Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Jul 1946

Vol. 32 No. 9

Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1946—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill has two main purposes. One is to provide a more effective organisation for the promotion of industrial research. The other is to formulate standard specifications for industrial commodities, processes and practices. For these purposes, provision is made in the Bill for the establishment and maintenance of an institute for industrial research and standards. The functions of the institute as set out in the Bill are: to undertake, encourage and foster scientific research and investigation with the object of (1) promoting the utilisation of the natural resources of the State, (2) improving the technical processes and methods used in the industries of the State, (3) promoting and facilitating the expansion of existing industries or the development of new industries; also to make recommendations to the Minister as to the formulation of standard specifications for commodities, processes and practices and the provision and use of standard marks for commodities, which conform to standard specifications, and to test and analyse commodities intended for sale or for use by the public. It is necessary to stress that it is proposed that the institute should have these functions only. It is to be severely practical in its work. It is not being established to undertake fundamental research but to apply known scientific principles to the development of industry and industrial technique. Its standardisation work will be directly related to known economic and social needs and to the productive capacity of Irish industry.

The Seanad is no doubt already aware of the special steps to organise research activities under State auspices which have been taken in the past. They include the setting up of such bodies as the Industrial Research Council, the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau, the Building Research Committee and the provision for an experimental station in connection with turf development contained in the recent Turf Development Bill. The Industrial Research Council was the first of these organisations. It was appointed in March, 1934, and is still functioning.

The general function of the Industrial Research Council is to furnish advice or take such action as may be approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for promoting the use of natural resources, and for furthering industrial development by scientific research. All the members of that council are unpaid. It functions under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce. It was established by means of a formal minute of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is intended that it will cease to function as soon as this new body is established. The Industrial Research Council had very little scope for independent action. It was required to obtain the prior approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce for any research activities it undertook, and if that work involved the expenditure of funds the approval of the Minister for Finance was also required. It had no laboratory and no permanent staff. Most of its research work was carried out in the laboratories of the universities. While the Industrial Research Council did a great amount of very useful work, the limited powers given to it circumscribed the field of its activities in a very definite degree. The Emergency Scientific Research Bureau was established as a temporary organisation in February, 1941, to give the Government technical advice, and to conduct research on emergency problems in relation to industrial processes and raw materials. The bureau worked in co-operation with the Industrial Research Council and took advantage of the council's organisation and experience. The activities of the bureau were, however, terminated early in 1945. Since the bureau terminated, the services of the Industrial Research Council have been availed of in connection with problems arising out of emergency conditions.

In December, 1944, the Building Research Committee was appointed. Its function was to furnish advice and take such action as might be approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in technical matters relating to the building industry, including the preparation of standard specifications for building materials. A number of standard specifications have been prepared by that committee. It also is still functioning, and it is contemplated that it will become one of the advisory committees associated with the industrial research institute when this Bill has been enacted.

The House will remember that the Turf Development Act, which was recently before it, made provision for the establishment of an experimental station for the conduct of investigations into various problems associated with the production of turf by mechanical methods and the utilisation of turf and turf products. The new institute, which this Bill is intended to set up, will be so constituted as to preserve the advantages of the three research bodies to which I have referred, and to include other features found in research and standards organisations in other countries, and considered desirable in the circumstances of this country. It is recognised that for research, especially for applied or industrial research, elastic conditions of control and development are required. In order to give the proposed institute as great a measure of independence as is practicable, the Bill provides that it shall be a body corporate. The constituent parts of the institute will be a council, an industrial research committee, a standards committee and a director of industrial research and standards. The council will consist of the members of the industrial research committee and of the standards committee, who will be ex officio members of the council, and, in addition thereto, not more than 50 other members, each of whom will be appointed for his special attainments. As many members of the present industrial research council as are willing to act will be appointed to the first council. That proposed council for the institute will have advisory functions only. It will meet at least once a year, and it will have the duty of considering and making observations on the draft annual report, and on the programme of the work of the institute. It is contemplated that the annual meeting of the council of the institute might be held in public, and that it would ultimately take the form of a scientific convention which, by providing an occasion for the reading of special papers and a discussion on those papers, would help to arouse interest in the work of the institute.

The industrial research committee will consist of not more than nine members, each of whom will be appointed for his special scientific attainments applied to industry, or because he is capable of giving substantial practical assistance in the work of the institute. The committee will be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and will be charged with the general government of the institute and the administration of its affairs, particularly the administration of its finances, subject to the reservations to the standards committee and to the director.

The standards committee as proposed will consist of seven members, of whom three must be members of the research committee. The members of the standards committee will also be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and it will be their duty to formulate standard specifications for commodities and processes at the request of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Provision has been made for the standards committee as a separate organ of the institute as it would be undesirable to give the standards committee a status inferior to that of the industrial research committee. The two committees will be linked together by having a common director as well as the same members in common. The director of industrial research and of standards will have as his primary duties the direction, supervision and conduct of research decided on by the industrial research committee and the formulation of specifications by the standards committee. He will, however, have the right, independently of the industrial research committee, to conduct such research as he may think proper on behalf of the institute. It will be appreciated, however, that the committee will control the finances of the institute and that the power given to the director to carry on research activities outside the field laid down by the industrial research committee is designed to enable him to make the fullest and the most continuous use of the staff and resources of the institute.

The director will have the right to attend and speak at meetings of the council and of the two committees— the industrial research committee and the standards committee. He will not have the right to vote at any meeting. He will have power to appoint advisory committees to consult with him and advise him in relation to any of its functions, subject, in the case of functions with which the industrial research or standards committee is concerned, to the prior consent of the committee. I have mentioned that that provision of the Bill will allow for the services of existing organisations of a special kind such as a building research committee to be availed of for the purposes of the institute. Provision is made in the Bill whereby the institute will carry out researches, investigations, tests and analyses at the request of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and also on its own initiative, provided it is in the public interest to do so. The institute will have power to render such assistance, financial or otherwise, as it thinks proper to persons undertaking research of a kind which the institute is itself authorised to undertake. It can also, subject to the approval of the Minister, provide scholarships and other awards for the training of persons in industrial research, and pay bonuses or royalties to members of its staff who have made or have materially assisted in making important discoveries or inventions. I may mention that all discoveries and inventions resulting from researches undertaken by the institute will be the property of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, subject to the special provision in the case of work undertaken for private persons.

It seems a rather harsh arrangement. However, we will discuss that in Committee.

Matters of standardisation will, under the Bill, be dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in consultation with the institute. A standard specification would be prepared by the institute at the request of the Minister who may then, by Order, declare such specification to be a standard specification. Provision is made whereby the Minister may by Order prescribe a mark for use in connection with a specified commodity, of a specified process or practice, to indicate that it conforms with a particular standard specification. The prescribing of standards for commodities for which another Minister is otherwise empowered to prescribe standards, as under the Food and Drugs Acts, would be subject to the consent of the Minister concerned. Provision is made for the keeping of registers of standard specifications and of marks, for the registration of marks abroad, for restriction on the registration of standard marks, for the grant of licences for the use of standard marks, for protection against misrepresentation and for the prosecution of offences in relation to standard marks and standard specifications.

So far as the financial provisions of the Bill are concerned, it is proposed to make available out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas grants of such amount as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, may sanction towards the defraying of the capital cost of land, buildings and equipment for the institute. It will be understood that no figure can be given under that heading as yet. It is intended that the institute will be established and that the committee will itself consider and prepare plans for the establishment of the institute laboratories and, having prepared these plans, the amount involved, subject to the approval of the two Ministers, will be provided out of voted moneys. In addition to that initial capital grant to provide for buildings and equipment, it is proposed to give to the institute an annual subvention of £15,000. The expenditure of that £15,000 will be entirely at the discretion of the institute. Over and above the annual subvention of £15,000 the institute may also obtain out of voted moneys grants of such amounts as may be sanctioned for defraying the whole or part of the costs of special investigations undertaken by the institute, including the cost of special equipment required for these investigations.

Apart from these financial provisions, the institute will be given power to charge, receive and recover fees for researches and tests, or investigations, undertaken by it on behalf of any person other than the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It will also have power to accept gifts of money, land, or other property. It will have power to employ such staff as is necessary for its functions. The members of the staff will be appointed by and removed by the director of the institute, with the approval of the industrial research committee. Provision is made in the Bill for a superannuation scheme for the staff of the institute.

The importance of science to industry is, I think, now generally recognised. Modern industry rests to an ever-increasing extent upon scientific foundations. The result of research here and elsewhere can always be applied in the improvement of technical processes, the use of subsidiary and by-products, and in the elimination of waste. In the circumstances of this country there is ample scope for industrial research with a view to maintaining or improving efficiency and technique and to developing new processes and products. Again, I wish to emphasise that the research work to be done by the institute will be guided by practical and economic motives and its value will be judged by the extent to which its results can be economically applied to industrial production. The effort and the money put into it will be justified by an increase in efficiency and output or a lessening of the costs of production.

The new institute will, it is hoped, place industrial research in this country on a more permanent and autonomous basis. The principles of the Bill in regard to industrial research may, therefore, be summed up as, firstly, an independent research authority with its own laboratory, equipment and staff and considerable freedom in the administration of the funds entrusted to it; secondly, in view of its restricted resources, the limitation of its functions to the practical problems of Irish industry—that is to say, the scientific study of problems affecting particular industries in this country. It might be considered that the proposed standards authority should be separate and distinct from the industrial research institute. That is the normal practice in other larger countries. In a small State like this, however, where available resources both of money and personnel are limited, there are considerable advantages to be secured by linking the standards authority with the proposed research institute; and the device adopted in this Bill of having a standards committee as a separate organ of the institute secures the advantages of independence with the economies of combination. The establishment of an Irish standards authority is a step which has long been necessary. In so far as standards specifications for industrial materials and processes are a trade convenience or a trade necessity, circumstances have compelled the use here of British standards, which are prepared in relation to British manufacturing resources and the materials available to British industry. Irish standards will be prepared in consultation with Irish manufacturing and trading interests, and their formulation will not merely permit industrial development but will also help to ensure greater productive efficiency.

The need for an Irish standards authority does not rest merely on the commercial convenience of the availability of standard specifications of industrial materials and processes. In recent years, the social, as well as the economic, advantages of prescribing standard specifications for consumers' goods have been realised.

The Bill provides, as I have said, for a standard mark and for the use of the standard mark in connection with goods conforming to the standard specification. It is not intended, of course, that producers should be limited to the production of goods conforming to the standard specification, or any standard specifications which may from time to time be published, but that any producer who desires to give to the public an absolute guarantee of quality which will inspire public confidence may obtain the right to use the standard mark in connection with goods of standard quality. By the establishment of the institute, the State is providing itself with an organisation which is clearly needed. The work of the institute is, no doubt, confined by the limitation on the financial resources to be provided for its use, but these resources can be increased, as may be deemed desirable from time to time, and as public realisation of the importance of the institute's work increases. I think, therefore, that we shall make a good start in the creation of an effective industrial research organisation and the establishment of an Irish standards authority by adopting this Bill.

If we make a good start, I do not think that the work of either the research committee or the standards committee will be unnecessarily or unduly restricted in the future by a refusal to provide whatever funds are required. It will be clear, however, that if it is considered at any stage desirable to increase the amount of the annual subvention of the institute— the money which the institute may spend at its own discretion and not for the purpose of specific researches approved by the Minister—the Oireachtas will have to be consulted and give its approval to the enactment of amending legislation. I think that my remarks, with the White Paper explanatory of the Bill, which has been circulated, will give Senators a general outline of the purposes of the measure and, subject to any observations which they may have to make regarding its details, I think that those purposes will commend themselves to them.

I agree that the Minister's explanation, combined with the White Paper, does make clear what he purposes to do in the Bill. Indeed, I wonder how the Minister, in the multiplicity of his duties, keeps his head at all or is able to explain anything. This Bill is exactly the type of measure which might have been taken through the Oireachtas at a less wearisome time for the Minister and for everybody else. It is a Bill which, preeminently, should have been circulated and available for quite a long time for discussion and suggestions by interested parties. When I say "interested parties", I do not mean people who expect to make something out of it, but rather people who know a great deal about the subject. There is a kind of idea that certain Bills are Fianna Fáil Bills and that there are Fine Gael and Labour viewpoints about Bills but the really astonishing thing about a great deal of our legislation is that there is no such Party view about it at all.

This Bill is on quite a different footing, although it is also non-Party, from the Air Navigation Bill, which has just got a Second Reading, with well-deserved praise from different parts of the House. The Air Navigation Bill is based upon a convention. We are not responsible for the times at which certain conferences are held. Neither the Minister nor anybody here has any responsibility for the dates involved. The Minister finds himself with an air service and with a Bill which he has to pass now. Nobody can have any objection to that. One might say almost the same—though with not quite the same cogency—of the Industrial Relations Bill, which we shall also be asked to pass rather hurriedly. There is a date operating, so to speak, against the Minister and the Oireachtas. In this instance, no date is operating against us and this Bill is entirely experimental. It envisages a completely new process, the results of which are not readily ascertainable, quite unlike the Air Navigation Bill which deals with a matter of which we have actual experience. It seems to me that, above all other Bills which we have now before us, this measure might reasonably be put off until the winter session. I have been very busy with my own work and with work in the Seanad for the past month. There are colleagues of mine at University College whose opinions on this Bill would be very valuable and whom I should be anxious to consult. At the moment, some of them—particularly those I should like to consult—are not available. Consultation with them would not involve criticism of the Minister. It would merely result in obtaining the point of view of persons who know the kind of work the Minister wants to do and who, in the nature of things, must know more about it than I do or the Minister or anybody available to him in his Department knows. I say that without any desire to detract from the extraordinarily fine type of work that the Minister and many persons in his Department do. I think that the Bill is brought in at a very inopportune time. It is a type of Bill which might very well be left a long time on the stocks so that we could have observations, comment and criticism from various directions. That is the first point I should like to make with all the strength I possess.

We are hoping to adjourn the week after next and this Bill will raise in Committee a very large number of points—not political points. I presume that we shall pass it, if we are forced to do so, but I think that it is rather a mistake to take that particular line. With his Industrial Relations Bill on his hands and with his endeavours to bring about harmony in the Labour movement—an extraordinary rôle for a Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a way—the Minister might well have spared himself the labour involved in getting this Bill through the two Houses. On its face, the Bill appears to be narrow. It is a Bill for industrial research but "industrial research" is nowhere defined, and I do not know that it is definable. That is what I have always been told. I have been listening to discussion of this matter for years and I have been told that "industrial research" cannot be adequately defined. The very words used by the Minister to-day are words that people experienced in science, and scientific and even industrial research, would say cannot be used. The director of the research council can do research outside the field. My understanding of the matter is that you cannot put a fence around a field and say: "Inside is industrial research and outside is something else." Industrial research is not separable from what is called scientific or pure research. I know the Minister's answer in the other House was that he is not responsible for pure research, that the Minister for Education and the universities are responsible for it. The Minister, as a member of the Government, sharing collective responsibility with the other members, appreciates, I am sure, as I do, that industrial research—the application of science to industry—is entirely dependent upon pure research, upon research which has no industrial or economic aim at all. Unless pure research is encouraged and unless the State pays for it—and pays for it on a rather liberal basis; it is being starved at present— you will have no foundation at all for an industrial research institute. You are in the position of a person who is buying wallpaper for a house which has no foundation. You are building houses where there are no roads, no signposts, and, one might say, no atmosphere—unless pure research is encouraged. I put this to the Minister as proof that pure scientists are very often the best people for solving practical problems.

The Emergency Scientific Bureau was, I think, the best of the bodies established. It was based entirely on scientists. I am speaking from memory as I have not had time to look all these things up, but I think it was based entirely on people engaged in university teaching of science, with the one exception of the State chemist, who had been engaged in teaching and who has gone from being State chemist to being professor of chemistry in University College, Dublin. These people engaged in university teaching were very successful in a practical sense in the emergency. Incidentally, that particular body, I think, was responsible to the Taoiseach rather than to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

This scheme, so far as I can see, appears to be entirely dissociated from the universities. It is, I think, nothing but the simple truth to say that it cannot be worked unless associated with the universities. One of the great features of Governmental action—it is not peculiar to the Minister or to this Government or to this country—is the setting up of separate agencies to do things, instead of availing of existing agencies. One of the things this institute can do is to buy lands and erect buildings. Will that lead to duplication? The question was asked by, I think, a member of the Minister's own Party in the other House, whether the research facilities already available in the universities would be availed of. As I say, I am not a scientific expert, but I know that in University College, Dublin—the spectroscopic subject was mentioned in the other House—there is some equipment. Surely it is not proposed to duplicate that in the institute?

Am I to understand—I think the Minister did indicate it, but I should like to have it made quite clear—that, for example, fuel problems are part of the research that is to be undertaken by this body? Will soil problems also come under the Department of Industry and Commerce and under this body? Will explosives and matters with which the Department of Defence may be interested? I take it they will. Is there any provision for consultation in the Bill or is it intended that there shall be consultation and use of existing experts and machinery? For example, there are certain things done in University College, Dublin. I think there has been a considerable amount done about peat in University College, Cork, and in University College, Galway, I think there have been researches into seaweed. Is it intended to get collaboration from all these sources? One of the answers may very well be that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. I take it that is so. But there is a great tendency in institutes to be self-contained. Just as States tend to be more and more sovereign, you get the idea of autonomous and sovereign institutes, which may be quite a wrong thing.

The Minister does provide elastic conditions with regard to financial supervision; that is to say, he is not subjecting the institute, the director or the staff of the institute to day-to-day supervision from the Department of Finance. I think that is a very desirable thing. It is absolutely impossible to conduct research and, so to speak, marshal and regiment research workers in the way in which civil servants may be regimented. As a matter of fact, it is not even true that civil servants may be regimented, because in the higher reaches of the Civil Service you cannot regiment them; they are either good, or you must take them as they are. Research people tend to be rather like prima donnas. They may not want to work on Thursday and, if they do not want to work, there is no use in asking them. You cannot send a man to a laboratory to sign the book at 9.30 and sign off at 5.30. He may do that, but he may do nothing that day. On another occasion, he may stay in the laboratory all night. I have known people to do that. I have met people coming out from the laboratory at ten in the morning. These people are of that kind.

The Minister is right in providing for no regimentation. Above all other things, if the director of the institute has to sit over files, you are ruining him. If we are to appoint a scientist, we should not make him keep files and reply to letters from the Department of Finance or any other Department, because these things cannot be done on that basis. I am speaking of what I know. Again, it seems to me that the Civil Service rules will apply to some extent. This institute will be under the Department of Industry and Commerce. It seems to me that the Department of Industry and Commerce is already very much overworked. If the Secretary of that Department, apart from his other multifarious activities and from the new air activities, is also to take responsibility for the industrial research and standards institute, he will be far more overworked than he is at present and he may conceivably get much more trouble from that kind of body than from civil servants.

The Minister will have to recognise and, as a member of the Government, I think will have to urge on his colleagues, that pure research will have to be encouraged, as it is the natural foundation for industrial research. We can discuss many of these things in Committee, although I would rather discuss them in October than now. For example, there is provision for scholarships for training in industrial research. Nobody can be trained in that unless he has, in the first instance, got a good sound scientific training, which has nothing to do with industry, and unless he has shown as a post-graduate student an aptitude for research, and for pure research. The Minister says that he will not give scholarships for pure research, but for industrial research. But there will be a border-line there which will be very difficult to cross and recross. There are a great many Committee points and we shall have to leave them over. But I suggest to the Minister that, above all other measures, this is one which should be considered in a much more leisurely fashion than the fashion, at the tail-end of the summer, in which both the Minister and the House are asked to deal with it. It should be one upon which all the people interested in this avocation and the universities and all the scientific people in the universities could have their say. An endeavour was made in the other House to delete the word "industrial". I do not want to argue it now, but there is a great deal to be said for the point of view that you cannot delimit these things in this particular way and that another scheme, altogether apart from this, involving buildings and grounds and equipment, might have been devised.

While I say all this, I am not to be taken for a moment as not agreeing with the Minister's aims and objects and not agreeing that the Government and the State should do everything possible to make the most up-to-date scientific knowledge available for Irish industry as well as for Irish agriculture. The two go together. But, both the Minister and the industrialists will have to realise that the person upon whom all this progress is based and always has been based is the pure scientist conducting what they would regard as aimless research in a laboratory. There is no doubt about that. There is no short-cut and there is no method of applying material standards to the standards in the Bill and saying: "We will give you £100 and this day two months we want a result". You cannot get it. Of course you must throw your bread upon the waters and hope for the best. For that reason, seeing that the Bill does not begin at the beginning as a Governmental measure which would put pure research on a proper basis, and seeing that it may result in overlapping, I think it is above all things a measure which might be left over for consideration later on.

I know there is always a hurry about these things, but this is the worst possible time to pass the Bill through the House. I am not quite clear on this subject; I do not know much about the question of standards. I have heard scientists remark that there are a number of our fundamental measurements and weight standards which we have not scientifically ascertained at all. I am not sure whether there is a connection between industrial standards and industrial research and, as to whether they ought to be connected by the same man, that is rather doubtful. There are people better qualified to deal with the matter than I.

If you want to help industry and have research applied to industry, then it has not been proved that the best thing to do is to set up an institute for industrial research under the Minister for Industry and Commerce and ignore the universities. Even if you are going to do that, an absolutely essential preliminary, in order to give you personnel who will direct and work in the laboratories, is to improve facilities for pure research, facilities which in this country are very poor, owing to the smallness of the country. A man who gets a scientific degree and proposes to go in for research can get practically no rewards. It is easier to go even into a minor post in a university or into industry. We need endowments which will enable us to hold a person with a gift for that kind of research, hold him and let him do pure research. Upon that you will base successful and practical help for agriculture and industry.

I feel myself very much in agreement with Senator Hayes. I am very much afraid of any rigidity, official administrative rigidity, being introduced into this matter of research. I have not the experience of Senator Hayes but, nevertheless, this is a matter in which I have taken a great interest. The little I have been able to gather from it is that it is almost impossible to draw any definite line between practical applied research and pure research. They lead from one to the other, or rather practical research closely follows to a great extent very pure research and, therefore, there is a danger in setting up an institute of any kind and, above all, a Government institute, with all the tendencies to Civil Service rigidity and lack of imagination in dealing with this exceedingly flexible and imaginative problem.

I see no provision in the Bill to allow research to be done by outside bodies. Senator Hayes mentioned universities, but I might mention that certain commercial institutions have their own research laboratories, their own facilities for research, and have very often men of great ability. They might well be used by the institute to carry out research in matters that are closely allied to their commercial work. I hope the Minister will not set any limitation, in the administration of this measure, on the full use of other bodies that are well qualified and that might possibly bring what one might call a more romantic approach to the matter than a Government institution.

I would emphasise strongly the danger expressed by Senator Hayes in relation to the prestige and jealousy that attach to a Government body set up for this purpose. It is hard to put these things into exact words, but we all know how jealous one body gets of another body doing similar work. It is an old story in the army about the trouble that is created and the friction that is caused between the various staffs. These jealousies are not caused through differences among the members of the Government, but through differences among subordinate officials on a fairly high level. They become jealous of one another, and that is a very great danger in the carrying out of any activity, and particularly a more or less highly flexible activity like research.

There is another reason why it is very important to look outside to a very wide degree in our approach to this subject. Research is closely allied to invention, and I will mention two things which will show how people possessing no technical knowledge of a subject have invented very important articles. Does the Minister realise that the pneumatic tyre was invented by a veterinary surgeon? Dunlop was a veterinary surgeon and he laid the foundation for the pneumatic tyre. Again, would any person connected with domestic sewing ever think of a machine that threaded the needle at the point? That is the principle of the sewing machine. In view of these things, I suggest it is very important to encourage people, even numbers of cranks, people with that curious genius for invention, to come forward and be in close association with the institute. That is all I have to say for the moment about research.

I want to say something about standards. I have raised this matter several times and I am glad to see that the Minister has at last carried out the promise he made to me some time ago that a bureau of standards would be considered and brought into effect. I cannot see in the Bill any provisions to ensure that specifications will be carried out. Will there be inspectors or any machinery to ensure that when an article possesses a specification, that specification will be there in reality? The only material in regard to which I know a specification rigidly attaches, and examinations are carried out from time to time, is cement. In cement manufacture there is a standard specification and periodically, in fact all the time, samples in the process of manufacture are examined by an independent body, by examiners in the universities. It is very important that an article which purports to be covered by a certain mark should possess the qualities attached to that mark. I hope this Bill will ensure that that standard of quality will be maintained and examined. It should not rest merely with the unorganised consumer to challenge the quality of the specified standard article.

There is another matter about which I am not at all easy. The Minister mentioned Irish standards and I would like him to develop that, because I am very suspicious about these attempts to develop industries apart from the outside world, to develop special features in a small market. I could conceive great abuse of this standard method if the Minister attached certain Irish standards to, say, certain electrical fitments which prevented the use of existing fitments or prevented the use of fitments which adhered generally to a British or even international standard.

The whole aim of standards should be international. They should not be national even in a large country let alone a small country like this. I hope the Minister will not encourage standard fittings which will differ from the fittings made in the United States of America, Great Britain or any other country. That is a very important matter because I can conceive great danger in reinforcing, one might say, the already too high shelter of protection and tariffs, behind which our industries are now protected, by standards which will prevent the use of imported articles. I am hoping on Committee Stage to try to think out some amendment which will safeguard the consumers. I am far more concerned about the consumers than I am about the manufacturers. I wish I were happy that the manufacturers were as concerned about the consumer as I am. I have no doubt Senator Summerfield will reply to that. It is most important. The consumer is the person to be considered. The manufacturers are, of course, interested but, primarily, I am anxious about the consumer and I am anxious that this question of standards should place no limitation on the consumer getting what he wants where it is best made and most suited to his purpose. I hope it may be possible to introduce an amendment with that object.

Like Senator Hayes, I am sorry that we had not a little more time to discuss, analyse and in general examine this Bill. I think it, of course, is not only a very important Bill indeed but is a very interesting Bill and also it is a very subtle Bill in that it is going to direct the current of our achievements in the years to come. The discoveries of yesterday very often become the great industries of to-morrow and I, for example, was sorry that when Sir Alexander Fleming was over here early this month I had not an opportunity of discussing this question of standards with him. However, apart from that little lament, I naturally welcome any development to gear the wheels of Irish invention, Irish genius, Irish discovery to Irish welfare. The only thing I would like to do at this stage of this Bill is to see how the wheels actually interlock and how they are lubricated.

As far as I see, there are the three aspects of this Bill—the establishment of the institute, the committee of standards and a bureau of information. I regard these three as very important things indeed as I had experience of the working of these three aspects of activity in other countries, and I know something about their advantages and something about their limitations. They are three separate wheels in this machinery. I am sorry that the establishment of the bureau of information, to which the Minister referred in introducing the Bill in the Dáil, is not to be done as one of the functions of the institute under Section 5, because a bureau of information could be of enormous help to us in Éire. We are a country that gets a certain number of periodicals both by private workers and a certain number of public libraries, but we are very badly provided with continental scientific and industrial literature and American literature, which is very expensive, and a properly organised and constructed bureau of information that could reply on the telephone or send out lists as to where periodicals could be obtained would be really so important as almost to justify a building itself. If the Minister had to struggle to get information, sometimes walking around Dublin trying to track down a paper in somebody else's private library where it had been mislaid last year, he would know something about the way in which one's heart warms when one hears about a bureau of information.

The next thing is the committee of standards. I, like Senator Hayes, would have preferred to have an actual bureau of standards. This, again, is an extremely important subject that serves much more thorough consideration than I can attempt to give it in a few minutes. As I take it, there are three types of standards, the standardisation of measurements. That involves the question of the units we are going to use, and here we enter the problem of the metric system versus the non-metric system. I hope some day we will have the metric system in work in this country, and I think the bureau of standards can do a lot to popularise and make it generally acceptable.

Then we have another very important aspect of standardisation, that is, standardisation of potency, standardising the strength of various things. In this case the activities of the proposed committee of standards will overlap, say, the requirements of medicine and the requirements of agriculture. One of the great achievements of the now defunct League of Nations was the establishment of a set of standards for secretions and vitamins, and so forth, which was accepted throughout the world and was of tremendous use in clarifying the situation. Our committee of standards will have to face this sort of problem. With regard to tuberculin coming into this country and used for tests, as far as I can see, there is no official mechanism for standardising that tuberculin. We have to take it exactly on the recommendation of the manufacturer. Then, from the veterinary point of view, the vaccine used for contagious abortion does not only requires to be of a certain strength but requires to be checked constantly to see that it has maintained its potency. I assume, since it is a matter of standards, it would come within the activities of this committee of standards and would be part of the work of the institute.

We have the Therapeutic Substances Act but again I can see no mechanism for the exact checking of the manufacturer's products and the manufacturer's claims. Where you are getting material from the reputable large manufacturers of the world you are reasonably safe and to attempt to check some of their claims would mean very expensive apparatus indeed. At the same time it should be possible to arrange for collaboration between a local institute of standards or bureau of standards and the leading laboratories at the other side so that we could have the things checked from time to time independently.

The third type of standard, and the one most alluded to in the Bill, is the standard of composition. Does a particular preparation contain what it is supposed to contain? In the past, these labels were very often expressions of the hope of the manufacturer rather than the result of the analyst. This would be particularly important in connection with the Public Health Bill. Where we come to the question of so-called patent medicines or proprietary medicines we will have to have some device whereby the composition can be checked over by careful analysis. This, of course, raises what is Senator Sir John Keane's point—even supposing you see that it does or does not conform to standard— what way have you of enforcing that confirmation? I should like to know how far we can compel people to conform to the standards we set up. One way would be by refusing to allow the substance to come on the market. Another would be by allowing the substance which conformed to the standard and maintained the standard to be sold at a lower price. I would have a non-standard tax put on those things which did not conform, or something of that sort. I think that could be worked out.

This brings me to the question of the standard mark. Would it not be possible for some of our Gaelic philologists to give us two letters of the alphabet which would be the same in Irish and English and would denote an Irish standard? Otherwise there would be "C.E." on some things and "I.S." on others and there would probably be confusion and some will say "C.E." is much better when it is on Irish whiskey than "I.S."

This brings me to a couple of small points about the activities of the institute. As the Minister has explained, it would be necessary for the institute to have a first-rate laboratory to carry out the necessary tests and controls and here I can see a collision between the working of the institute and the working of the ordinary, separate, private analyst. The institute will be able to analyse far more effectively, with better apparatus, than the ordinary private analyst will in general be able to do and how are we going to avoid the, to me, apparently inevitable clash between these two interests? The State in a struggle like that is bound to win. It might be possible to arrange that the analysis undertaken by the institute could not compete with the analysis undertaken by the worker. That should be carefully considered on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Otherwise, it will be just another tentacle of the octopus operating.

Another point concerns patent rights. The research worker occasionally makes a discovery. He is generally not a business man, otherwise he would not be a research worker. His discovery may be taken up by a group of people who make a great deal of money. Sometimes the research worker gets a little out of it, either through generosity or by accident on the part of the manufacturers. It appears to me that everything in the Bill is going to the State and that the State might make a great deal of money out of this institute. It might get hold of some very valuable discovery which could be most lucrative. I wish the Minister could devise some means whereby, when a worker for the institute has made a good discovery, and the patent has been taken from him by the Government, he will get some fraction of reward. That is a link with the remuneration of those associated with the institute.

The Bill states that the council is to consist of not more than 50 members. Are these members going to be remunerated, or is it to be done entirely for love? I deplore the tendency of democratic States to get as much as they can from a certain type of people and just give them thanks. I refer to those who serve on bodies like the Agricultural Commission or the Banking Commission. where the best brains are mobilised to work. As far as I know, they do not get very much thanks. In other countries they may get a piece of ribbon to wear round their necks, or to wear with evening dress, or they may get a title. Here we do not seek these things. I feel that anyone who does any work there should get proper remuneration for time spent in giving the best of one's brains to the institute.

That brings me to the third wheel of the axle. The director is going to be of enormous importance to this institute. I was not clear as to how the director is to be directed by the committee. I would regard the director as the liaison officer between various aspects of the institute, one who would encourage and advise, but not be subject to rigid direction by a committee. The question of industrial research versus general research requires consideration. It has been got over in other countries by describing it as scientific and industrial research. Senator Sir John Keane referred to the eye of a needle. I think it was to the eye of a sewing-needle. I believe that idea came in a dream. We are thinking we can get the camel of Irish science through the needle of industrial science.

I confess that I am personally disappointed with this Bill. When I read the Title I thought I was going to have a treat, going to see the all-important subject of research put upon a particular basis, and developed along particular lines. The more I read the Bill the more it was borne on me, either that it was ill-digested or, if not ill-digested, that the digestion which had been operating upon it performed in a different way from that in which my own mental digestion was working. We find a council subject to a committee and a committee whose relationship to the director does not seem well defined, but seems to be fraught with considerable possibility of clash and, above all, an artificial demarcation between industrial research and research as a whole. The Minister has taken great pride in the fact that he is dealing with what is practical and possible. It has been pointed out that sticking to the practical and the possible, to the things which seem likely to produce immediate dividends, is not the method which history has shown to be ultimately the most successful.

The end of a war was brought about by the wiping out of Hiroshima by the atomic bomb. Where did that originate? It originated from research into the fission of the nucleus and atomic energy with which one of the Fellows of Trinity College was prominently identified. What was a Fellow of Trinity College doing investigating matters which cannot do any good or any harm to the people of Ireland? someone might have said. Those completely theoretical researches will produce more effects upon our lives than any research which is likely to be undertaken within the extremely limited formula of this Bill. What I am complaining of is that there is no interlinking, whereby a person engaged on industrial research can refer questions of applied research under the aegis of the institute, to the experts in pure theory. There is no method whereby the theoretical worker is able to pass his discoveries for further investigation to those engaged in industrial research. The whole scheme does not seem to be sufficiently digested.

I would like it to be possible for the committee or council to promote scholarships in universities for working on lines perhaps more fundamental than those of industrial research but leading to results in industrial research. As it is, the result of this Bill will be to deprive universities of certain grants and scholarships that they have. I dislike the fact that the £15,000 which is the annual income of the institute is apparently to be earmarked for administrative expenses. The words used are "expenses of administration." I do not know whether that is to include grants for people engaged on particular work but that is only another of the small points in regard to which I think the scope and the draft of the Bill have not been very fully investigated.

We should remember how very rapidly results are gained in the present world in consequence of purely theoretical work. We have been reminded only this afternoon of the progress made as a result of the experiments of Professor Joly, how his optical work produced modern colour photography and how his work on radio activity produced a large branch of medicine in radiotherapy and that within a period of 20 years from the time the work was done. I myself should like to see this whole Bill recommitted to the Minister for reconsideration as to whether this scheme is not ill-advised, as to whether the Bureau of Standards and the Committee on Industrial Research are not tied together like a cat and dog life the possibility of a cat and dog life between them afterwards, as to whether there should not be an interlinking between industrial investigations and investigations which can be carried on in the universities, as to whether, in fact, the whole scheme based on councils and committees is a satisfactory one. I am not going into the various points which seem to me possible sources of friction because there may not be adequate collaboration between the various bodies. I should like finally to add my voice to the plea which has been so eloquently put forward by Senator Hayes that this Bill might be left over and that it might be investigated by the various scientific bodies who could contribute their ideas to improve it.

Let me refer to one further simple point which occurs to me. There are provisions here for analyses. Analysis is an absolutely necessary process in the course of any scientific investigation. It would seem quite correct that the committee should lay down standards in reference to the analyses or tests to be applied but as far as I can see the effect of Section 5 (c), even in the amended form in which it has come from the Dáil which is very different from the form in which it was introduced, is going to cause an overlapping between the work of the institute and the work of the ordinary public analyst. Instead of occupying themselves with the necessary analyses which will be required for formulating the standards—for laying down the nature of the tests to be applied by public analysts in ascertaining the purity of different materials, they will be undertaking under Section 5 (c) a great deal of the practical work which ordinarily falls to the public analyst.

It is quite possible that the remarks which I have made are the result of reading the Bill and of not knowing exactly what is the scheme in the minds of the Minister and the officials of his Department for working it—of paying attention merely to the words without having a grasp of the plan, but, after all, that is all we can do in this House. We can only deal with a matter which is brought before us in the form of a Bill as it comes before us. I do very strongly subscribe, I confess, to the views expressed here, that it does not convey the impression of a Bill which has been thoroughly worked out in all its aspects and that the question has not been considered as to whether the things we are all anxious to see achieved could not be better attained by some other organisation.

Much of the discussion which I have heard on the Bill so far seems to centre around the suggestion that a theoretical scientist, when a practical problem comes before him, ceases to have the ability that made him a theoretical scientist. I do not know why that should be. After all, if a man is trained in science, and does work by applying his talents to research in certain industrial spheres, surely he brings to it all the theoretical knowledge which he has devoted to his researches in pure science? While this Bill is obviously an experiment, on the whole I think it is one we can welcome, if not so enthusiastically as the Air Navigation Bill, at least as something that indicates that we look for increased efficiency whether in factory or on the farm. The State realises that and certainly it is peculiarly the kind of research that the State should engage in. Many detailed points of criticism have been expressed which could be more appropriately dealt with on the Committee Stage, but I shall deal only with a few general points. At least the Bill should make fraud difficult. The setting up of standards should of itself protect the public from the considerable degree of fraud that has been practised on the public. I am sorry that my chief baiter, Senator Sir John Keane, is not now in the House. He seems to take a special delight in baiting manufacturers, but he always appears to be in a great hurry to take his departure before I can get up to reply. I could argue, when we are talking about profits and profiteering, that the public would like to know what happens the difference between the 1 per cent. or the 1¼ per cent. which the depositor receives for money which he lodges in a Bank and the 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. that has to be paid by a borrower before he can get that money back again.

It goes into cement.

I think he also indicated that there should be no conflict between the two branches of science. I think that, as we are discussing these matters, we ought to pay some tribute to the splendid work done for industrial research in all its aspects by the Industrial Research Bureau. The work of these scientists is not often as well understood or appreciated as it should be. There are a few questions which I should like to put to the Minister in connection with this Bill. The first has reference to the standards which are to be set up. Non-standard goods may be manufactured and offered to the public but I hope that manufacturers generally will so comply with the standards set up that it will be practically impossible to sell goods that do not come up to standard. I am curious to know what will be the position of imported goods under our standards system. Will it be possible for the manufacturers of imported goods to avail of our standards and standard markings because there I see a difficulty? We know that the maintenance of standards will depend on the punishments and penalties inflicted on those who have not conformed to the standards or who have departed from the specifications which these standards entail. You can get at the native manufacturer but will we have any means of getting at the foreign manufacturer if his goods do not come up to standard? That is all I wish to say on the Bill, the general principles of which I welcome.

Naturally an ordinary Senator labours under certain disabilities in attempting to understand or discuss the principles of this Bill. Clearly even our university people are at a disadvantage—all those of them who have not had a scientific training. The Minister had his brief so that he will appreciate the difficulties under which we labour in attempting to make our remarks intelligent on the issues raised by this Bill. I should like to compliment the Minister on its introduction but I hesitate to do so because I have got the feeling frankly, while I have a certain amount of admiration for the Minister, that in the introduction of this measure he is somewhat like an engine that is running away from its train.

I am all for the State spending much more money on scientific research, and on showing much wider and more profound interest in it. I think that is much more important for a small State like ours than it would be for a mighty country with a population of hundreds of millions. The Minister, in an earlier Bill, has definitely put this country on the map. In attacking a job of work like scientific research, we might indeed be able to make a very great contribution to the progress of civilisation and to the betterment of human relations. I believe that we have the genius and the ability in the country to do that. If it were mobilised and given the opportunity it would help to make things very much better indeed for ourselves.

So far as I have been able to examine this Bill, the opinion that I have formed of it is that it is conceived in a too narrow manner altogether. I do not understand at all why we want to establish an industrial research institute here when, apparently, we are leaving out of account altogether the necessity for an agriculture research institute. I feel that first things should come first: that we should first have attacked the problems that confront our agriculturists, and that if we are to do justice to our people it is far more urgent that we should start with an agricultural research institute. The Minister, perhaps, may explain that he had become so impatient with his colleagues, with their lack of interest and lack of energy on these questions, that he decided to go ahead for himself and provide his Department with the mechanism and the knowledge that are essential for its progress and better development. That may be the position, but I want to join issue with the Minister there.

First of all, I agree with Senator Hayes that the establishment of an institute like this is, to a certain extent, sectionalising our educational institutions in a way that is not going to be of real value to the country. We already have our universities and our Institute of Higher Studies. I do not know what connection or relationship there is between the work that is being done in the universities and in the Institute of Higher Studies. Indeed, I do not know if there is any connection at all. I know, however, that it will be possible under the Bill to make arrangement with certain institutes, or with groups of people working outside, to do work for this industrial research institute. I feel with Senator Hayes that, when you establish this organisation, it is going to draw certain people to itself, and that there will be a definite inclination on their part to make a name for themselves—to do their work in such a manner within the confines of their own institute that it will, to a great extent, not take cognisance of the work that is being done in our universities, or of the work that might be done by them.

I want to make the point that I am convinced that scientific research on behalf of agriculture is at least as urgent and as requisite to-day as any effort directed towards the application of science to industry. I am not against the application of science to industry, but I would like to see the two things go hand in hand. My view is that, instead of the Bill which we have before us to-day, we should have had something on the lines of what we had during the emergency—an Emergency Scientific Research Bureau made into a permanent organisation. Under an institution of that sort, scientific studies, calculated to add to our knowledge, could be pursued, and we could then have that knowledge applied to the problems of the nation. But when you divide the nation in the way that is being done under this Bill and give people the impression that the application of science to industry is the essential and the fundamental thing to-day, you are, in my opinion, pushing agriculture farther into the backwoods. We have all sorts of problems in relation to the development of agriculture that need to be tackled immediately, problems that have been tackled elsewhere. They were referred to by Senator Fearon and by Senator Hayes who made special reference to the problem relating to soils. I notice that Senator O'Donovan has just come into the House. The point that I am on is one on which he could enlighten both myself and the Minister.

Senator Fearon, when speaking on the question of standards, made reference to the situation which confronts the veterinary profession. He pointed out that when vaccines for contagious abortion, or for abortion, come in here, they have to be tested again. I do not know how far we are able to have these vaccines available at all. Some time ago I had a discussion on this with a veterinary surgeon. I tried to discover whether or not a vaccine that is available to farmers in the United States of America for the inoculation of their young female stock is available here. My information is that it is not. Anyhow, if it is available it is not being used. There are dozens of ways in which the main industry of the country could be served by the application of science. What I regret is that the whole basis of this Bill has not been made much broader, and that an opportunity is not being given to embark on a new, fresh, and much needed endeavour whereby we would be able to harness science to the activities of the nation, both in the industrial and agricultural spheres. Naturally industrialists feel that they are labouring under certain disadvantages as against industrialists elsewhere, but so far as that is concerned they do not feel half as keenly as we farmers do in regard to our position.

What strikes me in regard to this Bill is that the Minister has got away on his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture. While the Minister says that this is going to be a severely practical effort—that it is the application of known data to the immediate problems of industry—I want to say that this data can only become known by being discovered. Perhaps, he is going to graft the knowledge that can be borrowed from scientific efforts in other countries to the industrial problems which confront us here. Naturally, he is going to go further in his endeavour, and will try to add to the store of knowledge which, when applied to industrial effort, is going to make for progress in industry.

I do not know whether the Minister, at this stage, can be convinced of the necessity for re-examining the proposals in this Bill. I wish he could be made realise that scientific research in an institution like this should also be directed on behalf of agriculture, and that agriculture to-day is much more in need of a vigorous push forward than industry. If this Bill goes through in its present form then, unless we have some evidence that a similar effort is going to be made on behalf of agriculture, the only conclusion we can come to is that the members of the Cabinet have abandoned their faith in the land of the nation and in the people of the nation, and that they are going to concentrate to an unreasonable extent on the industrialisation of our people. That will not bring anything like the rewards that a progressive agriculture could bring. I would like to see the Minister reconsidering this Bill and going back to his colleagues, especially to the Minister for Agriculture, and trying to inoculate him with some of the energy which he himself is displaying in this measure. If the Minister were to do that, I think he would get much greater applause both from this House and the country. He would be laying a much more solid foundation for a real scientific advance both on behalf of agriculture and industry than it will be possible to achieve under this Bill.

Is dóigh liom gurb é an locht is mó a fuarthas ar an mBille seo gur tugadh isteach é an tráth seo den bhliain agus ar an ábhar sin nach bhfuair lucht an tSeanaid an oiread ama lena scrúdú agus ba mhaith leo. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán brí ins na lochtaí sin. Sa gcéad dul síos ní Bille doiléir é, ní Bille an chasta é. An t-ábhar atá i gceist ann is ábhar é a bhfuil spéis ag an gcuid is mó de lucht an tSeanaid ann le fada an lá. Is ábhar é ar a raibh deis acu machtnamh a dhéanamh air ó cuireadh an Industrial Research Council ar bun in 1934. Is ábhar é a raibh deis acu a bheith ag smaoineadh air ó cuireadh an Bureau of Scientific Research ar bun sa bhliain 1941. Is dóigh liom gurb é an locht is mó atá ag na daoine atá mí-shásta leis an mBille nach féidir leo lochtaí a fháil air i gceart; nach bhfuil cúis údarásach casaoide acu ar an mBille. Is dóigh liom gurb é a laghad sin ama a chaith siad ar an mBille do scrúdú, nó machtnamh a dhéanamh air, is údar leis an mí-shásamh atá orthu.

Ní fíor é sin. Ní fíor é sin chomh fada agus a bhaineas sé liomsa ar bith.

Ní miste dhom mo thuairimí a nochtadh ar an scéal——

Ní féidir leis an Seanadóir na rudaí atá im aigne do luadh mar ní thuigeann sé iad agus ní féidir leis iad do thuigsint.

Tiocfadh leis pé scéal é.

Tá mé ag nochtú mo thuairime—muna dtaith-níonn mo thuairimí le duine ar bith, is feidir leis iad fhágáil ina dhiaidh. Bhí mé féin ag machtnamh ar an scéal le fada an lá agus bhíos ag iarraidh eolas a fháil i dtaobh imeachtaí an Industrial Research Council agus ar imheachtaí an Scientific Bureau. Dob fhéidir le aon duine a chuireas spéis sa cheist an t-eolas sin a fháil chomh maith agus fuair mise é. Ní uireasba ama chun machtnaimh ar an gceist nó chun machtnamh air is údar agóide ag lucht a cháinte mar tá an Bille in ár lámha le tamall fada anois. Tá sé in ár lámha, is dóigh liom, le dhá mhí nó trí mhí agus bhí a fhios againn le fada roimhe go raith sé le teacht. Nuair tugadh an Bille isteach sa Dáil an chéad uair bhí mé mí-shásta le cuid dá théarmaí. B'fhéidir nach mí-shásamh an focal is ceart dom a rá ach bhíos in aimhreas faoi bhrí cuid de na hailt a bhí ann. Tá cuid mhaith difríochta, áfach, idir an Bille atá os ár gcomhair anois agus an Bille mar tugadh isteach é, agus níl aon aimhreas nach i bhfeabhas agus i bhfeabhas go mór atá an Bille imithe.

Deirtear gur féidir feabhas a chur air. Is dóigh gur féidir, ach is fusa caint a dhéanamh ná cóta agus le linn na díospóireachta anseo tráthnóna níor tugadh aon léargas ná leide dúinn ar cé an chaoi a bhféadfaí é a fheabhsú. Ní leor a rá to bhfuil sé lochtach. B'fhéidir idir an uair seo agus an chéad chéim eile go bhfuighmid léargas ar an gcaoi a bhféadfaí é a fheabhsú. Tá mé cinnte den mhéid seo, más féidir le haon duine a thais-peáint gur féidir é a fheabhsú, go mbeidh an Seanad sásta cuidiú leis an duine sin agus tá mé cinnte dhe seo; nach mbéidh duine sa Teach ar mhó ar mhian leis géilleadh do na moltaí a déanfar ná an tAire féin. Ach ní mhór dóibh iarracht níos fearr a dhéanamh ná rinne siad inniu.

Níor mhiste dom tagairt a dhéanamh do rudaí eile. Níor chaith mé aon am sa Dáil, ach, nuair bhí an Bille ag dul tríd an Teach sin, fuaireas na tuarascála oifigiúla mar fuair gach duine eile; agus na díospóireachtaí a bhí ann, go mór mhór céim an Choiste, bhí siad thar a bheith spéisiúil. Scrúdúíodh an Bille go mion annsin agus bhí Teachta óg go háirithe ann, Teachta a bhfuil ard-cháiluíocht aige i gcúrsaí eolaíochta, fear a bhfuil cuid mhór taighde tábhachtach déanta aige féin, a rinne géar-scrúdú ar an mBille. Chuir sé síos cuid mhaith leasuithe ar an mBille agus ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon duine ann is túisce d'admhódh go ndearna an tAire cás níos fearr ina gcoinne ná an Teachta úd a mhol na leasuithe. B'fhéidir nach nós maith é go dtiubharfaimis moladh do Aire. Níl fhios agam ach ní miste dhom an méid seo a rá faoi: an dóigh inar phlé sé Chéim Choiste an Bhille seo sa Dáil go mba bhreá ar fad mar a thais-peáin sé an tuigsint chruinn a bhí aige ar bhrí an Bhille. Chuir sé íona orm chomh chruinn sásúil agus a bhí sé ábalta na hargóintí a chuir lucht eolaíochta suas a fhreagairt agus iad a shásamh. Níl aon aimhreas nach bhfuil gá le hobair thaighde ar mhaithe le tionnscal na tíre.

Go cinnte, bheinn go láidir i gcoinne dúblú a dhéanamh, d'aon-turas, ar obair ar bith. Má dhéanann Sasana nó Aimeirce obair thaighde a oireas dúinn, tá mé go láidir i bhfabhar glacadh leis an obair a dhéanas siad agus gan sinn féin a bheith ag caitheamh dúthrachta agus airgid ar an obair chéanna. Ach níl aon aimhreas go ndearnadh faillí mhór i gcúrsaí tionscail sa tír seo agus níl aon aimhreas go bhfuil ceisteanna faoi leith a bhaineas leis an tír nach mór taighde faoi leith a dhéanamh orthu. Tá sé in am, muna bhfuil sé thar am, go gcuirfi dream faoi leith i mbun na hoibre taighde seo.

Ba mhaith liom ar an ócáid seo, mar a rinne Seanadóirí eile, go bhfógródh muid, chomh mór agus atámid faoi chomaoin ag na hOllscoileanna mar gheall ar an méid a rinne riad i 1934 ar son an Industrial Research Council. Níl aon aimhreas nach lucht Ollscoile an mhuintir ba tábhachtaí ar an gComhairle sin. Beidh deireadh leis an gComhairle sin ar an mBille seo a bheith ina dhlí. Sul imeos siad, ba mhaith liom go gcláróimis a mhéid atámid faoi chomaoin acu as an obair a rinne siad. Ar an gcuma chéanna, ní féidir a chur in iúl i bhfocla an méid agus atá an Seanad, an tOireachtas agus muintir na tíre fré chéile, faoi chomaoin ag lucht an Emergency Research Bureau as an obair a rinne siad le linn na héigeandála. Níl ann ach Dé Luain ó tháinig duine le lucht tionscail na tíre isteach chugam ar ghnó áirithe agus chuir sé síos—gan mise ghá iarraidh air-ar chomh sásúil agus bhí sé bheith ag déileáil leis an mBureau sin, agus chomh mór agus a bhí seisean agus lucht tionscail faoi chomaoin acu faoin obair mhór a rinneadh siad. Lucht tionscail is mó agus is fearr a thigeas an droch-bhail a bheadh ar an tír le linn na héigeandála murach an chomhairle nó an Bureau sin a bheith ann.

Do luadhadh inniú lucht eolaíochta a rinne cuid mhór i gcúrsaí taighde agus moladh iad, rud ba chóir a dhéanamh agus molaimse iad chomh maith. Ba mhaith liomsa, áfach, ar an ócáid seo go gcláródh muid a mhéid ba cheart don tír seo a bheith baoch don Ollamh Tomás Ó Nualláin, a cailleadh tamall ó shoin, as an obair a rinne seisean, ní amháin i gcúrsaí eolaíochta go generálta, ach go speisialta ar son na tíre díreach san uair a theastaigh fear chun é sin a dhéanamh. D'fhéadfadh an fear sin dul ag obair do thíortha eile agus dhéanfadh sé go maith dó féin dá ndéanadh sé seirbhís dóibh ach ní dhearna sé sin. D'fhan sé sa mbaile agus chuir sé a thír féin i dtosach.

Tá imní ar an Seanadóir Ó hAodha go bhfágfar an Ollscoil chun deiridh de bharr an Bhille seo. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon údar leis an imní sin. Rinne na hOllscoileanna obair mhór thaighde i bhfad i bhfad sul ar cuimhníodh ar an Industrial Research Council, nó sul ar cuimhníodh ar a leithéidí seo d'insti-tiúid. Níl aon rud, beag ná mór, sa mBille seo a bhféadfaí a thuigsint as go gcuirfí isteach, beag ná mór, ar an obair sin nó ar cheartas na nOllscol. A mhalairt ar fad, gidh nach bhfuil sé ráite ann, atá le tuigsint as. Tá sé soiléir agus rí-shoiléir, má tá rath le bheith ar an Institiúid seo, go gcaith-fidh an Ollscoil a bheith ann, agus deis mhaith a bheith acu leanúint den taighde.

Caithfidh an Ollscoil a bheith ann chun an taighde glan nó "pure research" a dhéanamh agus a chur chun cinn.

Caithfí airgead a thabhairt chuige sin.

Caithfear cabh-air ar shlite eile a thabhairt, ach ar a laghad, níl oiread is "comma" sa mBille seo a chuirfeadh in úil, nach mbeidh cumhacht ag an Ollscoil leanúint don taighde glan a bhí ar siúl acu ó cuireadh an Ollscoil ar bun, is cuma cé acu, Ollscoil na Tríonóide nó Ollscoil na hÉireann.

Níl a fhios agam cén chaoi go bail-each a dtabharfar comh-oibriú isteach idir an Ollscoil agus an Institiúid seo. Dúirt an tAire sa Dáil, agus chomh fada agus is cuimhiú liom dúirt sé anseo tráthnóna é, go bhfuil sé ar intinn aige no daoine atá ar an Research Council a chur ar an gcomhairle nua. Sin an bealach is fearr ina d'fhéadfaí an comh-oibri a chur ar bun. Chomh fada agus tá an tAire ar an intinn sin a dhéanamh, tá mé an tsásta leis. Rinneadh caint anseo ar an téarma "industrial research" agus dúrthas go mba chóir go gcuirfí sain-mhíniú síos ar an bhfocal. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an sain-mhíniú le fáil go cruinn in Alt 5. Taispeántar "definition" chomh maith, hiomlán agus chomh chruinn agus a theastaíos sain-mhíniú sa gcás seo. An bhfuil aon rud in Alt 5 nó in aon alt eile a chuirfeadh isteach ar an obair atá ar siúl san Ollscoil nó a bhainfeadh den Ollscoil? Má chítear don institiúid nua, nuair a bheas sí ar bun, go bhfuil obair áirithe nó taighde áirithe riach-tanach agus gur fearr a d'fhéadfaí í sin a dhéanamh san Ollscoil, an bhfuil aon rud sa mBille a chuireas cosc ar an institiúid dul i gcomhar leis an Ollscoil? An bhfuil sé ráite sa mBille go gcaithfear an obair a dhéanamh taobh istigh de áras na hinstitiúide nuair a bheas áras ann di? Chomh fada is nach bhfuil, feicthear dom gur fearr an scéal é fhágáil mar atá. Feicthear dom, má scrúdaimíd an Bille, go bhfuil cuid mhaith so-lúbachta nó "flexibility" ag baint leis. Más daoine réasúnacha iad lucht an chomhairle, más daoine réasúntacha iad muintir na hOllscoile, más duine réasúnach é stiúrthóir na hinstitiúide níl fáth ann nach lean-fadh an Ollscoil den obair a bhí ar bun acu go dtí seo——

Tá an-chuid réasuntachta ag baint leis.

——agus nach bhféadfaidís dul ar aghaidh le tuille oibre ar mhaithe leo féin agus leis an Institiúid. Má tá baol ar bith ann go laghdófaí éifeacht na nOllscol maidir le oiliúint nó tréineáil daoine óga caithfear an baol sin a chur ar ceal. Ar mo thaobh féin de, áfach, ní miste dhom an méid seo a admháil. Níor mhaith liom a leithéid de chóras a fheiceál ann go mbeadh an tAire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála agus an tAire Oideachais a teacht trasna ar a chéile san obair seo.

Business suspended at 6 p.m and resumed at 7 p.m.

Is é an rud a bhí mé a rá nuair d'éiríomar as ná nár réiteach an-mhaith é go mbeadh an tAire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála agus an tAire Oideachais ag teacht trasna ar a chéile maidir le scéal seo an taighde. Sílim go ndúirt mé cheana é, ach ar eagla nár dhúirt, ba mhaith liom a rá anois go gcaithfear féachaint chuige go mbeidh deis cheart socraithe ann le go mbeidh an Ollscoil i ndon leanúint den árd-staidéar, leanúint den obair thaighde agus, chuige sin, gc mb'fhéidir go gcaithfear an deis a thabhairt don Ollscoil roinnt oibre a bhaineas go dlú agus go díreach leis an bpraicticiúlacht féin a dhéanamh. Is é an fáth atá agam leis sin ná go gcaithfidh go bhfuil sé soiléir, má tá an Institiúid nua le obair cheart a dhéanamh, nach foláir eolaithe óga meabhracha a bheith ar fáil aici.

Is féidir daoine óga an-chliste a fháil san Ollscoil a bheadh go han-mhaith san obair le haghaidh na múinteoireachta. D'fhéadfaidís a bheith go han-mhaith in obair riara-cháin ach d'ainneoin go mbeidís an-tsásúil in obair den tsaghas sin ní bheadh siad feiliúnach le haghaidh obair taighde. Cén chaoi ar féidir a fháil amach an bhfuil luí ag na daoine óga léi agus an bhfuil buaidh acu an cineál seo oibre a dhéanamh go sásúil gan deis ar roinnt di a dhéanamh san Ollscoil? Is cuma cén dóigh ina mbreathnaíonn tú air is léir go gcaith-fimid aontú leis an Senadóir Ó hAodha nach ndéanfadh sé cúis gan a bheith ar chumas na nOllscol an oiread oibre taighde a dhéanamh agus is féidir. Cén bealach a dtiúbharfar an chabhair sin dóibh, is ceist í le réiteach. Ó cheart, is é cúram an Aire Oideachais é. Bíodh gur ag an Aire a bheas réiteach na ceiste, is féidir socrú a dhéanamh ó am go ham idir an Institiúid agus an Ollscoil mar a rinneadh roimhe seo ó 1934 le obair speisialta a chur a déanamh san Ollscoil.

Bhí sé i gceist anseo tráthnóna nach bhfuil a dóithin cumhachta ag an Institiúid le dul ar aghaidh agus eolas teicniciúil a bhailiú agus a fhoilsiu. Is doigh liom féin, ón mBille a léamh, go bhfuil sé ráite go soiléir gurb shin ceann de na feadhmanna is mó a bheas acu. Ní fheicim aon rud sa mBille seo a chuirfeadh i gcéill nach bhfuil cead iomlan ag an Institiúid eolas a fhoilsiú, an oiread agus is mian leo, an oiread agus is féidir leo a fháil chomh fada gus a bhainfeas sé le cúrsaí taighde tionscail. Ach i dtaca leis an scéal seo, ba mhaith liom é seo a rá, gur mór an truaigh é nar foilsíodh, go rialta, tuarascála ar imeachta an Industrial Research Council agus nár foilsíodh tuarascála údarásacha go rialta ar obair go léir an Bhureau a cuireadh ar bun le linn an chogaidh. Tá dul amú ar dhaoine agus iad in aineolas maidir leis an obair sin. Tá daoine ann nach bhfuil an meas ceart acu ar an obair a rinneadh. Is é an fáth atá leis sin ná nár tugadh an t-eolas dóibh go rialta mar ba chóir.

Ar a laghad tá sé socraithe sa mBille nach ndéanfar dearmad den tsórt seo san Institiúid nua mar, do réir an dlí, beidh ar a lucht ceannais tuarascáil bhliantúil a fhoilsiú. Dúradh tráthnóna go gcaithfear, má tá obair seo na hInstitiúide le dul chun cinn gan ialach a chur ar na h-eolaidhthí leanúint go rialta d'obair áirithe. Dúradh nach bhfuil sé ceart a bheith ag súil go mbeidh an fonn ceart ar na h-eolaidhthí obair a dhéanamh gach lá agus nach ceart a bheith ag súil go ndéanfadh siad obair ach do réir mar bhíos an fonn orthu. Ba mhaith liom go dtiocfadh an lá sa saol go mbeidh cúrsaí geilleagair agus cúrsaí sóisialachta chomh foirfe go mbeidh deis againn ár gcuid ama a chaitheamh do réir mar is mian linn agus go mbeidh deis againn oibriú do réir mar a bhíos fonn orrain agus gan tada a dhéanamh ar aon ócáid eile.

Ach idir an dá linn, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán brí san aragóint nó sa gcasaoid a rinneadh faoin taobh sin den scéal. Tá a fhios againn gur tugadh, le linn an chogaidh, obair speisialta do lucht na heolaíochta agus go ndúradh leo claoí leis an obair go dtí go mbeadh toradh ar an ábhar a tugadh dóibh le scrúdú, agus tá a fhios againn go bhfuil neart cruthúnais againn go raibh na heolaithe ábalta leanúint den obair thaighde de ló is d'oíche go dtí go bhfuaradar toradh, cibé acu toradh fónta nó toradh mífhónta, toradh diúltacht nó toradh dearbhach é.

Nach bhfuil a fhios againn sna gnótha móra ar fud an domhain go bhfuil ranna faoi leith acu atá ag plé le obair thaighde agus go dtéigheann na heolaithe isteach ar nós oibrithe, ar a naoi a clog ar maidin agus go leanann siad ag obair go dtí an tráthnóna, agus go n-éiríonn leo obair mhaith fhónta a dhéanamh? Tá an comhlacht mór, Imperial Chemicals, ann agus brainse taighde chomh mór acu, nó b'fhéidir níos mó, ná atá ar bun in aon cheann de na hOllscoileanna, b'fhéidir, taobh amuigh dena Stáit Aontaithe. Is féidir a bheith ag súil go scrúdóidh na daoine sin na ceisteanna a tugtar dóibh le scrúdú agus go n-oibreoidh siad go rialta, do réir sceidil, go dtí go bhfagha siad toradh éigin, bíodh sé fónta nó a mhalairt. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán brí san aragóint go mba cheart cead a bheith ag lucht na hinstitiúide oibriú do réir mar a bhíos fonn orthu agus fanacht ón obair mura bhfuil dúil acu aon obair a dhéanamh.

Rud amháin a thaithnigh liom i dtaobh an Bhille seo, go bhfuil sé ag plé, ar deireadh, le scéal seo na gcaigh-deán. Is fada an lá atá daoine ag fógairt go bhfuil gá leis. Rinneadh tagairt anseo tráthnóna d'eagcóir a déantar go minie ar an bpobal, cheal caighdeán a bheith socraithe. Ní gá é sin a phlé go mion agus is cuma an mbaineann sé le ábhar bídh nó ábhar leighis do dhaoine nó ainmhithe, nó leis na céata rud eile. Rud amháin atá cinnte, go bhfuil éagóir á déanamh go mion agus go minic, cheal socrú a bheith ann i dtaobh caighdeán. Mura mbeadh tada san mBille seo ach an scéal sin a ionsaí, bheinn féin lán-tsásta leis.

Rinneadh tagairt do na cinnlitreacha nach mór a bheith ann nuair socraítear caighdheán agus é dá fhógairt do na hearraí atá i gceist. Is maith liom féin, agus molaim an tAire faoi, an socrú atá déanta an leagan Gaeilge a bheith ann, "C.E." in ionad "I.S.". Tá sé ráite gur féidir é sin do bheith ann i mBéarla. Dá mbeadh ialach ar na daoine, nuair a bheas na caighdeáin socraithe, an dá leagan a bheith ann, d'féadfadh sé an leagan Gaeilge a bheith ann go háirithe agus annsin, idir parentheses, an téarma Béarla nó an comhartha dó. Má dhéanann siad é sin, seachnóidh sé an locht a fuair an Seanadóir Fearon ar an scéal.

Is maith liom an Bille agus níl a fhios agam cén chaoi a bhféadfainn é féin a fheabhsú dá n-iarrtaí orm, nó cén chaoi a bhféadfadh an Seanad a fheabhsú; b'fhéidir go ndéanfai iarracht idir seo agus an chéad chéim eile. Ghéill-finn dóibh dá mb'fhéidir leo aon rud a mholadh a d'fheabhsódhsódh an Bille nó a chuirfeadh an chuspóir atá ceaptha don Bhille chun chinn agus chuideoinn leo.

Caithfimid cuimhniú go mbeidh tosach ag an taighde tionscail. Ní shin le rá nach mb'fhéidir go ndéanfaí obair trí thaighde glan. Nuair atáimid ag smaoineamh ar cuid den Bhille, ní mór dúinn cuimhniú ar an phríomh-cuspóir—sa chás seo, feabhas do chur ar obair thaighde thionscail. Is féidir a lán rudaí a mholadh le chur isteach sa mBille ach is ceist liomsa cé mhéid is féidir a mholadh a chuirfeas le éifeacht an Bhille agus an cuspóir sin a bheith againn mar ba cheart.

Má tá an Aire i ndon na pointí a mhíniú anseo chomh cruinn agus a mhínigh sé sa Dáil iad, ní foláir nó beidh na Seanadóirí sásta go bhfuil togha oibre déanta aige.

Having listened carefully to this debate, one cannot but come to the conclusion that there is undoubtedly sympathy on both sides of this House for the aims and objects which are contained in this Bill. I think the Minister can always be sure of support in principle for measures likely to aid, improve and expand our native industry and our native enterprise. The enthusiasm for industrial progress along proper lines is not confined to any group of individuals in this House. Despite the criticisms to which this Bill has been subjected, I think the Minister can take it that on this occasion the House is with him in principle in his effort to improve and to help our industries. The Bill, however, is a Bill full of very grave and very difficult problems. It purports to undertake to deal with grave and difficult problems and to take what may prove to be some very far-reaching and revolutionary steps in our industrial system.

Now, it is difficult for us here to handle and consider this Bill without the advice and assistance of authorities in the scientific and industrial world who are outside this House. As Senator Hayes has pointed out very rightly, the obtaining of such advice is not always easy; it is particularly difficult at this period of the year. I, therefore, support Senator Hayes in his appeal to the Minister to postpone the Committee Stage of this Bill until after the Recess. I appeal to the Minister to do that. Should the Minister decide to take that advice I rather imagine that he will find that the discussion subsequently on the Committee Stage will be much more likely to be of assistance to him. It will certainly take place in a more sympathetic and better-informed atmosphere.

Senator Summerfield was rather inclined to think that some of us on this side of the House are too critical of our Irish manufacturers. I do not think that is the case. We have a public duty as public representatives to inquire into anything that may in any way affect the consumers in this country. I think Senator Summerfield —he is now a sufficiently well-versed industrialist and manufacturer—will be the first to admit that if any decisions were taken under this Bill, particularly by the Bureau of Standards, which had an adverse effect on the consuming public, no greater disservice could be done to our Irish industrialists or manufacturers. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to lend a sympathetic ear to the appeal that has been made by several members in this House not in any way to hurry or rush this Bill through since it will get a better consideration at a later stage and since there seems to be no immediate urgency for putting the Bill through.

Senator Baxter raised a question which I think has been ably met by Senator Ó Buachalla. Senator Baxter seems to fear that the words "industrial research" will exclude agricultural research. If that were so it would be a very serious defect and one which I would abhor in any Bill. I do not think, however, that it is intended to exclude agriculture. Senator Ó Buachalla has pointed out that the purpose of this Bill is to undertake, encourage and foster scientific research and investigation with the object of promoting the utilisation of the natural resources of the State. The most natural resource of the State, as we all know, is agriculture. It would be rather unfortunate if, because the Department of Industry and Commerce is a separate entity from the Department of Agriculture, that would in any way tend to the exclusion of research into agriculture. I do not believe for a moment that it is so intended. Very soon we shall have a Public Health Bill which will provide for standards for food and medicines. I believe that the most important matter which could be dealt with under this Bill would be agriculture and agricultural products— such as, for instance, manures and fertilisers, and other matters akin to agriculture. I do not think that any such defect exists.

Senator O Buachalla also dealt with the points raised by Senator Hayes. He appeared to fear that the universities would be excluded or neglected. Senator O Buachalla has pointed out how greater co-operation can exist between the institute and the universities and how the two can work together hand in hand. I can quite see that a Bill of this nature will encourage scientific research, not only in relation to the institute but also in relation to the universities and other places. I think the Bill will have a very good effect.

Senator Crosbie said that he joined with Sir John Keane in saying that the first duty was to ensure that the public would be protected against the manufacturers. I do not think he can be familiar with the procedure adopted by the Minister or how carefully the Minister supervises the manufacturers. There is no man who protects the public with greater ability and conscience than does the Minister against manufacturers as regards quality, price and everything else.

There is no question about it. If you knew as much about it as I do you would not say that.

I am not saying the Minister does not.

I thought you said he might not. There is no fear whatever that he will not. When I read this Bill and also having listened to the speeches here, there appeared to me to be one difficulty with regard to the prescribing of standards for certain articles. If the articles comply with the standard laid down they become standard goods and they are entitled to carry a trade mark. If they do not comply they get no trade mark, but there is nothing to prevent the sale of them throughout the country. I think, myself, that that is a defect. It will take a long time to educate the country people into buying certain goods which carry a trade mark.

There is a strong inclination in this country to purchase imported goods and the people may prefer imported goods, even without a trade mark, to native goods carrying a trade mark. They get the trade mark. If they do not fulfil the conditions afterwards, they can be prosecuted. To prosecute them, it is necessary to have an analysis of the goods made. Senator Kingsmill Moore raised a question as to who will make the analysis. I think that that should be provided for in the Bill and that the method of proof of the analysis and the form of certificate which must be given in order to satisfy the court should also be provided for. The method of taking the sample should, likewise, be considered. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, when an inspector takes a sample, he divides the sample into three parts. He sends one part to the analyst, keeps another part and gives the third part to the vendor. That gives the vendor an opportunity of having the portion he receives analysed. It also assures him that it was the sample which was taken from him which was officially analysed. Under Section 28, the Minister decides who will be prosecuted for an offence under the Trade Marks Act. In other words, that would be the offence of pretending to be entitled to use the lettering or using it without authority. I think that a section should be inserted providing that the Minister would be the prosecutor in every case. Perhaps the Minister would give consideration to these points. I have not had an opportunity of reading the debate in the Dáil. If I had had such an opportunity, I should, probably, not have the temerity to make these points at all. Senator Ó Buachalla mentioned that amendments were put in in the other House by a great scientist and that the Minister showed that what were pointed out as defects in the Bill were not defects at all. In the same way, if I had read the debate in the other House, I should, probably, not have made the points I have just made.

In the ordinary course of events, this Bill would be worthy of a hearty welcome. Sometimes, however, we come across what is known as the uninvited guest. This Bill is, to a certain extent, an uninvited guest, who is sometimes crudely described as a gate-crasher. At other times, he is tolerated or cold-shouldered. This Bill comes to us without any warning. It has come also, I think, to the persons concerned with scientific research without any notice beforehand. When a person comes without any prior intimation of his coming, there is always bound to be a certain amount of scrutiny or examination as to the cause of his visit. In the case of the Industrial Relations Bill, at present before the other House, it is clear that the Minister consulted beforehand the parties interested by the measure. It is clear that he has endeavoured to launch that Bill with the goodwill of all the parties concerned. I regret that he has not taken a similar course in connection with this Bill. So far as I am aware, he has not stated that he consulted beforehand the persons and the institutions who, up to the present, have contributed to scientific research by their professors and students and by their funds, laboratories and apparatus. If this were a Bill—I am dealing at the moment with the industrial research aspect and not with the standards aspect—to found an institute for what I describe now as so-called industrial research and if the objects or functions of the institute were to train research workers from their early years to carry out the work envisaged by the Bill, there could be no complaint, because the institute would then be a self-contained institution. It is clear that the institute which it is proposed to establish by this Bill must depend for its directors, its council, its committee and its students upon the universities, which have hitherto carried the heat and burden of the day in respect of scientific research.

The Minister stated in the Dáil that he was not concerned with pure scientific research, that that was a matter for the Minister for Education. It is not a matter for the Minister for Education, because the Minister for Education is not directly concerned with scientific education, as given in the universities, nor with the scientific research which is carried out by the universities. Therefore, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not quite accurate in placing responsibility for pure scientific research on the shoulders of the Minister for Education. It cannot be denied that scientific research, as applied to industry, commences in the laboratory of the university as a matter of pure scientific research. Before you can apply science to any purpose, particularly an industrial purpose, you must have fundamental training in scientific research and that can be given only in the university. The object of the Minister in introducing this Bill is, no doubt, a worthy one, but I think that he would have been doing a service to scientific research as a whole if he had made some effort to obtain the co-operation of all scientific research workers in this country before embarking upon this measure. It is clear that this institute for scientific research will take advantage of the training which has been given by, and the research work which has been already carried out in, the universities. That is why I would be glad to know how far the Minister has obtained the views, in the first instance, and the co-operation, if any, of the universities, in the second instance.

In the past we have had the Industrial Research Council and we have had the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau. These scientific bodies were, to a great extent, if not wholly, manned by university professors and their research work was carried out in large measure by university graduates and workers. Therefore, I think it is a pity that the universities and the Minister, who have worked hand-in-hand in scientific research as applied to industry up to the present time, should now drift apart. I think the Minister owes it to the universities, who came to his assistance in the dark days of the emergency, to consult the governing bodies of the universities in connection with this measure.

I think that the success of this institute will depend upon co-operation between the institute and the universities. I speak of the universities because they are the bodies who are also carrying on scientific research and who are training students for scientific research, and a number of whose students will ultimately join the institute to carry out scientific research as applied to industry. I feel, therefore, that, if the Minister has not taken the universities into his confidence up to the present, he ought to do so before the measure becomes law. He need not be bound altogether by the views put forward by the governing bodies of the universities, but, at all events, he will have the benefit of these views, and these views may, if adopted, in large or small measure, inure to the benefit of the institute which this Bill sets up.

These are matters which I desire the Minister to consider in relation to this Bill. They are what I might call general matters appertaining to the research part of this Bill. But, looking at the Bill itself, I find what I might describe as a rather loose or perhaps clumsy expression in the Bill called "industrial research." In the first instance, there is no definition in the Bill of "industrial research." Section 33 says: "The institute may, with the approval of the Minister, provide scholarships and other awards for the training of persons in industrial research.""Industrial research" is no doubt a popular expression, but, if this Bill were to be construed by the court, the court would be puzzled to ascertain the meaning of "industrial research." I took the trouble of looking up Webster's dictionary to see what definition of "research" was given in that dictionary and this is the definition: "Diligent inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles." I also looked up the definition of the word "industrial" and I found that it was: "Appertaining to industry." Certain examples were given like, industrial development, industrial exhibition, where you exhibit a number of products of industry, industrial schools, where one or more branches of industry are taught. In this Bill provision is made, not for industrial research, but for scientific research as applied to industry. I would suggest to the Minister, as a matter of drafting, that in Section 33 he should use the expression, "scientific research as applied to industry," rather than, "industrial research," because in Section 8 (2) it is provided: "The committee shall consist of not more than nine members, each of whom shall be appointed for his attainments in scientific research applied to industry....", and in Part VII of the Bill we have the heading: "Scientific Research."

The Minister, when asked in the Dáil what was the definition of "industrial research", said that it is in Section 5 (a) of the Bill. I cannot find it there, because Section 5 (a) provides as follows: "The functions of the institute are to undertake, encourage and foster scientific research and investigation with the object of promoting the utilisation of the natural resources of the State, improving the technical processes and methods used in the industries of the State, discovering technical processes and methods which may promote or facilitate the expansion of existing or the development of new industries, and the utilisation of the waste products of industry.""Industrial research" might include inquiry or examination as to industrial statistics, or, perhaps, conditions of labour in industry, or any other matters appertaining to industry which may require investigation or inquiry. Therefore, I think it would be more accurate to use the words, "scientific research as applied to industry", rather than "industrial research".

These are suggestions which I make because the Bill, while in body appearing to deal with what I may call scientific research, in its Title and in a number of sections seems to disown science altogether. That is why I think that the object of this Bill so far as research is concerned should be clearly defined both in the Title and in the several sections of the Bill. In fact, I would suggest that the words, "industrial research" should be dropped altogether and that the words, "scientific research as applied to industry," should be substituted therefor.

I have mentioned these as preliminary observations upon the Bill. On the whole, the object is praiseworthy and I am sure that the Minister is doing a good day's work for this country in bringing forward this Bill and setting up the institute mentioned in the Bill. But I think that he would do a greater day's work for the country if, at the same time, he would secure the co-operation and goodwill of scientific workers in this country, especially the scientific workers in the universities and, if there are any scientific workers in any other institute, their co-operation also. I think the Bill is well worthy of consideration but that it will require further consideration from the Minister before it shall pass into law.

I would not intervene in the debate but for Senator Ryan's reference to the Industrial Relations Bill. He made a comparison with the Bill now before us. The matters covered in the Industrial Relations Bill bear no relation whatever to the matters covered in this measure. I do not know why an astute lawyer like Senator Ryan should bring in such an irrelevant matter in furthering his case in regard to this Bill. What is his case? His case is that the Minister would just be a runner for the universities and he would hand over his freedom in this matter to the universities and leave it to them to tell him what kind of institute should be set up. That is the sum and substance of Senator Ryan's argument. We want the Minister to be free and not to tie himself up to any such institution in this country.

This is an extremely important matter, one that will have far-reaching effects on the development of industry here. I am not so sure that the universities or the professors are the best possible advisers on industry. I know that experience in industry is far more enlightening than anything you can get in the lecture hall of a university. Practical experience in the development of industry is far more important.

I do not propose to deal with scientific matters, but I am concerned about standards. Senator O'Dea mentioned the Food and Drugs Act. I wonder how far this measure cooperates or does not co-operate with the Food and Drugs Act. If we are to have standards, and if we are to create costly departments, it is very important to know what the people appointed to jobs will do. We have a Food and Drugs Act, but it is not as thoroughly applied as I would like to see it. One has only to take up the evening papers to see the cure-alls advertised for all kinds of complaints. What benefits do we derive in that connection from the Food and Drugs Act and the inspectors who have been appointed under that Act? What are they doing in relation to these things? You see in the papers half-page advertisements about hair growers, rheumatism destroyers and other things.

I wonder will there be any standard applied under this measure? Will we get rid of these awful advertisements? When weak-minded people read these advertisements they imagine they have all the diseases mentioned in them and they run off and buy the cure. The advertisements create the disease in the minds of certain people and then they advocate the curing of it by buying their remedies. If the standards aimed at under this Bill will do away with that sort of thing, it will be a good job, a good day's work. If the department that will be set up under the Bill will stimulate and urge the people responsible for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act to do their work thoroughly, it will be very well worth while.

Senator Baxter complained that agriculture is not considered in this legislation. I suggest that agriculture will be very much helped by this measure. It will prove very useful if we are to develop scientific farming. This legislation will show people the way to do it and how to get advice from highly-trained minds throughout the country. To that extent we will be able to provide the machinery that will lighten the burden of the farmers and that will perhaps increase the prosperity of the farmers and ultimately increase the prosperity of the country.

So far as the discussion has gone, I agree with most of it. I welcome the Bill. It may do a certain amount of harm, but, on the other hand, it will find jobs for a lot of people who might not otherwise be employed and that employment will result in great benefit to the country generally.

It seems to me that the criticisms that Senators have directed towards this Bill would have been much more useful if they paused to consider the circumstances in which the Minister finds it advisable to introduce it. This country is engaged on a large scale in encouraging industrialisation. It is part of the Government's programme in the direction of economic independence—I do not like the word self-sufficiency. We ought to have a certain self-respect in the matter of producing all the things we need in the best possible way, with the best possible materials and under the best possible conditions. That is the sort of State we are aiming at.

Amongst other things, we have taken over the waste lands, the bogs, and we are developing them in the interest of the nation. In that connection there was a definite need for industrial research. There was some industrial research in order to enable us to carry on during a difficult period, and it has been done very well. That industrial research was carried out in order to ascertain what machinery would be best adapted to exploit the bogs. Then there was industrial research in order to ascertain the most suitable kinds of grates and ovens for the purpose of using turf and for cooking. That is a thing that is absolutely necessary—to have that type of research work carried out on a more definite and ordered scale. That is one of the objects of this Bill.

Up to this, research work in many cases had to be done more or less in a hand-to-mouth fashion. Now all that will be altered and research work will be achieved in a more ordered way. What we should consider is whether the machinery set up under this Bill is the proper machinery for the purpose. There are a great many things that we need to develop. For instance, the textile industry needs to be looked into, and perhaps the question of dyes requires more consideration. During the war the sort of thing one would get for a black dye was frightful.

I believe an institute like this, dealing with industrial research, can be of great benefit to the nation. It is a very useful thing. This Bill indicates what the Minister means to do and why this institute is under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Industrial research does not mean that you divorce yourself from the type of scientific research which has been so well done in the universities.

They all work hand in hand. That is a definite job of work that has to be done. It is a necessary corollary to the programme of industrialisation which the Minister has headed with such courage and ability. There is a crying need for something like this. I may not be sufficiently expert to know whether this machinery is the best but it seems to me that it certainly is very commendable. There will be a council of 50 ordinary members each of whom shall be appointed for his attainments in scientific research applied to industry. That mobilises a tremendous amount of experience in promoting our country's industry. Then we make use of as many of those who served the country so well during the emergency, and who shall be ex officio members of the research council, as are willing to serve in this experiment. It is an experiment. If it does not work, at least it will have been no harm to try. It is easy to modify it. The Minister, having experience of the working of the Bill after some time, may suggest modifications. It seems to me a very level-headed and very commonsense method of dealing with what is an urgent problem, that is, to help those who are engaged in the industrial development of our country to solve the problems they have met and are likely to meet to an increasing degree. Every body has commended the connection of the Bill with standards. I do not propose to say anything about it. I think it is generally accepted that it will save much waste of money and protect us in our ignorance. For my part, and I speak, I think, for the women of the country, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on its introduction.

I welcome the Bill because I believe industrial research will be helpful to agricultural development. Most of our industrial activities have their roots in the land. For instance, the principal employment given by the sugar beet industry is given to people on the land. The sugar industry was established in European countries in the days of Napoleon. We started it in this country nearly 20 years ago. It is quite natural that there was a great deal of research work to be done in connection with that particular industry, and any research work that is done in regard to it will immediately react on the agricultural industry. The flour-milling industry, the brewing industry and the turf industry have their roots in the land. I cannot agree with the suggestion that industrial research is bound to put back the clock with regard to agricultural development. I welcome the Bill and wish it God speed.

The tea-time recess has prolonged the debate on this Bill considerably, because I know that some of the matters discussed during that time have been referred to since the House resumed. Senator O'Dea and Senator Ryan forestalled me in some of the matters I was anxious to raise.

You should not have given your mind away. You are too soft. You should have kept it to yourself until you came in here. You will be wiser next time.

Mr. O'Donovan

I actually found that recourse had been made to the dictionary to discover whether or not Senator Baxter was out of order in the debate when he seemed to be of opinion that agriculture was completely neglected by the terms of this Bill. The speakers since have, I think, disproved that satisfactorily. We cannot have industrial progress, industrial research or the establishment of industrial standards without always being cognisant of the existence of the agricultural industry and its importance in relation to the prosperity of the community as a whole. Senator O'Dea referred to the public health legislation which is now before the other House and to the establishment of standards under that Bill. For Senator Foran's information, I should point out that that Bill is not yet enacted and that the type of advertising to which he referred cannot legally be stopped until that legislation is enacted. Therefore, whether he becomes bald in the meantime or not, these advertisements cannot be prohibited.

I want to ask the Minister where is it intended that this institute will function. I have not gone to the dictionary to find the definition of "institute" but it could, I understand, function without any building whatsoever. If it is going to engage in research it might require a bomb-proof building if it were to undertake investigation of atomic energy. I want to know, in relation to the public health legislation which is before the other House and in relation to this Bill, can we have a co-ordinated system of investigation as to standards under the aegis of the institute which we are now setting up, that is to say, could the drugs, foods, medicines and other commodities which will be standardised under the public health legislation be investigated for processes of manufacture and the ingredients contained in them in the one institute? I fancy all these commodities could be brought under the term "industrial". If it is a food, it is an industry that has to prepare the food, whether the legislation which is controlling it subsequently is operated by another Department or not.

I do not know where the Industrial Council or the Industrial Research Bureau functioned. I imagine that they operated through the universities, probably in various buildings or various factories, when they investigated the problems which beset us during the emergency. That could still obtain and we need not necessarily build a massive new structure which we will label the industrial research institute. I should like to know from the Minister what is his idea as to how and where the institute will function. We have the State Laboratory as a separate section of the Department of Finance, where items of food are regularly analysed to see if they conform to standards already laid down. Therefore, we have the universities, the State Laboratory and we have also through the local authorities a system of analysis and supervision under the Food and Drugs Act. As far as control under the Food and Drugs Act is concerned, I imagine that will still be operated through the local authorities because it is a routine, massive, analytical control necessitating frequent recourse to the courts. I assume that under this legislation, court proceedings will not be frequently adopted.

I wish to refer to the Long Title, which is:—

"Bill entitled an Act to promote industrial research and the standardisation of commodities, processes and practices, and for these and other purposes to provide for the establishment and maintenance of an institute for industrial research and standards, and for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid."

When I read through the Bill I became somewhat confused between the definition or interpretation of "standardisation of commodities, processes and practices".

In one place "processes and methods" are mentioned, and then we have a section defining "standards". Section 21 defines penalties for false representation in connection with standard specifications. It seems to me that there will be great difficulty in interpreting "standard specification" because it covers the possible and the practical. It may be that from subsequent examination of a product one would know whether it was up to the standard of composition, and the process by which it was manufactured, but when you come to the practice by which it is manufactured, I fancy there will be difficulty by way of test in knowing whether these conditions have been complied with. It may be that a State servant will be in a position to report on the inspection of factories, and to say whether all processes and practices were properly complied with, apart from the subsequent examination, to see if the product is of standard composition. What is running through my mind in making these remarks is that the same conditions will apply under the Public Health Bill, when it becomes law, that the composition of a commodity, the process of its manufacture, and the practice carried on by, I presume, the operatives in the factory, will all be subject to official control.

What I look forward to is, that one State institute, laboratory, or whatever you wish to call it, could operate for all under these Acts which are at present controlled through the State analyst. That would mean that we would not have duplication or triplication of officials, buildings, institutes or laboratories of any kind. It is pretty clear to me from listening to the debate—but it does not seem to have been clear to other Senators—that our industrial research institute will certainly cover all stages of industrial activity and that the agricultural industry generally must be included within the term. If not, I join with Senator Baxter in expressing disappointment that such is not the case. When replying, I hope the Minister will make clear the extent to which the words actually cover all our industries and processes of manufacture, no matter whether we classify them as agricultural industries or other industries of various kinds that we have established.

These are the only points I wish to raise. Some of them were raised already, but one point that was not referred to by anybody so far was the question of what and where this institute will be. Will it be a movable institute? Will it be a decentralised institute, so that we would have a section at Cork, Galway or Waterford, as well as an establishment in Dublin? Would it be necessary to have a building or an institute of such nature at all if the work could be carried out through a university laboratory or a State laboratory? We have not many industries with laboratories attached, so that a lot of controlled work and standardised work could be done in the decentralised manner indicated by me. There is nothing in the Bill to define for us by what means this institute will function. I should like that matter to be cleared up when the Minister is replying.

I want to assure Senators that I have no intention of delaying the House in a discussion of this Bill, because I speak with a profound ignorance of science and scientific matters. However, I feel there is one matter to which I might be permitted to refer briefly; I hope the Minister will clarify his attitude as regards the results of investigations which will be made under Part VII. Section 18 provides for the carrying out of researches by the institute, and Section 19 states that every discovery or invention resulting from researches undertaken by the institute, with certain exceptions, shall be the property of the Minister. I am anxious that the Minister will indicate how it is proposed to provide information in respect of discoveries made under certain sections in the Bill. Take it that as a result of work undertaken by the institute there is, let us say, a discovery which would enable this country to store electrical energy, so that it would be possible to run a train from Dublin to Cork and back without having to stop to recharge, or in any other way to utilise and to store electrical energy generated at a time when there is a shortage of Shannon water power. Is it the intention that, having got the information, the Minister will pass it on to some gentlemen to invest their money when they know there is something good there?

There is no one like that in this country.

Supposing there is, there is the risk that they will exploit the country if the information becomes available. I am anxious for an assurance from the Minister that, as spokesman of the Government, he will take precautions to ensure that if a discovery of that kind were to be made available, it is going to be utilised for the service of the people, and for the common good of the people, and is not going to be exploited by gentlemen who are always willing to lend money——

You would not do it yourself!

Unfortunately, I have not any.

That makes all the difference.

Perhaps, I would have if I practised the methods that some gentlemen employ. However, I am sorry I have not the support of Senator Summerfield——

I am sure you are.

——because I thought that perhaps he, speaking for the industrialists, would agree with me that if the State promotes an institute such as is contemplated here, and our scientists happen as a result of the encouragement given under this Bill to provide us with a discovery or an invention which could be of great use to the State, they and the Government should be encouraged to make use of that invention for the common good rather than for private gain.

Of course I agree with that.

He is afraid we might sell it to Russia.

I am very glad to have that assurance.

On a point of order, is this not a charge of corruption against the Minister and the Government? We all know that if there is a discovery it has to be patented and the benefits of it will be passed on to everybody in the same manner. There is a suggestion that it will be given to somebody who will be a friend of the Minister.

The Senator is merely taking a hypothetical case.

I am not responsible for the dullness of my critics.

That would be a grand note to conclude on.

It would be a good note to conclude on if I desired to conclude now but I want to impress on the Minister, and I should like to impress on Senators who seek a 50 per cent. dividend on their investments, that there are obligations on us as members of this House to ensure, if we are going to provide money for research, that if that research produces results which can be of benefit to humanity, nobody is going to intercept these benefits so as to make profit for himself. There are instances where research carried on by obscure men, who subsequently died in poverty—research which changed the whole processes of production—was exploited in the interests of a few individuals. One case I should like to mention is that of a system of production which was invented by a Corkman named John Breslin, in the works of Mr. Carnegie. Mr. Carnegie died worth huge sums of money, millions of pounds, and he was able to build libraries all over the world. We have a few of them here. Imagine making restitution in that way in the end of his days for the wrong which he did to John Breslin! This man discovered a process for smelting steel and he gave his formula to the Pittsburgh Works in which he was employed. They tried it out and found it a complete success. John Breslin then asked that the company should pay him a royalty. They refused and he decreed them in the court for it. They appealed to a higher court and John Breslin succeeded. They appealed again and kept on appealing until the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States of America. By that time, John Breslin's friends and himself were exhausted financially. When the case came on for hearing, John Breslin was missing. They searched for him and found him, after some time, dead in a tenement room in New York, with half of his face eaten away by rats. That is one case that may be cited. There are many other cases in which obscure men discovered great inventions and provided many things to enrich society and the world but got no profit from them themselves.

I am asking the Minister what will become of the information which will be furnished to him under Section 19. It says that every discovery or invention, with certain exceptions, shall be the property of the Minister. The Minister is going to carry a lot of things in his bag. He is going to make some use of them and I am endeavouring to find out whether he is going to use them as Minister, whether it is his intention that the State will use the results of all this investigation and research in the interests of the people, or whether he is proposing to dispose of them to somebody who is prepared to pay a certain price and then foist an enterprise on the market under such conditions as will make a fortune for himself. We know, for instance, what happened in the early days of the Dunlop Company. I do not want to mention other cases but there are a number of cases which will occur to the minds of Senators who have given the matter any study at all. It is not in the interests of Irish industrialists or Irish workers that the processes which result from these investigations should be handed to private enterprise to be exploited by shareholders for their own profit. It is our duty in this House, representing as we do the various elements in the community, to see that the State shall continue to reserve for the people absolute control over the processes, inventions and discoveries which may result from the activities of this institute.

Senator Hayes complained that it was unfair to the Seanad to introduce this Bill towards the end of the Summer session. I think there is substance in that complaint but I do not see what we can do about it now. The fact that the Bill came towards the end of the session was due partly to technical difficulties in its preparation and partly to my own pre-occupation with other measures during the session.

I thought it was unfair to the Minister.

I considered the advisability of postponing this Bill to the Winter session. I have a natural objection to that course because we have only a limited amount of time to get work done and delay is to be deplored. There is a more concrete objection, however, in the fact that the programme for the Winter session is likely to be heavy also and, if this Bill were to be delayed, it would result in further congestion then. There is another consideration, however, which to me is equally important. In the case of a measure of this kind, the work falling on the Minister in charge does not end with the enactment of the measure. In fact it only begins after the measure has passed into law. He is then responsible for giving effect to it— in this case for bringing into existence the institute for which the Bill provides. That part of his work can better be performed during the interval between sessions of the Dáil rather than when he is currently preoccupied with other legislative proposals. Senator Hayes's complaint was, however, partly based on the assumption that those who are likely to be interested in the Bill, or affected by its enactment, had not an adequate opportunity of examining its provisions or adequate notice of its appearance. That assumption is not altogether correct. The intention to frame a Bill along these lines was known to the Industrial Research Council some years ago. It was, in fact, discussed with that council whose views on the matter were invited during the time when Mr. MacEntee was Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The actual production of the Bill was postponed, mainly because of the position that had developed during the emergency. Latterly, when I took the matter up again there were consultations not merely with the officers of the Industrial Research Council, but also with the chairman of the Emergency Research Bureau. I may say that I myself have received a number of communications from university professors and others interested in scientific research expressing their views on the provisions of the Bill. The fact that the Bill was in contemplation for this session of the Dáil was announced to the Dáil and Seanad and by myself in a public statement outside the Dáil.

It seems to me, however, that many of the criticisms of the Bill are based on another inaccurate assumption, that the authorities to be set up under it cannot be assumed to act reasonably. I have noticed, not merely in relation to this Bill but to other Bills for which I have been responsible, that there is always a desire on the part of members of either House of the Oireachtas to put into the Bill exact details of what they want the body established by it to do. They always assume that that body will not know what to do unless it is set down in black and white for them. If it is appreciated that the members of the committees which are to be set up as part of the organisation of this institute are free to do everything that they are not prohibited from doing under this Bill, then the position will be better understood. That observation of mine applies particularly to the question of the co-ordination of the activities of the proposed industrial research committee with university authorities, and with private business firms engaged in research activities of any kind. It would, obviously, be foolish for the committee to confine its activities to its own particular sphere and ignore the fact that there is research work going on in the laboratories of the universities and in the laboratories of private firms and not make full arrangements to keep in touch with them. The institute may, under the provisions of this Bill, give financial assistance to research work done in university laboratories or by private firms or private individuals, and it is, in fact, contemplated that it will work largely by means of giving financial grants to assist research work done outside its own immediate control. In so far as it is contemplated that the institute will require a laboratory which is yet to be built, and equipment which is yet to be procured, it is obvious that, in the earlier years of its existence, it will have no other means of working except through the existing laboratories.

I am asked, what is industrial research? I admit that it is not possible to draw a clear line between fundamental research and industrial research. It certainly is not possible to get a definition of "industrial research" which could be put in an Act of Parliament and which would stand the test of legal examination. I think, however, that it will help Senators to understand what I have in mind when I express the view that the work of this institute will be to take known facts and known principles and apply them to the particular problems of industrial production here. It is quite true, as Senator Hayes has said, that without pure research no industrial research is possible. It does not follow, however, from that observation, as some Senators appear to assume, that the Industrial Research Committee will be limited by the amount of pure research that is carried on in this country. Scientific knowledge knows no national boundaries, and this committee will be under an obligation to ascertain the results of pure research carried on anywhere at any time, and to consider how they can be applied to increase industrial production or industrial efficiency here.

The fact that the institute will have a laboratory, a staff and equipment of its own does not necessarily mean that there is going to be unnecessary duplication of laboratory equipment or research work. Senator O'Donovan appeared to regard it as undesirable that there should be more than one laboratory in which research work is undertaken, or more than one staff engaged in research work. I doubt if you could have undue duplication in work of this character. I think that the more people who engage in the work, and the wider the range of the facilities available to them, the better it will be. It has, however, been my experience, from the work of the Industrial Research Council which had no laboratory or staff of its own, that if industrial research, applied research, in the sense that I understand the term, is to be carried on effectively in this country and related to our industrial problems, it must be done by some organisation which will have available to it a laboratory, equipment and a trained staff under its own immediate control.

The Industrial Research Council worked through the universities. The council considered what subjects were suitable for research. They prepared a programme for research in relation to each such subject. They submitted that programme to me, and I submitted it to the Minister for Finance. As a result of all that deliberation, and, usually, after the lapse of a considerable period of time, a sum of money was forthcoming which the council gave to a university professor in Dublin, Cork or Galway to carry out research for them in his laboratory in whatever spare time he had from his university duties, and got him to submit the results of his investigations to them. That system can be continued in the future by this committee. It may, in certain cases, prove to be a useful system, and I certainly would not like to see the Industrial Research Committee divorce itself entirely from the work done by university professors, many of whom specialise in individual subjects. Obviously, they would be the most suitable persons to carry out industrial research in these subjects.

When we are discussing this question of what constitutes industrial research, it may help Senators to find an answer to it if I mention the type of investigations which were done under the auspices of the Industrial Research Council by university professors in their laboratories. In each case there was no question of finding some new scientific fact. It was a case of applying a known fact to an industrial problem. It was known that Irish peat contained wax. That was a scientific fact which had been established. What was not known was whether that wax could be extracted from peat by some process which would be capable of commercial exploitation so that the wax could be put on the market at a price which would be comparable to that prevailing at the time. That work was entrusted to Professor O'Reilly, of Cork, and his report on the subject was eventually published. It was known that certain types of seaweed were the raw materials from which medicinal products or certain industrial materials were obtained.

That had been demonstrated by pure industrial research elsewhere, and industrial practice elsewhere. What was not known was whether those particular varieties of seaweed grew around our coast or whether they could be made to grow and, if so, what particular methods of cultivation would be necessary in order to promote their growth. An investigation was undertaken by Professor Dillon of Galway and is still proceeding. Other inquiries led to the publication of reports by the council. One such report, dealing with the most economic method of burning turf, ultimately produced a commercial product, the manufacture of which was undertaken by certain foundries and the product being known commercially as the "Taylor" range. It was called after Professor Taylor who carried out the researches. These illustrations will help to indicate to the House the type of work I contemplate this industrial research committee will do. It may be that they will, in the course of their work, discover some new scientific fact or principle, but their main concern will be to take known facts and known principles and apply them to our industrial problems here.

Sulphate of ammonia is manufactured in many countries. It can be manufactured here. What particular process of manufacture is most suitable to apply here, having regard to the nature of the raw materials that exist, is one question which could usefully be put to this committee. I have in contemplation that we may, in order to complete the organisation available to us and get the best results from the work done by this institute, have to supplement its activities at some stage by a commercial organisation which will answer the further question: whether the technical process recommended by the industrial research committee can, in fact, be made to pay under ordinary commercial conditions. That is, however, another matter which will have to be inquired into.

Now, Senator Baxter is perturbed because the Bill does not clearly indicate that the industrial research institute will undertake fundamental research, which will make a contribution to the progress of civilisation, or research related to agriculture. There is a limit to what we can do with £15,000 a year. I want the Seanad to face the fact that this institute will have a very limited field in which to work, a field, the size of which is fairly clearly defined by the figure of £15,000 per year.

I think the State is at present paying substantially more than that amount upon agricultural research, such as research related to plant diseases, the characteristics of seed varieties, the possibility of propagating new seeds more suitable to our climate and other matters of that kind.

And animal diseases.

I would refer Senator Baxter and the other members of this House to the White Paper on agricultural policy recently published where the Government's intention to set up a veterinary research organisation, involving an annual subvention of approximately £30,000 a year, is indicated. This institute is not necessarily precluded from examining scientific problems partly related to agriculture, but its work must be confined, having regard to the limitation on its resources, to problems which are more directly related to industrial production.

I want now to refer to some of the matters raised in the debate concerning the work of the proposed standards committee. Some Senators have, I think, a false picture in their minds of what a standard specification constitutes. It is not intended, in relation to the ordinary range of commercial goods, to establish standards to which manufacturers or traders must conform. Senator Foran referred to the Food and Drugs Act and Senator O'Donovan to the Public Health Bill now before the Dáil. The Food and Drugs Act gives and the Public Health Bill proposes to give to the Minister for Local Government power to make it an offence for persons to sell certain foods or drugs unless they are of a certain standard of quality. That, however, is an entirely different process from what is contemplated here. A standard specification could, in fact, be published without any Act of Parliament and be generally recognised if the authority responsible for drawing it up is accepted as responsible by the public.

There are, in fact, many countries where standard specifications are not the product of any official organisation at all but of a commercial firm which prepares its specifications for its own benefit. That would apply particularly to specifications of size where the aim is to ensure that the products of one firm can be used in relation to or in conjunction with the products of another firm—for example an electric bulb produced by an electric bulb manufacturer would be made to fit the sockets manufactured by a manufacturer of electric fittings. It will, again, help the Seanad to understand what is contemplated if I refer to the work done recently by our building research committee. That research committee has prepared standard specifications which are now being printed and are about to be published for Portland cement, for timber for building purposes, and for concrete roofing tiles. A number of other specifications are at various points in process of preparation, either awaiting printing, awaiting approval by myself, or awaiting approval by the business interests who are being consulted in connection with them, and which deal with concrete pipes, natural aggregates, concrete interlining roofing tiles, asbestos-cement slates, dehydrated lime, electric plugs and sockets, the dimensions of kitchen fitments, ready-made oil paints, and the code of practice for roof tiling. That building research committee has no statutory basis at all but its work will be related to the work of the standards committee when this Bill is passed. Even if this Bill had never been introduced, it could still proceed to prepare and publish standard specifications and be certain of getting such standard specifications accepted because of the responsible nature of the committee.

I will take now three of the specifications mentioned here to illustrate my point—Portland cement, electric plugs and sockets, and the code of practice for roof tiling. In the case of Portland cement, what happens when the standard specification is published? Nobody is required to produce Portland cement to that particular specification, but if I want to buy cement I can say to the trader: "I want one ton of cement of Irish standard specification quality". He contracts to deliver to me one ton of cement of that quality and I have an action against him if the cement is of an inferior quality. The publication of the specification relieves me of setting out in elaborate schedules to my contract the type of cement I want to get. Senator Sir John Keane referred to a specification for cement, but he is, I think, under some slight misapprehension. The Cement Act, under which the cement company got a licence to manufacture cement, contains a specification of cement, and one of the conditions of the licence is that the company must produce cement to that specification. We, therefore, periodically examine the cement produced by that company to see that it conforms to the conditions of its licence. Since the company was started the technique of cement production has improved. In fact, that company has always produced its cement substantially above the specification embodied in the Act. The new Irish specification of cement will relate to the quality of cement now being produced by the company and will, therefore, be of greater advantage to the traders who will use it than the British standard specification which is, in some respects, different. Therefore, in the particular case of the standard specification for cement, it is a standard of quality. The purpose is to enable people to protect themselves as to the quality of the goods that are being delivered under contract or used in connection with contracts. If the cement company is producing cement of that standard, they may obtain under this Bill the right to attach to the cement the standard mark. That will enable the buyer of the cement to ascertain at a glance whether the goods he is buying are of standard quality or not. But the cement company is under no obligation to use the mark if they are satisfied that their own name is a sufficient guarantee of quality, or if they have any other good reason for not using it.

As regards electric plugs and sockets, the aim of the standard specification is to ensure that only plugs and sockets of certain defined sizes will be produced and sold, so that any person ordering a fitting of a certain standard size will know it will be the size he requires and that any other apparatus he is going to use in connection with these fittings will also be of standard size and usable in connection with them. The third example I gave of standard specifications related to the code of practice for roof tiling. That is neither a standard of sizes nor a standard of quality. It refers to the method of laying tiling on a roof. The purpose of that standard specification is to enable a person entering into a contract for the building of a house to make it a condition of his contract that that standard specification will be complied with in attaching the roof to the house In each case, the standard specifications have been prepared in consultation with the trading interests concerned. There is nothing impracticable in them and they represent a standard of commercial practice which is regarded as reasonable and one to which traders should be expected to conform. Senator Summerfield asked whether imported goods could use the standard mark. They can. So far as this institute is concerned, it is not concerned with where the goods come from. It is concerned only with the quality of the goods and the relationship of that quality to the standard qualities prescribed in its specifications. There may be cases in which it would be desirable to have Irish standard specifications for goods which are not made here and which will never be made here in order to ensure that persons wishing to sell their goods in this country will know the standard of quality we expect them to reach and to enable buyers to ascertain whether the imported goods they are buying are of the quality desired. I hope, therefore, that what I have said will make it clear that we are not by this Bill imposing upon manufacturers, producers or traders any obligation to produce goods conforming to standard specifications.

They may do so if they think it necessary. They may produce goods of higher or different standards if they regard that as the best commercial practice. Of course, standard specifications can be prepared and published for goods other than the industrial commodities with which the building research committee is concerned. Some time ago I had an opportunity of a discussion with the director of the Standard Institute of New Zealand. He explained to me how the institute there, particularly during the war years, maintained the standard of quality of goods offered for sale. They even went so far as to prescribe a standard specification for children's copy books. As the war went on, he explained, the copy book began to shrink in size. The cardboard cover began to grow thicker and the number of pages in the book began to get fewer. Ultimately, they published a standard specification for children's copy books. After a time no child in New Zealand would buy a copy book unless it had on its cover the New Zealand standard specification number. It is quite clear that a standards institute, properly managed, can serve a useful social purpose, as well as make for business convenience and facilitate business practice in the manner I have indicated. In the case of the New Zealand children's copy book, there was, of course, no obligation on a manufacturer to produce a copy book of the standard specification, but the fact that a copy book that was of that specification could bear a special mark became a bull selling point for such copy books.

I hope I have also made it clear to Senator Ryan that it is not contemplated that the introduction of this Bill will mean that the co-operation that existed with the universities in the past in the matter of industrial research is now going to end. In the past, that co-operation was between the Industrial Research Council and the universities. In future, it will be between the Industrial Research Committee and the universities. The Industrial Research Committee will, in the course of time, have its own laboratory, equipment and staff and will arrange for the conduct of research work through the universities only where there is some obvious advantage in doing so, such as the existence of facilities in the university laboratory or the presence of somebody on the university staff who is a specialist in the particular subject into which research is required. I agree with the Senator that the success of our plans for promoting industrial research will depend not so much on this committee as on the co-operation between the committee, the university authorities and the various industrial firms which are doing a specialised form of research in relation to their own work.

Senator O'Donovan asked me where this institute will function. I cannot answer that question. It will be a matter for decision by the committee of the institute. The procedure contemplated is: when the Bill is passed, a committee will be established. That committee will prepare plans for the construction of its laboratory, its offices and library. These plans, when approved, will be carried into effect by means of a State grant the amount of which cannot yet be determined. Senator Fearon referred to the library service which the existing industrial council provides. It is intended that that service will be taken over by the industrial research institute. That library service was one of the most important facilities which the Industrial Research Council provided for industrialists. They brought into the library scientific publications and reports from all parts of the world dealing with matters in which they thought industrialists here might be concerned. They drew the attention of industrialists to the fact that these publications were available in the library and helped them to apply the knowledge contained in them to their own particular problems. It is intended that the new institute will take over that library service and provide similar facilities for industrialists.

The last matter to which I wish to refer at this stage is that of the use of inventions or discoveries. That question was raised by Senator Duffy. If any invention or discovery results from the work of this institute, it becomes the property of the Minister. I am sure Senator Duffy is aware that any person who makes a discovery or completes an invention is, under the existing law, entitled to a patent. That is to say, in consideration of his publishing the result of his discovery or the details of his invention, he is given a monopoly of its use for a period of 16 years. That is the effect of the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act. It is much the same all over the world. There are international conventions designed to ensure that any patent given here will have international application and that the provisions of the law, in so far as they relate to the effect of a patent, will be uniform everywhere.

If there is an invention or discovery by this institute, it becomes the property of the Minister. The Minister does not have to take out a patent. He will only patent his discovery or invention if he thinks it a desirable course of action. He can, if he wishes, publish the discovery or details of the invention for everybody's information. If, on the other hand, it is considered desirable that the discovery or invention should be patented, the Minister becomes the owner of the patent. It does not follow that the Minister himself will utilise the discovery or invention commercially. What he can do and is empowered to do under the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act is to give a licence to use it to any person who desires a licence upon certain specified terms.

What is proposed in the Bill is that the Minister, before publishing the invention, whether he publishes it for the mere purpose of disseminating information, or publishes it in consideration of getting a patent for its use, will consult the Industrial Research Council on the advisability of such publication. The intention is that, unless there is good reason against it, the invention or discovery will be published either without condition or subject to a patent and, if subject to a patent, then the Minister will be the owner of the patent and entitled to any royalties payable under it. I should say that in the case of any discovery or invention of importance the Minister will be neglecting his duty if he fails to take out a patent, because, of course, publication here means publication everywhere, and the commercial development of the patent could be undertaken not only in this country but elsewhere. If it were a discovery or invention of commercial importance made here, this country should get the benefit of any royalties payable under the patent by persons using the discovery or invention in other countries.

I think I have dealt with all the points raised. No doubt other points will be raised in Committee. But I hope that I have explained fully the principles on which the Bill is founded. I have a note here to which I think I should refer to prevent misunderstanding. This institute will have no responsibility for bringing into general use the metric system of weights and measures. There is a Weights and Measures Act which is, in fact, the legal basis for the weights and measures in use. Whatever case there might be for the introduction of the metric system—I personally strongly believe in it, but there are obviously a number of difficulties in effecting a change—that case would have to be carried through by another type of legislation. There would have to be an amendment of the Weights and Measures Act and it could not be done merely upon a decision of the committee of this institute.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

The next day the Seanad meets.

There will either be a lot of amendments or none.

Leave it until Wednesday. It may not be taken on Wednesday, in any event. Of course, the Industrial Relations Bill may not be ready for the Seanad.

Does the Minister hope to have it?

The intention is to finish it in the Dáil on Tuesday. The Dáil is meeting on Tuesday for the purpose of conveniencing the Seanad in that regard. There is, of course, the risk that it may not be finished.

Would the Minister prefer to take the Second Stage of the Industrial Relations Bill before the Committee Stage of this Bill?

That would be desirable, because it would give more time for its consideration.

Put it down for Wednesday and we shall see what we will do when we come to it.

I hope the Industrial Relations Bill will come from the Dáil as an agreed measure.

A perfect document.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 24th July.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 24th July.