in the future that some further functions might appropriately be performed by the agency.

Section 14 of the Bill provides for the amendment of section 43 (5) of the Industrial Research and Standards Act which deals with expenditure by the agency on the development and exploitation of inventions. The limitation on expenditure, £5,000, is considered no longer appropriate, given the passage of time, and the amendment will give the Minister the power, by order, to set a more suitable limitation.

I would like to give notice to Deputies at this stage that I will be tabling an amendment on Committee Stage to section 23 of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment will be to delete from the Bill section 23 (4). This particular subsection, which provides that "the Agency may, at any time, remove any officer or servant of the agency from being its officer or servant", was taken unchanged from the 1977 National Board for Science and Technology Act. On further consideration, I consider it was inadvertently included here. While it may have been considered acceptable in 1977, my view is that it is now inappropriate. I am advised that the question of dismissal of staff members is a question which should be dealt with in the context of a staff member's contract of employment and, I understand, is so dealt with in so far as the staff of the NBST and the IIRS are concerned.

I do not propose at this stage to go into the detail of the other provisions of the Bill, which could be regarded as relatively standard provisions. I might perhaps draw attention to section 27 which provides for the transfer of the staff of the National Board for Science and Technology to the new agency on terms and conditions no less favourable than those they currently enjoy. It would, I think, be appropriate, at this point, to express the Government's appreciation of the work carried out over the years both by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the National Board for Science and Technology. Both organisations, their respective staffs and board members, have served this country well. They have performed valuable work right across the scientific spectrum and have laid the basis for the tasks which I hope, will now, be successfully undertaken by the new agency.

The creation of Eolas — the amalgamation of the IIRS and the NBST — and the close co-ordination of their activities with those of the other developmental agencies and the third level institutions will result in a real synergy. The ambition must be to utilise the application of science and technology to create worthwhile new opportunities for industrial activity and long-lasting employment. I might stress that the academic world has a vitally important and practical role to play in realising this ambition. I am confident that the new agency will provide the proper framework for successful implementation of Government policy on science and technology.

Finally, I would like to say to the House that the idea to amalgamate the IIRS and the NBST is not a totally new one. The suggestion was discussed a number of times in recent years. Indeed, Deputy Desmond mentioned during the course of a debate in this House on 28 May last that he viewed this amalgamation as a logical step and that in 1981, when he was a junior Minister at the Department of Finance, he had attempted to bring it about. I must also give due credit to the previous Government, and to Deputy John Bruton in particular, who was seriously considering the amalgamation during his term of office as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Indeed, as a step towards this amalgamation, Deputy Bruton, recognising the common bond between the IIRS and the NBST, appointed board members who were common to both boards.

The Official Report will show that Deputies from the other side of the House made very supportive statements in relation to the amalgamation of State agencies related to industry such as the IIRS and the NBST. In particular, I refer to remarks of many Opposition Deputies during the course of the debate in this House last May on the Estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce. The vast majority of Deputies realise that this proposal is logical. Indeed, I have no doubt the amalgamation proposed finds almost universal favour with the general public.

I would like to conclude by expressing the hope that all parties in the House will support this Bill to amalgamate the IIRS and the NBST as from 1 January 1988. It is my fervent wish that the body, Eolas, should be in operation at the beginning of next year.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Nealon

In general terms I welcome this Bill. The amalgamation of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the National Board for Science and Technology has many positive aspects. As the Minister of State has just said, this amalgamation was contemplated by successive Governments. It is a good and promising kind of marriage, if I might be permitted to use that terminology, but I have the gravest reservations about the circumstances in which the match was made and indeed about the whole motivation behind it at present. We must remember when we first heard of this, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce first made his announcement was during the Dáil summer recess. That was during the Rambo days of the Government when there were Ministers going around in all directions seeking to chop down virtually anything that moved. Fair play to them, they had a number of important victims. One of them was An Foras Forbartha. Who would contend now that that was a well thought-out move? Another of their victims was the National Social Service Board. In the House recently, in a rare display of unity, all the Opposition parties, joined together, by way of a decree of this House, to show that that was a foolish move, a major blunder. There was also another casualty of the period, the Curriculum and Examinations Board and the amalgamation of ACOT and An Foras Talúntais, not a total casualty but, if you like, half slain in that period.

Observers outside would have to reach the conclusion that at that time Ministers were involved in some sort of perverse competition as to who would wreak the most destruction within the shortest possible time, if you like, working against the clock. That was the kind of atmosphere prevailing when this announcement was made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the amalgamation of the NBST and the IIRS. Therefore, the House will understand why I am suspicious about it. I believe this amalgamation was perceived by the Government primarily as a cost-cutting exercise and that any of the positive elements — and there were many demonstrated and accepted down the years — were fortuitous by-products. This has been borne out by subsequent events. For instance, the Minister of State in his Press briefing on the Bill, listed two Government commitments in relation to this amalgamation: first, to ensure that Government funds are used in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible and second, to establish here a strong and vibrant science and technology base. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of those objectives. They are fine and noble, but surely the order in which the Minister of State gave them at that time was wrong. Surely the emphasis should have been first on establishing a strong and vibrant science and technology base?

All of this clearly indicates that the main concern of the Government, even in this vital expanding area — its great potential having been just outlined by the Minister in his remarks — was for cutbacks and not the harnessing of this great potential about which we have just heard. If we pursue that argument into the practical arena we find that the same obtains because whatever policy one adopts it is often only as good as the resources deployed in its implementation. The Government have cut the grant-in-aid for the combined agencies — as the Minister of State has just said — by a total of £1.499 million for 1988.

Surely if the Government believe in their fine words and aspirations about science and technology there was a case for utilising the savings being effected in many of the hard-pressed areas within this service? Even if it were used in this fashion, savings have to be made, but the savings made in this way could still be described as conforming to one of the major objectives outlined by the Minister of State using the money in a cost efficient manner. This is an area of enormous potential and of vital importance for the future wellbeing of the country in the creation of industrial wealth and jobs.

It is very difficult to argue for a new departure when the first thing one sees is a cut in the budget with none of the savings being put back directly into this area, even in very hard economic times. There has been a serious run down in the provision of resources, especially in regard to scientific equipment for the IIRS. We must keep our facilities and equipment up to date in a fast-changing area. Now the combined agencies have considerably less money than they had last year, despite inflation and despite other factors.

These are my reservations, but despite them I welcome the general thrust of the Bill. There is little to be faulted in the structure of the Bill. I am glad to see that the Minister of State has alerted his officials to the rather draconian measure already proposed in section 23 (4).

Co-ordination of activity in science and technology is vitally important if a small country such as Ireland is to reap the greatest possible benefit from investment in this field. Because of the very nature of our economy, our investment has to be limited by comparison with the great economies and the world leaders in this respect, Whatever the attitude of certain people, we still need the big multinationals, more now than ever. If we do not have a strong science and technology base, those industries we are seeking to attract here will relate more readily to countries that have.

If this amalgamation is handled properly by the Minister of State, his Department, the new board and the chief executive, it can be very important in portraying Ireland's image abroad as a serious, developed economy and nation. It has real potential for providing a planning and co-ordination focus for science and technology in Ireland.

The National Board for Science and Technology was the State-sponsored body responsible for the overall development and co-ordination of science and technology in Ireland, and that is the board which is technically to disappear. The change will have the effect of bringing the National Board for Science and Technology element closer to what could be described as the operational coalface of interaction with industry, and this is extremely valuable. In the context of the amalgamation, we must make sure to emphasise the role now exercised by the NBST and its relevance, as there is always a danger that it could become subservient to or swallowed up by the much larger IIRS operation. The new agency must be careful to ensure that this does not happen, that there is no eclipse of the functions now carried out by the NBST There has to be a proper balance in all of this. We must be able to transfer the work of the universities, the institutions and the researchers on to industry. That is what it is all about. But if we go overboard on this we could neglect the whole area of seed ideas to our long term detriment. We must not lose sight of our ability to generate new ideas.

Small countries such as ours spend large sums of money on basic research, but by comparison with the larger economies this can be only minuscule. We must accept that we cannot compete with the larger economies in regard to the kind of investment we put into science and technology. What we do here must be extremely well directed. The main concentration should be in areas that can be applied to our own indigenous industries and bio-technology is one of the obvious examples and one of great potential.

In this respect perhaps the Minister of State would tell us what role he envisages for the new body in the area of food. This is now totally with the Department of Agriculture and Food and with the new agency they have there. There is the possibility of petty jealousies between the Departments which sometimes inhibit overall development. AFT have done a very good job of basic research on primary products up as far as the farm gate, but supplying technological skill to the food industry is a very different matter. Perhaps the Minister of State could say if all of that area of activity is to be confined within the Department of Agriculture and Food or if the new agency will have a role to play.

The initial success or otherwise of this whole operation will depend on getting the right man or woman for the job of chief executive, whether coming from within the existing operation or recruited from outside. The chief executive will need to be a person who can command the confidence and respect of all branches of science and technology. Bringing together the IIRS, the NBST, the various universities and institutions and the various downstream activities will be a major task and a key factor over the initial period. I would like some clarification as to the role and powers of the Minister and the Minister for Finance in this appointment. The Minister of State said in his press release that section 50 provides for the appointment of the chief executive of the board with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. That is not my reading of the section. It says that the board of the agency shall appoint a person to be chief executive of the agency under a contract of service on such terms and conditions as may be agreed by the board with the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.

That would indicate that what has to be approved by the Minister and the Minister for Finance is not the appointment but the terms of contract agreed to by the board. I would like clarification on that because if it is the appointment and not the terms of contract, what on earth is the Minister for Finance doing there? The Minister of State might also tell us his intentions as to the length of contract. I elaborate on this because it is vitally important to get the right person there. It is of great importance to the Minister, the incoming board and to the whole future of science and technology in the initial period when this formative work is going on.

I would also like the Minister's views on staffing the agency. I suppose with cost saving, the first thing involved is redundancy. I would like to know how many of the staff of the NBST are under the age of 30. I believe that there are very few people, indeed, with scientific and technological qualifications in these two institutions at the moment. There is a need to allow the new boy access to the market place, a need to recruit young people. Otherwise in this very quickly changing area how can it become what we are asking it to be, the cutting edge at the coal face? The agency should have access to the market place notwithstanding that, presumably, one of the first tasks will be consideration of the question of redundancy and this has been outlined in the Minister of State's introductory statement.

I should like to hear that Minister on his policy for keeping the very best of our graduates at home. I am not asking him single-handed to try to stem the flow of emigration. As he knows himself, at present many of the very best of our graduates, even before they finish their final examinations are recruited by foreign industries and lured away. Having put so much investment into the whole area of science and technology — although there should be more investment here — and having put so much investment, also, into the education of these people, the board should apply themselves to devising some schemes or incentives to try to keep these people at home.

With many of these young people, as we all know, it is not so much a question of the money factor but of the opportunities to apply their skills and knowledge. Very often this has more to do with whether people go abroad or stay at home than has the question of money. Industry has a major role to play and it has not been sufficiently imaginative in the use to which the best and brightest students in the scientific and technological area are put. The board should get down to creating a policy in this area, which could be done without enormous cost and with close liaison with industry. A plan is necessary so that we can attract the very brightest to remain in this country.

I should like to see the new body take a special interest in the work of the Standards Authority. Everyone will accept that a great job has been done here in the whole area of standards. However, preparation and promulgation and everything to do with standards are very expensive and, apparently, the recovery of money is not very good. It is important in these difficult times of stringency when the Government are looking for cuts in all areas that they should resist the temptation to curtail funds for this part of the operation. Quality assurance and industrial standards are vital elements in our industrial programme. Quality underpinning of our goods is the key area as far as our ability to sell abroad is concerned. I hope there will be no downgrading in that respect.

Without attempting to digress into what would be a Committee Stage debate, I shall deal with a number of more detailed items in general. Section 8 (3) gives a whole list of activities. The function related to invention and patents is very useful, indeed, since inventors will not usually have the skill or awareness necessary to register and protect their inventions. Most of the research universities in the United States, as the Minister of State will know, have an office specifically devoted to this function. Our universities are not large enough and cannot be expected to have such a facility. It makes very good sense for this agency to provide such a service to university inventors and to inventors generally. That is dealt with in a general way in section 8 (3) (m). One could recommend to Eolas that these matters and the related issue of intellectual property rights should be looked at as a priority.

The protection of the profits arising from studies made in Ireland so that the rights to such profits remain in Ireland is important. Areas such as biochemistry, for instance, are capable of producing products and processes which have a colossal earning potential. I have visited a number of third level institutions and have been filled in in my research work into this area of science and technology and am staggered at the potential in some of these areas but, of course, that potential must be protected. We must ascertain that the development of the biotechnology centres of excellence at UCC, in NIHE, Dublin and UCG will be successful. The protection of the product arising from the work of these centres is of significance and that is something to which the board should apply themselves vigorously.

It is still assumed by most people, very frequently anyhow, that the scientist, technologist, or inventor has a commercially successful product when it performs a new task more cost effectively or using a new innovatory approach, but the recent history of what has happened with British scientists and technologists is full of examples where marvellous inventions made in Britain have fallen subsequently to the United States, Japan and other economies to exploit commercially. We must learn from this history. It must be emphasised to the new agency that however superb inventions may be, scientifically or otherwise, they are only of value when exploited commercially and quickly with the minimum of fuss and the minimum of bureaucratic procedure. The agency has the scope for this work under the provisions in section 8 of the Bill.

The reference to industrial and commercial designing is also quite important. The added value of products of many kinds is critically related to design. This is of particular importance in microelectronic and computer equipment design. This is an aspect of the work which I commend to the agency. There is also the question of so many national and international schemes available for the support of research and many will find it quite a horrendous challenge — to use the favourite words of Deputy Power — to keep up to date with even the titles of these schemes. There is no way in which one can have time to even sift through them. The information gathering and dissemination role of the agency which is also provided for must be emphasised. So much literature is produced by bodies such as the European Commission that going through them is a job for a full time researcher within an industry. The agency's role must be encouraged here and specific attention given to devising an efficient and effective means by which this information is conveyed to active researchers. It is very complex and I make this plea that there should be no new newsletter. There is a proliferation of such already. Why not use new technologies because all these people have micro-computers and terminals? The new scientific equipment should be used for the transmission of information in this area in particular.

I am rather intrigued at the title which has been given, of Eolas. I have nothing against the Irish word; I am assuming that it is the Irish for knowledge and that it is not another combination of initials which somebody has worked out in some abstruse fashion. I am glad to see a little imagination in this respect. However, I wonder if it is an appropriate title for an agency where the emphasis is on discovering, finding out, breaking new frontiers, seeking out knowledge. Eolas, or knowledge, means the result or condition of knowing. That would be a great name for some agency involving grey-bearded scholars pouring over medieval manuscripts, perhaps for the Irish Manuscript Commission, before the Government have got rid of that body as well. Does it not suggest a certain smugness or complacency, that the agency knows it all already — an agency which is supposed to be there for research and for pushing the parameters abroad? My objections to this Bill do not go all that deep. I just question whether it is the appropriate title for it. At least, it is a nice sounding name. As I say, my objections are not all that deep and not deep rooted enough to precipitate an election before the Christmas period.

I would like to see the new agency taking on a vigorous developmental role in respect of the central issue which is help for indigenous industries and the application of technology in small and medium sized firms. This is a crucial issue and what is just as important and which should not be neglected is basic research. I would also like to see the agency taking on a vigorous role in mobilising the third level institutions and their resources for effective implementation of a regionally based science and technology policy. We must concentrate on the development of technology parts and the regional advantages which can flow from that. It needs a motivated set-up to get down to a long term, relatively flexible development plan, doing what we are good at and making maximum use of human capital.

Science and technology is not an end in itself, the end of all of this is economic development, the creation of new wealth and the creation of new jobs. What we do must be directly relevant to Irish industry. We must play to our strengths and develop technology not otherwise available in the marketplace. The amalgamation of the NBST and the IIRS into one body to be known as Eolas presents us with an opportunity to co-ordinate our activity in science and technology and bring in a new focus on this. I was glad to see the Government set up a new section within the Department to be headed by the Minister of State to deal with this matter. I wish the new board well whenever it is set up, as I anticipate it will be on the time schedule asked for by the Minister of State, and I also wish the Minister of State well on his first and happily, as far as we are concerned, noncontroversial Bill in this House.

Mr. P. O'Malley

At short notice I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate on a Bill which proposes to amalgamate the functions carried out by the NBST and the IIRS into one new agency to be known as Eolas. At the outset I would like to say that I do not have any of the hang ups which Deputy Nealon seems to have about the name of the new agency. It is a perfectly valid name and, as he said, its translation is "knowledge" and it is appropriate that the name should reflect knowledge in the proposed new agency. The important issue is what will the functions of the agency be and we should address ourselves to that.

Like Deputy Nealon I welcome the principle behind the Bill which ostensibly sets out to eliminate the duplication of services provided by agencies in the public sector and to create a more efficient structure through the amalgamation of compatible agencies. The only reservation I have about the proposed amalgamation is that the two existing agencies may not be totally compatible. As I say I have some reservations which I will outline in greater detail later on. On a general basis, the Progressive Democrats are committed to this type of reform and there are many instances of waste and duplication of services which one could draw attention to. For example, in the industrial sector which is the sector to which this Bill is appropriate there are a multiplicity of agencies which an industrialist may have to consult with before he ultimately decides to go ahead with a project. Anything which can be done to lessen that and to provide a more integrated and rational service is to be welcomed.

In the industrial sector, as I have said, there are many State bodies which one may have to consult with before getting a project off the ground or before expanding or maintaining a particular industry in operation. Examples include agencies such as the IDA, CTT, Fóir Teoranta, ICC, the IIRS, NBST, An Foras Forbartha, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and indeed local authorities. Therefore, there is a long list of agencies who operate in this sector and if we can draw together the functions they perform and have fewer agencies it will be beneficial all around.

Apart from making the task of the end user of these services easier and thereby enhancing the prospects of providing a better service to industry there could be significant financial savings by having fewer agencies providing a better, more comprehensive, rationalised and fully integrated service. There is a great need to reduce the number of such agencies and to co-ordinate their functions in order to minimise the present degree of duplication. This process might best begin with the Government Departments as they often seem to be unaware of each other's relevance. They perceive themselves as being separate administrations instead of being integral parts of the one system. At worst some of them have atrophied and become inert while others go about solving many of the same problems in different ways. Consequently, it is necessary to integrate many of the functions in vital areas of the economy such as the inter-relationship between industry and agriculture, between education and industry and between labour and social welfare.

I recognise that there could be resistance to bringing about these changes because of the conflicting administrative interests of various Government Departments and State-sponsored bodies but it is the function of Government to override these objections and make the necessary changes. I assure the Minister that any Bill which comes before this House which has those objectives in mind will have the full support of my party, the Progressive Democrats.

The cause of these problems is not always found within the public service. Governments in the past have readily expanded and developed services in the industrial and social sectors with little regard for the cost of administering them quite apart from the problems of funding the services themselves. Services within the public sector should be made more cost-effective and there will have to be an ongoing radical examination of the functions of the various Departments and State agencies. If we do not do that there will be a continuation of the situation where many schemes and services which are subsidised by the State have failed to achieve the desired results. One spectacular example of this is the bovine TB and tubercullosis eradication scheme which has continued for over 30 years while not improving the situation in regard to that problem. One could also ask questions in regard to job creation in that various employment schemes have been cynically expanded during the past several years at a heavy cost to the taxpayer without any real improvement in the level of unemployment being brought about.

It is against that background of waste and duplication that I welcome, as I said at the outset, the principle behind this Bill. However, in any merger there must be rationalisation. We do not want to abolish or merge agencies just on the basis that it saves money as that would not be adequate. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. I am thinking of agencies like the National Social Service Board and the Office of the Ombudsman who provide independent and very valuable services to society and it is not appropriate to axe them or reduce their effectiveness on the basis of saving money alone. The approach to merging agencies or integrating the services they provide should be done on a rational basis as distinct from just using the blunt instrument of trying to save money.

One has to ask whether the combining of the functions of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the National Board for Science and Technology are truly compatible and whether it might have been more appropriate to look at other agencies in the science and technology area such as An Foras Forbartha and see whether some of the functions they carried out would be more compatible with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards rather than the NBST. I understand that when An Foras Forbartha are abolished some of the functions they carry out, particularly in the area of monitoring and control of environmental pollution — and we had a lot of that last summer when the rivers in Ireland were subjected to very heavy pollution — will be taken over by the local authorities. It will be regrettable if that happens because the local authorities are one of the biggest polluters in this country and often times they have been found responsible for an awful lot of damage to fish life. It is inappropriate to have the monitoring of pollution in the control of the actual polluters themselves. The Minister should consider attaching to this new agency the responsibility for monitoring pollution and establishing pollution controls.

There is another point I would like to make to the Minister. I understand that in the Department there is a section which deals with biotechnology programmes and has an allocation to it of something in the order of £2 million. I am curious why that section should exist in the Department now that there is a new science and technology agency. It appears it would be much more appropriate if they were attached to it. The Minister might enlighten me on that in the course of his reply.

The National Board for Science and Technology is a developmental organisation serving many sectors of science and technology in Ireland. On the other hand, the IIRS are a laboratory-based operational agency whose main job is to provide technical services direct to industry. The IIRS compete with other agencies for research and development contracts from industry, the Government and the EC. The agencies which the IIRS are in competition with have up to now availed of the services of the NBST. One of the difficulties which the proposed merger gives rise to is whether other agencies in the science and technology sector can accept that the new institute, the Irish science and technology agency, Eolas will operate on an impartial basis. It appears the dominant role in this new agency is going to be that of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards as the NBST are being abolished and their services are just being tagged onto the services provided by the IIRS.

It is vitally important that the role played by the NBST, as Deputy Nealon has said, is not reduced in any way in the new organisation and that the wide range of participants in programmes operated by the NBST see the new organisation as a truly independent, non-competing agency. It is important that the Minister ensures that the NBST will continue to be seen in the role of an honest broker as distinct from a competitor. This is one of the problems I see with the proposed merger and it has to be addressed. It is important that the new agency carry forward the same kind of developmental function with respect to the national science and technology requirements of the nineties as the NBST did in the seventies and eighties.

The merger will mean that the new agency has two basic functions and, as I said before, these are not necessarily compatible. On the one hand the work formerly undertaken by the NBST with their medium to long-term perspectives must be continued while, at the same time, the agency will have to respond to the urgent short-term needs and demands of industry for technical service support. While the new agency will have to develop and expand their fee earning services, they will also have to ensure that industrial and other research development contracts are channelled to the nation's most appropriate and competent institutions and organisations and do not just come to the new agency by virtue of the fact that the IIRS now play a dominant role in the organisation. That is a very important point. In particular, the new agency must ensure that the linkage between higher education and industry is maintained and is not going to be inhibited by the technical consultancy service the new agency have available to them.

We welcome the principle of the Bill and, subject to the provisos I mentioned, we will support it on Second Stage. The creation of this new agency poses a challenge which is to ensure that the new body will be more dynamic and cost effective than the sum of its constituent parts. The organisation and management structures will need to be carefully designed to ensure the smooth and successful integration into the new body of the functions currently exercised by the two existing agencies. It is more appropriate that those aspects of the Bill should be dealt with on Committee Stage.

Mr. Stagg

I would like to welcome the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party but to do so with reservations. There are a number of concerns arising out of this new legislation I would like to raise with the Minister.

While the Labour Party are not opposed to the merger of the NBST and the IIRS under the new proposed body, no such merger has taken place yet. The arrangements proposed under the new body undermine much of the thrust of the NBST's work and treats the IIRS workers inequitably. The Minister in his speech dealt somewhat with some points I want to raise and which I will develop later.

The Minister of State has assured several interested parties that there is no question of one agency taking over the other one. However, one cannot but think that a process of submersion has occurred with the NBST being specifically dissolved in the legislation. It is unacceptable that the NBST be dissolved and their functions grafted onto the larger body of the IIRS. That is effectively what is occurring. A more equitable and effective solution would have been to dissolve both bodies and create a new agency from the merger of the two bodies. There is a precedent for this approach in the Labour Services Bill relating to AnCO, the Youth Employment Agency and the National Manpower Service. This line of action could more effectively have been pursued. This is not just an academic point. The NBST were established to pursue public interest and economic and social development type goals. This type of activity would include, for example, the analysis and co-ordination of the overall science and technology system and its impact on education, industry, agriculture, employment, the environment, etc. They were not established to earn fees from individual firms in the private sector. That is not their role.

The Act establishing the NBST was based on a coherent, well thought out strategic approach to the research and application of technology in Ireland. It was based on a OECD examinationreview which combined Irish needs with international experience. This is quite a contrast with the arrangements with which we are dealing today. The Labour Party may be seeking amendments to the Bill to ensure that the submersion of one body does not take place. To further ensure that the NBST activities which are not geared towards earning fees are insulated from the fee-earning activities of the IIRS we will also be seeking that the non-application of the fee-earning provisions of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961, to the NBST type activities be explicitly stated in this Bill. This would be reinforced if a statutory basis was given to the designation of a specific budget, under a separate subhead — development — that is non-fee earning activities in budgeted expenditures for the new body.

The Labour Party are concerned that employment conditions and the public interest are not adequately protected. That occurs in a number of areas. Unlike the 1961 Act establishing the IIRS, there is no provision in the Bill before us that appointments to the staff of the new body be made by public competition. That would be detrimental to the public interest and open to abuse or, at least, the suspicion of abuse. That is especially so when one considers the provisions for the employment of consultants on a short term contract. Unlike the Act setting up the IIRS there is a new provision providing for the dismissal of staff. Dismissal of staff from the IIRS is covered under the conditions of service which all staff members accept when taking up employment. Such a blanket provision in the Bill would be a clear alteration in the terms of employment of the existing staff of the IIRS. I welcome the Minister's statement of his intention to remove that section from the Bill.

For some time considerable effort has gone into developing sub-board participative structures in the IIRS. In fact, since 1980 a joint participation council made up of management nominees and elected staff members has been operating. The original Worker Participation Act, 1977, and subsequent extensions, have not covered the IIRS despite efforts by the IIRS staff to secure worker participation at board level. This is an excellent opportunity to establish democracy in the new body by providing for worker participation on the board and building on the experience gained by the workers in the IIRS and the NBST.

The Government party have a policy position in the area of science and technology which is second to none. That may sound a strange admission by an Opposition Deputy but it is true. I have been interested in that area for a long time and I can say that the policy position of Fianna Fáil has been A1. I see the measure before us as a putting into effect of their policy position. Much more needs to be done and there is a great opportunity for the new Minister to put his party's policy into practice. There is no point in having excellent policies on shelves, they must be put into practice. While I have reservations about some aspects of the Bill I appeal to the Minister to look at them and try to reach agreement with us on the measure. It represents a step in the right direction. It will mean that the public sector will create the climate and the private sector create the wealth and the jobs, the type of mixture that should emerge. I hope the Minister gives positive consideration to the minor changes I have suggested so that all sides can agree to the adoption of the measure.

Mr. Wright

Like other Members I welcome the Bill. It is one that can be welcomed without any reservation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to state a single reason why two such compatible organisations such as the National Board for Science and Technology and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards should not be merged as one. Science, with its essentially theoretical framework, and technology which is the application of the fundamental principles of science are so inter-dependent that the dovetailing of those two eminently successful bodies had a certain timescaled inevitability inherent in them from their separate establishments.

The role of science and technology in the shaping of our country's destiny is of paramount importance. The re-shaping of our economy, and all that that entails and means in fiscal, sociological and the applied economics sense, demands that we should look at each and every board, body and committee that exists under the aegis of the State. We must do this with the twin aims of cost effectiveness and the progressive elimination of duplicated functions. Even in the case of bodies like the NBST and the IIRS we have to apply the principles of rationalisation. This does not imply that either body is unsound, unworthy or ineffectual. In this case it means that we are fortunate to have within the compass of the State two bodies that have such qualities and aims in common that their dovetailing virtually cries out for implementation. Both bodies are staffed by persons foremost in their professional disciplines by way of academic standing and experience at the highest level in their fields of competence. That is why it is so pleasing that this merger will not disrupt the careers of these people nor the very important work they have been engaged in, in their respective bodies up to this time. Retirement and voluntary redundancy will ensure that the personnel aspects of this merger will be accomplished in a most amicable way. It will be the task of the new board to ensure that the absorption of all staff into the new framework will be facilitated in every way and that whatever mechanisms or practices are required to ensure this will be readily available. It is imperative that no irritants in the field of personnel administration should break the cycle of applied research and project work currently in train.

The importance of this merger is best exemplified by reference to the fact that research and development in Ireland is at the lowest level in the European Community. It has been pointed out before and it is no harm to reiterate that those countries which have invested heavily in education and in research and development are world leaders. They are not in all cases major economies as smaller countries have also won for their citizens the benefits of research and development. We, as a small nation, competing in world markets need a sharp competitive edge. Look for example at Denmark and Norway. Those two countries invest twice the amount per head of population that we do here in Ireland. The significance of this merger must be weighed against telling facts like this.

Historically we can point to the fact that we are a small economy that until recent years had a predominant dependence on agriculture. On the credit side we can point to a not inconsiderable growth and to the restructuring of the economy which has taken place. We can point to the healthy balance of trade figures and to the part played by the new technology in achieving this trade surplus. We must then look into the role played by the two bodies which are the subject of this Bill and acknowledge their respective significant contribution to our success.

The most important aspect of this revamping of the organisation is that more and more we must seek to establish a secure autonomous indigenous technological base. We have the population structure, such as none of our European neighbours have, and we have superb technological faculties in our third level institutions. When this Bill comes into effect in January 1988 we will have a focal centre for science and technology with the capacity for research and innovation that is essential if we are to drive forward and get into a self-perpetuating growth model. All around this country there are people with ideas for manufacturing and service enterprises. In most cases they never emerge from the cocoon of thought because these people say that there is too much hassle attached to the development of bright ideas. Might I suggest to the Minister that he give some consideration to the setting up of a voluntary corps of scientific or technological advisers who would be available in each parish, village, town or community to deal with ideas people on a friendly informal level. I have no doubt that this would be a fertile field for enterprise very much in keeping with the agency's role in the development and exploitation of inventions. A few years ago when the new technology or information technology as we know it today was first introduced here we saw a rush of external investment, principally from the USA and Japan. It was said at that time that the technological revolution would in a short few years pale into insignificance compared with the biotechnological revolution which was even then on its way. The impact of biotechnology has not occurred on this scale. It is a realm of science and technology which has great potential. It is a field of scientific technological development in which a small nation like ours could play a major role.

Even in recent days we have heard how, through the application of biomass technology, we could satisfy 10 per cent of our energy needs by the year 2000 AD. Our dependence on external sources for our energy requirements has been a major contributor to the economic ills we have experienced. Attention to alternative energy sources is imperative and when one considers the easily grown crops that are entirely suitable to our soil and climate and are very suitable for biomass conversion, we would be very remiss if we did not have a concentrated programme to exploit the energy potential of timber, grass, sugar beet, kale, etc. To be successful we must have a singleminded approach. We must vest the programme in a single central source. We must finance this programme generously. This is where the combined effects of Eolas, the science and technology agency, and the science budget will produce optimum action. It is not only in the area of biomass that biotechnology has applications of immeasurable value which would benefit the economy as a whole.

Scientists have come to recognise that living organisms can produce valuable substances such as food, fuel and medicines. By applying analytical scientific methods to the processes whereby living cells manufacture these substances man has been able to revolutionise traditional industries like food processing and fermentation. The importance of this approach to a country like ours hardly needs to be stressed. The value of applied research and development in this field is without limit. While other nations with their immense wealth can afford the luxury of satellite programmes our aims must be more modest. We can, however, be world leaders and world beaters in areas like biotechnology and this form of exploitation should be a primary and preferential aim of the new board.

I am pleased to see that under the terms of this Bill, the agency will promote the application of Science and Technology to the development and improvement of industrial and commercial design. This is most important. We have, as a nation, often been guilty of producing goods for either home or foreign consumption which were shoddy in their design. Good design is not merely a matter of aesthetics. A good product should combine both aesthetic and technological excellence in its design. To achieve the required standard of excellence in this field is not just a matter of good taste. It is a matter of survival in the harsh competitive climate of world markets. Anything the agency can do in this regard will repay us handsomely in regard to competitiveness and the rewards that flow from it.

We all tend to associate technology with hardware like machines, computers, etc. Technology also includes processing of every kind including chemical and food processing. We are the clean, green tip of Europe, an island with a climate that is temperate and a soil that is the cleanest in any developed nation. We can grow the finest food and rear the best of beef. What we do not do enough of is use these excellent natural products to establish a food processing network to harness and exploit the fruits of our land and our seas. This is an application of a highly specialised technology. This is science applied in the most exciting and rewarding way. This is a road we must go down and, if we fail to do so, we will have lost the greatest God-given advantage that this country enjoys. That is why we must support Eolas in every way so that science and technology are translated into national wealth and secure employment.

Yesterday we read the good news of the IDA announcing up to 5,000 new jobs in the food industry. A glance down the list of where these jobs are expected to be will reveal that, through the application of science and technology into our natural resources, one must see some hope for the future. In passing let me mention my constituency and the great resources we have in vegetables and grain which we grow there and the fish we catch along the coast. I hope that, in the not too distant future, the IDA or some private investment will come into the north county to maximise the resources there. I would like to see some Larry Goodman arrive for the fish industry in particular. In the past two years in Skerries port and Loughshinney the catch of prawns and white fish has had a major impact. If the right investment is put in place linked with technology applied to that, we can only go from strength to strength.

We are talking about food and the Government have already shown their commitment this year to applying science to the food industry in announcing the establishment of the food centre in Dunsinea which Deputy Nealon mentioned this morning. I hope the food section in the IIRS will be linked in some way with that and that we do not have more duplication there.

I never think of science without being mindful of the imbalance in the teaching of science that places girls at such a disadvantage. I would like the agency to take this problem into account in their function under section 8 (1) (i), that is "to promote appreciation of the value of science and technology". The promotion of gender equality in the teaching of science and technology in our post-primary schools will not alone be advantageous for the principle of gender equality but for science and technology as well.

Having regard to the functions and areas of expertise which the IIRS and the NBST have developed respectively in a special way, it would be appropriate that a corporate skills audit from which a Manpower skills audit might be derived should be made a priority task of Eolas. This would ensure that no valuable function was lost or reduced in impact and that all the skills and experience of the total staff would be a matter of record to ensure cost effective utilisation of staff as they come to be deployed in the new agency.

Sometimes we tend to become preoccupied with ideas on a grand scale and so miss out on opportunities of lesser scale but yet of great value. Let me give an example. I would contend that there are millions of pounds worth of waste materials buried in the local authority tip-heads throughout the country. These are imported commodities which in their time reflected negatively in our balance of trade figures. These materials could have been recovered or recycled and returned to the productive cycle. The processing and re-cycling of waste materials is a primary focus for science and technology. It does not smack of grandeur but it has the hard-nosed practicality that our country badly needs at this time.

The merger of the IIRS and the NBST in the manner outlined in this Bill is not the only step taken by this Government in the furtherance of science and technology. The Taoiseach has long been a champion of matters scientific and technological and this interest is demonstrated in the most concrete and effective way by the appointment of Deputy Seán McCarthy as the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology. The Minister has, in turn, demonstrated his constructive approach to his Ministerial brief by the provision of £2.5 million to augument the science budget for 1987. This additional funding to cover areas like biotechnology, advanced manufacturing technology, technology transfer, and R and D goes some way to respond to the needs in these areas as expressed by the Confederation of Irish Industry. The Bill now before the House has also won the approval of the CII. The confederation spokesperson on industrial policy, Dr. Aidan O'Boyle, has stressed the importance of the new body, Eolas, in the retention of a strategic commitment to the development of excellence in science and technology in third level institutions and in the fostering of university-industry cooperation as an effective enabling mechanism for developing and commercialising new products.

The council of the Confederation of Irish Industry and all related interest groups should feel assured on this point as this Bill is a positive signal of the Government's intent to promote science and technology in a most practical and cost effective manner with the objective of expanding the economy and creating employment for our young and educated workforce in technological home-based enterprises.

Mr. Brian Brown of the NBST, in his statement as chairman prefacing the board's concluding statement, has welcomed the establishment of the ministerial office for science and technology and expresses the view that science and technology should have a strong interface across all sections in Government. I agree fully with this sentiment and that is why I feel so positivley towards this Bill.

Eolas, the Irish Science and Technology Agency, will, through the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology, be able to mediate all influences and findings and services right across the total spectrum of industry, commerce, education and the international arena as well. It deserves the fullest support of this House both in inauguration and fulfilment.

It was pleasing this morning to hear various speakers from the other parties giving their support to the Government and the Minister on this Bill. I recommend it.

Dr. D. Fitzpatrick

I will be brief. Reading the Minister's speech I noticed there were no references to the manpower implications of Eolas. I am speaking of the effects of the research and development element in the Eolas board. We all know that the effects of the IDA grants over the years have been, in many cases, to reduce employment prospects rather than increase them. I know we cannot stop research and development and I do not want to speak as a Luddite, or to give this impression, but when Eolas are organised, when they bring the third level institutions, manufacturing companies and the agricultural sector together, and before they start funding research and development, they should ask what effect these programmes will have on employment prospects. Will they enhance them or decrease them?

We grew up in an era where factories received grants and carried out research and development programmes, the effect of which was to put people out of work. I have seen this in my own area recently where a State board gave a grant to a company. It increased manufacturing capacity, but it put more than 70 people, mainly people supporting families, out of work. I repeat, when Eolas get going, I hope this will not happen.

I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for bringing it to our attention.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce (Dr. McCarthy)

I thank the Deputies who expressed their support for this Bill. I will try to allay any doubt they may have by explaining the Bill in more detail.

I commenced my Second Stage speech by outlining the Bill's purposes and the effect of the provisions put forward in it. I outlined what this Bill purports to do and I would like to commence my reply to the debate by saying quite clearly what the Bill does not purport to do. This Bill does not submerge the policy role of the National Board for Science and Technology. It grafts it on to a new organisation which has many inherent strengths. This Bill will not result in any involuntary redundancies. This Bill will not result in any enforced transfer of functions or personnel in the science and technology area either to the Department of Industry and Commerce or to any other Government Department. This Bill will not lead to any reduction in the level of scientific and technical activity in the country, rather the opposite. I am very concerned that the staff of the two organisations concerned are reassured on these points. Indeed, the provisions of Part IV of the Bill bear out what I have said.

Before I turn to answer the specific points made by Deputies — for which I thank them — I would like to stress some of the other positive developments in the scientific and technological field which are very much part of the drive towards cohesion which is taking place in this area.

I did, in the course of my opening speech, refer, rather briefly to the establishment, this year, of the science and technology development fund and to the provision of £3.1 million in respect of it. The establishment of the fund is a good indication of the thrust of Government policy on science and technology — of which this Bill is an integral part — and of the Government view that there is a need for focused investment in key areas of science and technology.

I would like to outline for the House some of the ways in which the science and technology fund moneys have been used. The national biotechnology programme was established in June this year. The programme has as its objectives: to encourage research activity in Ireland by both home based and overseas companies in order to develop the biotechnology industry in Ireland; and to establish a significant reputation for Irish biotechnology research and thus help attract overseas companies to locate in Ireland.

These objectives will be achieved by establishing, equipping and staffing centres of biotechnology research expertise in the universities. These centres are being developed around research topics in which there is existing Irish expertise, and which are of relevance to Irish industry. Three such centres were nominated in 1987, in University College Galway, University College Cork and the NIHE, Dublin. I propose to expand the programme in 1988 to encompass other university activities.

An advanced manufacturing technology programme has also been established under the fund to help industry cope with the rapid advances in manufacturing technology. Four advanced manufacturing technology applied research units have been established in colleges of higher education — Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, NIHE, Limerick and University College Galway. The programme aims to direct the high calibre engineering skills in these centres towards meeting the needs of industry. Specifically the research units will provide research and development support to industry involved in both the use and provision of advanced manufacturing technology. Each of the four units is involved in complementary aspects of advanced manufacturing technology.

Other programmes which have, or are being developed, are the teaching companies programme, which subsidises the placement of highly qualified graduates in science and engineering fields in Irish industries; and the south-east region pilot programme in technology development, which seeks to co-ordinate the representatives of all the State technology and development agencies and the higher education-research institutes in the south-east region with a view to developing an integrated technology based plan for the development of the region.

Moneys are also being expended under the fund for the replacement and upgrading of equipment in the new agency.

I would like to refer to some other aspects of the functions of the new agency. As I mentioned earlier, one of its key roles will be in the co-ordination of State efforts in the development of the science and technology area. As Deputies are aware, there are a number of smaller agencies involved in the area, for example, the Software Centre, the NMRC, the Innovation Centre and the Microelectronics Applications Centre. The work of these bodies is tied in a general way with the work the new agency will be undertaking and I will be expecting the new agency to advise me, in consultation with these bodies, on the most effective way in which all their efforts can be co-ordinated in order to achieve the most beneficial results.

With regard to specific points made by a number of Deputies, for which I am grateful, Deputy Nealon suggested that when we announced the merger of these two bodies, we had our priorities wrong, that our first concern should be to strengthen science and technological development and that we should use moneys in a more cost-effective manner. In June last year, I introduced our new science and technological development programme and I then looked at the question of rationalisation. We did not put the cart before the horse, we took things in proper rotation and the programme we established earlier this year is indicative of that.

Deputies Nealon, O'Malley and Stagg were concerned about the possibility that the NBST would be submerged in the new amalgamation. I assure them that there is no question of the NBST being swallowed by the IIRS or vice versa. It can be seen from section 8 of the Bill that Eolas are being given all the legislative functions which had been carried out by the NBST and the key functions will be fully maintained by the new agency, in particular the honest broker role which the NBST have played very effectively for years. The higher education industrial linkage fostered by them will be maintained and there will be no conflict between the fee earning activities and the science and technological developments. There is no inherent reason for such a conflict to arise and the management and structure of the new agency will be so designed as to ensure that none will occur.

Deputy Nealon was also concerned about the chief executive of the new agency. I will clarify the position for him. The appointment of the chief executive will be a matter for the board of the agency. Section 15 of the Bill clearly provides for the appointment of the chief executive by the board under a contract of service on terms and conditions agreed by the Minister and the Minister for Finance. The Minister and the Minister for Finance will have nothing to do with the appointment of the chief executive, the board will decide that but the Ministers will be concerned with the contract and the terms and conditions.

Deputy Nealon also expressed concern about keeping graduates in the country. I realise that it is a very important and vital objective to keep highly intelligent and highly educated young people here. Unfortunately, the position is that many have had to emigrate and one of our objectives in developing our science and technological programme is to try to ensure that jobs will be provided in this country. That is our ultimate objective. Under the teaching companies programme, 30 graduates have been placed in industry and 20 graduates are employed in the new advance manufacturing technology programme. There are also 18 graduates employed in the biotechnology programme. These are all new vital measures and I will ensure that Eolas gives very close consideration to increasing employment of graduates.

Deputy Nealon mentioned the relationship between this agency and the food industry. It is intended that the existing food activity of the IIRS will be transferred to the new amalgamated AFT-ACOT. Within this new agency, a national food technology centre will be established which will bring together the necessary State support services for food from the farm gate to the supermarket shelf. This new agency for the development of science will have an interest in the application of science and technology in all areas and we intend to ensure that there will be co-operation, collaboration and cohesion between our agency and the Departments of Food, Horticulture, the Marine and Forestry, so that there will be high technology in every developmental area.

Deputy Nealon also expressed the very correct view that we should fully exploit inventions and patents to ensure that they are used to full commercial effect. These objectives will be very high on our list of priorities and we are keenly aware of the need to commercialise results of research. I hope, by using the extra funds given to this area, to provide the release mechanism to channel the results of all the scientific knowledge stored in our higher educational institutes towards future economic development. A major objective of our agency will be to exploit all our scientific potential in relation to inventions or patents to their full commercial usage.

Deputy Nealon was concerned about the name of the agency——

Mr. Nealon

Not seriously.

Dr. McCarthy

I accept that. Eolas is the name the Government wish to give the new agency. It is based, as the Deputy said, on the Irish for "knowledge"; the Government consider it the most appropriate name and I hope it will become well known.

Deputy Pat O'Malley wondered why the programme for science and technology was under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce. The position is that the funding is provided within the Department's Vote. However, the administration and implementation of the programmes will be done by Eolas. The staff of the NBST and the IIRS are already involved in this and arrangements are in train to relocate the national biotechnology programme at the headquarters of the IIRS which will be the headquarters of Eolas.

Deputy O'Malley queried, as a result of the abolition of An Foras Forbartha, whether the new agency would take over some of their functions. Certainly the agency will be available to undertake work which was previously carried out by An Foras Forbartha in relation to building defects, construction quality and energy matters. The work will be carried out on a full cost recovery basis.

Deputy Nealon was concerned about the number of staff under 30 years of age in professional and technical grades. The figures supplied to me show that there are two such people in the NBST and that in the IIRS, there are eight professional staff, 25 technicians and 55 clerical staff under that age.

Mr. Nealon

I was more concerned about the professional staff.

Dr. McCarthy

That figure is eight. Deputy Stagg asked when the board of the agency will be appointed and who will be on the board. Professor Wrixon will be the chairman of Eolas and the Government have not yet made any further appointments. It is likely that these appointments will be made following the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas. A board of not more than nine members will be permissible under legislation. The provisions of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961, will apply to the board and the procedures of the board. Representation of staff on the board of the agency is not excluded under legislation but neither is it specifically provided for and this is appropriate.

Mr. Nealon

Is it not right that there is a carryover of four or five members in addition to Professor Wrixon?

Dr. McCarthy

On the existing board of the IIRS there are——

Mr. Nealon

Five members.

Dr. McCarthy

Yes, three members are being carried over. The board of Eolas will consist of nine members, eight of them to be appointed.

Deputy Stagg was concerned about the IIRS taking over the NBST. I have already dealt with that matter. The Deputy wondered why the provision regarding recruitment by public competition was not included in the Science and Technology Bill, 1987, as it was included in section 34 (1) of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961. The reason is that while this provision was considered desirable in 1961 it is not considered appropriate for the agency in 1987. There is no corresponding provision in the recent IDA and FÁS Acts. It is considered that flexible recruitment policies are necessary to attract high calibre science and technology experts.

Deputy Wright suggested the concept of introducing more technologies into companies. That is something we will have to strive more for. Indigenous industry needs to upgrade its technology and we will have to use every means at our disposal to try to ensure this because it is vital that there is research and development so that new products can be produced. He suggested the setting up of a voluntary corps of scientists in local areas. Obviously we have taken the first step towards that viewpoint in designating the south eastern region as a pilot area for the introduction of new technologies. I would like to see science and technology growing from the grass roots up. It is not something that should be imposed from the top downwards. It is very important that in all areas of the country we should try to combine the expertise and the knowledge available so that they can be used to the best advantage. That is what I have done on an initial basis in the south eastern region. We have brought all the various State agencies, the third level colleges and industry together to see if we can undertake a cohesive programme and we hope to extend that all over the country in due course.

There is reference in the Programme for National Recovery to putting science to work. Ireland must harness science to the task of creating economic growth. We must have more Irish manufacturers involved in research and development, either in-house or by contracting out the work to centres of excellence in our research institutes and colleges of higher education. We must commit the same level of resources, to technology as other small countries do and we must seek out niches to suit Irish talents and resources. We must exploit scientific progress to create new and improved products.

The creation of the new agency, Eolas, is a major step forward. I am confident that Eolas will be a key agent in the identification of neglected opportunities, consolidation of talent and direction of our scientific and technological resources into the creation of a prosperous economy. Higher priority for science and technology will better equip our industries to adapt to the change which is essential to their survival. Even more important, it will create new sources of wealth and will lay the foundation for a high technology, high income economy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Dr. McCarthy

On Wednesday next, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16 December 1987.