Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1946

Vol. 33 No. 2

Public Business. - Statistics (Amendment) Bill, 1946 —Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The House is no doubt familiar with the provisions of the Statistics Act, 1926. That Act gave statutory authority for the collection of statistics. It required persons who were requested to give information of a particular nature to do so, and it imposed upon the officers of statistics an obligation to keep that information secret to the extent of not revealing to any person, who was not an officer of statistics, details of returns made by individuals or separate firms.

That restriction upon the disclosure of information secured under the Statistics Act has caused administrative inconvenience in certain cases and the purpose of this Bill is to permit of the disclosure of returns to other officers of State Departments specially authorised to receive it and requiring the information for official purposes.

At the present time, when statistical information is required relating to individual concerns by a Department of the Government, it is necessary to communicate with the firms for the information, even though the firms may have furnished that precise information a short time previously under the Statistics Act to an officer of statistics. A certain amount of irritation has been caused on that account, apart altogether from the administrative inconvenience and difficulty occasioned. It is considered there is no good reason why the information supplied under the Statistics Act should not be made available within the limits indicated in this Bill to other officers of State Departments requiring it for official reasons.

The proposal in the Bill is that the Minister will have discretion to permit of the disclosure of that information to such officers where he is satisfied it is required for official reasons. The officers who receive it will be under the same conditions as to secrecy as the officers of statistics are at the present time.

In regard to this matter, our legislation is somewhat more restrictive than the legislation of other countries. A change similar to that which we are proposing in this Bill has been made in the corresponding British statute and the Statistics Acts of other countries permit of the disclosure of information of this character to officers of State Departments where required for official purposes.

Mr. Hayes

Will the Minister give an indication of what he means by official purposes? For example, statistics are collected from individuals for the purpose of making a general picture?

Mr. Lemass

That is right.

Mr. Hayes

As distinct from that, what type of official purposes has the Minister in mind?

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps it would be better if I give an illustration. If there was a proposition by a private firm to establish a boot factory and it was necessary to consider whether the production of existing factories was sufficient, then the officer dealing with the industrial proposition could obtain that information direct from the statistics branch without having to go to the Boot Manufacturers' Association or individual boot manufacturing firms.

Sir John Keane

I hope to convince the House that this measure is not so simple or so innocent as the Minister in his statement, or the debate in the Dáil, would lead us to suppose. Examine for a moment the Prinicpal Act. That Act was drawn entirely for the purpose of collecting statistics and arranging from their collection the compilation of statistics. So important did it appear at that time that this information—some of it of a highly confidential or, at least, of a personal character—would not be spread abroad that disclosure on the part of a statistical officer to any other person, official or unofficial, was an offence.

In connection with that, let us examine how careful the Oireachtas was at that time to ensure the non-disclosure of that information and to ensure that, even by implication, particulars of an individual might not be disclosed in any subsequent publication. This is important and I ask the House to realise it. It has not been adverted to by the Minister in his statements in either House, nor has it been raised in the debate. Section 13 contains a provision under which, before any information rendered statistically might be published in a form through or by which the party supplying the information might be identified, the consent of that party had to be obtained. I gather that that section was introduced for this purpose. There might be only one business of any substantial importance doing a certain trade and the returns might reveal information about that firm. It was considered important to safeguard that firm and no information could be published without the consent of the firm itself. What has happened now? Now it is intended under Ministerial Order to divulge to any person specified by the Minister any information rendered by any citizen without his consent. In fact, Section 13 is repealed. Does the House realise that? Is the Minister alive to the gravity of that situation?

Not only may information rendered by individuals be disclosed to specified persons, not merely in aggregate form— which was the form in which it appeared in statistics—but in particular form. If I in business am called upon to render particulars of my stocks, my reserves or matters of a highly confidential character, they can be disclosed to other Departments for what they call administrative purposes and not only to other Departments but, if the Minister sees fit, to commissions, to tribunals and, of course, to the members of those commissions or tribunals—who, in some cases, have no special or stringent responsibility in regard to the information that they obtain. It is quite likely that a member of a commission might obtain confidential information by this means about competitors in his own business. I do not say that will happen very often, but I say that will be quite possible under this proposal. It is most dangerous to pass this measure unless a clause is retained making it necessary to obtain the consent of the party before imparting the information to anybody the Minister may specify.

I have no doubt the members realise the scope covered by the original Act, that almost any matter can be made the subject of a statistical return and that, once the Minister so specifies, it is mandatory on the individual to provide that information. I should like the Minister, in replying, to say what has been the practice hitherto. Has it been the practice to specify by Order all information required for statistical purposes? I understand that, during the emergency, quite a lot of information was supplied voluntarily or at least without there being statutory authority or the necessary Order prescribing that information. The ordinary citizen who gets a form does not pause to consider or wait to investigate whether it has statutory authority or not, so many people have been filling up forms in the belief that they are mandatory, where, if they chose to investigate the matter, they would find they were only voluntary.

Let me refer to the heads under which information can be obtained by Order and which, under this proposal, may be imparted to anybody the Minister thinks fit. We find population; vital social and educational matters—no one minds that very much; local government, employment and unemployment, emigration and immigration; agriculture, sea and inland fisheries, and industry. Industry might be anything— you might call upon merchants to render particulars of stocks they have or have had over a period of years.

Commerce and banking are mentioned—one might call upon the banks to render statistical information in respect to their reserves, even in respect to certain categories of their customers' business. We find also the headings: Railways, tramways and ancient monuments—no one minds much about ancient monuments. The Minister may be alive to the dangers, but he has made no references to them in his statement in either House, and I certainly think this Bill should not pass unless it retains the protection that no information rendered by an individual should be disclosed to anybody outside the statistical branches without his or her consent.

Mr. Summerfield

This is a short Bill and I am sure every member of the House would like to give the Minister any facilities he feels are necessary to cover up any defects that have manifested themselves in the past in relation to any statistics. Senator Sir John Keane is to be complimented on exposing the danger of the very wide powers now to be conferred on the Minister in this very small and, as the Senator puts it, innocent-looking Bill. In the past few years, we have given the Minister's Department all the information sought by him—highly confidential information was given in the belief that it would go straight to the Statistics Department, where that all-important element of secrecy would be maintained. Frankly, I am alarmed at the wide scope of the powers now sought. The wording of the only paragraph of the Bill which really matters states that this information may, at the behest of the Minister, be given to any committee, commission or tribunal of inquiry set up by the Government. We have tribunals for all sorts of things and anything that can be called a tribunal does not necessarily command the respect of the very people who are now to be placed at the mercy of that tribunal, if the Minister so wishes.

The Minister might wisely reconsider the phrasing of this Bill and so word it that he will get the powers which are desirable for administrative purposes yet not leave open in the Bill itself those wider powers. Otherwise the charge will be levied that it may make available to Jack and Jill confidential information which was given only in strict confidence. Senator Sir John Keane has stressed in detail what I would wish to say.

The Bill may have the reaction that people will hesitate to give the information desired for the purposes of statistics. It is said that that information can be extracted legally. It cannot. Unless the people from whom the information is sought co-operate wholeheartedly, the figures may be entirely misleading. In regard to the wide application of the Bill, I must express the same degree of criticism as has been voiced by Senator Sir John Keane. It is dangerous as it is and the Minister would be well advised to remove the danger that has already been emphasised.

Professor Johnston

Like the Senator who has just spoken, I feel a certain amount of misgiving about the scope of this Bill. It may not be quite as innocent as it appears on the surface and I know there are Senators not yet present who would probably feel the same about it. As Senator Summerfield said, it might tend to undermine the confidence the people have in making statistical returns at present. If they were to feel that they did not know what the Minister might do with them, they may not be so willing to co-operate. Section 2 (2) opens a very wide door regarding the method by which the Minister may disclose such information. It seems to be perfectly possible for him to pass on certain valuable tips to the Revenue Commissioners, which might help them in making the collection of income-tax more efficient. They have their own very effective methods of getting confidential information and it would tend to undermine the happy relations now existing between industry and the Minister, if business men felt the Minister were likely to work hand in glove with the Revenue Commissioners.

The Minister mentioned in the other House that this Bill makes a similar change in legislation to that recently enacted in the British Parliament. Is the fact that there is a precedent for it in the British Parliament really a very convincing argument to us? The people on the other side definitely have gone very much further in the direction of a State-controlled economy than we have and they are definitely going very much further in that direction than we intend to go, in spite of the recent visit of the Dean of Canterbury. That being so, I do not think it is necessary in accordance with the spirit of our régime that we should copy Britain, in this particular matter at any rate.

I do not attach any importance whatever to the fact that the British have decided to pass such legislation. At the same time, I readily admit that it is awkward for the Minister to have certain information in one branch of his Department, given confidentially, and have no access to it for any purpose whatever, that it must be confined exclusively to the knowledge of the statistics officers. Consequently, as he pointed out, he has to write a second time to certain business men and others asking them to repeat, not confidentially, certain information which they have already given in making their statistical returns. That is, perhaps, the only point of any substance in connection with this matter. I should be willing to go so far as to suggest that there should be some modification of the original Act which would enable a blank to be included in each statistical return so that there could be a declaration somewhat on these lines, "I have no objection to the Minister using the above information for the general purposes of his Department", or, "for the general purposes of public administration." That would be signed by the person making the return. If that were included in the ordinary statistical returns which are being asked for, I think that it would meet 90 per cent. of what the Minister really wants and avoid some of the objection to this particular Bill.

Mr. Hayes

I often think that people who come here to write books to explain Ireland are to be sympathised with. The Minister belongs to a Party which calls itself a Republican Party and one of his points is that the British have recently passed legislation similar to this. Then, the British precedent is made little of by the representative of Trinity College. It is rather difficult to ascertain where exactly we hope to get. This Bill—whatever its merits and whatever its defects—is typical of a particular tendency which we have often noticed here. It is offered in all good faith by the Minister in order to remedy what he calls, as he has so often done before, administrative inconvenience.

That is to say, the Civil Service, in doing its job, and the Minister in doing his job, find it inconvenient that, at a particular moment, they do not know all about my private affairs or, what would be more important, the private affairs of Senator Summerfield or Senator Sir John Keane or of a boot factory. In order that they should get over that, they propose to pass a very far-reaching, enabling measure which will give the Minister power to get particular information about particular people at any time he likes for a purpose which he deems to be a good purpose. I should like the House to get hold of that.

The Bill is, of course, offered in complete good faith. It should be stated that statistics heretofore have been collected from the people for the purpose of providing a general picture and never for the purpose of making a particular statement about a particular individual or firm. One sees particulars about the brewing or boot industry but one does not get specific information. The specific information given has always been regarded as secret and the officers of the statistics branch have been bound—and have religiously and meticulously observed the obligation— not to disclose to anybody—Minister or other person—the particular information furnished. There may be need, and, as the State takes on extra functions, there is no doubt, need for some modification of that; but what has happened here is because administrative inconvenience has been experienced, complete discretion is being given to the Minister. For example, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, order particular information to be disclosed to all the members of a tribunal. I do not want to pass criticism of any kind on members of tribunals. I have nothing but admiration for people who give their service, without remuneration, to these tribunals. But take the Vocational Organisation Committee, which the Minister has criticised very sharply in this House. He described their report as a slovenly report and he was critical of it generally. The commission was drawn by the Government from various classes of the community and various types of people. Evidence was voluntarily given before it, and on that evidence, together with the most excellent and enlightening statistical returns drawn up by the statistics branch, that commission made certain recommendations. It would be possible, under the present Bill when it becomes an Act, to direct that certain particulars in the possession of the statistics branch be revealed to that commission.

The answer which will be at once given by the Minister and which would be given by any other Minister—this is not a political matter; it is a question of what Ministers do once they get into office—is that he would not give any such instruction unless there was grave reason for it and unless he had the greatest confidence in the commission. In other words, whatever you reveal now on one of these forms is at the mercy of a Minister's discretion. Let us say that every member of this House has absolute and complete confidence in the discretion of the Minister. That may not be so but let us assume that it is. The Minister passes. This Bill remains as an Act and you are at the mercy of whoever the Minister happens to be. Some of us might have complete confidence in the discretion of the present Minister. Some of us—not necessarily on this side of the House—might not have the same confidence in the discretion of some of the Minister's colleagues. That is an axiom. You are going to be completely dependent on the discretion of a Minister as to whether he will reveal, in consequence of specific information, particulars of a firm which are in the possession of the statistical branch. You come to the point which you meet so frequently in this class of legislation: you must wholly trust the Minister. That is a position which we should avoid if possible. Whether any modification of this Bill in Committee could achieve that, I am not sure. I have not studied the Bill from the point of view of putting down amendments. While the Bill is another example of a general tendency, it is also a rather dangerous thing and it might have the effect which Senator Summerfield mentioned of making the people rather chary of giving information.

The point made by Senator Johnston as to the use of the information for the purposes of the Revenue Commissioners is an obvious one. I am not much afraid of that. The Revenue Commissioners have a scheme for doing their own jobs which nobody can improve very much. I do not think that they need much assistance. It is in other directions that the matter is important. For example, is the Minister himself an authorised officer in all cases? When an officer of the Minister's Department gets information about boot factories, to take the example which the Minister gave, what use is it to him if he does not reveal it to the Minister, because it is, eventually, the Minister who must make up his mind as to whether or not he will allow a factory to be established in a particular place?

That is to say, the Minister, who is a politician in charge of the Department—being a politician myself, I use the word descriptively and not in a derogatory sense—gets information about a particular person's business. That may be inevitable in the modern State, where the Government interferes in so many matters, but it is another example of getting away from the general picture and an example of how the State and its officers enter more and more into the life of the individual. Instead of making general regulations with which one must conform, they go to a particular individual, find out all about him and make a decision in a particular case.

As a general principle, I am against that but I admit that, in the case of this Bill, the Minister is not inspired by unworthy motives. He is endeavouring to carry out a particular kind of work in which he is interested and he is not particularly concerned as to what principles he infringes when getting that particular job done. This Bill is, however, very wide. It goes very much farther than the Minister says, and it is a weapon which Ministers in this Government and succeeding Governments can quietly operate. It has been our experience that, when Ministers say they want to get power for a specific purpose, they always choose to get wider powers than they require at the moment. They themselves, or their successors, use those powers in the widest possible way. This Bill is evidence of a very bad tendency. In Committee, we may be able to suggest an amendment which would improve it, but I do not share Senator Sir John Keane's optimism that we shall be able to persuade the House to accept such an amendment.

Mr. Baxter

This Bill raises issues of very considerable importance and it is proper that they should not be lightly dismissed by the House. The case has been very well put, so far. I hope the Minister will not be too intolerant or impatient of those who want to keep him in rein while he is very anxious to get his point carried. I find myself in a position half way between the Minister and the extreme represented by Senator Sir John Keane. Our statistical service is one of the most important in the State. It is well organised and the work is well done. Sometimes I am inclined to be critical of the true worth of the returns that are made but Senator Hayes and other Senators have said that they regard the work of the statistical branch as an attempt to give us a picture of the life of the country, generally. We must all agree that our statistical service will be called upon to a much greater extent in the future than it was in the past to present us with a picture on which we can base policy. When we get such a picture of the country, we shall have to ask ourselves whether we are satisfied with it or not. We have to ask what reforms, on the basis of the story presented to us, are necessary in order that life may be improved. To a certain extent, that is what the Minister is seeking to do in this Bill. In so far as that is his aim, no member of the House will stand in his way. The point he makes is a very good illustration and what we have got to do is to set our minds to discovering how this can be brought about and the Minister facilitated without depriving citizens of the protection which they are entitled to expect if they place certain vital information at the disposal of the State with a view to enabling it better to regulate its business and shape its policy.

I agree with those who say that to place information of any particular business freely and openly at the disposal of a commission or tribunal without consultation with the individual who presented that information is to go too far. It is one thing to transfer information from one section of the Minister's Department to another or from one Department of State to another Department of State, but it is quite a different thing when a commission, sitting either in private or in public, can have made available to it statistical information which has been passed on in secret to the Minister's Department. That case must be met by the Minister. I know that the Minister can quote the end of the section and say that a member of a commission or tribunal who discloses such information will be liable to a fine of £50 or six months' imprisonment.

I was on a commission not very long ago on which there were 23 members. Senator Ó Buachalla was my colleague on it. The Minister would need to have another branch of the Service hot on the heels of a commission such as that, with 23 members, if something were disclosed. The disclosure might not be very important in the view of the members of the commission, but to the individual firm or businessman who presented the information it might be all-important, and it would be very difficult to trace the person who disclosed the information.

I think the Minister will have to provide some safeguard in regard to the passing on of information where that information comes into the possession of a committee, a commission or a tribunal. I think it is very probable that, where the information was going to pass from an officer in one Department to an officer in another Department, no member of the Seanad would see any great reason for raising an objection, but if the information is to pass through a group of people, sitting in public, then it is an entirely different matter. I think that the Minister has a case to make so far as that matter is concerned. I know there is a very definite objection on the part of a great many people to make disclosures of their business, but there is the other consideration, that State policy and national policy, in so far as it is wise, have to be determined in relation to facts both for to-day and for the future.

We all know that those facts are very largely based on figures and on statistical information. The Minister, of course, is wise in looking at the sort of picture that these figures present when he is framing his future policy, and ought to get what assistance he can in that regard. I am all for that, but, as I say, it is quite a different matter when some of this information can be made available in a way that I do not think the Minister can control.

I agree with Senator Summerfield, if there is a fear on the part of members of the trading community, industrialists or even the banking fraternity that something which they disclose is likely to be made public in a way that they never anticipated, then they are going to hesitate, and the Department may not get the truth, so that in the end its statistics will be not only faulty but quite useless. I think that the Minister should take that into account.

Mr. Duffy

I think this debate has served a very useful and, perhaps, interesting purpose. Notwithstanding the misgivings of Senator Johnston, it has shown that the visit of the Dean of Canterbury has not been without effect in that it has given us a united front in which the landlords, if I may so respectfully refer to Senator Sir John Keane, the industrialists and the intellectuals from our two rival universities are agreed in defence of property.

Mr. Hayes

Not rival universities. That is a very inappropriate word.

Mr. Duffy

I am pleased to know that the rivalry has disappeared. The interesting part of the debate is, of course, the emphasis which has been laid on the need for preserving the secret doings of property owners. There is not the slightest uneasiness in the minds of Senators when the interests of the private individual, the poor and the unprotected, are at stake. I remember public men in this country, including Ministers, reading documents from public platforms which had been secured for them by the secret service organisation, and nobody in this House protested or said a word about it. Now, when there is a proposal to make use of information secured officially regarding the activities of industrial undertakings, there is uneasiness lest that information should be made use of, except within very narrow limits.

It is notorious that we have less material available in statistical form than most of the countries that one associates with modern progress. For instance, if one takes up The Digest one can read in it a list of the private incomes of the film stars in Hollywood. I do not know how that information is obtained, but I assume it is revealed by the revenue authorities in that country.

Mr. Hearne

I think that of the many funny statements that have been made in this House by the Senator that, surely, is the funniest.

Mr. Duffy

I think it is correct to say that the revenue authorities in America give the amount of income of every important person in the States. Is not that well known to everybody? No one there protests. They are all delighted that their names should appear in that gallery of well-fed opulence.

Mr. Hayes

We should be all delighted if we were so high up.

Mr. Duffy

I have no doubt Senator Hayes would be delighted to have it recorded if he was earning £50,000 a year, but the people here who are making £50,000 a year do not want it to be known. The people who are making substantial incomes out of smuggling and blackmarket activities do not want that information to get through to the statistics branch of Industry and Commerce.

I do not know whether there is any need to get excited about this proposal at all. Personally, I do not see any need for it. I am rather inclined to think that anybody who takes an interest in social welfare, or in any form of development in this country, would welcome any proposal which comes before the House to enable the Government's statistical department to obtain the fullest material for the purpose of presenting to the public and to this House information which will enable us to judge the efficacy of the legislation we are passing here.

Sir John Keane

Of trade rivals?

Mr. Duffy

I wonder how much there is in this question of trade rivalry. If I walk into a solicitor in Dublin and ask him how So-and-So is doing he will tell me, to within a couple of pounds, what his rival is making.

Sir John Keane

That is not true.

Mr. Duffy

Of course, it is true. I venture to say that any business house in Dublin knows what its rivals are making.

Sir John Keane

It is a guess.

Mr. Duffy

But why not have the facts? I would prefer to have the truth rather than have people making bad guesses. But all this is hardly relevant to the discussion. There can be no serious suggestion that a civil servant who obtains material from a colleague in another Department is going to publish that material simply because he gets it from somebody else. If an officer in the Department of Industry and Commerce, associated with statistics, gets a set of figures to-morrow in relation to some particular business, he examines the figures and makes use of them for the purpose of his Department. Suppose he is transferred next week to another Department and has reason to use these figures for another purpose, is it suggested that, because he was transferred from one Department to another, he immediately starts to divulge the information committed to his care? I do not believe a bit of it. I think that this discussion is being carried on in a most unrealistic manner. We either trust the integrity of the civil servants who are entrusted with this duty or we do not. If we do not trust them, let us say so, but this is not the way to meet a problem of that kind. If we do not trust the civil servants, then we should set up some machinery which will get us a Civil Service organisation that we can trust.

Mr. Summerfield

That is not the question.

Mr. Hayes

It is really unfair to everyone, including the Civil Service, that the Senator should say that this debate is being conducted on the basis that people do not trust civil servants. It has been conducted on quite the contrary basis. There is no use in the Senator putting up targets just for the purpose of knocking them down.

Mr. Duffy

With all respect, that is the impression which this discussion has left on my mind.

Mr. Baxter

By whom?

Mr. Hayes

By me, for example?

Mr. Duffy

Senator Baxter was, so to speak, between Heaven and earth when speaking and did not seem to know where he stood in relation to the Bill. Neither do I know where he stood.

Mr. Hayes

If the Senator will say that I said that I do not trust civil servants I will then give him another remedy.

Mr. Duffy

Those Senators who condemned the Bill did so, as I understood them, on the ground that the civil servant is going to divulge information which comes into his possession for a particular purpose.

Mr. Summerfield

Not at all.

Mr. Duffy

What is the objection then? The objection as I see it is that information which is obtained for a particular purpose is going to be divulged if you pass this Bill. Now, I do not think that is true. The fact that you authorise, or require, a civil servant to hand over to a colleague certain statistical information which is being supplied to him by a particular firm, or even by a bank, does not suggest that that is something that is going to be abused, or that that person is going to hand out the information to the rivals of the person from whom it was obtained.

I can understand, in part, another objection that was made by Senator Sir John Keane. He goes very far in his anxiety lest the reserve funds of the banks should be divulged. That, in his view, is a most serious matter. If a civil servant is going to ask the Bank of Ireland what funds it has in reserve, and what amount of money it holds in respect of deposits, where the owners have passed away, then we are to assume that that is a most serious matter. I think it is in the public interest that that information should be made known. I can see a Minister—perhaps not the present Minister for Industry and Commerce—in charge of statistics, who would request that that information should be made available not merely for himself but for the public. So far as I am concerned, I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ní gá mórán a rá i bhfábhar an Bhille seo, mar feictear dom go ndearna na Seanadóirí eile a labhar go dtí seo cúis i bhfábhar an Bhille do phlé go maith agus go beacht. Is cinnte go bhfuarthas mionlochtaí anseo agus ansúd air, ach ba mhion-lochtaí iad. Tá faitíos orthu go scaipfear eolas a gheobhfar go rúnda, ach sin taibhse nach gá faithcíos a bheith orthu roimhe. Admhaíonn gach duine go gcaithfidh an Rialtas cúnamh a thabhairt ar gach slí le forás a chur ar chúsaí sóisiala agus cúrsaí geilleagair sa tír. Duine ar bith a bhfuil spéis aige ins na rudaí seo, tá fhios aige nach féidir aon cheo a dhéanamh go sásúil gan eolas cruinn beacht, ó thaobh staidrimh, a bheith ós a comhair. Teastaíonn ó lucht an Oireachtais agus ón bpobal go ginearálta go ndéanfar an obair seo go healaíonta agus go rialta. Má tá an Rialtas leis an obair seo a dhéanamh ar an mbealach a bhfuilimid ag súil go ndéanfaidh siad é, ní foláir dúinn gach cabhair a thabhairt dóibh. Sé an chabhair sin atáthar a iarraidh sa mBille seo.

Mar atá an scéal faoi láthair, is féidir leis an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála mion-eolas beacht a bhailiú faoi gach gné de chúrsaí Tionscail agus Tráchtála sa tír. Tá an t-eolas sin ar fáil aige agus ag oifigigh áirithe a ainmníonn sé chuige. Faoin mBille seo, níl dá iarraidh aige ach an chumhacht a bheith aige cuid den eolas seo atá ar fáil aige féin a chur ar fáil ag oifigigh údarásach a Ranna eile Rialtais. Is deacair é sin a lochtú. Is furast a thuigsint go mbeadh gá mór ag an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil le heolas den tsórt seo atá ag an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála. Is furust a thuigsint go dteastódh cuid den eolas seo ón Aire Dlí agus Cirt ar ócáideachaí. Tuigimid go léir a thairbhí agus a bheadh sé go mbeadh fáil ag an Aire Talmhaíochta ar eolas áirithe a bhíos ag an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála. Mar atá an dlí faoi láthair, ní ceádmhach don Aire an t-eolas seo a thabhairt uaidh. Is cinnte go dtabharfaidh an seanad an cead sin dó.

Rinneadh tagairt do na Coimisiúin agus na Binsí atá luaite in Alt 2. Cuid de na Binsí agus na Coimisiúin seo bíonn said mór. Tá imní ar chuid de na Seanadóirí faoi eolas rúnda ar ghnóthaí áirithe a thabhairt dóibh. D'fhéadfadh údar a bheith leis an imní sin, ach nach féidir leo an t-eolas sin a fháil faoin dlí mar atá sé? Nach bhfuil údarás ag lucht Coimisiún agus Binsí de ghnáth fios a chur ar aon pháipéirí nó eolas a mheasfadh siad a bheith riachtanach? Thairis sin, feictear dom nár mhiste dá meabhraítí do gach ball d'aon Choimisiún nó Binsí a ceapfar feasta go bhfuil an mhortabháil nó an cúram seo air gan eolas áirithe rúnda a scaipeadh agus go bhfuil pionós an trom inghearrtha air má scaipeann sé eolas den tsaghas seo.

Ar mo thaobh féin de, tá muinín mhór agam as lucht Coimisiún. Go háirithe, tá muinín mhór agam as oifigigh na Stát Seirbhíse, nach mbainfidís úsáid mí-dhlisteanach as eolas den tsaghas seo a gheobhaidís. Ní aontaím leis an méid a dúradh tráthnóna ag lochtú na seirbhísí seo. Ní raibh aon bhrí leis an gcaint. Ba mhaith liom, nuair a bheas an tAire ag tabhairt freagra, go gcuirfeadh sé i gcéill don Seanad cén chaoi a dtugann sé údarás do dhaoine eolas speisialta a fháil ón mBrainse Staitistíochta. Ba mhaith liom go n-innseodh sé dhúinn cén saghas oifigigh a mbíonn údarás acu agus cén chaoi a dtugtar an t-údarás dóibh. Dá mbeadh an t-eolas seo ag an Seanad, tuigfí nach baol go mbainfí úsáid mí-cheart as an eolas seo, tuigfí go bhféadfa gan mórán duadh méar a leagan ar an té ba chiontach dá dtárlaíodh go leigfí eolas rúnda le daoine nach raibh ceart acu é fháil.

Ní chuireann an Bille seo ar chumas an Aire aon eolas breise a iarraidh thar mar atá de chumhacht aige ar é a iarraidh cheana; agus, go deimhin, dá dteastaíodh breis eolais uaidh ná a fhaghann sé faoin mBille seo nó faoin bPríomh-Acht, nách féidir é fháil faoi Achtanna eile? Mar shompla, nach féidir dó ar chasaoid a fháil, fiosrúcháin iomlán beacht do chur ar siúl faoi ghnó ar bith sa tír? Faoi Choimisiún na bPraghsanna, féadfaidh sé eolas a lorg faoi gach gné de dhéantóireacht nó de thráchtáil, an méid oibrithe atá ann, na meaisíní, an táirgeacht, costas táirgeachta an iomlán agus costas táirgeachta gach aonaid. Is féidir eolas cruinn a fháil ar ghnóthar na mbancanna féin, faoin Acht Banc Ceannais agus ar shlite eile. Ní gá aon imní a bheith orainn go bhfuiltear ag iarraidh cumhachta faoin mBille seo thar mar atá ann cheana agus ní mheasaim go bhfuil gá ar bith le imní a bheith orainn go n-úsáidfear aon eolas a baileofar nó a tabharfar do Ranna eile Rialtais nó do Choimisiún ach ar bhealach ionraic díscréideach.

Mr. Lemass

I find myself far more embarrassed by Senator Duffy's defence of this Bill than the criticisms of the Senators who preceded him. If this were the Bill that Senator Duffy was talking about, I would vote against it myself. There is nothing in this Bill which alters in any way the existing powers of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to obtain information, and its enactment will not result in any variation in the type or scope of the statistical data now published.

Senators said that this Bill is not as innocent as it seems. Let me assure them that it is as innocent as it seems. Any criticism of it that was expressed here seemed to me to be based largely upon a misunderstanding of its terms or apprehension as to possible abuse of the powers given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is nothing in this Bill which provides or contemplates that information given by individual firms under the authority of a statistics Order will be spread abroad. That phrase was, I think, used by Senator Sir John Keane.

Sir John Keane

Did I say "spread abroad"?

Mr. Lemass

Neither does the Bill provide that such information will be placed freely and openly at the disposal of tribunals, as Senator Baxter suggested. It does not provide that such information will be placed freely at the disposal of public tribunals or commissions sitting in private. All, in fact, this Bill proposes to do is to widen the class of persons known as officers of statistics. Senator Hayes asked if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is an officer of statistics. In fact, it is the Minister who, under the law, collects, compiles, abstracts and publishes information. He may use for that purpose officers of statistics who are defined in the Statistics Act, 1926, as "every officer in the Civil Service and every other person who is for the time being employed in or about the collection, abstraction, compilation or publication of statistics".

There is nothing in the Act which prevents the disclosure of returns by one officer of statistics to another. I am proposing that that class of persons who are so described as officers of statistics under the Act of 1926 should be widened to include specified persons who are officers of the public service and who, in the Minister's opinion, require that information for the efficient discharge of their official duties.

There is no suggestion—I want to refute any suggestion—that information available to officers of statistics will be freely available to anybody. It can be made available under this measure only to persons specified by the Minister in an Order or by a direction given by him in which he names certain persons who are officers of Government Departments, or officers of commissions of inquiry and who, he believes, should have that information for the proper and efficient discharge of their duties.

Mr. Baxter

Or members.

Mr. Lemass

Or members. When Senators talk about tribunals of inquiry, they are forgetting that the Bill refers to commissions and tribunals set up by the Government or under State authority and in all such cases these commissions or tribunals have full powers to require the furnishing to them of information; they have power to send for persons, documents and papers and have them produced before them. There is, in fact, little being added by this Bill to the powers of commissions or tribunals to obtain information. There may be some shortening of procedure by which information may be made available to officers or members of a tribunal, but not every commission or tribunal can avail of the statistics service, and information available to the statistics branch can be given to these tribunals only when the Minister is satisfied that it should be given and only when he designates the persons to whom it should be given. No person can publish that information to anyone else. If any persons do so, they commit an offence and are liable to a fine or imprisonment.

I have not found that at any time there was difficulty in securing from the firms who furnish the information under the Statistics Act similar information when required by the Department of Industry and Commerce or any other Government Department for another purpose. Frequently, however, I have got indignant letter from heads of business firms asking me to explain the incompetence of my Department in writing to them in the month of November for information concerning their consumption of coal or electricity when they had already furnished that information to the Department the previous month, ignoring the fact that they had furnished it under a statistics Order and the information thus furnished could not be revealed by officers of statistics to anybody in any other branch of the Department.

The powers utilised during the emergency to obtain the returns to which Senator Summerfield referred were, in many cases, those conferred by the Emergency Powers Act, and under the various Orders for the rationing of goods or the control of supplies made under that Act. There was an obligation on persons to give whatever information was required concerning stocks of goods or the disposal of goods. Ordinarily, the only powers which the Government has, to require the furnishing of information, are those given by the Statistics Act, and the only other means is to request it from the persons who possess it.

Neither is it correct to say that the Minister can demand from private firms any information he may wish to have. The information which can be secured under the Statistics Act is set out in the Statistics Orders made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and placed on the Tables of the Dáil and Seanad. Senators can inspect them from time to time and see the nature of the information required Information is abstracted from the individual returns and compiled and published in the various official Statistical Reports. It is not proposed that any information concerning an individual firm should be so published. The only additional class of persons who will get the information are those who will be specified by the Minister. The difference is very slight. The Minister has the power to get that information now under the Statistics Act. He has the power to utilise, in getting that information, persons who come within the definition of officers of statistics as set out in that Act and we are adding to their number only those whom he may specify, who must be officers of a State Department, or commissions or tribunals set up under State authority who require the information for the purpose of official duties.

I think there are no grounds whatever for any assumption that these powers will be abused now or at any time in the future. There is more reason for concern and more justification for querying the necessity for this Bill on the ground that there may be a mistaken belief in the minds of business people or other individuals that the information which they give under the authority of a statistics Order may be used to their disadvantage at some time or in some way. That is important. That was the consideration which delayed us in enacting in our legislation this modification—which was made in British legislation, not by the socialist friends of the Dean of Canterbury but in the year 1939 by a very Conservative Government then in office in that country. We have fully appreciated that this alteration in the class of persons to whom information might be disclosed might create the mistaken idea in the minds of some people that they would be at some disadvantage in giving fully and frankly the information requested from them. I should like to do what I can to remove any such impression that may have been created by speeches here to-day. First of all, there is no ground whatever for the belief that the information secured under the Statistics Act will be of value to the Revenue Commissioners. They would regard as milk and water the powers of the statistics branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce for getting information. They have far more drastic powers under their own code and do not have to resort to the statistics branch for information they require for the purpose of their official duties.

In this country, there is more difficulty in the handling of statistics than in other countries, as many industrial operations are carried on by single firms only, or by a limited number of firms. That is true of all small countries, as distinct from the larger States. When queries are made either in the Department or in public concerning the production of such goods as cement, motor car tyres or beer, it is sometimes difficult to give the information without disclosing particulars concerning the affairs of individual firms, as there may be only one firm or one very large firm and a few small firms, or only two firms. Any such disclosure would permit of information concerning the production or scope of activities of an individual concern being ascertained. It is not intended, however, under this Bill that there should be any change whatever in the present system of disclosing information to the public, in the nature of the information to be disclosed to the public or in the powers of the Minister to give more detailed information in official returns. The additional powers which are being conferred are confined solely to the disclosure of the information to other officers of the Department who require it for official purposes and who are themselves bound by the secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act just as definitely as officers of statistics have been in the past.

I did not refer to the British Act solely for the purpose of justifying this Bill. I was anxious, however, to make clear that we are moving here now only as far as most other States have moved long ago. The British Act as such was not a recent amendment of their Census of Production Act, but was made in 1939, and goes much further, in permitting the disclosure of information concerning individual concerns, than we are proposing to effect here. It is not altogether correct to say that this Bill is being enacted merely to convenience the Civil Service. It is important for the efficiency of public administration that this Bill should be passed. It is, I think, also a convenience to business people that they should not have to be requested repeatedly to furnish the same information to the same Department.

Generally, I think it could be said that there are advantages of many kinds and no disadvantages whatever in the enactment of this measure. I do not think it has ever been suggested, since the British Act was passed in 1939, that in that country there have been any abuses under that Act, that any private firm, suffered by reason of the powers given to the appropriate authority there, to permit of the disclosure of information concerning their affairs to other Government Departments or Government commissions and tribunals. I think that any apprehensions which have been voiced here, as to the possible effects of that disclosure upon the interests of individual firms or as to the efficiency of the procedure adopted to keep the information secret, are not soundly based. The Bill is, in fact, as innocent as it appears to be and I would urge Senators not to regard it in any other light.

Sir John Keane

May I ask the Minister a question which may help me in framing an amendment? Is it intended that this Bill should be retrospective, covering information already in the possession of the Statistics Department?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. In so far as there is information available to the Statistics Department at the moment, it could be disclosed to specified persons, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce so decided, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the next sitting day.