Normally at change-over of business the House shows a little consideration to Deputies who, for one reason or another, have to attune themselves to the highly punctual nature of the House. Perhaps the Minister of State had already commented on amendment No. 18.
Marine Institute Bill, 1989 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 18:
In page 4, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Institute shall have particular responsibilities—
(a) to research the effects on the marine environment of the discharge of radioactive wastes from any source into the Irish Sea, the operation of nuclear generation and re-procesing plants near the Irish Sea and the transportion of nuclear wastes through the Irish Sea,
(b) to monitor the discharge of radioactive wastes from any source into the Irish Sea, the operation of nuclear generation and re-processing plants near the Irish Sea and the transportation of nuclear wastes through the Irish Sea, and
(c) to participate in European initiatives in relation to these functions.".
—(Deputy Gilmore.)
Limerick West): Yes, I had already given my view on it.
I spoke at some length on the last occasion this amendment was debated. It is still important that the Minister give careful consideration to this amendment which I fully support.
As time passes we have seen greater responsibility vis-à-vis the environment and the discharge of radio-active waste being placed on countries, particularly those bordering on or surrounding the Irish Sea. With its formation the Marine Institute will have a most important role to play especially with regard to the discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and for which it has now become famous.
I must ask the Minister to reconsider his position on the amendment before the House. While we are part of the nuclear generation as such, the capabilities of the Marine Institute will play an enormously important part in the life of this nation. For that reason I and my party will be fully supportive of the amendment before the House which is comprised of three parts. Paragraph (a) reads:
to research the effects on the marine environment of the discharge of radio-active wastes from any source into the Irish Sea, the operation of nuclear generation and reprocessing plants near the Irish Sea and the transportation of nuclear wastes through the Irish Sea.
It would be my hope that the Minister will have taken clear note of its contents, that is, to research the effects on the marine environment of the discharge of radioactive waste from, and I underline, "any source" into the Irish Sea and so on. It is in everybody's interests that recognition be given to the provisions of that paragraph.
Paragraph (b) reads:
to monitor the discharge of radioactive wastes from any source into the Irish Sea, the operation of nuclear generation and re-processing plants near the Irish Sea and the transportation of nuclear wastes through the Irish Sea, and
Again, the Marine Institute will have a positive role to play in the monitoring of discharge of radioactive waste "from any source" into the Irish Sea and so on. I must stress the word "monitor" which is vitally important. I contend the Marine Institute is the ideal vehicle by which to monitor such discharge of radioactive waste from whatever source.
Paragraph (c) reads:
to participate in European initiatives in relation to these functions.
Deputy Gilmore has already outlined the purpose of this paragraph. All three paragraphs constitute reasonable, effective recommendations. Although the Minister has already indicated he is not prepared to take them on board, I would ask him to reconsider his position and perhaps take a second look at the amendment with a view to facilitating its import.
I remind the House of the fact that, while a few sitting days may have elapsed since we last discussed this amendment, that would not free it from the normal considerations in the matter of repetition.
As I did not speak on the last occasion this amendment was discussed I rise to support it now. I do not have anything special to add because sufficient has been said already. Nonetheless I am disappointed at the Minister's response. He should reconsider his position and I hope accept the amendment.
I do not have the same expertise in this matter as Deputy Gilmore and my other colleagues in the House. It is a pity if the Minister does not avail of this opportunity to give the Marine Institute the functions and/or powers specified in the three paragraphs of this amendment.
It was quite frightening to have seen a programme recently on television — the THORP programme —vis-à-vis the existing Sellafield plant. The implications of such an enormous structure on our doorstep are indeed frightening. This would appear to me to be a particularly timely opportunity for us to initiate more effective monitoring of the effects of that development seeing that we have failed so dismally to have that obsolete plant shut down.
As I entered the House I heard Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan refer to the dangers of transportation of nuclear waste. Quite clearly, the whole of the THORP programme was based on the expectation that nuclear waste would be transported to that plant from a number of different countries worldwide; otherwise, effectively it will become a white elephant. This means the sea lanes will be used for the purposes of transporting nuclear wastes to that plant. I am not saying that all of the material which will be fed into it will come by sea but certainly a great deal of it will, adding to what is already the most radioactive sea in this part of the world.
I cannot understand why the Minister would not wish to take this amendment on board and give this additional dimension to the role of the Marine Institute. Paragraph (c) is important in that we should be enabled to co-operate with our colleagues in the EC to the optimum extent possible to ascertain whether it is possible for us to take any initiative in relation to this problem which is, after all, on our doorstep. In that respect I notice that the recent ferry report in the European Parliament arising from this question of the transportation of nuclear wastes identified that there were virtually no controls on their transportation and indeed very little over most ships flying flags of convenience. I ask the Minister to reconsider his position on this.
(Limerick West): For the benefit of Deputies who were not here on the last occasion, let me say I agree very much with Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan that this aspect is very important, that the institute are the ideal vehicle to do this, and they can and will do it under the present legislation. I have had this examined again since the last occasion on which we met and I have considered very carefully the points raised by the Deputies in the course of earlier contributions to this amendment.
I repeat, with your permission, Sir, that the Bill as drafted gives quite comprehensive scope to the institute. As I indicated on the last occasion, it is not necessary to identify tasks specifically or to lay down specific priorities within the broad functions and responsibilities as defined in section 4. All the areas that are being identified specifically in this amendment are covered. There is nothing at all to preclude the institute from discussing and making decisions on the points raised by the Deputies opposite. The key areas will be considered by the board in line with their remit when drawing up their programme of work. If I were to accept this amendment it would be only part of the areas which should be specified in detail as to what the institute should be doing. Section 4 gives adequate scope for the institute to cover exactly what is contained here in amendment No. 18.
I have spoken already on this. In relation to the amendment I agree to a point with what the Minister has said, that it would be specifying particular things and other things would be left out, but will he not agree that this aspect of radioactive waste being discharged into the Irish Sea is of very particular significance and great seriousness over and above many other matters we have discussed on Committee Stage and that this deserves particular mention in the Bill? We would like to see much more included in the Bill but this is of extreme relevance to the Irish people. There is an opportunity here for the Government to indicate how seriously they view what is happening in the Irish Sea in relation to discharge of radioactive waste, the emissions from Sellafield, and nuclear submarines that are traversing the Irish Sea where the Government do not have a supervisory role or any way of monitoring what is going on. In the last few days off the coast of Scotland a fishing trawler was sunk by a nuclear submarine and lives were lost. Similar incidents could arise in the future in the Irish Sea. Here is an opportunity for the Government to indicate their concern by accepting this amendment.
(Limerick West): As I have indicated, everything Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn has outlined there can be discussed and is included in the remit of the institute.
An inflexible Minister.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Byrne and McCartan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The Institute shall examine the strategic and economic necessity for a national deep sea merchant shipping fleet and shall advise the Minister on the reconstitution of such a fleet.".
Unless the Minister has changed his view from the last occasion, it is our disposition to press this amendment because of the very important net point involved which is essentially that as an island nation it is unthinkable that we should be left without a merchant fleet, especially having regard to the manner in which that came about, the disgraceful decision that was taken in respect of Irish Shipping and the outrageous manner in which the workers of Irish Shipping were treated. This gives us a very timely opportunity to try to undo the damage and restore to the nation a merchant marine. It would be particularly appropriate if the Minister were to take on board the essence of this amendment since his senior Minister went out of his way when in Opposition to give undertakings and promises to the former workforce in Irish Shipping that as soon as he would come to power he would see, to the best of his ability, that the damage was undone.
Those promises have been enumerated in the House in some detail on other occasions and I do not think there is need to dwell on the point now. It is extraordinary that this House this morning briefly dealt with the implications of the UN Resolution in terms of the prospect of war in the Gulf. There is no doubt that that is the objective of the United States Government, if they are successful. To consider that as an island nation we would be left isolated in such a time of international strife is unthinkable. We have no deep sea shipping fleet, and, indeed, the service provided by the B & I also seems to be under threat, at least threat of retrenchment by the Government. Because of the importance of the net point involved the destruction of Irish Shipping, the outrageous manner in which the workforce of Irish Shipping were treated and the manifest necessity for a merchant marine in an island nation, we have no choice but to press this amendment if the Minister persists in not taking it on board.
Let us not forget that the amendment was discussed earlier with amendment No. 5a. Therefore, I ask for brevity on this occasion.
I will be very brief in supporting the amendment. Some months ago I heard the Minister for the Marine on a radio programme state very clearly that he was in favour of a merchant marine for this nation. I was glad to hear him say he was thinking very positively in regard to the setting up of a merchant fleet. I believe the institute is the ideal body to develop the merchant navy in the coming years. They will have the facilities, will carry out the research, will have the ability, and they could do a very worthwhile exercise in providing the scientific knowledge necessary so that we as a nation can establish a merchant navy. Being the only island nation in Europe, now that Britain is linked to the Continent by tunnel, it is now necessary more than ever that we should sit down with the Marine Institute and see where the future lies for this country in regard to a merchant marine.
I fully support the amendment, as I am sure do the people who supported my amendment which was taken last week. It is very important that it be stitched into the Bill. The Minister has indicated that nuclear matters, fishing and the merchant fleet are covered in the Bill but it is important that they are outlined in the Bill.
It is becoming increasingly evident that we as an island nation are very dependent on forms of transport from outside the jurisdiction. That is fine in times of peace but in the event of war and ships becoming involved in a war, we would find ourselves at a major disadvantage as far as exporting our goods is concerned, particularly to markets on mainland Europe. As the amendment suggests, it is essential that the institute examine the strategic and economic necessity for a national deep sea fleet. Basically the amendment requests such an examination and suggests that the institute advise the Minister on the reconstruction of such a fleet.
As the only member state of the EC which is not linked to mainland Europe we are at a significant disadvantage. It is important to gear our minds and address our thoughts towards more efficient and quicker transport facilities to mainland Europe. This amendment is now opportune, particularly in view of the Single European Market in 1992. Given that the European Community is willing and prepared to provide Structural Funds to assist peripheral regions in relation to transport facilities, there is a particular case to be made, especially in view of recent changed circumstances, for the Government to take this matter on board. I ask the Minister to take it on board.
(Limerick West): I gave my view on this matter when we discussed amendment No. 6 which was put and defeated. I will reiterate what I already said: this amendment is unnecessary in that it relates to the merchant marine. Research and development, as defined in the Bill, is already sufficiently comprehensive to address all matters relating to fisheries and fisheries development. The institute is not precluded from discussing this issue if they wish to do so. I agree with the views expressed opposite but there is little point in including an amendment in a Bill when it is already provided for in existing legislation. For that reason — and for the reasons I previously explained — I oppose this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Byrne and McCartan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
We now proceed to amendment No. 20 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. I observe that this amendment was discussed with amendment No. 9. What is the position about that amendment now?
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 4, subsection (3) (a), line 34, to delete "at the request of the Minister,".
Question "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, lines 13 to 19, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:
"(6) Where it is proposed to make an order under subsection (4) of this section a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
This is a technical amendment. It is a more positive wording than that in the Bill and I would ask the Minister to respond positively.
(Limerick West): I am opposed to this amendment because I am satisfied that accountability in the Bill is adequate. The Bill as drafted is more or less what is included in other such legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I indicated——
On section 5.
I understood that amendment No. 23 to section 5, the insertion of the new subsection, was not moved?
Amendment No. 23 was deemed out of order by me as it clearly involved a potential charge on the revenue.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 35, after "Finance." to insert "All such charges shall take account of the ability to pay of the person or enterprise charged.".
This is a very simple amendment. It asks that the ability of the person who avails of the services of the Marine Institute should be taken into consideration. While we would all agree that services should be paid for, it is a fact that marine development and activity is still in its infancy and there are those in need of the services of the Marine Institute who may not be in a position to pay a substantial fee. Making it a requirement that a person's ability to pay will have to be taken into account will be of help to anyone starting off a commercial business and will enable them to avail of the expertise and knowledge of the Marine Institute in setting up a venture of that kind. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that any commercial venture which is not in the high income bracket will have the chance or opportunity to avail of the best expertise available for a modest fee. The reason I put down this amendment is that I want to look after the small man. This is necessary if people are to be given the opportunity to avail of the services of the Marine Institute and I ask the Minister to take it on board.
I support the amendment because marine development, in particular fisheries development, is undertaken by two categories of people. First, we have the affluent companies who involve themselves in marine development as an ancillary activity or set up subsidiary companies. Usually these are viable companies and well able to carry out their own research or pay experts to do it for them but, on the other hand, in very isolated rural areas around our coastline we have many young men and women, including some young married people, who are attempting to make a living from the local marine resource. Many of these people are on unemployment assistance and are attempting to create jobs not only for themselves but also for others in the region. However, they do not have the necessary capital to get the venture going or to carry out research. In those circumstances it is very important that they be allowed to avail of the expertise of the Marine Institute who would carry out research and provide every assistance possible to help them make wise decisions and choices with regard to the activity they choose to engage in. It is very important that the Marine Institute do this because at the beginning it is either make or break. If they are able to avail of the expertise and support of the Marine Institute at that point it could be the beginning of a major success story. This amendment is highly commendable and I ask the Minister to examine it in the light of the realities on the ground and take this matter into consideration.
The distinction which has been drawn is a fair and reasonable one and it is proper that the Minister should be asked to take it on board. I would like to enter one caveat which is equally as important and which arises from my own direct experience in circumstances where consultant professionals can avail of the expertise of various State bodies and agencies and then charge exorbitant private fees for effectively passing on that advice. I am aware, for example, that An Foras Forbartha were often used by consultant engineers and others as a source of expert advice in certain areas and they, in turn, provided that service to industry or businesses as the case may be for a hefty fee even though the work was done and the expertise was accumulated in the first instance by the State agency concerned. I can see no reason that service could not be sold by the State agency themselves. This goes on in other areas — the geographical survey, for example — and it is not an exceptional happening throughout the State service. In that sense, the first category referred to by Deputy Taylor-Quinn, commercial ventures, are well capable of paying and in those circumstances a fee ought to be extracted from them commensurate with the advice proferred.
(Limerick West): I should say at the outset that the Marine Institute do not have to make any charge as much of their work will be undertaken to underpin development in marine research. There may not be any charge; it will be a matter for the Marine Institute to decide. The section clearly outlines that the institute can determine the amount of the charge and the point raised in the amendment will be considered. I have no doubt that the ability of the person to pay the amount charged will be taken into consideration and adequate provision is made in the Bill for that. It is covered very well in section 6 which states that subject to the provisions of the section the institute may make such charges as they consider appropriate in consideration of the provision by them of services. Therefore, if I were to accept the amendment I would reduce the capacity of the institute to raise the revenue and possibly it would be impractical to implement it. After all, who decides one has the ability to pay or the amount a person should pay?
This amendment would tie the hands of the institute. I hope the members of the institute will take this into account without the need to enshrine it in legislation. I am satisfied the section is adequate and wide enough in its scope and what Deputy O'Sullivan seeks is already covered in the section as it stands. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment.
In view of what the Minister has said, that the institute may provide their services free to the person in need of them but who does not have the resources to pay a fee, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 25 in the name of Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan is deemed out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Here we have amendment No. 26 in the name of Deputy G. O'Sullivan. I observe that amendment No. 27 is related and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 26 and 27, by agreement, together. We can have separate decisions if required.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete "six months" and substitute "three months".
This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to bring forward the time in which a report must be given. In fairness I think three months is adequate time for any report to be given by an institute of this nature. If the Minister accepts this amendment it will be a record because it will be first amendment accepted so far. The amendment seeks to delete "six months" and substitute "three months" as the time in which the report would be brought forward.
(Limerick West): I am advised that this is a standard provision in all such legislation. I have to oppose that amendment because I am of the view that three months is not adequate because it leaves very little time for emergencies or problems that may arise.
Buck the system a bit and break out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 42, after "Oireachtas" to insert "and shall publish the report".
In this amendment I am asking the Minister to publish the report. It is a simple addition to the section. I cannot see any reason for not accepting this amendment. It is a matter of public knowledge and where public funds are used it is natural that he would agree to publish the annual report.
(Limerick West): I do not see any need to include this amendment. When the report is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas it will bring it into the public domain; it will be available to the public. The report will be published and available to the general public. If there was a need to accept this amendment I would accept it but it adds nothing to the legislation. When the report is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas it comes into the public domain and is available to the general public, and it is published.
To be frank this is getting monotonous because we are getting nowhere. Will this report be available in the Government Information Office for public consumption? The Minister says it will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas but I want more than that. I want it to be a Government publication. Can the Minister agree to that?
(Limerick West): Yes the institute can have the necessary discretion to publish the report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 12, subsection (3), line 15, after "Minister" to insert "and the inventor, under a share agreement to be determined by the Board of the Institute".
If the institute are successful, it will be important that the best possible people are attracted to work and remain in the institute. Talented people will be very quickly taken by private industry and private enterprise and lost to the institute unless there is some incentive for these experts within the institute proper. As research and development take place and as there are new inventions as a result of the research and studies conducted within the institute, it is important that the researcher or inventor, who makes the major breakthrough is compensated and given some incentive to continue that work and that he or she will receive a just reward for their efforts. Section 22 (3) states:
(3) Any discovery or invention or any part of any discovery or invention which does not become the property of the person for whom such research or investigation as aforesaid is undertaken, shall become the property of the Minister.
That is fine but surely the Minister cannot claim total ownership or value of any invention which was due to the specific expertise, intelligence or talent of the individual concerned. In natural justice the inventor must be properly compensated. This can be done in a very rational and reasonable way by proper negotiation between the board of the institute, the inventor and the Minister. If the board are a reasonable group of people they should see that the inventor is duly compensated. This is important if the institute are to be successful. As I said, it is vital that we get the best people for the institute to do the necessary work and research. We have a resource that is under-developed and this is an area in which there is great potential and a lot of work still to be done. If this institute is successful the Irish economy will benefit only if we have the best people.
Unfortunately, in other areas in the past the State sector lost out to the private sector because of inadequate compensation to the people involved in the public sector. That is not good for the country and it is not good for the State, and it would not be good for the Marine Institute. This amendment, if accepted, would be particularly valuable and I urge the Minister to accept it.
This is a rather novel idea. I do not know of any place in the State sector where it operates. I must say it has a lot of merit, especially having regard to the area we are discussing. Throughout the State sector we have seen the phenomenon to which Deputy Taylor-Quinn referred in terms of the brain drain to the private sector and the head hunting of staff in various State agencies by the private sector. Indeed, not very long ago in this House we had to enact legislation to establish the National Treasury Management Agency for no other reason, at the end of the day, than that the people managing the national debt in the Department of Finance were not paid a comparable amount to what they would command on the open market. As a result some of the best people were "poached" while others stayed because of their commitment to the public service. We have seen this in several areas. For example, in the case of the Revenue Commissioners, tax inspectors have been poached in many technical areas. Therefore, this amendment has a lot of merit, especially when in regard to an area where we are pushing out the frontiers of knowledge; much of it uncharted waters in terms of the constraints on the various agencies who have responsibility in this area already and it requires a combination of ingenuity, innovation and commitment to the public service. It may indeed be proper to devise some system which would encourage those people who could make such a contribution to remain in the service of the State and continue their work. My party have pleasure in supporting this amendment.
I should like to compliment Deputy Taylor-Quinn on bringing this amendment before the House. It is unique in the sense that it would give the people in the Marine Institute the opportunity to further their knowledge and the incentive to create wealth for the nation. I assume Deputy Taylor-Quinn envisages the inventors working as a team in the institute.
This is a unique amendment which I believe would have a positive effect on the workers in the Marine Institute. It gives us food for thought in that we could perhaps look at the input by people in other State sectors who are committed to the development of State enterprises and so forth. My party support this amendment.
As there are three of us in favour of the amendment the Minister should come along with the majority.
(Limerick West): I want to preface my remarks by saying that more often than not the work which will be undertaken by the institute will be a collective exercise. It will be the fruit of many minds——
I said that.
(Limerick West):——and, as Deputy Taylor-Quinn rightly said, we must provide the necessary incentive. Of course, the Minister for the Marine, myself and the officials from the Department have considered this point and have included an appropriate provision in the Bill. I thought Deputy Taylor-Quinn would read section 22 (4) after she had read section 22 (3) but she conveniently missed that subsection — perhaps she did not see it. Section 22 (4) reads:
the Institute may, subject to the approval of and at the discretion of, the Minister and the Minister for Finance develop a scheme for the payment of bonuses or royalties, out of moneys at the disposal of the Institute, to members of the staff of the Institute who have made important discoveries or inventions, or have materially assisted in making such discoveries or inventions.
What the Deputy is seeking in her amendment — that the staff members who make those important inventions are properly rewarded — is covered in section 22 (4), which provides for the payment of bonuses or royalties to the people concerned. We also considered that point and I believe the section is adequate as it stands. Therefore, the Deputy should not have any worries in this regard.
I admire the Minister's capacity to read into sections of the Bill provisions no other Member of the House can read into them. Obviously the Minister has a magnetic lens in his glasses, a privilage which the rest of us do not, and this enables him to see things in different sections which nobody else can see——
(Limerick West): It is my job to see things like that.
The Minister can see powers in this section which nobody else can see. I was hoping we would finally see some flexibility on the part of the Minister which I think all of us involved on Committee Stage wished for.
(Limerick West): I have been more than helpful.
The Minister has made a fair effort in trying to justify what is in section 22 (4) but it is different from my proposal. Section 22 (4) provides that payments to such inventors will be subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. My amendment proposes that an invention should become the property of the Minister and the inventor under a share agreement to be determined by the board of the institute. My amendment does not contain the words "may", "shall" or "subject to". It is far more specific and definite from the point of view of the inventors concerned. This is an important point. As the Minister knows once payment is at the discretion of the Minister the bottom line, with all the bureaucracy involved, is that it will never be paid or even if it is eventually paid it will be worth very little.
(Limerick West): I do not accept that at all.
As we are on a similar vein, I ask the Minister to be magnanimous at this stage and accept my amendment. I think the Minister will, on reflection, appreciate the value of the proposal——
On mature reflection.
——as the other Deputies in the House do. I am sure the Minister for the Marine and the officials in the Department will also appreciate its value. I ask the Minister to exercise discretion in this matter.
(Limerick West): It would give me no greater pleasure to accept this amendment if I thought it would add to the legislation. However, I am satisfied that the draft legislation as it stands is adequate in this regard.
It seems to me that we have had sufficient of this tete-à-tete across the Shannon Harbour between these two neighbouring Deputies. Have we exhausted everything worth while that has to be said on the amendment?
Unfortunately, we do not have a Shannon harbours Bill, which we were hoping this Government would bring before us. I am sure that the Minister of State and his constituency colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, are looking very seriously at that matter. However, I will not go down that road——
(Limerick West): I look at every issue very seriously.
——as it is a very interesting tale on its own.
I was not referring to legislation; I was speaking of your charm stretching across the Shannon Harbour from Clare to Limerick. Will the Deputies devote their undoubted abilities to the terms of the amendment——
(Interruptions.)
We are engaging in a certain degree of flippancy which is unsuitable to the Chair.
——or else accept that they have exhausted themselves——
I think it would be in order for me to withdraw my amendment but I ask the Minister to reconsider it as I may table it again on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to seriously consider the points made by all Deputies in the House. There is a fair bit of wisdom between us — the Minister and his officials do not have a monopoly on wisdom in the House——
(Limerick West): I said that earlier.
——and I ask the Minister to seriously consider my amendment between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
Sections 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Amendment No. 30 is out of order. In the case of amendments Nos. 30 and 32 by increasing the number of board members who are paid out of moneys at the institute's disposal, ipso facto there would be an increase in the amount of money required.
If the arithmetic is as you say that would be the case, but I do not see that the amendment proposes that. It proposes that there shall be a board of not fewer than eight members, whereas the Bill provides that there shall be a chairman and eight ordinary members. I do not wish to detain people here who wish to see the British Prime Minister on television, but I do not like it when my schoolboy arithmetic is thrown out of line like this.
The Chair is required to delay as long as necessary to ensure that right is right. I have indicated the best advice available to me.
You could argue that it might be more than eight.
The fact that the amendment has been adjudicated out of order does not preclude the Deputy from giving expression to any thoughts he may have on the matter.
I do not wish to express any great thoughts on it but I would ask the Minister whether it had been the intention to accept the amendment if it had been in order. Having regard to the multi-disciplinary role of the institute, the notion was that it should have a board representative of those interests. There are some safeguards in building in a requirement of the kind specified in the amendment.
(Limerick West): I am satisfied that eight ordinary members are adequate to discharge the relevant functions of the institute. I do not intend to elaborate further since it is self-explanatory.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy G. O'Sullivan. Amendment No. 33 is an alternative. It is proposed for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 31 and 33 together, by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 12, paragraph 2, line 38, after "institute." to insert the following:
"At least one ordinary member shall be nominated for appointment by the Minister by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, at least one ordinary member shall be nominated for appointment by the Minister by the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, and at least one ordinary member shall be nominated for appointment by the Minister by a third level institution carrying out marine research or education.".
This is my last try at getting something into this Bill and I hope the Minister will give me sympathetic consideration. The amendment is reasonable and involves no expense to the institute. I somehow feel I am talking to a very hardened heart which is not prepared to give in. It is nevertheless an important amendment. The responsible organisations involved will have a major input to the Marine Institute. If the appointment of the board is at the discretion of the Minister, then I can see no reason that he should object to the amendment. I am not telling him whom he should appoint. All I am asking is that at least three members should be appointed from the responsible bodies I have outlined. If the Minister will consider this reasonable request, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and I will at least have salvaged something from my couple of nights' work here. At the moment I feel dejected because so far he has done a brilliant job of stonewalling — not an inch.
I am a late substitute for my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, but I have great sympathy with Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan being sent home empty handed to a maritime county having slaved over this Bill for a couple of days. For that reason, if for no other, I would urge that the Minister should treat him with some sympathy at this twelfth hour.
The two amendments are not exactly in tune. Deputy O'Sullivan proposes that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation should at least have one ordinary member on the board. I have no objection to that. Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 33 has more to do with worker democracy, the notion being that in accordance with the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, one-third of the members of the institute should be elected by the staff. If I thought this was going to break new ground and there was any indication by the Minister that we could look forward to some concession, I would not stand firmly by the figure of one-third. Having regard to the discussion we have just had on Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment concerning possible reward or participation for staff members who are successful in the inventions area or whatever, it is particularly appropriate that in the Marine Institute some of the staff ought to be eligible for membership of the board.
To a very large extent the success of the Marine Institute will be dependent on the ingenuity, commitment, imagination, skills and expertise of the workforce. The very nature of the work in which they will be engaged, indeed its collective nature, in very many instances will render it particularly suitable that their point of view should be represented on the board of the institute. Even though it is the 12th hour it is my hope that the Minister would make a substantial concession to the view held on this side of the House and to modern trends in organisations such as this, that there should be an element of worker democracy in a body like this. After all, the Act referred to — the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977 — specifies a number of State bodies where provision is made for the election of worker directors. Surely the spirit of that should be imported into an institute such as this one? Having regard to the type of work that will be engaged in by the institute, the principle and thrust of the Worker Paticipation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977 would be very appropriate. I really do hope the Minister does not say it is provided for elsewhere in the Bill.
I am not as familiar with the contents of the Bill as are my other colleagues in the House but I cannot see any place where worker participation is allowed for unless the Minister tells me that he can always, of course, nominate somebody from the staff. That is not worker participation; that kind of thing went out with the last election, and indeed quite a while before that. That is not the kind of participation the workforce of a scientific body such as this would want, that somebody would be selected by the Minister, presumably on the basis that they were a member of an Opposition party or something like that and nominated to the board. It ought to be genuinely left to the staff to take the decision. It would be a positive development if the Minister were to permit that to happen and I ask him to respond positively to this amendment.
The right spirit would appear to me to be enshrined in these two amendments. While I might not agree wholeheartedly with the details of either amendment, the facts are that basically they propose the involvement of the workforce on the board of management of the proposed Marine Institute. That is extremely important. Any attempt to exclude workers from the board of management could have deleterious side effects, or long term serious repercussions for the success of the institute. I also believe it is very important that there be a link between the workers in the institute and the board of management. Neither can work in isolation. It is important that there be two-way communication which can be brought about most effectively by having members of the workforce directly involved on the board of management. That is fundamental to the overall future success of the Marine Institute. Isolation and exclusion lead only to resentment and hostility rather than co-operation and good-natured working relationships. Unless there is that good working relationship within the institute, with a real link between the board of management and the people who actually undertake the work, there will not be an effective institute.
Both amendments present very valid points for consideration. I join Deputies Gerry O'Sullivan and Rabbitte in asking the Minister to get behind the spirit of what is proposed here, not necessarily the full detail of either amendment, but the actual spirit of what is involved is sound. I am sure the Minister must recognise that.
(Limerick West): The Minister will have total and complete discretion in relation to appointments to the board of the institute. I can give the House a commitment this evening that the personnel who will be appointed to that board will be of great expertise, with great capabilities in their particular field, thereby ensuring that the board will have the necessary depth and scope to adequately fulfil their role and remit. The appointment of members of the institute will be at the discretion of the Minister. I can give the House my assurance that they will be comprised of persons with great expertise in that field to undertake the work of this important board. This will be the first time a decision will have been taken to carry out research into marine and marine-related areas. It is enormously important that this research be properly carried out by members of the board capable of fulfilling that task. The Minister of the day should have the requisite discretion to ensure that the people with the best brains — as Deputies opposite outlined — be nominated to this board.
With regard to Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 33 proposing that one-third of the members of the institute be elected by the staff of the institute in accordance with the provisions of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, the advice available to me — and I should say I have gone into this deeply over the past week or so — is to the effect that the provisions of that Act would not apply to the Marine Institute when established. At this stage I should say it is not my intention to request the Minister for Labour to propose an amendment to that Act. It is clear to me that the provisions of that 1977 Act apply to certain State enterprises or indeed business undertakings of a particular type. It is also my understanding and my advice that the provisions of that Act were not intended to cover an agency such as the Marine Institute. For the reasons I have outlined I must reject amendment No. 33, together with amendment No. 31, more particularly amendment No. 31, because I believe the Minister of the day should have discretion to appoint members to the board with the necessary expertise. After all, research and development constitute important work requiring experts with the necessary experience and expertise to adequately undertake the requisite task. I am more than satisfied with the commitment I have already given the House that the people to be appointed to the board will be persons with great experience and expertise.
I am bitterly disappointed at the Minister's response — I suppose I should have known better — for the simple reason that it is incredible that someone from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, indeed from third-level institutions, would not be considered for appointment to the board. I acknowledge that the Minister has not said specifically that they would not be considered — he has not spelled it out. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, whose bona fides is impeccable, are considered good enough to sit down with Government representatives to talk about implementing the Programme for National Recovery, but it appears it cannot be considered to participate in the workings of the institute. I am extremely disappointed the Minister could not see fit to take this simple amendment on board which I believe would be a shot in the arm for the Bill. It would mean the board would be very democratically structured with very broad interests and the necessary expertise the Minister is preaching about. I am very sorry the Minister has not accepted the amendment and I have no option but to push it at this stage.
(Limerick West): The representatives of the organisations outlined by Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan are not precluded from being nominated by the Minister to the board. Nobody is precluded, but nominations to the institute will be at the discretion of the Minister. Nobody is ruled out and it is very wrong to say otherwise.
It is all at the discretion of the Minister.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 12, lines 41 and 42, to delete paragraph (4).
I fear that a great opportunity has been lost in this Bill to make up for years of neglect of the area of marine sciences. We are now left with a Bill about to be enacted which does little more than depend on the goodwill of different Government Departments. That is a tragic missed opportunity. What we have at the moment are different groups often in a conflicting and contradictory way involved in the marine sciences. There is a great deal of wasted effort, of unnecessary overlap and there are many gaps that could have been filled in a co-ordinated fashion by this Bill. Unfortunately, it is so loosely co-ordinated, so imprecise and so non-directive in a great many ways that that opportunity has been lost. Many professionals out there were hoping this Bill would be the impetus, or would give new impetus to the industry, if one may so call it, to push out the borders of knowledge to discover a wealth of information that could have such a positive impact in terms of the environment and be to our economic advantage in steeling us against claims in the future by neighbouring countries and delineating the extent of the continental shelf. All these areas have been lost. It is a great pity. It is one of the great missed opportunities that there appear to be so many well intentioned people who for whatever reason have not managed to get this part of our national life together. In the light of that it would be meaningless of me to persist with this minor amendment, which I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Can we get the agreement of the House on a date for Report Stage?
Tuesday of next week, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 December 1990.