On the Order of Business this morning it was announced that all of the amendments would be in my name. The position is that I have been put in charge of this Bill by the Minister for Industry and Commerce but, inadvertently, amendments Nos. 3 and 7 were tabled in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce instead of my name.
Science and Technology Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
We will let you off this time.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is the first section where the word "agency" is used. I have some reservations about the use of this word to describe the new body which is being set up. Previously, the word "institute" which is a very dignified word and the word "board" were used. The word "agency" is used to describe some kind of office or business such as a newsagents or an insurance agency but I do not think it will reflect the research work which Eolas will carry out or the kind of innovatory activities which the Minister of State rightly expects it to carry out. Perhaps, people will refer to it generally in short as Eolas but they may also refer to it as an agency. I wonder what the thinking was behind the decision to chose this particular word rather than to use the word "institute" or the word "board". Perhaps it is not unusual nowadays to use the word "agency" to describe a body of this sort but broadly speaking, I do not think it was an inspired choice.
The name of the agency was raised during the Second Stage and it was suggested to the Minister at that time that although the word "Eolas" would be well understood in Ireland it would not have a clear understanding in the international arena. It was suggested to the Minister that he might consider using some other name which, while, perhaps, retaining the Irish name would have some English equivalent which would be clearly understood. The same "Technology Ireland" was suggested to him at that time. The name of this agency's counterpart in France is Technova which is internationally recognisable. The name "The Irish Science and Technology Agency" would be a better name to use because of the large amount of contact which will be made with international bodies. The word "Eolas" will clearly not be understood in the international arena.
First of all, I would like to say that we still feel very deeply and rightly so that our heritage and language should be recognised. The word "Eolas" is as good as any to describe a body which would incorporate a great degree of knowledge and learning but recognising the point which Deputy Stagg and Deputy Nealon made it was felt because we would be dealing with many multinational companies internationally it should be made very clear to them that this was the Irish science and technology agency or body which reflected the views of the country in regard to progress in science and technology.
In relation to Deputy Nealon's point I can assure him that we looked at all possible alternatives. We looked at all types and forms of words including the words "institute" and "agency" and we came to the decision which was not taken very lightly that the word "agency" is a word which reflects activity whereas the word "institute" reflects a more studious body which may not have an active industrial base. It is our intention that this body should be a very active and progressive one and an agent of change. In deciding on the word "agency" it was our intention that this body would be a real agent of change and would reflect what we all want, which is, that we should have more science and technology and more research and development in our indigenous industries putting us on a par with every other country in the world.
I welcome the Minister's very positive reply and I strongly suggest that the initials for The Irish Science and Technology Agency should not be used because it will cause absolute chaos. Whatever chance the word "Eolas" has of being understood the initials TISTA will have no chance. A similar difficulty arose in that regard with the old IIRS. Even though more ink will be required, and paper and so on the full name should be used.
Firstly, I care relatively little about what this new agency will be called; secondly, I am much more concerned about the quality of the work for which presumably it will become known, and, thirdly, no matter what we decide here this body will be known as and from its establishment as the ISTA — I do not think people will use the first "T"— just as other bodies are known by their initials, for example, the IIRS, NBST, CIE and a whole clutter of such bodies. This Bill comprises of 29 sections and many serious amendments have been tabled and therefore we should not delay too long over this. The point has been made and the Minister of State is not going to change the name of the agency. With respect to my colleagues I suggest that we should proceed. I would be much happier if we could between us try to ensure that the agency is facilitated in carrying out work of high excellence. We can call it what we like as far as I am concerned.
I am surprised to hear Deputy Keating say he is not interested in the name.
Relatively disinterested.
I know of no person who knows the value of presentation, or is more expert at it, than Deputy Keating. Presentation is in the name and I go along with the point made by Deputy Stagg in regard to that. I hope that the publicity will be heavy on the use of the word "Eolas" rather than initials. I know that the people involved in science and technology get high on initials and I believe they will try to get an initial designation for the new board. I had my reservations about the word "Eolas" but it is my view now that we should concentrate on using that word. By strong direction in the early stages we could get that word established here, whatever about internationally, as the title.
I should like to tell the Deputies that I would be very concerned if the abbreviated version was used. When I was appointed to this post I was amazed at the plethora of abbreviations starting with IIRS, NBST and so on, all conceived to confuse John Citizen. For as long as I am in control I will try to ensure that the abbreviated version is not used. We are all aware that the use of abbreviations is not confined to organisations. Many prominent people are known by their initials, even in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. a1:
a1. In page 5, subsection (2), line 3, after "Act", to insert "and a statement of such additional undertakings shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days of the laying-down by the Minister of the conditions attaching to that undertaking."
This comprehensive section outlines the duties and general functions heretofore assigned to the NBST and now being transferred to Eolas. When I looked at this section I wondered about paragraph 8 (1) (h) which states:
(h) to promote the development of natural resources through the application of science and technology.
I wonder if there is some inherent unhappiness in the juxtaposition of the development of natural resources side by side with an agency which I expect will be largely concerned with technological advances. I accept that they are compatible but by definition natural resources represent a slightly different area of development. I wonder why the capital intensive, modern, high tech training attitude, discipline and professional area of expertise is some how different to the area of the development of natural resources. Subsection (2) states:
(2) The Agency may, subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe, do all such other things as arise out of or are consequential on the functions assigned to it by or under this Act.
I am seeking to add to that, "and a statement of such additional undertakings shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days of the laying down by the Minister of the conditions attaching to that undertaking." Is there any point, as I think there is, in going through a Bill like this establishing an agency, giving it a clarity of focus in terms of the job it should be doing, discussing the relative merits and demerits of the various activities in which it should be engaged, coming to a consensus and a decision about what it should be doing but including in the Bill a very general and somewhat vague suggestion that the agency may, subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe, do all such other things as arise out of or are consequential on the functions assigned to it by or under this Act? That is a broad canvas. Essentially it boils down to the Minister being able to decide, without reference to the House, to assign to the agency a function which has a very remote and, perhaps, peripheral area of interest to the agency.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that if there is such a conditional undertaking, bearing in mind that the ambit is very wide, that additional undertaking should be laid before the House within 21 sitting days of the laying down of that by the Minister. We would then know how the Bill was being broadened. Obviously, the purpose of the discussion is to get a clarity of focus on the legislation. If, however, there are out clauses in it to allow for grey areas of nebulous development which may be specific in the Minister's mind but are not recorded anywhere for the House to consider in any form then we may not be doing what we should. I am for clarity. People should be able to point to a document and say, "That is what we asked the agency to do and they are the reasons for that request." We would then have an opportunity of taking up the matter by way of question or otherwise. If that amendment is not inserted there is little point in us discussing paragraphs (a) to (i). If there is a general undertaking will the Minister let us have a copy of it so that we can judge how the agency is performing?
This is the meat of the Bill. I will be as brief as possible because we are all anxious to go through each section. Paragraphs (a) to (i) are couched in general phraseology. They are saying that as far as science and technology are concerned we are in favour of all sorts of virtue and are against the opposite to virtue in science and technology. I do not know if that general terminology is used in other legislation but in my view paragraph (g) which refers to the promotion of the application of science and technology to economic and social development covers everything. However, I am sure that after a good deal of thought it was considered necessary to cover virtually everything in this section.
Subsection (2), which deals with the method of protecting inventors, is very important. I understand that universities in the United States have their own system of protection of their inventions. I accept that ours are not large enough for that and that the agency is the best concern to cover that aspect at national level. We have had several examples of excellent inventions in countries as sophisticated as Britain being used in countries like the United States, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. I am glad to see that industrial and commercial design is covered in that section. I understand that design can be a major factor when deciding on two superb products. Overall the Minister has done a good job in presenting all of these, but I do not know whether it is usual in Bills of this nature to be so vague in covering virtually everything or in attempting to cover everything. However, there is no part of it that I can object to seriously. I just wonder if the drafting might be done more tightly.
Let me indicate to the Members at this stage that Deputy Michael Keating has indicated to me that he is desirous that all five amendments he has tabled to section 8 be discussed together. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with that if the House so agrees. Is it agreed that they may be discussed together?
If the House wishes. I will move them with your permission, then the Minister can reply.
Only one amendment may be before us at a given time.
On a point of order, I would like to have——
You have moved amendment No. a1 and until we dispose of that the others may not be moved. We will discuss the amendments together but if they are to be put to the House they must be put separately.
Perhaps we should leave it that way. I thought it might help to speed things up but maybe it makes no difference.
Certainly it helps to have them discussed together.
Can we do that then?
Yes.
May I discuss the reasons for them?
Yes indeed.
I want to explain briefly what the other amendments are about, then other speakers may want to comment on them. Amendment No. b1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (a), line 7, after "any new institution", to insert "or the dissolution of any existing institution".
It refers to the desirability of the agency advising the Government on the need for the establishment of any new institution or for revising the functions of any existing institution and on the nature or format of such institution.
In a country that has an excessive number of agencies and institutions relative to its size, I would like to see at least equal weighting given to the need for the agency to consider the suggested possibility of dismantling, dissolving or disbanding some institutions and the desirability of the same agency suggesting that agencies might also be established. Otherwise the agency might arguably be inhibited from saying they think an institution has outlived its time and should be wound up or something else should be put in its place.
The emphasis of that amendment is that of a form of exponential growth in agencies, bodies and corporate institutions. I do not think the amendment is controversial. It should cause the Minister no problems. It seeks to add the words "or the dissolution of any existing institution" simply to give a sense of balance, so that the agency does not just come to the Government and ask them to set up, say, three more institutions. They might also want to be able to tell the Government that such and such an institution is no longer necessary. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment. Amendment No. c1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (g), line 20, to delete "(where appropriate after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs)", and substitute "after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs".
Subsection (3) (g) contains an unusual subclause as follows: "(where approppriate after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs)". Here again is a suggestion about the agency having the function of engaging "(where appropriate after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs) in international activities in science and technology, including where appropriate, representation of the State at conferences, meetings and seminars,".
Like my colleagues in the House in elected positions at national and local level who are always in the eye of the storm whenever there is a suggestion that one goes anywhere trying to broaden one's knowledge, I am very sensitive to the need for restraint in representation abroad by everybody, and I include public officials in that. It is not unreasonable, and I am not attempting to whittle that away, simply to say that we should remove the brackets from that clause, and clean up the phrase "where approriate" which does not mean a great deal; presumably it means appropriate in the judgment of those who are going to participate in those seminars, meetings and so on. I have no doubt that will mean it will be normal, that engaging in international activities will not have to be brought to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that is the normal, understanding and human thing to do. My amendment would then mean that if people are going to represent us abroad or be involved internationally, particularly in view of the kind of implication in such participation, we simply state "after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs"; in other words, we clear up the doubt and ambiguity.
Amendment No. d1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (i), line 32, after "studies on manpower," to insert "after consultation with the Department of Labour and relevant State agencies".
I think that excellent and commonsense. I did a little work on this when I was Chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditure and I found a fair number of agencies involved in considering elements like this. They were bodies like the YEA. AnCO had a certain role as had the Department of Labour in that respect. There are massive tomes of research papers in our third level colleges and RTCs on this central area in economic development. We do not want another agency re-inventing the wheel on work that may already have been done. The spirit of what I am trying to achieve here is that if the agency decide to engage in studies on manpower at least they consult first with the Department of Labour or any other relevant State agencies such as I have just mentioned, to ascertain whether the work they are about to initiate at public expense has already been carried out. Even if that obligation is not written in, I suppose common sense would dictate that they do that, but we must assist the agency to do their work clinically and efficiently. Thus, it is not unreasonable to say to them that they must consult, see if the work they are going to do has been done and if it has been done do something else. That is what that proposed amendment is designed to do.
Amendment No. e1 reads:
In page 6, lines 12 to 15, to delete subsection (6).
Subsection (6) seems tautological or repetitious. I might even conflict to some extent with previous sections. I am not in the business of giving English, legal or any lectures here, but I submit that that subsection adds nothing to the Bill, or in so far as it adds anything it is a dimension of vagueness. It provides that the Minister may by order assign additional functions to the agency after consultation with the Minister for Finance and with any other Minister of the Government appearing to be the Minister concerned.
Having gone through the full list, having discussed it, considered it, drafted and re-drafted it, you then add in this kind of safe, comfy, cosy, big, grey, nebulous rider which provides that if by any chance at any time we want this agency to do something else or perhaps want some other agency to do something which they cannot do and this one could do, the Minister may by order — not even to be laid before the Dáil — assign functions to the agency after consultation with a colleague and the agency then would be deemed to have that as an appropriate power.
Does that in effect put aside much of what has already been done? If so, I am not sure it is in the interest of good legislation. It is a soft option. I can envisage no additional function which the agency could be asked to do which is not already embraced in the comprehensive list coming before them in section 8 or of such fundamental importance as would warrant at least some discussion in this House. If there is some serious error I am not aware of perhaps subsection (6) is justified. If not, it should not be in. I do not like that kind of grey area. It tends to defeat the whole purpose of parliamentary debate and accountability in this House, and we should have accountability.
Those are the points I offer on section 8 out of a genuine sense of support for the Bill in the belief that what I have offered — regardless of how well or inadequately it may be drafted; if there is a better form of words I will be quite happy about that — is a cleaner, tidier, tighter, more sharply defined Bill with proper standards of accountability. That is the thrust of the five amendments I have pleasure in discussing.
Section 8, as I see it, restates the functions under the 1981 Act and adds to it. This is to be welcomed because we are well aware of the restrictions placed on many public agencies in what they can and cannot do. The broadening of the functions of the agency under this section is to be welcomed. Like the former speaker, I am concerned about subsection (6). This might have a negative effect. The Minister might elaborate on the reasons for this subsection in his reply. It seems to be an attempt not to cut across any other Government Department in any functions the agency might be carrying out. This might have a very stultifying effect on their activities.
Deputy Nealon expressed concern about a number of elements that were contained in section 8 and suggested that they were broad and vague and might involve the agency in nebulous functions. I can assure him there is absolutely no intention of that. What we wanted was to put down in as comprehensive a manner as we could the types of functions we envisaged in a broad way that this agency would have to engage in not just now but in the future.
Section 8 (6) gives the power to assign additional functions. Section 8 is completely unchanged from the National Board of Science and Technology Act, 1977. That worked quite well.
Deputy Keating's amendment a1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 3, after "Act", to insert "and a statement of such additional undertakings shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 21 sitting days of the laying-down by the Minister of the conditions attaching to that undertaking.".
The section as drafted, is in standard form and there is no change from the 1977 Act. This amendment in our opinion is unnecessary and inappropriate and in my view could be unworkable. The section has been in existence in the old Act since 1977 and no problems have arisen. For that reason I cannot see any reason to accept the amendment.
Deputy Keating was also concerned about section 8 (1) (h). The purpose of this is to promote the development of natural resources through the application of science and technology. Science and technology in research and development has become a very broad expansive field and is not just confined to items like computers. It is related to every developmental area. One of the purposes of my office and the agency would be to coalesce with developmental bodies such as the new office of horticulture, the new office of food, the new office of forestry, the Department of the Marine and the Department of Energy. In any area where developmental progress can be achieved by the use of, or the introduction of, new technology, it is appropriate that this agency and the office of science and technology should advise on the use of technology to make the best use of our natural resources.
Deputy Keating's amendment No. b1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (a), line 7, after "any new institution", to insert "or the dissolution of any existing institution".
We have examined this amendment and we see no reason why we cannot accept it. I think it will be a help. Deputy Keating's amendment c1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (g), line 20, to delete "(where appropriate after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs)", and substitute "after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affaris".
We have examined this amendment very carefully. Our interpretation is that the effect of this amendment would make it obligatory upon the agency to consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the case of all international activities in science and technology. This simply would not be feasible in all activities. It would involve consultation with Foreign Affairs in the case of an enormous range of technical committees and subcommittees of international organisations which are serviced regularly. As the Deputy is aware, in 1977 when this section was written into the 1977 Act, Foreign Affairs agreed that they need not be consulted about minor day to day interaction with international organisations. As the Deputy is aware there is regular consultation with Foreign Affairs through my Department in the case of major activities, such as ministerial councils, international agreements and bilateral co-operation agreements with third countries. That will explain the situation more clearly to Deputy Keating. I feel this amendment is inappropriate and I cannot accept it.
Deputy Keating's amendment No. d1 reads:
In page 5, subsection (3) (i), line 32, after "studies on manpower," to insert "after consultation with the Department of Labour and relevant State agencies",
We have considered this amendment very carefully and deemed that it is unnecessary and should not be accepted. The Manpower studies which are envisaged relate to science and technology activities. They are simply studies, and in practice, extensive consultation takes place with all interested parties. The section already provides for consultation with appropriate institutions. Section 8 (2) states that the agency may, subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe, do all such other things as arise out of or are consequential on the functions assigned to it by or under this Act and Deputy Keating was under the impression that this was a cosy and comfortable arrangement that gave a broad power to the agency. There is no intention to do that. We are trying to ensure that all eventualities will be covered and that the agency will have the powers which we expect them to have.
Could the Minister comment on amendment No. e1?
This is one of the problems in regard to taking amendments together. The amendment is to delete this subsection and the section empowers the Minister, after consultation, to assign additional functions to the agency. I consider this to be a useful and appropriate provision. Deputy Stagg was also concerned about this and maybe in the future because of the progress of rationalisation, or for other reasons, it may be appropriate to assign new functions to the agency. It is necessary to have the power to do so. A good example of what I have in mind might be necessary action which, for example, could arise from advice which the agency might give the Government arising from their function under section 8 (3) (a). If the Government decided, on the basis of the advice of the agency, to revise the functions of an existing institution or to dissolve an existing institution, they might well decide to pass certain functions to Eolas. In this situation, the power provided in this subsection would be absolutely essential and, therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.
Before taking a decision on this section, I should like to make a brief comment on section 8 (7) which says that the National Board for Science and Technology is hereby dissolved. That is really the death notice of the National Board for Science and Technology and it would be wrong of the House to let it go without at least an obituary notice. During their limited period of existence, they did a very good job with limited resources. They were an instrument for change, always pushing forward in a very fast changing area and focusing our attention on the need for policies and activities in this area. I hope the Minister of State can give us an assurance that they will not become subservient or swamped by the larger IIRS with which they will be joined and that their functions will be strongly maintained.
I am glad that Deputy Nealon raised that subject. We all recognise that the National Board for Science and Technology have worked very well since their formation in 1977 and, of course, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards have worked very well since 1961. In view of the fact that the Government decided that a new impetus must be given to science and technology research and development, we felt it was appropriate that a single agency would be more effective than two which might cause duplication of activities. One single, strong agency will be more effective than two.
In relation to the preparation of this Bill, the advice given to us by the Attorney General was that this was the simplest and easiest way of doing it. I assure Deputies on all sides of the House that it is my intention to ensure that we have one single new agency encompassing and incorporating all the activities previously undertaken by the two existing ones. The fact that the IIRS had more personnel than the National Board for Science and Technology and that personnel from the NBST from 1 January 1988 will be located in Glasnevin should not be interpreted as implying that the previously larger IIRS will gobble up the National Board for Science and Technology or vice versa. There is no intention that either agency will take over the other. This is a new agency incorporating the abilities and capacities which existed in the previous agencies.
Will the House agree to move on from these amendments?
I want to make a few brief comments. I thank the Minister for accepting at least one of my amendments. I admit I was surprised but I am grateful to him, particularly when he got the amendments at such short notice. I would have been happier if he had accepted more but a quarter of a loaf is better than no bread.
It is good to be magnanimous.
Perhaps the festive season got to the Minister. He made the point that the first amendment was inappropriate but all I was asking was that a copy of whatever changes which would be made in terms of the functions of the agency would be laid before the House. I do not know if "inappropriate" is the correct word for that amendment because we have a right to know if we are doing something fundamental in terms of changing the agency's functions. Otherwise, there is no point in listing the functions. We could simply have set up an agency to do what we wished them to do at any given time. I agree with the Minister's response to my third amendment, the one about consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With hindsight, he is right because nobody wants to have every tittle tattle of work which the agency do being the basis of consultation. I had in mind simply the areas of representation abroad. I would not include just ministerial conferences, I am talking about official travel where there is need for some degree of restraint and moderation and where there has been in the case of public representatives, controversy and, in some cases, abuse. That stricture might apply right across the board and I do not see anything wrong with the Minister for Foreign Affairs being acquainted of the fact that three or four officials are going abroad. However, the Minister does not feel the amendment is acceptable and I do not intend to press it.
The Minister said that the power he is looking for in subsection (6) is essential. I cannot see how any new power will arise which is not already embraced in the explicit list in the previous page and a half. Any action that the agency might need to take arising out of new knowledge is almost certainly involved. The difficulty with subsection (6) is that there is no restriction on the assignation of additional functions. Theoretically speaking, they could be in any area, not just in science and technology, to which there is no reference in that subsection. This is a new agency and if everything had worked properly in the previous arrangements we would not be having this debate tonight. The people involved worked very hard and I want to ensure that those who are embarking on the new agency will have a clarity of remit which is not demonstrable or evident in many State agencies where there are no clear targets or goals and which often have lists of vague, ambiguous and ambivalent aspirations put before them which are very difficult to manage. Anything that adds to that lack of focus is detrimental to the wellbeing of the agency. That is the spirit in which I wanted that removed. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting what I propose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. b1:
In page 5, subsection (3) (a), line 7, after "any new institution", to insert "or the dissolution of any existing institution".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. c1 to e1, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have had a look through the various powers which are devolved on the agency under section 8. It is a fairly comprehensive list. However, one aspect of the section gives me some concern. There does not seem to be a relationship between the new agency and members of the public. After all, it is the members of the public who fund and provide for the agency but the powers are rather removed from members of the public. Under section 8 the agency may advise the Government, act under the Minister, advise the Minister and promote research but the section does not state that they should assist a member of the public who may have a difficulty or problem in a matter of technology or science. A citizen should be entitled to go to this agency and seek their assistance if he needs scientific expertise in connection with his factory, his business or a court case he might be involved in. He should be in a position to go to the national board set up for this purpose. Is there a deliberate exclusion of access to members of the public? It is fine that the Minister and the Government should have an agency available to advise and assist them but what about the man on the street? On occasion he might need some professional guidance on a matter of technology or science. Is he, the person who ultimately foots the bill, to be denied the right of basic access? Admittedly this does not arise very often but on occasion he might need this facility. This is a State agency set up at no small expense and funded by the taxpayer and why is there not a clear statement that members of the public should have access to it in some form? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
There is one aspect of the drafting of the Bill which puzzles me slightly. Section 8 purports to limit the functions and powers of this agency and purports to be as comprehensive as necessary. Why was it considered necessary to have a separate section, namely section 12, isolating one particular power in relation to research? That puzzles me and I am curious to know why the power to research was considered to be appropriate for a separate section rather than including it as one of the subsections in section 8 as a function of this agency.
My query relates to the drafting of the Bill. Line 20 of section 8 states: "The Agency shall, in addition to any functions assigned to it by or under the Act of 1961, have the following general functions..." The definition section of the Bill says: "The Agency means Eolas — The Irish Science and Technology Agency". Obviously the new agency was not the one referred to in the 1961 Act. Is there any confusion or problem in relation to that? The new agency is to have functions which were assigned to "it", whatever "it" is. I presume "it" in this case is the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards but if that is the case that is not what section 8 says. That needs to be cleared up.
With regard to the problem with section 12 which is worrying Deputy Taylor, the position is that this was a power which the NBST had and the wording is taken absolutely unchanged from the National Board for Science and Technology Act, 1977. It is basically a gap filling function to be exercised only with the approval of the Minister in order to ensure that it will be operated only as a function of last resort. The purpose of this is to ensure that an over ambitious agency will not be likely to embark on work which might be carried out by the other institutions.
Deputy Taylor is concerned also about section 8 because there is no reference to the public. Section 8 (1) (f) states that one of the general functions assigned to the board is "to promote research", I hope that that would deal with the public and companies who seek advice regarding the development of technology and research and grant aiding and that the new agency would work very closely with the public. The functions of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards under the 1961 Act will continue in existence. Under those functions the services of the agency are available to the public. We are all aware that one source of income for the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards is providing contract work for companies. This agency will act under the Minister as the body responsible for the furtherance of science and technology in Ireland and, as a consequence of being under the direction of the Minister, they will be accountable not just to the Minister and to the Government of the day but to the Members of this House also. That should ensure that the public interest in every sphere will be catered for whether it is in relation to advice, the types of research and technology they should have, grant aid or in the provision of contract work which was one of the functions of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards heretofore. Under section 3 the name of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards is being changed to Eolas. Therefore the word "it" in section 8 (1) refers to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards.
I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. I am sure the intent is there but I do not see it in the wording. The Minister referred me to section 8 (1) (f) which is the function to promote research. I cannot see that that in any way meets the point I was making about access of the public to a particular scientific or technological problem. This would be a specific item with which he would need help and which he would want this agency to deal with. That would not be a matter of promoting research which is a kind of generality. I appreciate the point that the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards are involved and it is right and proper that they should be. That is why when the merger takes place I would have thought that provision would have been made for a similar situation of openness and access for the members of the public. That is a very important factor.
It is all very well to have this vagueness and generality but as far as the citizen is concerned he would have a right of access on one of the original functions that was vested under the old Industrial Research and Standards Act. I do not think that means that the powers that the body have under the Industrial Research and Standards Act are being transported to the new agency that will devolve from the merger of the National Board for Science and Technology and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. I have not tabled an amendment on this matter and I do not want to press the matter unduly. I would be satisfied if the Minister were to put on the record of the House that it is his intention and the Government's intention, and that he will so request the board of this agency, to ensure that every possible facility and co-operation will be given to members of the public when they approach the agency for assistance on matters in the area of science or technology. The Minister should make it clear to the House that if such a request is made the citizen will be favourably received and that every possible facility will be given to provide the expertise a person might need in this area.
I take the points which Deputy Taylor makes. It is certainly not my intention or the intention of the Government to preclude the public in any way from having the best possible information that this new agency will be able to supply to them. The purpose of section 8 (1) (g) is to promote the application of science and technology to economic and social development. That is one of the main purposes incorporated in that subsection. Section 8 (3) (f) proposes to disseminate and promote the dissemination of literature and information relating to science and technology. I would like to allay any worries that Deputy Taylor or anyone else may have that the public would not get the best possible service. It is only right to put on the record of the House that I intend to ensure that the agency will co-operate with the public and with companies in every possible way in introducing new technologies and will facilitate them in relation to information on the availability of grants or any other matter that would enhance their development and progress.
On a point of order — I think it is a point of order and I am sure you will correct me if it is not — the procedure has been adopted that the debate should end at 10 p.m. Will the Minister indicate to the House if any of the other amendments that have been tabled are acceptable to him?
That is not in order. The Chair is obliged to stay with what is ordered. If, on the other hand, the Minister is anxious to indicate his agreement or otherwise the Chair will not prevent him from so doing.
It is not an unreasonable question.
I can assure Deputy Spring that I am not an unreasonable man, as he knows from past experience.
We are setting headlines that might not be appropriate to future Committee Stage debates.
We have examined all the other amendments but I will confine myself to the amendments tabled by Deputy Stagg.
The Minister is allowed some latitude.
We have examined the amendments carefully and the advice given to us is that it would not be appropriate to accept them.
Is that the Minister's personal feeling on the matter?
We have not reached those amendments yet. I have been trying to facilitate Deputy Stagg and everyone else and maybe if we had spent more time on the amendments and less time wondering what name we should call the agency, whether we should call it by abbreviated names, Irish names, English names or French names, and if we had got down to the business in the beginning as the Ceann Comhairle asked us to do we could have got through all the amendments.
Could we return to section 8, as amended, and inquire if it stands part of the Bill?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
May I move my amendment now?
No, you may not. Amendment No f1 in the name of Deputy Michael Keating.
I move amendment No. f1:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 25, after "and technology", to insert "including a statement of justification for each such budgetary proposal".
I would like an explanation as to why that money is being sought.
In the amendment the Deputy seeks to provide that the agency should include, in the context of the science budget statement, a statement of justification for each budgetary proposal of every institution in receipt of moneys from the State in relation to science and technology. In preparing a science budget statement the agency are already required to give their observations and recommendations on all such proposals. This necessarily requires the inclusion of details of the justification provided by each Department or institution in receipt of funds. That quite adequately covers the point raised.
Did the Minister ever know of anybody asking for money and not being able to justify it?
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I am not pressing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I would very much like if we could have an annual debate in this House on the science budget because of its great importance as far as our industrial efforts are concerned. I would like the Minister to consider if there is any instrument by which this could be organised. I know it is a very exceptional request but this is a very exceptional matter.
It is only proper that the moneys that are spent on the science budget should be justified to the Members of the House. I will facilitate the Deputy and try to ensure that this is done.
Question put and agreed to.
As it is now 10 o'clock, I am required in accordance with the resolution of the Dáil today to put the following question: "That the Bill as amended is hereby agreed to in Committee and, as amended, is reported to the House and the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed". Is that agreed?
No.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.