Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1954

Vol. 43 No. 6

Industrial Research and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The principal purpose of this Bill is to increase the financial provision available to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. When the institute was set up in 1946, the legislation provided for a fixed annual grant of £15,000 to meet its day to day expenses. Having regard to changes in money values since then and to the desire to extend the scope of the institute's activities, it is now proposed to raise that limit. In future, however, it is not intended to finance the institute by means of a fixed annual grant. This Bill proposes that an estimate of expenditure will be prepared each year and, on the basis of that estimate, grants not exceeding £35,000 per year may be made to the institute. That change in procedure may require a little explanation. When the institute was set up it took some time for it to get its organisation established, staff recruited, apparatus purchased and the library service inaugurated. During the earlier years of its existence the fixed annual grant of £15,000 was, in fact, more than it was able to spend and the institute accumulated a reserve fund of £29,000 which was available to it to spend at its discretion. That reserve fund now stands at about £27,000 but it will be appreciated that the institute could not extend its activities on the basis of any long-term plan merely because of the availability of that money, knowing that the statute limited its future drawing from the Exchequer to £15,000 per year.

With the change proposed in this Bill, the institute will be free to plan developments involving a higher annual expenditure in the future than in the past but, in fact, it will continue to receive for the next year or two only the £15,000 which it has been receiving heretofore, drawing on its reserve for any supplementary amounts it may require until the reserve fund has been reduced to £10,000 per year. It is intended that it will remain at £10,000 per year so that the institute will be able to finance there from any special investigations it may wish to undertake.

The institute may, of course, also be given grants from the Exchequer to meet the costs of special investigations, such special investigations being defined as those which involve the institute in the purchase of apparatus which they would not otherwise require and in the employment of temporary staff in excess of its normal needs. The institute can also be given and has, in fact, been given capital grants for buildings and the purchase of apparatus. As Senators may be aware, a proposal to make a contribution of £130,000 to the institute from the American Grant Counterpart Fund is amongst the proposals which have been submitted for approval of the United States Congress. When these proposals are approved, that further capital sum will be available to the institute for the provision of additional laboratories and apparatus—particularly, I hope, apparatus suitable for the testing of the qualities and materials used in commerce.

If this Bill is enacted, the position in future will be that the institute may develop its activities to an extent that will involve it in an annual expenditure of £35,000, but the actual amount which it will receive in any one year will be the amount voted by the Dáil on the basis of a budget prepared by the committee of the institute. The institute is governed by a council, which is an advisory body, which meets once a year. It consists of about 50 people who are prominent in academic and business circles. There are also two committees—a committee of industrial research which, apart from directing the research activities of the institute, is responsible for its general management and a committee of standards which is concerned only with the preparation of standard specifications.

The institute may also undertake work for private firms on a fee basis. However, the amount of money it has received from that source in the past has been inconsiderable and it is not likely to expand to the point at which it will make substantial difference to the institute's position.

It is recognised that, even within the limits of the additional money now being provided, the work which the institute can do in the matter of industrial research is small in comparison with the more substantially endowed institutes of other countries. Nevertheless, we believe it can make a useful contribution to the solution of various industrial problems. The institute has available to it the researches carried out elsewhere and, from many points of view, the most important function it serves in Irish industry is represented by its library service. There is available there a great deal of data secured from research bodies in other countries. An arrangement is contemplated under which it can have research work desired by industrial firms undertaken by other research organisations in circumstances in which its own equipment and resources do not enable it to do it.

The institute is also responsible for the preparation of standard specifications for goods and processes used in commerce. A number of standard specifications have already been formulated and others are in course of preparation. However, the output of new specifications is rather low and we have a long way to go before we will have built up a whole series of standard specifications comparable with those operating in other countries and such as we desire to have. With the additional resources made available to the institute as a result of this measure it is hoped that the output of new specifications may at least be doubled. The importance of these specifications to people engaged in industry making contracts involving delivery of goods of specified quality is obvious, and it is hoped that, in time, the number of specifications applying to consumer goods will also increase and that they will operate in conjunction with the standard mark to enable consumers to protect themselves when making purchases of such goods.

The other changes proposed in the Bill are comparatively minor ones. When the 1946 Act was prepared, it was decided to deal with the question of formulating standard specifications by the procedure of having them prepared by the committee of the institute and then brought into effect by Order of the Minister. Experience has shown that it is more appropriate that specifications should be declared to be standard specifications by the institute. It is, therefore, proposed to repeal the appropriate section of the 1946 Act and replace it by Section 2 of the Bill, which provides that the institute, may, with the consent of the Minister, declare specifications to be standard specifications. In future these standard specifications will be published and placed on sale by the institute—which, apart from any other advantages, will I hope avoid delays which have occurred in that connection.

Another change proposed relates to the standard mark. When a standard specification is made, any manufacturer who is making goods conforming to the specification is entitled to apply for a licence to use the standard mark on those goods. I have been endeavouring to encourage manufacturers to adopt the practice of using the standard mark both as a guarantee of the quality of their products and as a means by which the members of the public can become familiar with the mark and its significance. I stated in the Dáil that I was disappointed at the extent to which the standard mark is being used. There have been improvements noted in the last year and some manufacturers are now using the mark more extensively and advertising in the Press that their goods are of standard specification and bear the mark as proof of that.

The procedure in that connection may have been a little overelaborate and it is proposed in this Bill to simplify it. Up to the present, whenever a standard specification was made, the Minister for Industry and Commerce made an Order prescribing the mark to be used in connection with a standard specification. In future it is proposed to have the one standard mark, which may be used in connection with all commodities, processes and practices for which there are standard specifications. An Order will be made under this Bill prescribing that mark and it is provided that it may be used in connection with a commodity for which there is a standard specification, in conjunction with a serial number assigned by the institute to the standard specification for that commodity. Of course, it will still be the position that standard marks may not be used except under licence from the Minister. The relevant provisions of the 1946 Act are not being changed in that respect. The responsibility for seeing that the mark is not misused will still rest upon the Minister.

Another matter which affected the work of the institute arose from the provisions of the 1946 Act regarding the recruitment and remuneration of staff. That Act provided that the numbers, grades, pay and tenure of office of members of the staff of the institute should be determined by the director of the institute with the approval of the Minister, given after consultation with the Minister for Finance. That approval was not required for temporary staff employed for periods of less than 12 months. It was found that there were no investigations for which the institute might require temporary staff, which could be completed in 12 months, and also that it was difficult to get competent persons for such investigations on that basis. Section 10 will alter that period of 12 months to three years. The institute will be empowered to employ temporary staff on such terms and conditions as it may think proper, without ministerial approval, for periods of less than three years.

So far as the permanent staff are concerned, discussions have been taking place with the institute, with a view to giving them as much freedom as possible in the recruitment of staff. While the final arrangements have not yet been made, I think that when the discussions are completed the institute will be in a position to recruit quickly the permanent staff it requires.

There are one or two other changes of minor importance to which I must refer. The Act of 1946 gave the Committee of Industrial Research the power to determine the remuneration of its own members and also the remuneration of the members of the Standards Committee. The view taken was that as the institute got £15,000 a year it could use it at its own discretion, appropriating such part as it thought desirable to the remuneration of the members of these committees. The committee have, however, urged that it is invidious that they should be asked to determine the value of their own services and the services of the Standards Committee and they have asked that the legislation be changed in that regard to provide that the remuneration of the two committees will be fixed in future by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Finance and Section 8 of this Bill provides accordingly.

One other change relates to the filling of casual vacancies on the council. The council is an advisory body which meets annually. The original Act provided that vacancies on that council should be filled on the recommendation of the Industrial Research Committee with the approval of the council. As the council meets only once per year, the filling of vacancies is ordinarily considerably delayed. Under this Bill casual vacancies may be filled, if the Industrial Research Committee feels they should be filled, by the Minister on the recommendation of the committee. These are the only changes which this Bill proposes to make in the Industrial Research and Standards Act. The Principal one is that affecting the finances.

Mr. McGuire

I am glad to say that this is a Bill for which there seems to be general approval and I have pleasure in welcoming it. I wish to make a few general remarks on this whole question of standards of products, which comes into the work of this Industrial Research and Standards Institute. It will be agreed generally that the change of the sum available to the institute from £15,000 to £35,000 —that is, that they may use up to £35,000—is commendable and it will be agreed to by everybody. The work of this institute is of major importance, not only to industry but to the whole economy of the country. The whole of Irish industrial development depends, in the long run, on the standard and the quality of the goods that are produced.

In the beginning, when Irish industries were being set up and were in their infancy, we were all prepared to put up with a certain amount of makeshift and to allow for a certain amount of amateurishness; but now that we are well advanced along the road of industrialisation I think it is realised by everybody, including the manufacturers, the industrialists and business people themselves, that it is necessary that we should now set ourselves proper standards. No business will continue to prosper unless it sets itself high standards in respect of goods and service, and in this institute we have something which will set standards for our industries. I feel that, as the Minister said, anybody producing anything in this country should not only be encouraged but in some cases actively urged to recognise the necessity for producing commodities of high standard.

The Minister mentioned in the Dáil that he had requested the institute to prepare standard specifications for not less than 60 commodities and that the institute had not been able to get down to work on them because of lack of funds, and I am glad that this Bill makes provision whereby this work can be gone on with. There was some criticism recently in the Press of this institute and the question was asked why did we need to spend this money and why could we not use the results of the research which had taken place in other countries. The Minister has answered that query in his opening remarks. Apparently the institute is leaning on the work done by other institutes, which is only reasonable, and making the results of such research available to our people. Presumably, they will only engage on work that is necessary; in other words, they will not be covering ground covered by somebody else.

Apparently there are two functions in connection with this institute. One is the making of standard specifications and then, when these have been made, accepted and abided by the issuing of a standard mark. In the past, 54 standard specifications were made and 60 are apparently waiting. A standard mark has been issued in respect of 46 commodities and, considering the number of commodities being made, we would like to see many more people utilising the standard mark. There seems to be an idea prevalent that a standard mark is issued only in respect of something which is of the highest quality, that, when used on woollen goods, for instance, they must be all wool. That apparently is not the case. The standard mark is merely issued, as I gather, in respect of a commodity which is what it purports to be. In the case of blankets which are of wool, a standard mark will be given to say that they are all wool. In the case of cotton blankets, a standard mark will be given to say that they are all cotton, and, in the case of mixtures, it will be set out that they contain a mixture. I am not sure whether the label on the goods should bear some indication of what the standard mark covers and it would obviously be advisable that, if there is a standard mark in connection with a particular commodity, the label would bear some sign of what the product contains, as in the case of medicines at present.

The Minister said it was very desirable that everybody should use the standard mark, so that the public would be aware of what they are getting and would have some warranty that the goods were reliable. I agree with that and I think it is a good idea, but there is something else which must be borne in mind. The use of a standard mark is not quite so attractive to manufacturers as it would appear at first sight to be. We hear a lot nowadays about prices and, since the war, we have had all this emphasis on price control. The whole emphasis nowadays is on the price of commodities, the argument being that prices are too high, and so much attention is focused on prices that quality is often, and in fact nearly always, forgotten.

It seems to be forgotten that, in any commodity, there is an endless range of quality and that it is very hard to compare like with like. The price criterion is not enough, but unfortunately, if goods are marked with this standard mark, these very goods are the goods the unscrupulous price cutter will want to use to advertise himself in a dramatic way and he will then use goods which are not so marked and in respect of which he cannot be caught out to get his real profit. In the end, it will mean that the man who has products of good quality will find it very hard to sell his product through distributors, because there will be such price cutting going on that it will be no longer remunerative for the distributive trades to sell his goods and they will buy unmarked goods which cannot be detected. That is something which will have to be borne in mind by any price tribunal or by the Fair Trading Commission. If the market is to be left wide open to indiscriminate price cutting, it will be impossible for anybody to conform to this ideal we would all like to see being achieved, of having a standard mark.

A particularly important need for high standards in goods exists in relation to the export market. We all know how important it is for us to have exports, not only agricultural exports but industrial exports as well, and it is in the export field, above all, that it is important to have high standards and that goods should conform to a high standard before being exported. We all know the headlines given recently to one small item which was found to be deficient in England. There were headlines in all the papers and mentions of it in the British Parliament, but do we ever hear of mentions in Parliament or see headlines in the papers about the high quality goods we send out of the country to the value of millions of pounds every year? In other words, bad products, especially in the sphere of food, make the headlines, but good service is not news.

It is very important, not only in connection with food but in connection with any product going out of the country, that we should maintain high standards. I know from experience that one of the greatest difficulties in dealing with an export market is to get goods manufactured here that will maintain regular and even standards. You may submit a sample of a particular item, but when it comes to delivering the goods in quantity, it is very hard to see that a standard up to that of the sample offered will be maintained. That is one of the most difficult problems we have to deal with and it is one of the matters in dealing with which Córas Tráchtála could help a lot.

We have been making quite a good name for ourselves recently in connection with certain textile exports and fashions. One of the troubles in connection with the export trade is that certain people who would go into the world markets, make a good name for Ireland and do a good job of work are very often followed by people with inferior work who want to cash in on the good name of those people. I do not see at the moment how that can be prevented unless we let it be known abroad that we can only stand over the products of those people who have this imprimatur from the institute. That is the only way to frustrate those people who are not a credit to Ireland, whose goods are not a credit to the country and who can often do a lot of harm even to our good exporters.

Following up that line of thought, I do not see any penalty clause in this particular Bill. I think the Minister said in the Dáil that if people abused or violated the use of the standard mark they would be liable to prosecution and, if necessary, imprisonment. I think it is very important that there should be some way of dealing with people who can do a lot of harm to manufacturers who are making a good article and doing a good job of work for the country.

There is one other point to which I should like to refer in connection with this particular Bill. It seems to me that when a Bill is introduced on any particular subject it refers to a lot of other Bills. If one wanted to know what all this particular Bill was about you would find yourself being referred to two or three other Acts. You are told that things are deleted, or repealed and inserted elsewhere. In some cases such things would run into 20 or 30 pages but, where no more than one or two pages would be involved, it would be desirable that Bills would be read as one with all the relevant points in one particular sheet. I think that would be a very desirable thing and would be welcomed by everybody who has to read these Acts and interpret them.

Finally, I should like to say that I welcome this particular Bill. I think it is something which is very badly needed for industrial and commercial advancement in this country. I hope it will get all the money it wants and that it will be successful.

Mr. Summerfield

I, too, welcome this Bill. I feel that the work of this institute on behalf of the industrial community cannot be measured in terms of the money we now seek to make available to it. Having said that, it would be a pity if the work of the institute itself was restricted because of the reaction on it of legislation already passed. There is not the slightest doubt at all that in business circles generally there is a widespread feeling that price maintenance cannot be divorced from the maintenance of standards of value and quality. Yet in so far as we are able to interpret the minds of the members of the Fair Trade Commission from the rulings already published they seem determined, in so far as they can, to make price maintenance of itself an evil thing, something that cannot and will not be tolerated in the State.

My criticism and statement in that regard is entirely friendly and is in no way hostile to the Minister or to what he has in mind, but he should know that business circles are perturbed at the framing of these rules in this little country, immature in industrial activity. We seem reluctant to learn from those big industrial countries with generations of industrial experience behind them. Price maintenance was ruled out in the United States a few years ago. After a while, it was reintroduced and legalised with greater effect legally than before and why? Because, during the period in which there was no price maintenance, quality went down. There was no guarantee that you got value for money for the article you bought. It was realised that if you want to have standards of quality and value produced by responsible manufacturers prepared to stand behind the things they make, those manufacturers must be permitted—I use the word very deliberately—to apportion a price, a guarantee and a set of discount regulations to govern the article they create. I feel safe in making that statement.

If you view the articles on sale in the world to-day the branded article as such—by brand you obviously mean standards—is giving greater value for money than the unidentified article because the article that is sold at any price is generally dearer at any price. You do not know the name of it. The person just produces something to sell quickly at any price to give him a profit no matter how scant. In the long run that article is not economical buying. Because I feel so strongly on this matter and because I am interpreting the feelings of the people with whom I am associated in the various industrial organisations of which I am an active member, I say to the Minister that we wish him well with this particular Bill. We should like to see the scope of this institute extended, but we do hope that nothing that this other commission is doing will damage the work of the institute and make industrial manufacturers generally reluctant to go near it, because the acceptance of a standard might involve them in something which they could not maintain because of their inability to control its price.

I heartily endorse Senator McGuire's statement that at this particular juncture of our industrial activity it is more than ever necessary that we should try to establish the highest possible standards of quality for any article we produce. We cannot always compete entirely on price but there are many articles in this country that can be sold in the world because of their novelty and originality. There is the feeling— I would not be fit to be in this House if I did not express it to the Minister— in the minds of many men engaged in manufacture that there are too many things happening to limit the control of a man in his own business. The Minister has often stated that this is a free enterprise country. We want something more than lip statements to prove that. We want to ensure that manufacturers are not put under greater burdens than their competitors from other countries are labouring under. We are all for standards and to make the fullest possible use of this particular institute. We want to see a progressive increase in the quality and design of the article made. We also want to see a lessening of those outside influences that interfere with the free exercise of a man's ability and responsibility to run his own business.

I welcome the Bill. I hope the Minister will take what I have said in the spirit in which it is intended. My suggestions have been constructive, not destructive, but the Minister may take it as definite that if it is sought to establish price maintenance as an evil thing, then this particular institute will never function or develop to the extent we wish.

Mr. O'Donnell

I join with Senators McGuire and Summerfield in welcoming this Bill. I daresay it is rather unusual for a Minister to find such perfect accord and welcome for a Bill. This Bill, which is an amending Bill, is entitled the Industrial Research and Standards (Amendment) Bill and I presume because of its title I would be in order in referring to the research aspect. I would like the Minister in the course of his reply to tell us as much as he possibly can of the development that has taken place in research since the institute was founded and particularly in so far as use of Irish raw materials can be adapted to new purposes is concerned; and even where there are no new raw materials for new purposes could he tell us in what way the institute has worked to make scientific research into the use and adaptability of old native raw materials to modern ones?

I would clarify my question in this way. The Minister is as well aware as I am that there is a considerable import of woollen tops into this country. We have established in Tullamore and elsewhere new factories for the conversion of these woollen tops into yarn of a certain type which is described as botany. I may be talking of something which it is not possible to do, but when I learn that such firms as Dupont, in America, can create from an artificial fibre a synthetic article which has all the qualities of wool in absorption, heat and appearance, I oftentimes wonder why it is not possible for us to use the very fine cloths and wool we have here and convert them by chemical processes into a semblance, at any rate, of botany wool.

I am certain that neither myself nor the Minister has sufficient scientific knowledge to argue whether such a thing can be done, but it seems to me that if the institute is formed for any purpose, one of its primary uses should be the conversion of native raw materials to act as substitutes for imported raw materials as far as possible, and also to replace and create new articles of consumption from these native raw materials.

There are other aspects of research which are not quite of the same genil as the one to which I am referring, which is the raw materials itself. There are, as we know, mills of various types in this country adaptable for all purposes, both destructive and otherwise. I would be glad if the Minister would enlighten us as to the extent to which research work has gone, what form it has taken and what results have been achieved. I do not know, under the Bill, whether I am entitled to ask these questions or not, but if the Minister does not want to convey the information I will take it with the greatest indulgence.

Apart from the standard mark and the necessity for a standard specification, there is another type of work which the institute could very well do for us. Quite a lot of industry here— I am referring particularly to the textile industry—is of a secondary nature. I would like an industry to be capable of establishing some sort of a mark of creating some form of examination of articles which are composed of materials which were produced elsewhere and are converted here into a wearable article.

If I might narrow it down further and refer to my own case, as a manufacturer of shirts I oftentimes have to import most of my cloths. If my supplier on the other side is not living up to his contract, I have no means of checking on the composition of his cloth without sending it outside this country. I wonder if the Minister would make available to manufacturers, mainly of secondary articles, some system whereby they could check up on the raw material not only so that people could see that they are getting what they bought but that the public are getting what these people say they are getting.

Despite the fact that some manufacturers have advertised the standard mark, I would suggest that the standard mark is not generally known. It might be advisable to create a national consciousness of that mark and to advertise the fact that goods bearing that mark have at least received the imprimatur of the Institute of Research and Standards. That would, of course, primarily be the duty of the persons or firms who have obtained that mark but although the Minister has told us that certain firms have advertised that they have received such a benefit, the people generally are not aware that that mark is in existence. That is a standard mark and a guarantee of at least a certain kind of excellence. I go no further than that because, as Senator McGuire has said, a standard can apply to certain things in so far as they are excellent in their own sphere but that may not be the ultimate standard. Nevertheless, the mark should be widely advertised so that people will be aware that the goods carrying the mark have at least some standard behind them. Would the Minister consider the advisability of advertisement to some extent?

Under Section 5 of the Bill the institute may, with the consent of the Minister, revoke or amend a standard specification but, as far as I can see, it does not say in the Bill, unless it is in the Bill of which this is an amendment, that the Minister or the institute have the power to revoke a standard mark. If they have not such power I would suggest that there should be continuous examination of goods which adopt that standard.

Senator McGuire spoke of the price factor in relation to goods and said that certain types of distributors stress the price factor in order to create a bigger market. He stated that articles bearing a standard mark may be bought by a person and sold at cut prices which may have an effect on the generality of distributors. This is a very contentious matter and depends entirely on the turnover of the particular distributor concerned; some distributors can sell goods at lesser prices than others. I am of the opinion that it is a good thing for manufacturers generally that goods bearing the standard mark should get the widest distribution and consumption possible even at a lesser price than some persons can sell them.

I would agree with Senator McGuire that quality is not sufficiently stressed and that the price factor is to some extent overshadowing the necessity of producing goods of quality. I often consider that we should follow the Swiss model in this regard. When it comes down to the industry and the goods to be produced, we should produce them up to a standard and not down to a price. The tendency of certain industries is to produce goods down to a price rather than up to a standard. I realise that that is an arguable matter. Where purchasing power is not in the hands of people who produce goods up to a price, you may deprive people of certain goods to which they would be entitled. I am talking generally of where there is an effort to supply everybody in the country.

Our more general effort should be to produce goods of quality up to a standard and not down to a price. Particularly in regard to textiles, there should be a sort of standard: I do not know how you would define it, whether as a mark or a specification. There is that intangible thing which is evidenced by the work of fashion artists such as Sybil Connolly and others which is known as style, finish and quality. In themselves, they are not tangible, but they are of visible importance. Consider, for instance, the cut of a lady's coat or the style of a lady's frock. These are points which do not quite come within the skill of making the garments and yet they are worthy of recognition by our State as being of top quality. They represent in a measure the creative aspect of Irish life. If the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards were satisfied that these goods were worthy of a mark or some recognition, I should be glad if it were done.

In general, of course, the use of the mark is for goods of a nature where durability is of first importance. Judging from the marks issued at the moment, they apply to goods which are, in the main, of a durable type— articles such as cement, steel goods and so forth. I have not seen many marks applied so far to articles where durability in itself would not be the final test. Whether the mark is to be applied to these, I do not know. For many years the Federation of Irish Manufacturers have been asking for the establishement of a mark of this nature, and we were very pleased when in 1946 the Minister introduced the standard mark. I must join with others in deploring the fact that the manufacturers did not avail of this mark as much as they might have done. The reason for that may be that they have not been educated to its value. That may be taken as saying to the Minister that he might try to get his mark sold in a more vigorous fashion.

I understood from what the Minister said in the Dáil that there would be closer association between the members of the institute—both the working members and the members of the council—and manufacturers and others generally, and I should be glad to see this development because only in this way can we get our manufacturers to realise that the mark is of great importance both from a national and a selfish point of view.

I hope the Minister will tell the House what has happened to research. I hope he will tell us that he will try to make the work of the institute better known to manufacturers. I join with Senator Summerfield in saying that there is not much use in asking Irish manufacturers to produce goods up to a standard if in any way they are going to be pilloried, even by implication. I am not blaming the Minister for this. God knows, he is being blamed for enough. However, a heading appeared in a certain newspaper: "Profit to 53½ per cent.", which had an immediate effect upon the purchases of that particular commodity. Irish industry owes a great debt to our present Minister for Industry and Commerce. Nobody has done more for it in this generation than he has. However, I feel that, not through his fault but through unforeseen occurrences, a new inquisition has its reactions upon industrial productivity here which he never envisaged. I am only mentioning this in connection with the mark. There is not very much use in our putting a mark on an article if, after doing so, we are then told how we are to distribute it, to whom we are to sell it, and so forth, so that we are to have absolutely no control whatsover over that article after it has been produced. That has happened in some cases. I realise that the Minister is as well aware of the pitfalls as we are and that when we are speaking to him on this subject we are speaking to a person who is just as anxious as we are to see progress in Irish industry. I give my full support to the Bill.

Professor Jessop

As one who is not an industrialist in any sense of the word, I also would like to support this Bill very strongly. My only criticism is that I regard this sum, even yet, as extremely small for the one institute of this kind which we have to cover the whole country. I hope that, in a very short time, the work of this institute will so develop that the Minister will have occasion to come before us again to have this sum substantially increased.

As we know, this institute covers two functions—research and standards. From the industrial point of view, I am sure it is a very good thing to have standards well defined. That has been emphasised by previous speakers. I am very interested in the research side of this institute and I should like, when the Minister comes to exercise the function which is given to him under this Bill of allocating a sum between research and standards in the activities of this institute, that the research side will be developed as much as possible. It has a very wide implication for the country in general because an institute like this is not only of use just to the particular body, say the particular firm, that uses it for the time being: it is of use to every scientific activity in the country. It would, in time, form a pool of expert scientific technical knowledge and personnel. It would be a centre where young scientists could gain experience and training. Consequently, it deserves every encouragement and it should be properly developed.

I am very glad to see that the industrialists are being encouraged to use this institute to help them in the development of their various enterprises. I hope they will do so because it is only by such encouragement that the natural development of such a thing can take place. If it is not used, it remains in a kind of hot-house, supported by ministerial grants, and so forth. If it is to become part and parcel of the life of this country then it should be used by the firms both on the standards side and on the research side. I should like to see its existence and its usefulness more widely advertised. I agree with Senator O'Donnell in that respect. I think the Minister should encourage propaganda to make widely known how this institute can take part in the industrial life of this country.

I have very great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Senator McGuire referred to the fact that the output of standards specifications has been comparatively small. That is undoubtedly the case. Under the new situation following the passage of the Bill, I hope that the output of standards specifications will increase considerably and that in the course of a short time the institute will catch up on the number of requests I have made to them for the preparation of these specifications.

I think some Senators misunderstand somewhat the purpose of a standard specification and a standard mark. It is desirable that that misunderstanding should be removed. A standard specification is not intended either to fix a high standard of quality or a minimum standard of quality. It is intended to be a reasonable standard of quality prepared by the institute in consultation with manufacturing industries here, a standard of quality which manufacturers should be able to achieve consistently. No manufacturer is required to use the standard mark; no manufacturer is required to produce goods to the standard specification. If, however, he does so and is prepared to commit himself to continue doing so, he can apply for a licence to use the mark and to attach it to the goods, to give his customers an assurance as to the quality of his products, an assurance which it is assumed would have commercial value.

The main use of the standard mark should be by members of the public. I agree that if we are to achieve our aims we must eventually succeed in educating the public to understand the significance of the mark and to develop the habit amongst the public of giving preference to goods which bear it. Up to date, however, the great majority of standard specifications made do not relate to consumer goods at all. Out of 54 Orders made to date, less than ten relate to consumer goods. All the others relate to goods used in the constructional trades or in manufacture. In relation to those goods, the purpose of the standard specification is to convenience people who are entering into business contracts. If I place an order for a supply of cement or paint or some other building material, I want to be assured that those goods will conform to the quality I require. In the absence of a standard specification, I would have to specify the standard of quality myself which might be a difficult matter and might lead eventually to litigation if any dispute arose. By utilising a standard specification, by just entering it as a condition in the contract that the goods supplied will be of the appropriate standard specification, I save a great deal of trouble and avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding between myself and the other party to the contract as to the type of goods to be supplied. Most of the specifications made to date are for the purpose of facilitating business contracts. Some of them are designed to ensure uniformity of size. There is a standard specification relating to sparking plugs. It is obviously desirable that all sparking plugs should be manufactured of the same size so that one may transfer them from one car to another. Many of the specifications made will be designed merely to ensure that goods are interchangeable, that common dimensions are adopted by different manufacturers, so that the public will not be inconvenienced by finding that the goods they purchased are not usable with their existing apparatus. That would apply to electrical equipment of every kind and the importance of having a uniform size in the production of electrical equipment will be easily appreciated.

In relation to all classes of goods, whether they are goods used in constructional activities or for manufacturing purposes or goods sold direct to consumers, standard specifications are there as an indication of what constitutes reasonable quality. The specification means nothing unless a manufacturer decides to avail of it to the extent of applying for a licence to use the standard mark on his products, thereby getting the confidence of his customers as to the quality of his output. Certainly, there is nothing in this measure which requires the maintenance of minimum standards in goods exported. If it were desired to establish minimum standards for exports, there would have to be separate legislation for that purpose. The only use which the standard specification would have under this Bill and the appropriate standard mark would have in that connection, would be precisely the same as in internal trade —an assurance to the customer that the goods are of known quality.

Senator O'Donnell asked about the revocation of a standard mark Order. I cannot conceive circumstances in which a standard mark Order would be revoked so long as the standard specification is in existence. I think he has in mind the revocation of a licence to an individual to use the mark. I mentioned already that the Bill makes no change in the provisions in that regard and the penalties prescribed in the original Act for the misuse of the mark remain unchanged.

Senator Summerfield did not speak about this Bill at all. I do not think his remarks had any relevance to it and a large part of Senator McGuire's remarks came into the same category. This Bill has nothing to do with price cutting, price maintenance or the Fair Trade Commission or any of these matters which the Senators mentioned. The attachment of a standard mark to any class of goods for which there is a standard specification is an assurance that the goods conform to that specification—and nothing else. The manufacturer does not even have to put his name on the goods if he does not wish to do so, provided he understands that if the goods do not conform to the specification, then by attaching the mark to them he leaves himself liable to prosecution.

Although this Bill has no relationship with the work of the Fair Trade Commission or with any of the matters we discussed here when the Restrictive Trade Practices Act was under discussion, I would not like the occasion to pass without saying to the Seanad that I am perfectly satisfied with the work of the Fair Trade Commission and that it certainly has not developed in a way different to what I envisaged. Senator Summerfield said that I am always talking about free enterprise and he wants something more than lip service given to it. I want those who are themselves engaged in business and always talking about free enterprise to do something more than give lip service to it. That is the purpose of the Fair Trade Commission. I do not see any advantage in wiping out Government regulation of trade if the result is to leave the way free to some private group of people to impose their own regulations for their own benefit.

I do not know that it is true to say that people in industry are perturbed over the activities of the Fair Trade Commission. If so, I can only say they are squealing before they are hit. No one has been hit. Those familiar with the Restrictive Trade Practices Act know that nothing can follow from an investigation of the position in any trade by the Fair Trade Commission until legislation has been enacted here.

The most satisfactory thing of all is the number of trades which voluntarily dropped practices which were restrictive and anti-social and have applied to the Fair Trade Commission for the preparation by it of voluntary fair trading rules to which they have undertaken to conform. The great achievement of the Fair Trade Commission up to date has not followed from their public inquiries: it has followed from the acceptance by manufacturers and traders that anti-social and restrictive practices can no longer be allowed to continue.

I would not like to attempt to give a complete account, as Senator O'Donnell asked, of all the research activities carried out by the institute since it was established. There is published every year a fairly full report of the work of the institute and Senators interested in what it is doing should, I think, be referred to these reports.

A large part of the work of the institute has been directed towards the solution of specific problems which are peculiar to ourselves or which had some special feature in this country. Part of their work was directed to the problem of the deposit left in flue liners by turf fires and they have published a report in that regard. When the manufacture of seaweed meal was begun in the West of Ireland, there was a prospect that the seaweed was being gathered at such a rate that it would disappear after a time. An investigation was carried out into the rate at which the seaweed reproduced itself, so that a proper harvesting programme could be prepared. When difficulty arose with regard to the utilisation of concrete pipes for land drainage, the institute carried out an investigation of the soils in which concrete pipes could be used. These were the type of investigations that were carried out.

It is true that the institute at present has not got a great deal of apparatus or very large staff to undertake very elaborate investigations, but I am hopeful that, as a result of the allocation of funds from the Grant Counterpart Fund and of the increased provision under this Bill, a considerable extension of the work of the institute in the matter of industrial research will be possible. I am particularly anxious to see them equip themselves to undertake the testing of commodities used in trade. That is a part of the work of the institute which has not developed very rapidly yet, but to which I attached great importance when introducing the original Act in 1946.

That Act protects the institute from any legal consequences of the publication of analyses of goods tested by it and any trader who has a doubt as to whether goods supplied to him are in accordance with the quality specified in his contract or in accordance with a standard specification should be able to go to the institute to have a test carried out, subject to the payment of a reasonable fee, although it will be appreciated that there are private people engaged in the business of chemical research and it would not be desirable that the institute should interfere with their normal activities.

The institute has nothing whatever to do with mineral research. There is a separate organisation for that, and it would be only in the event of some chemical problem arising in the working of the minerals that the institute would come in. The actual investigation of the mineral resources of the country is being proceeded with by another organisation.

So far as treating native wool to give it the same qualities as botany wool is concerned, I doubt if that would yield very substantial results. There is no reason that I know of why we should not grow botany wool in this country, except that our farmers think it is far better to breed the sheep for his meat than for his wool. I think that on the whole they have taken the right decision. The Irish wool, which is a short fibre wool—that is the main difference between it and botany wool —is useful for various industrial purposes, but it will not produce the same type of cloth as the long fibre wool will produce. The institute has not done, and is not likely to undertake in the early future, any research into synthetic fibres.

I agree with Senator Jessop that the amount provided even under this Bill for the institute is too small. I should like to see it considerably increased. We have a special problem in this country in that most of our industrial units are small and they cannot themselves undertake the industrial research which the much larger industrial units in other countries do on their own behalf. To that extent, they must combine their efforts through some organisation as this, and I would have little hesitation in going to the Government at any time to ask for a further amount to meet the annual costs of the institute, if I could show to the Government that industrial firms were in fact bringing their problems to the institute in greater number and utilising the undoubtedly valuable services the institute can make available to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th March, 1954.